“Scandal,” Olivia Pope and the privilege of being an anti-hero

by Keidra Chaney

I realized a couple of weeks ago that between Revenge, Scandal, and Nashville, ABC single-handedly brought new life to the nighttime soap opera, and I am not mad at that at all. Never a huge fan of crime procedurals, reality TV, or medical shows, I’ve watched more TV in the past season than in the past six or so years. I don’t want to sound completely shallow; I do watch and appreciate TV shows that illuminate the stories of hard-working, marginalized people, but I will not deny that I have a special place in my heart for the tales of the powerful and amoral. Blame it on a childhood of watching ABC daytime soaps with my grandmother, but there’s something about well-dressed people having sex with and/or killing each other that makes for great drama.

Which of course, brings me to Scandal. Just wrapping up its second season, the show went from a somewhat over-the-top political drama to a completely off-the-rails crazy nighttime soap for a generation of TV fans used to shows like 24 and Breaking Bad. The crazier the show has gotten, the more fascinated I’ve become. Impeccable, white-clad crisis management specialist Olivia Pope has horrible taste in men, drinks from her fishbowl-sized glasses of wine every night, and is to a certain extent, a Mary Sue. (I am pretty sure she is the first black Mary Sue I’ve ever seen in mainstream media – I’ll let you decide if that’s a good thing or not.) She besots nearly every straight man in her vicinity.

And let’s not forget the president (who Liv is having an affair with) killed a woman who was already on her deathbed, and the openly gay republican Chief of Staff puts hits on his best friend and his husband like he’s calling for takeout. Seriously, what the hell is this show on?!

But it’s compelling because it’s so unapologetically insane. This not being my first time at the Shonda Rhimes rodeo, I don’t expect it to last but it’s fun for now. Meanwhile, and not unexpectedly, this show in particular is not without its critics. I do feel sorry for the people who were expecting a House of Cards style political thriller. This show ain’t it. But the morality police really come out of the woodwork with this show in a particular, pointed way. I get it. Scandal is the first show with a black female lead in 30 years. 30, yo. That is a long time to wait for representation, and we get it in the form of a beautiful but messed up individual who is hard to root for at times because she’s nuts. Seriously, there was a point in the season finale where she went on and on about becoming the First Lady and she reminded me of Boromir flipping out in Fellowship of The Ring. (If you get that reference, then you get a sense for how thirsty for power she actually is. Also, you’re a big old geek.)

I get the criticism, and I get why some people had a problem with Scandal being nominated for an NAACP Image Award. The one black female in a prominent position on mainstream TV is at her core, power hungry, manipulative, and amoral, which is far from a positive portrayal, if that’s what one is looking for.

But maybe, just maybe we aren’t looking for positive. Maybe we are looking for over-the-top, morally gray, complicated, nutty. The kind of things we enjoy in shows like Mad Men or The Sopranos. Maybe some viewers enjoy having that room to be the anti-hero, the privilege granted to characters like Don Draper or Tony Soprano or Walter White. In pop culture, women and people of color (and women of color in particular) have the extra burden of not just being a character, but being a symbol. Because there are so few of us portrayed, we as viewers get protective about what’s being shown, and rightfully so.

Characters of color can so quickly devolve into racialized stereotypes when you combine the sometimes lazy character development that seems to happen too often on TV to the dearth of diversity in Hollywood’s writers rooms. But I would argue it’s not Shonda Rhimes responsibility to create “positive” characters, and that it’s a move forward that she can write characters who don’t have to bear the burden of being role models for their marginalized communities. I saw this post on Twitter the other day:

Think about it, it’s a conversation about a gay couple on TV that’s not “yay, so awesome it’s a gay couple on TV aren’t they a great example” but a conversation about how crazy and messed up their relationship is, the way you would about any other TV drama that features people in crazy relationships.

Now, there have been instances where race has been injected into the conversation of Scandal that have been clunky and problematic to me, like Olivia Pope’s WTF “Sally Hemmings” comment earlier in the season,

and the insane speech by Fitz (but penned by Olivia) in the 2nd season finale that positioned their extramarital affair as a win for race relations in America. That’s … crazy. But the wrongness of those moments (and visceral and varied reaction that they engendered) illuminates something more to me, that this is the first time a mainstream TV show has created an entry point where we can have many of these conversations about a black female character, even indirectly, and that’s incredibly frustrating. Because there are so few opportunities for a woman or a person of color to be put at the center of any mainstream TV narrative, the showrunners who do so, like Shonda Rhimes, or Mindy Kaling, and yes, even the loathed Lena Dunham, bear the extra burden of having to represent the varied and conflicting views of entire groups of people, rather than create the characters and stories they wish to – warts, missteps, and all.

Whatever you think of Shonda Rhimes as a writer and showrunner, Scandal is a fascinating show and pop culture phenomenon – and somewhat of a breakthrough – in that it allows a segment of viewers (women, POC, gay) the unusual opportunity of seeing a version of themselves reflected in the role of an anti-hero. These stories may not be “positive” but they are certainly compelling, and the popularity of Scandal could possibly crack open the door for more TV writers and showrunners to write for women, gay, and POC lead characters in a more nuanced way, without feeling the burden of having to create “role models” every time.

(A side note, I once watched a DVD of Jem and the Holograms with a writer’s commentary and apparently, there was a plan to make one of the Misfits (the villian characters) a person of color, but Mattel didn’t want to potentially lend to any stereotypes. Of course, as someone with a long history of rooting for villains, this annoyed me, but it gets to my point. Villains are fun. Anti-heroes are fun, but women and POC characters are often written into a creative corner because of the fear of being stereotyped, which is why we get so many boring, one-note characters, which become stereotypes in themselves.)

Star Trek Spoilers: Rantings of a tired moviegoer (did we say spoilers?)

By Vivian Obarski

I don’t know how to start this nicely, because I’m fed up. Not my usual fed up that I can break down into a nice simple logical and reasoned argument as to why I’m irritated. No, this is something entirely different — a visceral, emotional reaction that’s me being upset for no good reason. Most rational people would tell me to ignore this and wander off and do something else like knit another hat.

But this isn’t rational, this is fandom.

So I’ll just say it: I’m mad at the whole Star Trek Into Darkness marketing machine and how they’ve cloaked the villain’s true identity in secret. So much so that they’re willing to admit the possibility of whitewashing a major villain. And dammit, that’s something I want to know, because I don’t want to support that — there’s been enough whitewashing in movies as of late to make me feel a bit queasy about the news surrounding this one. Don’t pull a bait and switch on me with something like this. At least Avatar: the Last Airbender was honest and sprayed its whitewashing all over the damn news.

(SPOILER ALERT YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED).The whole news of Cumberbatch being cast as Khan is really disappointing to me. Asian people can’t get a role in Hollywood. The Asian actors I can easily think of are Lucy Liu, John Cho, Aziz Ansari, Mindy Kailing, Steven Yeun and Kal Penn.

I mean, I’ve watched a lot of stuff that is problematic on different levels — Argo had whitewashing, Tarantino films, any action movie where the white dude blows shit up — but this hurts more for some reason. Maybe it’s taking a major villain that was East Indian and turning him into something else? Normally us Asians, if we’re on screen (and not Cho, Liu, Ansari, Kailing, Yeun and Penn), we’re the extras in the background, the foreign faces that make up an organized crime group or a bunch of engineers. We had the spotlight for once man and they took it away.

Don’t get me wrong. I also like Cumberbatch as an actor. But (to quote a friend), if you look up the definition of WASPY Mo-fo, his picture is right by it. And the dude’s gotten lots of recognition for his work (Sherlock, War Horse, Parade’s End to name a few) — why not give someone else a chance at the spotlight?

What also makes me annoyed is how the press has kowtowed to JJ Abrams wishes and is now engaging in what looks to me like active trolling of its fans. They don’t say exactly what’s going on, but then they also nudge at it enough that people are whipping themselves into a frenzy trying to speculate on what’s going on.

Frankly, it’s exhausting to read. I’m exhausted reading the speculation, the coy reviews and the Internet rage about the clues given. This is like sitting in a room with everyone who gets a joke, but won’t let you in on it. You know what kind of people those folks are? Assholes.

I wish I could say I didn’t care. Most of me doesn’t. If your entire movie is going to be ruined by the release of the identity of the villain, how good is your movie?

Hell, I was spoiled with The Sixth Sense and the movie still worked beautifully — even more so because it felt more tragic knowing what the main character didn’t know. There’s been articles about how getting spoiled doesn’t wreck the experience for most people.

Not to mention, this whole silly dance makes it hard to discuss the film in print, as Calumn Marsh of Film.Com wrote

But being thoroughly averse to spoilers on principle does present problems for long-form film criticism, which by its very nature demands full disclosure and the ability to engage seriously with every aspect of a film, including major plot points and, indeed, even the ending. Film criticism is supposed to help illuminate a film, not simply offer a yay/nay declaration of its quality, and in order to do so well it needs to assume that its readers will be familiar with the material in question in full.

