Creators and the Progressive Pedestal

The Joss Whedon thing is still young but there are a few things I want to tease out of it because I think they have value in a broader context. As I said yesterday I don't want to dive too far into the specific scene that started all this because I've only seen it once whilst half-distracted by people around me texting, eating and being generally annoying. No, I want to discuss some more peripheral aspects of this whole thing, first of all the tendency we have to put creators on an unsustainable pedestal.

Let's get some distance from Whedon first because emotions there are running hot and that's never useful to a conversation. One of my favourite webcomics is Go Get A Roomie by Belgian writer-artist Chloe C. One of the most notable aspects of the series is the amazing diversity of its cast which features a surprising variety of sexual and gender identities, each explored in interesting and considered ways. There's even a character (currently) portrayed as asexual and, let me tell you, as someone who identified as asexual for years it is refreshing not only to see that identity portrayed but portrayed with a clear understanding that there's nothing socially or medically wrong with the character. Once the context of her sexuality is understood by the other characters its accepted and any “pushing of boundaries” is either done by her own agency or in reference to the still open question of whether she's aromantic.

(I'm summarising hugely here, by the way, and the character may turn out not to be as asexual as she currently seems but, hey, I'm intimately aware that sexual identity can change so yet again we're in “Yay! Representation!” territory as far as I'm concerned. Seriously, read this comic, its cool.).

Okay, so apart from a two paragraph fanboy plug how does this relate to our subject today? Well, because Chloe C. has several times addressed concern about how people put her on a pedestal when it comes to queer issues. It isn't hard to see why people are inclined to do this, she's a fantastic author and I've learnt things as a direct consequence of her work so I definitely see why its happened. For the record she's expressed her discomfort with the pedestal both on her Tumblr where she's cautioned people that any advice she gives on these issues should not be taken as a definitive statement and in the strip itself through the title character Roomie having insecurities surrounding other idolising her.

(Tumblr, by the way, is probably the worst blogging system that exists for when you want to quote something: posts don't have titles and the archive system uses this not all that useful thumbnail method and though I can't find the post I want to quote, this Ask one pretty much sums up the whole shebang).

So what's wrong with the pedestal? Well, its unsustainable, frankly. People screw up. Everyone. You, me, Chloe C., Whedon, the lot of us. There's no amount of editing or self-critique that's going to stop someone someday putting out something that will play poorly to someone out there, maybe to a lot of someones. To use another example, one of the braver creative acts I've seen on the internet was when Jeph Jacques, writer-artist of Questionable Content, revealed one of his characters to be trans and openly said in a news post:

“I have to admit, I am nervous about posting this comic, because including a trans person in my cast is something I have wanted to do for years and I really, really want to do a good job of it. One of the major themes of QC, I think, is of inclusion, and this seemed like a pretty important thing to include. I have given it a lot of thought and done a lot of research, so hopefully I won't screw up. I'll do my best, anyway.”

(Link.Spoilers in comic)

This brings us to a second issue I want to bring up, a sentiment that I've seen in a few quarters and that I'm going to paraphrase because I don't want to look like I'm calling anyone particular out. This has been expressed in a lot of different ways and to a lot of different degrees but the basic sentiment is this:

“If Joss Whedon can't write good female characters he shouldn't bother.”

Sidestepping the question of what “good” even means in this context because I could write a dozen posts on that alone, the idea that a perfect portrayal is the only one that can be worthwhile is intensely problematic. Jacques introduced a trans character and expressed his concerns that he might not be able to do the idea justice and in other places he's solicited criticism to help him improve that portrayal. In an ideal world criticism is about a social conversation, not necessarily involving the creator under critique but that's a nice bonus if you can get it, about how art can be improved. Just yelling “Stop!” when something isn't perfect defeats the whole point because how does anything ever improve under those conditions?

Also, why would anyone create under those conditions? There's no incentive to take risks there. All the creatives I've mentioned in this post have one thing in common: they're progressives (or liberals or social justice types or however you want to express it). Jacques and Chloe C. identify inclusivity as a central tenet of their art and Whedon came to prominence through creating Buffy The Vampire Slayer which is perhaps most notable for its female and queer characters.

As a not unnatural consequence the fans of these peoples' work are also generally progressives because people tend to latch on to things they agree with. In the dim mists of long ago when I started writing this post I mentioned how I identified with the sexual identity of one of Chloe C.'s characters and that's a big part of why she became a creator I took an active interest in to the point of, say, reading her tumblr and looking up her Deviantart page instead of just reading that one project of hers.

And because progressives are interested in progress (not, y'know, unnaturally) when one of these creators takes a retrograde step, intentional or not, it can make the progressive fan very angry. Progressives are usually politically engaged and by the nature of that we're often politically enraged in what feels like an increasingly conservative culture. So when one of our heroes, one of the people we've emotionally invested in for agreeing with us when so much mass media doesn't, makes a mistake we can take it as a very personal betrayal.

We're not unjustified in feeling let down, I'm not suggesting anyone gets a free pass here. Criticism is an important force that should be applied to all art as a matter of course. Its just that I think we would all (creators, critics and consumers alike) be better served by remembering that no one and nothing is perfect and never will be. Mistakes should be brought up and discussed but by no means should they be reason to disregard all work of the author, let alone future work that could be improved by a reasoned conversation about those mistakes the creative could learn from. 

My one and only opinion on Michael Bay's Transformers

I've got friends who are big Transformers fans. For my part the toys were quite cool if clunky when viewed with adult eyes (I'd swear more of them had moveable legs) and the Simon Furman comics are comfort food to me to this day. I have friends who self-identify as fans of the franchise and who absolutely hate the Michael Bay movies. This isn't exactly controversial, there's a lot of fan hatred for them and Goggling “Michael Bay Transformers racism” certainly brings up some interesting results.

All that said I've only seen the first one so whenever the series comes up I have only one contribution to make. It's an odd opinion, I'm told, but the only one I can offer:

I think there's a good movie hiding in Transformers, it just isn't a movie about Transformers.

The good movie that isn't quite there is one about that group of soldiers trudging across the desert being hunted by a giant robot scorpion. There's some good moments there and probably the best gag of the film when the sergeant gets his satellite phone working and has to deal with a bored, obstreperous telephone operator whilst the squad is fighting off said giant robot scorpion. It isn't a very clever joke but it was effective.

My impressions of the rest of the film? I don't really remember it that well and there isn't that much distance between now and when I saw it. I didn't see it in the cinema, I saw it on TV about a year ago. I remember the desert bit, I remember Optimus Prime demolishing an ornamental fountain (okay, that was the best joke...) and an Autobot dying but I couldn't honestly have told you which one, then or now.

So I can't really get offended or upset about these films. I've never held the belief that a bad reboot inherently devalues what came before, my childhood memories and old comics are safe. The Bay films can't even be accused of derailing the franchise, an accusation I've often levelled at the New 52, because IDW continues to publish multiple series based on the toys and characters I have nostalgia for (pretty good comics, too). I can't even accuse Bay of causing me to waste time and money on his product because I've only seen the one and I watched it on TV, probably whilst getting something else done like painting miniatures or writing blog posts.

As such I find myself on the outside of this one. I'm more than willing to accept most of the common criticisms of Bay's movies, in this franchise and others, but I'm not personally offended by them as many self-identified Transformers fans are. I feel like I should feel it when I hear others hold forth on it, though, and that's an interesting sensation.

I suppose I could always expose myself to the other movies so I can be up to speed on the outrage but that genuinely seems like giving Michael Bay more of my time and brain space than he frankly deserves.