handful_ofdust (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
handful_ofdust) wrote2009-09-22 12:49 pm
handful_ofdust) wrote2009-09-22 12:49 pm
Salad, Anyone?
Hey, wow: Links. I almost never do this.
Jezebel, the feminist site, is jumping in and defending Jennifer’s Body against the rising of the haters-tide; you can find one of their better articles on the subject here (http://jezebel.com/5361877/6-reasons-to-love-jennifers-body). Elsewhere, meanwhile, PG Tremblay links to two similarly interesting posts on women in/and horror culture. I detect more than a soupcon of “but why would women [morally elevated as we naturally are] even care about this sort of crap, let alone participate?” in the subtext of Nadia Bulkin’s one about Entertainment Weekly being surprised female viewership is apparently up for modern horror movies, but it’s still at least neat to see somebody saying something. I commented--
I think Nadia has a point [in debunking EW’s claim that women crave empowerment through “the final girl”] when she talks about identification with the monster rather than the protagonist, citing the fact that in most of the films EW was surprised to note had relatively large female audiences, the monsters are explicitly identified as female (Samara, Kayako, Emily Rose-as-possessee). But then, if I'm not horribly misconstruing her, she seems to go on to wonder why women would be interested in "lashing out". To which I say: Why wouldn't we be? Most horror has a clear standard--there's the malign and powerful vs. the doomed and powerless. Only a masochist would identify with the latter group, not that I mean to insult masochists--and since women are used to being crammed en masse into that latter slot in almost every other social story, why would we choose to assume it during a narrative we (supposedly) control [as consumers]?
Also: Gorgeous goils from the Ziegfield Follies, 1910 to 1940s or so, here (http://community.livejournal.com/vintagephoto/4487196.html) and here (http://community.livejournal.com/vintagephoto/4485528.html). Take note: In the first bunch, the darkly handsome woman doing a Theda Bara pose with her chin on her palms is, amazingly enough, Fanny Brice.;)
In A Book of Tongues news, meanwhile, I’m finally done shuffling notes around for the rest of Chapter Fifteen section one, and am officially 927 words in. Things learned: Chess is surprisingly shitty at morning-after banter, especially when he’s feeling bad for cheating on Rook. More as this develops, hopefully.
Amended to add: Annnnd...apparently, people call the Liev version "Schreibertooth". Of course they do.;)
Jezebel, the feminist site, is jumping in and defending Jennifer’s Body against the rising of the haters-tide; you can find one of their better articles on the subject here (http://jezebel.com/5361877/6-reasons-to-love-jennifers-body). Elsewhere, meanwhile, PG Tremblay links to two similarly interesting posts on women in/and horror culture. I detect more than a soupcon of “but why would women [morally elevated as we naturally are] even care about this sort of crap, let alone participate?” in the subtext of Nadia Bulkin’s one about Entertainment Weekly being surprised female viewership is apparently up for modern horror movies, but it’s still at least neat to see somebody saying something. I commented--
I think Nadia has a point [in debunking EW’s claim that women crave empowerment through “the final girl”] when she talks about identification with the monster rather than the protagonist, citing the fact that in most of the films EW was surprised to note had relatively large female audiences, the monsters are explicitly identified as female (Samara, Kayako, Emily Rose-as-possessee). But then, if I'm not horribly misconstruing her, she seems to go on to wonder why women would be interested in "lashing out". To which I say: Why wouldn't we be? Most horror has a clear standard--there's the malign and powerful vs. the doomed and powerless. Only a masochist would identify with the latter group, not that I mean to insult masochists--and since women are used to being crammed en masse into that latter slot in almost every other social story, why would we choose to assume it during a narrative we (supposedly) control [as consumers]?
Also: Gorgeous goils from the Ziegfield Follies, 1910 to 1940s or so, here (http://community.livejournal.com/vintagephoto/4487196.html) and here (http://community.livejournal.com/vintagephoto/4485528.html). Take note: In the first bunch, the darkly handsome woman doing a Theda Bara pose with her chin on her palms is, amazingly enough, Fanny Brice.;)
In A Book of Tongues news, meanwhile, I’m finally done shuffling notes around for the rest of Chapter Fifteen section one, and am officially 927 words in. Things learned: Chess is surprisingly shitty at morning-after banter, especially when he’s feeling bad for cheating on Rook. More as this develops, hopefully.
Amended to add: Annnnd...apparently, people call the Liev version "Schreibertooth". Of course they do.;)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject