I was just fucking witcha...
May. 13th, 2008 02:40 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tencrushWell, no, I wasn't, but apologies if my last post went a bit rambly and weird. Most you have never seen me rambly and weird, though in fact, dealing with people onna OG has made me go rambly and weird before in the past, but it was always about Rose. Must remind myself not to carry my righteous anger over from there to here, because it make NO sense out of context. Sorry, LOL!
Anyway, I kind of promised to explain what the righteous anger was about, so I'll do that now. As an aside, I AM planning on polling to see how widespread the interpretation of Ianto as just the teaboy/Jack's sextoy is, but it's not even really the fact that it is or isn't widespread that bothers me, it's the fact that the writing has even ALLOWED ROOM for that interpretation to exist that gets on my nerves.
So why does it bother me so much? Well, again, it's a question of characterisation. See, to me, interpreting the relationship as Jack using Ianto as a sextoy has a lot of implications for both characters, and it's why I say I don't think it's doing them any favours. The reason I got angry about it isn't because I'm so hugely defensive about Ianto, it's actually down to a few telling statements, statements that I HAVE heard elsewhere in other contexts, about JACK, not Ianto. And all that comes back to a discussion I've had here and elsewhere a few times, about Jack, and whether or not he is still, at this point in the narrative, the omnisexual slut type that he was perceived to be around the time of The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. The fact that the relationship between Jack and Ianto is open to the sextoy interpretation, in my mind, also immediately implies that it is possible for viewers to perceive Jack as THE SORT OF GUY WHO WOULD DO THAT. Harrassment, of a subordinate. Because that's what that boils down to. The thing that got me so riled up wasn't the fact that people think Ianto is the sort of guy that would allow himself to be used as a sextoy (I think that's a plausible reading if you view the show in a certain way, and I think, given the fact that Ianto hasn't really had a major storyline since Cyberwoman, barring the Jackanto story itself, it's understandable that some people might view him that way), it was the attitude of the posters in question, and of people I have spoken to elsewhere, of "Oh, that's just the kind of guy Jack is." Because, really? No. If the storytelling has allowed room for the interpretation of Jack, the leading man, as the sort of guy who would use one of his employees for sex, given all the fucked up power dynamics that that implies, then the character of Jack, with regards to his sexual/romantic leanings in any case, has not been properly put to paper.
And that angers me greatly, yeah. Because Jack, in everyone's big grandiose words is supposed to be this whole new kind of hero for the 21st century. Someone with a progressive and liberal attitude towards sex and sexuality. Someone like you and me (I would hope), who doesn't like to label people and thinks everyone should be free to explore whatever facets of life turn them on. Someone who will serve as an example to that small faction of 15-year-old boys who are squicked by teh ghey, and maybe open their minds a bit. And allowing room for people to see Jack as a guy who just puts it about a bit, who comes on to one colleague, is rebuffed and moves on to the next, really FUCKS THAT UP for me. That's why I was angry.
Am I making sense yet or am I still rambling? The hormones haven't worn off yet, I can never quite tell lately.
Anyway, I kind of promised to explain what the righteous anger was about, so I'll do that now. As an aside, I AM planning on polling to see how widespread the interpretation of Ianto as just the teaboy/Jack's sextoy is, but it's not even really the fact that it is or isn't widespread that bothers me, it's the fact that the writing has even ALLOWED ROOM for that interpretation to exist that gets on my nerves.
