How we see Father

Question and answers, musings and thoughts...
Maclurv
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: How we see Father

Postby Maclurv » Tue Feb 11, 2014 12:50 pm

Zara said: For all that child-Devin had been shut out of Father's process of healing and becoming rehumanized, a part of adult-Devin also knew that the Tunnels were the place he needed to return to in order to find his own source of healing in his own life.


This has stimulated some thinking. The part especially of both men turning to or returning to the tunnels as a place of healing. The other thought that came into my mind was a process of confronting in the place where the hurting had started. So for Father, I see a return to Above to confront his problems there, and for Devin, a return to the Tunnels, to confront his issues there.

Father had a complete stripping-away from his experience Above. He lost Margaret, the love of his life; he lost his outward perception of integrity by others through having his name impeached by the hearings; he lost his right to practice medicine through the hearings; he either was shunned, or felt he was shunned until for him, he was no one with nothing and no place to go.

Devin had pieces missing within himself in his experience Below. He had difficulty understanding the limitations put upon him by Father; he had the desire to see more than the tunnel world provided; he had his love for Vincent clash against his own hopes and dreams until he ran from what he couldn't completely fathom as an adolescent and made his way Above, looking for an experience that would fulfill his inner needs, without understanding what those were.

Father avoided Above for over 30 years (I believe in SOO this was referenced). He goes Above initially to face Margaret; he ended up also facing the system that did him such an injustice. Yet again, the system charged him falsely. But this time, there were those Above who could rendered better help and aid, specifically Catherine. But he is so hesitant, so cautious as to almost refuse even her help, and if continued, run the risk of the system finding him guilty of murder. I can understand his distrust on one hand, yet, in another respect, after 30 years, he grants little hope or possibility that anything has changed, that Above does not deserve any forgiveness or compassion.

Devin avoided returning home (or even communicating with home) for 20 years (I believe in POS this was referenced). Why does he return? We aren't given a triggering event like Father's message from Margaret, so perhaps it was an internal call to face his past. He is happy to encounter Vincent; hesitant to go see Father, fearing nothing has changed (also granting little hope or possibility that Father has changed over the years). The patterns established years ago between the two resurface; Father's need for information to help him understand how Devin could have left and remained uncommunicative, and Devin's hurt for his perceived lack of faith in him by Father. This time, Devin does tell the truth about what he has done since he was gone, knowing full well that it can do nothing but gain Father's disapproval. This time, Father does see some of his role in the dysfunctional relationship with Devin, yet seems ineffective in trying to reign in the behavior that sets Devin off. And I agree, Zara, that we get to see further healing in this relationship in Brothers. Although, one aspect that bugs me in that episode is Devin leaving to confront Charles' brother without explaining to anyone why he is leaving, so that Father falls into his pattern of believing the worst of Devin and assuming he has 'dumped' Charles on the community and taken up his wandering ways. I could not really see why Devin couldn't have explained to Vincent, at least, what he was doing and why. It was not a frivolous reason, nor would it take very long.

So Devin does return Below again; and Father does return Above in the trilogy and in third season. Have they banished their hurts? No, but perhaps each man has them in better perspective.

Pat

User avatar
Zara
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Contact:

Re: How we see Father

Postby Zara » Tue Feb 11, 2014 5:32 pm

Pat wrote:Although, one aspect that bugs me in that episode is Devin leaving to confront Charles' brother without explaining to anyone why he is leaving...


It's difficult, if not impossible, to explain to others in advance the germ of an improvisational idea. Devin didn't explain anything to Catherine either. It's just the way his character works. It's easier for him to roll with the punches than to do battle with the process of explaining himself, or to defend actions he has not even taken yet against the questions and expectations of people who disapprove of his way of life (Father and Catherine both in this case). Even with Vincent, a sympathetic intuitive who understands Devin best of all, Devin is uncomfortable. He knows how much he's hurt Vincent; and despite Vincent's love and understanding, maybe even because of it, Devin's shame hinders his ability to communicate with his brother...until, I think, hearing Vincent's story of what Devin's love has meant to him allows Devin to forgive himself at last.

Pat wrote:So Devin does return Below again; and Father does return Above in the trilogy and in third season. Have they banished their hurts? No, but perhaps each man has them in better perspective.


The Tunnels do provide a powerful sanctuary to gain or regain perspective. But the Tunnels are more than that; the world Below is its own reality, separate from the world Above, and inherently critical of that world's evils and madnesses. The world Below has no interest in compassion or forgiveness of the world Above. We can't forgive a world, we can only forgive individuals for wrongs we have ourselves suffered...and we can forgive ourselves in response to whatever measure of forgiveness we receive from others. The Tunnels stand as an alternative to Topside reality, a powerful and practical utopia that functions without minimizing the suffering its inhabitants have survived. Regaining perspective and finding reconciliation are two of the built-in purposes for the world Father created. As he says in "Song of Orpheus," he always knew he would have to return Above to face the outcomes of his agonizing history. The nurturing world he constructed enabled him to do this when the time came. And again in Season Three when the time came to see what might or might not be possible for him in the world Above with Jessica. I like to keep in mind, though, that after the multiple confrontational and healing returns of both the father and the son to the settings that loomed so large in their sufferings of the past, both characters also return to their true homes in the end. Devin does not stay Below. Father does not stay Above. Their new perspectives allow them to value their chosen lifestyles free from guilt or remorse. Their new-found peace is beautiful. A thing the Tunnels gave to both of them.

~ Zara

***edited to add a response to this passing assumption:***

Pat wrote:But he is so hesitant, so cautious as to almost refuse even her help, and if continued, run the risk of the system finding him guilty of murder.


From the Episode Discussion Yahoo Group:

Zara wrote:I will say, however, that as soon as Catherine stopped talking to Father like a [Topside] lawyer and started talking like a Helper and Significant Other to Vincent, Father immediately set aside his silence and opened up to her. This speaks to me of a man who is still fully in control of himself, even if he cannot control his difficult circumstances. Finally! He encountered someone Above he could trust, who knew not only the secrets of the underworld but the secrets of Jacob Wells too, and who was just as committed as he was to protecting all those secrets. No other lawyer or interrogator would have secured his confidence at that moment.


Far from almost refusing Catherine's help, Father accepted it immediately...once Catherine's behavior proved her to be in true alliance with Father and his underworld.

There is also a powerful principle at play here that is present in many societies existing outside the mainstream: Do not cooperate with the Establishment's Systems of Oppression. There are worse things than for an individual to suffer the injustices of a powerful legal system. Suffering is practically a given when outcasts come in contact with Topside law. For the outcast, the greater betrayal would be to empower or support in any way the systematic source of evil that has harmed the outcast and his or her fellows.

~ Z

Maclurv
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: How we see Father

Postby Maclurv » Tue Feb 11, 2014 9:22 pm

Zara said from the episode discussion:
I will say, however, that as soon as Catherine stopped talking to Father like a [Topside] lawyer and started talking like a Helper and Significant Other to Vincent, Father immediately set aside his silence and opened up to her. This speaks to me of a man who is still fully in control of himself, even if he cannot control his difficult circumstances. Finally! He encountered someone Above he could trust, who knew not only the secrets of the underworld but the secrets of Jacob Wells too, and who was just as committed as he was to protecting all those secrets. No other lawyer or interrogator would have secured his confidence at that moment.


I would like clarity on the conversation from that episode that you see as stopping as a Topside lawyer:

CATHERINE (to the guard)
Leave us alone please (the guard leaves)
Are you alright?
(Father nods)
Can I get you anything?
FATHER
No. Please stay out of it. You must. Anything you do to draw attention to me can only…..
CATHERINE
You’re being charged with murder! You must tell me everything that happened. Don’t you know by now that you can trust me.
FATHER
It’s not that. I maybe a stranger to your world, but I’m no stranger to the betrayals of your judicial system
CATHERINE
I’m the only one who can help you.
FATHER
If you really want to help me, please, go away.
CATHERINE
I can’t do that. Jacob… (he reacts to the use of his name) I know who you were, what you went through….
FATHER
What about Vincent?
CATHERINE
He knows.
FATHER
I didn’t want to keep things hidden from him. I wanted to… forget. Does he understand that?
CATHERINE
Yes. You have nothing to be ashamed of.
FATHER
I’m not ashamed
CATHERINE
Was it Margaret who sent for you?
FATHER
Margaret, have you seen her?
CATHERINE
I tried, she’s too ill to have visitors.
FATHER
Is she in a hospital?
CATHERINE
No, she’s at home.
FATHER
She sent me a message, “the wreck of my memories.”
CATHERINE
Did her message to you mean that she was in trouble?
(She takes out her notepad and pen)

So from your perspective, when does the Topsider end and the Helper begin? The first bolded sentence shows that she, if not he, realizes no one else is in a position to help him while protecting him; the second bolded statement is asking if she hasn't earned his trust in secret-keeping which I believe, at least, that she has plus Father has Vincent's assessment of Catherine's character as he knows her/her heart; the third statement indicates she has done her homework and knows some of his back story and is still there willing to help; the fourth statement is puzzling to me because I wonder which answer Father wants: yes or no. If she had said no, would he have continued to refuse her help?

This episode follows NIBAC where she found Vincent and saved him and Father admits that 'once I thought I knew the answer. No longer.' in regard to their relationship. He saw the reaction Vincent had to her leaving for Rhode Island. So he begins to understand the depth of that relationship, certainly from Vincent's perspective, and I think also for Catherine given she worked to find him, and then stayed. So for me, the trust element should have been there from the beginning and Father should have been relieved to have Catherine discover him in the jail so that he would finally get the help he needed.

I guess I'm not seeing the distinction here that you do, and I admit to a slight Catherine bias. :)

Pat

User avatar
Zara
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Contact:

Re: How we see Father

Postby Zara » Tue Feb 11, 2014 10:32 pm

Pat wrote:So from your perspective, when does the Topsider end and the Helper begin?


It's not a question of trusting or not trusting Catherine, as Father himself states in that scene. Catherine misunderstood Father there, so I am not surprised that the audience might do the same. The trust element *is* there from the beginning. Father knows Catherine is trustworthy or he would not have spoken to her at all; rather, it is the system of which Catherine is a part that Father cannot trust, as Father also states. Catherine approached him as an agent of that system. She was in the jail that day in the first place on official business for the District Attorney, and she knows what Father is being charged with because after finishing with the Bartolli deposition, she seems to have used her authority as an assistant district attorney to acquaint herself with Father's circumstances, arrange to speak with him in the visitor's room, and to dismiss the guard before she begins her conversation with Father, in the way a lawyer may invoke the implied power of client confidentiality under such circumstances.

Catherine stops relating to Father solely at the level of a lawyer and starts relating to him as one who is also a Helper and Significant Other to his son when she calls Father by name, "Jacob." After that point, Father quickly ascertains Catherine's and Vincent's degree of knowledge and they speak to each other as equals loyal to the same community...two members of the world Below who are equally responsible for protecting the community and the community's (including Father's) secrets. During that conversation, Father both accepts Catherine's help and helps her to assist him, and Margaret too.

Pat wrote:I admit to a slight Catherine bias. :)


In my turn, I number myself among the Tunnelfolk. The Father character is one of my primary heroes at this point in my life. The present fandom's virulent anti-Father biases have really gotten under my skin. So I think I've become hypersensitive to those occasions where I feel Father is being misrepresented in some way.

*shrugs*

~ Zara

User avatar
222333
Site Admin
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:50 am

Re: How we see Father - Tangent

Postby 222333 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:04 am

Pat wrote:
I admit to a slight Catherine bias. :)


Zara wrote:
In my turn, I number myself among the Tunnelfolk. The Father character is one of my primary heroes at this point in my life. The present fandom's virulent anti-Father biases have really gotten under my skin. So I think I've become hypersensitive to those occasions where I feel Father is being misrepresented in some way.


Thank you both for stating this. I think we are entitled to our “preconceptions”, so long as we are honestly aware of them. For me, as I said earlier, Father is not a favorite character, but the same virulent biases that Zara mentioned scratches on my need of “truth” and makes me wish to stand for him and especially for the “real” development of the episodes. A prejudice towards Father -– as well as towards any other character, be it "for" or "against" -- *damages* B&B. Especially, as I have said many times, if it is continually repeated, until becoming “real”.

