Gut-Level Academics

I'm watching a television series with my partner, in this case "SeaQuest," and their third episode involves the finding of the sunken Library of Alexandria. The Academic in me, the one who is an ancient historian with graduate level work in archaeology and folklore, is going nuts as the dive teams are touching, unrolling, and just poorly storing every bloody artifact they find. I'm watching and cringing, making horrified noises, and from time to time yelling at the characters.

Your wet and you take out a scroll, why would that possibly be a problem?

 Of course I know this is just a television show and nothing they are touching or "finding" is real but this is a great example of how difficult it can be to enjoy popular culture when you an "expert".

 I'm sure most of you reading this have training or education or experiences that cause similar reactions when you are watching a TV show, a movie, reading a book, or checking out a play or piece of music even. Usually I can control this gut-level academic reaction so I can enjoy things with my family and friends. 

Today I would like to walk you through the steps I take to try to I enjoy what I'm watching/reading/etc without over-reacting. Let me say that I have a a very different expectation for scholarly or science documentaries about the ancient world than the expectations I have for pop culture or entertainment media.

 I have zero tolerance for misrepresentations of facts for documentaries and educational material but entertainment should first and foremost entertain the target audience and secondarily get the facts right.

 Yes, pop cultural use of history should still be historical, fictionalized events should still be logical and rational, reflecting the best information and playing with the unknown or the data that is debated. I think most mass media historical recreations or forays into the science of archaeology and related fields could be just as entertaining with the correct facts as with pure imagination. You just have to have better writers, better directors, better actors, and higher production values.

If you are on the History Channel or a documentary that is claiming to be fact then you have zero excuse for messing things up.  If you can't do better than a freshman in one of my university classes, you have no business being involved in making this program or show.

 When I'm watching something that is going to have a trigger period or science for me I try to do a few things so I can enjoy it.

 1. Repeat to myself -- it's just TV/movie/book... this can get tiresome depending on how bad the show is.  I find my tolerance is also based on other things going on in my life.

2. Watch with someone who knows nothing -- as they enjoy I hope to get caught up in their feelings.

3. Focus on the actors, costumes, set, etc. -- this works particularly well if the actors are attractive to me or are one of my favorites.

4. Research the show so I am aware of any problems -- this might seem like it would only rile me up more but actually I'm one of those folks who doesn't mind knowing the plot or the ending because I'm more interested in the journey. I find that knowing what is wrong before I start watching/reading/listening helps me ignore it, sort of a "someone else all ready bashed this, I can enjoy it!" feeling. For example before seeing "Troy" starring Brad Pitt you might want to read this review.

5. Remember that I can always turn it off -- unless I need to watch it for a class or because I've been asked to write a review, I don't have to watch it.  In a theater?  I can still walk out.  Have it on DVD?  Return it; this works great with Netflix because I get unlimited rentals each month so who cares if this one sucks.

So there you have it.  Yup, I can enjoy the ancient world in all aspects and still feel like a historian... usually.

Please tell me what you do to enjoy entertainment and still keep your expertise satisfied while you are watching mass media.

Note: The image is from http://blackandgoldreview.com, borrowed simply because I do not have the skills to capture my own stills from something I'm watching.

Non-Heroic Attitudes on "Heroes of Cosplay"

I'm a science fiction, fantasy, horror, etc fan and author so I had to check out the new SyFy series "Heroes of Cosplay" even though I don't normally watch competition shows.  I've seen some episodes of a few other art competition shows in the past and thought may this might also have commentary on geek culture and conventions that have been getting so much attention on the Net this year especially in regards to women in the subculture. After three episodes I feel that I need to express some of my thoughts.

Episode one made it clear that this was not a regular competition series.  This isn't "Face Off" (SyFy), "Design Star" (HGTV), or "Top Chef" (Bravo) where a group of competitors have specific tasks they most complete and then a winner or loser is declared for each episode.  Thank goodness!  I find so many of those shows contrived and I get bored after awhile as the artists and chefs start arguing while they are supposed to be creating.  No, "Heroes of Cosplay" follows eight artists who compete in the cosplay category at science fiction, anime, and related conventions around the USA. The ninth "hero" is Yaya Han who has turned her own cosplay and competing in contests at convention into a career.  Given that only one man is a "hero" on this show, though there are support male staff, assistants, and lovers of some of the other "heroes" I hoped this show would address some of the fandom problems that have be getting Net attention this year.

My hopes were almost dashed in episode two when our cosplay competitors get together at the convention to welcome the newest member Chloe Dykstra.  Up until this point in the show I had been impressed with the helpful advice and commentary from Yaya Han .  However during this dinner the other cosplayer competitors there, the vast majority of whom are female with only a few supportive males at this dinner, start making comments about how certain body types should not be doing cosplay and when Chloe objects they basically tell her that she is naive and they are trying to protect people from rude comments in person and online.

STOP!

What?

One of the threads in this episode before this dinner was Yaya telling us and Monika Lee (whom she sees as a good friend and protégé) that sexy shouldn't be the focus for cosplay.  Yaya is the "Ambassador of Cosplay" and at first I thought the "sexy isn't the point" was a pretty cool statement to make.  Yaya's own career shows that she tries to make the characters she is playing come alive, yes, some of them, many of them, let's be honest, are sexy because this is how women have been shown in much of geek culture.  I thought she might be making a comment about how anyone who wants to cosplay should and that promoting just the sexual spin is undermining the point of cosplay.

Until she and the rest of the cosplay competitors used that old excuse of caring about overweight people's feelings as a reason they shouldn't cosplay as certain characters.

Had the group at dinner been discussing competing in cosplay competitions their weight comment would have made perfect sense.  In the competitions you are judged on the quality of the costume and the quality of your acting like the character.  If you being an existing character it makes perfect sense that you want your body type to match as closely as possible the character.  But they didn't say they were only talking about the competitions, they made a blanket statement about who should and how they should cosplay.

Some reviews online of this episode and the previous one have pointed out that Becky Young, another competitor, said that she picks characters that fit her body type and are attempting to make the dinner conversation and her state equivalent.  They are not the same and this is why.

Becky's comment was about her choices as a cosplay competitor, someone who does contests for money and to promote her career.  She was not making a comment about how other people, especially non-contest cosplayers, should be dressed.  One comment is personal, the other comments are presented as a group acceptance of some universal standard for anyone who wants to cosplay in public.

Note that the sexy isn't the point idea is also presented as Yaya's vision not an ideal embraced by the group of competitors on the show.

Yes, people can be cruel but telling others how to dress because you don't want their feelings hurt is really just empowering that cruelty to continue. It is really just promoting the stereotypes about geek culture and not confronting them.

But then again is this show about confronting stereotypes and promoting cosplay for a wider audience?  Given that so many of our competitors are trying to make careers out of this not just as cosplayers but as prop and costume makers I'd think they'd want to maximize their potential buyers circle.  You don't do that by saying who can and can't pretend to be a particular character for fun. You do that by making a wide range of sizes or opening up the custom made aspect but you also do that by speaking up for every geek's right to embody their favorite characters without cruelty.

Episode three seemed to happen in a vacuum with only a few of our previous competitors showing up for Megacon.  The episode fell back on the relationship between competitors and their supportive lovers and friends or in this case the potential break up of the Jessica and Holly team who have been friends for even longer than they've been business partners.  I suppose this relationship stuff is interesting but given that we don't know how the cast was chosen for this series I'm not as invested in them as individuals as I am in their approach to cosplay as potential career versus fun hobby, buying into the stereotypes of fandom versus expanding the audience and customers of cosplay.  On the up side I wasn't turn off or inflamed by this episode so I'll watch again and see if the bugaboo of sexism and sizism rears up again.

Conjuring Up Old Sterotypes - The Prosy Rose

**WARNING: SPOILERS FOR THE MOVIE "The Conjuring"

Earlier I wrote how I am a fan of movies. I particularly enjoy horror films.  More specifically I enjoy certain types of horror films. I'm not a fan of those "torture porn" movies; the ones where the point is to find more elaborate ways to kill someone (typically sexually secure women). No, what I enjoy are creepy atmospheric horror films. I enjoy movies that make you turn on all the lights, close the closet doors and double check all your locks when you get home.

So I was particularly excited when I saw the previews for The Conjuring. The director, James Wan, directed both  Saw and Insidious. While I have declined to see the former, I found the latter to be just what I like in a horror film.

Once again James Wan was using his directing talents in the horror genre. This time though the film would be based on a true story from the files of real "ghost hunters." I have had a passing interest in "parapsychology" since I was in grade school. I have read the adventures of ghosts hunters like Hans Holzer as well about the real life Ed and Lorraine Warren who are portrayed in the film.

So I was curious to see how Hollywood would depict one of their cases. I knew the Warrens were devout Catholics. I knew they considered themselves expert demonologists and there would most likely be a heavy Judeo-Christian message to the film. Still, the trailers and the review had me excited and I was prepared to ignore any evangelizing. It looked to be a good old fashioned creepy scare full of bumps, thumps, and apparitions.


Using that set of criteria, The Conjuring did not fail. It was creepy. It was scary. I jumped and gasped several times. I even put my hand over my eyes and watched between my fingers a few times. It was wonderful and it proved that Hollywood could still do horror without rivers of fake blood, layers of latex, and the depictions of every way conceivable to dismember the human body.

However, the biggest gasp the movie drew from me was not in response to a dark cellar, a confrontation with an unseen force or even from a door slam. The biggest gasp came from a few casual lines of dialogue in the scene where the Warrens were explaining the source for the haunting: a Salem witch.

Really? Really! Seriously? Yes, according to the movie the source for all evil was a woman named Bathsheba who escaped the Salem Witch trials and was later found sacrificing her seven month old son to Satan. When discovered she hung herself and cursed all who would live on her land. Later the move doubles down and says that sacrificing children is what "witches" do.

OK, let back this up for a moment. First, recall that this movie was “based on a true story.” While this doesn't mean non-fiction, it is worth noting that among the accused in Salem there was no one named Bathsheba. 

In fact after getting home and doing some research it seems that the "witch" referenced is mostly likely Bathsheba Sherman.  Bathsheba was originally born Bathsheba Thayer in 1812 (a little hard to be a Salem Witch when she was born 120 years later). She married Judson Sherman in 1844 and then gave birth to their son in 1859. Bathsheba did not kill her son, nor did Bathsheba hang herself. She died an old woman of seventy-three. 

An infant did die in her care. The mortal wound was determined to have been caused by a large sewing needle somehow impaled at the base of the child's skull. There was insufficient evidence to find Bathsheba guilty of wrong doing, although this sad story seems to be the genesis of the stories regarding Bathsheba being a "witch." While the law did not find her guilty, the court of public opinion did. According to many reports she lived the rest of her life as a recluse under the weight of suspicion and rumor.

But what this means is that Bathsheba had no link to Salem. Why, then, did the movie include a tie in to Salem? In trying to be sensational, the movie perpetuated a myth and exploited of one of our nation’s great tragedies.

I thought we had come a long way since 1692. I mean after all, the very jurors of the Salem Witch Trials wrote a "Declaration of Regret" in 1697 wherein they expressed their remorse, acknowledging their "... errors in acting on such evidence to the condemning of any person; and do hereby declare, that we justly fear that we were sadly deluded and mistaken..." 

In 1711 the Massachusetts legislature granted amnesty and exonerated all but six of the accused. In 1957 the state of Massachusetts formally apologized for the events and exonerated Ann Pudeator. Finally in 2001 the final five accused were exonerated.

In short, it has been clearly demonstrated that the Salem Witch trials were not a tool for hunting out dark demonic child killing witches in our colonial midst. No, they were a travesty of horrible justice resulting from power struggles, congregational strife and personal jealousies. Before it was over, nineteen people were convicted of being witches and hung to death. One man who would not enter a plea to the accusations was pressed to death, and as many as up to thirteen died in prison including an infant!

The point is, having this movie which purports to be  "Based on a True Story" throw out a "Salem Witch" who never existed as the source for the haunting and malicious acts persecutes the innocent dead! The men and woman of Salem who were wrongly persecuted are themselves beyond harassment now; but some were only recently exonerated and their names and reputations should be treated with respect. When these men and women are once again branded as boogeymen and used for cheap thrills and lazy narrative, the persecuted are denied the last possible good they can do on this earth: to serve as a warning about the dangers of unfounded accusations and injustice resulting from religious hysteria and persecution.

And let’s not forget that this movie indicates that sacrificing their children to Satan is just something witches do. This attempts to reinforce a disgusting stereotype. Ok, I understand the trope of a "witch." I do. I understand the idea of the "wicked witch" has been around probably since the first campfire.

However, that's just it: "Wicked" witches not all witches.

There are many pagans in this country and some identify as witches. Read up on Wicca; these witches are not worshiping Satan and are certainly not sacrificing children!  

Was it too much for this movie, if it wanted to play with the witch trope, to add just an adjective or two? You know, "evil," "wicked," "dark," "Satanic" or even "rumored" in front of that "witch" word. Nope, once again this movie had to use a broad stereotype paint brush and go with just "witches." All witches must equal the demonic evil kind.

Bathsheba Sherman is a tragic character with no ties to Salem. Why manipulate her history other than to capitalize on the trope and to perpetuate the idea that maybe there really was something 'evil' about the accused in Salem.

Look, I'm not a fan of using the witch stereotype, but I get it. Big bad witches have been around for as long as there have been fairy princess in distress. However, there is no reason to continue to exploit the real tragedy and injustice that was the Salem Witch trials or to portray all witches as demonic child killers. There just isn't.

For me, conjuring up stereotypes and perpetuating injustice were the scariest parts of the movie.

                                                             ***

(special thanks to amazing editor TB)