So why does it bother me so much? Well, again, it's a question of characterisation. See, to me, interpreting the relationship as Jack using Ianto as a sextoy has a lot of implications for both characters, and it's why I say I don't think it's doing them any favours. The reason I got angry about it isn't because I'm so hugely defensive about Ianto, it's actually down to a few telling statements, statements that I HAVE heard elsewhere in other contexts, about JACK, not Ianto. And all that comes back to a discussion I've had here and elsewhere a few times, about Jack, and whether or not he is still, at this point in the narrative, the omnisexual slut type that he was perceived to be around the time of The Empty Child/The Doctor Dances. The fact that the relationship between Jack and Ianto is open to the sextoy interpretation, in my mind, also immediately implies that it is possible for viewers to perceive Jack as THE SORT OF GUY WHO WOULD DO THAT. Harrassment, of a subordinate. Because that's what that boils down to. The thing that got me so riled up wasn't the fact that people think Ianto is the sort of guy that would allow himself to be used as a sextoy (I think that's a plausible reading if you view the show in a certain way, and I think, given the fact that Ianto hasn't really had a major storyline since Cyberwoman, barring the Jackanto story itself, it's understandable that some people might view him that way), it was the attitude of the posters in question, and of people I have spoken to elsewhere, of "Oh, that's just the kind of guy Jack is." Because, really? No. If the storytelling has allowed room for the interpretation of Jack, the leading man, as the sort of guy who would use one of his employees for sex, given all the fucked up power dynamics that that implies, then the character of Jack, with regards to his sexual/romantic leanings in any case, has not been properly put to paper.
And that angers me greatly, yeah. Because Jack, in everyone's big grandiose words is supposed to be this whole new kind of hero for the 21st century. Someone with a progressive and liberal attitude towards sex and sexuality. Someone like you and me (I would hope), who doesn't like to label people and thinks everyone should be free to explore whatever facets of life turn them on. Someone who will serve as an example to that small faction of 15-year-old boys who are squicked by teh ghey, and maybe open their minds a bit. And allowing room for people to see Jack as a guy who just puts it about a bit, who comes on to one colleague, is rebuffed and moves on to the next, really FUCKS THAT UP for me. That's why I was angry.
Am I making sense yet or am I still rambling? The hormones haven't worn off yet, I can never quite tell lately.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 04:30 pm (UTC)He says "we could...." and then steps back, crosses his arms over his chest and waits. He says what he's up for, pretends to take the initiative and doesn't. I've seen (and done, when I was younger) this behavior over and over again from women who want to be 'one of the boys' and also shag the boys. Even when the boys have been girls (I'm queer too).
If a female character acted that way, it would read as totally typical of a certain type of female flirting. Because Jack is such a man's man, we see it as aggression, but it really, really isn't.
Joyful sexy Jack....
Date: 2008-05-13 04:30 pm (UTC)I think they have great, fun sex.
And why does great, fun, adventurous sex preclude falling in love?
Ianto is falling in love with Jack - that's been made clear. It hasn't been made clear how Jack feels, but I honestly think that's because TPTB are torn between mysterious, enigmatic Jack and lover Jack.
I don't think they know where to go with a more "domesticated" Jack (will the viewers find it a turn-off), and I think this problem would have arisen if Jack had had an affair with Gwen (or any female) as well.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 04:31 pm (UTC)I just think that we have had too many angst ridden dramas where all the emotions are underlined in thick black pen. This relationship has more chance of lasting precisely because it isn't like that. It is off screen, and we only get the odd glimpse into the private world, such as in Adrift, and TTLM. It isn't Gray's Anatomy or whatever, thank God, and being Sci Fi, the relationship stuff has to come second.
As for Gwen/Rhys, they can underline the romance precisely because Rhys isn't a main character. I fear when main characters relationships become the focus, you get the Moonlighting scenario. I think that they are playing it right, and we have no reason to believe it isn't serious, in fact Ianto's comment to Owen, and subtle things about Jack, the body language as I mentioned above, and the forehead kiss, well all of the J/I stuff in Adam, makes me think that it is mmore than casual.
I agree with the comments about sexuality, and think it would be a terrible betrayal if the intention is some type of pure love between Jack/Gwen, Jack/Ianto just being about sex. I think it is very important that it isn't that, and I don't think it is. I of course am taking a nerdy overthinking approach, and I accept that mostly people view it much more superficially!!