S - guilty of repeating things as well…

Maclurv
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: How we see Father

Postby Maclurv » Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:05 am

S said: A prejudice towards Father -– as well as towards any other character, be it "for" or "against" -- *damages* B&B. Especially, as I have said many times, if it is continually repeated, until becoming “real”.


First, let me admit in response to the last sentence, that this was the reason when asked to provide some topics for the daily question that I included the one about Father's acceptance of Catherine, because I hoped Zara would respond with her studied script analysis. I wanted that available for others to read and consider. And, thankfully, she did. Zara, I apologize for the manipulation, but your thoughtful response is needed out there among the more visceral responses.

Second, I think it is very difficult, if not impossible, to remain neutral toward all characters in a show or written piece. I question whether we are even meant to. It is through identification with one or more characters that we get pulled into a story, where we can see how this might be ourselves, how we might react or act in a given situation. And with this identification, it is natural that we bring with us our own prejudices, fears, and hopes. Then it is also up to us to recognize this process, and begin our introspection about ourselves, the story, what it all means, and our own development and growth.

Third, re the visceral response to Father. I believe that romance is the primary focus of this show, and for many, it may even be the only aspect of consideration. If this is true, then I can understand how easy it is to place Father as one of the main, if not the main, impediments to Vincent and Catherine's love story. If it were not for him ... This doesn't mean they don't see positive qualities in Father; it just means he is the handiest scapegoat, perhaps, to the thwarted love story. The viewing audience was frustrated by the short life of the show, by the direction it took. The happy ending, the expectation of the fairy tale as we have been well trained by Disney to expect, did not come. So impediments are searched for, and Father's voice is heard saying, in essence, 'no.' So he stands between the couple and the happy fulfillment of the love story. Not everyone is ready, or willing, to look beyond or deeper into the story as we received it. We who do can only keep delving, keep sharing, and hope that our process stirs some into more thoughtful consideration. We receive our own benefits from doing so, and in some respects, at least speaking for myself, reaching anyone else is frosting on the cake.

Pat

User avatar
222333
Site Admin
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:50 am

Re: How we see Father

Postby 222333 » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:22 am

*
Oh, you raise interesting points, Pat! Too bad I am busy with an engaging translation whose deadline is Monday (Matter and Spirit in view of a theological approach to environment protection, no less..)
Just the titles, no elaboration:
- in your third point, you confirm the deplorable tendency of trying to find someone (else) to blame no matter what, in B&B like in RL.
- a “NO!” Father means a weak/dumb Vincent. And consequently a Super Catherine. Wrong.
- such commonly perceived deviated B&B brings deviated fandom creativity. (In one of the most *acclaimed* stories recently posted, all that Vincent did was… bringing tea. The rest was a powerful fight between F and C).

S – protective of real B&B, starving for real B&B creativity

Maclurv
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: How we see Father

Postby Maclurv » Wed Feb 12, 2014 11:53 am

Interesting translation topic, indeed!

I await a fuller explanation. Until then, some immediate thoughts to your titles.

S said: the deplorable tendency of trying to find someone (else) to blame no matter what,


Yes, deplorable, but very human. Blame is so much easier to assign than inner reflection, and looking for more truth as can best be ascertained on which to analyze an event. Especially if a situation resonates strongly within you, then a most human foible is to not examine too closely for fear of seeing our own contribution to said situation.

a “NO!” Father means a weak/dumb Vincent. And consequently a Super Catherine. Wrong.


Not necessarily, but I can see how some may go there. But, I offer in some rebuttal, the phenomenon of repetition. If you hear something repeated often enough, there can be some acceptance and belief, even when the intellect says not true, or not so much true. I think this process is what you fear within fandom for false characterization beliefs of the characters. I point to self-esteem, which is something very hard to change, I believe, even when you know intellectually the poor self image held in your mind is not the true one. Those voices in your head, coming from voices external over the years, and being accepted and repeated within the self, are hard to vanquish.

such commonly perceived deviated B&B brings deviated fandom creativity


yes, this is a natural consequence to beliefs about B&B. One creates from one's beliefs. For me, this addresses the need for and power of discussion. While I may or may not enjoy such deviated creativity (depending upon how far from my perceived belief things get), I can read/view them and decide for myself. And point out why from my system of beliefs, it does not hold true for me. True discussion involves supporting one's opinions, not just stating them. Clarifying, rolling them around, rebutting, and all manner of massaging ideas as one tries to clarify for oneself and others what one beliefs, and why. But Zara raised some interesting points about truth a bit back that does make it somewhat problematic to declare truth to be black and white. Perhaps more of a 'preponderance of evidence' approach would be better.

