lavender_sage | Entries tagged with reposted from tumblr

About a week ago, I watched the finale of the BBC’s Robin Hood’s second season in which the show’s writers shocked their fan-base half to death by having Guy of Gisborne kill Lady Marian. Because I’ve been mainlining RH fanfic like a drug for the past month, I knew it was going to happen, but what I didn’t expect was that my immediate reaction would be, “well, what did you expect, Marian?” What shocked me wasn’t just that she died, but that I had no sympathy for her, and I wasn’t angry with him. That’s not an appropriate reaction for someone who identifies as a feminist, as I do, when a man who starts off courting a woman against her will ends up stabbing her. I’ve been thinking over this a lot since, but I can’t find it in myself to feel any differently. I do, however, have some thoughts about why I reacted in such a problematic way, and it has mostly to do with the decisions the writers make with regards to both characters leading up to the finale.

I certainly was uncomfortable with their relationship in season one, but as the second season progressed I found myself feeling more sympathy for him and less for her. I’ve come to the conclusion that in this case, and perhaps in many cases where fans respond unsympathetically to heroines, the problem is that writers reserve most of the complexity and development for male characters. If I get to see a character struggle, reflect on their actions, and change, that will make them more sympathetic regardless of gender. So why don’t we see that more with heroines?

I think my lack of sympathy for Marian comes from the fact that I have absolutely no idea why she says and does what she does in the moments leading up to her death. Guy is approaching an injured King Richard with his sword drawn to finish him off, when Marian steps between them, and says, “If you want to kill him, you’ll have to kill me first.” He tries to convince her that they can still be together in spite of what he’s about to do, but instead of appealing to his love for her, as she has successfully done in the past, she says “I’d rather die than marry you, Guy of Gisborne. I love Robin Hood. I’m going to marry Robin Hood.” Really, Marian? Of all the times in the past year that you could have said that to him, you’re going to pick right now when he’s armed and you’re not? Does she want to martyr herself for King Richard? Not likely since she and Robin are in the middle of getting married. I think what’s happening is that the writers are throwing Marian’s motivations under the bus in favor of making something jaw-dropping happen. It’s as though it doesn’t matter if her actions make sense so long as Guy is enraged enough to murder her.

What’s most troubling to me about this scene is that I can understand why Guy has such a reaction to what Marian says. When we first meet him in season one, he’s violent, ruthless, and possessive. In season two, he’s still all of those things, but I’m astounded at some of the brave, unselfish things he does. He tries to save Marian from yet another man who wants to possess her, chooses to stay with her during an attack on Nottingham when his status as a black knight would allow him to go free, and saves her from execution even after he finds out that she’s the same Nightwatchman he spends all of season one trying to kill. It’s perfectly clear that he does all of these things out of love for her and a desire to show her that there is “another side” to him. None of this is any secret to her; she’s very aware of his feelings, and she exploits them. Then he finds out that his struggles to change have been for nothing because she doesn’t actually care about him at all. Marian certainly doesn’t deserve to die for what she’s done, but it is pretty unforgivable.

While he gets a great deal of development and complexity in season 2, she gets almost none. We see in season one that she is a very moral woman, devoted to justice and helping the poor, but she never has any qualms about deceiving and manipulating Guy. That’s no so much a problem in itself, but it becomes one when she remains completely unreflective about her choice to continue her involvement with him. In season one, she clearly does not reciprocate his affections, but in spite of the best efforts she can safely make, she can’t get rid of him. In season two, she has no desire to get rid of him. She visits him to reconcile after punching him at what was supposed to be their wedding at the end of season one. She kisses him (to distract him from the movements of Robin’s gang, but he certainly doesn’t know that). She chooses to leave Robin and let Guy “save” her. All in all, it’s very easy to see why Guy thinks she’s interested in him; it’s not hard to see why some fans think so too! In the finale, she’s no longer a woman giving a hard “no” to a man who’s too pigheaded to take a soft one. If we see her words to Guy at the end as a revelation of The Truth, it’s one that does her little credit.