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 04:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 04:40 pm (UTC)I recommend every fan fic writer get hold of Gavin and Stacey as soon as possible, and watch it!! Not only will it tell you everything you need to know about Welsh vernacular, it also has a side order of Estuary, which would fit for Owen, and of course Martha. (And it is bloody brilliant)
Agree with the comments upthread about reverse sexism.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 04:44 pm (UTC)My interpretation of KKBB hinges on two things. I read the line, "I came back for you," as Jack saying to Ianto that he came back for him, which happened before the awkward scene of awkward with Gwen; and I believe that while Jack ducks questions and gives ambiguous answers and has more secrets than MI-6, he doesn't say things that aren't true, which means that when he told Ianto that he had been thinking about asking him out on a date while he was gone, it meant that he had actually spent at least part of the Year That Never Was thinking about Ianto, which also happened before the awkward scene of awkward with Gwen.
I realise that not everyone saw that episode the way I did, which is kind of the point you're making about the writing leaving room for the kind of interpretation that you don't like, but that's the fantastic thing about television and characters whose heads we don't see inside. If there wasn't room for us to make our own interpretations and for other people to make interpretations that we see as really, really whacked out, we wouldn't need fandom.
Having said all of that, I also think that a lot of the seeing Ianto as Jack's sex toy comes from early Season 1 characterisation (and specifically Everything Changes) and from the Lisa thing. Once upon a time, Ianto WAS probably Jack's sex toy and that's the way he WANTED it to be, and to view their relationship as differently now, you have to be able to understand that relationships grow and develop and change, and theirs has, but not everyone gets that.
That, plus there will always be people who believe in Jack and Gwen's one twoo wuv and who will pull interpretations out of the clear blue sky if it means they can explain the pesky canon relationship out of the way in order to fulfill their OTP.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 04:54 pm (UTC)Of course, Jack and Ianto would have had no sex life at all had the writers decided to give Ianto the 'death' storyarc instead of Owen. The writers would have been forced to base their relationship post-Reset purely on friendship and affection.
I'm partially convinced that episodes like KKBB and Adam were written at a time when Ianto was going to be the one who was 'killed' instead of Owen and when the writers changed their minds, they were suddenly a little lost as to how to protray their relationship for the rest of the series.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 05:17 pm (UTC)That was my interp. Because for some reason, I do read him as someone who would respect someone else's committment. I also never thought it took anything away from the date scene with Ianto. And was frankly surprised to see the spec online about that. Didn't even occur to me to doubt that he'd spent time thinking about Ianto. Or that he had really wanted to try a date with him. I think he spent time thinking about Gwen too. Although, not necessarily in the same way. He probably used every good memory he could come up with to escape the Valiant.
Point being. I wasn't at all confused by the scene or the 'confusing' timing of the two scenes, because I don't thing there was any relation at all between them. I saw them as two seperate relationships. One was an unresolved crush, and the other was (at the time) a mutual comfort/attraction sexual relationship with the potential to be more.
I'm in the seemingly small portion of fandom that appears to view the relationships in a positive light instead of a negative. I think it tends to make me a little annoyed at fandom, occasionally. But I'm willing to bet I enjoy the show more for it.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 05:20 pm (UTC)Not sure about the Ianto death arc thing, it may be the opposite, having developed the relationship, too much potential angst if it were Ianto. Also just being cynical, but Ianto has a massive fan base, they must have realised that. Much as I loved Tosh, and had grown to like Owen, I think they really were the most expendable. The producers seem obsessed with Gwen, even if fans aren't, and also she has too many great characters (Rhys, PC Andy) around her.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 05:21 pm (UTC)Were was I? Oh, yes. Ianto can take care of himself and he certainly chooses how he wants the relationship to be. I doubt that he would stay with Jack if he doesn't get from him what he wants. Then again, what does he want? A monogamous relationship? I think so, but it's not explicit so we don't know for sure. Sure Jack flirts, and sure he has feelings for Gwen (as much as I hate it) but he is really down to earth in that sense. While he may love her (interpret it that love any way you want) he doesn't mess with Gwen's and Rhys's relationship. He actually encourages Gwen to keep her relationship alive and well.
And I doubt that what he fells for Ianto (now) is all about sex simply because I don't think Ianto would go with it, not now.
