and on another subject, but related to queer fetishization

[rm]

http://ausiellofiles.ew.com/2009/07/backlash-shmacklash-thats-torchwood-creator-russell-t-davies-reaction-to-the-outcry-over-the-death-of-gareth-david-lloyds.html#

I know many people in fandom are pissed about this interview.

But you know what? I fucking love it, because what I do think he's taking aim at in the thing about "go watch Supernatural" and the paragraph that follows on from there, I think he's talking about the fetishizaton of gay characters by parts of the audience and some of the nasty pop-psychology out there from people who really haven't walked even an inch in anyone's big gay shoes. Now sure, those people aren't all of fandom, and no one likes to be lumped in with clueless people they really disagree with, but so it goes.

For me, it's hat tip to RTD time. I don't always agree with his writing choices or his thoughts on writing, but I largely loved CoE, and am writing both Ianto is dead and Ianto isn't dead stuff, and think his remarks on this theme are right fucking on.

(and for the record, I don't think Ianto was fridged either. Jack's ongoing lovers are going to die, and, while he works for Torchwood, probably young and violently. If we expect to see omnisexual Jack having relationships with men, we have to expect those men to meet nasty ends in service to the dilemma of Jack's existence).

(and for the additional record, we can disagree and respect each other, because this is, among other things, about how we care about stories, and that's fucking lovely)

Comments

[starstealingirl.livejournal.com]

I understand your perspective, and partially agree. But I still stand by my ambivalence.

I think a lot of it has to do with my feeling that RTD mistakenly thinks people watch Torchwood for the "hard storytelling." I agree that the storytelling got better during CoE; however, had storytelling been the main draw of the show, I'd never have come back to it after the first series. (I think we can all agree that, while the storytelling got better over time, a lot of it left much to be desired.) I watched because there were some compelling characters-- particularly Ianto-- and because the actors did a hell of a job even with the frequently lackluster storytelling. Sacrificing characters to plot does not, from my perspective, seem like a worthy sacrifice.

So a lot of my frustration with him, and with this death, has to do with my impression that he's not fully aware what makes this show tick. And because I always resent it when the author of a show tells me how I should interpret the decisions he or she makes with the plot. I think that a) I have some fairly legitimate, non-fetishizing reasons for not agreeing with his decisions, and b) more importantly, as an author of any piece of popular culture, you have to know and accept that your fans will produce interpretations of your work that are widely different from your own. And his reduction of all fan anger toward his decisions in CoE to this one issue of fetishizing boys kissing strikes me as reductive, dismissive, and arrogant.

Sorry. TL;DR. One of these days I'll learn to be concise. Today is evidently not that day. =)

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

Hey, I do not grudge you your ambivalence; I get where it's coming from. I have my own reasons for agreeing with his decisions (Ianto was all about trying to get Jack to be the 'better person' that Ianto needed him to be, and Jack was willing to go along with that mostly because he was getting sick of being the morally ambivalent guy who was little better than Captain John, and he'd have never done what he did in Day 5 if Ianto was still alive because he never wanted Ianto to think less of him and even if Jack had never seen Ianto again, Ianto would know...) but I can see where others differ. Still don't think Davies was addressing them, but again, it's all in how you read it and you're within your rights to feel bad about it. I think it was just poor phrasing and a touch of arrogance and defensiveness on Davies' part.

[starstealingirl.livejournal.com]

Hey, I do not grudge you your ambivalence; I get where it's coming from.

I hope my previous comment didn't come across as me feeling defensive. If it did, it was inadvertent. I'm not defensive; I actually find this to be an interesting conversation. I hope you don't mind me continuing it. =)

I'm not certain I agree that Jack would have never done what he did in Day 5 had Ianto not died. As snaxcident hilariously but accurately pointed out, abandoning and/or killing children is kind of Jack's schtick. We've known him to sacrifice children (er, I mean, "let them live with the fairies") before, and we've known him to sacrifice some people in order to serve the greater good.

