Hey you guys, question: so I don’t have time to single out and approach every person who tries to tag that cannibalism post as “woobifying” or “unbelievable,” et cetera. It’s just like— there’s not enough time in the world, especially when people are less interested in the conversation than basically slagging people off.
Should I take the post down? The thing is, I stand by it, and I feel strongly about what I said. However, my block list is getting ridiculous.
ETA: Never mind. I took it down so that I don’t have to deal with the notifications. If you do want to talk to me about it, that’s totally fine. But as I’ve mentioned before, I have major problems with conflict, and it’s not something I’m willing to deal with.
teuthidtransmitter:
feedtabe:
charlieyouareagenius:
radiokunlun:
but can we talk about
YES WE CAN TALK ABOUT
It’s disappointing they didn’t run with this more in the final version. Will does it once (mimicking the “horse to a post” metaphor), but that’s it. I’ve tried to find other examples, but it seems like they dropped the idea more or less entirely. It would have been wonderful to see on screen.
(Can we also talk about how we all know the pilot episode so well that we can pick out any deviation in the old script?)
This was one of the most interesting characteristics of Will Graham in Red Dragon.
Jack Crawford heard the rhythm and syntax of his own speech in Graham’s voice. He had heard Graham do that before, with other people. Often in intense conversation Graham took on the other person’s speech patterns. At first, Crawford had thought he was doing it deliberately, that it was a gimmick to get the back-and-forth rhythm going.
Later Crawfer realized that Graham did it involuntarily, that sometimes he tried to stop and couldn’t.
I can understand why they would take it out of the show, what with everything that goes on with Will already, that might have cluttered his personality…..that being said, to hear Hugh Dancy, on top of his delectable acting skills, take on the cadence of other people’s voices…mmm…
I think more that we see it in a different way in the show. We don’t really see him adopt the speech patterns of living people, but we do see him mimick the killers whose minds he’s trying to inhabit. He does it a few times with Hobbs, but the one that stuck with me particularly is when he talks about “getting a decent sound” out of Tobias’ victim. Like a lot of his other issues, his speech patterns are getting all wrapped up with the killers’ madness that he takes on.
Responding to a couple of the comments here— I’m not sure I’m really comfortable describing something like this as potentially “cluttering” a character’s personality, since that tends to suggest that various character traits are being used as, like, decorative furnishings. I almost said “character tics or traits,” which should give you a sense of why this might be problematic.
I agree that I think we see this folded into the general “performance” of the killings that overseeps into Will’s behavior around crime scenes. The more I think about this, the more even something like the “getting a decent sound” comment seem like exactly this adoption of speech patterns. So, actually, does the way that Will reaches for words when pressed to explain the Minnesota Shrike’s emotions— “love,” “honoring.” It’s the adoption not only of tone of voice, but of vocabulary. I find this really fascinating, since I am obsessed by language. To what extent is being able to “voice” someone else an embodiment?
Yesterday, at an event organized by Mayors Against Illegal Guns in Concord, N.H., a list of names of “victims of gun violence” was read aloud. Today, one name stands out: that of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombing suspect killed during a shootout with police. The MAIG list came from…
In other news: ongoing efforts by people in general to exclude various categories of people from personhood.
Just a reminder for everyone: I try never to post anything that I don’t feel comfortable standing behind. If you have a problem with something I post, PLEASE feel free to open a discussion with me about it. I am not confrontational, am not going to judge you on the basis of your sentence structure, and understand that English is not everyone’s first language. I am very willing to be corrected or persuaded, so long as it’s in a polite & reasonable manner. I wouldn’t be on Tumblr if I didn’t want to participate in an ongoing conversation.
Re: Writing Bryan Fuller about the whole Will/autistic issue- I remember I read an interview where Fuller apologized for/clarified the confusion- it might be a good idea to take that into account before writing to him. Sorry, but I don't have the link :( Will try to find it.
If you have the link, that would be very welcome!
Just to clarify: I think Fuller’s cool; it just seems to me like he waded into the middle of a situation he didn’t know very much about, and as a result made a bunch of really problematic comments. What I would really like is for those who feel strongly about it to have the opportunity to explain to him why those comments were problematic, and offer some information and experiences that might change his perspective and help him talk about the issue in a different way.
Does this seem fair?
liminal-zone:
perplexedfeline:
causticsouda:
izumikage:
brb laughing my ass off
the fuck is a texas bender
lasso
????????????? Is this a homestuck
om g
everything I can think of to say sounds dirty
“cow benders”
“rattlesnake benders”
texas is the place that is bent already
THOUGHTS NEEDED YOU GUYS.
So charlieyouareagenius and I have talked back and forth a little bit about trying to put together a post aimed at maybe letting Bryan Fuller know that some people in the fan community are uncomfortable with the way he’s talked about autism, and explaining some of the reasons why what he says is problematic. Here are some things I envision such a post focusing on:
- Some of the things that he has been quoted as saying about autism aren’t accurate— for example, that autism is a disorder where people don’t have empathy.
- The way that he’s differentiated Will Graham from autistic people (by trying to situate him as “the opposite of autistic”) runs the risk of seeming really disparaging to autistic people. (Like I said in previous post, it’s like saying, “He may not make eye contact, but he’s not like them.”) The rhetoric that he’s used on the show (in terms of Will Graham being “on the spectrum,” with his “horse… hitched to a post that’s closer to Asperger’s and autistics,” is ambiguous, and that he feels the need to “backtrack” or distance himself from this by making sure people know that (whatever else he is) Will Graham is not autistic is troubling.
- Modern understandings and constructions of autism (both medical and social) are really complex and in flux. It’s worthwhile to take some time to understand what “the autism spectrum” is, why it’s important, and why some fans have read Will Graham as being on the autism spectrum.
Here are some things that would not be in this post’s remit:
- Making accusations about ableism.
- Demanding that any character be or not be a certain way. (Alternately: insisting that any character is or is not a certain way.)
Some people have already offered me some thoughts on this issue. However, I would love to hear more opinions: would such a post be appropriate or inappropriate? Are there points that you feel are missing here? Do you feel strongly that any of these points should not be included? Thoughts on how this message would best be conveyed? Please comment or send me a note!