And I have no idea what I'm saying... do I make any sense? this rambling thing is contagious :D
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 05:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 05:53 pm (UTC)Torchwood should have been more like Spooks/MI-5, in which all the characters are treated roughly evenly (though obviously Jack would get more attention). Then, Ianto, Tosh and Owen would have taken some of the B plots from Gwen which would have given them time to shine the spotlight on the other characters who are just as important to Torchwood and we wouldn't have this ambiguity with Jack/Ianto.
Also, a feature of Spooks that would have served Torchwood well was the fear that any of them could go at any minute. But you know Gwen is protected by authorial fiat because Jack's been waiting for her for 100 freaking years.
I realize that this is only tangentially related your post, but it's what I thought of first.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 05:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:10 pm (UTC)No, Jack/Ianto isn't the "one true love" romantic type of thing, but neither is Gwen/Jack - or I refuse to believe it is, anyway - and sometimes they make it look like Jack's with Ianto while biding his time waiting for Gwen to declare her undying love. That's NOT cool, and that's not what I choose to perceive, either.
Oh no, to me, Jack and The Doctor are nothing but good friends. He's flirty, sure, but he's always been that way, with everyone, I don't see why when Jack flirts with the Doctor, it's supposed to mean they're in love.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:38 pm (UTC)I agree, holes are fine, a bit of mystery is fine, but I think when you start writing your LEADING MAN with such gaping holes in his characterisation that his motivation and actions can be interpreted so vastly differently by the viewing audience, you're doing something wrong. And it amounts to an extra special kind of fail if you do that whilst at the same time smugly telling us what a thoroughly modern and progressive hero you've created.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:38 pm (UTC)RTD has a habit of falling in love with his heroes and having everyone else fall in love with them as well. DW is very bad for that, irritatingly so with the Dr making more and more God speeches as this series goes on. TW has fallen into it sometimes with Jack, although the team have clearly shown him disrespect at times. With Gwen though it has been a consistent theme, even when she was shagging Owen.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:52 pm (UTC)I mean the whole "Look up genocide in the dictionary and you'll see my picture there
because I've already been there, done that and even erased them from all of time, bitches" to Jesus Doctor's "I never could (I just make other people do it for me) so base your society on my moral teachings!" I wish they'd go back to a time where every episode wasn't a morality play.no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 07:00 pm (UTC)Could Torchwood do a better job presenting gay/bisexual relationships in a positive light? Absolutely. But is removing all possibilities that Jack can be interepreted as a promiscuous slut who takes advantage of other people sexually the only way to do so? I don't think so. In fact, if someone can pull off creating a character who is a sexual slut and predator who at the same time is committed to defending earth and saving people, often at great personal cost to himself -- a deeply flawed hero, if you will -- if a show actually pulled that off, I'd be there to watch! Obviously, Torchwood isn't that show -- it doesn't quite aim that high (or low, depending on your pov!). But it's never going to be a public service announcement for the ideal gay/bisexual lifestyle, either. And I can already hear you telling me that's not what you want the show to be, but, well, suppose the show did incorporate enough positive presentation of gay/bisexual relationships to satisfy *you*. There's always going to be someone else who wants more. And then there's going to be people who complain it's gone too far. Right now, you happen to be in the group unsatisfied with the show, and I happen to be in the group who's pretty content with what we got. Tomorrow, our positions may be reversed. That's the nature of the beast.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 07:01 pm (UTC)My only caveat to that would be the odd Gwen/Jack dynamic, which does confuse people. I totally agree that has been badly done and is open to interpretation.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 07:05 pm (UTC)RTD's trying to re-create the Doc/Rose relationship with Jack/Gwen. Richard Stokes even said as much several months ago. The only problem is - Torchwood is an essemble of 5 characters, not just 2 as with Doctor Who. RTD seems to forget that from time to time.
no subject
Date: 2008-05-13 07:06 pm (UTC)Anyhow getting rather tangental here, although maybe this is part of the problem? The need for hero worship, religious significance.