I don’t know about you, but I love reading film criticism because it illuminates what I’ve seen. I may not have always agreed with Roger Ebert, but his writing raised interesting issues and questions about the films I loved and made me see them in a new way. It was like having a great movie discussion with a good friend who loved the same thing you did, but also had a different take on it.

Star Trek’s marketing is really bothersome because JJ. Abrams is successfully taking away our ability to react or discuss things because it’s shrouded in tenuous hope or fear thanks to the speculation. And after months of this, it’s not exciting. It’s made me weary. I was excited (given that I really enjoyed the first movie and I think Benedict Cumberbatch is an excellent actor), but now I don’t care anymore. I’d rather watch RED 2 and see the old gang of assassins having fun right now. I’d rather watch Now You See Me to see a group of magicians pull of heists targeting the world’s largest banks. I’d rather watch This is The End — where the spoiler is the title. Hell, I might as well watch The Great Gatsby just to see how they mixed hip hop in with the Roaring 20s. I might know what the plot is and be spoiled on all those movies I listed, but you know what? It seems more fun than the paranoia that’s running rampant over on the Star Trek end of things.

Learned Fangirls Reflect on Game of Thrones: Jaime Gets His Groove Back


Incremental progress this week through “The Bear and the Maiden Fair” (Season 3, Episode 7). Herein, the ladies speculate on the necessity of a Game of Asses drinking game to get them through this slow, slogging mid-season.

Join us in a shot of mead and enjoy the latest installment in TLF’s weekly recap featuring three fans from very different perspectives: Laura Fletcher, a casual fan of the TV and book series; Corrin Bennett-Kill, a hardcore fan of the book and TV series (she has read all the books four times!); and Cheryl Collins, a TV show fan who has never read the book series. Miss us last week? Catch up and read “Misery Loves Company: The Climb.”

We invite you to join the discussion in comments!

Cheryl Collins
I hate to say it, but this episode bored me — again! The sex talk is boring. The torture is boring. The would-be flirtatious banter between Jon and Ygritte is boring. Bran and Jojen Reed are boring.

Laura Fletcher
I actually liked this episode more than most slow ones, but maybe that’s because of the steamy sex scene. *ahem* (I mean the one with Robb and Talisa, not poor Theon!) This was an episode of duos – both sexual and non-sexual.

I liked three scenes, and in hindsight it’s as much for their pacing as for the characters and purpose: 1) Jaime returning to rescue Brienne from the bear-fight pit, 2) Tywin looming over Joffrey on the Iron Throne, and 3) Arya being kidnapped by Sandor “the Hound” Clegane.

Cheryl
Those were my faves too. What are your thoughts on that long, leisurely scene in Robb’s tent?

After warnings by Catlyn about Walder Frey’s prickliness go unheeded, Robb and Talisa get down to canoodling while his mother exits with a worried glance that says: You are too preoccupied to take care of business.” Then sex. Things are going too well, and I assume Talisa will die soon.

Corrin Bennett-Kill
Yeah, the whole Robb–Talisa relationship is getting a bit — trite. That time would have been better spent developing some tension about the northern army’s tenuous position instead of lingering on naked ass. Le sigh.

Laura
The Robb and Talisa scene, though rather hot (don’t judge, ha!), was repetitive. Did we need Robb to say at least three times that his wife’s naked hotness was distracting? Or just once?

Cheryl
But you do have a sense that doom hangs close. Now, on to Tywin vs. Joffrey.

Corrin
That scene between grandfather and grandson was actually well developed. One of those classic GoT scenes where so much about the dynamic of the relationship is revealed by the physical space and movement of the characters rather than the dialogue. Tywin gives Joffrey his titles and nominal respect, but his slow progress up the steps until he stands, domineering, over Joffrey on the throne tells all about Tywin’s feelings about his grandson. “You are a means to my end,” he seems to say.


Laura
I found it powerful and telling that Tywin, unlike Cersei and Tyrion, could cow Joffrey without resorting to the slap (although I relish those slaps, obviously).


Cheryl
Tywin’s echoing, steady steps as he approaches the throne really helped establish his dominance and build tension. Joffrey seems to finally realize that he is a pawn, just as clueless and stupid as Sansa.

Why did it take Joffrey so long to figure that out that Tywin is an intimidating, powerful presence? Too busy practicing his crossbow skills? And this may be the first time we’ve seen those two in the same scene.


Corrin
It also makes Joffrey more dangerous to those he sees as weaker. It’s like a boy who is abused by his father who in turn abuses animals.

What do we think about the Sansa–Tyrion–Shae triangle?


Cheryl
Sansa’s dreams have been bloated and mottled by fantasies of courtly love, and now she faces the reality of being a high-born woman in that time and place, in that she is considered nothing more than a strategic pawn, who is now being married off to a powerful, important dwarf.

ong>Laura
But Tyrion’s not that powerful, as we’re reminded in his scene with Shae. The dynamics in that triangle go beyond who’s more screwed, as Tyrion and Cersei discussed last week. Sure, Tyrion is a Lannister, but that’s the only advantage he has. He’s being used for his name and his position as much as Sansa is, in some ways – and without his name, as a dwarf he’d be just as lowly as Shae (if not more so).

Corrin
The scene between Shae and Tyrion was especially heartbreaking as we realize that Tyrion truly cares for Shae. The brief moment at the opening of the episode of Bronn and Tyrion discussing his impending marriage to Sansa reminds us that Shae isn’t the first whore with whom he’s fallen in love. The repetition of his own personal tragedy – Tyrion’s father destroying or interfering with his loves – seems to be inevitable.

Cheryl
And we wonder, will he push back? If so, how? As someone who does not know where the story is going, you do sense he is reaching a breaking point.

Corrin
must. not. spoil. (He really, really is, Cheryl.)

Let’s talk Dany. She’s the bees knees this episode. My husband commented that this was the first time she really looked like a queen.

Dany is playing the Yunkai like a goddamned violin. She marches up to their walls with an army of freed slaves and announces, in front of the Yunkish slaves that accompanied the Wise Master, that she intends to free them, by force if necessary. Whatever do you think she’s up to?

Cheryl
Dany is really throwing her weight around, but for the forces of good (freeing slaves), not evil. If she was not doing something worthy, I would not like her at all.


Laura
I enjoyed seeing her commitment waver for just a moment when she saw all that gold – but then the camera showed her looking over at the kneeling Yunkish slaves, and her resolve hardened. Her ideals may not be practical, but they sure are strong.

Cheryl
On to Jaime and Brienne.

Jaime is finally living up to the ideal of what a knight’s courtly behavior should be—but in their mixed-up muddled-up shook-up world, where down is up in the chaos of war.

He saves the lady, but minus his stately armor or flowing white cloak. He looks like a ragged vagrant: handless and in what looks like a sackcloth robe. And the non-classically beautiful, non-feminine lady does wear a fancy dress – but it is muddied and torn as she faces off with a bear, armed with a wooden sword.

Yes, he finally – finally – lives up to the courtly ideal. Back in Season 1 (I think), his father tells him while skinning a stag that he needed Jaime to be the man he could be. Is he doing that now? And has he done his penance?


Corrin
A hand is a helluva price to pay for his sins, but he did, you know, push a nine-year-old out a window. So perhaps not so steep a price after all.

Laura
Melisandre’s great reveal to Gendry that he’s a king’s bastard fell flat for me. I had forgotten that he didn’t know, but we (the audience) all knew, right? Also, WTF is going on there?

Corrin Bennett-Kill
My husband and I had a lo-o-o-ng conversation about this season in general and this episode in particular as it relates to the wider series. This season has been a hard one for non-book readers to stay invested in. So much of what is happening in the story right now is the internal development and evolution of characters. Not a lot of action.

Most of Bran’s storyline plays out in his dreams in the books. How do you translate that to television? Not very easily. So many of these episodes have been about deepening relationships and revelations of character. All leading somewhere certainly, but not to a climax as readily apparent the first two seasons’. We don’t have Stannis marching on King’s Landing to produce tension. Instead, we have subtle maneuverings and plots being laid. Again, interesting, but difficult to make into compelling TV.

Cheryl
I’m sure that’s true, Corrin, so it seems that the writers are resorting to more gratuitous nudity and sex to keep us going. When I saw Robb’s ass in the first ten minutes I thought: oh god, this episode is doomed.

I won’t repeat what I said last week but that there is no obvious tension to keep us invested this season – except that we want Arya to get back, and Bran and Rickon to reconnect with their mother. That’s not enough.

Laura
Cheryl, I see where you’re coming from. I do think that most of my excitement, as Corrin said, comes from knowing what events lie ahead (or at least having a clue, based on the books). That knowledge gives me something to hang my narrative hat on, I suppose, and gives me patience to watch characters develop. Hints are being dropped, but they’re practically inside jokes. In past seasons, we knew what the coming action was going to be. Here, it’s mysterious, tenuous, and potentially frustrating.

Corrin
I feel like I have spent this entire season saying, “But wait! It’s gonna get better! I swear!” Perhaps the writers should create a support group and advertising campaign: “Game of Thrones Season 3: It Gets Better!”

Laura
Corrin, knowing what’s coming, do you think they should’ve sped up some of the coming plot points?

Corrin
I don’t know how they could have sped anything up.

