Post CoE meta: On being Sane in insane places.
This is just a few points really, I could go on in some very great and boring detail, but hopefully I've restrained myself. Please feel free to disagree, and please don't take my rather silly examples seriously.
Typing behaviour
When Rosenhan and his colleagues did the famous study referred to in the title, they had themselves admitted to psychiatric hospitals, they then proceeded to act perfectly normally. However, because they were inpatients, all their ordinary behaviour was pathologised. One of the most well known examples being when researchers were sitting writing their study notes, the nurses recorded them as "displaying writing behaviour" Watching the post CoE fan reaction, and the responses, especially from Russell T Davies (RTD) has really reminded me of this. Those fans who are upset about CoE, for whatever reason, have been lumped in with the one or two who made threats, and were aggressive with their response. Whilst there may well be a couple of people online who have some issues with psychological health, which explains their threatening behaviour, even then I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are very young, and perhaps very rash. I remember what it was like to be a teenager, to say things I didn't mean in the heat of the moment, how many of us have told our parents "I wish I was dead!" Most of us really didn't mean it at the time.
Why can't we agree to disagree?
The abundance of different fan communities on LJ shows that of course there are differences of opinion, but post CoE, there is a real schism appearing. I like debating with people, unless they tell me that I'm an idiot for my opinion, I'm not going to take it personally that they disagree. I have been astonished how some fans find it impossible to agree to disagree. I have had this experience with reading meta. My comment: "Gosh I'm fascinated that you think Jack glared at Ianto in Countrycide because he forgot to pack a thermos, I always assumed it was because he referred to Lisa as his last kiss, you know, either Jack still being cross with him over Lisa, or that Jack has kissed him since, something like that" Meta author comment "No you're wrong, lots of people think that, but they are all wrong as well, I have proved in my meta that it's the thermos" Now of course I've made it up, but it's close to some conversations I've had. I've noticed that with the post CoE reaction, some threads have ended up with people attacking each other, and it's a shame, disagreements can be fun, can be healthy debate. I was astonished when RTD's interviews were posted on a community that some of those who were upset or offended were told that they should "get a life" or that he was right, they should just go and read poetry, etc. Not only do I think that RTD would care as little about those who were putting their fan colleagues down on his behalf as he cares for any of those who sent coffee, I also think it seems an unnecessary and tedious way to respond to others distress.
Since when did popular mean good?
I don't understand the argument that because CoE rated well, and was well received by the audience, it must be good. "The 40 year old Virgin" was a very popular film, and the audiences enjoyed it, but if you want to argue with me that it's high art, I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree. Torchwood has always been popular. Good ratings really were a given with series three, and would have been achieved with a well made five part series that centred on Torchwood, with the characters, and the hub, and Myfanwy, and Janet even. It was the highest rating show on BBC2. Those shows that rate well on 2 and move to BBC1 do very well, usually sticking to the same formula, because people already liked them.
Now I never believed Torchwood was high art. In fact during season 1 I loved it, but never argued when others told me it was rubbish that looked like it was made by students. I used to say, oh well, maybe so but I love it, and add that I think a couple of them are actually properly good episodes. Season 2 I was happy to defend on quality, most of the episodes anyhow. I think though, that the popularity was mainly due to just sheer enjoyment, it was fun, even though often dark. S2 found it's feet and the humour was such a strong point. I still don't think that Bergman span in his grave when Owen encountered death. Or that David Lynch felt threatened at any point.
Speaking of Twin Peaks, I loved Agent Cooper, I was upset that he ended up in The Black Lodge, but I didn't think it was a wrong decision, or bad in any way. In fact if RTD put Ianto into the Black Lodge and gave us David Duchovny in a dress, well that would have been a great ending. I think most of us are actually able to reign in our hysteria and accept character death when it works for the character, for their journey, even if it upsets us. RTD explained Ianto's death as essential because Jack needed a bit of motivation, ie, he put Ianto in the fridge. He says this is a great story. Except that how did it make any difference at all? Jack was a bit grumpy maybe, but Ianto helps and supports Jack, he doesn't control him. Maybe RTD thinks that if your lover dies and you get upset then child sacrifice is a normal reaction? If that's the case, fair enough. Actually, creepy tech guy who looked like Leo from The West Wing knew what to do. (Wasn't he wasted? That moment when he leant against the glass, such potential.) They didn't even need Jack. Just like they didn't need any of them at any point, because the story was never about Torchwood. Now the story would have played out the same way, and I won't mention John Mills and his grandaughter Hettie in Quatermass, but, you know, it would have played out that way because that's how the story goes.