But one aspect of this that has always kept me from certainty is that arts to me are somewhat subjective by their nature as perception weighs in heavily to what is seen or heard. So what I see as evidence supporting my view is seen as not by another. So I take responsibility for my beliefs, my support or lack of support for my beliefs, and continue to seek discussion so that I may learn. And since beliefs are shaped by attitude and values, values being the most obstinate and resistant to change, I posit there will always be fans whose beliefs about the show and about the characters will be different from mine. I can accept that more readily if I feel there has been some reflection and thought put into those beliefs, some willingness to discuss (see above definition), and some tolerance in return for my different beliefs.

Pat - advocate of discussion
Last edited by Maclurv on Wed Feb 12, 2014 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Zara
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Contact:

Re: How we see Father

Postby Zara » Wed Feb 12, 2014 3:20 pm

Pat wrote:...this was the reason when asked to provide some topics for the daily question that I included the one about Father's acceptance of Catherine, because I hoped Zara would respond with her studied script analysis. I wanted that available for others to read and consider. And, thankfully, she did. Zara, I apologize for the manipulation, but your thoughtful response is needed out there among the more visceral responses.


I'm honored, grateful, that you find my responses thoughtful and valuable, but in my turn I admit that when you informed me of said manipulation I was annoyed. Perhaps a little advance notice next time will dispense with any need for any further manipulating. I accept your apology.

For reference, here is a link to the WFOL Classic Question of the Day that Pat refers to.

S wrote:A prejudice towards Father -- as well as towards any other character, be it "for" or "against" -- *damages* B&B. Especially, as I have said many times, if it is continually repeated, until becoming "real".


Ah, this sparked a notion in my mind. An illustration, if I may. Let's pretend that once upon a time, a fan of B&B was prejudiced against Catherine. Maybe she didn't like wealthy people in real life. Maybe she did not understand the historical context of Catherine's character. Maybe she simply felt she could have written in a better protagonist for the story, had anyone asked her. Let's call this fan "Miss Muffet," of Little-Miss-Muffet-and-her-tuffet fame. *dons Miss Muffet costume*

Miss Muffet: Catherine is one messed-up lady. She hates Vincent. I can prove it. She's always dragging him into danger and disregarding his feelings about everything. She even says she hates him. Direct quote, Catherine to Vincent, "I hate you!" She says this FOUR TIMES in Season One. "I hate you!" So you see, Vincent would be better off without her. He loves a cruel, selfish woman who does not love him back.

*removes that pesky little arachnophobe's costume*

Okay, so Miss Muffet's opinion is based upon motifs and lines from the show that really stood out to her. The fact that she ripped these things out of their appropriate contexts does not matter. The fact that ALL of Catherine's "I hate you!" assertions are from "Dark Spirit," when she has been drugged and terrorized into a state of temporary insanity, does not matter. Miss Muffet has a right to her opinion, yes? So Miss Muffet repeats her opinionated conclusions a lot. Eventually, someone agrees with her. Then someone else hears the amplified claim and repeats it. The repetitions of Miss Muffet's assertion ripple through the community of fans. Rinse, repeat; rinse repeat.

A quarter of a century later, Catherine is a bad guy in the story. She is the ultimate obstacle to the romance between Beast and Beauty. It is common knowledge that "Catherine hates Vincent." To suggest otherwise is to invite collective incredulity, even ridicule, certainly opposition, from the dominant current of mainstream thought. No one who holds this "truth" to be self-evident wants their cherished "truth" to be challenged by suggestions that Catherine might instead be a heroine who loves Vincent with a passionate, eternal love. No, Catherine's badness and hatred have become "real." The entire story is twisted out of all proportion. The original Dream is trampled underfoot. Conversations and fanfiction retellings revolve around the idea that Catherine hates Vincent. It is considered highly uncivil to ask anyone who prefers this twisted deviation of the story to examine (a) their own reasons for believing what they do, (b) the complete body of actual story material, rather than only a few cherished and proof-texted items extrapolated from the material, and (c) the possibility that the common opinion is flawed, if not outright invalid, due to the community's dependence upon uncritical assumptions.