The story arcs are so divergent and varied at this point that it necessitates abbreviating some points in favor of others. I really don’t know why they have included Theon’s story line at this point. Especially without giving it any damned context.

I think the failing of this particular episode is simply the writers were unable to create compelling scenes for a slow part in the story.


Cheryl
I agree, Corrin. The scenes they do include could be better crafted. There was lots of talking that felt aimless and way too long – over and over it felt like the scenes needed to be more tightly edited. The dialogue feels clumsy, obvious.

Laura
Every scene seemed a bit long, even when I liked what was going on.

Cheryl
Laura, let’s talk a bit more about your suggestion that this episode was about duos.

Laura
The episode’s title, “The Bear and the Maiden Fair,” is about a twosome. If this episode had any teeny string tying it together, it was this idea of opposites attracting: Robb and Talisa (we’re reminded that she’s from another continent); Jon and Ygritte, of course; Jaime and Brienne …

Cheryl
Don’t the bear and the maiden fair end up having sex in that song?

Laura
It seems they do. In the song the maiden is at first disgusted and afraid, but the bear seduces her, or she at least settles for it over her expected prince. (Many, many echoes of Margaery’s discussion with Sansa there!)

Cheryl
So maybe the idea is about learning about the tensions between expectation and reality (as with Sansa, Jon and Ygritte, and Jaime and Brienne).

Also, how to be with and accommodate another, and how much to give up of yourself as you merge identities – and which lines cannot be crossed. That’s the certainly tension with Jon and Ygritte.

Corrin
You could even insert Arya’s kidnapping by the Hound in the duos. She the maiden fair to his bear.

Cheryl
Another odd couple.

Corrin
Plus, much of Arya’s storyline is the crumbling of her worldview, much like her sister.

Arya keeps expecting people to behave with honor, follow the rules her father taught her, and they don’t. The Brotherhood lets the Hound go. They sell Gendry to Melisandre. The good guys do terrible things and the bad guys end up being not so bad.


Laura
Theon and his torturer are another duo, I suppose, but I’m ready for that to come to an end and/or have a larger purpose.

Cheryl
I hated that scene, with the nude girls arousing him for far too long – pure gratuitous titillation. That annoying horn that announces the anonymous torturer I think is meant to be a clue to his identity.

So, if we made a Game of Asses drinking game … what should we drink every time someone’s butt is flashed?


Laura
Mead?

Cheryl
Maybe that will help the viewing experience … and what to do we do when and if we ever see Podrick’s ass?

Laura
Attempt not to break our televisions, and then chug the mead.

Were you thrilled by the latest turns of events? Bored stiff (can’t show that on television)? Let us know in comments!

Learned Fangirls Reflect on Game of Thrones: Misery Loves Company

The things we do for love. Or honor. Or power. Or money. But does anyone ever get what they really want? Such are the questions raised by “The Climb” (Season 3, Episode 6).

Enjoy the latest installment in TLF’s weekly recap featuring three fans from very different perspectives: Laura Fletcher, a casual fan of the TV and book series; Corrin Bennett-Kill, a hardcore fan of the book and TV series (she has read all the books four times!); and Cheryl Collins, a TV show fan who has never read the book series.

Miss us last week? Catch up and read “Kissed by Fire.”

We invite you to join the discussion in comments!

Laura Fletcher
Although this was a slower episode, it set the table for big things to come and deepened some mysteries I’m excited to see come to fruition – whether I suspect the endings (based on the books) or not.

Cheryl Collins
You guys keep saying that! I want to believe you, but … we’re halfway through the season now, and it’s so hard to tell where we are going. Although I assume the end of this season will bring a dragon invasion in Westeros. Corrin?

Corrin Bennett-Kill
This episode annoyed me. Although there were some interesting things that happened, some of the adaptation choices are irritating (read: the Melisandre/Gendry thing). I know it’s difficult to adapt a story of the depth and breadth that Martin wrote into a teleplay, but I think some of the confusion non-book readers are having has to do with characters dropped for brevity’s sake or for their ancillary importance to the story line (read: the Loras as heir to Highgarden adaptation).

Cheryl
For me it’s about pacing. It’s hard to feel where the tension is this season. In Season 1, it was Ned’s descent into the hell of King’s Landing and whether Sansa and Arya would survive, among other things. Then in Season 2, the thrust was about Robb’s attack on the Lannisters (of course, there were many side stories). This season, it’s just not clear what the tension is supposed to be about that sustains us.

Laura
Right. I could make excuses and say it was a character-driven episode, but honestly it felt like the writers were moving around chess pieces and reiterating already established character traits (Melisandre, Arya, Jon and Ygritte, the Tullys) or ongoing arcs (Theon’s torture, Sansa the pawn). My husband, who is a TV-only fan like you Cheryl, actually said, “Nothing happened this week!”

Cheryl
Once again, I found some of the writing pretty lame, though as usual, the scenes with the Lannisters were the most sharply written.

Corrin
You’re so right, ladies. …There was a lot of exposition in this episode. Explaining why Edmure has to marry the Frey girl. Explaining Thoros of Myr’s “conversion.” Explaining the Lannister–Tyrell dynamic. It was a bit … dull.

Cheryl
But there was one big event to celebrate: we finally escaped the bleakness north of the Wall! If I had to watch any more grey scenes of arctic waste, I would bail.

The last shot of the episode was like a Technicolor dream. After suffering in the grey colorless void all season, Jon and Ygritte finally get to see a land of sunsets and colors. I felt that was almost a gift to the viewers: “Here, we’re giving you what you want” – you made it through with us.

Let’s pray to whichever gods are most powerful this season that we never have to go back. As I said in a comment last week (and please comment!), I felt my Seasonal Affective Disorder kick in whenever we traveled north of the Wall.

Corrin
There were a couple of highlights. My favorite moment was the dinner scene with Jaime and Brienne, when she helps him as he’s struggling to cut his food.

Cheryl
And they may be separated! I hope not. Neither seemed pleased with that possibility.

Corrin
That scene also gave us a bit more insight into Roose Bolton’s character and possible motivations. He’s playing both sides from the middle: appeasing his oaths to the Starks by sending Brienne back to the north, and making sure Tywin Lannister doesn’t come after him for maiming his heir.

Laura
Separating Jaime and Brienne gave me the biggest sad all episode – sorry, Theon, ha!

Wait, I take that back – Ros’s death gave me the biggest sad. I really liked her character, and I’m not sure if it was worth developing the characters of either Joffrey or Littlefinger to have them do that horrible thing to her. I get the parallel with Margaery’s crossbow sexualization scene with Joffrey earlier this season, but … shiver.

Cheryl
And Arya’s archery lesson (face, tits, balls). Do we think Littlefinger did that just to make sure Sansa would not go to Highgarden?

Laura
I think it was spiteful, and also strategic, since Ros had broken Littlefinger’s leash.

Corrin
It shows what Littlefinger is capable of and a bit more insight into what his real goals are. Varys is, in his own way, an honorable person. He wants the realm to survive and thrive. Littlefinger wants power at any cost, and it doesn’t matter how many bodies he has to step over to get it. That he could also ingratiate himself with the king by providing him a toy and at the same time eliminate someone who betrayed him is a cherry on the cake of his plans. He has a tidy, and yes sadistic, mind.

Cheryl
But I wondered if it was also trying to keep Sansa for himself – she’ll now see him as escape.

Corrin
Spot on, Cheryl. The kernel at the heart of Petyr Baelish is unrequited (and belittled) love for Catelyn Tully. Getting Sansa to come to him willingly would be a coup of epic proportions for him.

Laura
Littlefinger is one of the scarier characters, which is easy to forget. He’s more than slimy and tricky, and I suppose there was a lot of seamy underbelly in this episode. Tywin has never been in the running for Daddy of the Year, but Cersei and Tyrion’s forced marriages are pretty seamy. And of course, the Brotherhood without Banners and Melisandre can make all the excuses they want for shipping Gendry off to Stannis to make king potion or whatever, but as Arya says, it’s about gold.

Cheryl
Meanwhile, behind high walls, Cersei and Tyrion contemplate how fucked they are as they face their respective forced marriages.

Corrin
I actually liked that scene, Cheryl. It was a rare moment of commiseration between the estranged siblings, and a moment of humanity from Cersei.

Cheryl
I was interested in that scene because, as you both say, misery loves company, and they could finally make common cause. But also it showed them stuck behind the crenellated walls and windows of the castle, trapped by their father in loveless arrangements, separated from those they most love. Quite, quite different from Jon and Ygritte, who seemed to throw off the yokes of their binding sense of loyalty to god knows what and ascend the highest mountain, as it were.

Laura
Jon and Ygritte look too happy – I was half expecting Ygritte to die on the wall (and Jon would survive). Not that that happens in the books, but at this point, as we’ve said before, anyone and anything is fair game as a twist!

Cheryl
Jon seems to finally commit his loyalty to a real person while on top of the wall, straddling two worlds: the oath binding him on one side of the Wall (the Night Watch) and the false loyalty and a sort of freedom on the other (Mance Rayder and the Wildings). I felt like he was saying he was going to make his own way.

Corrin
Great observation, Cheryl! Scaling that wall crystallized something in Jon about who and what was most important to him. The idea of him forging his own path, coming back to the land he was raised in after having gone through trials, and emerging with a clearer sense of who he is and what he wants – Jon is finally emerging from the shadow of his own bastardy.

I liked that Ygritte basically told Jon that she knew he was still a Crow in his heart and further, that she knew this because she “knows” him and knows he’s an honorable man who is loyal to his bones. It was insightful and gave her a depth that I think she lacks in the books.

Cheryl
Sam also seemed to be edging toward some kind of freedom, as well, with his proto-family in the woods, looking for all the world like they are stuck in the middle of some very grim fairy tale. With the flock of Crows dwindling, the mutiny at Craster’s, and Mormont’s death, I wonder if the Night’s Watch is on the edge of imploding, which would conveniently give Jon and Sam an honorable way of side-stepping their oaths.

Corrin
Nothing like a pretty girl to stiffen a man’s spine. We also saw the dragon glass …

Laura
On an I-like-these-characters-note, I’m glad we got to see Sam and Gilly this episode, since they fled alone with a baby into the great north! Cheryl, did it feel like the show was being super-obvious that the spear Sam had would be important? It felt heavy-handed to me.

Cheryl
No, not at all, because we were introduced to it before. But now that you say it … hmmm.

Corrin
Laura, I think it was a tip-of-the-cap to the book fans who have been waiting for a Sam moment that should have already happened.

Laura
Corrin, agreed wholeheartedly.

Cheryl
And how about characters we don’t like? Back in Episode 3, Melisandre forsook Stannis after telling him his balls were crusty – I mean, “Your fires burn low, my king,” with that very tired look every guy who has been sent to the friend zone recognized.

Melisandre also mentioned that sacrifices must be made and that others share his blood. Now we get a little closer to finding out what she was talking about: she takes away Gendry, Robert’s bastard. He’s a bit more virile than Stannis. And it was after Gendry gave her the appreciative male-eye once-over. Be careful what you wish for, Gendry!

And Arya is abandoned, again.

Corrin
Stannis is still the one true king, but he’s not the only source of kingly blood: hence, Gendry. This is an adaptation moment. There was another bastard of Robert’s that, in the books, was living at Storm’s End that Melisandre wanted Stannis to take for her purposes. Gendry is able to stay with the Brotherhood.

Laura
An aside that may mean nothing: Interesting that Gendry the blacksmith is drawn into (and maybe sacrificed to?!) the fiery Lord of Light.

Cheryl
Ooohhhh. Do you think that eagle flying overhead in the last scene was the “Love, Actually” kid (aka Jojen Reed) with Bran and Rickon?

Laura
I think we were supposed to think that was the Wildling warg’s bird, but interesting possibility.

I suppose Bran’s ragtag band of misfits is something we didn’t discuss. But, honestly, yawn.

Corrin
Yawn, indeed. Moving on. OMG! The scene between Robb and the Freys!

Cheryl
Ahh, Blackfish.

Laura
And Edmure the milquetoast.

Corrin
Cheryl, how did you read that scene?

Cheryl
Not that big a deal – but I suppose I’m wrong? Edmure makes the sacrifice. Good for him. Can’t wait to see who his wife will be.

Laura
I worry that Edmure will somehow screw things up for Robb and, by extension, the entire North.

Corrin
I know I take a lot of swipes at the writers who are adapting the books to the show, but this is one of those moments where they need a tip-of-the-hat instead of a wag-of-the-finger. They are treading the line of fanatics like me who know the story and TV-only fans.

I was squirming in discomfort at the scene with the Freys because of what I know. Those who don’t know the backstory won’t have that reaction, but they get a lot of meat out of the Melisandre-Gendry scene. A little something for everyone, and done surprisingly deftly for all that needs juggling.

Laura
This is good transition to Olenna and Tywin, which isn’t in the books but was awesome to a book fan. I find it fascinating that Olenna and Tywin have that tete-a-tete, ending with Tywin’s seeming victory – though I wouldn’t be surprised if Olenna has more up her sleeve, and that Sansa and Loras’s wedding was just her opening parry.

Cheryl
That’s how I felt – that was just the first battle, not the war. Finally there is someone who is not afraid of him.

Laura
Yes! That scene was a nice reminder of how a matriarchy can still exist in Westeros, if not in literal power, then at least in exerted power.

Now how about that ladder of chaos that Littlefinger mentioned, juxtaposed with the Wildlings scaling the wall?

Cheryl
About the wall: it seemed Jon pushed through his fear – of everything – and finally claimed what he wanted and needed. Most of us never do. As Littlefinger says, most “cling to the realm, or gods, or love.” Littlefinger is bound to nothing but his own amoral desires.

Laura
I thought it was very foreshadowing-y, for Littlefinger specifically and for the show in general. The Wall, after all, is meant to guard Westeros from chaos.

Cheryl
Just as the Night’s Watch is falling apart.

Laura
Yes, exactly! And now that we know the White Walkers are real and very dangerous, plus the Wildlings now know the best places to scale the Wall without being shot down by the Night’s Watch (thanks to Jon’s intel), this chaos is going to be just as important as the political machinations in King’s Landing and elsewhere. Perhaps this episode seemed dull because at this point a lot is balancing on the edge of a knife.

Cheryl
That’s hopeful! I guess things are building up to something or other, although it doesn’t quite seem so yet.

Yes, we hope Westeros burns, because it will make better TV!

Did that last kiss on the Wall make you wince? Or were you thrilled by the latest turns of events? Bored stiff? Let us know in comments!

Songbird in the Cage: Thoughts on Bioshock Infinite – SPOILERS!

by Kristin Bezio

First and foremost, HERE THERE BE SPOILERS!!! If you haven’t played the game and want to know if you should, my answer is YES! Go buy it, go play it. It’s totally worth it.

But from this point on, there will be nothing held back for the sake of those who have not finished the game. So if you don’t want me to wreck the ending (and there is definitely and ending to wreck, if that’s your thing), stop reading now. Seriously.

Okay. Here we go.

THE GOOD
There’s a LOT of good in this game. First, the art. The game is gorgeous. The details – if not the resolution on the Xbox – are meticulous and create a sense of reality to the world of Columbia. There are even hummingbirds. One thing that I have to give Irrational credit for – in both Infinite and in the original Bioshock – is that the worlds they create are unbelievably rich. No level repeats the same map as any other level, each space feels like a real, genuine space that could BE somewhere and have purpose.

Some examples. There’s an ice cream parlor, in which people sit and eat ice cream. There are coins on the floor, just as though someone dropped one while paying for a cone. And after nightfall, it closes. The carnival games are playable – you can learn to shoot by shooting at cardboard cutouts, and you can win prizes. The “propaganda” impressed me in Bioshock, and it manages to create the same feel of imposed censorship that people tolerate and accept simply because it’s always been there, like the ads on a bus or the flyers people tape to telephone poles.

And then… the light. Light and shadow in this game have been elevated to a fine art. The first thing you encounter in Columbia is what amounts to a church – resplendent with both candles and sunlight. For those who have played Bioshock, the light is one of the most shocking parts about Infinite. We come in expecting the dark and gloom of a survival horror game, and instead we are bathed, literally and figuratively, in light. And it WORKS. The horrific contrast of Columbia is its beauty – the spaces, the colors, the light, the vividness of the whole world is overwhelming, and the ugliness of the acts, attitudes, and people present a stark contrast to it.

And then there’s the music. This game has the most appropriate, beautiful, haunting, and inspiring soundtrack I’ve ever heard in a game. It is definitely the only game that I have sung along with while playing. The foley art, the ambient noise, and the vocal tracks are like aural light that permeate the entire experience. I want this soundtrack. It made me feel warm and fuzzy and choked up at the same time, especially with the spirituals (and I’m generally a profoundly anti-religious person).

Aesthetics aside – and it’s very hard to put them aside, as they’re quite possibly the best part of the game – there is also Elizabeth. Now there are a couple of things I found fault with in her characterization (to which I will get later), but in terms of her personality and her mechanical function, Elizabeth represents a huge leap forward in terms of companion characters.

One of the worst parts of Bioshock was the Little Sister escort mission at the end, in which you as the player have to keep a Little Sister safe through a maze of angry splicers. And I wanted to shoot her myself less than a quarter of the way through. But Elizabeth can take care of herself. And not only can she take care of herself, she can take care of YOU. In combat, she finds ammo and health and salts (which are like your “magic”), and at other points in the game, she finds coins and gives them to you. She will also draw your attention to loot and other interactive or interesting things. In other words, she requires no maintenance from a gameplay perspective whatsoever. And she’s also narratively interesting – she comments on things, gives her opinion on plot points, and is the fundamental source of the entire plot.

And there are other characters I like, too. The Luteces, for instance. They are interdimensional beings (sort of…), and they’re hilarious. They’re also taken straight out of absurdist theater, specifically, Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead, so I kicked myself when I didn’t realize that they – like Rosencrantz and Guildenstern – are dead. Pretty much the whole time. At least in some of the universes. I got the reference pretty much right away, since their ridiculous speech pattern (which is awesome) and their scene in the carnival are straight from the play – they’re playing a game of coin-toss, in which the coin (against all odds) is always heads. Of course, there must be some universe where that is the case, and in each coin flip, they are creating a new, parallel world in which that specific coin actually comes up tails. Great, great stuff.

