Дайри умерли, а я ещё нет.
Видела сегодня на редкость адекватный гендерный тред, честно тащу оттуда интересные мысли)))
Много цитат на английском с моими комментариями1. His female characters seem to go from 'attraction' straight to 'one night stand' or 'hopelessly in love' without ever travelling between those states. His male characters develop, but his female characters just switch from one state to another.
...before I consider it "sexist" in the sense of treating men and women differently in his writing, I'd have to think of examples where he actually portrays a convincing process of even a man coming to desire or fall in love with a woman.
As you say, his male characters "develop", but do they do so in the way you have in mind? I'm not sure. Seems to me perhaps Moffat doesn't think deeply enough about or know how to write such a process of "traveling between those states", as you say, no matter the gender of the characters. But if we could see that he at least tries it with the male characters and not the female ones, we'd have more of a case for a kind of "sexism".
Некоторые проблемы Моффата с характеризацией не зависят от пола персонажей.
2. Про Ирэн.
The Woman originally had no bad intent and outwitted Sherlock Holmes and acted of her own agency. Moffat's version of the Woman is in the service of Moriarty, is undone by her emotions, loses to Sherlock and needs to be rescued by him.
Similarly, you can say these things, but you literally have to ignore more than half the content of the text. The actual events of the short story -- the compromising photograph -- Adler outright wins, just as before. She also unambiguously wins the second round -- in which Sherlock is undone by his emotions (unlike in the original story in which Adler has no power over him other than her ability to get the hell outta Dodge when the game's up). She then loses the third... but the story still ends with her winning her ultimate goal. She's got her freedom and safety -- and Holmes' aid comes at the price of his supreme detachment.
Irene:
has no bad intentions: in fact, her intentions are less wicked than the originals, as her photos are for insurance, not to prevent someone else's marriage;
is not in the service of Moriarty: in fact, it's the reverse; she is his client;
does beat Sherlock - at least in the first round! He fails to get the photos, and she escapes. This is not greatly different to the original story, with the exception that she and her husband flee "so formidable an antagonist";
and far from being undone by her emotions, discovers that they are, after all, reciprocated
She beats him twice, actually. First she gets him to solve the code for her (which destroys years of Mycroft's hard work and effectively beats Mycroft at the same time) and then she beats him again by getting out of him exactly what she wanted from the beginning: protection. She ends up getting the ultimate protection, too, because now nobody except for the two of them know she's alive and the secret is so secure that even Mycroft fully believes her to be dead. The only thing she doesn't get is to have Mycroft and the royal family pay her off. It's an incorrect conclusion that she draws, which shows another parallel with Sherlock, who also makes two incorrect conclusions in the episode: 1) about Molly's gift and 2) that emotions are a "disadvantage" (because, in fact, the emotions felt between Sherlock and Irene did provide her with the ultimate advantage - getting Sherlock to come save her - thusly giving Irene her ultimate achievement of protection).
В оригинале Ирэн не имела преступных намерений, действовала в своих интересах и перехитрила Холмса. У Моффата она вроде бы работает на Мориарти, и даже проигрывает и нуждается в спасении. Но в контексте эпизода Ирэн дважды обыгрывает Шерлока, проигрывает в третьем раунде, но в итоге всё равно получает то, к чему стремилась, - защиту. Кроме того, современная Ирэн никого не шантажирует, и это было бы очком в её пользу, если бы она не помогала террористам. Однако она определённо не работает на Мориарти, а использует предоставленную им информацию в своих целях.
It should not be too hard to understand why feminists were cheesed off by this, when the 1891 version of the story is more feminist.
The 1891 version of the story ends with Irene fleeing the country out of fear of Holmes, getting married off and becoming a respectable woman, and giving up her blackmailing ways -- thus still settling down and gaining her protection from a man. The 2011 version ends with Irene as a complete free agent, having faked her own death with the help of the man who was supposed to be thwarting her. Perhaps more to the point, the original Irene Adler is painted as a classic vengeful ex-girlfriend; her entire motive for ruining the Crown Prince is that he's going to marry another woman, so she's going all Fatal Attraction on him... until she finds a better man in the form of Godfrey Norton, and gives all that up. So, not really the feminist statement it's being painted as.
Moff's Adler, in the end, still had to be guided and saved by the men, whether they were Moriarty or Holmes.
And Doyle's Adler was saved by marrying Godfrey Norton and getting the hell outta Dodge.
She never actually takes on Holmes at his own game, the way the modern Adler does; all she does is -- having been warned that the Crown Prince is going to send Holmes after her, if he sends anyone -- spot his disguise, realise she's stuffed up, immediately decide she's outclassed by "so formidable an antagonist", then flee the country with her new hubby and abandon her plan.
