This is just an idea that’s been kicking around my head for a few days, but I’d like to get everyone’s early take on it. Let me begin by listing reasons a POC-centric geek gathering should happen:

• Because we’ve already seen Geek Girl Con and and Bent-Con step up for communities typically marginalized or exploited by genre-related industries.

• Because Christina Xu’s GGC wrap-up raises questions that still need to be addressed:

in an age when superstar rapper Nicki Minaj name-checks Street Fighter characters and streetwear brands team up with comic-book companies like Marvel and DC, who exactly is the geek referred to in GeekGirlCon? To be a geek, do you have to prefer filk over bounce? Is it a self-identification?

I ask these questions because I’m legitimately curious; if fandom is the uniting factor, then the increasingly diverse audiences for all of our favorite geek media (video games, sci-fi, comics, etc.) should be offered a place at conventions like GGC. If, in fact, geekdom here is actually defined by a set of social norms and practices (or the lack thereof) that just happens to coincide with fandom, then geek communities need to have some serious internal conversations and own up to that.

• Because, while San Diego Comic-Con and other conventions featured race-positive programming this year, that still doesn’t make them safe spaces.

• Because you can still say the same about any number of fandoms.

• Because in spite of this fact, there’s still members of fandom – consumers, creators and executives alike – who still won’t own up to the fact that there’s geeks out there who react with hostility whenever somebody points out a problematic portrayal of race.

• Because not only are there POC writers, artists and editors doing good work, there’s cosplayers, bloggers, cartoonists, and filmmakers on the scene

• Because there’s got to be creators and aspiring creators of color out there who need a place in which to meet and network outside of the “general population.”

• Because executives still think diversity is “contrived.”

• Because, while it was great to read about DC Comics getting called out on the carpet at SDCC with regards to gender issues, I shouldn’t have to doubt that raising the same questions about race would get half as much discussion outside of sites like this one or Racebending.

• Because the Akira adaptation is still happening, proving Hollywood didn’t get the message about The Last Airbender.

• Because this might be the best way left to get those same industry forces to listen to our concerns, in a place where we can set the terms of discussion.

Again, this is just a kernel of a concept right now, but … what do you think, Racializens? Would you be up for a full-scale gathering?

If you’ve seen the latest episode of The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl (ABG), you probably caught J’s best friend Cece refer to White Jay’s ex as a “tr***y bitch in heels.” Or J’s co-worker Patty ask her if she’s “gay” because J cut her hair to a tweeny-weeny afro (TWA). Or J’s nemesis, Nina, asking her when did she “catch cancer” due to the new ‘do.

Some fans responded to the overt transphobic insult with an open letter on Crunk Feminist Collective Tumblr:

Dear Awkward Black Girl,

We love the show! We also love your continuous engagement with fans and your commitment to staying on the Web to maintain your vision. What we don’t love is the transmisogyny and misogyny in episode 11.

In episode 11, CeCe calls White Jay’s ex a “tra**y bitch in heels.” The word tra**y perpetuates violence and divisiveness amongst women by relying on the idea that trans women are not “real” women; it suggests that White Jay’s ex is somehow less than the main character J.

The word “tra**y” has a very real history of violence and discrimination, often targeting trans women. It has been used as a slur, as a way to objectify women, and as a way of denying the personhood of trans women on the basis of appearance.

We have seen your responsiveness to the fans of ABG and we hope that by raising this concern you will respond accordingly by not using such language in future episodes. There are so many awkward queer, trans, and disabled folks who love the show and it hurts to see and hear our lives used as punchlines. For those of us, the awkward black, queer folks who have lived at the intersections of our awkwardness, our blackness, and our transness, words like “tra**y” erase our lives, and our humanity. Phrases like “No lesbo” and the use of affected speech to imitate hard of hearing people detract from the vision of creating representations for the rest of us who are all too often maligned in mainstream media.

We look forward to many more episodes of The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl that are hilarious without the use of marginalized groups as a punchline. We have confidence that you have the creativity to continue to push comedic boundaries in new ways and educate your audience in the process.

With fierce love,
alicia sanchez gill
Claire Nemorin
Moya Bailey
Kimberley Shults
Anonymous Awkward Others

Another tumblrer reblogged a tweet regarding the creators’ response to the Open Letter.

The initial Tumbl’d responses to this:

“This does not look promising.”

“hoping the response letter does not cause more pain.”

“well, shit. so much for finding a non-problematic show to love.”

Here’s the reply from ABG‘s co-creators Issa Rae and Tracy Oliver, found at Clutch Magazine:

Some of our viewers may have been offended by some of the language in our recent episode. We take this matter especially to heart, considering the CFC and members of the LGBT community were among the first to embrace ‘The Misadventures of Awkward Black Girl.’

Since our first episode debuted in February this year, ‘Awkward Black Girl’ has received an incredible outpouring of support from hundreds of thousands of fans. We love and appreciate each and every one of our fans! In return, we strive to provide a show that uses irreverent comedy and humor to address the oftentimes uncomfortable situations that many people have experienced at some point or another in their lives.

In creating a series of this nature, we are willing to accept the praise when the jokes work and the feedback when they may not.

Sincerely,

Issa & Tracy

Whereas a few Clutch Magazine commenters thought Rae’s and Oliver’s letter was”respectful” and “very well said,” quite a few commenters applauded Rae for “not apologizing” because that “would change the nature of the show.” Even Crunk Feminist Collective’s Brittney Cooper agreed  that it’s an “excellent” response. And the post and the comments at Very Smart Brothers applaud the response, some of the commenters going so far as telling trans people (and the gay, lesbian, and bisexual people who are cisgender–oh yeah, and a few of us cis, trans, and gender non-conforming folks who love bell hooks) to “get over themselves” and “stop being so sensitive” because ABG “offends everyone,” especially with the liberal use of “bitch” and “n***a.” In fact, one commenter states that ABG using the “tr***y bitch in heels” line as a sign of acceptability for trans folks.

Dare I say it? Yes…

What the hell kind of no-pology is this?!?

Racialicious guest contributor Erika Nicole Kendall tweeted exactly why I felt this qualifies as a no-pology:

See, here’s my thing: if you’re saying that folks in LBGT communities are some of the first fans of your show, wouldn’t you go out of your way to not turn off that fan base  by simply saying something like, “I/We deeply apologize for saying the word “tr***y” on the ep. I could’ve used another word to talk about J’s discomfort instead of making trans people–and, by extension, our transgender fans–the butt of a joke,” instead of essentially stating you stand by a transphobic slur that is used in conjunction to do much more damage than just create “oftentimes uncomfortable situations that many people have experienced at some point or another in their lives?”

Because the word “tr***y” isn’t bantered about just to make trans people “uncomfortable.” As @graceishuman pointed out on Twitter:

 It’s only hilarious if you accept that trans women are by definition a joke. There’s no inherent humor to it beyond that.

The history of the word is that a lot of trans people, especially trans women of color, have had it used against them in the context of violence, sometimes as they were being murdered.

This post at the Tumblr a bell and a pomegranate further explains why the fans who wrote the letter–and the rest of us–found the  ”joke” unamusing:

Well, and naturally, what “may have offended” some people is language—as though that’s the important thing, that a nasty word (a word, to be fair, I cringe at) was used.  But of course it wasn’t—the meaningful portion of the trouble is that the use of “tranny” as an insult to cis women is about participating in the cultural notion that trans women are fake/grotesque/doing womanhood wrong/unworthy of respect and that it is shameful/disgusting for a cis woman to be similar to one.  It’s about functioning as a placeholder for certain policing discourses about the comportment and appearance of women in general by deploying the extreme danger of trans oppression as a veiled threat while subtly shoring up that oppression.(*)  That’s why people are troubled by the word in the first place, and why the first critiques of it were brought up—not because it is an inherently evil word, but because it participates in negative, damaging stereotypes about trans women.  It could have been any word.  The problem is that “tranny” is deployed as a shorthand for that cultural idea.  If they’d substituted in a nicer, less-charged word as shorthand to suggest that a given woman was like a trans woman and therefore fake/grotesque/doing womanhood wrong/unworthy of respect, it would still be transphobic.

When we focus over-much on contaminated words, we sometimes miss—and allow the people who use them to sidestep—the larger problem of what those words represent and why they’re hurtful in the first place.

(*) You know, in the same way that young straight men calling each other “faggot” don’t literally mean “I think you are attracted to other men,” but “you are not behaving as I think a man should and if you don’t get in line I am suggesting you be treated as is appropriate for the disgusting people indicated by this word, who also don’t get in line and who you know are visibly punished for it.”  In the same way that “whore” and “bitch” are deployed—they suggest that there is a category of people who you are culturally aware have fewer rights/more vulnerabilities to violence/etc. and that if you do not behave as expected you might be relegated to that category and treated accordingly.  Capitalism does it by threatening people who have money with the constant specter of poverty and homelessness—and then uses that to enforce cultural norms of behavior.  Sexism does it by threatening that men might be treated like “bitches” and “pussies.”  And cissexism/transmisogyny does it by threatening cis women with worlds like “tranny” and “shemale.

As for ABG‘s use of the words “bitch” and “n***a” as a reason why it should be OK for the creators to, therefore, use the words “tr***y,” I’ll say here what I said on a radio interview about those white feminists who defended the sign “Woman Is the N****r of the World” at SlutWalk NYC’s march: unless Rae and/or other people on ABG‘s creative team is a trans person, the word isn’t for them to use because they are outside of those communities. And, even at that, if there is a trans person on the crew, that person’s presence still doesn’t give permission or license for ABG‘s cisgender cast and crew to use it because the other trans folks didn’t vote on that person to give that imprimatur to use the slur.

Even Patti’s comment about J being “gay” because of J’s short cut pivots on both homophobia and transphobia, namely that Black lesbians are stereotyped as “looking” a certain way that is “outside” of the hetero male gaze (and, by extension, hetero male sexual/romantic consideration), namely having a short afro, which is construed as “trying to be manly,” thus policing J’s femininity. Of course, Nina’s comment comment about “catching cancer” is simply ableist.

But I also feel like this is the part in the post where I need to repeat what we say quite a few times around the R: just because a person belongs to one or more marginalized group(s) doesn’t mean that person has an innate empathy for people in other marginalized groups. And “doing it for the art”–or to not be “politically correct”–adds insult to injury. Again, to quote Erika, in response to another tweeter:

…the non-responsive response they wrote, the onslaught of people defending them and saying “you didn’t do anything wrong” as if Black people forgot what it feels like to have you[r] very existence turned into something undesirable and slur-worthy…let’s just say it’s DUMB disturbing.

So, as much as I love J’s misadventures, I can’t quite walk down this transphobic, homophobic, and ableist path with her and her crew in this ep.

Image credit: Get on the Sofa

By Guest Contributor Mattie Brice, cross-posted from Kotaku

Tamagotchi. Remember those?

They became popular when I was in 4th grade. Sometimes my mother took me to a nearby Target to pick a toy- she told me it was for good grades, but I knew it was because I got bullied often at school. One of these times, I raced to find a Tamagotchi, as all of my friends were getting them. I liked the idea of something with me at all times, to take care of it and make me feel like something needed me.

And there it was, a whole wall of glittering purple eggs. I remember that exact, uncreative display panel to this day, and my mother stopping me. She told me to wait, that my aunt wanted to get that for my birthday when she visited. I protested, but the answer was the same: be patient, you’ll get it soon enough. We went a week later and all of them were gone, sold out from every toy store in our area. For some reason that memory is lodged in my brain. I brought it up to my mother recently, but she’s forgotten.

The stray times I visit Kotaku, it’s like I’m seeing an empty panel that the reward for my sitting, smiling, and internalizing should be. I was supposed to find somewhere to escape to, maybe even a place that needed me a little. You told me to wait, and I did. Where’s my Tamagotchi?

There is only a wrong way to go about this. So let’s just get to why I’m here:

Me too.

I’m part of the gaming community, but Kotaku doesn’t see me as a gamer. No, instead I’m a multi-racial transgender who-knows-sexual possibly-feminist woman gamer. A boogie monster. Someone who uses too many –isms and –ists in their daily tweets to actually enjoy anything. I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone ask what it’s like to be me in this pocket of society.

You know that invisible ink in detective movies? If you could get an internet lighter, you’d find “This site is for heterosexual white American men gamers.” Kotaku will never include me until it’s figured out that “gamers” is skewed to one identity and asks me to deal with that. No. Me too.

Gamer culture isn’t Kotaku’s fault. That skewing Japan as a land of weirdoes is humorous. That gamers like to look at galleries made up of T&A shots of women in cosplay. So what if someone like me doesn’t fit in with typical gamers? The editors are just providing what gamers want, how is that a bad thing? Are you using that lighter?

When I wasn’t bullied as a child, I was creating games. My favorite thing to do was to give my friends superpowers based on their personalities. When we played, they were empowered to be themselves. It was always fun because each one of us mattered. I mattered. Ever since, I knew I wanted to be involved with games, maybe even make them. I contemplate what I would say to kid-me now that I figured out what a gamer is. What kind of treatment I would receive if I ever got into the industry. Would it be more humane to convince my past self I didn’t actually matter?

I’ve turned away from Kotaku because it doesn’t like my answers. There’s a reason I can’t find you bountiful resources of sexually liberated cosplayers not posing for straight guys. [I had asked Mattie to help me find some sources of cosplay images more in line with what she would like to see on the site. — Kotaku Editorial Director Joel Johnson] Why there’s a scant amount of criticism of manchild culture. How the LGBT community is still the elephant in the room. We haven’t thought of what a gamer community that assumes diversity instead of homophobic adolescent dudes looks like. There are plenty of stats of who the “average” gamer is, what the actual demographics are. However, the image in our mind hasn’t changed in decades.

There’s a taboo against saying that. Me too. It’s radical liberal talk, an attempt to kill everyone’s fun. The common denominator response is “Why won’t you just go somewhere else?” I usually do. This attitude polarizes the community between large, mean-spirited marches of “the old guard” and a few impenetrable bastions of rigid but progressive niche philosophies. I’ve run to places like The Border House because “me too” isn’t deliberated upon, it’s the law. I turn away because Kotaku doesn’t ask me “Why are you leaving?”

Me too.

I’ve stared at those two words and deleted them often enough that I forget what they mean. I can’t say those words here without preparing myself for the sling-fest, and some days I just can’t summon the strength. This is after I go through my life dealing with crap society presents me just because I exist. And you know what sucks? That many times, my words are shrugged off, or given the fatal “I’ll think about it.” That isn’t inclusivity. Being benign doesn’t help. Letting commenters spew toxic isn’t inviting. Looking to defend yourselves doesn’t solve anything when it’s so obvious there’s a problem. I’m not looking to shame you, I just want to set things right.

Must I be a martyr? Must you be a machine? Are our only choices to become symbols and lose our humanity? Do you understand what you’re asking of me when you tell me to be patient? Do you know how long I’ve been waiting?

The games I play now won’t let me be myself. No game dares to feature a transgender character that isn’t on the wrong end of a joke. Sometimes I pretend that my party members know, but are too scared to ask. God, I don’t even know if most actual people know what it means to be transgender. Or multi-racial. Or anything other than what they are. I don’t know if they know it’s okay to ask. Then maybe we could figure out what a gamer really is. Halfway isn’t enough, but I will accompany you on the journey.

I wish Kotaku would tell me “We don’t want you to go away.” You’ll have to scroll down a bit to see if that comes true.

Me too.

By Guest Contributor Roxie Moxie, cross-posted from Nerdgasm Noire Network

Last week the Hunger Games character posters were revealed to fans.

There were the usual complaints of actors not meeting book loyalist expectations.  However, among the usual complaints of “She doesn’t look as young as I thought” or “Where are Effie’s pink curls?”  There was a different kind of shock and surprise toward Rue & Cinna, who will be played by Amandla Stenberg and Lenny Kravitz, respectively.

”And most hauntingly, a twelve-year-old girl from District 11. She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that, she’s very like Prim in size and demeanor.“―Katniss Everdeen, while watching Rue’s reaping

- The Hunter Games Wiki

She is 12 years old, with dark brown hair, skin, and “golden brown” eyes.

- Wikipedia

Rue is pretty clearly described as African-American which has been confirmed by director Garry Ross and author Suzanne Collins.

Entertainment Weekly: In the books, Katniss is described as being olive-skinned, dark-haired, possibly biracial. Did you discuss with Suzanne the implications of casting a blond, caucasian girl?
Ross: Suzanne and I talked about that as well. There are certain things that are very clear in the book. Rue is African-American. Thresh is African-American.

So then, why did comments like these show up on the Hunger Games Facebook when Rue’s poster was posted? (SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU HAVEN’T READ THE BOOKS, STOP AT GRACE’S COMMENT.)

Everything from the innocuous ”She’s not how I pictured her” to “I was all sad and like “she’s black!’”

Seriously? My good nerds, what in the entire f-ck?

While it is true that Rue is described maybe only twice in the entire book, she is described as having brown satiny skin that is darker than Katniss’ own tan skin.  While it is also true that the Hunger Games books are a very quick and absorbing read I don’t find that any of this an excuse to post on Facebook ”Shes Black?”

It makes me wonder if we all read the same book.

How is it, when Rue is so clearly described that fans insist they believed her to be white? White people are considered the norm in society; the default person.  It’s as simple as when you hear the words “All-American”, I can say with certainty that you are not picturing a minority person of color.  This is white privilege.

I’m a longtime Hunger Games fan and have followed many conversations on the internet concerning the casting of the film. Whenever the conversation comes to Rue there is always (1) person who is surprised to find out Rue is black and (2) another person who is upset that Rue is black. Upset as if they have been tricked or as if something has been stolen from them. Upset as if they now have to reevaluate how they feel about Rue–a character many fans love dearly because of her incredible courage.

“OMG, THERE IS A BLACK PERSON IN MY BOOK!?”

And the one that really kills me is {SPOILER AHEAD–HIGHLIGHT TO READ} “Where’s Prim? Her death is the one that gets to me most.” As if Rue’s death is not even worth this poster, and it should belong to Prim.

The reaction to Cinna is even more harsh.

Cinna:

Most people who live in the Capitol follow very absurd fashion trends. This is not the case for Cinna. The first time he is seen in the book, he is described as wearing a simple black shirt with matching pants. His one strange fashion choice is gold eyeliner, which brings out the gold flecks in his green eyes and which Katniss describes as attractive. Other than that, Cinna looks very normal, with close-cropped natural dark brown hair and slightly dark skin. {The Hunger Games Wiki}

Cinna is very different from the other inhabitants of the Capitol; he does not use surgery to alter his features, wears simple black clothes, and leaves his hair its natural dark brown color, close cropped. His only evidenced feature is a slight touch of gold eyeliner that brings out the gold flecks in his eyes. {Wikipedia}

It’s true that Cinna’s description is vague. Cinna could be absolutely any race. I felt the lack of description was purposeful. Cinna could be a hero that looked like anyone. I can’t fault anyone too much for thinking he might look like them, however …

Really, fandom? You nearly make me want to revoke my love of this series with these comments! Especially those who pictured Cinna as “sweet and loving”–A statement that implies that Kravitz doesn’t look that way.

However, many fans get it

by Guest Contributor RVC Bard, originally posted at Ars Marginal

What do Martha Jones, Tara Thornton, Guinevere, and Mercedes Jones have in common?

• If you answered that they are major supporting characters in hit TV shows, give yourself 1 point.
• If you answered that they are among the few fictional representations of Black women on major network television shows, give yourself 2 points.
• If you answered that fandom, for some mysterious reason, hates the shit out of them, give yourself 5 points.
• If you answered that fandom’s hatred of these characters are particularly gendered and racialized along stereotypes about Black women, hand yourself the internet.

The level of hatred spewed at these characters sometimes even manages to spill over onto the actors who portray them. Poor Rutina Wesley can’t do anything right in True Blood fandom. And according to some Merlin fans, Angel Coulby is probably the Antichrist. OK, I exaggerate. But not by much.

If you watch Merlin or True Blood, you’d know that some of the more melanin-challenged characters deserve that sort of vitriol waaaaaaay more than the characters it’s directed at, particularly if you consider reckless endangerment of innocent lives to be morally reprehensible. These are the same people who swoon over Franklin – a psychopathic vampire kidnapper/rapist/murderer – but wish all sorts of hellfire and brimstone onto Tara Thornton. Let’s not talk about how, in the eyes of Doctor Who fandom, Martha Jones’ chief flaw is not being someone else*. Gleeks seem to hate Mercedes just because she’s competition for Rachel. And Merlin fandom seems to believe that Morgana’s treacherous magical White girl ass is a more empowering role model for women than Guinevere’s steady, quiet strength**.

What’s so wrong with these characters according to fandom? Hm, let’s see:

• They have an attitude problem.
• They’re lazy.
• They’re mean.
• They’re stupid.
• They’re ungrateful.
• They’re selfish.
• They’re sluts.

Why do I feel like I need to puke and take a shower every time some of this shit shows up on my Tumblr, my LJ, or some other social media? Oh yeah, because this shit ain’t new, and it makes me sick.

I’m not going to break down the history of stereotypes against Black women because, hello, Google is your friend (until it enslaves us all to its will). This is Ars Marginal. We’re beyond that 101-level bullshit. Instead, we’re going to talk about how it affects real Black women in the real world. You know, the Black women you live with, work with, play with, love with, and so on.

When I see fandom reacting to fictional Black women this way, I wonder what they’re saying about real Black women while our backs are turned.

• If we react angrily to being repeatedly ignored, disrespected, and/or abused, will our White co-workers say we have an attitude problem?
• If we are open about seeking and enjoying sex, will our White friends call us slutty?
• If we demand recognition of our talents and gifts, will our White counterparts say that we’re looking for a handout or are getting too uppity?
• If we achieve better results with less work, will the White people in our lives call us lazy?
• If we speak our truth without apology, will White people call us mean?
• If we take care of ourselves, will we be called selfish?
• If we act, speak, or think without prior White approval, will we always be seen as stepping out of line?

What about you? When you see fandom talking about Black women characters in certain ways, how does that make you feel? How do you deal with it? What do you say (if anything)? What would you like to see change about this?

(*This reminds me way too much of The Color Purple, where Celie reveals that Mister beats her because she’s not Shug. Ugh.)

(**Funnily enough, this sort of subtle fortitude is something that I only see Black and Brown actresses pull off.)

By Arturo R. García

DC Comics has added to the buzz surrounding its’ relaunch with the announcement that Teen Titans will feature a gay POC character starting with the series’ third issue.

On one hand, this is something to be happy for, and Titans artist Brett Booth has already expressed his support for gay marriage and gay rights in discussing the new character, Miguel Jose Barragan, a.k.a. Bunker. But, as Booth wrote on his blog, he’s aware that he and series writer Scott Lobdell are wading into a complicated issue.

We wanted to show an interesting character who’s [sic] homosexuality is part of him, not something that’s hidden. Sure they are gay people who you wouldn’t know are gay right off the bat, but there are others who are a more flamboyant, and we thought it would be nice to actually see them portrayed in comics. Did we go over the top, I don’t think so. I wanted you to know he might be gay as soon as you see him. Our TT is partly about diversity of ANY kind, its about all kinds of teens getting together to help each other. It is a very difficult line to walk, will he be as I’ve read in some of the comments ‘fruity’? Not that I’m aware of. Will he be more effeminate than what we’ve seen before, the ‘typical’ gay male comic character, yes. Does it scare the shit out of me that I might inadvertently piss off the group I want to reflect in a positive way, you’re damn straight (pun intended!)

Booth also described other gay superheroes as looking and acting “like regular heterosexuals … they just happen to have sex with people of their own gender, under the covers and in the dark.” He did not specify which characters he was observing, but Booth’s view of what constitutes “regular” behavior is problematic, as The Mary Sue’s Christopher Holden points out:

Booth starts out his quote by implying that out “gay people who you wouldn’t know are gay right off the bat” are “hiding” their sexuality, without acknowledging that we live in a society that assumes straight until proven gay, where the attempts of gay men and women to only bring up their sexuality when it is actually relevant to a conversation, as when talking about significant others, and not when it isn’t, as when buying a shirt (a luxury enjoyed by all straight people), is interpreted as “hiding” by those they interact with. Perhaps Booth is self-consciously as worried as he needs to be.

Booth is also not accounting for one of comics’ big limitations as a medium: everything is rendered in still frames, so, while we can see heroes like Obsidian, Batwoman, Renee Montoya, Apollo and The Midnighter, we don’t get their voices and body language. So there’s nothing marking their sexuality other than what the creative team chooses to show us. It’s far trickier to use different kind of characterization techniques – vocal inflection, gestures, etc. – in a comic than in, say, a cartoon or a live-action setting.

Bunker will not be DC’s first “out” gay hero. In 1988, the company introduced Extraño, a character who would refer to himself as “auntie” and was played for laughs more often than not. The character was even infected with HIV by an “AIDS vampire” before his series, The New Guardians, was canceled.

It will also be interesting to see how Bunker’s backstory is addressed. On his blog, Booth mentioned this description from Lobdell:

He was raised in a very small Mexican village called El Chilar. He was very loved by his family and the village as well — and they were as accepting of his homosexuality as they were to his super powers when they first manifested. To that end he grew up in an angst-free environment. He was born out of the closet and so he has a very refreshing outlook on life.

Given that description, it’s possible that Bunker’s powers – as yet unnamed, but which seem to involve Miguel being able to create protective, brick-like shells not unlike Marvel Comics’ Armor – might factor into his acceptance in the kind of community that, as several commenters at sites like Bleeding Cool have mentioned, is usually highly religious and homophobic.

That kind of intolerance was highlighted in a study released last year by Mexico’s National Council to Prevent Discrimination, which was created in 2003 to enforce a national anti-discrimination law passed by the National Congress that same year.

According to the report, which is accessible as a PDF in both English and Spanish, 52 percent of all lesbian, gay or bisexual respondents reported discrimination as the main problem for their community. Spread across the socio-economic spectrum, more than half of respondents who identified their status as “low” or “very low” – no income levels were provided – said discrimination was still their primary obstacle. The police was cited as the primary source of that discrimination, followed by members of respondents’ church or congregations, which underscores concerns that, even for a comic-book character, Miguel’s background might be too fantastical.

But on the other hand, as blogger Son of Baldwin said in an e-mail interview with Racialicious Monday, such a portrayal could also be a nice change of pace for readers.

“As a gay person of color, I actually don’t have a problem with the backstory,” he wrote. “The aspect that would seem cliche to me is if he was the typical gay teen who endured homophobia in his home and community. Besides, it would function as a nice bit of wish fulfillment for all of those gay teens out there. And it opens up a LOT of story potential for the character to encounter homophobia in his new community as a gay teen who never imagined he should feel shame about who he is.”

Titans writer Scott Lobdell was the creator who outed Marvel Comics’ Jean-Paul Baubier, aka Northstar in Alpha Flight (Vol. 1) #106, published in 1992. Writer/artist John Byrne, who created Alpha Flight, has said that he had always conceived of the character as a gay male, but was not allowed to mention it openly by both the Comics Code Authority and the company’s Editor-in-Chief, Jim Shooter.

In July 2007, Lobdell told Comic Book Resources that he linked the revelation of Northstar’s sexuality to his characterization up to that point – an arrogant speedster with a short fuse:

While I certainly don’t think all closeted gay men are angry, I’m speaking specifically about Jean Paul. He used his anger to keep people away from him, from getting close, from discovering who he was. If you disliked him for being an arrogant prick, then you were not going to be able to get close enough to learn who he really was. If you didn’t like him for who he pretended to be, then you wouldn’t be able to judge him for who he was.

However, while praising Northstar’s coming out, AfterElton said Lobdell’s story – where Jean-Paul defends his adopted daughter, who is infected with HIV, from the bereaved superhuman father of an AIDS victim – “falls into so-bad-it’s-good territory.” It also pointed out that Lobdell left Alpha Flight before the story was even published. Lobdell told CBR Northstar’s sexuality was not behind his departure, instead citing “distinctly different views” between himself and incoming editor Rob Tokar.

At this point, editorial support doesn’t seem to be an issue for Bunker. DC co-publisher Dan DiDio had told The Advocate in July that the company planned to introduce a new LGBT character; of all the changes involved in DC’s revamped continuity, the sexualities of Batwoman, Apollo and The Midnighter have been left untouched; and at least one more upcoming series, Voodoo, will feature a bisexual creole protagonist, though there’s already concerns in the blogging community about how her career as a stripper will be presented.

On his blog, Booth does at least offer one positive sign for Miguel’s development: he won’t be the comic relief. But what he does become, and if he sticks around if/when DC reorganizes its’ continuity again in the figure, are still very much up in the air.

And it immediately made me think of Octavia Butler’s take:

I’m glad he was there, but watching Billy Dee Williams play that role was like watching Jesus Christ Superstar and realizing we’d finally made it into Biblical films: we could play Judas.

And because you can never get enough Lando Calrissian:

DMG|BurnYourBra: At tournaments players talk [crap] to each other. That’s just the way tournaments are. People get hyped. Players get salty when they lose, which is fine. But there is a difference between trash talking and calling other players disrespectful names. For me, I’ve been called a dyke, a butch, a slut, a bitch… I was even called a black bitch to my face along with being called a lesbian, a gorilla, and a monkey. Now I know people are going to say that as a player in the community, you have to have a thick skin. I do, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t speak up about the names I’ve been called. Because these names refer to my sex, but most of them refer to my race; which to me is racist. I think some of these people are blurring the lines between trash talk and disrespectful trash talk. And again, this is just my experience on the matter. I don’t know if anyone else has had this experience. So I wrote a note on my Facebook, made it private, and got the opinions of several other black female gamers. They all have had somewhat the same type of experience as I, some have seen it and others have heard of it.

DMG|jason24cf: Another topic you had mentioned in your post was about “not having the look” could you go into that further?

DMG|BurnYourBra: I would love to *laughs*. Well, I don’t feel that it was like this 10 years ago but there is what I call an “Asian Aesthetic” (as in meaning beautiful) in the fighting game community. There is almost an invisible rule in the way male gamers see female gamers in terms of looks. I’ve read and I have come across a lot of individuals who think because a certain person or persons are of Asian descent that they’re automatically good. Now, I will admit, Japanese players are really good, that can’t be denied. But when it comes in terms of females, it feels to me like it’s almost a written rule that if you aren’t Asian, and if you don’t have the look that fits into this beauty hierarchy, then you’re just not good. So, for me, I feel like it’s a double standard that I really can’t fight. I’m not Asian and I don’t have the Asian Aesthetic look. I’m an African American female, so I am looked at as trash by some people. Also, it is a male dominated community, I know of a few girls who have told me they don’t have “the look” or “don’t fit that ideal.” This ideal shouldn’t be used as a rule for females who want to play. So for me, and this is my own personal experience again, I want to be judged by my play. You can say that I suck. And I’m fine with that. But when you base it on my looks then that’s when I have a problem. I’m not there to please the males at the tournament with looks. I’m there to play and to get better. Judge me on my play rather than on my looks.
- From an April 16 interview in Dominion Method Gaming
Image courtesy of Kotaku

There comes a time, in every fan’s life, when you know you’re going to just shut up and take the blue pill.

For me, this normally comes up with new fantasy series. I am well aware of the dynamics of the fantasy world, and that most of the best authors generally create worlds in a certain mold: vaguely Middle Ages, super segregated European society archetypes and norms in play. The good are generally white and fair haired, the bad are at least dark haired, if not dark skinned. This is the major basis for most mainstream fantasy series (and even newer genres like urban fantasy follow this mold.) This is due to the sci-fi and fantasy world’s twist on Andrea Rubenstein’s video game based concept of the the usual amount of racism:

It starts with a primarily white universe*. If you really look at the worlds that the majority of games, even today, are set in, you’ll most likely notice a pattern: protagonists, antagonists, and random NPCs will tend to be white more often than not. You can read more about this trend, which is not confined to video games, in the post Why is the Universe full of White people? over at Angry Black Woman Blog.

The usual amount of racism doesn’t stop with the relative invisiblity of non-white characters, though. It extends to the concept that every non-white character that exists does so in a marked (versus the unmarked white) state. The marking of a character can be through comments drawing attention to the character’s race and/or through the use of clear racial stereotypes.

And, we fen of color know that generally, if we want to dip a toe in new worlds, they are going to be filled to bursting with white folks. As Angry Black Woman wrote a few years back:

12 colonies or planets filled with humans. So far I have seen exactly 2 black people (one was killed 42 minutes after he showed up on the screen), one Asian person (who isn’t even human, she’s a Cylon in disguise), one Latino person (whose son, for some crazy reason, is played by a white dude), and that’s it. The rest of the people are all white. White people everywhere. This is stupid. If you have billions of humans on 12 planets I refuse to believe that only the white people would survive. Statistics say so. Unless there weren’t many black people on the colonies to begin with. [...]

White, heterosexual men have the luxury of being able to turn to 99% of the channels beamed into their TVs and see themselves portrayed in a manner that makes them comfortable and happy. Most white women, do, too. Minorities of most any stripe do not have that luxury. This is especially true of ethnic minorities. Why do we ‘bean count’? Because we can. That’s not flippancy, that’s a fact. I can look at my TV and count the number of black people I see because there are so few of them and they tend to stand out in the sea of whiteness.

When we bring up this line of reasoning, rabid fans trot out foolish justifications. My personal favorite: “Black people weren’t everywhere.”

*DEEP EYEROLL*

Shakespeare wrote Othello, The Moor of Venice in the fucking 1600s. Why the hell are people still using that tired ass excuse for writers who were around for the end of segregation? Octavia Butler once said in an interview that you can confront supposedly progressive science fiction writers with their all white worlds, and many of them will be forced to admit something is wrong, just by simple logic and common sense. Yet, this madness keeps happening, even once the issue is pointed out.

Anyway, Game of Thrones is on HBO. I’ve been a fan of the series ever since a friend of mine and I swapped fantasy novels one afternoon at my apartment – he gave me A Game of Thrones, the first in George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series, and I gave him Jacqueline Carey’s Kushiel’s Dart. I devoured the series, even though it isn’t my normal cup of tea, and ran straight into Martin’s bout of writer’s block. A Feast for Crows dropped in November of 2005, a few weeks after I had caught up with the other three. And after that was over, it’s been half a decade since I’ve immersed myself in that world. (How long has it been? We stopped doing the book exchange before my friend even thought about having a baby – the kid is now three. I hadn’t even heard of Mixed Media Watch then, I think it was still on Xenga. I stopped checking Martin’s blog for updates back in 2008. And Jacqueline Carey has concluded three story arcs across three generations across Terre D’Ange, Ch’in, and all points in between.)

Still, I was excited enough for the series. I had already resigned myself to whatever background noise style racism was going to be in the series, having read all the books. Swallowed my bluepill, prepared to head happily into Westero with a minimum of drama. Was it too much to ask that I would be able to enjoy the show in peace? Could I just keep my bottle of Jameson at the ready for the inevitable “Winter is Coming” reference, make my little rules for the drinking game (imps, nipples, incest are already marked), and figure out if the adaptation measures up to the books?

Nope. Instead, I got racism in my fandom (thanks to Drago and the Dothraki), and sexism from the mainstream media.

*Sigh.* Where do we even begin?

(Also, beyond this point, there are MASSIVE BOOK AND SHOW SPOILERS. You have been warned.)

Let’s start with the racefail. I’ve been flinching all week as reviewers and fans throw around the term “barbarian” like it’s going out of style. The Dothraki can be interpreted a few different ways, but are described in the book as having copper skin and almond-shaped eyes. They are described by the language creators as “a cross between the Mongols and some of the Native American tribes.”

Even the actor playing him, Jason Momoa, describes Drogo as ” a savage beast.”

And they did place heavy emphasis on othering the Dothraki. In the book, Khal Drago can speak the Common Tongue, which allows him to communicate with Daenerys (also known as Dany) which leads to them establishing trust. (If memory serves, he also pretends not to know Common Tongue, in order to eavesdrop on the unsuspecting.) In this version, he doesn’t. The creators felt like it added more “authenticity” to strip Drogo of the Common Tongue and have him only converse in Dothraki – but I’m not so sure. Why wouldn’t Drogo, leader of a nomadic tribe, have picked up a few more languages in the course of his travels? There is much made of the idea that the Dothraki don’t have a word for thank you – but a society that has no use for the languages of others, even as they allow white folks who have learned a bit of Dothraki into their circles? Highly suspect. Still, it’s all part and parcel to that “savage barbarian” coding.

I’m left with a lingering question – who is supposed to be a savage here? The producers of the show gave the Dothraki all the markers of the other – less clothing, no real concern about murder, unclean food preparation. And yet, I didn’t walk away from the books with that impression. Now, mind, all the plot points have played out for me (so half the time, when they’re introducing someone in the series, I’m thinking: yeah, whatever, that mofo is dead by book two, anyway) so I may be forgetting the beginning details of Daenerys’ relationship with Drogo. Still, from her creepy, traditionally inclined toward incest, “don’t make me unleash the dragon” toolbag of a brother, being sold to Khal Drogo was the beginning of her life upgrade. Instead of being her brother’s whipping girl, her arranged marriage worked out well, with her eventually loving the guy enough to call him “her sun and stars.” Drogo kills the d-bag brother, and when he dies she relies on his memory to carry on to her new destiny – reclaiming the throne in Westeros.

So I’m at a bit of a loss as to how exactly the Dothroki got stuck with the barbarian title. It only makes sense in a void that does not include the regular activities in Westeros. Jamie Lannister’s blond kingslaying knight doesn’t get that, even though he’s also fucking his twin sister and decided it would be a great idea to chuck a nine year old out of a castle window. One of the new chapters shows a demented king flaying people’s toes and fingers and then leaving them to eat the mutilated digits or go insane with pain. Tyrion (under familial duress and false information, admittedly) destroys his first wife by participating in a gangbang designed to humiliate her publicly. And don’t get me started on Cersei Lannister.

Can you even make it through a chapter without some serial killer-esque madness going down? Every time I read this series, this song gets stuck in my head:

I mean, really – how are we defining barbarian, anyway? Scary and sociopathic dark haired people? Because let’s stop fronting – all the fair haired, scary, and sociopathic people in the GRRM stories are fucked up too – so in the context of Westeros, I don’t think the term barbarian holds any weight. There is no “civilized” society to compare the Dothraki to!

This whole “barbarians” thing reminds me of one of my favorite historical bastardizations:

Before we depart from Drogo-land, I did want to point out one other logical fallacy. Over at io9, Charlie Jane Anders brought up potential stickiness with the depiction of the Dothraki, saying:

the ambiguously brown Dothraki horse lords may feel like too much of a “noble savage” stereotype to some viewers, and you may be hearing a lot about people’s discomfort with the Dothraki scenes in weeks to come.

So, right on time, cue the commenter employing the fallacious flip:

Ram-Sacked
[...] p.s. For those people fretful that brown Dothraki will be poorly portrayed because they are brown, I can assure you that there have been plenty of awful societies here on Earth that were owned and operated by brown people. Brown people, just like white people, can and will be pretty awful some times. (Edit comment)

Right. And brown people, just like white people, can be awesome and heroic, but that never seems to happen for us. Perhaps one could claim ignorance about all ancient civilizations that don’t revolve around Europe (which is a tough sell, but considering what I learned in school, I’ll bite). But then that doesn’t explain the whitening of the handful of universes that aren’t completely white by creator design (oh, hai Earthsea!)

There’s a reason why Racebending had shirts made up with this logo:

And still, people act like they don’t understand why we are so pissed. Back in the day, we had legalized segregation keeping brown faces off movie and television screens. Now, those laws have officially ended, but we can always count on other fans to keep segregation alive and well.

Moving on to gender.

So then, right before the debut of A Game of Thrones, Ginia Bellafante, writing for the New York Times, decided to get super sexist on fandom, and explain in her review that GoT tacked a bunch of sex on to the series to entice female viewers who wouldn’t touch fantasy with a ten foot pole:

“Game of Thrones” is a cast-of-at-least-many-hundreds production, with sweeping “Braveheart” shots of warrior hordes. Keeping track of the principals alone feels as though it requires the focused memory of someone who can play bridge at a Warren Buffett level of adeptness. In a sense the series, which will span 10 episodes, ought to come with a warning like, “If you can’t count cards, please return to reruns of ‘Sex and the City.’ ” [...]

The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise. While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first. “Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.

So much fail in a few short paragraphs.

One – who said SATC fans can’t be GoT fans? I am not the only person alive that got enjoyment out of both, for different reasons. I don’t expect Carrie Bradshaw and crew to suddenly roll out on an epic quest (remember how big of a deal it was for them to go to Brooklyn?). And I don’t expect anyone but Sansa to start worrying about landing the hottest boy and the cutest dress in the realm while they are in the middle of a bloody, multihouse battle for the throne. Apples and oranges, really. Also, since when is SATC the benchmark for women’s entertainment? I have a great many friends who watched SATC – now we talk about Burn Notice and Sons of Anarchy.

Two – It’s a pretty well known fact that women drive the slash fiction sides of fandom (and how!) but seriously – all that sex was already in there. That was GRRM’s doing.

Three – What kind of whack ass book clubs does she belong to? The book club I’m in has read Freedom, In Defense of Food, Eating Animals, The Pilot’s Wife, and now we are on The Mother Tongue, which is a book for language nerds. I’m planning to propose an essay collection for the next one, since I still haven’t read Zadie Smith’s Changing My Mind or Edwidge Danticat’s Create Dangerously. All these things are based on whatever we think is interesting reading. My friend who started the book club reads less genre than we used to, but since we bonded over Edward Rutherford’s London back in middle school, I doubt she’d have an issue with Game of Thrones. (In fact, I found it infinitely less painful than suffering though reading Freedom.) Sounds like Bellafante needs to expand her social circle.

Four - Boy-shaving scenes aside, most of this sex isn’t the sexy kind. It’s the rape, domination, incest kind. Some people may get off on that, but when GRRM employs sex scenes and rape scenes, they normally illustrate power dynamics between characters, more than any actual desire between players. Ain’t no seduction round here.

Five – Please don’t pearl clutch on behalf of women everywhere. Quite a few of us are fine with gory and grim portraits of humanity.

GRRM has the best response, as he must have been perplexed at the “Boy Fiction” label:

I am not going to get into it myself, except to say (1) if I am writing “boy fiction,” who are all those boys with breasts who keep turning up by the hundreds at my signings and readings?
and (2) thank you, geek girls! I love you all.

Amy Ratcliffe, over on Tor, also debunked that idea, and added:

All this said, it is a review and Ms. Bellafante is entitled to her opinion (though I don’t think it’s much of a review—as Daniel Fienberg points out, it doesn’t mention a single actor, character or plot point). The purpose of reviews is for stating opinions. She didn’t like the show, so what? But reviews are not for making sweeping generalizations about women. Generalizations that also happen to be incorrect. I understand that she may not personally know any geek girls. That doesn’t mean we don’t exist. One giant brush cannot paint all women the same color. It’s presumptuous for anyone to think they can do so.

Some folks have pointed out some of the gendered dynamics to the review and to the responses at large, especially the knee-jerk dismissals that popped up around female focused fandom and the way in which male focused outlets described the show (“Beheadings, Barbarians and Boobies?” Keep it classy, IGN…)

All of these issues speak to two larger issues – the idea that fandom is for men, and broader ideas of what is gender appropriate.

But most of the folks reading here are living, breathing, argument slayers (i.e. statistically, the average reader of Racialicious is a woman of color interested in social issues and pop culture with a heavy interest in general geekery) so I’ll just say to hell with it.

As a brown girl gone geeky, I’m used to being invisible in plain sight. (One of these days, I will have to share the story of arguing down some white dude who decided to question my geek cred while I was talking about Dune.) And you know what? Sometimes, it’s a relief. I made an informed choice to sink into GRRM’s Westeros, with all it’s race and gender issues. Issues aside, I still think it’s an amazing series, and I can’t wait for A Dance with Dragons to finally drop in June.

Now if I could just get all these other people to stop fucking up my bluepill buzz, I’d be set.

Born Tura Luna Pascual Yamaguchi in Hokkaidō, Japan, the daughter of a Japanese-Filipino silent film actor and a circus performer of Cheyenne Indian and Scots-Irish heritage, she moved with her parents to the U.S. before World War II, during which her family was interned at Manzanar.  After the war, the Yamaguchis moved to Chicago, where Tura experienced constant racist and sexist harassment due to her Asian features and precociously voluptuous body. An excellent student, while walking home from school one day, she was raped by a gang of five men — who escaped prosecution due to bribery of the local judge. Tura subsequently studied aikido and karate — the marital arts moves she shows in Faster Pussycat! are real — and over the next decade and a half, tracked down each of her attackers and brutally punished them, having vowed to get her revenge.

- From his posterous blog

By Guest Contributor Monique Poirier, cross-posted from Beyond Victoriana

I’m not one for preambles, so let’s get down to brass tacks here. I’m Monique Poirier. I’m a member of the Seaconke Wampanoag Tribe. I’m a Steampunk.

When I got into Steampunk several years ago, it didn’t really occur to me to even try to incorporate my cultural identity into my Steampunk presentation; my first Steampunk outfit (worn to Templecon 2009) was cobbled together from my existent goth attire, stuff from the renfaire costume trunk, and a duct-tape corset.

Then I read Jha’s articles at Tor.com. Then I started reading Beyond Victoriana. It was powwow season… and everything just -clicked-. When I attended The Steampunk World’s Fair in May 2010, I made an active effort to incorporate my ethnic identity more visibly in my Steampunk attire.

That’s where things get complicated.

Overcoming The Noble Savage and the Sexy Squaw

Making a deliberate choice to construct my Steampunk attire around Native attire often involves deciding between which pieces are appropriate and which will be recognized by a wide audience as being Native. It means working with and against existent images of What Indians Look Like–and it becomes extra difficult when I have to work against the fact that Native Americans are already assumed in the popular consciousness to be anachronistic. Am I subverting Victoriana-centric Steampunk with my Native attire, or am I just reinforcing the stereotype that Native folks all dress like it’s 1899 all the time because that’s when they stopped existing? Is being a Steampunk Native American just rehashing Indians In Aspic? When I put on a pair of buckskin leggings, or wear bead work that I have spent hours making by hand with skills taught to me by my mother–clothing and jewelry that I’ve also worn to powwows–am I marking myself as Other-Than-European or am I just reinforcing Braids, Beads, and Buckskins?

It comes down to mythology, to narrative, and to what stories we’re telling with the personas we portray and how we present them. Some of the attire I own will never be worn outside of a powwow or tribal gathering. For example, I don’t wear prominent feathers–or any feather at all that look like This as part of my Steampunk attire; I treasure the feathers I’ve actually gained through ceremony and ritual too much to wear them to anything less solemn than a powwow or tribe meeting, and I am not comfortable in making mockup feathers that my character /persona would have similarly earned.

It’s pretty grating, then, to be at a convention and having someone comment, “If you’re trying to look like a Native American, you should incorporate more feathers,”‘ because I do understand where that comment comes from. How do you know that an Indian is and Indian if they’re not in the Hollywood Dress Code attire for Indians? A hard and fast rule I’m going by: “If I ran into another member of my tribe while wearing this here, would I feel the need to explain or apologize for it?” If so, I am not wearing that. Even if it means that I’m losing recognition.

There is a vast and predominantly grossly incorrect mythology surrounding Native Americans. Children in American Public Schools, unless they happen to be from an area that has a very prominent and active Native community (and sometimes even then) are generally spoon-fed the tidy and feel-good Story Of Thanksgiving as their first lesson in Native American Culture–depending on whether or not they’ve already seen Pocahontas and Peter Pan. They generally graduate to Westerns* and various other Hollywood mythologies so that by the time they’re attending cons all on their own they’ve built a distinct expectation of what ‘Native American’ should look like–and if an outfit doesn’t do that, it will not parse as Native American.

Which makes my costuming choices complicated.

Part of the fun of Steampunk is the aspect of alternate history; of deliberate anachronism and the application of alternate timelines and technological developments and the ration of ‘Steam’ to ‘Punk’. It means having the chance to create alternate histories in which Native Americans maintain sociological primacy and control over the North and South American landmass, if we so choose–my own Steampunk persona is an Air Marshall in a timeline in which Tecumseh’s Rebellion was successful and resulted in the creation of a Native American confederacy of nations that holds most of North America, as well as parts of Mexico and several island nations in the Pacific (most notably the Kingdom of Hawaii). She carries a ray gun–and as far as I’m concerned, this is still entirely Native Tech.

Recognizing Native Technologies

Among the issues in creating a Native Steampunk Persona is overcoming the assumption that technological advancement is not something endemic to Native cultures. That any and all advanced technologies utilized by Native Americans must necessarily be adopted and adapted from European ones. Beyond Victoriana #9 does a good job talking about this and has an excellent link list already, so I won’t go into much detail here.

But the gist is this: Native Tech is a real thing, and was a real thing in the 19th century. Contact Effect is a real thing, and any population that’s exposed to a piece of technology is just as likely as any other to reproduce it, to make innovations and modifications on it, and to take it and make it work in the most efficient and useful way for them. If one knows how to make/use rays, and someone introduces the concept of guns, well suddenly one gets the bright idea to develop ray guns, and then does so! If one is already utilizing solar energy in a number of ways, and the concept of electricity and steam power are introduced, one is very likely to pioneer development of photovoltaic cells and solar steam engines–if one doesn’t happen to be kept distracted by being at war or having genocide conducted upon one’s people. Indigenous cultures are just as ripe for internally-controlled industrialization and technological innovation, by themselves and for themselves, as any other population in the 19th-century landscape.

There is no reason other than our own limited and stifled imaginations to assume that Native Americans would not have technologically advanced under their own innovative impetus had the historical cultural interplay been altered. Just look at the technological innovations they’d already given to Europe via contact effect, particularly in the area of biological engineering and materials: Latex rubber and the Vulcanization thereof, for example, is Native technology adapted by Europeans that’s pretty essential to a lot of Steampunk applications. To me that’s the most exciting part of Native Steampunk–thinking about what might have been radically different, and then doing it. Extrapolating and sussing out the historical paths of Native technology and culture as it might have developed through its own industrial and technological revolutions in the 19th century.

Toward a more inclusive Steampunk landscape

So Native Steampunk isn’t easy. It requires forethought and creativity and overcoming a lot of sociocultural baggage.

But isn’t that part of the fun of Steampunk?

I would ADORE seeing other people do it too! It would be incredibly awesome to see someone else rocking some Steampunk wampum jewelry, or steaming up a trade shirt. But the caveat here is that anyone who wants to undertake this really needs to take the time to not do it in an insulting, hurtful way. That means becoming apprised of what stereotypes exist and are hurtful and not using them. Things like NOT wearing warbonnets or face paint, and recognizing cultural appropriation. It means doing your research. If you’re still interested: Go for it! I know only a small handful of Steampunks who also identify as Native. I’d LOVE to hear more voices and see more Native Steampunk costuming. For those seeking research sources, I highly recommend NativeTech and NativeLanguages.org, as well as any of the books listed in Beyond Victoriana #9, most especially Encyclopedia of American Indian Contributions to the World.

There’s a lot of directions to move in in Steampunk. It’s still a relatively new genre and one that’s still being defined. We can definite it in inclusive ways if we want to. If we try to. We can do it right if we work hard. Let’s do this.

*So about Westerns. It is a personal thorn in my side that everyone who does recognize that my attire is Native automatically files me under ‘Weird West’ – as if there are/were no Native Americans present east of the Mississippi. Native Americans =/= West. Really. Some tribal nations are from there, yes. The Native Removals of the 1830′s moved a lot of tribal nations from the east into the west, yes. But alternate histories might not even include Native Removals, and tribal nations from the east were in the 19th century and still are today living cultures. I just wanted to get that out there for everyone. Native Steampunks need not be from the Weird West.

Monday videos!

Via Pam’s House Blend, Don Lemon revealed a painful truth on television while covering the Bishop Eddie Long scandal. (The Bishop is accused of manipulating young men into sexual relationships with him.) Media Bistro explains:

Lemon had just played a soundbite from the lawyer of one of Long’s accusers about how the bishop allegedly got close to one of the young men in his church.

Let me tell you what got my attention about this and I have never admitted this on television. I’m a victim of a pedophile when I was a kid. Someone who was much older than me.

Lemon’s admission led to an audible gasp from one of his guests. “I’ve never admitted that on television and I never told my mom until I was 30 years old,” Lemon said later in the segment. “Especially African-American men don’t want to talk about those things.”

Looking at this week’s schedule, I’m not sure Arturo or I will have enough time to delve into this, but it is amazingly important, and we will host a discussion about this next week.

Via & For the Love of Fashion, this video on model Anais Mali, which is heartbreaking in its simplicity. Mali is bubbly and full of life, with gorgeous photos and a heavy love of designer gear. But the casting folks in Paris just say straight up “You’re black? This is a problem.”

From the tips pool comes this video on Avatar Remix – A.V.A.T.A.R. (Anglos Valiantly Aiding Tragic Awe-inspiring Races). It’s a mash up of Avatar – and other films with very similar themes.

Good Magazine produced a quick video on the state of education. No explicit racial content, but worth watching:

We will return to this in light of the recent report about black and Latino male graduation rates in the US. Again, we will have to host a larger conversation on this next week.

Farai Chideya interviews black Tea Party Candidate Allen West. I always appreciate Chideya’s interviews because she is always interested in understanding people, and it really helped to illuminate the mindset of those in the tea party. It was also stunningly ahistorical – before West makes the pronouncement that institutional racism is over in the United States, he refers fondly to the good old days of Western expansion – aka Manifest Destiny. He also claimed the settlers didn’t go out and ask other people for wagons and pots and pans – but that was exactly what families did to survive, because the trail was hard. Full interview below:

Over at Andrea Rubenstein’s blog, she’s posted an interesting commentary on gender roles told through a video game lens. Nothing especially racial (and it’s definitely the typical view of women’s battles in the workplace) but interesting and worth watching. Andrea has also provided a transcript, for those who cannot see the video. (The only sound in the video are bleeps and bloops – story told through the action.)

Girls suck at video games / Les filles sont nulles aux jeux vidéo from Stéphanie Mercier on Vimeo.

My girl gamer feeds have been blowing up with this parody of Katy Perry’s “California Girls.” The Border House led me to the “G33K and G4M3R Girls” mix by Team Unicorn. (The Border House has also kindly transcribed the lyrics.)

While there is a lot to love about this video (Seth Green! Manga! Hasbro! Fan subbed vs. Dubbed Anime!) there’s two things that stick at me. The first one was already covered by Lake Desire at the Border House:

I usually love corny fanservice, and would really like this video except that I just can’t get over the naked singers with their naughty bits covered by controllers and lightsabers. It is so over-done! My verdict: once again geek girls are fanservice for the stereotypical male gamer and what he supposedly finds attractive. I think it’s pretty well established now that geek girls exist, but I guess we’re stuck in existing to be hot girlfriends of geeks. Can we do something new?

Interestingly enough, the naked girl covered by game gear is actually an iconic image of sexism in game advertising. Beyond Barbie and Mortal Kombat uses a copy of the original Sega ad as an illustration, and I’ve used that image in almost every presentation/paper I’ve written on sexism in gaming.

But here’s the other thing that hits me. Over at the Star Wars blog, Team Unicorn explains why they wanted to do the video:

Because like unicorns, geek girls are not supposed to exist!

But watching the video, I realized who else doesn’t exist, again.

Geeks of Color. With the possible exception of Milynn, all the women represented are white. In addition, the four women svelte, and conventionally attractive. Which is fine, I’m sure they game and geek out with the best of us. But if geek girls are invisible unicorns, brown geek girls (which compose most of my nerd crew) might as well be Cthulhu. So while I wanted to put my hands up, I’m going to have to rip the MP3. And ignore my issues with Stan Lee and Joss Whedon. And the fact that I hate the source song.

Thea: Another sort of lackluster episode, though better than last week’s. Though I have to say this eppy sure had lots of good oneliners:

I used to drink hot sauce straight out of the bottle…that was a good time.

Dagnabit Shit Fuck!

So you turn into a panther! What the hell! That ain’t so bad.

Tami: What no love for Pam calling Bill an “infatuated tween”? That was the quote of the night. It perfectly captured the essence of the Bill and Sookie romance.

Andrea: Oh! My! Gawd! Pam aced the ep with that line. I so heart that vamp (pun intended).

Thea: Well, I didn’t want to steal all the good lines…I wanted to give y’all a chance to list your own fave oneliners Also I just read on the internet that Mama Hoyt actually said Dagnabit Shit Fire! I truly hope not, Shit Fuck is just so wonderful.

Thea: But to get down to the really really important business: poll – do we prefer LaLa as a pet name for our favourite, or Laffy? I can’t decide.

Joe: I love it when Ruby calls him Lala, but not when anyone else does. My vote goes for Laffy.

Tami: Co-sign, Joe. I love “Lala,” but it feels like one of those special names within friends or family that only one person is allowed to use. I’m going for Laffy.

Latoya: Team Lala. It makes me squee to think of 6 year old Lafayette. But Laffy works too.

Andrea: Honestly, I like Laffy or even Lafette, which is my fam’s nickname for my uncle, who shares the same name. I’m with Joe: let “Lala” be his mom’s nickname for him. Though, to be honest, I don’t like it coming from her mouth because there’s a homophobic bite to it.

Thea: Hm…that’s an interesting point about Lala having a homophobic bite…especially since every episode since its intro, Laffy has been addressed as such. This week, it was by the religious icons during a bad trip. Aiyeee..but more on that later, of course.

A Black Panther?

Thea: So here, for once, I would like those of you Charlaine Harris fans who’ve been sitting on your hands in the corner for fear of spoiling anything for the rest of us, to step up: is Crystal a black panther in the books, or is that just a choice they made for the visual medium of TV? Actually, wait a sec, are all panthers black? Since this is True Blood, master of dabbling foolishly in serious historical shit, I can’t help but wonder why they would choose a black panther, an animal which is, as professorjawn put it in the comments last week, “a uniquely racialized animal in the US psyche.”

Joe: Other than the Pink Panther, panthers are all black, otherwise they’re called something else, like jaguars, leopards, cheetahs, and cougars (another loaded word, this day in age.) While reading the book I definitely assumed the (spoiler alert!) Hotshot people were all panthers, and that those panthers were of this variety: and not of the beret-ed variety. Also, to my (cursory, at best) knowledge, a panther is not actually a type of cat like a lion, but it refers to the color. For instance: a black jaguar is a panther, and a black cougar is a panther. There is a such thing as a white panther, but its rare, like a white tiger. Confusing enough? Yes, yes it is.

Interestingly enough, the reason that panther cats of any variety turn out black is because of- take a guess- an abundance of melanin. The writers, and Charlaine for that matter, probably didn’t think too hard about which species of cat to go with. Willful ignorance strikes again, I guess.

Tami: The folks in Hot Shot were panthers in Charlaine’s Harris’ books, though I don’t recall her specifying black panthers. II always assumed they were the sort of panther found in America–the cougar. I think the choice of using a black panther for Crystal was stylistic–they certainly look cool lurking in the shadows. It’s just that given True Blood’s sketchy racial imagery this season, even the most benign choices seem to mean something more sinister.

Sookie & Bill Are Boring; Pam Breaks Our Heart with her Anti-Immigrant Sentiment

Thea: So Latoya totally called it last week when she said, “But again, it’s Sookie who gets the creepy chain basement to herself, and she’ll probably be saved in a day or so, so whatever, I can’t drum up any concern.” OMG, try saved in like, fifteen minutes. More and more I am just writing the word “BOOOORING” in my notebook during all the Bill-Sookie scenes.’

Latoya: I hate being right. There isn’t even time to fake concern anymore.

Andrea: LOLOLOL I think we’re supposed to either 1) conveniently ignore that she was rescued or that 2) we’re supposed to get all “yeah girl-power!” that another human–especially a woman–rescued her. I think Ball and Co. wanted us to focus on the fact that she “whupped Pam’s ass” (with said woman’s help) to save her man. What peeved me is Pam’s xenophobic plea regarding Sookie’s sex-worker rescuer, “Don’t leave me here with this idiot immigrant!” The woman response, “I’m a cardiologist!” missed the humor mark because it turns back on her: the stereotyping questions become, “Why is a cardiologist hanging with vampires? Don’t they get good pay in that line of work?” Which can play either way: 1) thoughts about why people go into sex work (basic answer: the reasons are myriad) and 2) the stereotypes of female immigrants as victims of sex trades. Too much hung on that joke, which is why it fell flat for me.

Joe: I think with the cardiologist joke as well, we were supposed to draw from it a sense of surprise, the impetus for that surprise being that she was just another attractive foreigner. Immigrants do in fact find trouble sometimes getting the same type of work here that they had at home, yes, but it just seemed like a tired old convention tossed in there for the joke.

And while Sookie did get captured, yet again, by Russell and Eric during the drive away (I have to say I loved that car effect,) It looks like she’s going to be out of the woods, yet again, during the finale. First Tara’s horrific ordeal, then Sookie’s caper. I think we’re supposed to see these as similar instances, and I suspect the writers are trying to get us to think “The women on this show can’t get a break, can they?” Frankly, the problems are far unequal in severity. For one, Bill and Yvetta (The Estonian Cardiologist Stripper) saved Sookie in this episode, and Tara repeatedly saves herself.

Tami: I thought they were attempting to smash the assumption that Yvetta is a poor, uneducated immigrant with news that, like many immigrants, she is indeed educated and held a professional job in her home country. Eric and Pam have been playing her for a foolish, sex toy, and they clearly underestimated her. Still–the point fell flat.

Latoya: They undercut their own gag by showing Yvetta’s power in the context of a woman scorned.

I am so inured to Sookie’s ineffectual faux girl power moments and spunkiness that I can’t be arsed to cheer for her in these situations. The show has made its hero and heroine so unlikeable that in battles against supposedly villainous characters, you feel the urge to root for the villains. If Russell could have taken Sookie and Bill with him into that good night, I would have been ever so gratetful.

Tara and Sam Go to Humpington

Thea: What did we think of the (rather graphic, oh my!) Sam and Tara hook up? I sort of sighed a little. I would like to see Tara progressing to new and more interesting places, not simply reanimating scenes from Season 1. The hot sex with sad sack ex boyfriend just seemed to come too soon after her convo with Andy Bellefleur, which I thought was an unusually subtle and thoughtful piece of TV.

Also I am sad to say that my positive interpretation of Sam’s storyline (i.e. my hope that his violent freakout and subsequent downwards spiral were a comment on how the expectations of masculinity harm men) was all too positive…clearly Tami and Andrea, you were more correct when you predicted that the storyline was actually just further entrenching the idea that Being a Man means being violent and brutal. Well, shit.

Andrea: Hate it when I’m right about the wrong things, Thea…but yeah. I guess the new cue about Sam is not only is he re-establshed his hetero manhood by viciousness (albeit drunken, which Tommy called him out on) but now he’s a-(drunk)-fuckin’ that (reforming) hellion Tara. I think we’re supposed to bump chests about this or something. But again, Sam’s display of nasty manliness is coming at a price–Tommy’s about to clean him out, as much as out of vengence as about his being able to survive as a homeless person.

Tara fucking Sam….ya know, I wasn’t too bothered by her wanting to fuck him only because, after the circles of vampire hell she’s gone through, I got the impression that she sexed with him because Sam’s a “safe” sexual partner, which can be quite healing for some rape/abuse survivors. And to do it right after her confrontation with Andy is, I think, supposed to show how far she’s coming along with healing from not only her rape/abuse but also her mourning Eggs. The sequence of events felt quick, but I can understand it.

Latoya: Word. I was yelling at the screen when Tara and Sam headed toward the inevitable, but I can see that as well. All things considered, asshole Sam is a pretty safe bet.

Andrea: My hat’s off to Andy: that had to be one of the top 10 best apologies ever witnessed in a public space. No defensiveness, no “my intentions” double-talk, no bullshit–racial or otherwise. He knew he did wrong–and got his new position due to that wrong–and he was contrite to Tara. All the lawmakers apologizing for slavery and atrocities some white people heaped on Indigenous peoples should take notes on that scene.

Tami: Agreed, Andrea. The scene between Tara and Andy Bellefleur was well-played and incredibly nuanced for True Blood. And I thought we were going to get a similarly nuanced scene between Tara and Sam. I liked them drinking and commiserating. I have always said that these characters are a lot alike and seem to understand each other. In season one, I felt like it made much more sense for Sam to be interested in Tara than Sookie, who barely gave two shits about him. But Tara was second choice then and I’m not sure much has changed.

I am not saying that all sex has to be romantic and that aggression doesn’t have its place, but it is worth noting that Tara always gets the dirty hookup, while Sookie gets the love connection. Even at that moment, when Sam and Tara are both hurting, they offer each other more brutality than tenderness. I have a hard time believing that Alan Ball would ever have Sookie Stackhouse respond positively to “Would you like to come over to my nasty ass trailer?”

The A Word (“Abortion,” not “Arlene”), Biology and Bad Logic

Thea: Can we talk about the weird-ass abortion storyline? Three thoughts: 1. It’s funny that even on a show that is as sexually transgressive as True Blood, they still can’t bring themselves to use the “A” word. 2. I actually don’t really see the point of this storyline. Arlene is a fairly minor character and apart from the fact that I like that Terry gets more screentime because of it, I don’t care too much what happens. 3. It’s all well and good that True Blood is bigging up women doing it for themselves and finding herbal remedies to lady issues, but it really annoys me that the reason why Arlene wants the abortion – when she thinks abortion is evil and bad and she would never do it – is because she thinks that Rene’s evil genes will be passed on to the baby.

The fact that no one is questioning Arlene’s line of logic suggests that the show thinks the line of logic is well, logical. WHICH IT ISN’T! And I’ll tell you why such a line of logic annoys me: I just hate it when people suggest that bad behaviour is caused solely by biology. For example, that study that tried to prove (I’m sure with good intentions) that racism is a mental illness — no way, I say! Racism is not an illness because racism is a choice. You can’t choose not to be sick. You can choose not to be racist. So when people say “Hitler was crazy” – that’s essentially saying that what he did was not his fault.

There is also something distantly ableist in said line of logic — that someone did such and such a thing because they were crazy, or because “evil runs in the family” — because it suggests that people who struggle with mental health conditions cannot ever control or manage their behaviour, that they have no agency, or that something as abominable as the Nazi Holocaust happened solely because of a mental health issue. It’s just such a ludicrous way to speak about both why people do terrible things, and how mental health impacts behaviour.

All of this is to say: I do not like that such redonculous logic is being conflated with an abortion storyline and a (sort of) pro-choice one at that. Ok. Now I’m done.

Joe: I tend to agree with you, Thea. I want to shake Arlene. What she tried to do this episode is just, well, a Wiccan abortion, and not a spell that will “cast out the evil.” Frankly, if she were really as anti-abortion as she purports herself to be, she would have the sense to have the baby and make sure that all of her kids end up virtuous. Nurture, not nature. ALSO. Rene had a sister (his first victim,) and she definitely wasn’t a murderer, so Arlene’s logic is flawed in so many ways it makes your head spin.

Latoya: Agreed. I’m surprised they didn’t say shmashmortion. Also, it’s interesting how these plots tend to decenter the woman’s own choice – despite her best intentions, she’s still pregnant.

Andrea: Arlene’s cast as the town’s bigot, who tend to be stereotyped as uneducated, which is read as “ignorant” and “stupid.” So, by this characterization, her logic is supposed to be twisted: she can justify a herbal abortion whereas she draws her anti-choice as a surgical abortion due to her “poor reasoning skills.” The more “informed” viewers would say, “She’s so ignorant that she can’t see an abortion is an abortion or how genes and biology are supposed to work. Ha ha stupid Arlene.” The fact that the herbal abortion didn’t work is a joke on her and her desperation-driven, ableist-infused logic. To me, there’s almost a weird anti-choice message with Arlene’s attempt to end her pregnancy, that women are only allowed to pursue the “right” kinds of abortion.

At the same time, I found her statement when she talked with her moms was interesting (and I’m paraphrasing): that even though she was against abortion, she did what she felt needed to be done. Even with the fucked-up ableist reasoning, Arlene voiced a sentiment that quite a few people who hold anti-choice stances share. For them, getting an abortion doesn’t move them to a progressive political consciousness–they would flatly refuse to donate to Planned Parenthood after using their services, let alone organize a reproductive-justice march–but is a means to a practical end. I’ve met women like Arlene in the abortion clinics I’ve worked. And I also met a white woman at one of the abortion clinics who held a bachelor’s degree and considered herself politically progressive and attempted an herbal abortion. (She was very much into “natural” health and against “Western medicine.”) When it didn’t work, the woman came to the clinic for a first-trimester procedure. Just saying: verities in gestation-ending choices.

Tami: I don’t understand the need for the clunky “my baby might inherit evilness” storyline. Would we really judge a woman for not wanting to carry the child of a serial killer? Does her reason have to be more sinister and mysterious than not wanting to have Rene’s baby?

Okay, I know some people would judge Arlene,. But still, this is a show where favored characters sell and take drugs and the town nice guy was just revealed to have murdered two people in cold blood. And yet we can’t see a woman exercise her right to choose?

I think the whole herbal abortion thing is a cheat–a contrivance designed to avoid showing a pregnant woman deciding that she does not want to have a baby and going to the clinic to end the pregnancy. We are, inexplicably, at a place where a perfectly legal medical procedure is whispered about on television. Even “edgy” shows and movies can’t bring themselves to talk openly about abortion. Instead we get cutesy euphemisms like “smashmortion” and creative uses of tea and Wiccan prayer. We’ve lost a lot of ground since Bea Arthur considered abortion on “Maude” some 40 years ago.

Jesus and Laffy’s Excellent Adventure: Laffy’s Solo

Thea: And now it’s time for our weekly, “are you worried about where they are taking this Jesus and Lafayette plus black and brown religions storyline?” The answer for me this week is of course, yes, yes I am. I also wanted to draw mention to the fact that, because Lafayette is killed off in the books very early on (I am correct in that yes, resident Charlaine Harris experts?), any current Lafayette storyline is totally the invention of Alan Ball. Le sigh.

In other news, wow, V is some serious gateway drug, or something. Jesus has gone from “drugs are bad! baad!” to “gimmegimme more” in like three hours. Eh, I’m just not that hot on Kevin Alejandro, sorry to say. Not feeling his acting chops.

Tami: Yes and yes. Whatever this developing story is, it is all Ball. And, yeah, I’m worried about where they’re going for all the reasons I’ve outlined before. Plus, those talking dolls/fetishes were silly.

Andrea: My gripe is why did Wicca get this really respectful treatment by the writers (though I’m going to defer to our readers who practice Wicca in regards to how respectful the ritual scene was) in comparison to Laffy getting greeted by monkey screeches, jungle drums, fright-voiced voodoo dolls to signify his ancestral indigenous religions? I half-expected Dr. Facilier to sing and dance his way into the menagerie.

Latoya: Right? Also, the explanations are far different. For example, they vocally identify what the Wiccans are using, but there is no explanation to many of the other objects being used. Like the mask that Lala spots/imagines on Jesus – is it a lucha libre mask? Or something else? I feel like I’ve seen that mask before but out of context (don’t ask) so I don’t know what it means. And Ball & Co. are not going to tell me.

Tami: Andrea, I’m going to guess because the Wiccan elements of the story came from the books, while the elements of African and Latin indigenous religions were pulled from Alan Ball’s ass.

Andrea: ::spittake:: Gurl, you owe me a new netbook.

Joe: Arlene and the baby, Jessica and Hoyt, Sam’s issues, and Jesus and Lafayette are all story lines that all are concoctions of Mr. Ball. There’s more, but that’s like most of the hour, at this point. But, to focus in on Jesus, as I mentioned last week, something about how his opinion of drugs (or one, at least so far) changed so rapidly it makes you wonder if he even was against them in the first place.

And Some Scattered Thoughts

Thea: Did anyone notice how casually Bill kicked Pam in the face in the opening scene? And he’s supposed to be our romantic hero?? Why can’t Pam be our romantic hero. Hmph.

Andrea: But Theeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaahhhhh, he was a-fightin’ for his woman. You ain’t all rooting for that white hetero cis ish–I mean, lurve? That’s just plain…right on, sister! ::fist pump::

Joe: Why can’t anyone else be the romantic hero. I’d even take Andy at this point.

Thea: How awful was the characterisation of Kitch’s girlfriend? Talk about caricature. Also, WHY DOESN’T SOOKIE USE HER BALL OF FIRE?? And by ball of fire, I mean her actual ball of fire, not her, uh, irresistible lady parts.

Andrea: ‘Cause I’ve just about had it with Sookie and her “irresistible” lady parts.

Joe: That actually made me wheeze with laughter, Thea. Now, this is pure conjecture, but Sookie has said that she doesn’t know where the bursts come from, so maybe next season we’ll see her learn to control it. Very X-Men. I want to fast forward through her life some to get to the interesting stuff.

Thea: In any case, I’m not sure what I’m going to do when the show ends next episode. I mean, I’ll find other things to watch, but what am I going to do without my True Blood Roundtable buddies plus commenters?? Can we just get together once a week anyway, and just roundtable about our mothers or something?

Andrea: Awww, see. ::tear up:: I’m sure, pop culture being what it is, there’ll be some TV show ready to be sliced, diced, and julienned by us. We’ll reconvene very soon.

Joe: We should start a coffee talk. Thea as Linda Richman?

Blah Blah Fairies Blah

Thea: Was it just me, or was this eppy a little blah?

Tami: It was. In fact, I am honestly having a hard time talking about it, because it was so not memorable. An episode packed with two (supposedly) big reveals should be a lot more entertaining.

Thea: Yes. They are not giving us very good snarking material.

Latoya: I can’t remember. All I know is I kept screaming “FUCK YOU SOOKIE!” about every 15 minutes or so, before my anguished scream after Sookie tells Tara to get over her relationship with Bill, then listens to Tara confess and gives her a half-assed hug. WHAT? Renounce his ass already! DAAAAMN! And he probably killed Claudine!!! *pant pant*

Okay, clearly, I had something to get off my chest. Continue, Thea. *sits in the corner*

Thea: We find out what Sookie is, but no one really cares at this point. Also that is not such an interesting revelation.

Andrea: All I’m saying is my happy ass was right, and I didn’t even read the book. Damn, I’m good… ::pats self on back:: My thing is, in this episode, Sookie being a fairy melds two racialized stereotypes: 1) the stereotype of the white woman as an ethereal, inspirational being, which further feeds into the stereotype of the Idealized White Woman, as well as 2) the white woman who very being deserves protection on the strength of her white femaleness. Note how Bill and Eric are running to her aid. I’m sort of surprised Alcide didn’t come running when Bill and Eric had their “little talk” about revealing Sookie’s “true identity.” I think it’s all rather yawny.

*expletive* You Sookie!

Joe: I’m pretty sure Bill didn’t kill Claudine. But! Honestly, Sookie. If I found out my friend were in trouble and my boyfriend not only did nothing to help, but stayed in the same house while it was happening, I would have a little more than a non-committal hug and an “Aw, I’m sorry” to offer. It makes me madder than fish grease. I am so furious about that. Also, there was no feeling of true condolence even in that moment.

It appears from last weeks weepy breakup that Anna Paquin is a pretty good actress, so it leads me to believe that the way she reacted to Tara’s news will lead to some intense conflict down the line. Like, are we not supposed to like Sookie? Because anyone with two eyes can see that Tara (even with her tough exterior) was in a particularly bad way. Her boyfriend got shot in the head. She was kidnapped. She was raped. Her rapist literally exploded in her face. Sookie, the worst friend of the year award goes to you. *End of my rant*

Andrea: As y’all know, I feel the exact opposite about Paquin’s acting skills as far as this role is concerned. To me, she’s one-dimensional in this role, and Sookie is a one-dimensional character as Alan Ball and the crew have been playing it on this show. Not too much matters to Sookie beyond herself–not even her supposedly bestest’s pain. But again, we’ve seen that Tara’s and Sookie’s friendship isn’t really based on anything but, as someone said in an earlier roundtable, nostalgia. So, yeah, I’m pissed, but I ain’t surprised…and Paquin’s acting really didn’t help with that scene.

Tami: And what’s up with Sookie’s “Yeah, Jason, you really should tell an already hurting Tara that you shot her boyfriend. OK, then, gotta run do Sookie business.”

The character is so clueless in her interactions with other people.

Latoya: Seriously, Tami. Jason showed that he had a high EQ, and actually, oh, *thought* about the impact this information would have on Tara before just blurting shit out. And then here comes Sookie with her “help.” I was so glad Jason brought up Eggs. Can we start telling people the truth after they complete therapy?

Fairy Crunk Juice aside, I would have liked to hear from some wood nymphs. They are so slept on in our supernatural cannon. That’s no weirder than a maenad, right? Well, maybe that’s what Jesus is…

Andrea: I think the satyrs and centaurs have been underrepped, too. I think Alcide would make a better satyr myself.

Thea: Maybe instead we should talk about that True Blood Rolling Stone cover. Andrea, I know you had something to say.

Andrea: Yeah, that cover is all sorts of eyerollingly silly. Like the Rolling Stone cover featuring the Glee cast, it’s all about the white people. What’s really ratchet is that the most compelling characters on True Blood are the characters of color and the white supporting characters. But who’s getting pushed as the representatives of the show are boring-ass Sookie and Bill (the fact that Paquin and Moyer are real-life newlyweds may be a selling point) and Eric, who, as someone pointed out on another blog, who’s got that “O Hai!” look on his face, though I read it as, “Just doing my duty, y’all. After this, I’m taking my ass home. Tired of these two.” If I was the photographer or photo editor as RS, I would have demanded a bigger, naked group shot. Just no excuse for that omission.

Joe: Re: the True Blood cover. Eric is hot, as usual, and poor Bill has a flat butt. There! I said it. I don’t care if that’s bitchy. How easy would it be to Photoshop some roundness in?

Andrea: ROTFLMAO! Too true, Joe. Too true.

My Kingdom for a Reason Why Everybody Loves Sookie
(Featuring a round of “Eric, hot or not?”)

Thea: So maybe this is like a horse that’s been beat to death, but let’s talk about the Sookie Attraction Factor. True Blood is starting to feel a little like the Office, or the Big Bang Theory, or even Parks and Recreation (and Community may be starting a backslide into this): where the entire show is revolves around a love affair that is really the least interesting part of the show. Even the damn Rolling Stone cover revolves around that love affair, when we all know that we all would rather have seen Laffy, Tara, or even Hoyt blood-spattered and naked.

Joe: Truth.

Latoya: Is this the wrong time to confess I totally dig Leonard-and-Penny? If for no other reason than Sheldon saying “Leonard-and-Penny?” And I am thrilled to see Penny actually gaining a personality and some geek cred as the show goes on, even as poor Raj is losing it…

Oh wait, sorry got distracted. Back to True Blood. Dude, I was so done when Sookie matter-of-factly stated “I get that everyone’s attracted to me…” I HOPE they were trying to convey her bafflement with this crazy ass phenomenon. What, is her va-jay-jay made of honey, gold, and fairy crunk juice? I can’t deal with the Everyone Loves Sookie show. I just can’t.

Tami: And see the problem with the “everybody loves Sookie” narrative is that the character is alternately boring, annoying or vile. Eric has spent the last 100 years with the awesomeness that is Pam and SOOKIE is what he wants? Sookie rarely cares about anything not related to Sookie, yet Tara has been devoted to her for decades. She is not particularly smart or interesting or loyal or entertaining or anything. And don’t get me started on that musty Confederate vampire. What is supposed to be so engaging about Sookie or her paramour?

Andrea: I also think that Moyers and Paquin being real-life spouses offers a certain meta-ness that the show’s trying to sell, too…like on the Rolling Stone cover.

Thea: But in all these shows, nothing is provided to make the love affair alluring…other than its heterosexual middle-class whiteness (yes, even in the case of Parks and Recreation, sorry Rashida Jones) – i.e., the fact that it is a relationship that all humans are supposed to aspire to. Except that it’s 2010, and lots of people – including but not exclusive to, people of colour, queer folks, Marxists… – really don’t have such heterosexual middle class white love as their goal anymore.

Joe: I think the point is she’s a drug, of sorts, for vampires, she’s their V. My question about that is why, then are only human (well, and panther) girls attracted to Jason? Are they trying to tell us that they might not really be related? Is that why they look nothing alike? Apart from the hair.

Andrea: And his abs. Oh yeah, and his (ahem) “good ol’ boy next door” look.

Joe: Ahem, indeed.

Latoya: (Note to self – ask Rashida Jones for an ATR interview.)

Thea: Continuing undeterred on my rant: and yet the writers don’t provide any other reason for us to be interested in such an affair, other than its heterosexual middle-class whiteness (and let’s not forget cisgenderedness and able-bodiedness). And even if you don’t agree with me on the other shows (Blah blah we saw Jim and Pam grow up together blah blah) doesn’t this seem to hold true for True Blood? Because I do not believe I have been ever given any reason by TB’s writers to care about Sookie and Bill – or any explanation for why Sookie is so wildly attractive to everyyyyone – other than that, as a human female, I am supposed to lose my shit for heterosexual middle-class white love.

Joe: The difference for me is I never even watched The Office (I know, I know) and I care more about Jim and Pam than about Sookie and Bill (and Eric, for that matter apart from his undeniable hotness.)

Latoya: Team Jesus and La-La. I mean, seriously. In general, I hate love stories that feel shoe-horned into the plot. Like someone is looking at a story board with a card/space reading “insert love story here.” I like Leonard and Penny’s love story because it seems pretty organic. Started awkwardly, continued awkwardly, lots of misunderstandings, they’re currently a broken up – it’s an interesting trajectory. And the nuts and bolts of their relationship is pretty basic – they generally hang and watch television. I also like how we are (finally!) getting to see the inner workings of Penny. Her hook was “she’s the cute blonde girl upstairs” but she’s so much more now. Those relationships make more sense to me than, say, the everlasting ick of the Ted-Robin-Barney love triangle on How I Met Your Mother, where Robin is just considered an awesome prize without really showing why.

Thea: Why does Eric, who is this megapowerful super smart incredibly hot (and you know tall and blonde is not really my type) supernatural creature say that his only regret upon death will be not having kissed Sookie Stackhouse? Is this yet another complex ploy, or does he really love Sookie? And if, as I suspect, he really loves Sookie, can someone, anyone, please tell me, WHY???

Latoya: Search me. If I was writing True Blood, his only true love would be smedium v-necks and Viking revenge. (And seriously, wardrobe people/writers – full abs or go home! Stop hinting at things and just write him shirtless more often. I never thought I’d say this, but have you learned *nothing* from Twilight? The hot semi-bad guy is supposed to remain shirtless at all times! See: All Werewolves.)