It’s also clever. Very clever. (Maybe too clever.) The opening sequence parallels almost exactly (and includes some of the exact same lines, such as “Is it someone new?”) the opening and entry sequence from Bioshock. This is one of many examples of cycles in the game – the repetition of a sequence you already know, the fact that the first scene in Columbia contains circular spaces, the round candles, and the cannon in the background (“Let the Circle be Unbroken”). The lighthouse has a spinning light (like they do), and even the money is entirely circular. Circles are a thing in this game. In fact (SPOILER!!), the entire game itself is a circle, turning back upon itself in the end and eradicating its own synchronous existence.

THE BAD
So there are bad things about Infinite. Quite a few of them. That said, I LIKED the game. I enjoyed almost all of it (the end will be addressed in a little bit). I think it’s a great example of videogames as art, and of videogames trying to achieve the level of critical complexity that other media – like literature and film – have already achieved. I’m glad it exists. But – as I said to a friend of mine today – it’s a B+. It’s good, really good, but I wanted it to be better. And not only did I want it to be better, but I can see HOW it could be better.
Most of my complaints are thematic or narrative, but before I get to those, a few mechanical things. First, why do I (as Booker) keep eating food out of trash cans and off the street? Gross. Also, why do people keep throwing money in the trash? I understand the point of looting for health, salts, money, and ammo, but some of the places they put it are just silly.

Second, why are there different types of enemies? I’m not speaking in game-design terms – I know that having different AI to fight is part of what makes games interesting. What I don’t understand is where the diferent classes came from. There are Crows (who are, for the Bioshock players, essentially Houdini Splicers), Handy-Men (who make very little sense to me and are really annoying to kill), Patriots (which are hilarious on a variety of levels, including the fact that they announce “We hold these truths to be self-evident” before opening fire on you), and strange horn-headed things that act like security cameras in the asylum. And it’s really unclear where they came from or why they’re all quasi-mechanical or supernatural.

Which brings me to the other narrative issues in the game. First, I’m not convinced that string theory works the way this game seems to imply (also, lighthouses? Really?). I like that they’re playing around with temporal shifts, alternate dimensions and time-continuua, so I’m willing to forgive most of the glitches. The fact that the game destroys its own existence seems too extreme to be a paradox that’s just too impossible to be feasible. A lot of it is really neat – but some of it still doesn’t make sense, and I probably know more about particle physics than the average gamer (although not as much as someone who has a degree in physics, so you never know).

And then there’s the heavy-handedness of the symbolism in the game. This is not just a symbolism stick, this is a spiked exploding club with glitter that burns. And the game smacks you with it from the very beginning and doesn’t stop smacking you with it even when the credits are rolling. The game is profoundly anti-Exceptionalist (an attitude of which I wholeheartedly approve), and is trying to make use of a framework of racism to encourage a general attitude of tolerance and acceptance (and since the political issue of our day is gay marriage, I’m pretty sure that’s what we’re driving at here). It also vilifies both the conservative tendency to all but worship the Founding Fathers (who were hypocrites, as any studio based in Boston can’t help but knowing, especially one down the street from the burial place of John Adams) and born-again Christian fundamentalism. But I actually find myself missing subtlety. I want nuance and challenge, not a spiky stick whacking me across the face every five seconds.

Which brings me to…

THE UGLY
There are two things about this game that really, really bothered me. The first isn’t actually as big a deal as I just made it sound, but given the current context of gender-related concerns in gaming, irritates me because it seems like they could have avoided playing straight into the problematic stereotypes we’ve been talking about for the last year or so. Now I do understand that the game has been in development for about four years, which provides some excuse, but still.

Elizabeth. As much as I do really like her mechanically and enjoyed playing with her, she’s the kind of female victim that irks me – the damsel in distress that was the focus of Anita Sarkeesian’s first Tropes vs. Women in Videogames video. And Elizabeth is one. Now she’s no Princess Peach – Elizabeth is the most powerful thing in this game, and she’s got attitude and spunk, but she is constantly being victimized throughout the game. And because (REALLY BIG SPOILER!) Booker is also Comstock, not only does she need to constantly be rescued by Booker, but Booker is constantly having to rescue her FROM HIMSELF. It’s like the worst sort of abusive father-daughter relationship ever. (And was the cleavage-tastic costume change really necessary halfway through? I know the transition from the girlish outfit to the woman’s dress is symbolic of the fact that she just grew up because she killed Daisy, but does she have to be SO voluptuous in it?) In essence, while she’s better than many non-hero female characters, I’d have liked her to come out of it on her own at least once, without needing Booker’s help.
And then there’s the racism. Yes, I understand that the point of Columbia is to focus on the abject bigotry of the city’s idology, on the horrific racially-motivated things that happened in the past, such as at Wounded Knee and during the Jim Crow (is that why it’s Murder of Crows?) era. I get that. I understood it in Django Unchained, and I understand that Irrational is under no circumstances advocating for that sort of behavior. But.

The Vox Populi who start the game are not the Vox who end it. The early-game Vox are the oppressed who have an underground network of information and sabotage. The late-game Vox are barbaric, violent, and bloodthirsty, dress up as devils, and scream in your face as they try to kill you. You feel sympathy for the early Vox. You want them to win. You want to do whatever you can to help them. At one point, Booker is confronted with an interracial couple about to be “stoned” with baseballs. He has the choice to throw the ball at the couple, at the barker, or not at all. If he throws it at the barker, the couple later finds him and thanks him. It’s clear that the game’s agenda is not racist.

But the late-game Vox turn on you, and their actions – especially Daisy’s, when she tries to murder a child (probably another throwback to Bioshock chiding the player for spending a game possibily killing children him/herself) – are the epitome of bigoted stereotypes. And yes, I do understand the logic that the Vox have only become violent and barbaric because they were treated by the citizens of Columbia as subhuman. However, the game never complicates this late-Vox image. It never returns us to humanity from barbarity. All it does, in the game’s final moments, is efface the whole thing in a highly problematic twist.

Because when Booker chooses to allow himself to be drowned, he is sacrificing himself as the white male sinner-savior (Jesus complex, anyone?) so that the racism of the world can be eliminated. A twist on the white-man’s-burden in which Booker literally dies to obliterate the racism of Columbia. And by erasing that racism, which in its historical context was very real, it implies that racism is gone, that it no longer exists. But it isn’t. We can’t just say “Oh, things used to be so bad, but thanks to white people, it’s all better now.” Because it isn’t, and that’s a point that Tarantino got but that seems absent from Infinite.

THE END

All that said, I like what Infinite is doing, and I hope they keep doing it, and keep improving their art (because they did make huge strides between Bioshock and Infinite). But as much fun as I had throughout the game itself, the ending left me feeling frustrated, mostly because of the issues I have with the way the game didn’t complicate its own depiction of race and gender. In part, too, I didn’t like that the game chose to undo itself, although I can respect its decision to do so. I also hate boss fights, and the last one in this game was confusing as hell – I didn’t actually know what i was supposed to do, so I lost it the first time simply because I didn’t know what was happening.

But ultimately what I think bothered me the most about the ending was that the game was too proud of itself. (The developers should be proud of themselves for a great job, but the game shouldn’t show that off.) It knew it was art and it wanted to show off how smart it was by explaining string theory (in a mediocre way), by dropping Booker and Elizabeth in Rapture for two minutes, and by holding out until the end of the credits to show you that Booker and Anna are still there, in another timeline. (Which itself is a problem, because, as my friend remarked, isn’t there also going to be a timeline in which Booker kills the Elizabi instead of letting them drown him?) Yes, Infinite is a really good game, but it isn’t quite what it thinks it is.

Our MIT8 Presentation: The Interaction Between Public and Private Identities and Social Media Policies

We are sharing the written version of our MIT8 Presentation with everyone who wasn’t able to come to this amazing conference. We (at least one of us) have presented earlier versions before at several other conferences, including the Third Annual Internet Law Work In Progress Symposium. As always, we are open to comments and suggestions – and we thank all that have helped shape this conversation.

 

Introduction

The line between personal and professional identities is often blurred – and the increasing use of social media networks makes the line only more blurred. We are using the example of athletes not as the endpoint for this discussion, but instead as a starting point; athletes, especially team-based athletes, are at the nexus between public and private: never truly representing only themselves, even online.

Social media allows athletes a unique opportunity for athletes to connect directly with their fans, but it also allows for the risk for athletes – and all social media users – to share statements are best not be shared publicly – ranging from threats to racist or sexist statements (like two 2012 Summer Olympic athletes), to inappropriate statements, to NFL player Houston Texan Kareem Jackson tweeting pictures of cock fighting.

