#articulating The Thing i'm trying to articulate on this topic is like untangling the gordian knot

[fatalism-and-villainy]

@overripethighbones:

YEAH, this. and tbh I think the assumption that liking specific media means something about you underlies a lot of fandom tension and the feeling of betrayal some people have when they turn out not to automatically get along with everyone in fandom. There’s somehow they expectation that we are all fundamentally alike, similar people because we like the same TV show, and that is just. not how it works.

Yeah man. I've been thinking a lot about this for uhhh... a long time. Probably since before I got deep into Hannibal. And I honestly have many many tangential threads I could go on relating to this topic that I've been trying to narrow down.

But I think first of all, that tonal undercurrent of betrayal is a big part of what I find exhausting about fandom (perhaps especially on tumblr) right now. The sheer pervasiveness in the style of expressing disagreement with a certain perspective with this tone of anger and entitlement... yeah, I don't care for that. Part of being in fandom, for me, is about cultivating a sense of curiosity about other perspectives - why interact with other fans otherwise? I'm a pretty opinionated person, and pretty firm in my convictions, and there are certain approaches that I'm never going to vibe with, but it's because my view is so singular (as are most people's!) that that curiosity is necessary. I'm never going to find anyone whose sensibility completely overlaps with mine, so if I'm going to interact at all, it requires some grasp of the concept that, wrt relationship with the source material, people are different from each other.

I also think one frustration I have with this "well why would you even like this canon if you don't like this central aspect!" mindset - and I wrote up a post on this topic awhile ago, that I've been meaning to reblog and bring back around - is that what people perceive as being "central" or "essential" to the text varies considerably from person to person! Not in the sense that one can never make any more objective analytical claim as to which textual and thematic elements are more central to a text, and which are more ephemeral or not engaged with at all. But in the sense that... well, for one thing, most texts worth engaging with are pretty multifaceted, and analysis and critical approach pretty much requires zeroing in on one of those facets. One can never engage with literally every single essential element of a story. And for another, everybody carries their own perspectives and their own interpretative lenses with them at all times. Most of us have some sort of subjective overlay we're inclined to use for our personal engagement with stuff, or certain elements we're inclined to latch onto and amplify in our responses that others might not notice at all. That diversity is part of what's intellectually engaging about both fandom and criticism!

For me personally, for example, regarding Hannibal as a piece of media - I'm not a huge horror person. It's not its frightening or disturbing qualities that put me off, it's just not remarkably compelling as a story structure or bundle of critical concerns to me at the moment. The same is true for gothic fiction, although to a lesser degree - I have some interest in the gothic in the sense that a lot of film noir (a genre/style I do love) was influenced by it, and because a lot of the applications of queer theory that interest me engage with gothic tropes and narrative structure in some way. But I'm not especially drawn to gothic fiction for its own sake. I can recognize that Hannibal is a work of gothic horror, and that its engagement with that genre is a significant aspect of it. But I do not believe that one has to be a fan of that genre to "understand" Hannibal, or that one is "missing the point" of the show for not personally being drawn to that particular quality it possesses. (In fact, the question of why someone who doesn't normally like those genres likes this particular work that falls under those headings is, in fact, an interesting critical inquiry that's worth following through on, rather than snidely dismissing!)

Regarding what does appeal to me about the show - this will be a non-comprehensive overview, but: very stylized and avant-garde visuals, and an awareness of the expansive possibilities of the visual medium and visual storytelling that so few TV shows possess. Applicability to queer theory stuff that I'm invested in, like camp, decadent literature and the aestheticism movement, queer epistemology, gothic doubling (there's the gothic!), etc. A strong ensemble cast with lots of well-constructed and nuanced parallels between different character dynamics (one of the show's under-discussed strengths, imo). A primary ship that appeals to my id in a vast number of ways. ...Yeah probably lots of other stuff I'm forgetting about.

I think all of those things are absolutely relevant to what the show is doing, and what its thematic and artistic concerns are. (Yes, even the last one - the interpersonal dynamic between the show's main characters, and how its erotic undercurrents are implemented, are ripe for serious analysis, and have received it!) Yeah, these points of appeal are pretentious as fuck, because that's who I am as a person, but that's also the point - you cannot actually cleanly separate out what the "point" of a piece of media is from personal and subjective investment in it. I'm not missing the point by focusing on what interests me about it - what has continually interested me about media in general.

And I think this failure to understand how multifaceted and idiosyncratic everyone's approach to stories is, to some degree, also produces the idea that people can just transfer enjoyment from one work to another work that shares certain attributes with it. A lot of media that gets touted as being "like Hannibal" has been vastly disappointing to me, or has entertained me without prompting the same sort of love and creative investment. Conversely, when I think of media that has absolutely thrilled and delighted me, made me revel in what storytelling as a whole is capable of, in ways that feel similar to the feelings Hannibal instills in me - the first thing that comes to mind is The Insider (1999). It has absolutely nothing in common with Hannibal, outside of it being directed by Michael Mann of Manhunter fame, but it gave me the same sense of awe as to what the filmic medium can do - the attentiveness to its visual composition, and its operatic soundtrack, elevate it far above the bare bones of its story. See also Barry Lyndon (1975), which, like Hannibal, has so many frames that are pure works of art (they literally look like paintings! how!!).

Idk man. Art is complicated and has lots and lots of moving parts. The same is true of people. You can't guarantee anything.

A meme is not that deep but I do really reject the idea that it's possible to simply list television shows that will allow people to get to know you. All people know from a list of your favourite shows is that those shows resonated with you or were enjoyable to you in some way! Watching the shows wouldn't clue anyone into what you specifically liked about them, or what values or interests or aesthetics or ideologies of yours they reflected, because what people take from media varies wildly from person to person.