I think there were some good things about CoE, it was compelling, at least to begin with, in the way that a political drama is compelling. It was well made, with some good performances. I don't think the script was perfect. I really don't understand some of the writing. Why the joke about Ianto dying? When would it ever be funny to tell anyone that they will "die like a dog" It's an example of the underlining that the script was full of, I'm surprised they didn't have an Ally McBeal (or Gray's Anatomy) style voiceover at the end of each episode. In fact Gwen's speech to the camera was a little like one of those.
Was the joke meant to be foreshadowing? Gosh that is subtle then. I found the whole couple conversation a waste of screen time, how about?
(Hospital scene over the body) Ianto - "He thinks we're together, he can tell I'm your gorgeous young toy boy"
Jack "well we are...OI, toy boy? I don't look my age you know"
Ianto - "No, not quite, but he could tell that you can't resist me"
Jack - "Not quite? grrr, (grumbles)
Yucky body squikiness ensues, back at the Hub:
Jack - "Wait until you're 65 and I still look this young and handsome, then who'll be the toy boy?"
Ianto - "I plan to age well"
Now that would be foreshadowing, and deal with the exposition for new viewers, yes they are together, no, we haven't really defined it at this point etc.
Finally, is RTD being horrid?
Yes I think he is, rather. I wonder if it's all a practical joke. Why all this meanness? If some fans want to send some coffee, for goodness sake, what harm does it do? Even more so, the fact that some genuine good has come out of this, in the form of over £6000 for charity should be a cause for celebration. At least some acknowledgement by the makers of the show. They have chosen to ignore it. What harm is there in a simple thanks, and an acknowledgment that this character meant a lot to some people, and it shows how great he was.
It isn't just the meanness. I don't understand the hubris. It is extraordinary. He is such a genius that he can write this stuff in 10 minutes before breakfast. This really makes me wonder if S4 will begin with the alien virus having just made people look a bit dead, and they'll all be OK. Ianto will be back, having needed the six months to have a little rest. I have just never seen such arrogance when talking about one's own work. I remember seeing Woody Allen being interviewed and he couldn't watch the clips being shown of his films, he was so self critical. You know, even if you don't like his films, and I like a lot of them, I think it would be hard to argue that he doesn't have more claim to genius that RTD.
The most likely thing is of course that RTD is serious, in which case i still don't get it, except to say "my lord doth protest too much" Classic defensiveness would make sense. the best line of defense is attack, and a put down such as "9 hysterical women" sounds quite desperately ungracious, as if he is genuinely bothered about the unhappy fan reaction, and doing his best to belittle it. The hubris would fit with this as well, he is too good to have engendered such a negative reaction, so it must just be from a few unstable, probably rather simple and uneducated, hysterical women.
Typing behaviour
When Rosenhan and his colleagues did the famous study referred to in the title, they had themselves admitted to psychiatric hospitals, they then proceeded to act perfectly normally. However, because they were inpatients, all their ordinary behaviour was pathologised. One of the most well known examples being when researchers were sitting writing their study notes, the nurses recorded them as "displaying writing behaviour" Watching the post CoE fan reaction, and the responses, especially from Russell T Davies (RTD) has really reminded me of this. Those fans who are upset about CoE, for whatever reason, have been lumped in with the one or two who made threats, and were aggressive with their response. Whilst there may well be a couple of people online who have some issues with psychological health, which explains their threatening behaviour, even then I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that they are very young, and perhaps very rash. I remember what it was like to be a teenager, to say things I didn't mean in the heat of the moment, how many of us have told our parents "I wish I was dead!" Most of us really didn't mean it at the time.
Why can't we agree to disagree?
The abundance of different fan communities on LJ shows that of course there are differences of opinion, but post CoE, there is a real schism appearing. I like debating with people, unless they tell me that I'm an idiot for my opinion, I'm not going to take it personally that they disagree. I have been astonished how some fans find it impossible to agree to disagree. I have had this experience with reading meta. My comment: "Gosh I'm fascinated that you think Jack glared at Ianto in Countrycide because he forgot to pack a thermos, I always assumed it was because he referred to Lisa as his last kiss, you know, either Jack still being cross with him over Lisa, or that Jack has kissed him since, something like that" Meta author comment "No you're wrong, lots of people think that, but they are all wrong as well, I have proved in my meta that it's the thermos" Now of course I've made it up, but it's close to some conversations I've had. I've noticed that with the post CoE reaction, some threads have ended up with people attacking each other, and it's a shame, disagreements can be fun, can be healthy debate. I was astonished when RTD's interviews were posted on a community that some of those who were upset or offended were told that they should "get a life" or that he was right, they should just go and read poetry, etc. Not only do I think that RTD would care as little about those who were putting their fan colleagues down on his behalf as he cares for any of those who sent coffee, I also think it seems an unnecessary and tedious way to respond to others distress.
Since when did popular mean good?
I don't understand the argument that because CoE rated well, and was well received by the audience, it must be good. "The 40 year old Virgin" was a very popular film, and the audiences enjoyed it, but if you want to argue with me that it's high art, I'm afraid we shall have to agree to disagree. Torchwood has always been popular. Good ratings really were a given with series three, and would have been achieved with a well made five part series that centred on Torchwood, with the characters, and the hub, and Myfanwy, and Janet even. It was the highest rating show on BBC2. Those shows that rate well on 2 and move to BBC1 do very well, usually sticking to the same formula, because people already liked them.
Now I never believed Torchwood was high art. In fact during season 1 I loved it, but never argued when others told me it was rubbish that looked like it was made by students. I used to say, oh well, maybe so but I love it, and add that I think a couple of them are actually properly good episodes. Season 2 I was happy to defend on quality, most of the episodes anyhow. I think though, that the popularity was mainly due to just sheer enjoyment, it was fun, even though often dark. S2 found it's feet and the humour was such a strong point. I still don't think that Bergman span in his grave when Owen encountered death. Or that David Lynch felt threatened at any point.
Speaking of Twin Peaks, I loved Agent Cooper, I was upset that he ended up in The Black Lodge, but I didn't think it was a wrong decision, or bad in any way. In fact if RTD put Ianto into the Black Lodge and gave us David Duchovny in a dress, well that would have been a great ending. I think most of us are actually able to reign in our hysteria and accept character death when it works for the character, for their journey, even if it upsets us. RTD explained Ianto's death as essential because Jack needed a bit of motivation, ie, he put Ianto in the fridge. He says this is a great story. Except that how did it make any difference at all? Jack was a bit grumpy maybe, but Ianto helps and supports Jack, he doesn't control him. Maybe RTD thinks that if your lover dies and you get upset then child sacrifice is a normal reaction? If that's the case, fair enough. Actually, creepy tech guy who looked like Leo from The West Wing knew what to do. (Wasn't he wasted? That moment when he leant against the glass, such potential.) They didn't even need Jack. Just like they didn't need any of them at any point, because the story was never about Torchwood. Now the story would have played out the same way, and I won't mention John Mills and his grandaughter Hettie in Quatermass, but, you know, it would have played out that way because that's how the story goes.
I think there were some good things about CoE, it was compelling, at least to begin with, in the way that a political drama is compelling. It was well made, with some good performances. I don't think the script was perfect. I really don't understand some of the writing. Why the joke about Ianto dying? When would it ever be funny to tell anyone that they will "die like a dog" It's an example of the underlining that the script was full of, I'm surprised they didn't have an Ally McBeal (or Gray's Anatomy) style voiceover at the end of each episode. In fact Gwen's speech to the camera was a little like one of those.
Was the joke meant to be foreshadowing? Gosh that is subtle then. I found the whole couple conversation a waste of screen time, how about?
(Hospital scene over the body) Ianto - "He thinks we're together, he can tell I'm your gorgeous young toy boy"
Jack "well we are...OI, toy boy? I don't look my age you know"
Ianto - "No, not quite, but he could tell that you can't resist me"
Jack - "Not quite? grrr, (grumbles)
Yucky body squikiness ensues, back at the Hub:
Jack - "Wait until you're 65 and I still look this young and handsome, then who'll be the toy boy?"
Ianto - "I plan to age well"
Now that would be foreshadowing, and deal with the exposition for new viewers, yes they are together, no, we haven't really defined it at this point etc.
Finally, is RTD being horrid?
Yes I think he is, rather. I wonder if it's all a practical joke. Why all this meanness? If some fans want to send some coffee, for goodness sake, what harm does it do? Even more so, the fact that some genuine good has come out of this, in the form of over £6000 for charity should be a cause for celebration. At least some acknowledgement by the makers of the show. They have chosen to ignore it. What harm is there in a simple thanks, and an acknowledgment that this character meant a lot to some people, and it shows how great he was.
It isn't just the meanness. I don't understand the hubris. It is extraordinary. He is such a genius that he can write this stuff in 10 minutes before breakfast. This really makes me wonder if S4 will begin with the alien virus having just made people look a bit dead, and they'll all be OK. Ianto will be back, having needed the six months to have a little rest. I have just never seen such arrogance when talking about one's own work. I remember seeing Woody Allen being interviewed and he couldn't watch the clips being shown of his films, he was so self critical. You know, even if you don't like his films, and I like a lot of them, I think it would be hard to argue that he doesn't have more claim to genius that RTD.
The most likely thing is of course that RTD is serious, in which case i still don't get it, except to say "my lord doth protest too much" Classic defensiveness would make sense. the best line of defense is attack, and a put down such as "9 hysterical women" sounds quite desperately ungracious, as if he is genuinely bothered about the unhappy fan reaction, and doing his best to belittle it. The hubris would fit with this as well, he is too good to have engendered such a negative reaction, so it must just be from a few unstable, probably rather simple and uneducated, hysterical women.