So. BSG. And Spoilers. And something's been bugging me.

[lyssie]

There are about to be spoilers in this post for the last episode. It's, in the grand scheme, actually pretty minor a spoiler. But it is one, nonetheless.

In Portland, Katee Sackhoff dropped a minor spoiler about something that happens to her character. No, she doesn't die (again). No, she doesn't punch someone... Or blow things up or fly a viper into the sun, or-- She just ends up with someone.

Now large swathes of the internet are up in arms about it and calling for Katee's head because her personal behavior may have influenced the writers when they chose the direction of the story.

Which isn't really what I want to talk about.

I've had this sort of... disquiet? I don't think that's the right word, but I'll go with it... feeling of annoyance ever since the spoiler dropped and people started getting up in arms. Because, well, it's a pretty minor spoiler. It doesn't have to do with the plot, it really doesn't define Kara's character, and... and it's mostly about who she's fucking, not to put too fine a point on it.

And, really, I thought we were sort of past that, to seeing women as characters and people, not... as convenient vessels for the Perfect Man we want them with.

Right about now, you're all going (if you know the spoiler), "BUT, Lyssie, if it were Kara ending up with Lee, you'd so be ranting and bitching about it and--"

Well, yeah. But, to be honest, I sort of expect the show to end with Kara and Lee together romantically, as that's the predictable ending. More than one person has said academic stuff about narrative causality and closure and whatever, which ought to have bearing on it (even if I don't agree with it).

But that isn't really all I care about ok, it sometimes is. I want explosions and people redeeming themselves and humans and Cylons facing hard truths and pilots and pilot culture and Racetrack and Dee and... But I sort of know I won't get most of that, either.

And if Katee's spoiler comment had been, "...that's why she ends up with Lee..." my reaction? Would not be "God, Katee's such a bitch, she's so fucking unprofessional, where does she get off!"

My reaction would, in fact (and may still), be, "God, Ron, you're such a hack."

I've gotten away from my original point. Sigh.

My point? Reducing Kara and her destiny and her viper and her piloting and her skills as a leader/renegade and what she is and who she is and everything about her as a person to "who owns Kara's vagina"?

Is kinda sexist.

Comments

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

Two things.

1. Poor characterization does not equal emasculation (and the women are just as badly-drawn at times).

2. And I honestly cannot believe I'm saying this twice tonight: agreeing with a misogynistic asshole invalidates your argument.

[fire-and-a-rose.livejournal.com]

1. This is true. (Both facts.) I am commenting on it as it was part of his argument, but was not the entire thing.

2. This is also why I said I did not agree with everything he wrote (and included the "obviously" for precisely that reason) and that it covered other things as well; a great deal of it was devoted to that, but he was also talking about characterization as being flat and taking gender-portrayals to extremes in various areas with many characters, or so I read the essay. My summary, in rereading was less clear than I had meant it to be, as I had meant to make it clear in my opinion the nail he hit on the head was that to me there does seem to be--in both genders, which is why I included the bit about how he viewed all women as being in roles of "domination" over the men, even if I find his views to be both extreme and offensive--a pattern in characterization on BSG where multiple members of one gender tend to be portrayed towards certain extremes, and become flat in the process, and multiple members of the other tend to be portrayed also towards a different extreme, and the characterization suffers in that way too.

My comment was unclear, and I do apologize for that. I would also like to make it clear that though I reference Benedict's essay to comment on one part of his observations in an essay, I do not at all agree with the vast majority of his views. As said, I found the majority of the essay to be offensive when it comes to how he viewed the men being "emasculated", how he called Sackhoff's Starbuck "Stardoe", and how he basically implied the women smoking cigars were basically being "the men." He does comment on other things as well--some of which are not offensive, one or two of which are insightful--but those parts of the essay were not relevant to this topic. I do not agree with the misogynistic asshole; I point out that even in his extreme and (imo) insane interpretation, he noticed part of the problem with characterization that I have found to be a problem with characterization I have with the show. While I have no problem and freely say I did not clearly phrase my comment, now that my argument has been restated clearly, I will also say that you are free (of course!) to disagree with my opinion on how there seem to be patterns of how the two genders are portrayed to (different) extremes which is part of what results in flat characterization, but referencing one point the man makes in an essay (while also saying that I do not agree with everything he wrote) and finding it accurate does not invalidate my argument. If I were to be saying that he hit the nail on the head by calling them all emasculated wimps, then my entire argument and stance would be invalidated and deservedly so. Finding him to have observed a pattern of characterization between genders that I also believe is there and commenting on that fact, however, is entirely different. I believe the difference especially comes from the part that makes him an asshole, which is where when he sees these portrayal issues, his automatic thought is women are being men, smoking cigars for the dicks they don't have, and the men are all castrated wusses.