Thea: YES! He seems much more like the level-headed type who only has a relationship with his progeny and his smediums.

Latoya: And generally, Eric appears to have poor impulse control. And a kiss? Really? This is Mr. Six Hour Power, remember?

Oh, and I found this video while looking for the other one -

Eric, are you waxing your pubes? Dude, Cosmo says that’s totally out this season.

Joe: I hold steadfast as the Sookie-as-drug theory. She’s S. (Could stand for Sookie, or saccharine, sleep-inducing and stale for me.)

Andrea: …and silly. But what is this Eric hotness of which you speak, crew? Alexander Skarsgård, I can (sort of) glean. I know he got some peeps all sexy (and skeeved out others) with his admitting that he’s indeed naked during the naked-getting scenes. But Eric…. ::shrug:: I get nothing. But hey, I’m sure folks weren’t feeling my James Frain (not Franklin!) love, so I’m letting it go as different strokes for different folks. Continue your Ericfest.

Thea: I think he just grew on me. I definitely didn’t think he was anything to write home about in Season 1. I also much prefer the short hair.

Joe: I honestly don’t get it either. And I, for one, am all for the viking. I’m thinking its maybe projection-he’s just so good looking and the character is just interesting enough that we begin to think they’re the same person. That, and I’m hoping a Sookie/Eric pairing would make that oft-explored storyline much more interesting.

Latoya: Well, his makeover from season one till now helped. Pam is an awesome stylist. And since Eggs is dead, he’s got the best abs on the show. But I agree, Joe- Sookie + Eric is getting a lot of play in fan videos, and it may have worked – aside from that whole cage and chain thing. But again, it’s Sookie, who gets the creepy chain basement to herself, and she’ll probably be saved in a day or so, so whatever, I can’t drum up any concern.

Thea: Lest you think this is a Sookie hate fest, it really isn’t. Because actually, I don’t think I’ve even been given reasons to hate her.

Latoya: She acts like a chickenhead, despite having superpowers, turned her back on her homegirl multiple times, and has thrown her entire family under the bus so she can have hot animal sex with Bill Compton. I’m firmly in the hate camp. I reiterate, fuck you Sookie!

Thea: Well ok, Latoya, you make a good case. But dear True Blood writers, you’re not even going to give us one reason, as to why Eric (and Bill and Sam and Alcide and…) is gaga over Sookie, other than the fact that she looks good in short shorts? LIKE WHEN DID SHE BRING LIGHT AND HOPE AND GRATITUDE INTO BILL’S LIFE??? I WATCHED EVERY EPISODE!! WHEN???

Andrea: He was practicing his wedding vows, and the writers thought they’d keep it.

Latoya: She slipped them all Fairy Crunk Juice when they weren’t looking. By peeing in their drinks.

Thea: ROFLMAO!!!

Sawyer’s Sam’s Backstory

Thea: Ok enough Sookie. A quick question: what do we think of Sam’s backstory, especially in light of last week’s conversation about the intersection of masculinity and his beatdown of Calvin? It felt a little out of left field to me.

Andrea: But I also think the backstory was a bit of “See, Sam’s a ‘real’ (if “real” is supposed to be read as “criminal” and “willing to kill”) man after all.” At the same time, he regrets those displays because they really don’t benefit him. Overall, though, It left me a bit “meh.” I just felt it was unnecessary.

Latoya: I was actually pro-Sam development. It’s nice to see that his “so nice I’m almost a sucker” routine is basically him trying to atone for past deeds. A little less impressed with the “damn, traitorous woman!” plot device, but I like seeing the darker side of Sam.

Tami: Didn’t we already learn about Sawyer’s grifter past season’s ago? Oh…uh…whoops! But seriously, that was awfully Lost-esque.

One thing Alan Ball has done to make True Blood his own is to beef up characters that had a lesser role in Charlaine Harris’ books. Sometimes this works (King Russell, Lafayette). Sometimes it feels incredibly forced and distracting to the main narrative (Sam, Jason).

I would think that Sam will have his hands full keeping a leash on his creepy little bro, Tommy “fangs give me wood” Mickens. I don’t understand why we need to develop this whole other Sam storyline.

Latoya: See Tami, that’s what I like. Sam is trying to keep his little brother on the straight and narrow while still dealing with his own demons – Sam is supposed to be setting a good example for Tommy, but could Tommy actually push Sam back over the edge?

Quit Playing Games with my (Social Justice) Heart, Alan Ball

Thea: I guess I should be more upset and shocked that the whole Bill/Sookie love affair that started this entire show was engineered by Sophie Anne, but I’m not, see aforementioned Sookie rant. The whole “you’ve set our cause back” speech that Bill gave Eric, then when Compton Manor gets vandalised and Bill tells Jessica to restrain herself, even though it is “against their nature” made me growl…just because I don’t think it is fair that Alan Ball gets to say that the show is not an analogy for civil rights – when it clearly is.

And I said this last week but I just keep on feeling uncomfortable with the vampire/black people analogy (as it was intensely drawn this week) because if vampires are a cipher for black people, then the suggestion is that black people have violent natures they must control in order to walk among, the uh, living. I cared not for the burning cross. It seemed very cheap (and also who would vandalise the home of a brutal creature of the night? Talk about foolish) and especially rankled me in light of the slave plantation imagery we saw at Chez Edgington earlier this season.

Latoya: Yeah…the Klan burned crosses at night to disguise their activities. But since vamps walk at night, wouldn’t they burn crosses during the day? Or at least at dusk?

Tami: Thea, I agree. Ball’s claim that he is making no analogy between POCs or the gay community and vampires becomes more disingenuous with each passing episode.

I wish the show would make a commitment to go one way or the other. If you want to make the link to marginalized groups, then make it responsibly. I think True Blood could do that and still be a a cheesy, entertaining sexfest.

Joe: Why not just burn Vamp houses down during the day, a la season one? I guess bigots aren’t that bright. Maybe they should freeze crosses during the day. It would make as much sense as (literally, all) these plots are making.

Latoya: I think Ball is trying to dodge controversy by spilling the contents of a lot of different marginalized groups together. He (and the writers) seem to hope that by just making a grab bag of references, no one looks too closely at where the analogies fail, or the inherent references to make. In sum, they hope we drop off the face of the earth. That, or go back to heckling whatever Tim Kring is doing next.

Andrea: Sort of like Kring, he’s simply being irresponsible with his allegories about supernaturals and marginalization. But this hopscotch approach seems to be Alan Ball’s writing approach to too many aspects of this show.

Tami: ***POSSIBLE SPOILER*** (Following is info from the books that helps make my point. I don’t think it is terribly important, but in case anyone doesn’t want to know…)

One of the really interesting backstories in the Sookie Stackhouse book series is Pam’s. If I recall my lore correctly (Joe, let me know if I’m messing this up.), Pam was an English woman, chafing at all the restrictions placed on women in the Victorian era. In fact, she had slipped out for an assignation when Eric found her and turned her. Pam eventually relished being a vampire, because she relished moving from marginalised and powerless to powerful and immortal. That is an interesting dichotomy to explore. How do people marginalised as humans move in the world of vampires?

Joe: You are correct madame. She was, in the books, an incredibly independent woman from a time where women weren’t allowed to be so. Blah, blah, rebel in her time, blah Pam is awesome blah.

Latoya: *laughs* I see what you did there. And that was a good line.

Tami: We never get this kind of exploration, though. Instead Ball plays around the margins, inserting burning crosses and “God hates fangs” signs, only to play coy and pretend people are misreading him. The result is a product that is too often trivializing and annoying to boot.

Thea: A propos the vampire/marginalised group analogy, what does it mean that Tara has conflated all vampires with Franklin, when we have been told several times by several different characters that only close-minded hillbillies of low education and low moral character have prejudice against vampires?

Joe: I think maybe we’re supposed to be led to believe that Vampires, for the most part, really are dangerous. That’s why I think comparing a race of murders to actual groups of people that exist outside of the Sookieverse is not only counter intuitive to making you believe whatever point they’re trying to make (Lord knows what it is at this point), it’s dangerously irresponsible.

Latoya: Clearly, black folk are the real racists. Cue Sookie’s speech on tolerance for all in the next two episodes…maybe they’ll name the last ep “Go Tell It on Fangtasia.”

Jesus and Laffy’s Excellent Adventure (Hooker)?

Thea: And what did we think of Jesus and Laffy’s literal trip through the spiritual history of their elders? How does it rate on a scale of 1 to Sookie’s Comatose Visit to Fairyland?

Latoya: Awesomely creepy (though I’ll defer to Tami and Andrea on religion and appropriation). But, since we’re time travelling and all, I couldn’t help but want to revisit this:

Jesus and Laffy’s Excellent Adventure (Hooker)? Yes please!

Joe: So I was right! Jesus has sorcery in his lineage. I’m kind of excited to see where that leads, but much as I love Lafayette, did that scene drag on and on for the rest of you or what? Regarding that scene, though, I don’t like where this relationship is going. Jesus turned much, much, too quickly from “You’re a drug dealer!” to “Yay! Drugs!” Where is that going?

Latoya: Seriously. Is it cool because suddenly V has healing/time travel qualities?

Tami: It was all a little too “woo woo, ain’t brown folks religion deep and mysterious and scary.”

Andrea: Agreed, Tami. And I found it utterly distasteful that, while Jesus’ ancestors were seen in both positive and negative lights (smiling, scowling, practicing healing and destructive magic–and even at that, the male relative practicing the destructive magic was rather cartoonish), Laffy’s ancestors were simply seen as some cut-eye, wild-haired sistahs, even though they were doing something that was positive with their magic, namely to ward away white slavemasters from coming to their beds. Their portrayal was confusing (at best) and disrespectful of African-based spiritualities (at worst). Back to Joe’s point about Jesus’ sudden change-of-heart about doing V with Laffy on this ancestral journey: it (again) smacks of appropriation, namely using a drug for spiritual purposes, specifically the peyote religion as practiced by several First Nations people. I was sooo put off by that whole scene.

Open Mic; I Wish I Knew How to Quit You

Thea: And…open mic.

Did anyone else get strains of “interracial relationship” when Sookie was all like “do you only love me for my blood?” Like substitute “my blood” for “the fact that it will piss your mother off that we’re dating” or “you like the way the colour of our skins looks together, you sicko.” Or maybe it was just me.

Latoya: Russell. Fucking. Edgington. Talbot is still in a jar and he’s acting out his grief in an appropriately sociopathic way. Though I must admit, this is the second sex worker killed in action, which is troubling. I’m trying to think of who the bystanders who have died on TB – it’s generally girls Jason had sex with, sex workers, and that random dude Jessica drained. Still, Russy is rapidly becoming my favorite side character, though Hoyt and Terry are still holding it down. (Please note, I consider this the Tara and La-La show. Sookie who?)

Also, this is awesome.

As is this.

That is all.

Joe: Despite all its shortcomings, I love True Blood. It’s one of my favorite shows. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t stop watching it if I tried. (I can’t quit you!) For the most part, the plot is engrossing, and the story, effects, and actors are engaging. For instance, I still for some reason am pulling for Sam even though he’s injured or killed quite a few people in the last episodes. The thing is, Charlaine’s books tread that vampire/marginalized group comparison in a more cohesive manner. My hope is that there is a method to this madness, and that the writers understand what they’re doing before they tread too far into the “Niptuck-Suddenly-Way-Too-Ridiculous-to-Watch” zone that they’re dipping their toe in. I want to like TV Sookie as much as I do the book Sookie, even with the book-Sook’s shortcomings and naivete. Otherwise I may start a Facebook campaign for the Jessica/Hoyt Comedy Hour.

Andrea: To paraphrase Pam, blah blah blah where’s Alcide blah.

Tara: Trauma and Healing

Thea: Ok, so after all the hating on this show’s treatment of Tara – or, as has been argued, heterosexual women in general – there were definitely things that True Blood did this week which I actually liked. For one, I appreciate the way the show is allowing Tara continuous episodes to show grief and trauma over what happened to her. I also like the way Rutina Wesley has been able to (finally! and consistently!) show other sides of Tara. There were multiple quiet and delicate moments this episode and last, where Wesley did an amazing job of communicating, through that quiet, the anguish that Tara was/is feeling. To me those sorts of scenes required much greater acting chops than any of the shrill, yelling stuff that Wesley was given for the first two seasons. So nice to see Wesley finally given the chance to show how great she is.

What did y’all think of the rape survivor group scene? What did you think of Holly’s speech? I was slightly taken aback to see Tara visit a rape survivor group — just because it disturbed me (and we discussed this in detail) how much Franklin’s abduction and rape of Tara was treated as comedy…I questioned at times whether or not the writers even knew they were writing rape scenes. So to see the writers flip that upside down, and validate that this is what the character went through, was surprising to me.

And then, after both Holly’s speech at the rape survivor group and her reproductive choice moment with Arlene, could it be that Holly’s supernatural power is that she’s a…feminist? What’s this week’s verdict on Holly?

Tami: Agreed. I think the aftermath of Tara’s kidnapping, bondage and rape is being handled well by both TB’s writers and actors. In fact, this treatment brings the early poorly-drawn relationship between Tara and Franklin in stark relief. I think the problem lies in what TB did to the character of Franklin. His first interaction with Tara was laden with menace. He was sullen, dark, attracted to violence and clearly a bad man to know. Once the pair arrived in Mississippi, Franklin was drawn as comic relief–a lovesick loon who happens to also be a predator–even as Rutina Wesley continued to portray Tara as a woman in fear for her life. Sunday, menacing Franklin returned. I think this is why, on True Blood threads not located on sites that analyze race and gender, some folks are mourning the death of Franklin, despite his role as the abuser of a main character. True Blood’s portrait of Franklin allowed viewers to be ambivalent about Tara’s abuse.

Andrea: I think that Tara’s kidnapping, bondage, and rape all falls under the umbrella of “abuse,” which is the term we’ve been discussing ever since we saw Franklin go that route in his interactions with Tara after he glamored her into getting into Sookie’s house and getting the information that Sookie was in Mississippi. To that end, we’ve had hearty discussions about Franklin’s abusive behavior and how we weren’t cool with that.

Which brings me to Tara going to the rape survivors’ meeting: I. Loved. This. Scene. It rang true for several reasons: 1) as a Black woman who survived rape and felt a bit goosy about seeing a therapist for a while, I know that I received a lot of support attending such “lay” meetings, where I learned a way to form a vocabulary for what happened to me; 2) yes, I learned that vocabulary from white women because, like Tara, I grew up in a town where the people who were having such discussions and support were white. That doesn’t mean, ergo, that white women are “better” at it than black people or other PoCs. It simply acknowledges a reality that people will seek their healing in imperfect spaces that may not “make sense” racially speaking but makes perfect sense to them…as well as speaking to the simple fact of demographics; 3) it reminds me of the connections I’ve made on- and offline with women, especially women of color, who are surviving abuse and simply seek a voice that resonates with their own. Also, Tara was finally given space to tearfully lay her burden down and not be chastised for not being a Strong Negress, which sometimes happens at these meetings, too. Spot on, TB creatives…whether y’all realize it or not.

Thea: I was reading the round up over at Jezebel and was surprised – just because it’s a feminist blog – to read that they found that scene boring and flat.  Someone asked why Tara couldn’t get more scenes that were campy and funny, like Russell’s. Here’s hoping that’s up next. I do remember her getting to do a bit more comedy in Season 1.

Joe: I keep going back to the theory that True Blood is treating the Tara/Franklin storyline like the archetypal abusive relationship. Anyone who’s had personal experiences with abusers like Franklin will always tell you that their personal perception of the relationship is extraordinarily fickle. A lot of the time it’s horrible, but sometimes its great. Hate, lust, and comedy can make short or lengthy appearances- even, maybe, at the same time. I think the way that they handled the character of Franklin fits that description, at least a little. To me their scenes (and his character) were so circuitous, so shifty and such a rollercoaster, I had trouble seeing where it was going. This I’m sure of: I’m so glad Jason had wooden bullets. Especially, since Tara doesn’t seem to know Vampire Homicide 101.

Franklin Meets a Wooden Bullet

Thea: What did we think of Franklin and Tara’s final confrontation?

It was pretty amazing to see Tara stand up to Franklin after having to literally grin and bear his barrage of abuse. But I felt very conflicted about how that scene ended. On the one hand, because it came directly after Jason carrying on about Crystal, I felt horrified that there was no one to help Tara. On the other hand, when help finally did come in the form of Jason’s wood shotgun rounds (I have to say Jason was really breaking out that dumb blonde mold that Latoya assigned him a few weeks back), I felt disappointed that we didn’t get to see Tara herself kick Franklin’s ass.

Tami: I too wish Tara could have saved herself, especially since I think we’re supposed to see Jason’s saving Tara as a make good for shooting Eggs in the head.

Andrea: Yeah, I also needed the catharsis of Tara’s annihilating Franklin–perhaps a revenge-against-the-abuser fantasy I apparently harbor in my heart’s recesses. At the same time, I’m going to give this one to Tara: she’s just starting her healing journey and she’s straddling that head- and heart-space between victim and survivor, which is a pretty vulnerable place. Tara’s just learning to harness the energy from exploding outward to weaving inner protection–and both are necessary for her to defend herself. To Tara, telling Franklin that hes a “psychopath” who “violated” her–which is what abuse does–and daring him to kill her is her way of speaking from that sense of inner protection, as strange as that sounds.

English Accents & Exotification

Thea: I would like to say — perhaps controversially, considering the James Frain Fan Club muscle in the room — that I am not into the way the entire Franklin storyline pivoted around Frain’s English accent. Not that I think Frain should’ve developed an American accent for his True Blood stint, but that I don’t like the way that the English accent is used to make his character sexy. What is it, other than his accent, that makes Franklin dishy? I think…nothing. Note I said “Franklin,” not James Frain.

Assigning value to accents is xenophobic, (for example, saying that a French or English accent is sexy, while an Indian accent sounds hilarious – you cannot separate ideas about accents from ideas about their countries of origin) and it is off-putting to me when television shows do that, and encourage their fan base to exoticise and sexualise an accent in that way. (Did you ever think I would use the word “exoticise” to apply to something English? Well there you go.)

And in the context of True Blood, I believe that a lot of Franklin’s behaviour would’ve been more clearly coded as abusive, if he had simply done it all in an American accent. I feel like I hear fans going, oh wow, yeah he’s kind of creepy…but oooo, that accent! Who cares?

Tami: You have a point, Thea–as much as I would argue James Frain’s non-dishiness. Having the actor use his own accent was a specific choice by Ball. In fact, in an interview, Frain said he came to the set prepared to use an American accent (which he does often), but was asked to keep his English accent. I wonder why this is so.

Thea: Aha!

Tami: On a note related to our earlier discussion, the interviewer in that same Frain interview says “It almost feels like Franklin and Tara are a good match.” (Remind me not to have this woman match making for me.) This does highlight the problem that I mentioned before–an ambivalence toward the relationship and a lack of willingness to see it as abusive, driven by the shaping of Franklin and his hot accent.

Also, this is probably not the time to mention that I was glad to see Rene and his faux-Cajun drawl back…I was really gutted to learn that Rene was the villain in season one.

Thea: Interruption sustained. I loved Rene. Dreamy!

Andrea: ::Muscles in with the James Frain Fan Club lurve:: I feel where you’re coming from with the accent critique with Fraanklin, and I think you’re right on that tip. I think USians think British voices in particular sound “classy,” which is also coded as “sexy.” It’s that love/hate thing we have for ye olde former colonizers–sort of like some of us think we’re cooler/more cosmopolitan on the strength that we prefer British TV shows than US ones. With that said, I’m sorry, but I’m a sucker for voice timbre–the deeper, the better. And my future husband has that pitch I wanna listen to waking up and going to sleep and especially–especially!–while fucking, British or not.

Brown and Black Religions: Homage or Insult?

Thea: More and more I am not sure what to think of the regular appearance (reappearance?) of references to religions that are culturally marginalised. This week, Jesus uses the Olmecs and Mayans to make his dorky high school tattoo seem cooler than it is. He’s caught in his untruth and the moment is played for laughs, and to show how he is a bit of a fool (well, a hunk of burning burning fool) – but is True Blood guilty of Jesus’ sin, i.e. using these religions to make itself look cooler than it is? Have we had enough of this spiritual name dropping, or is it positive mainstream inclusion of black and brown religions?

Tami: The incessant referencing to brown people’s religions is getting me worried. I heard two women discussing Jesus and they were certain the character was shady based on his knowledge of “strange idols” and “voodoo stuff.” I fear this is exactly the reaction True Blood wants to provoke: Either the “woo woo, evil, non-Christian, jungle magic” reaction or, possibly, the “Aren’t brown people all deep and mystical and shit (with their crazy pagan religions)?” reaction.

At this point, they’ve dropped so many bits of religion in the mix–from Inuit prayers to Yoruban Gods–I’m not sure how whatever they are going for can turn out well.