Major League Baseball’s  (MLB) policy demonstrates that professional sports sees the overall value in using social media,

“recogniz[ing] the importance of social media as an important way for players to communicate directly with fans. We encourage you to connect with fans through Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Along with MLB’s extensive social media activities, we hope that your efforts on social media will help bring fans closer to the game and have them engaged with baseball, your club and you in a meaningful way.”

Limitations by teams and organizations ranges on their members’ social media usage occurs from school-age athletes up,  but this essay primarily focuses on limitations imposed on adults in both professional sports and (technically) amateur sports, such as college athletes.

Some teams ban athletes and coaches from using social media during game time (including practice time).  However, many of the restrictions are much more limiting to the lives of athletes. To continue participating in college athletics, college athletes at many schools cannot use a list of banned words on their social media accounts — and these accounts are monitored by third-party applications.  The banned words can have multiple meanings, including entirely innocuous ones, such as ice, monkey, nine, slant, Spiderman, and zipper.

While some claim the purpose behind such bans and limitations on social media by athletes is to “help the athletes protect themselves,” the larger overall concern is based around branding and marketing of the teams (and schools). And the teams are willing to admit this: the University of Kentucky athletics spokesperson has said that “the only content of concern is what the public can see because that is what affects ‘the brand’ of the university and the athlete.”  Thankfully, some academic institutions, including public academic institutions do have social media policies that mention not only athletes, but also the difficulty in separating out personal and professional lives, including for athletes.

However, there are now an increasing number of state laws and National Labor Relations Board decisions that address how much an employer or educational institution the social media use of employees and others. The types of issues that employers and educational institutions face with athletes are often true in similar, broader cases.

We chose to use athletes as a case study on the complications of creating a social media policy for those that wish to limit social media use by employees, students, or others that can damage a brand.

Continue reading →

Learned Fangirls Reflect on Game of Thrones: “Kissed by Fire” (Season 3, Episode 5)

Swordplay
Lots of fun with swords both real and metaphorical filled this week’s episode.

Enjoy the latest installment in TLF’s weekly recap, this week featuring two fans from very different perspectives: Cheryl Collins, a TV show fan who has never read the book series upon which it’s based, and Corrin Bennett-Kill, a hardcore fan of the book and TV series (who has read all the books four times). Miss us last week? Read about Episode 4, “And Now His Watch Has Ended.”
We invite you to join the discussion in comments!

Corrin Bennett-Kill
I loved this episode. For me, the main thematic elements were oaths and the consequences paid for both keeping and breaking those oaths. From the sense of betrayal Arya felt at the freeing of the Hound after he “proved” his innocence in the trial by combat to the illumination of how Jamie Lannister gained his moniker “Kingslayer,” the writers wrestled with different conceptions of honor.

Cheryl Collins
I agree. Much of this season seems to be about whom you serve and why, and with that, the corollary of the distasteful – and questionably necessary – choices people in power make and why. This episode explored the limits of the bonds of oaths – and the sometimes terrible consequences of blindly following them.

There were many examples of good men fighting for unjust causes and kings, such as Jorah Mormont and Barristan Selmy serving Robert, and the Lannister kids all serving their father and his intrigues as he tries to keep the kingdom together– even though his choices are not in their own personal best interest.

However, I did not love this episode. There were great leaps forward of character behavior, but there was a herky-jerky quality to it, as though it was rushing through gobs of material, barely digested. I found myself looking at the clock. A first.

For example, Jon Snow finally got his groove on with Ygritte, but there was no build up to it – it just happened in the show’s first 10 minutes. GoT could have teased us more and drawn that out for an episode, at least. GoT, tease me! But just like Jon Snow, the episode got down to business quickly.

Corrin
I think that is one of the ways in which I have an advantage and disadvantage from knowing the books. My memory fills in the blanks that the television show writers left in the story. My husband had a similar less-than-satisfied reaction to this week as well.

So much of this episode was laying groundwork for the future (again).

Plus, we get more Lannister family ballyhoo, which is always fun. The further away (sometimes literally) the children are from their father, the more they seem to be able to break free from the proscribed roles that Tywin attempts to enforce. Jaime is slowly being revealed as a man with a deeply held sense of right and wrong, and Tyrion, as a man of compassion and probably the smartest of the Lannister children. And Cersei, well, we are beginning to see what Papa Tywin meant when he accused her of not being as smart as she thinks she is … she did not see her own instruction to marry coming.

Tywin is vastly more interested in preserving the Lannister legacy than he is in actual Lannisters.

Cheryl
Right. And we find deeper reasons for Jaime to hate his father, as it turns out he betrayed the Mad King – and thus forced Jaime to kill him after the king ordered the burning of the city. After Tywin ordered the marriages of Cersei and Tyrion to Sansa and Lorus, Tywin’s children now have more reason to hate their father. Despite their pleas and protestations, he insists that his children do as they are bid, and simultaneously expresses his contempt for them.

The burgeoning relationship between Jamie and Brienne is fascinating.

Corrin
Brienne is beginning to look beyond her contempt for Jaime’s “oathbreaking” and, frankly, his beauty, and see the man underneath. Jaime, in turn, is learning to trust someone with a strong, sometimes rigid, sense of honor. They’re terrific.

Cheryl
That scene in the bath was weird, but great. Jamie, after confessing his sins, faints – and finally was able to reclaim his own name and reject the hated “Kingslayer.”

It was a baptism, as she held filthy his head above the water. I think he will be reborn now, Jamie v.2.

As an aside, Jaime’s stump sticking out of the water seemed like a wretched comment on his feeling of being half a man – like a broken sword.


Corrin
What did you think of the opening swordfight scene?

Cheryl
Swords – and penisies – were all over this episode.

As for the swordfight – meh. It left me kind of cold, partly because there was no intro to it. The Hound pushed through his fear of fire to face a flaming sword and burning shield – and win. (Though Beric Dondarrion was resurrected from a mortal wound by the prayers of Thoros.) I thought it interesting that Jorah and Selmy later recalled fighting with Thoros and his burning sword.

The Lord of Light line is growing in importance with each episode.

Corrin
I thought it was an exciting scene, just in and of itself, but I also knew that the resurrection reveal was coming up so that made it even more exciting for me. I’m glad that Beric and the Brotherhood have finally made it into the show. They’re such an interesting plot device. Yes, the resurrection of Beric shows the increasing importance of the Lord of Light. It is a sanctioning of sorts for the work that the brotherhood is attempting: to bring some justice to the smallfolk.

It seems as if those who are following higher values of justice are being rewarded (such as Beric and his resurrection, Dany and her army’s loyalty).

But at the same time, Arya is seeing her own very strong sense of honor thwarted at every turn. If, in her mind, there were true justice, the Hound would have died, her father’s honor would have been rewarded by life, her friends would never choose to leave her, etc.

Cheryl
Excellent point. But of course, Arya doesn’t yet see the big picture – do any of us? – and know of the Hound’s help to her sister Sansa, and that he is thus worthy of compassion. You have the sense he survived the trial because he performed his bad deeds while under the service to another, picking up that theme again of what happens when you honorably serve bad princes.

Speaking of the Lord of Light: It was true weirdness as we meet Stannis’s wife, Selyse, finally – and she too is praying to the Lord of Light. Stannis – abandoned by Melisandre – seeks out her company, and she quickly tells him that the “red woman” has told her everything. Nothing like your mistress/priestess becoming best buds with your wife. He tries to confess his infidelity to her and is clearly anguished, but she’s having none of it – she tells him that it was all necessary because he’s doing “god’s work.” He seems taken aback, and truly pained by his choices. She urges Stannis not to see his daughter – she seems to be mouthing Melisandre’s words – but he insists.

Corrin
Holy creepy woman, batman! Selyse is a fanatic convert to the Lord of Light. With the jars of her dead babies, Selyse is giving inappropriate breastfeeder, Lysa Arryn, a run for her money as the nuttiest woman in this series. Yowza.

Cheryl
Am I correct that she and her daughter are held in semi-lockdown?

Corrin
Sorta. Selyse keeps away pining over her lost male children, but Shireen (Stannis’s daughter) is being kept away because of her disfigurment. (It’s called “greyscale” and it’s a childhood illness.)

Cheryl
I’m surprised that Stannis is still defending his imprisonment of Davos – as he seems to be questioning his ties to Melisandre.

Corrin
Stannis is an odd fellow. He will make choices that seem contradictory to his rigid sense of honor. But, in actuality, it is all in service of a higher right that he is attempting to enforce. Stannis doesn’t want the Iron Throne so much as it is his by right. And that is what drives him. If Joffrey were actually a legitimate Baratheon, Stannis would go to his grave defending him without ever a thought to attaining the throne himself. So everything he does (including messing around with Melisandre) is in service of doing the “right thing” irregardless of the consequences.

Cheryl
A blind, rigid sense of “honor” and “duty.”

Corrin
Precisely. Stannis, Ned Stark, and now we’re seeing, Robb Stark are all cut from the same cloth. They want to be personally honorable regardless of the consequences to the greater cause.

This is where I think an adaptation choice isn’t serving the story as well. Robb Stark, in the books, marries a Lannister girl that he has sex with while she’s nursing him back to health from a wound sustained in battle. He marries her because he “dishonored” her. He does this because of his own personal sense of honor and despite the danger that breaking his oath to the Freys places on his cause. Much like how his father’s personal sense of honor led him to give Cersei warning that he knew about her incest with Jaime and which ultimately led to his death.