I don’t want to think so meanly of Marian. I’d prefer her to struggle with some kind of real feelings for Guy, even if they were only regret that she has to hurt him to help more unfortunate people. There are a couple of moments where does seem to feel something other than disgust. One is the scene in which she kisses him, on the cheek this time, out of gratitude for his saving her from execution (s2e11). The other is the scene in which she goes to reconcile with Guy and finds him ~~rather gratuitously~~ shirtless, trying on armor (s2e3). I’d been wondering since season 1 if she was actually “stirred” by Guy as he claims to Robin that she is. Judging from her failure to keep her eyes on his face while they talk, I’d say Guy is right, even if for the only time ever. Unfortunately, rather than developing any of these feelings beyond these scenes, or using them to complicate Marian’s acceptance of Robin over Guy, the writers chose to present her as the dauntless, pure, true love to Robin and a cold, calculating, manipulator of Guy. It’s as though having her fit a misogynistic stereotype about women, that we love to play cruel games with boys’ hearts, is more forgivable, and more “family friendly,” than the shameful suggestion that a nice girl could like two boys at once.

Since both Guy and Robin are multi-faceted, conflicted men, you’d think the woman both of are in love with she could have some complexity too. However, once they’ve created this love triangle, there are only so many ways the writers can get out of it. I really think polyamory is the only option that would do full justice to the complexity of all three characters, but I also know there is no way this show would take that direction; it’s not nearly progressive enough. Or, Guy could take the high road and wish Marian happiness with Robin, which is probably the mostly wildly out of character decision possible for him. He’s had so little experience with love, giving or receiving, that there’s no way he’d give it up voluntarily. So, that leaves the options of killing off either Guy or Marian, and from the amount of development Guy gets that season, it’s clear that it was never going to be him. What ultimately does infuriate me about Marian’s end is not that she dies but that she is made dispensable.

I've had the idea for this for a while, but now it's been long enough since I've written anything about Downton Abbey that I can no longer remember if I've said something like this before. This post features some of the characters I've written about a lot in the past, but also some new ones. Indeed, I don't think I've ever written about so many characters in one post before. If I didn't know better, I'd think I missed Downton.

As always, I'll start with Thomas. In season 4, he goes on a mission to find a woman who will be his "friend," help him with his schemes, and generally be his spy upstairs. It goes about as well as we expected, as well as most of his plans, and I remember thinking as I was reading about the season, how stupid of Thomas/Fellowes to 1) think that anyone could replace O'Brien and 2) think that anyone would be intimidated by someone as marginalized and universally disliked as Thomas. Since then, though, it's occurred to me that while Thomas's plan is doomed to fail, you can see why he though this might be his best bet for changing the family's and other servants' perception of him. The reason why Thomas is so disliked is, unquestionably, because he's done so many cruel, selfish, ill-advised things. That's true of most of the men on the show, but what makes Robert, Bates, and Branson (to make a manageable list) so imminently forgiveable if not the fact that they each have a woman (or women) who forgives, supports, and advocates for them?

I've sure I've already made this point with respect to Anna and Bates, and I think it was Gascon who said that Anna is almost wholly absorbed by her husband before he even becomes her husband, but since this is the most obvious example of a woman redeeming a man, it bears mentioning again. Throughout the first three seasons, she has taken his selfish, callous choices--leading her on and lying in season 1, leaving without any explanation in season 2, assuming she's given up on him so easily in season 3--and turned them into proofs of his noble and unselfish nature. Yet, for all she does for him, he has no gratitude; indeed, it is she who is grateful to him for continuing to value her after she's been raped in season 4.

Cora is similarly devoted to Robert; she doesn't even flinch in season 3 when he confesses that he's lost not only his own money but hers as well. The only time she displays any anger or disappointment towards him is when he sides with the knighted doctor whose bad advice causes Sybil's death. Even then, after two delightful episodes of wonderfully snarky comments directed from Cora to Robert (and how can anyone talk to that man in any other way?) he gets bailed out by another woman: his mother. I had always wondered how a woman like her--so clever and confident--could have raised a son with so little knowledge of, or respect for women. That episode makes it clear, however, that, after her own amusement, nothing means as much to Violet as her family behaving correctly, and as usual, it's the woman's behavior that's in need of correction.

Sybil and Branson's relationship is the exception that proves the rule in this respect. When they return to Downton after their marriage, it is her behavior that is deemed exemplary while his is denounced as selfish, but that is likely because she is already headed in the same direction as Anna with regards to her husband. She has no objection to being abandoned while pregnant because her husband is in trouble with the law for reasons he does not even fully explain to her. In spite of the fact that she immediately forgives him and continually advocates on his behalf to her family, he shows very little interest in her opinions--"you're very free with your musts." Certainly, he holds her in enough reverence after she's dead, but even his grief feels like Sybil pleading for sympathy for him from beyond the grave.

I have been primarily concerned with husbands and wives, but really each straight man on the show has a network of female supporters, mostly related by blood or marriage. Mrs. Hughes is the exception, because though she is not a wife, mother, or sister (to anyone we meet) she is a tireless advocate for most of the men on the show at one time or another. Again, though, she's the exception that proves the rule. The biggest problem with Thomas's ladies' maid buddy scheme is that, on a show obsessed with marriage and kinship, he is looking for a friend. His relationship with O'Brien shows how much Fellowes values friendship.

Even more troubling is the value (or lack thereof) that the show places on romantic love outside the bonds of heterosexual kinship. In all of the above cases, the love the men have for their wives is very selfish. They take all their wives offer--which is everything they have, including their personalities--and give them little in return but the (very dubious in all three cases) promise of protection and stability. Thomas's love for Jimmy is unselfish (indeed, self-sacrificing) and he asks nothing in return, and this love is presented as it's own damn reward. Heterosexuality is not only a privileged position on this show; for a man, it's a redeeming quality in and of itself.

This question has been on my mind lately. If we’re supposed to enjoy seeing Hux get abused by Snoke and Kylo because of the evil things he’s done, why isn’t Snoke’s death more enjoyable? He’s in charge of the whole First Order; Hux spends most of The Force Awakens waiting for his approval to fire the weapon. Furthermore, Snoke is the outside force who bears the most responsibility for turning Kylo Ren to the Dark Side. But if he shows any emotional at all about being cut in half by his protege, it’s confusion. Where is his terror and anguish? Doesn’t he deserve to feel these things after all the evil he’s done?

I think the answer to these questions is that Snoke is never presented as a figure of fun when he’s alive, so why should he be in death?

For all that Starkiller Base gets brought up by people who feel a need to defend how much they enjoyed seeing Hux get thrown around by Snoke and Kylo in The Last Jedi, none of his punishment actually has anything to do with that incident narratively. It is only relevant in the sense that he no longer has that project to use as leverage to make himself indispensable. There is no narrative reason for most of this abuse except to entertain an audience that wants to see Hux suffer. Not just because he deserves it, but because it’s funny.

There is a lot of slapstick in this movie, and Hux is not the only man who is subjected to it. Both Finn and Poe get roughed up by women–which is far more likely to read as comic than the reverse–but neither of them are defined by that for the duration of the film. It’s funny, supposedly, to see these strong men be tased, shot, and dragged around by much smaller women, but the emasculation they are subjected to is temporary.

Meanwhile, when Hux is thrown around by men who are much more powerful than himself, there is no irony. Emasculation is not what makes him an object of ridicule, his characteristic lack of masculinity is.

Consider the differences between the scenes described above with Rose and Finn and Leia and Poe and the one, partially cut from the film, where Finn and Rose are caught aboard the Finalizer and Hux interrogates them.

