there is something where. hm. like yes, tim can be condescending towards steph, he was written by dixon, it's inevitable. but also since, for a very long time, he was the only one supporting steph's decision to be a vigilante & the only one giving her any sort of attempt at formal training, tim is also the one who tends to get held accountable for her by the adults in their lives when she does mess up, or acts reckless, or makes a mistake. because the fault is considered to lie with his failure to teach her properly, so even if it shouldn't be tim's fault, because it's the fault of all the adults who are refusing to take any sort of responsibility, her behavior does end up reflecting on tim.
so you end up with this thing where to steph: her and tim are equals in a relationship. they are similar aged vigilates & the disparity in their training and experience isn't that important. because she's trying and working really hard & her methods do end up getting the result she desires/end up working in some way, shape, or form, so she's doing good enough to be on equal footing with tim wrt this whole vigilante thing. after all, they're both kids! there's no real difference between them except tim gets a little more training than her. and she's not wrong in that if an adult were to actually officially sanction her & train her she would be on more equal footing with tim as far as they're just two kids who are choosing to be vigilantes.
where to tim he's operating with the knowledge that that their relationship is one thing, but their jobs as vigilantes is a completely separate thing. and them being equal vigilantes is really not considered the case to any other active gotham vigilante. experiencewise, before steph even showed up on the scene, tim had had at least his six months of dedicated training with batman & occasional training with nightwing. he had also had his weeks of dedicated daily training in paris with the rahul lama & then his speed training with lady shiva. he does have probably close to at least 8-9 months of training and experience and working as robin on steph at her first appearance. he's also at a point where he is considered by the adults around him to be trained & skilled enough to be able to train jean-paul valley at that point. this disparity only worsens during the time before they start dating where tim finishes his training in paris with the rahul lama along with getting even more ongoing specialized training from batman & nightwing and steph...continues to be self taught. so the adults around them have expectations for tim that they don't necessarily have for steph, and since tim is the one training her & the expectations for tim at this point are that he's an autonomous, skilled vigilante in his own right (and has been since he was left in charge of azbats), if steph does mess up & tim is the one choosing to sanction & train her, then her mistakes & recklessness becomes tim's fault for not training her properly. although in a perfect world, she wouldn't be his responsibility in this way, that's just how everyone (batman, nightwing, the birds of prey) views it. & like. as someone who takes students at her job. it's not entirely wrong that while a mistake made by a student is on the student & it's also very much considered ultimately the fault of the instructor for failing to recognize that the student wasn't ready or skilled enough for something that they made a mistake, because as the more experienced professional, it's on you to recognize the limitations of the student & supervise/guide them accordingly. which tim is in the position of everyone feeling that steph is his responsibility to manage, because he's often the only one who thinks she should be given a chance & is trying to give her a chance.
it's an inherent power imbalance, formed the the fact that tim is the only one willing to instruct her for a long time, sanctioned & reinforced by the adults around them.
476 notes
·
View notes
Even if a creator is a bad person it's still okay to like their work. People need to mind their own business.
Honestly it's not really that sort of situation. I'll actively defend Steven Moffat here.
There was a huge hate movement for him back in the early 2010s - which, in retrospect, formed largely because he was running 2 of the superwholock shows at once, one of which went through extremely long hiatuses* and the other of which was functionally an adaptation of an already well regarded show**, making him subject to a sort of double ire in the eyes of a lot of fandom people. Notably, his co-showrunner, Mark Gatiss, is rarely mentioned and much of his work is still attributed to Moffat (and yes, this includes that Hbomberguy video. Several of "Steven Moffat's bad writing choices" were not actually written by him, they were Gatiss.)
People caricatured the dude into a sort of malicious, arrogant figure who hated women and was deliberately mismanaging these shows to spite fans, to the point where people who never watched them believe this via cultural osmosis. It became very common to take quotes from him out of context to make them look bad***, to cite him as an example of a showrunner who hated his fans, someone who sabotaged his own work just to get at said fans, someone who was too arrogant to take criticism, despite all of this being basically a collective "headcanon" formed on tumblr. Some if it got especially terrible, like lying about sexual assault (I don't mean people accused him of sexual assault and I think they're making it up, I mean people would say things like "many of his actresses have accused him of sexual assault on set" when no such accusations exist in the first place. This gets passed around en masse and is, in my opinion, absolutely rancid.)
On top of that a ton of the criticism directed at the shows themselves is, personally, just terrible media criticism. So much of it came from assuming a very hostile intent from the writer and just refusing to engage with the text at all past that.
Like some really common threads you see with critique of this writer's work, especially in regards to Doctor Who since that's the one I'm most familiar with:
A general belief that his lead characters were meant to be ever perfect self inserts, and so therefore when they act shitty or arrogant or flawed in any way, that's both reflective of the author and meant to be viewed as positive or aspirational.
An overarching thesis that his characters are "too important" in the narrative due to the writer's arrogance and self obsession
A lot of focus on the writer personally "attacking" the fans or making choices primarily out of spite.
A tendency to treat the show being different to what it's adapting as inherently bad and hostile towards the original
Just generally very little consideration of the themes, intent, etc.
This one's a little more nebulous and doesn't apply to all critique but a lot of it, especially recently, is clearly by people who haven't seen the show in like 10 years and their opinion is largely formed secondhand through like, "discourse nostalgia". Which. you know. bad.
I think these are just weird and nonsensical ways to engage with a work of fiction. I also think it's really sad to see the show boiled down to this because that era of who is, in my opinion, very thematically rich and unique among similar shows, and I hate that it's often dismissed in such a paltry way.
This isn't to say people aren't allowed to critique Steven Moffat or anything, but the context in which he basically became The Devil™ to a large portion of fandom and is still remembered in a poor light is very tied to this perfect storm of fan culture and I just don't agree with a ton of it.
* I'm sure most people have seen the way long running shows and hiatuses will cause people to fall out with a show, with some former fans turning around and joining a sort of "anti fandom" for it while it's still airing. That happened with both these shows.
** Doctor Who will change it's entire writing staff, crew, and cast every few years, and with that comes a change in style, tone, theme - the old show basically ends and is replaced by a new show under the same title. As Steven Moffat's era was the first of these handovers for the majority of audiences, you can imagine this wasn't a well loved move for many fans.
*** I know for a fact most people have not sought out the sources for a lot of these quotes to check that they read the same in context because 1) most of them were deleted years ago and are very difficult to find now and 2) many of them do actually make sense in the context of their respective interviews
300 notes
·
View notes
I don't think No True Scotsman-ing feminism is helpful but there are a lot of people (esp, in my experience, middle class cishet white women, but not exclusively) whose entire feminist education is pop feminism, & they tend to have a very shallow view of feminism & its politics while thinking they are better educated than they are. and they also have very badly made arguments that physically hurt me to hear made even if I agree with the point they are trying to make.
& tbh I think this is part of how radical feminism gets so popular especially amongst the aforementioned group. because radical feminism, for all it's flaws, DOES promise to make feminism a radically left movement again, purposefully ties itself to historical Marxist feminist theory. & if you are tired of lukewarm liberal pop feminism & want something with teeth, that's really enticing. and if you are a cis woman, especially a white one, it's very easy to let that desire for something with teeth & unexamined transphobia/cissexism guide you into Being An Asshole
231 notes
·
View notes
I genuinely love Eragon, I think he's a good person, but his attitude towards Murtagh specifically has this distinct, almost cold lack of empathy. And it's strange he feels like that in this particular situation because Murtagh's fate- his capture, his torture, his dragon used like a hostage, their enslavement- that exact fate in its entirety is bearing down on Eragon through the whole story. Because that's exactly what would happen to Eragon if he's ever captured. That fate is snapping at his heels; it gets close enough to draw blood. Yet Eragon tends to act like he's above Murtagh's situation. He looks on it with pity, but also disgust, all with an air of distance and separation. There's never a horrified realization that this is what's waiting for him if Galbatorix captures him.
For that reason, I think Eragon's lack of empathy for Murtagh stems in part from a rather desperate optimism. He refrains from considering the worst possibilities to avoid despair over what he can't control. But that leads to this jarring disregard for the suffering of a man he is irrevocably connected to. Murtagh is a mirror of Eragon, reflecting what would become of him if the king ever gets his hands on him. Eragon is not above this; he is, in fact, so terrifyingly vulnerable to it. Even as he fails to imagine himself in Murtagh's place and understand him in that way, Eragon is the one most likely to end up in that place.
That alone should warrant empathy, but Murtagh is more than just a mirror. Eragon's luck has not held out, he has not been fortunate enough to outright avoid what Murtagh fell victim to, and the singular reason he's been spared that fate is Murtagh himself. Three times. Once outside of Dras Leona when he rescues him from the Ra'zac, again in Gil'ead when he'd been captured by Durza, and a third time on the Burning Plains when he lets him go despite his orders. Murtagh saves Eragon from capture, torture, and enslavement under Galbatorix and he does it over and over. Murtagh simultaneously exemplifies the worst fate Eragon could suffer while singlehandedly protecting him from it. And Eragon never once acknowledges it.
249 notes
·
View notes