Joe: I don’t know… to me it seems like this around-the-world view of religion is something that is very typical of the freethinker aesthetic. Whether or not you feel off put by it may correlate to how religious you are in general. I’m not particularly religious person (being a C&E Catholic – Christmas and Easter), so I just take it with a grain of incredulity, kind of like “Oh, those hippies. Aren’t they silly.”

But… you know what hippies seem to have in common a lot of the time, though? Wicca. I’m holding on to the “Jesus/Laffy/Ruby Jean/Tara as witch” theory like a dog with a bone.

Sam & Masculine Violence

Thea: What did y’all think of Sam’s storyline this week? It was clear that his brutal (and confusing – why didn’t anyone separate them sooner?) attack on Crystal’s dad was some serious misplaced rage. It seems like Sam is constantly mocked for being caring – e.g., trying to take care of his little bro, trying to be chivalrous to the bevy of hapless blonde beauties who cross his doorstep, and unpredictably, he is the only one Tara feels able to spill her guts to – at the end he finally explodes under the pressure of being punished for doing the right thing. Since the entire final exchange hinges around the insult “pussy,” it seemed pretty clear to me that this is about masculinity, and the disparity between how masculinity defines a Good Man, and what it actually means to really be a good man.

This was particularly engaging to me because in the first season I felt like Sam was only interested in being a Good Man in the mainstream masculinity sense of the word, i.e. a gross, Edward-style, paternalist. As a character I found him pretty boring, a bit of a wet lettuce, as my mother would say. But the revelation of his own painful past, and now this conflict between what it means to be manly and what it means to be good, is making me root for him much more than I thought I would. (Of course that’s not to say I was all for the violent beating. That was a little much.)

Tami: I think Sam’s violent outburst sent a maddening message re: masculinity. Sam has always been positioned as a “nice guy.” He is shown being easygoing and caring to family, friends and co-workers. He is one of a very few people, save Lafayette, who truly engaged with Tara and offered her solace. This, it seems, makes him a “pussy”–a label he can escape only by dispensing a righteous beat down to Calvin Norris, sending him to the hospital. Yeah, I know violence and masculinity are often intertwined in public consciousness, but Sam’s storyline Sunday gave that harmful idea credence.

Andrea: All I could think of was a paraphrase from the X-Men movies: that was a helluva reactionary show of testosterone on Sam’s part. And I mean that in the worst way possible, for the exact reasons Tami stated.

Thea: I agree with this, except that I don’t think that we are meant to see Sam’s beatdown as “righteous.”It becomes clear by the end of the scene that he is taking out his anger over Tommy – as well as other things that have happened – on Calvin, and that the beating is unacceptably brutal. This is what makes me think that the whole scene is a comment on masculinity — to the point of saying that the demands masculinity places on men are cruel, and drive them to violence.

Tami: True, but I think the fact that he kicked the ass of a meth dealer from a squalid side of town, I think, made the violence more acceptable.

Joe: He did push Crystal, though. And hard. That took it from acceptableness into something he might need to see a shrink about.

Thea: It is interesting to contrast Sam’s masculinity with Eric’s whole “why should I have burdened you as well?” thing to Pam. Serious heartstrings there (and I have a cold and shrivelled heart). Eric is the best vampire daddy ever. And also very sexy, which confuses me.

Russell’s Moment + Vampires as Analogy for…?

Thea: And…open mic. I LOLed at Russell carrying around Talbot’s, uh, remains in a crystal jar, though maybe that part was not supposed to be funny…And his final scene with the spine and the eat-your-children stuff was just fantastic TV.

You know, this is the one thing I have thought about this show’s murky vampires as analogy for gay people (or people of colour) from the very first episode: it is not such a good analogy. Because, unlike same sex couples who want to get married or black people, vampires actually will brutally eat and murder you and your children. Meanwhile gay people and black people are just trying to get by. So that analogy actually kind of sucks.

Joe: I’ll try saying this in the most diplomatic way possible: maybe True Blood is showing what the sheltered public thinks will happen if full equality is reached. Alan Ball has said that True Blood is not an analogy for any group but you have to think that he might put something in here and there just to keep us thinking.

Andrea: I’m calling bullshit on Alan Ball’s declaration that this isn’t an analogy of any group. Though I’m not sure which group he’s symbolizing with vampires–that goal post keeps moving almost every damn week–he’s most definitely making an analogy about marginalized groups. Russell’s bloody, murderous bogarting of the national airwaves plays on the fear that some privileged folks have of marginalized people, given equal rights and equal oppotunities, will use it for bloody, murderous payback.

Tami: Long live King Russell! I know this character is gonna have to go down by the end of the season, but I’m gonna miss Denis O’Hare’s brilliant, equal parts menace and campiness portrayal.

Watching King Russell go rogue on national TV made me think of the dread many POC feel when the media spotlights a member of our race doing something bad, dysfunctional or stereotypical–that sense that the bad behavior of another will stick to you in a society that lumps every brown person together. I just pictured vamps across the States watching Russell and shaking their heads. Aw, shit! This motherfucker…My neighbor is going to be giving me all kinds of side-eye tomorrow!

Joe: All I can think of is how much I wanted him to put that spine down. I think I was covering part of my screen with a coaster for most of the end!

Andrea: And I just wanna cuddle with Hoyt’s ever-loving self. He devastates me with his confessing to Jessica that he’s dating Biscuit Lady because “it beats sitting around thinking of you.” Dammit, he’s just full of win, even without the bassy voice.

Thea: Everything is dolls and showtunes!

The End of Bilkie set to music

Andrea: So….Sookie’s newly found fairy identity leads her to 1) her screaming her ass off (per usual) with the realization that her man’s been using her for her fairy juice and 2) her doing the first mature thing (in my estimation) since this show started: breaking up with the vampire. My question is: Bill is a couple of centuries old. Did he *really* think Sookie wouldn’t get hip to the fact that he’s just no good for her? And that weepy I-nearly-killed-you-but-I-lurve-your-ass-Sookeh speech just gave me bitchlips because of Bill’s (willful) naivete.

Latoya: Seriously. I was so ready for this cycle of dysfunction to end that I had prepared some theme music for the final farewell in the hospital, 1TYM’s “It’s Over”:

(For those of y’all looking for the translation, click here)

I suppose its kind of apropos most of the concert videos push together It’s Over and Put Em Up, following the sad song with the “I will not be defeated” joint.

Thea: I will say that I liked the symbolism of the blood line being broken between them. It looked nice. Yes, I can occasionally be mollified by a nicely shot bit of poetry.

Tami: I would have been more impressed by the breakup if it had lasted more than 24 hours. Yeah, Sookie and Bill’s parting was well acted, but I still cry foul on the reasoning for the split being “Well, we’ll never have picket fences and sunny days together” and not “You nearly killed me. I hear you have some creepy file on my family. My best friend says you left her in a life-threatening situation.” It all came down to Sookie not being able to have her romantic fantasy relationship. Harumph!

Joe: I don’t care what anyone else thinks, I found their break up really well acted and rather touching. The one thing that Oscar winners know how to do best is weep uncontrollably, and boy did Anna Paquin get to show why she has that thing.

Thea: Agreed. Sheepishly.

Andrea: But, Joe, what pushes mere weeping to Oscar-nabbing is what my moms calls The Snot Factor. Anna Paquin and Stephen Mowry didn’t snot; ergo, no awards. When they go home at the end of a day’s shooting they should rent Gladiator. Russell Crowe got that Academy Award on the strength on his nasal stream. Just saying.

Joe: Ha! Halle, anyone?

Andrea: Dude, that’s after she won the award. Though I would’ve given her the Oscar for that acceptance speech than for her actual performance in Monster’s Ball. Better yet, I would’ve given it to her for her composure after Adrien Brody sneak-attack kissed her when he won his Oscar.

Back to True Blood…What nearly made me nearly stake Bill was when he tries to kick out Jessica because of his failed relationship with Sookie. I was like, “Just because you and your younger lover didn’t work out, you’re going to be a deadbeat maker to Jessica? You need to learn the difference between the young woman you’re fucking and the young woman you essentially fathered. Don’t get it twisted.” But Jessica is full of win in this ep: her tantrum at Bill wanting to go neglectful fits the situation. (Sookie, take notes.) My heart went out to Jessica feeling abandoned because she really was. And Bill gets over himself enough to be a proper maker. Thank you, Jessica, for setting Bill’s mind right.

Tami: Bill is totally that ineffectual and irresponsible emo guy that just lets life (or afterlife) happen to him and never admits his role in his problems. Lorena called him on his shit when she pointed out that he enjoyed the ugly things they did as a couple. Here he has made this baby vamp and abandoned her for weeks on end, allowing her to mistakenly kill someone, and he just wants to cut her loose in a fit of faux concern for her. The truth is Bill can’t be bothered to live up to his responsibility, because he needs to go sulk over Sookie. The man has no fight in him. Compare that to Eric, who was working some crazy complicated revenge plot, while trying to save his progeny and staying out of the nefarious clutches of two monarchs. If situations were reversed, Bill would have taken to his bed weeping.

Andrea: …and writing bad poetry while sweeping his hair out of his face.

Thea: I wrote “oh for crying out loud” in my notebook during when Bill and Sookie got back together (they lasted a whole day! wow!)…I really thought that their energy-sucking love affair was finally coming to an end. I’m so naive. When is it going to end already?

Joe: Thea, I think I may have shouted “Oy gevalt” when they got back together (as steamy as that reunion was, at least for my eyes) From being dumped by cell phone, to saving your ex-boyfriend anyway, to getting back together for an escape, to being almost murdered by him, to dumping him, to crying some with a buddy, to canoodling with a hot ass werewolf, to getting back together with your vamp all in 48 hours. This girl sure enjoys an active schedule. I think the audience could of used a little more time between break-up and make-up.

Tami: See, I find Sookie/Bill sex scenes so not hot. I’m sure it’s partly because I loathe both characters, but also because knowing that Anna Paquin and Stephen Moyer are a real-life couple kind of makes me feel like a peeping Tami.

Talbot and Death by Sex

Andrea: Talbot gave me all sorts of life in this episode. From his hollering at Russell about how he leaves Talbot to clean up after his mess (“Franklin’s brain won’t wash off the guest linen, I’ve had to bury werewolves under the gazebo, and that Sookie bitch staked Lorena. I’ve had enough excitement, thank you!!”) to his two-sentence seduction of Eric (“I’m bored. Take off your clothes.”), Talbot finally–finally–grew on me. Too bad–actually, it’s really fucked up–that he’s murdered in a same-gender encounter. That hit a little too true for me, considering how many men who have sex with men die at the hands of self-identified straight men out of “gay panic.” I’m still unnerved by that scene.

Latoya: Same here. I knew the scene was going to end that way, but it still sucked to watch it happen. Eric is definitely portrayed as awash in heterosexual virility (if you can excuse the smedium v-necks which got him coded as gay back in season one), so the whole temptation/seduction took on played some strange, but depressingly familiar notes. Farewell fabulous. *pours one out for Talbot*

Thea: Hm. I wasn’t sure what to think about that gay love scene. It is difficult to write off as coincidence that the first really open gay love scene in this show (I am not counting the rather chaste kiss between Jesus and Laffy) ends with the death of one of the partners.

But I have to disagree that Eric is coded as heterosexual. I actually find him to be one of the most interesting characters on the show because he is the most difficult to read. I don’t feel as if he is strongly coded hetero or queer. He seems just generally Dionysian. I like that about him and it seems unusual for a TV character, especially since it’s not like he’s weeping in a corner over whether he likes boys or girls (not that there’s anything wrong with that, but it’s just so rare on TV that you see someone who is totally comfortable with sexing whoever), he’s just Eric.

Joe: Is it just me or are Lafayette and Jesus always kissing in the dark? What’s up with that?

I think, though, all vampires of extended age have a sort of fluid sexuality–The Queen, The King and Pam immediately come to mind. Eric is pretty doggone old, but even more than old (or pansexual) he’s an opportunist. I think in this instance at least he wanted to catch Talbot off guard, and what better way to do that than to use his roguish charm.

Tami: I agree that Eric, to me, has always felt pansexual, which is not uncommon in modern vampire lore. ITA about Jesus and Lafayette always shrouded in shadow doing this chaste dance. On the one hand, it makes for very tender and sensual scenes. On the other, it sets their interactions apart from those of heterosexual characters who generally get it on quickly, aggressively and with all the lights on. It could be that the show is hedging–teasing a homosexual sexual relationship, but avoiding graphic displays that might turn off some viewers. Or, it could be that given stereotypes and biases toward gay relationships, Alan Ball wants to make sure the audience gets that the bond between Jesus and Laffy is more than sex.

Tara’s Grief

Andrea: Let me address my gurl Tara. I’m glad that some of the other characters are finally taking Tara’s trauma seriously, from Lafayette’s giving her a foot massage and giving her space to talk about it to Sam hugging her and allowing her to cry in his arms and telling everyone to chill out with her because “she’s gone through some things.” Of course, Sookie has to be, well, her, and is still not clueing into what her bestie has been trying to say about Bill and the shit she’s gone through with Franklin. Again, it seems to me that Sookie asking all faux-therapist-y about Tara’s “hurting” again came about in a “safe” situation. I swear I’m thiiiiiiis close to auditioning for the show just so I can be cast as Tara’s homie.

Latoya: Seriously. When Tara stormed off saying that she didn’t want to talk about what happened “Cause you don’t want to hear what I’ve gotta say,” she was so painfully right. Sookie wouldn’t even hear her out. And that line about acting like “a dumb bitch in a country song” was fucking priceless. (And as we saw later, sadly true.)

Also, as an aside, I was blown away by Rutina Wesley in this episode. Her acting was on point, down to her shivering trauma lip. The writers are clearly exploring cycles of abuse through Tara and Tommy, and I appreciate the emotional depth. I’m also amazed at the bond between Tara and Lafayette, and how that quietly grows through shared, unnamed pain. Perhaps I am coloring too much of my True Blood viewing experience with personal experience, but I can’t count how many times I’ve been in a room with someone, both of us holding secrets about something that happened, neither of us actually saying it. I think our own judgement of ourselves is something we project on other people, the way we beat ourselves up for not having done something sooner/earlier, internalizing things…Tara and Laffy are holding back from each other when they could be finding solace in each other, yet that scene just felt real to me. I wonder when (or if) they will eventually confide in each other and how that scene will go. For me, it always feels like a dam breaking, the second after you/your friend blurts something out and that scary pause when the other person is processing and you/them await the reaction. I would love to see something like that happen, but I’m not sure where the writers are trying to take this.

Tami: It is good to see that the show really does take the rape and kidnapping and emotional abuse that Tara endured seriously. We spoke in earlier episodes about how by making Franklin a witty (mentally-imbalanced) charmer, True Blood made it easy to read the situation for laughs. Rutina Wesley’s playing of Tara’s PTSD is so impactful. You feel it. When Franklin returns–which we know he will based on previews–it will be interesting to see how they balance the portrayal of Tara’s pain with Franklin’s bon mots and speed texting. I gotta tell you, I’m bracing for some bullshit.

Thea: I was relieved to see Tara finally getting some screen time to express her pain…when the opening credits went straight into Alcide comforting Sookie, I was like, if they don’t give Tara a few minutes of processing before the third commercial break, I am turning this show off!

And I do understand what you are saying, Latoya, about how they chose to portray Tara’s pain and how it rang true for you – how some people grieve by crying all over their cereal (hello Sookie), while others hold it inside. On the other hand, I did feel a little bit like Tara being strong and not sharing her feelings – or being too traumatised to articulate them – was a little convenient for the writers. Does Tara refuse to share her pain because that’s true to her character, or because it’s easier to write her that way?

I was glad though, that she appeared to be continuously traumatised throughout the episode. I feel like this show often rushes its characters through grief or sorrow. Like how the day that Tommy left his parents, Sam was like, so, when you gonna apply for college? Jeez, give the kid some time.

Also, did anyone notice how Tara gives up Alcide for Sookie? Blagh!

Andrea: Thea, I was all like, “Tara, noooooooooooo!” Then, I did my usual fisting-shaking at the destiny deities.

Joe: I’m surprised no one mentioned the scrapbook with one lone, pitiful picture of Sookie and Bill in it. A framed picture of them would of been more than okay, but, for the love of God, when she broke that thing out I thought I accidentally changed the channel to a Sweet Valley High rerun. The writers can’t seem to decide if Sookie is a waif or a warrior. I like my Sookie powerful.

Thea: Ha! Yes! As me and 1000 other people on the internet said, where the hell did she find time to make a scrapbook? I would say that that was bad writing (not only because Sookie’s never had any time to scrapbook, but also because it just seems silly and out of character – she doesn’t strike me as the sentimental type), except for the fact that I enjoyed the good laugh I got out of seeing said pitiful scrapbook.

Andrea: Just for that, I’m not showing y’all my scrapbook.

Thea: ::Cries::

Tami: Andrea, if your scrapbook only has one picture in it, you can just e-mail it to us or something.

Latoya Schools Us on Improper Firearm Use

Latoya: Can we do 16 bars on this Bill/Sookie/Jessica vs. Russell/Debbie/Wolfpack ultimate cage match? First of all, if you have ever been through firearm training, the first thing they tell you is to not even pick up the weapon unless you are planning to shoot to kill. All Sookie did brandishing the shot gun around was put herself in danger, since she was clearly too squeamish to use it on another human. I’m not saying its an easy choice to take a life, but if you aren’t going to use it, the gun is more of a liability to you than an asset. She better thank her lucky stars that Debbie was so full of rage and V that she wanted to play punch out instead of speed Sook to her death. And seriously, with all that’s happened in Bon Temps, has no one learned to shoot and roll out? The only person who has done that yet is Alcide.

(I should note – portrayals of firearms in media annoys me to no end. You’re supposed to see Sook with the gun and think “badass” but really, what she did was enormously fucking stupid.)

Andrea: Latoya, thank you! I also remember a movie critic once said that most times, when the audience sees a person with a gun, it’s usually time for a speech. Feh.

Joe: I think Sookie was probably also full of rage and V too, which might have peppered her actions during that scene. I mean, she usually takes an ill advised path, but this episode was full of them.

Tami: Not only was I yelling for Sookie to bust a cap in Debbie, I was yelling for Debbie to shift for deity’s sake. I mean, if I have the ability to turn into a bloodthirsty animal with fangs and claws on a whim, you can bet I’m not going to waste my time with hand-to-hand combat. Just sayin…

Madness & Stereotype

Thea: I did not care for the way they treated Laffy’s “crazy lady!” mama this episode. So many cliches. Plus, Jesus simply manages to disarm her by saying “let’s watch TV!”? Come on. She has a mental health condition, she’s not a child.

So far the portrayal is extremely infantilising and fulfills so many TV stereotypes about mad people, even up to the idea that in all of their craziness, they are somehow more perceptive than everyone else.

Joe: This is something I bring up so often with this show. You cast Alfre Woodard, arguably one of the most well versed actresses of recent times and all you give her is “crazy old black lady”. I mean the lady has four Emmys. Now, that that line she uttered (about Lafayette having “power” and something about witches) maybe that will lead to a juicer storyline. Here’s hopin’.

Thea: Yes, and yes again. As stereotypes always are, it is just such lazy writing. Try writing a character who is mad and who also comes across as human, complex and sympathetic. That’s much more of a challenge than regurgitating One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. It just makes me want to go rewatch Keane.

I am also sorry to say that Jesus’ whole interchange with Laffy’s mom made me dislike him a little bit. Stop talking down to people all the time Jesus!

Tami: As much as I love Jesus and Lafayette together, I’m going to need Jesus to tone down the sanctimoniousness. Really, dude, chill. Laffy has seen you, what, twice? It’s a little too soon for judging and po-faced advice.

Miscellaneous Sexytimes

Andrea: I’m not going to address Bill’s and Sookie’s make-up sex: that was too cliched to be sexy. The headbangy guitars to show how hard they’re fucking just made me yawn. Ooo, ah. Next. And, as Tami said earlier, the fact that Paquin and Mowry are a couple made me feel like I was watching their spliced-in sex tape than a sex scene between two fictional characters. Doubleplus not the sexay for me.

No, let’s talk about Tara dreaming about masturbating in the shower only to have Franklin come in/up to liplock/embrace her. Like you said, Latoya, Rutina nailed this–for me, she really had this scene on lock because of the verity. It was great to see a woman of color pleasuring herself–I damn near stood up and applauded for that moment alone. Then, there was that fist-bite of knowing the best lover Tara ever had was the same person who abused her. I mean, where to even put all that? Damn.

Latoya: Seriously. Tara is probably dying inside, even though she rationally knows it’s probably the V talking (or maybe that first night, pre-horror?) Our emotions/sex drives are complicated little beasts.

I am so happy that Jesus and Lafayette seem to be creeping toward something.