I believe this is what the fandom has done to Father, and to Vincent as well.

What think you?

Pat wrote:I think it is very difficult, if not impossible, to remain neutral toward all characters in a show or written piece. I question whether we are even meant to.


No one is completely neutral about anything. Our inspirational stories, least of all. But as Sobi said:

S wrote:I think we are entitled to our "preconceptions", so long as we are honestly aware of them.


Self-awareness is an essential aspect of the human reasoning process. The idea of neutrality or impartiality is too often used as an excuse for claiming that "my way" of thinking about a subject is "the one right way" of thinking about it. It's easy to assume, if we have not taken the time to reflect upon our own biases, that we have none. The danger is, as Sobi also said, that "the one right way/my way" begins to be equated with "universal truth" to such a degree that all other perspectives are discarded out of hand, regardless of their logical or intuitive validity, or any evidence from the source material that can be applied to either support or refute those perspectives. As Pat says, it is up to us to recognize the process within our minds of *how* we perceive source data, ask questions about the data and about our own preferences, make connections, interpret, apply, and revise ideas. *smiles* I think I am agreeing with you both.

Anyway, the point I wish to add is that self-awareness of our preferences, preconceptions, and emotional responses keeps us honest. We need not assume that every perspective out there which differs from our own is equally valid, correct, or "true" (there are plenty perspectives and conclusions which are patently false and/or destructive, or at the least simply not true for "me"). Rather, our honest awareness of our own perspective allows us to constantly entertain the possibility that "I might be wrong." Because of Zara's particular tendency to favor characters such as Vincent, Father, Diana, and Mouse, etc., Zara may well be wrong about characters like Catherine, William, and Mary, etc. I may be wrong about the very characters I identify with most closely. Thus, I listen to the ideas others share with me about their perspectives and preferences, comparing and contrasting ideas, evaluating the merits of everyone's thoughts and conclusions (others' as well as my own) based upon the available evidence...in this case, evidence derived from our shared source material for the story. "My opinion" and "your opinion" mean nothing, in the end, if we have no way of verifying the value of differing mindsets beyond an appeal to oft-repeated themes of Fanon. Yes, I am given to challenging the holiness of sacred cows. It's the only way I know to avoid catering to the whims of false idols and cunning humbugs.

Pat wrote:This doesn't mean they don't see positive qualities in Father; it just means he is the handiest scapegoat, perhaps, to the thwarted love story.


Father and Vincent both, each in their own (and, according to common preference, often connected) way. It's ironic, is it not? The characters who were most victimized and scapegoated by Topside society in the story...are the same characters who are trashed and scapegoated by many fans of the story. Even well-meaning fans. It's like a central lesson of the tale has been completely overlooked. Folk who have chosen to adopt such a narrow view of the love story end up divesting the story of its deepest statements about love. Scapegoating damages and cheats the scapegoater just as much as it damages the target(s) of their animosity.

Pat wrote:The happy ending, the expectation of the fairy tale as we have been well trained by Disney to expect, did not come.


Do not get me started on Disney, ha ha. Talk about "rinse, repeat" in American culture. *sigh*

Pat wrote:Not everyone is ready, or willing, to look beyond or deeper into the story as we received it.


That's fine. But my problem arises when some who are not looking beyond try to shut down the possibility that others might look beyond. This is the present fandom's tendency. I believe it is wrong.

S wrote:Just the titles, no elaboration:
- in your third point, you confirm the deplorable tendency of trying to find someone (else) to blame no matter what, in B&B like in RL.
- a "NO!" Father means a weak/dumb Vincent. And consequently a Super Catherine. Wrong.
- such commonly perceived deviated B&B brings deviated fandom creativity. (In one of the most *acclaimed* stories recently posted, all that Vincent did was... bringing tea. The rest was a powerful fight between F and C).

S - protective of real B&B, starving for real B&B creativity


Amen.

Here's to enlightening discussion and ennobling conversations and authentic B&B creativity!