The beheading of Rickard Karstark is just another decision by Robb that upholds his personal sense of honor at the expense of the cause, or of the big picture. He’s willing to lose the war to win his own personal battles.

Cheryl
And also you have a sense that he feels he has to act “kingly” and put his foot down.

Corrin
He’s an honorable fool, just like papa. All of the Stark kids are learning just how far honor will (or will not) take them.

Cheryl
Robb (like Ned) has a hard time adapting their sense of honor to ruling. As Jorah and Selmy described the exercise of power and what Dany will have to do once she seizes it, “she’ll have to wade through the muck,” similar to a remark that (I think) Varys made earlier this season, that you have to cultivate a taste for the distasteful. It’s all about the messy exercise of power. Curiously, I was rewatching an episode from Season 1, where the decision was made by Robert to kill Dany and her unborn kid as they were threats deemed to the realm. Ned refused and quit. But in retrospect, could it be that he was wrong? She is a threat to the realm.

Corrin
She absolutely is a threat!

Cheryl
Back in King’s Landing, Sansa seems mysteriously blind – let’s say innocent – of Loras’s inclinations and can’t wait for a wedding to him. Littlefinger of course is quite aware, and he sends a handsome squire Loras’s way to get the dirt. Do we believe that Littlefinger will let go of Sansa that easily?


Corrin
Not at all. Sansa is Catelyn Tully reborn for Littlefinger. He won’t let her go because of who she is personally and poltically. Littlefinger was scorned by Cat and the Tullys as being too far below them to marry one of the precious Tully daughters. But now he has Cat’s daughter and the political power to manipulate her.

Speaking of Stark kids, how about Jon Snow getting all up close and personal with Ygritte this episode?

Cheryl
Does Jon’s decision to spend time in Ygritte’s cave mean he has forever turned his back on the Night’s Watch?

Corrin
Jon is having his own wrestling match with his personal honor and the big picture. He hasn’t turned his back on the Watch. He has however begun to accept that in order to best help his brothers he has to forswear his oaths. He will forever hate himself for doing it, but he recognizes, much like Stannis, that the larger goal is what is most important. The question is whether he can hold on to that big picture as he falls further under Ygritte’s spell. Mance Rayder was faced with the same conundrum and he wasn’t able to come back to the Watch.

But, personally, I’m glad Jon gets a little somethin’ somethin’. I always felt terrible for him that he went to the Wall a maid, as Ygritte put it.

Cheryl
It was nice to see Jon actually smile, for god’s sake, and stop the brow furrowing. They finally did it after she grabbed hs sword and made him chase her. More sword imagery.

Corrin
Given the sheer volume of naked asses in this episode, my husband started calling it “Game of Asses.”

Cheryl
Let’s pray that we never see Podrick’s ass!

Were you disappointed or thrilled by this episode? Let us know in comments!

Learned Fangirls Reflect on Game of Thrones: “And Now His Watch Has Ended” (Season 3, Episode 4)


This week’s recap – Playing with Fire: The Ladies Go for It.

In this week’s episode, Season 3 finally hit its stride, with a huge finale featuring Danaerys, and several notable reveals and introductions especially relevant to book fans.

The latest installment in TLF’s weekly recap features three fans with very different perspectives: Cheryl Collins, a TV show fan who has never read the book series upon which the series is based; Laura Fletcher, a casual fan of the TV and book series; and Corrin Bennett-Kill, a hardcore fan of the book and TV series (who has read all the books four times). Miss us last week? Read Episode 3, “Walk of Punishment.”

We invite you to join the discussion in comments!

Cheryl Collins
For me this week was about a few big themes, including women reaching out for the brass ring, some more successfully than others.

All the women — Cersei, Dany, Arya, Margaery and Olenna Tyrell, Brienne (and we might even throw in Varys, given the kimono he was sashaying around in this week) — were throwing their weight around. Dare we say, leaning in?


Laura Fletcher
Cheryl, I’m glad you mentioned a theme besides revenge. In my opinion, revenge is always there. But this time, women — and dare I say, gender roles — took up a lot of narrative space again.

Corrin Bennet-Kill
Oh my God, what a great episode! It was so much fun to watch!

Dany moved through the acquisition of her army with such finesse. I adored how she completely blew off Jorah Mormont in her moment of triumph, truly claiming it as her victory.

Cheryl
Is there a character in this show that feels more castrated than Jorah Mormont? (OK, maybe Stannis.)


Corrin
Well, Jorah has spent his life being p*ssy whipped by women. Capitulating is his modus operandi. Recall why he is in exile in the first place (he was bakrupted and sold thieves as slaves in an effort to keep his demaning wife in the style to which she had become accustomed).

Laura
Danaerys: That girl is on fiy-ah! (Sorry, I had to.)

At this rate Jorah’s going to be relegated to reaching for things on high shelves for Dany! She’s coming into her own for sure — though I do want to say that her very white features and her entire storyline across the sea has been racially loaded. Now she’s freeing slaves and leading them as free men into war to win back Westeros. There’s plenty of gender and race/ethnicity stuff happening here. (Many thanks to the smarty-snarky-fabulous Fatihan Iman on Twitter for speaking to this issue so well!)

Corrin
Those exercising power (and relatively successfully to date) are either women or half men (Tyrion, figuratively, and Varys, literally).

Those with the traditional power roles, the patriarchs, are losing sons, hands, and lives. Those who are traditionally weak are in ascendance (Sam at the Wall, Brienne, all the female power players in Kings Landing). One could even say that Stannis is not making any power plays at the moment because Melisandre left him in the lurch.

Laura
And the Unsullied — whom Jorah said weren’t men — have sacked Astapor.

Cheryl
Plus the Night Watch guys — society’s castoffs — have mutinied.

What to make of Brienne telling Jamie — who had lost the will to live — that he was acting “like a woman”?

Laura
Oh Brienne, why do people consider your character “feminist”?

Corrin
What is missed is that Brienne has co-opted traditional masculine roles not because she wanted to, but her lack of traditional femininity forbade her pursuit of typical female roles. She claimed Renly as her king because she loved him. She fights because she has spent a lifetime being rejected by men, not because she despises being a woman. She despises not being a “feminine” woman.

Laura
Corrin, I think you’re spot-on. It’s a mistake to see her rejection of gender roles as anything but necessity — unlike Arya, I think, who also had to play a boy by necessity but seems much more likable and heroic, for some reason.

Also, in this episode I missed the subtlety of the shifting points of view in the books (where each chapter switches characters). Cersei, in my mind, is easily misread as conforming to or believing in gender roles in the show.

Corrin
Cersei is bitterly angry about her own lack of personal power and intensely resents her own gender as a result. She hates being a woman and relying on the men in her life to provide her with power. She believes she, not Jamie, should have been the man.

Cheryl
You just feel that Cersei is so yesterday — both she and Jamie must now confront lives without the things they most coveted, the ways they identitified themselves. Cersei’s power is slipping from her fingers as Margaery is ascendant.

How Jamie and Cersei respond to these challenges — the high road or low — will give great opportunities to reveal character.

Laura
Cersei’s scene with Tywin, for example, cast her in a similar role to Tyrion a couple episodes back. She’s vying for respect and knows that, whatever she says, her being a woman is a liability.

Then, in her conversation with Olenna Tyrell, she ends their discussion of women’s disempowerment (literally) by saying the gods have willed that men should be in charge. However, I think that can be misread as her believing it. I think it was both sarcastic and self-preserving, as the Tyrells are also ascendant while the Lannisters — despite what her father thinks — are in serious doo-doo.

Cheryl
But Cersei — unlike Margaery — seems incapable of seeing the big picture. Olenna is more appealing yet also conniving, because she has the distance and wisdom that Cersei lacks.

Laura
I think Margaery is underestimating the danger she’s putting herself in by being near Joffrey and playing the eponymous game of thrones.

Corrin
And the danger to Margaery comes from Cersei. Not Joffrey.

Cheryl
I saw that comment of Cersei’s the same way: like, “Joffrey is the king here, whatever you may think, and he and I are in control. Not you, Tyrells.”

And do we think that Margaery’s offer to Sansa of her brother Loras in marriage was heartfelt, or conniving? Is a web being spun by Margaery to bring in the north — or was she trying to help her new friend? Sansa does not seem to have learned to suspect enough, of Littlefinger or Margaery.

Corrin
Cheryl, I think it’s a heartfelt offer. The lady Tyrells are portrayed (in book and show) as being good-hearted, if also adept at playing power games.

Cheryl
I thought via TV, it was more vague; her goals were more ambivalent.

So let’s get back to the other big theme, Revenge. It was depicted as an all-powerful, life-sustaining force. For example, Jamie said he had no desire for revenge, making it clear he had lost the will to live. Brienne then kicked him in the butt by reminding him of his near-duty to seek revenge.


Corrin
Varys was all over this episode, and revenge is such a part of his soul now that his story could be casually revealed. I think his explanation of how he was cut was long overdue, but but the manner in which he revealed the details was spectacular. It was a brilliant visual depiction of the way Varys has taken vengeance to his breast.