It's possible to have issues with Moffat's handling of Irene Adler, but it's not possible to turn the original Irene into a feminist statement. You simply can't make a claim that she didn't need a man; it's explicitly the fact that she's now got a good man that causes her to decide to drop her blackmail revenge plot. In the end she's way more explicitly under the aegis of a respectable man than the new one ever is.
С одной стороны, версия 1891 года более феминистская, чем версия 2011 года. Однако в оригинальной истории Ирэн так же получает защиту от мужчины, выйдя за него замуж и отказавшись от всего остального, в сериале же она получает не только защиту, но и свободу. Кроме того, в оригинале ей двигала обида и желание отомстить брошенной женщины, что тоже не совсем вписывается в современные представления о феминизме. Кроме того, если задуматься, она, возможно, обыграла Холмса не на его поле.
I just finished watching it, and I have to agree that this interpretation completely missed the point of why Holmes respected and admired Adler.
Акценты в "Скандале" всё же сместились с того, за что Холмс уважал Ирэн в оригинале. Хотя до конца разобраться в этом пока сложно. Возможно, спустя какое-то время понять будет проще.
Там дальше ещё интересно про моффатовских женщин и сексуальность в сценариях Моффата, так что продолжение следует...
Апд. Пусть здесь будет ещё гендерно-феминистское из разных тредов, что ли...
читать дальше3. ДК
Про спутниц и зависимость от Доктора.
In New Who the Doctor's Companions tend to defined their lives by the Doctor, by their relationship with him. Rose was "just a shop girl" Donna was "just a temp." Martha I'll give you, but they did make it a big part of her characterization that she was upset because she didn't "mean more to him."
Rose even flatly said, "I've traveled with him, and I've seen all that stuff but when I'm stuck at home, I'm useless." Even Donna keeps talking about how she's "just a temp" as if it means she's nothing. And finds her "fulfillment" in traveling with the Doctor.
Both of them decide they're going to "stay with him forever" because "he gives their life meaning" when they, at home, by themselves, as themselves, "are nothing."
But Doctor Who being Doctor Who, there's not tons of way to show off that strength. Did Rose or Martha ever have a single conversation after meeting the Doctor which wasn't about the Doctor or the plot at hand? Rose fought with her mother and MIckey all the time, but always about the Doctor. She was in his orbit every bit as much as any of Moffat's creations.
Много цитат на английском с моими комментариями1. His female characters seem to go from 'attraction' straight to 'one night stand' or 'hopelessly in love' without ever travelling between those states. His male characters develop, but his female characters just switch from one state to another.
...before I consider it "sexist" in the sense of treating men and women differently in his writing, I'd have to think of examples where he actually portrays a convincing process of even a man coming to desire or fall in love with a woman.
As you say, his male characters "develop", but do they do so in the way you have in mind? I'm not sure. Seems to me perhaps Moffat doesn't think deeply enough about or know how to write such a process of "traveling between those states", as you say, no matter the gender of the characters. But if we could see that he at least tries it with the male characters and not the female ones, we'd have more of a case for a kind of "sexism".
Некоторые проблемы Моффата с характеризацией не зависят от пола персонажей.
2. Про Ирэн.
The Woman originally had no bad intent and outwitted Sherlock Holmes and acted of her own agency. Moffat's version of the Woman is in the service of Moriarty, is undone by her emotions, loses to Sherlock and needs to be rescued by him.
Similarly, you can say these things, but you literally have to ignore more than half the content of the text. The actual events of the short story -- the compromising photograph -- Adler outright wins, just as before. She also unambiguously wins the second round -- in which Sherlock is undone by his emotions (unlike in the original story in which Adler has no power over him other than her ability to get the hell outta Dodge when the game's up). She then loses the third... but the story still ends with her winning her ultimate goal. She's got her freedom and safety -- and Holmes' aid comes at the price of his supreme detachment.
Irene:
has no bad intentions: in fact, her intentions are less wicked than the originals, as her photos are for insurance, not to prevent someone else's marriage;
is not in the service of Moriarty: in fact, it's the reverse; she is his client;
does beat Sherlock - at least in the first round! He fails to get the photos, and she escapes. This is not greatly different to the original story, with the exception that she and her husband flee "so formidable an antagonist";
and far from being undone by her emotions, discovers that they are, after all, reciprocated
She beats him twice, actually. First she gets him to solve the code for her (which destroys years of Mycroft's hard work and effectively beats Mycroft at the same time) and then she beats him again by getting out of him exactly what she wanted from the beginning: protection. She ends up getting the ultimate protection, too, because now nobody except for the two of them know she's alive and the secret is so secure that even Mycroft fully believes her to be dead. The only thing she doesn't get is to have Mycroft and the royal family pay her off. It's an incorrect conclusion that she draws, which shows another parallel with Sherlock, who also makes two incorrect conclusions in the episode: 1) about Molly's gift and 2) that emotions are a "disadvantage" (because, in fact, the emotions felt between Sherlock and Irene did provide her with the ultimate advantage - getting Sherlock to come save her - thusly giving Irene her ultimate achievement of protection).