I do not see it so. At all. And again, I will say that my first comment was far from clear in what I meant, and I apologize for that if only because it is pointless to make a comment if others don't understand it. And so I have done my best to restate it accurately here and make my argument as clear as possible.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

You're going to have to forgive me, but I reiterate: Dirk Benedict is an asshole and bringing him into this? Is like Godwin's.

I don't honestly care what your point is or was, I'm pissed off that you had to reference that jackass in the first place, and think doing so loses you any credibility you had.

[fire-and-a-rose.livejournal.com]

I strongly disagree--to me, it was an example of saying, "This guy is an asshole, but even he grasps the root of this thing I see as a problem, though his assholishness shows in this offensive way he interprets it"--but I also respect your view on the matter. And I sincerely apologize for pissing you off in your own LJ; I did not come to argue, only to read and join in a discussion, as I agreed entirely with your post and enjoy your BSG commentary and fic in general.

I will also say that the extent of my knowledge of Dirk Benedict is a) that he originally liked the new BSG and now dislikes it, and b) that article. He may have a greater reputation as a misogynist and an asshole in all sorts of ways that I am utterly unaware of; if so, then I apologize yet again, and say only that I spoke on what admittedly little I knew/know of the man.

[lyssie.livejournal.com]

*blinks* You've seen that little bit they did back in the beginning, the "starbucks at starbucks" thing, right? He spent the whole thing leering at her and trying to get her phone number. When asked about her at conventions, he calls her a giggly airhead.

In a recent interview, he claimed that women in Hollywood were keeping him from getting jobs because he reminded them of old boyfriends. Or something.

I don't ever remember seeing a response from him that wasn't tinged with hatred of the new series, so I don't know where the idea that he liked it comes from. And if he did, his reasons for disliking it are not because he saw narrative difficulties.

[fire-and-a-rose.livejournal.com]

*stares* I'd say, "Are you serious?" except I know you are. God. No. I haven't seen the interview, except for maybe five seconds of it where he handed her a cigar. I think I tried to load it on youtube once, but it wasn't working well. I just didn't care enough to try again later. I only knew it happened at all because I read about it on it wikipedia, I think. I was trying to find out more about the character of Tom Zarek around his death and came across the Starbucks-meeting info in reading some about Hatch and some Hatch interviews online at various sites. On one of them that I was looking at, Hatch's initial attitude towards the series compared to Benedict's initial attitude, that Hatch hated it and Benedict supported it, and how each then switched sides and Benedict'd written an article criticizing the show. The only thing I looked up after that was a link to the essay. I had no interest in Benedict himself, as I've never seen anything with him in it and didn't care to; the only other thing I can think of that I saw related to BSG and him at all was that he had attended some cons and talked to fans about things, but there wasn't anything of real interest to me in it.

That was all I knew about him, barring that he's been on Big Brother; if I had known this, I would not have referenced him at all, but the brief description I had read of the Starbucks' meeting portrayed it as having been a positive experience enjoyed by both actors and that Benedict fully supported the show, his opinion only changing after seeing how the first season unfolded. That also influenced my reading of his essay.

My apologies, again, and very sincerely; I had never heard anything about his behavior of this sort, and the impression I had gained from the little I read--which was obviously very biased, at the least--was that his major issue with the show was narrative-related. I found his article to be misogynistic and offensive in parts, yes, but I had no idea that he went to this extent, and I interpreted others parts of the article based on the misinformation I had read to be referring more to the narrative and character-portrayals. Knowing this now, I suspect if I were to reread it now--which I'm not, because I don't need to be annoyed by it again while finding no redeeming features--I would not take things to be commentary and/or referring to the narrative and writing style of BSG as I did on the first read.