Off now to take a long drive in the winter rain,

Zara

Maclurv
Posts: 412
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:35 pm

Re: How we see Father

Postby Maclurv » Wed Feb 12, 2014 7:41 pm

Zara said: I believe this is what the fandom has done to Father, and to Vincent as well.

What think you?


I understand your imaginative story, and I doubt Miss Muffet and I would get along very well, especially as curds of whey do nothing for me. Yet one aspect has been overlooked. You see, while Miss Muffet was out and about distributing her ill-formed opinion, Little Jack Horner had pulled his thumb out of his plum long enough to watch the show, and had formulated quite a contrary opinion to that of Miss Muffet. So he got out of his corner to offer others his opinion. Watching the two of them, Mary, of contrary fame, pondered both viewpoints while in her garden, and decided to question them both. She remained undecided, although thoughtfully considering Jack's perspective as the better reasoned. Soon many of the residents within the fairy tale community and extended suburbs of children's tales were seen engaged in discussions, and yes, some arguments, over a show that hadn't been shown for more years than most of them wished to be considered old. Still, some voices were more strident than others. Some new residents fell sway to the strident; others held back and heard many before settling on an opinion of their choosing. And some even said, "Who cares? It was so long ago. Let's go to a movie."

:) you started it!

Scapegoating damages and cheats the scapegoater just as much as it damages the target(s) of their animosity.


Yes, to this!

One aspect not covered by the story above is how long a fan has been in fandom. It is a topic that lately has begun to interest me. Life stages, if you will, of a fan in fandom. Layered on top of years in fandom is likely to be age at entering fandom, and age at discovering BATB. For some who have been in a long time, there is probably much less inclination to discuss what has been discussed, probably ad nauseum, once again. They may not even read others discussion. All their questions have been answered in their minds, and may coincide or not coincide with any else's. Some fans rarely watch the show any more, or if at all, it may be one or two favorite episodes. Many now look upon fandom as extended family, and family with shared values. While I may not agree with how someone views a particular character, I can say that I have never met as large a group of people with whom I share so many values and outlooks. It is amazing to me how good BATB is as a people-filter. I rarely experience foot-in-mouth disease talking with this group as I do any number of other people I meet.

Others new to the show are likely agog by what they've seen, and are hungry for connection so they may discuss and delve. Sometimes these newer fans awaken some of the more reposed fans. And then real life factors in for everyone, changing patterns, lessening time and in some instances, contact is lost. Some get re-introduced at a later point, and perhaps find an initial rush similar to when they first discovered the show. But now, being older, they also notice and question other things than they did before. All of this ebbs and flows around fandom. For a show's fandom to have survived this long, when it didn't have a franchise behind it propelling it onto new and greater versions, is testament to the core of the story and values contained therein (IMO). Although a few of us during winterfest did come up with some darn good logical sequels to this show!

My cup is still half full I guess, in how I view this issue. I think there is enough robust discussion, and thoughtfully written fanfic to keep the core alive and apparent to others. Just as many fans apparently were extremely upset with Linda for leaving, they have now mostly let go of that anger. Hopefully, many of those gave serious consideration about their extreme reaction to an actress in a TV show to see aspects of themselves that needed nurturing and tending. I only know what finding this fandom has meant for me and my own development and growth.

Poor S! I'm afraid we did it again.

Pat

User avatar
Zara
Posts: 594
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 11:53 am
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA
Contact:

Re: How we see Father

Postby Zara » Wed Feb 12, 2014 10:56 pm

I regret offering my illustration.

Pat wrote:I think there is enough robust discussion, and thoughtfully written fanfic to keep the core alive and apparent to others.


I am happy for you, that you find it so. Truly, my friend. I wish you well. I think, though, that the living and apparent core you and others are enjoying must have nothing to do with the Dream that nourishes me. Your Enough = Zara's Famine. I have no idea whatsoever how to explain the difference between our universes. I only know the difference is there. It's a very important difference because the way we approach the story, and the way we treat the characters in the story, reveals the way we will tend to approach real life and the way we will treat real people. I cannot--will not--abandon the story's Dream of love and beauty for the unlovely core this fandom chooses to exalt. And I am not willing to linger in a setting that will starve my soul to death.

Best wishes,

Zara


Return to “WHAT DO YOU THINK?”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest