tencrush | I was just fucking witcha...

Entry tags:

I was just fucking witcha...

Well, 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Sorry for jutting in on this coversation but it just occured to me --
*You* think that's a shame. Other people, including perhaps RDL and the rest of the Torchwood writing team, maybe don't?

Probably not, no. What's your point? I also thought the script for From out of the Rain was an appallingly laughable mess. I'm assuming TPTB didn't or they'd have pulled it.

I'm stating my opinion, that's what I usually tend to do round these parts, isn't it?

You are coming off a little bit like you think other people are wrong for not sharing your opinion. Like when you say something is a shame, even when you preface it with "I think," it can come off as a pretty strong value judgement.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how saying that I think something is a shame comes across as anything other than me, personally, thinking it's unfortunate.

"Unfortunate" -- now that's a good word. Conveys disappointment/dissatisfaction without quite so much implicit value judgmenent. ;)

Sorry, I don't really see the difference, but English isn't my first language so I'll take your word for it.

Oh, it isn't? I'd never have guessed it!

English is my native language and I was surprised to see that nightspring is comfortable with "unfortunate" and not "a shame"...though after thinking about it a bit, I realized it's because "unfortunate" is associated with luck, whereas "shame" is associated with blame.

I think your English is excellent, but people just aren't parsing your original post very closely. (Much like Casual Viewer Dude's understanding of Jack/Ianto, come to think of it.) You ARE blaming, but you're blaming the writing, and a number of the comment replies are not really focused on the question of the writing quality.

(And I can't bring myself to comment on anything else on this topic because I just keep getting mad at TPTB. They know they can get away with stringing us along on this sketchy portrayal of J/I because we're an under-served audience. Exploitive fuckers.)

I've realised from nightspring's comments that the problem I have with English, which in many respects I DO consider to be my FIRST language, if not my native language, is that I do, when I put my thoughts to paper, like right now for instance, have a slightly Dutch tendency to start using an inordinate amount of subclauses, which comes across as slightly didactic and patronising when I don't actually mean to sound that way. Such as that sentence there. That's a Dutch thing, and not a me thinking everyone else is wrong thing. And it also invites misreadings because people tend to lose my point halfway through a sentence. I fail :(

I like your From Out of the Rain icon though!

I like that episode, call me old fashioned. It is the episode where Jack and Ianto get to be Morse and Lewis, Barnaby and Troy, etc. I especially like the scene with Christina, who is a great character, and the two of them are lovely with her. Also the little exposition scene with the J/I in the boardroom. Lots of subtext as per your icon.

Obviously they don't because they wrote it. However, /I/ consider it to be poor writing. Because I don't think leaving whether Jack and Ianto are in a relationship or if they're casually shagging or if Ianto is in love and Jack's taking advantage of that ambiguous does anything to help deepen the story or make it more complex or interject a level of tension to the show. During the show, we are never given a moment to make us question our own perception of Jack/Ianto, and that is the key point, I feel.

The show seems to be saying take whatever perception of Jack and Ianto you can scrounge up and it's all equally valid. Which is ridiculous. This is a relationship between 2 main protagonists and the state of the relationship says a hell of a lot about both of their characters. It says things which shouldn't be ambiguous because, like tencrush says, they are very central to what kind of man Jack is, things the audience needs to know in order to evaluate him.

And I do not think the purpose of television is to create fanfic opportunities so any argument about how this is great for fandom is irrelevant for me. Fandom is side effect of television not the other way around.

Is it okay if I just let you do my talking for me so I can go to bed? You seem to be better at explaining what I'm trying to explain than I am. Thank you.

Ha, ha. When I first stumbled across your journal, I was like, dude, she's reading my brain, because this is exactly how I feel about Torchwood. I love it, but it drives me crazy. In fact, just before I saw your last post on this topic, I had just posted a long rant on the Torchwood Writers Union about how ambiguous Jack and Ianto's relationship was in the show and how it annoyed me. Which I'm sure they didn't appreciate. So I'm glad I get the chance to keep talking on and on about it here. ^^

You know, I sometimes think as far as Janto is considered, TPTB *are* aiming to just create fanfic opportunities! And yes, as you point out, that's a perversion of what TV shows should be, but that's the only rational explanation that occurs to me for the way they handle Janto.

It's just that I've decided that for my emotional health, it's better to not spend energy running around wagging a finger at TPTB and crying "for shame!" at them for doing this. But you know what? It just occured to me that everyone has their own way of handling frustration. So I'll shut up now and just comment on threads that discuss the show and the characters, and try to stay away from discussions of what the show should be, because I see that tends to lead to me getting frustrated at other people being frustrated -- which isn't a good place to be.

I think TPTB want a long-term loving gay relationship without actually having to bother portraying a long-term loving gay relationship. (Like how JK Rowling wanted a gay Dumbledore without actually having to bother writing it in her books. Okay, not that bad.) Basically, I think the lack of the show bible is really killing them here, because they can't do anything complex or long term without one and that's what Jack/Ianto would have to be, because there's no satisfying stereotypes to fall back on for them.

Do I think TPTB will read this? No. Do I think they'd change their entire program structure because of this even if they did? No. But when I watch Torchwood, I sense a problem (several problems). Talking/debating it like this helps me clarify my thoughts which I find very fun. Sometimes I use harsh language because I was in debate for 4 years, but I've long learned to separate the argument from the speaker, so there's no frustration for me.

I think TPTB want a long-term loving gay relationship without actually having to bother portraying a long-term loving gay relationship.

Good point!

As for the lack of show bible, I'm thinking maybe that's a symptom, rather than the cause? As in, if TPTB had an overall direction in which they wanted to take the show, including any relationship stuff, then they'd damn well make sure they have a bible. But apparently they are fine with taking the show where it develops "organically," or however it was they put it.

And yes, keep the argument separate from the speaker, very good advice, thanks!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only