Ianto knows this too-- he had firsthand experience with it when Jack killed his girlfriend. And of all the people on the Torchwood team, he seemed to be the one that was most willing to stand by Jack's decisions, even when they seemed morally ambiguous or downright deplorable. He certainly pushed Jack to be a "better person," but he also seemed to accept that sometimes that forced him to make difficult decisions, and put a lot of emotional investment into wanting to believe that all Jack's decisions were for the greater good. He doesn't at all seem surprised when it's revealed that Jack gave 12 children to the 456 (I don't see how anyone who knows the show could possibly have found that shocking), and appears only to be upset that Jack the emotional burden of that past with him.

I don't think I really buy that sacrificing his own grandson would be any different than any other of the moral dilemmas he's faced-- to Ianto, or to Jack himself. So the idea (on RTD's part, not on yours) that Ianto might have to die in order for Jack to make that decision strikes me as yet another of the plot inconsistencies that plagues the show. It's not as blatant an inconsistency as "Torchwood, the top-secret organization that engraves their top-secret name on their big honking SUV"-- but it's not as endearing an inconsistency, either. =)

[thessalian.livejournal.com]

It didn't come across like defensive really, but I've missed the cues before and it's always hard to judge emotional gradient via text so I thought I'd make sure.

In terms of Ianto, I think I sort of agree and disagree at the same time. On the one hand, while Ianto has seen what Jack does, his moral ambiguity and his decisions made for the greater good that could be viewed as 'wrong', and he seems to accept it, there's a bit of a double standard there. On the one hand, Ianto seems to be mostly just upset that Jack won't share that burden. On the other hand, there was his reaction both when he found out about the 1965 children and on Floor 13 that kind of belies all the stuff Ianto is supposedly able to accept and forgive because of having forgiven him for Lisa.

When Ianto found out about Jack's giving up the 1965 children and Jack asked what he should have done, Ianto said, with no hesitation, "Stand up to them. The Jack I know would have stood up to them." He seemed to accept that Jack likely hadn't told Ianto everything (or indeed much of anything) but things people don't want to believe don't get through very well or very easily. Ianto has an image of Jack as 'hero' that not even the murder of his girlfriend by pteranodon, the giving up of a child to the 'fairies' and the lock-up of his own brother could erase. Therefore, I don't think he would have been okay with Jack murdering his own flesh and blood, as that crosses a line that even the issues with Grey never crossed. Ianto might have forgiven Jack, but it would have taken time. That was reinforced when, whereas Jack quoted philosophy and talked about the strength of the human race (of which he really isn't one), Ianto just said, point blank, "We are not giving you one single, solitary child". That drew the line very clearly.

Keep in mind that this is all my opinion, but you're right about one thing; the ending could have been left as was and not killed Ianto. If my theory of that action not being something that Ianto could accept (at least not without a long time to come to terms) holds water, Ianto could have given Jack the same look that Alice did at the end. That would have still driven Jack away, and if the meet-up six months later as epilogue had still happened, Ianto not showing up might have still driven Jack off somewhere. Because I seriously think it would have taken more than six months for Ianto, so newly sharing with his family, to get over Jack killing his own grandson. But that's just me.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I'm largely in agreement. My issue with much of Season 2 and with CoE (which I have not watched, because of this) is not Ianto's death as much as with the continual tone of grim & nihilistic hopelessness. One of the key features of RTD's Whoverse seems to be that The Doctor is a godlike figure who can solve any problem, and when he's not present, the only solutions are inherently horrible and everyone involved must suffer.

In addition to finding Jack to be a wonderful character, I was initially attracted to Torchwood as a more adult version of Dr. Who. It now seems that to RTD, "more adult" invariably means utterly nihilistic, and I avoid nihilistic media, and am thus done with Torchwood until he is no longer in charge.

Sacrificing characters to plot does not, from my perspective, seem like a worthy sacrifice.

Also this - I completely agree.