Andrea: They looked like they creeped to the sofa, maybe?

Latoya: I’m so damn happy, I made a soundtrack-timeline of how this relationship should play out if there’s any justice in this world.

First, Lafayette and Jesus realize they are madly in love.

Then, after many drama-less courting scenes, they have a love scene that is actually shown.

(Also, peep Hikki’s lyrics: Wish i could prove i love you/ but does that mean i have to walk on water?/ When we are older you’ll understand/ It’s enough when i say so/ And maybe somethings are that simple - damn girl, preach!)

Then, they realize that all this drama isn’t worth it, so they make plans to take Tara and leave Bon Temps.

And they ride off into the sunset in the Ferrari.

Yeah, I know, not going to happen, but I can dream damn it!

[Note from Joe: That car--It’s actually an Alfa Romeo Competizione. It has parts of a Ferrari but isn’t exactly one. Look! I know things that straight men do. ]

Latoya: My brain isn’t functioning on the higher levels with this show. Vampires bad, car pretty.

Andrea: And leave Russell with Bratty Vamp Queen and “Special Cunt” behind. Speaking of that, ahem, moniker… thoughts on that?

Thea: I will admit that I LOLed when he said “special cunt.” My feminist cred is going down the drain.

Tami: Thea, we can turn in our cards together. I laughed at that despite myself.

Latoya: Sookie’s got the magic clit…

Joe: Slightly uncomfortable… Haha. I’ll just be over here.

Thea: So to start with the moment that had your faithful Racialicious True Blood team scratching their heads, what was with Franklin telling Tara that she could take being bitten and tied up because “she was tough”? Apart from the fact that that seems like textbook abusive behaviour (abuse, then flatter, or simultaneously abuse and flatter?) telling a black woman that she is “tough” and can take it, falls in step with oh so many bone-wearying stereotypes. Did that line spring out of the racial imagination of the TB writers, or are we reading a racial moment where there isn’t one?

Andrea: For some really strange reason, the abusive behavior isn’t cultivating a racial analysis…yet. Yes, this is a white man abusing a Black woman, but I’m not getting the weight of the white race/white privilege/white supremacy on Franklin and the weight of the Black race/Black oppression on Tara. I’m not jumping up with a “that’s so racist!” because it feels so singular in that it’s Franklin and Tara, and Franklin has proven to terrorize younger women (I’m thinking of the time Franklin freaks out Jessica here). So, my initial thought is, “This is some misogynistic/sexually violent shit!” I think I may have to look at the ep again for a racial reality check.

Joe: The “white” Tara (from the books) went through the same thing that the show Tara is going through so I’m not sure the whole concept of her being in an abusive relationship is racial (I’m hoping that doesn’t give anything away, future book readers) however, after the episode all I could think about is that Sojourner Truth getup Tara is wearing in the preview for next week. (see picture above)

Joe (continued): Does Franklin think he’s dating Celie from The Color Purple? What is with that outfit?!

Latoya: Joe, you wrong! But I have to admit, I thought the same thing when I saw her running across the field. I was on the couch like “run, Tara, run to FREEDOM!”

Andrea: I think Prince sums up my feelings about that outfit…

Joe, I haven’t read the books, so you didn’t ruin a thing for me.:-) But I think you may helped me with my racial analysis regarding Tara/Franklin. It goes back to my question that I asked on the last thread: even those this particular storyline is following the book rather closely (which I find interesting because I wonder how many other storylines are adhering to the book), doesn’t casting a Black actor color (no pun intended) some of what we’re viewing? Example: when Franklin is kidnapping Tara and driving her to Jackson, he tells her that she’s “tough” because he “could taste it in her blood.” If he would have said that to a white woman playing Tara, some white feminists would have been applauding and striking riot-grrl poses and typing riot-grrl posts. But he said it to Tara, played by a dark-skinned Black woman, which would get an “of course” from several white feminists and maybe a mixed reading from feminists of color, from the excoriation of the “Strong Black Woman” stereotype to the rah-rah-ing of same stereotype. And with a white guy saying it, it just falls into that corner of “liberal racism” in which some white people who sleep with PoCs think they can manifest it to us ‘coz consensual sex is, in their heads, license to say all sorts of assy things. Perhaps this is a case where “colorblind” casting goes awry?

Joe: “I just love the contrast of our skin.”– Something I’ve heard multiple times from partners who aren’t my race. On one hand the fact is interesting… I’m an artist, I get why tonal differences are visually appealing. But on the other hand, phrases like that just make me pause and think, “Is there something racist there?” Perhaps liberally so, as Andrea points out, perhaps not so. Maybe they don’t even know that we think of it that way.

Still on Franklin and Tara, Franklin definitely didn’t say much other than, “You’re mine, woman” and other vaguely misogynist phrases in Club Dead. (I nominate myself the voice of “That didn’t happen to ____ in the TB books”.) So, the fact that he’s calling her tough because of her blood might be a bit of hyperbole from the screenwriters. Racially motivated? Maybe. I get a lot of that from people dealing with Lafayette, although, they might be trying to figure out ways to make his character mad so he can say something sassy. And they know we love it when Lafayette gets sassy.

Tami: For the reasons Joe outlined, I’m not so concerned about the racial dynamics of Franklin/Tara. The abusive relationship is one that plays out with Tara in the books, though she is white in that case. I am concerned that more and more Alan Ball is leveraging violence against women/women in peril for entertainment, which is such a lazy, lazy thing to do. I mean, damn, was there any woman in Sunday’s episode that wasn’t on the pole, on a torture rack, getting punched in the face, tied to a toilet, eaten by hungry vamps, branded with an iron and possibly mounted by a giant wolf? Even bad-assed Pam was spread-eagle and screaming. Charlaine Harris’ books at least feint at female empowerment.

Thea: I have to say I felt more out of breath and queasy at the end of this episode than I usually do…Season 3, while better on the storylines than Season 2, sure is heavy on the violence against women. First Lorena gets punched so hard in the face that she flies across the room (of course this follows having her head twisted around last ep, so that Bill wouldn’t have to see her face while he had sex with her…which in this ep, she tells us she thoroughly enjoyed) then Franklin imprisons, assaults and then ties Tara to a toilet. And we end with the gory, violent, sexualised murder of a stripper.

The violence against Lorena puzzles me. It is plain and simple, extreme violence, but it is complicated by the fact that she is a vampire i.e. has superhuman strength. But just in terms of optics, it is shocking to see.

And I have to say it was extremely disturbing to see Pam tortured…even tough bitches are ultimately vulnerable to male violence. (And I would argue that it was male violence – even if was by rule of vampire law.)

Tami: @Thea, you said:

The violence against Lorena puzzles me. It is plain and simple, extreme violence, but it is complicated by the fact that she is a vampire i.e. has superhuman strength. But just in terms of optics, it is shocking to see.

…and this is what makes the incessant violence against women even more nauseating. Because the narrative has these elements of the supernatural in it, you have TB watchers parsing the violence, like Well it’s okay for Bill to be sexually violent toward Lorena because she ultimately is physically stronger than he is. She has super powers and will heal. Released from having to worry about this supernatural woman being physically hurt, I‘m seeing people move to cheering on the violence. Yeah, Bill punched Lorena dead in her grill! She deserved it! She’s such a bitch! It makes me very uneasy.

Thea: Yes, I totally agree. Because the reasons that the narrative gives for justifying the brutality Lorena experiences are that she is hyperstrong and hyperevil…and the “hyperevil” justification leads us down the “she deserved it” path, which is just wrong. It creates a space in which viewers can watch violence against women in comfort.

Andrea: As some commenters pointed out in the last thread, Bill is a rape victim, too–what (finally) tipped me off when he countered Lorena’s assertion that their sex was “passionate”: “At least one of us enjoyed it.” So, that says right there Bill didn’t consent to it. But because his attempt to rape Lorena as punishment, Ball and Co. cheated with the idea of rape and consent themselves. So it all gets reduced to “rough sex” for Lorena and Bill serving thwarted perpetrator/ostensible Stockholm Syndrome victim (per his “confession” to Sookie)/actual victim–and, because of that cheat, viewers can do the parsing your’re talking about, Tami. They’re off the proverbial hook from dealing with the sexual violence between Bill and Lorena and the implications.

With everything else you’ve said, Tami, big ol’ co-sign.

Latoya: The whole sexualized violence theme of TB is really creeping me out this season. Those final few scenes in the strip club and the wolf den were really about adding a sexy edge to all of this darkness. I mean, some of this is part and parcel to exploring the darker side of humanity. But at the same time, each of the female characters seems to get more and more vulnerable, needy, and irrational as the series goes on. Sookie, despite her claims she can kick some ass, is generally in need of a hero. (Has she done anything since beating those guys back off of Bill in the first season?) Tara is in the middle of grieving, but ending up strapped to a toilet was not her finest moment. All the vampire women – Pam, the Queen, Lorena – talk tough, but often are on the verge of breaking down or needing rescue. I feel like this is the fantasy version of “women in refrigerators” syndrome.

Joe: Lorena seems awfully… clingy for someone so mature, doesn’t she?

I think maybe there are perversions of strength that we mortals have trouble getting used to. We immediately react to the violence against Lorena first, because it was much more visual, much more clear. Lorena took Bill away from Sookie by force. He was raped, not even technically, his choice was taken away when she ordered him to sleep with her. However, the writers took the attention away from that and instead have Bill so memorably hurt her, forever etched in our memories, no doubt. How that deflects from the fact of the male rape is a slightly disturbing dichotomy, don’t you think?

Thea: Wow Joe, that is true…and disturbing. I watched last week’s ep alone (sniff) and didn’t pick up on the fact that Bill was raped, but now that you mention it, that is extremely problematic. All of the violence Bill (now) visits upon Lorena is extremely graphic (setting her on fire, twisting her head all the way around, punching her so hard she flies across the room) which is what, as you note, remains memorable about their interchanges. The fact that she is abusing him does not remain memorable – even to the point of not registering.  Once again I am mystified by the writers – they continually wade into the waters of challenging and difficult subject matter (like female on male abuse in a show that has violence against women as its backbone) but then get freaked and run screaming back up the shore to stereotypes.

Thea: But jeez…can it get any worse with Tara? I was trying to remember if we have seen any other characters have their agency removed in such a profound way. We did see Bill get tied up in silver, along with Jason & gf’s basement vampire in Season 1…Lafayette also got chained up in the basement of Fangtasia.

If you can remember, how did those scenes of imprisonment contrast with Tara’s imprisonment? Maybe it was just me, but I felt like there was something slightly comic with the way Tara’s imprisonment was filmed. She’s tied to the toilet (ha! toilet!), her phone slides into the sink (ruh roh!), and throughout she keeps on making that bug-eyed, shocked face that makes me feel like they are just wasting Rutina Wesley’s talents. It seems like she only has one setting: screechy. No matter what is going on.

When I think about Bill or Lafayette’s imprisonment, you saw the pain and terror on their faces in a very real way. With Tara, if you can let slip from your mind how frightening her situation is, the filming doesn’t really encourage the viewer to interpret her suffering as true, real suffering. For example, at the end when Talbot says “it’s so skinny!” – is it just me, or was that supposed to be a comic moment? So that kind of turns my stomach. None of the other major characters (except for Jason and gf’s vamp, but even he had a lot of pathos circling him) had moments of humour lacing their torture.

Tami: Yeah, I think part of Tara’s imprisonment is being played for comic effect. There is a disconnect between the joshing, witty, psychopath Franklin, who gets these great lines for us to titter at–The one thing I miss more than the sun is fresh frrruit–and Tara, who seems truly frightened (with good reason). By making her captor sort of a lovable rogue, the writers reduce the impact of Tara’s imprisonment.

I remember Lafayette’s imprisonment feeling differently. First, the imagery of a black man, huddling in a dark basement with a chain around his neck obviously evokes strong, negative feelings. And even though Eric bounding down the stairs with highlight foils in his hair added a moment of levity, he also eviscerated a man while wearing those same foils, so we were clear that Lafayette was in peril.

Joe: Duct taping flowers to her hands was quite creepy to me, in that I knew how many people thought it was funny. Again, its a deflection of what is actually happening (Tara having her authorities taken away.) After being blood-sucked and violated, she’s bound half naked. She didn’t even get to eat that day while Franklin slept, and well into the next evening, during the drive to Mississippi, I imagine. Is that a plot hole, or is it something we’re supposed to realise? Both or neither? It makes you admire her attempts at escape knowing how tired a person would be at that point.

Andrea: Confession time–This week’s ep has changed my mind about Tara. Screechy as she is, she’s really out there by herself, isn’t she? The closest person who’d love to help her, Lafayette, can’t. And Sookie’s in too deep about her ex-man/Alcide/herself to be of any help. So, Tara’s stuck with Franklin, who’s not just obsessive, as someone called him in the last thread, but really, really abusive.

But what you said about Tara, Tami and Thea, really cements what seems to be the age-old stereotypes about Black women: we’re fuckable and so gosh-darn funny but unworthy of healthy love and identification with our pain(s) and most certainly of assistance and rescue. What Tara is going through isn’t funny, full stop. A Black woman’s suffering constructed for comic effect says to me that the creators don’t really take her suffering seriously–and neither, the creators implicitly convey, should the viewers. In a country that doesn’t take Black women’s suffering seriously anyway, this is just an enforcement.

Tami: Right, Andrea. The contrast between Sookie and Tara this week was stark. Sookie seems always to have a ready protector. Alcide, who barely knows her, has waded into danger for her twice now. There is always someone there to save Sookie in the nick of time. Tara…not so much. If next week ‘s previews are any indication, Bill is going to decline to come to her rescue. Something tells me Tara is always going to have to save herself…cause she’s tough. So tough you can taste it, I hear.

Latoya: Seriously. They could subtitle this show “Everybody Hates Tara.” I hate how this sanctity of womanhood shit denies Tara the right to be rescued in the same way as her white counterparts (shit, even trifling-ass Eric decided to save Pam, Godric, Lafayette AND Sookie). But at the same time, I feel like Lafayette and Tara need to take that ferrari and ride off into the fucking sunset already. Kourtney and Khloe got to spin-off and head to Miami – I would totally watch Laffya and Tara in New Orleans. Just saying…

Thea: At the risk of Tami’s rage, did that Bill/Sookie breakup scene feel just a little Twilight: New Moon?

Latoya: No, it was totally the same scene. However, Sookie did not go comatose…though at this point, maybe Sookie looking out the window for a few months would do everyone in Bon Temps some good.

Tami: (seethes silently)

Thea: Ok ok I take it back.

Joe: Vamp or not, Thea, after the one month mark, breaking up by cell phone is a faux pas. Tsk, tsk, Bill.

Andrea: Maybe Bill’s not skilled with texting.

Tami: I am desperately looking for an occasion to say “…well, I don’t have a nutsack.” Comedy gold, right there.

Thea: Here another question about how the show directs us to interpret it: is it offensive when Russell says “how about ethnic?”, considering that he is definitely a character who is marked as “bad,” so when he says effed up things the viewer is supposed to interpret that comment as “bad”? (We can also ask this question of his “a woman is just a woman” speech.) In other words, is it all right for a writer to write racist dialogue, as long as it is spoken by a character that the viewer is not supposed to identify with? Or is having a character utter racist dialogue a racist act, no matter what? Another Or: Russell is Bad, but is it the kind of badness that is seductive rather than dislikeable, and as such, are racist-misogynists-in-training currently memorising his “woman is a woman” speech and pointing at people of colour and calling them “ethnic”?

Tami: See, but are we sure that Russell’s comment was meant to read as offensive? I suspect the writers don’t find it offensive at all. I think it was meant to demonstrate Russell’s worldly tastes. Consider the scene last episode where Talbot calls for the Thai boy to fulfill the next dinner course.

To answer your question, Thea, I think racist dialogue can be used to help draw a character. I have no problem with that…in theory. But note, in the face off between Arlene and Tara in the season’s first episode, the dialogue about race was used to advance two common stereotypes: That working class white people (Arlene) are racists and that black women (Tara) are angry and overly sensitive.

It gets particularly dicey–to your point–when the racism comes from a character that we are supposed to like, for instance: Arlene. Casual racism then gets coded as, if not admirable, at least not a big deal.

Latoya: Wait, we’re supposed to like Arlene?

Tamara: @Latoya, Well, Arlene isn’t the heroine of the show, but I think we’re supposed to view her as one of the lovable, quirky townsfolk. The Terry/Arlene pairing is supposed to be one we’re rooting for.

@Thea, Russell is definitely a baddie, but I think you nailed in on the head that he is seductively bad.

Thea: I would agree that we’re supposed to like Arlene. Especially after her trials and tribulations in Season 1. Admittedly I do kind of like her, especially because of Terry. I feel like she is scapegoated by the show’s writers as the resident small town racist.

Andrea: See, Russell’s statement tripped my anti-racism radar far more quickly than Franklin’s and Tara’s dynamics. I know Russell’s a vampire and vampires feed on humans and blah blah blah, but literally categorizing someone’s ethnicity as a food descriptor just gave me pause. And, I agree with you, Tami, that Russell’s comment isn’t supposed to be read as offensive precisely because he’s supposed to be so worldly. It’s the sleight-of-hand quite a few liberals and progressives like to use to deny their racism, namely they couldn’t possibly be racist because they’re well-traveled/educated/cultured. But there he, Lorena, and Bill, are, killing an “ethnic” woman–and a sex worker at that–because they knew no one would care if she was missing or found her dead.

Thea: As soon as I saw they were at a strip club I was like “For real? This is where you’re going to get your ‘meals’?” I feel like this is yet another case of the writing being smarter than the writer…our total cultural disregard for sex workers bodily safety is definitely something to be explored on mainstream TV.  I feel like the writers were doing something quite progressive without realising it…and then of course totally botched it with the tittilating rape-murder scene that finished off this ep.

Tami: Can we also talk about Eric’s throw away line when he rescued Lafayette in Hot Shot? Come on, RuPaul. Watchers seemed to love that line. It blew up my Twitter. (I preferred the shout out to “Goody Osbourne,” cause I’m a book nerd.) But Come on, RuPaul irked the hell out of me. It’s like Eric was doing that thing that happens to marginalized folks all the time where someone compares you to the only other person they know–famous or not–that shares your color, sexuality, etc….even if said person only has that one thing in common with you. It’s like deciding to call your gay neighbor “Jack” or the middle-aged black woman in accounting “Oprah.”

Andrea: Tami, I was all like, “What the hell did you just say?” when that crack came out of Eric’s mouth. That would be like me rolling up to Alexander Skarsgard and saying, “Hey ya, Nazi Wet Dream! How *you* doin’?” If he (rightfully) tries to call me out, I can pull a Russell and say that I couldn’t possibly be racist because 1) I took a class in Literature of the Holocaust and Genocide, so I studied what Hitler’s ideal was and 2) I’m a Black woman, so I can’t be racist, anyway. I can’t with Eric. I really can’t.

Joe: The RuPaul comment really made me stop for a moment. Eric-don’t fight the hotness with stuff like that. Laffy didn’t really react to it either, which I found strange.

I think, though, it boils down to this: as humans we like to associate. Life is easier to take when things are in a row, folded and neatly stacked. It’s where this type of associative stereotyping originates, and it seems these comments are a recurrent theme in True Blood. Most of the time, though, we realize when we speak out of turn. Vampires must lack the ability.

Andrea: Vampires need their own Tim Wise.

It was bound to happen sooner or later.

We proudly (or shamefully?) present the True Blood roundtable.  And don’t worry, if the Racialicious Roundtable hex gets True Blood canceled, we promise to never roundtable another TV show again. And now, let us begin with True Blood Season 3, Episode 2: Beautifully Broken.

WARNING: SPOILERS!

Black Family Dynamics

Thea: So the first thing that popped out to me about this episode was Alfre Woddard as Lafayette’s mom…and of course the fourth member of this family would be institutionalised*, homophobic, xenophobic, racist and full of general hatred. Now, I don’t expect some kind of Cosby Show happy black family, but it continues to rankle me that the only family of colour on True Blood is so messed up. Or perhaps it’s not that they’re messed up, but that they’re messed up in a very flat, monochrome way, while the other families (if you think of Eric and Pam, Bill and Jessica, and Sookie and Jason as all families) seem to have much more fleshed out, good-and-bad dynamics.

And sidebar: There’s not much love or compassion for the mad people’s/people with disabilities movement on True Blood either…Lord, I hate it when TV shows use mental health institutions (I officially stopped watching House over their representation of an “asylum”). At least Meadowlands looked like a nice enough place.

Tami: Can we get a functional, true-to-life black person on True Blood? Just one? See here’s my problem with the “diversity” on TB: It’s like Alan Ball realized he had to do better than Charlaine Harris’ whitewashed Sookieverse (Harris wrote the books on which the HBO show is based.), but his solution was just to toss some stereotypical, one-dimensional characters into the town. Sassy, tough-talking, angry black chick? Check. Bible-thumping, “Oh, lawd!” hollering mama? Check. Large, stern black woman in public service profession? Check. Drug-dealing black man who frequently calls women “bitches” and “hookers?” Check. Ex-con who winds up with bullet in his brain. Checkitty check check. You know I love me some Lafayette as much as the next TB fan. His bon mots are my favorite. And I have been thankful that they have allowed him some depth and humanity. Nevertheless, when I look at Lafayette together with all the other black folks in fictional Bon Temps, I get a little queasy at how “typical” and uninspired the show’s portrayal of my people is.

Andrea: ::Stumbles in from watching all of the episodes in a week:: True Blood newbie joining the discussion here. So….those dysfunctional Negroes. I agree with you, Tami with every critique you have about Tara’s family. I also think a far more sinister message is getting played out via Tara’s fam: if Black folks don’t let go of their -isms and -phobias, they will be locked up in sanitariums. Bill having slaves? Groovy, because he’s renounced his evil ways and is trying to mainstream. Eric being a Nazi? Well, Eric *is* a vampire. Jason having all sorts of -isms and -phobias? Well, that’s aight because he’s, well, young, dumb, and full of cum. Arlene? Well, she’s coded as “poor white trash,” and, by extension, not having the educated sophistication to realize how “ignorant” she is. But none of the white characters suffer from debilitating mental illness because they’re holding on to bigoted views. They’re just quirky, lovable them. (/snark)

Latoya: I take a different view on this one . To me, the revelation that Tara’s family has a history of mental illness provided some much needed context and backstory to characters who were in danger of being sidelined. A lot of Tara’s development and characterization have been around how she has coped with her childhood – showing how her family has a history of mental illness provides even more depth to her mother’s struggle with alcohol, Tara’s own struggle, and why she and Lafayette can be so cold and secretive. They are doing it to protect themselves and hide their background. And considering mental illness in the black community gets so little attention (see here for some studies and discussions) I was glad to see it receive a frank discussion. These scenes weren’t played for laughs until Lafayette made that crack about the sexy attendant.

And while I will second Tami’s call for “a functional, true-to-life black person,” I have to say that any remotely functional, clear thinking person would have gotten the hell out of Bon Temps before the end of the first season.

Nazis and Political Subtexts

Thea: So, is True Blood taking inspiration from Twilight? Oh just kidding. Werewolves! Nazi werewolves! If vampire narratives are always about sex, what are werewolf narratives about?

Tami: I beg your pardon–The Sookieverse had werewolves before that story about those dang, sparkling kiddie vamps did! My outrage at comparisons to Twilight aside…werewolf narratives are still about sex–just different sex. Vampires always have some air of sophistication and gentility, even though they are predators. Werewolves are, literally, animals–untamed animals. It’s like the difference between smooth, sexy, sophisticated jazz and up-against-the-wall, dirty blues. Now, if you’ll excuse me. I need a glass of water and a fan.

Thea: Ahem. My apologies Tami.

Andrea: Then, Tami, I’m sorry, but this particular crew of vampires and werewolves are the equivalent of Kenny G doing “Songbird” and John Mayer doing “Stitched Up.”:-P But I am digging where Thea’s question is coming from: The Twilight-verse and its vampires/werewolves was rocking for a while before True Blood decided to roll in with their version of the rivalry this blessed season. But my rusty memory sort of remembers that when the vampires and werewolves came into contact in pop culture, ity was as a desperate attempt to continue cashing in on the old horror movies of yore. The whole Dracula vs. the Werewolf Z-movies back in the day. Somewhere, the backstory with those creatures got so incredibly layered to the point where it’s almost expected for them to show up together in plots.

Tami: “…this particular crew of vampires and werewolves are the equivalent of Kenny G doing ‘Songbird’ and John Mayer doing ‘Stitched Up.’” This is so wrong, yet so right. I may never forgive you.

Andrea: You know you lurve me and my point, homie. ‘Cause I merely speak truth.

Thea: And…Eric was a Nazi. For a good cause, apparently, but still a Nazi. I’m still hanging on to the fact that Bill (maybe?) owned slaves. It strikes me that True Blood could get a lot of mileage out of the fact that many of the characters on the show have lived through fairly gruesome periods of world history. I’m thinking Octavia Butler’s Kindred or even Louis C.K.’s Time Machine bit. But it disappoints me that instead, these historical references are usually just played off as scenery, as if the makers of the show are dabbling in politics for fun, and never truly taking these ideas seriously. Sort of similar to the way that, when the show first came out, it played itself off as being an allegory for the same sex marriage debate (lingering evidence of that is still in the credits, when a sign saying “God Hates Fangs” flashes across the screen) but in the end never really went anywhere with that…and now seems to have forgotten it entirely. I feel the way about this that I feel about characters of colour – either use political subtext right, or don’t use it at all.

Tami: Okay, I need to read what other folks thought of this scene, because I’ve watched it twice and still can’t quite understand what the Nazi regalia was about. I fear that it was simply an excuse to get the show’s lead heartthrob into a sexy and dangerous costume, which is an awful trivialization of what was a horrific moment in human history. I agree with you, Thea, that the show very often glosses over history that is too troubling for the narrative. (BTW, Bill said in season one that his father owned slaves, but he did not. This was offered in response to Tara’s questioning, which, by the way, was painted as angry and inappropriate.)

Alan Ball has long maintained that True Blood’s supernatural characters are NOT stand ins for real-life marginalized groups, which I think is disingenuous. If you don’t believe me check out the website for the fictional American Vampire League, which was created as part of True Blood’s amazing online marketing campaign. Or, watch the AVL’s PSA promoting tolerance. Yeah, see what I mean. Ball uses the allegory when it’s creatively convenient, but stops short of doing something really interesting. What’s worse, some of the one-dimensional portrayals on TB actually amount to the same sort of stereotypical treatment that the AVL’s real-life counterparts might rail against.

Thea: Yes, I was confused about the Nazi costume too. Is Alan Ball getting inspiration from Jesse James and Michelle McGee? Kidding, kidding…

Latoya: Actually Thea, you might be right. Eric and Godric are part of the regime, but instantly mitigate what they are doing by mentioning they aren’t on either side in human conflicts. And yet…they never end up on the side of right, now do they?

Andrea: Eric in Nazi costume is to further Eric’s alleged badassery, nothing more. And I say “alleged” because I’m not buying him as a badass at all. Just blond, pretentious, and mildly criminal, which get equated to his being a “sexy bad boy.” He’s the old dude at the goth club who impressed the goth gals with his story of how he “did time”…when the story is further dug into, he did two hours in the pen for littering.

Men of Colour Eye Candy, Gay Men VS Gay Women

Thea: Did anyone else notice that there was a lot of man of colour eye candy this episode? (Andrea, I’m looking at you) This is also known as “man-ass” to steal a phrase from Fatemeh. The vampire king who abducts Bill has some good looking guards. I am looking for the name of the actor who played the guard who looked Asian (is this True Blood’s first Asian??) but no luck so far. And of course there’s Jesus, Ruby Jean’s nurse, who doesn’t get treated very nicely by the show, if you ask me.

Tami: Hell yes, I noticed.

Andrea: I’m sorry, the sight of James Frain just obliterated the other man-asses. What was the question?

Thea: And I guess we also got the introduction of another queer character for the show: the vampire king. Can Alan Ball will do a better job with queer representations than of colour ones? I did, however, enjoy the affectionate jabs at gourmet, organic, shade-grown, free-run meats with the whole “consensually donated tangerine-accented” blood thing.

Latoya: Spoiler – Entertainment Weekly was all a flutter a few months back with the news that Jesus was going to be Lafayette’s new love interest. So now there’s a potential second queer of color, I’ll be really interested to check the representations.

Thea: Ooo! That would be nice. Poor Laffy deserves a good boyfriend.

Latoya: Well, Mr. Schlubby Vamp from season one seemed to like Lafayette enough to allow himself to be milked for V in exchange for companionship. (And has anyone else noticed Lafayette’s sex life, which served all kinds of purposes in season one, has been dead in the water post imprisonment?)

Tami: And have you noticed that despite all the prominent male homosexual characters, lesbianism is kind of played for sex appeal to the male gaze. They serve up Pam, Eric’s sidekick, and the Queen of Louisiana as traditionally hot, hypersexual chicks who are down for whatever–the ladies…the dudes…

Andrea: I agree with how lesbianism is played, but I also think Sam’s dream sequence, where Bill invites Sam to shower with him, gets played for the guy/guy-action lovers in the audience. But also note that it was a tease, too…as if the writers didn’t want to have the audience judge Bill’s and Sam’ sexual identities too much ’cause, you know, they’re all in lurve with Sookie, the litmus test of heterosexuality on the show, apparently. ::eyeroll:: But to Latoya’s point: I think Lafayette isn’t sexual because he’s over-his-head with PTSD. It’s to the point he doesn’t like to be touched, let alone fuck.

Tara, Lafayette and POC Mental Health

Thea: To circle back to my original point, I’m just not liking the Tara/Lafayette dynamic. Neither am I liking the way Tara’s grief is written…it feels very melodramatic and not particularly nuanced. I hope Rutina Wesley is taking care of her vocal chords; she seems to have spent most of the entire show screaming. But back to Laffy/Tara: contrast their 3 scenes with Jason/Sookie’s conversation about Bill being gone. There is some bickering, Jason gets distracted by Santa, Sookie tries to act strong and then cries instead of spelling out what is wrong to Jason. Jason wants to protect her; it is sort of sad and sweet because we know he can’t. In other words, they seem like human beings. Now look at Laffy/Tara: in both their scenes (by night in Laffy’s car and then by day at the reception desk at Meadowlands) it just feels like their lines were written for them. (Yes, I know that their lines were actually written for them…but we’re not supposed to notice!) Laffy basically gives Tara the same uncreative pep talk twice (big ups to Buddha!), Tara only gets to have two facial expressions (lip quivering shock or hysterical meltdown), and they only have two settings: choked-up & hugging, or tough love. There’s very little humour, there’s no nuance, there is nothing unpredictable about their exchanges…Or am I being to hard on the writing?

Andrea: I’m down with the Buddha, but this one time I wish his name wasn’t in someone’s mouth. It just felt like, as usual, some cultural nod to show how open-minded/liberal a character is. Just unnecessary. As for Tara, I just roll my eyes when the poor chile is on the screen. To me, she and Sookie are two sides of the same late-teen mentality coin: they fancy themselves more mature than what they actually are. But, as you all are pointing out, it’s how people react to them that makes the difference: Sookie gets coddled; Tara gets the “we gotta be tough!” when what she really needs is some therapy. So, there’s that insidious message of Black people not needing to seek mental-health care help, just to “toughen up,” though it’s clear Tara needs to get help. What also pisses me off is how Tara is written, as if she’s getting punished for straightforward fucking, either by twisted, thwarted affection (Sam), unrequited love (Jason), death (Eggs), or drug-induced partner violence (Eggs). Sookie saving it for Bill gets a proposal.

Tami: The character of Tara makes me itch, I swear. (Love actress Rutina Wesley, though) More so because I sense that she was purposefully written as a Sapphire. Book Tara is white and utterly benign. TB Tara is black and a loud-talking, quick-to-anger man repellent. This seems to be a choice on the part of writers who think black women behave a certain way. The different ways that Sookie and Tara were treated last night are illustrative of the differing places of black women and white women in the public psyche and pop culture. Sookie is brave, but tearful and delicate. The town’s men all wish to protect her: Jason…Terry…Eric. They hug, gently console and worry. Tara is explosive and violent. She shrieks and screams. She throws punches “like a man.” Her help comes in the form of tough talk, a trip to the local asylum and being called “bitch” and “hooker” a few times.

Latoya: Well, there’s that dynamic. There’s also the dynamic of those of us who have been taught to close off their feelings. I felt like Tara and Lafayette’s scenes had this pervading sense of “We’re family, damn it!” That he was there for her in the best way he knew how. All of us don’t communicate with tears. Some of us do hold everything in until we explode or lash out. And sometimes family love comes with the dozens. Especially, for folks like Lafayette and Tara, who are holding their own demons at bay while courting half of the ones in Bon Temps.

Thea: I like your interpretation Latoya, but I feel like this might be a case of the writing actually being smarter than the writer…I don’t really buy that Alan Ball was conscious he was providing his black characters with a reason for being so closed – something that lots of POCs might relate to in terms of cultural attitudes around expressing hurt and depression – I think it might just be accidental that we can read that kind of depth into the choice to reveal a bit about Lafayette’s mother’s state of mind. New nickname for Alan Ball: Lady Gaga!

Tami: I agree, Thea. I was talking with Renee at Womanist Musings about this. She felt that some of Tara’s anger stemmed from being one of few people of color in a majority white environment and dealing with the resulting marginalization–something a lot of POC can relate to. The problem is, like you, I just don’t buy that True Blood’s writers are that aware of the pressures of being “the only” (Renee) or the dynamics of some black families (Latoya). I think they are writing in easy stereotypes and, like a stopped clock, stereotypes are right sometimes, but right in a way that is nuanced and complicated.

Latoya: I haven’t finished all my fan readings, but the actors have spoken before about receiving flexibility with some of the lines and the plot focus. I’m hesitant to under-estimate their influence over their characters, especially since these incarnations of Lafayette and Tara are uncharted territory.

Hooker as a term of endearment?

Thea: To backtrack a few beats, yes to Tami, what is it with Lafayette calling people “hookers”?

Latoya: I remember reading an interview (possibly EW) where he said he ad-libbed that, based on a saying from one of his aunties. (Not sure about the link – ever since I started streaming feeds on my phone, I forget where it came from unless I tag it for delicious.) But you were saying -

Tami: Latoya, see I don’t have a problem with “hooker” per se. I’ve heard the word used in vernacular before and it seems true to the character. It is simply that Lafayette uses this language, which reads as stereotypical, in absence of any other non-”hooker”-using black men. That’s why it rankles.

Thea: Also, please note the way Pam responds to Laffy calling her a hooker last episode (in a particularly unpleasant bit of blocking, she acts as if she is about to rape him), and then notice that Tara raises nary an eyebrow. Pam won’t stand to be called that, Tara accepts it without comment. Yes of course, Tara is more used to Lafayette’s ways than Pam and they have a completely different relationship, but I still think it is worth noting how the black women on the show are spoken to, vs how the white women are spoken to.

Snoop “Oh Sookie” Dogg?

Thea: And…special request from Latoya: let us talk about the Snoop Dogg video.

Latoya: Is Snoop out of money or something?

Andrea: SMH…I’m surprised none of the actors appeared in the video. Alexander Skarsgard and Stephen Moyer in Sookie wigs and miniskirts would have been utterly bawse!

Thea: OMG I would love to see Eric in a Sookie wig. I have to go out on a limb and say I sort of like Snoop’s tribute…The privileging of ideal white beauty aside, I appreciate that Snoop is saying “What? You don’t think gangsta rappers like to watch HBO on Sundays like everyone else?” From the youtube comments (yes, I know, I should never read or quote them) there is a bit of pushback to the idea that Snoop would do this, as if it is not appropriate behaviour for a “pimp” or simply a public black man to like a show like True Blood…for that reason I like the vid.

Tami: It bugs the heck out of me that Snoop has been embraced as sort of a harmless, funny, black man mascot for the masses, despite his insistence that pimping is cool and women belong at the end of a leash. So, I’m not so much feeling anything he does. That said, best line about the “Oh, Sookie” video goes to Elon James on Twitter: “I’ve never seen such high levels of commercialism…Snoop might as well make songs about how Walmart keeps shit real…”

Andrea’s Future Husband & True Confessions Time: Why do we watch this show?

Thea: And, open mic! The best characters are the minor ones who don’t get much screen time (Terry! Jessica! Andy! Hoyt!), Sam finds his bio family, a creepy white guy vampire is macking on Tara, and it’s very easy to identify racists (see the two white guys who disrespect Eggs’ death and then get smacked around by Tara): they usually wear plaid and trucker hats, they have poor diction, and they drop n-bombs like it’s going out of style. Also my fave moment of this episode was when Anna Paquin went all meta and made fun of the way Stephen Moyers says “Soookeyyy…” Heh heh.

Tami: I am joining with Andrea to demand you take that back about James Frain. He is not creepy…usually.

Thea: Ulp. My apologies! This is the first time I have made James Frain’s acquaintance. From now on I will refer to him as “Dashingly Beautiful High Quality Actor Who Happens to Play Creepy White Guy Vampire”…or DBHQAWHPCWGV.

Andrea: “Andrea’s Future Husband” will do nicely, too. And much shorter.;-) And speaking of husbands, isn’t Stephen Moyers Anna Paquin’s future husband? So that really was a meta moment. (Nice touch, Anna and crew.) And, looking at Twitter, I think several of the women I follow get all shivery with the way Moyers says Sookie, with that cross of a short “u” sound and the double “o” sound. And he does it all raspy-whispery and shit.

Tami: And, Thea, not only are “bad” racists easy to identity, but sometimes good, non-racist white people have to school angry black people about what racism is.

You know what I am interested to know–why do so many folks who spend time analyzing race and gender bias (Myself included.) love this show, despite its problems? Yeah, I have watched a lot of crap TV in my day, but usually when a show has so very much wrong, my love wanes. Not so with True Blood. Is man-candy, sex and violence enough to make highly-conscious folk say “Fuck it! I just like it. (TM Latoya Peterson)” For me, this is a fabulously engaging show for all of the reasons Latoya laid out below. It is cheesetastically camp with smart writing and unforgettable characters, so y’know, for me the answer is “yes.”

Thea: I must admit I quit watching the show last season during the episode where Sookie gets imprisoned in the basement of the church and the guard tries to rape her, before Godric comes to save her. I just felt so upset and disgusted by the way that rape scene was played: the crotch shot, the panties…it was totally sexualised, in other words a rape scene that was filmed in a way to be sexually tittillating. That horrifies me. It was like a last straw moment for me, because the show has just so much sexualised violence. I also just did not care for the Maryann storyline…

And yet here I am, back for more with Season 3…I think I watch the show because as someone who proclaims herself as a pop culture connoisseur, the whole thing is too much of a part of pop culture today for me to not watch it. Not only do we talk about it all the time on Racialicious, I have oodles of friends who are plain obsessed with it. Which is why I suggested the roundtable: if I’m going to watch the show, I need some space to vent. And on top of that, there are peripheral characters that I really like. It would disingenuous for me to say I think the show does everything wrong; it some ways it is darn good entertainment. I think that gets to the crux of why the race/gender/sexuality missteps on the show annoy me so much: I just want to watch TV and zone out, and it makes me hoppin mad that I have to consistently have my entertainment and zoning out interrupted by kyriarchal bullshit. To also quote Latoya Peterson, where pizza is a metaphor for the human right to relax in peace: “Fuck, can’t I just get a pizza?”

Latoya: Thea made her reasoning sound so nice. I’m just a fan. Lafayette had me from “Who ordered the burger with AIDS,” Terry’s character just keeps getting better and better, and I’m hoping Tara comes out of all this drama with a renewed sense of self. And Jason amuses me. He reminds me of my dog, they have the same confused puppy face on all the time. Oh yeah, and Eric’s ridiculous treachery and blatant sexual come-ons are achieving new heights of awesome. Needs more Godric flashbacks though. I’m not really invested in anyone else on the show. But it fills the same need as Kim Harrison novels and the increasingly campy episodes of the Legend of the Seeker – its watchable with minimum effort on my part, despite the flaws and ridiculousness. And it’s less rage inducing then, say, Tough Love: Couples or any of the other zillion reality shows that I watch while cooking or doing laundry. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a win – unless they kill off Lafayette, which would lead to me finding some other way to spend my Sundays.

Andrea: I’m still in shock I watched the whole series in one week. ::Eyes go inky black::

Thea: Andrea, I swear you should get a Anti Racist Pop Culture Soldier award for that.

When we last left Bon Temps, fine ass Eggs had just been shot in the head by Jason, signaling an end to Mechad Brooks’ abs and their frequent cameos on the show. Can we have a moment of silence for that, please?

Oh yeah, and Bill got kidnapped after proposing to Sookie.

Other random thoughts.

“Conscious off, dick on!” Poor Jason Stackhouse, he can’t ever start his life over. The first time, he found a v-addict and was sad when she met her untimely end. Then he joined a church that was an evil front group. And now he tries to swear off sex, but needs to keep up his horndog ways to keep his cover.

“I’m gonna take this Tequila over’chere…” I missed you Lafayette. And I can’t wait to see the new love interest in action. (Though that dream sequence with Bill and Sam MUST have been a bone thrown to the slash crew – can Bon Temps handle anymore sexual tension?)

“Why is everything about race with them?” Oh Arlene, you charming fool…

Also, can someone please save Tara? She’s careening from suicidal into a new sex-torture situation, which cannot be good. Especially if the always thorough Lafayette is going to be busy with a new man friend.