В оригинале Ирэн не имела преступных намерений, действовала в своих интересах и перехитрила Холмса. У Моффата она вроде бы работает на Мориарти, и даже проигрывает и нуждается в спасении. Но в контексте эпизода Ирэн дважды обыгрывает Шерлока, проигрывает в третьем раунде, но в итоге всё равно получает то, к чему стремилась, - защиту. Кроме того, современная Ирэн никого не шантажирует, и это было бы очком в её пользу, если бы она не помогала террористам. Однако она определённо не работает на Мориарти, а использует предоставленную им информацию в своих целях.
It should not be too hard to understand why feminists were cheesed off by this, when the 1891 version of the story is more feminist.
The 1891 version of the story ends with Irene fleeing the country out of fear of Holmes, getting married off and becoming a respectable woman, and giving up her blackmailing ways -- thus still settling down and gaining her protection from a man. The 2011 version ends with Irene as a complete free agent, having faked her own death with the help of the man who was supposed to be thwarting her. Perhaps more to the point, the original Irene Adler is painted as a classic vengeful ex-girlfriend; her entire motive for ruining the Crown Prince is that he's going to marry another woman, so she's going all Fatal Attraction on him... until she finds a better man in the form of Godfrey Norton, and gives all that up. So, not really the feminist statement it's being painted as.
Moff's Adler, in the end, still had to be guided and saved by the men, whether they were Moriarty or Holmes.
And Doyle's Adler was saved by marrying Godfrey Norton and getting the hell outta Dodge.
She never actually takes on Holmes at his own game, the way the modern Adler does; all she does is -- having been warned that the Crown Prince is going to send Holmes after her, if he sends anyone -- spot his disguise, realise she's stuffed up, immediately decide she's outclassed by "so formidable an antagonist", then flee the country with her new hubby and abandon her plan.
It's possible to have issues with Moffat's handling of Irene Adler, but it's not possible to turn the original Irene into a feminist statement. You simply can't make a claim that she didn't need a man; it's explicitly the fact that she's now got a good man that causes her to decide to drop her blackmail revenge plot. In the end she's way more explicitly under the aegis of a respectable man than the new one ever is.
С одной стороны, версия 1891 года более феминистская, чем версия 2011 года. Однако в оригинальной истории Ирэн так же получает защиту от мужчины, выйдя за него замуж и отказавшись от всего остального, в сериале же она получает не только защиту, но и свободу. Кроме того, в оригинале ей двигала обида и желание отомстить брошенной женщины, что тоже не совсем вписывается в современные представления о феминизме. Кроме того, если задуматься, она, возможно, обыграла Холмса не на его поле.
I just finished watching it, and I have to agree that this interpretation completely missed the point of why Holmes respected and admired Adler.
Акценты в "Скандале" всё же сместились с того, за что Холмс уважал Ирэн в оригинале. Хотя до конца разобраться в этом пока сложно. Возможно, спустя какое-то время понять будет проще.
Там дальше ещё интересно про моффатовских женщин и сексуальность в сценариях Моффата, так что продолжение следует...
Апд. Пусть здесь будет ещё гендерно-феминистское из разных тредов, что ли...
читать дальше3. ДК
Про спутниц и зависимость от Доктора.
In New Who the Doctor's Companions tend to defined their lives by the Doctor, by their relationship with him. Rose was "just a shop girl" Donna was "just a temp." Martha I'll give you, but they did make it a big part of her characterization that she was upset because she didn't "mean more to him."
Rose even flatly said, "I've traveled with him, and I've seen all that stuff but when I'm stuck at home, I'm useless." Even Donna keeps talking about how she's "just a temp" as if it means she's nothing. And finds her "fulfillment" in traveling with the Doctor.
Both of them decide they're going to "stay with him forever" because "he gives their life meaning" when they, at home, by themselves, as themselves, "are nothing."
But Doctor Who being Doctor Who, there's not tons of way to show off that strength. Did Rose or Martha ever have a single conversation after meeting the Doctor which wasn't about the Doctor or the plot at hand? Rose fought with her mother and MIckey all the time, but always about the Doctor. She was in his orbit every bit as much as any of Moffat's creations.
@темы: Утащено, Sherlock, Сериалы, Doctor Who, Богородица, Дево, стань феминисткой, Meta