When he approaches them, it’s Finn whom he slaps–because not even the vicious General Hux is depraved enough to hit a woman–and slapping itself is a form of violence more associated with women than men. Perhaps his intent is to emasculate Finn (again), to treat him like an errant child instead of acknowledging that he’s a man capable of making choices in spite of the First Order’s efforts. If that’s the case, it’s very short-lived.

In the earlier scenes.Rose has a taser; Leia has a blaster; neither is shown as able to overpower Finn/Poe on her own. When Rose bites Hux’s finger, though, he can’t even retrieve it without help from several Stormtroopers, in spite of the fact that she’s much smaller than he is, bound, and on her knees. That he’s screaming “like a little girl,” to quote numerous commenters, the whole time only drives the point home further.

And this is only one scene out of many; Hux’s “skinny, pasty” body is attacked from one end of the film to the other. And it’s no surprise. Violence against men whose masculinities are deemed suspect or insufficient has been stock in trade in comedy for a very long time, a lot longer than Star Wars has been around. Such men are protected neither by their own physical prowess nor by cultural prohibitions on violence against women. Of course, queerphobia has often been heavily inflected in such violence. If one reads Hux as queer, as I and many others do, it makes these scenes that much harder to watch.

I’m not arguing that hating Hux is a problem; there are plenty of good reasons to hate him. But it’s possible to hate him and believe he deserves his comeuppance while still recognizing that it is given to him in some troubling ways, and for some troubling reasons, in this movie.

Finally get to fix the spelling error in the title, ha!

I know that some take issue with Hux’s backstory because of how being an abuse survivor muddies his agency, but I love it, for that reason as well as others. While it adds more depth to the character we see in the films in many ways, the one that stands out to me most right now relates to Hux’s leadership of the stormtrooper program.

This program is explicitly anti-family. The First Order perpetuates itself through conquest but also through taking the children of the conquered. It doesn’t produce--or reproduce--anything itself, and it even attempts to prevent new emotional bonds from being formed between these children. They are denied both their birth families and, in most cases, found families. Given that being “anti-family” has been an accusation leveled by conservatives against lesbian and gay people for decades, it is troubling to see such a program being run by a strikingly gay-coded man. In the films, there is no explanation given for how Hux came to be in charge of this program; we just know that he is very committed to it.

Having Hux inherit this program from his father accomplishes two important things. It gives Hux a reason to be anti-family that has nothing to do with his sexuality, whatever that may be, and it deromanticizes birth father/son relationships. If the formative tragedy that shapes Finn and other stormtroopers was being taken away from their birth families, Armitage’s tragedy is that he wasn’t.

In the novels, the stormtrooper program is essentially the Hux family business. Even though both Gallius Rax and Rae Sloane recognize that Brendol does not like his son, both insist that the two remain together and that Brendol teach Armitage “everything he knows.” They are making plans for Armitage to take Brendol’s place many years before Brendol dies, unsurprisingly, as a result of Armitage and Phasma’s planning. Of course Armitage is going to take his father’s place; he’s never been presented with any other option.

What makes this backstory an improvement over film canon is that it divorces the anti-family aspect of the program from the sexual orientation of its head. Brendol Hux is ostensibly straight. He not only was married but had an affair with woman who worked in the kitchens; Armitage is the result of the latter. We’re never really given a reasons for this antipathy on Brendol’s part. Maybe it’s because Armtiage is a bastard. Maybe it’s because he’s small and weak. Maybe it’s because Brendol recognized the same gender non-normative traits in his small son that film audiences recognize in Domhnall Gleeson’s Hux. We don’t know. What we do know is that this relationship is toxic for both of them--quite literally in Brendol’s case--and the fact that he is Armitage’s birth father does nothing to diminish that.

Contrast that with some of the other birth father/son relationships. While there are many abusive father and son-esque relationships--Snoke and Kylo is a striking example--birth father and son relationships tend to be more positive even when they are fraught. Even though Anakin Skywalker maimed Luke, Luke’s belief in his lingering goodness is essential to his redemption arc in episode VI. Even though Han Solo was a largely absent father, he dies attempting to turn his son back to the light. If Kylo is redeemed in episode Ix, Han’s sacrifice likely has something to do with that. And that will romanticize the connection between sons and their biological fathers even further.

It’s helpful, especially if the second possibility comes to pass, to have a relationship that shows there is nothing inherently redemptive or even positive about biological father and son relationships. Some fathers and sons despise each other; some bring nothing but harm to each other and those near them. The First Order as an organization benefits from the stormtrooper program, but one could argue that it costs all of the individuals involved in it far more than it gives them. Still, it seems important to remember that this program has been perpetuated through a biological family connection, not just the lack of them. Which really leaves the future of the program uncertain. Who will take over when Armitage--who has no children and seems unlikely to ever have any--dies?

Not to complain, but there are easier things in the world than being a Hux fan but not a Kylo fan in this fandom. That said, I’m beginning to realize that my frustrations with the latter villain have been misplaced. The things that annoy me the most are not Kylo’s fault. As far as I can tell, he’s just being the best villain he knows how to be. And he’s doing pretty well! He’s making all the right decisions to further his career. You know, like Hux if he had been quicker on the draw. It’s not Kylo’s fault that so many persist in thinking he has the potential to be turned back to the light.

It’s also not Kylo’s fault that he gets to be the only villain in the (film) franchise who actually gets to be a messy, fucked-up person who does bad things.His claim to being that is as valid as anyone’s. The problem is that in the SW film canon, the moral division is so starkly black and white, and so reducible to the New Republic/First Order divide, that there is only room for one such morally complicated villain, and he’s not as complicated as he could be.

*I’m not trying to criticize fans of Star Wars here. I didn’t grow up with it and my lack of appreciation for certain aspects of it is probably owing to that. This is just a thing that has frustrated me.

If you take a look at canon in the wider sense that includes the novels, Hux and Kylo are more alike than they are different. They are both shaped by family legacies they did not choose, they’ve endured trauma and abuse, and they’re war criminals. They have a lot in common. The difference between them is, apparently, far more important and it is that while Hux is an unadulterated product of the Empire/First Order, Kylo was born into the New Republic. That he’s more conflicted than Hux is the result of the competing influences that have shaped him, but these competing influences have given him options that Hux has never had. Kylo gets two chances to abandon the FO and he unequivocally rejects both of them. Maybe that should tell us something? He may be conflicted internally, but his choices have been pretty consistent.

Meanwhile Hux, who the novel canon shows us has been taught to hate the Republic and weaponize his talents against it his whole life by everyone he’s encountered, gets held morally and personally responsible for his actions in a way that Kylo never is. We’re meant to despise him so much that treatment which would be horrifying happening to anyone else is hilarious when it happens to him. And his backstory is so completely erased from the films that Snoke might as well have grown him in a lab.

Kylo’s agency and Hux’s lack thereof have been treated as equally meaningless. To be fair, Hux’s encounters with the Resistance have been minimal and entirely restricted to situations where they are trying to destroy each other. It would be unreasonable to expect them to show him any clemency. But it should be unreasonable to expect Kylo Ren to reject the identity he has constructed for himself just because he can, and yet Han Solo and Rey have just this expectation. That he’s offered apparently consequence-free forgiveness on two separate occasions is troubling enough regardless of the fact that he chooses not to accept it. The innocent people he has killed are just as dead as the inhabitants of the Hosnian system, but he could just walk away if he wanted to? Alright.

Treating one villain as deserving of no more compassion than an organization he never chose to be part of will never be satisfying to me, but neither will erasing all the bad decisions another has made in the event that he finally makes the right one in the end. Honestly, Hux and Kylo both deserve better, but probably the only place either is going to get it is in fanfiction.