Aug. 3rd, 2009 06:23 am
Rape and Agency and True Blood
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aphrodite_mineSpoilers for 2x7 - Release Me (but not what you think, if you haven't seen it, so no worries)
I'll go ahead and preface this by saying that I don't read TB meta (does it exist?), and I also don't read the books by Charlaine Harris, so I have no idea how they compare (aside from the first book, which I hated).
Last night's episode brought up several issues for me that concerned me enough to write about (this is a rare, rare occurrence. I usually rely on other people.) For me these were:
- the use of glamor to take away free will (I know this has been covered before on the show)
- the use of vampire narrative to take away free will (or the use of narrative to take away free will in general)
- the use of attempted rape to define a 'bad guy'
- the use of mistaken rape (well...) for laughs
- how to define what Maryann does in terms of agency or rape
Before I get to these, I do want to explore for a moment some things that I think True Blood does right. For example, the characters of Hoyt and Jessica. These are two semi-positive depictions of virginity (until this episode, if we can assume), and quite possibly the healthiest relationship on the show. Shades of gray are usually nicely displayed, and while making an enemy of the church might seem cliche in a vampire show, Sookie voiced a nice line in the episode, that "Jesus would be ashamed of you." Making it clear that none of this is black and white.
If the vampires "coming out of the coffin" metaphor is perused to its fullest matter (vampires = gays?) then it becomes problematic, however it serves as a nice blanket metaphor for most persecuted groups. We might even make the Martin Luther King Jr/Malcom X parallel between Bill and Eric (or maybe Bill and the Texas vampires), with of course, some other complications.
But, to the point of this post (as one could, and I'm sure have, spend much longer on the broad points of the series).
So, we're to understand that glamoring is simply a part of vampire lore. Vampires are seductive, they hypnotize their prey. This makes sense to a degree - not many people would go willingly to such a death, especially before it became a fad. However, we can't ignore that beneath this is another narrative. The vampire is taking control of the victim by means that the victim has no control over. On the show, this is used for the purposes of learning information, making an easy kill, and within the flashback sequences of Bill and his maker, I certainly got the feeling -- if not the direct message -- that glamoring can also be used to obtain sex. Glamoring has always been portrayed somewhat sexualized; eyes widen, darken. The vampires speak with a lower voice tone and tend to touch the victims in a "caring" manner. [This could be interpreted as a generic caring, I suppose, especially concerning the scene where Bill arrives at Jessica's home and glamors her little sister. I don't think we are supposed to interpret that interaction as sexual, and Bill's intention is hardly sexual at the time.]
No matter how we read this action, the result is the same. The vampire becomes more empowered (when they already have many advantages), and the victim comes out of the experience (if they do) dumb and believing whatever their attacker wills. The Fangtasia attendant has many traits of a repeated victim.
Recently, the show has used characters such as Hugo to voice the opinions that the vampire narrative can result in a lack of agency. (This has been continually addressed from the beginning of the show, but the difference then was that the questioning came from a place of generic distrust of the different, and was therefore dismissed.) Sookie can now question her role in her relationship with Bill. I am not saying that Sookie has no agency, but suggesting perhaps that she doesn't realize the full extent to which she is being controlled.
Thankfully, in recent episodes the "so-and-so is mine" dialogue seems to have died down, however that narrative is an inherent part of vampire/human relations. There is a power dynamic in play. If Bill wanted to prevent Sookie from doing something, he very well could. Does she know/recognize this? Perhaps not -- in the same way that Hugo doesn't realize that becoming a member of the church will not make him anything more than a 'filthy fangbanger' to Gabe.
Which brings me the next point. