Margaret Atwood

[MummBRaaarrrTheEverLeaking]

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1450429768067846145?t=8q-A8MlvzZsx6pt4Vu1_LA&s=19

Has retweeted an article from the Toronto Star "why can't we say woman anymore" and bloody hell are they coming for the latest witch burning in the comments!

Ranging from disappointment to the usual sweary abuse. I thought oh how long till the capitulation begins, turns out I didn't have to wait long!

She's following it up with retweets about 'we can say people when it's accurate and inclusive' and then defending the article because the writer isn't "a terf"???

Not really sure what she's trying to achieve here, anyone?

Is the misogyny why they are getting rid of the handmaids tale?….thats stupid, I don’t get it

Unless it really is just because Atwood wrote it, I really can't see what else could be meant by this sentence:

"Other books recently removed from Canadian school libraries and/or curriculums in response to complaints about racist, homophobic, or misogynistic language and themes, include Harper Lee's To Kill A Mockingbird and Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid’s Tale."

The whole thing is so completely anti-liberal and bizarre

The problem seems to be that they don't want, or don't seem to believe the audience can cope with, any complexities in the characters. It's not possible to have a sympathetic character that has views other than what are currently trendy, no matter how ridiculous.

The good guys are only allowed to be good, they can't be nuanced or complex. Unfortunately I think that is then felt IRL, you can't agree on some things and disagree on others, or understand that someone can be largely a good person but sometimes get things wrong. If anyone puts a foot wrong, even if they are normally saint like, they must be written off as a lost cause.

Oh god. I actually wrote out my very similar thoughts on Netflix' Bridgerton series on this thread yesterday but deleted it in case I sounded racist. But I couldn't help but watch it and feel that it was deceptive in a way that would lead to way too many people unaware of how ludicrous a fiction it was. That while I understand how great it can be for actors to get cast in these roles, that ultimately this huge pretence that the racism of the past hadn't happened, that we do a massive disservice to the people who suffered it and the people who across generations fought to change it. We lose so much understanding of some of the worst and best that people are capable of. It would be fine if everyone truly understood that it's a complete fantasy, that the past wasn't like that. But we know that's not how it works. For huge swathes of the population, this shit is their main exposure to "history." And they are left with an utterly distorted picture of the past.

Bridgerton was weird! I thought it was just colour blind casting at first, but no, racism was just ... over!

I don’t mind so much with Bridgerton because it never claimed to be a real representation of English history- it openly takes place in a fantasy space which was reflected in the overall style and costumes.

I know it didn't claim to be historically accurate - but the vague reference to "now that the Queen is not white, racism is over and everyone's happy" made it very hard to suspend disbelief!

Can I say I felt the same way about Hamilton?
When it was available online, because of COVID and lockdown, I started watching it but found it difficult to cope with, largely because I didn't deal well with the style of music/rap, but also because I kept thinking that it wouldn't have been that way.

I have absolutely no issue with actors being actors and playing parts - but when it's meant to be a representation of history then it's difficult to suspend disbelief if suddenly racism wasn't a thing, and, as has been said here, homophobia wasn't a thing. It was!

Thinking about this the same is true of the Ryan Murphy Hollywood series, where racism and homophobia in the film industry was all solved in the 40s by one amazing movie that sweeps the Oscars. The black female lead, the Asian female support, the mixed race Asian/white writer and the black, openly gay boyfriend of Rock Hudson all win Oscars. With him and Rock attending together as lovers. I will admit I was caught up enough watching it that I genuinely cried a little watching those scenes.

But I also feel they were a massive disservice in a big way, to the men and women who really did break those barriers decades later. And they lead to a very, very false impression of what life was like between then and now.

You can argue that Hollywood is pure wish fulfilment, Bridgerton a fantasy, Hamilton (which I haven't seen) a modern allegory of immigration. But you put them all together in a society increasingly incapable of critical thinking and existing in bubbles of likemindedness and it's all just a big ingredient in a recipe for disaster. Even the removal of the racist elements of the people behind the Republic of Gilead from the book when making the tv series. Like sure, the Commanders are evil misogynistic, homophobes but also racially colourblind.

@MedusasBadHairDay

The problem seems to be that they don't want, or don't seem to believe the audience can cope with, any complexities in the characters. It's not possible to have a sympathetic character that has views other than what are currently trendy, no matter how ridiculous.

The good guys are only allowed to be good, they can't be nuanced or complex. Unfortunately I think that is then felt IRL, you can't agree on some things and disagree on others, or understand that someone can be largely a good person but sometimes get things wrong. If anyone puts a foot wrong, even if they are normally saint like, they must be written off as a lost cause.

Interesting. This seems to take us back to fairy tales, where you have such simple characters - the princess in need of rescue, the prince who is her rescuing hero, and the Wicked Witch or Evil Wizard. No nuance, despite Disney's best efforts in recent years to make the princesses able to rescue themselves more, and the "wickedness" to be due to past trauma or being misunderstood.

Nuance is being erased again.

No nuance, despite Disney's best efforts in recent years to make the princesses able to rescue themselves more

I think, ironically, such recent Disney tropes may also be part of the problem. So much about "identity", and people not fitting into the world, ending up with rather narcissistic protagonists.

Relevant YouTube commentary, linked to relevant section:

Yes I'm think Titania really nailed the reason for banning the Handmaid's Tale. A book portraying the oppression if women because of their reproductive role is" literal violence " as it implies both thst sex is important when discussing women's oppression and that only women give birth.

I'm?

@334bu

Yes I'm think Titania really nailed the reason for banning the Handmaid's Tale. A book portraying the oppression if women because of their reproductive role is" literal violence " as it implies both thst sex is important when discussing women's oppression and that only women give birth.

Yes, they want to create more fools like Sarkar and Jamil who think women are oppressed because of their femininity/'gender identity', rather than the TRUTH that it is their biology.

Interesting link, @NecessaryScene, thank you!

Not sure I entirely agree with all his points, not least the bit about women (not stated explicitly but is implicit) just getting on with things and making the best of whatever situation they find themselves in - that's what got us into this hole in the first place!

Bridgerton is a fantasy set in an alternate historical reality, much like Game of Thrones is.
Its not meant to be a documentary, and to take issue with the casting of black actors is like objecting to a Shakespeare play performed in modern dress, or set against a backdrop of WW2, or any of the other ways artistic licence has been used to stage Shakespeare plays. Which the chattering classes don't tend to do, do they? Wouldn't it be considered a bit provincial to complain the the characters were not in doublets and hose..?
Plus, Bridgerton is a rare and fabulous opportunity for black actresses to wear beautiful period costume, so more of that I say.

Bridgerton is a fantasy set in an alternate historical reality, much like Game of Thrones is.

Sorry but that is utter bollocks. I'll admit I watched it over Christmas when I was visiting family and mainly concerned with getting home due to rising Covid numbers. But I don't think I was distracted enough to miss the magic spells and dragons. It's in no way a fantasy or alternative universe. It's the televised version of Julia Quinn's book series set in Regency England. And they aren't remotely comparable to Shakespeare. They are long form Mills and Boon.

I do fully appreciate how satisfying an opportunity it would be for an actor to whom this kind of role isn't normally available. But compared to Harlots, a period drama which managed to have a racially diverse cast while also having at degree more realism of the realities for people of different races, minority sexualities, the exploitation of women and children in the sex industry and how trapped even the wealthy women were. Harlots isn't even a great series, imo, but it did manage to be inclusive without needing really, nonsensical fanwanking about it being a magical (but magic free) alternative universe.

It’s not Game of Thrones but it also doesn’t aim at the same level of realism as Harlots. You can call it fanwanking if you like but you would be miles out, I didn’t like it for precisely the reason that I like my historical tv drama to be making at least an attempt to recreate the past plausibly and it didn’t even pretend to be doing that.

No Bridgerton doesn’t have dragons.
Are you really that literal?
I mean, if you don’t like it don’t watch it but it’s just a series inspired by a set of novels, it’s an interpretation not factual. I don’t have any idea what fanwanking is but I do know that roles for black peoples don’t always have to be slaves or maids or be utterly faithful to historical accuracy. Most dramas set in the past near very little resemblance to reality! Not sure why it would make anyone seemingly so angry tbh.

@Andante57

This presumption that the present's notion of "right" and "wrong" is better than the past one. Or some potential future one

Indeed. I sometimes wonder what will be the cancellable offences in 50 years time.
I guess it will be something none of can predict - I mean who imagined 20 years ago that people could lose their jobs for saying only women can have children or whatever.

I cannot answer that, but I got a mini pile on the other day from vegans lecturing me about saying meat was tasty.

I was a vegetarian for 23 years so I responded by saying I was content with my decisions to eat meat again and I smiled as I made my case and they became more irrate that I would not capitulate.

So it is still fairly easy to stand up for my right to eat meat but in five years time? Who knows!?

The good guys are only allowed to be good, they can't be nuanced or complex. Unfortunately I think that is then felt IRL, you can't agree on some things and disagree on others, or understand that someone can be largely a good person but sometimes get things wrong. If anyone puts a foot wrong, even if they are normally saint like, they must be written off as a lost cause.

How do young people deal with this for their own placing in the world? By curating a flawless image on social media while knowing that it's fake and knowing that they themselves are failing to meet these impossible standards and thus are failures. Leading to a dissociation of personality and mental ill health.

This seems to take us back to fairy tales, where you have such simple characters - the princess in need of rescue, the prince who is her rescuing hero, and the Wicked Witch or Evil Wizard. No nuance, despite Disney's best efforts in recent years to make the princesses able to rescue themselves more, and the "wickedness" to be due to past trauma or being misunderstood.

Is this about Disney fairy tales rather the ancient ones based on folklore? The latter are about giving children a (n ironically) safe space in which they can reflect on the good and bad within all people and within themselves and that the world can be arbitrary and cruel. They're a preparation for growing up into a world which might not actually be nice and kind.

@nauticant

This seems to take us back to fairy tales, where you have such simple characters - the princess in need of rescue, the prince who is her rescuing hero, and the Wicked Witch or Evil Wizard. No nuance, despite Disney's best efforts in recent years to make the princesses able to rescue themselves more, and the "wickedness" to be due to past trauma or being misunderstood.

Is this about Disney fairy tales rather the ancient ones based on folklore? The latter are about giving children a (n ironically) safe space in which they can reflect on the good and bad within all people and within themselves and that the world can be arbitrary and cruel. They're a preparation for growing up into a world which might not actually be nice and kind.

Yes! I keep saying this!

Totally agree about historical fiction which portrays all the "good guys" as having modern values of tolerance and liberalism. I stopped watching Anne with an E when it just stoppes making any sense at all as being set in any kind of reality rather than an alternative history fantasy.

I think that's different from eg Hamilton where it's not so much about pretending that historical figures were actually black but casting the roles to actors without reference to whether the actor's skin tone matches the skin tone of the historical character any more than the casting decisions would expect to ensure the character's hair or eye colour was was correctly matched by the actor. That seems like a good thing.

I continually boggle at the fact that any study of literature, along with other social science disciplines, doesn't have a compulsory module about the origins and meanings of fairy tales RepentMotherfucker.

@SinoohXaenaHide

Totally agree about historical fiction which portrays all the "good guys" as having modern values of tolerance and liberalism. I stopped watching Anne with an E when it just stoppes making any sense at all as being set in any kind of reality rather than an alternative history fantasy.

I think that's different from eg Hamilton where it's not so much about pretending that historical figures were actually black but casting the roles to actors without reference to whether the actor's skin tone matches the skin tone of the historical character any more than the casting decisions would expect to ensure the character's hair or eye colour was was correctly matched by the actor. That seems like a good thing.

I agree.

Bridgerton is just a romp and can romp about in all departments including costume and casting.

Shakespeare is most often cast adrift from the Renaissance anyway and is probably just a special case tbh.

It's when it's supposed to be WW2 and all the good characters are like, 'oh you're gay? And this is your north African lover? How cool. But hide from the Nazis because they are totally racist and homophobic. I heard the Commandant once called someone a homophobic slur in an SS interrogation.'