The casual way he pried open the box. The moment he took to wash his hands. All the while, Tyrion looking on slightly horrified. And then the big reveal.

Laura
Corrin, I know you mention great casting all the time, and Conleth Hill as Varys is a real scene-stealer when he wants to be!

Cheryl
Throwing this out there: flames and fire were all over this episode — many if not most scenes begin and end with fire imagery. From the reminder of Varys’s testicles being sacrificed — !! — to the reveal that the Band of Brothers are worshipping the “Lord of Light,” to the fire at Craster’s place, with Mormont and Craster ending up as twin cremains.

Laura
Ooh, and the fiery deaths of all the Targaryens that Joffrey referenced! And of course, Dany’s dragons and the spectacular final scene.

Plus the cremation of the random Crow who died of malnutrition, it seems, gave us the title this week: “And now his watch is ended.” Next week’s episode, it should be noted, is “Kissed by Fire”!

Cheryl
So what about the mutiny in the pigsty/wife-breeding facility?

Corrin
It was well done. The buildup of resentment over the course of the season was ready to come to a head. You could see Mormont losing his grip on his men as starvation and defeat began to eat at them. Plus, most of the fighting men died on the Fist of the First men. The Rangers of the Nights Watch were typically nobility, but remember that much of the Watch now is made up of murders, thieves, and rapists. Not the most noble fellows, nor the most willing to self sacrifice for a greater goal.

Cheryl
A good example of how when people are desperate, order breaks down. But I did think it was interesting that both Craster and the elder Mormont were left to roast after they both referenced their gods: Mormont with “the gods will curse us!” and Craster proclaiming “I am a godly man!”

Corrin
On to Theon. That circular story arc still annoys me.

Cheryl
Ah. Theon. Well, to me, this is where a theme from real life this week was reflected back in fantasy whether we liked it or not: of young men making terrible choices that cost lives and facing the consequences of their decisions.

Laura
Before Theon realized he was captured, he confessed so much to Creepy Dude that I’m now worried for him.

Cheryl
Right: he confessed, and instead of the expiation of his sins, he gets, well, crucified.

Corrin
Anyone having a hard time with the Bran Stark story line? I keep forgetting he’s even in the show.

I will say this: I’ve read through book five and his role/purpose still isn’t all that clear. So it doesn’t surprise me that the show is having difficulty finding a path for him.

Cheryl
And the less we say about Pod the Sex Machine, the better!

What is your opinion of this episode? What’s drawing you in and making you curious — or furious? What do you think of how gender and race are playing out? Have at it in the comments!

Is it time to give up on pay-what-you-like music?

TLF has written a lot about the music industry and the pros and cons of the pay-what you-like model before. I (Keidra) have been a supporter and defender of the model for the most part, with the belief that most honest and dedicated fans will show their support in other ways: concert tickets, merch, etc. even if they don’t end up paying for the music itself.

Admittedly, maybe a lot of that opinion was wishful thinking on my part. I am not going to lie to you and say that I have never enjoyed music that I didn’t directly pay for, and that I won’t do it again. As a passionate music fan in the throes of impatient anticipation of one of my favorite band’s upcoming album, if said album happened to … make itself available to me through non monetary means… I will take advantage of that opportunity. (However, it should also be noted that I’ve also pre-ordered two different versions of said album – on iTunes and CD – and bought tickets for two live performances of said band.)

I am old enough to remember pre-downloading days when paying for music was a necessity, and I believe in supporting the work of my favorite artists, so if I do happen to acquire music, I am pretty diligent about supporting them live, buying t-shirts and other random knick-knacks, because I know they’ve got rent to pay.

But I know this approach probably isn’t a policy that the majority of fans adhere to, which is why the music industry is in such a pickle to begin with. For every fan that downloads and then spends a crapload on merch, there’s about 50 fans who download music and don’t ever spend a dime. And now, in the age of Spotify and music streaming, the value of recorded music (much like the value of writing) has been eroded even more. Making music, making decent-sounding music that doesn’t sound like you recorded it in your basement or like Metallica’s “And Justice For All” costs money. Touring costs money. Every downloaded song, every song that’s streamed, is money that’s not going back into the production costs of the song that’s being enjoyed. And it adds up.

Recently, we’ve seen the two most high-profile defenders of these new models – Trent Reznor and Radiohead – back off from their support of this model. Trent Reznor signed his other band How to Destroy Angels to Columbia Records, explaining that the indie route was not a logical choice for that particular endeavor. I still think it’s possible for pay-what-you-like to work, but much like other types of creative careers, making decent money is less viable than it used to be. But what else can you do? If recorded music has lost its value, is there any other way to approach making a living from it?

I turn to a similar industry’s approach to this issue, journalism. We’re seeing many more large, esteemed news publications like the New York Times, and the Washington Post enact paywalls for their content (and a couple of publications where I’m like “really?” but that’s a post for another day). We’re at the point now where there’s an abundance of free writing on the web, and so much of it is of such poor quality, that I do believe that consumers are now willing to pay for writing that doesn’t suck and publishers are starting to look more closely at user experience and content delivery and how to offer that as a premium to consumers.

Now, the current music environment is forcing independent artists to approach their work like marketers in a way that doesn’t necessarily sit well with me. But as music fans expect a high level of quality and a personal connection from musicians and bands, labels are being forced to think about consumers in a more personal way as well. Labels are being pushed to listen to fans, pay attention to their experience as more than just consumers, nurture both artists and their fanbases in a way that was being lost. I know this sounds overly positive, possibly to a fault, but if what comes out of the past 15 years of a tanking music industry is a (tentative) embrace of a artist-focused, fan-focused mindset by labels, then maybe there’s a silver lining to all of this.

They Keep Moving the Line: What Can Be Learned About Authorship from Smash

Many movies and television shows show the artistic process as a simple one — one where the singular author writes alone in the modern equivalent of a garret in Paris. When the author is stuck, a friend or a muse helps the process along until the “By Jove, I think he’s got it” moment. And scene!

However, despite its many failings as a show (with the exception of Megan Hilty and the supporting dancers/singers), Smash (presently on NBC) does show the complicated nature of completing a work — here two very different staged musical productions, one on Broadway, one off Broadway.

For both musicals, Bombshell (about the life of Marilyn Monroe) and Hit List (about the fleeting nature of fame, I think, maybe or it is just a post-modern Spring Awakening sans death?), the original writing team (lyricist and composer duo) has a very clear vision of what they want their musical to be. However, at almost every turn, their original vision is stymied, by others trying to make the musical more marketable and acceptable to a wider audience. But unlike the traditional narrative about creation, some of the changes forced upon the productions make the shows better.

Two Marilyns from Smash
Two Marilyns from Smash

One of the most interesting aspects on Smash regarding authorship and control is based around the inclusion of a dramaturg on both productions. At least within the context of the show, a dramaturg helps the authors to focus the narrative of the musical, thereby changing the structure of the musical, including adding or eliminating songs and characters. Having a non-author voice helps both productions become better, because the authors are too emotionally connected to their work.

While only a stepping stone to ridiculous plot twists, I appreciated that the authorship contribution of the director was considered on Smash. When the director leaves Bombshell for Hit List, the need for him to sign off on the continued use of his choreography is shown through the new choreography being … dreadful and a mockery of the song The National Pastime. However, the new version is needed to avoid any remnants from the original — thankfully not needed to a sign-off within the same episode (without negotiation or a payoff? Seriously?). Unlike Television Without Pity, I would like “episode after episode of thrilling contract negotiations” considering how rarely transactional issues regarding authorship are dealt with (but I realize my interest is not that of the average viewer). Hit List has a similar disagreement between one of the authors and the director, solved not through logic, but by the *other* author (AKA the only non-jerk, thereby fewest lines).

And this is just what we see on the screen. According to the creator of Smash, playwright Theresa Rebeck forced out at the end of last season:

“One of the points of contention last year was that the network thinks they have the right to say to the writer of the show, ‘We don’t want her to do this. We want her to do this… And I would sometimes say back to them, ‘She would never do that.’ And they’d look at me like I was crazy, and I’d be like, ‘Nope, it’s not crazy, it’s just who the character is.’ You have to respect who the character is. It has its own internal truth and you can’t betray that. And if you don’t betray that, it will not betray you. There is this sort of sense that if you don’t fuck with the muse—if you don’t fuck with the muse, the muse will stand by you. … It turns into bigger questions about power and art, power and storytelling. Is power itself bigger than storytelling? And I would say no.”

As someone who has watched the show since the beginning, I think that power and boring storytelling has now finally overtaken the remaining interesting aspects of the show. And considering the potential — They Keep Moving the Line — is a perfect song that *should* be in a Broadway production starring Hilty. To-day. While a broader view of authorship can help to widen the perspective of audiences about the creative process, Smash‘s time to get the balance right unfortunately is over, considering it is more interested in Gossip Girl style plot twists and out-of-character interactions. The creative process is complicated — and Smash‘s on- and off-screen drama prove how complicated actual, let alone legal, authorship can really be.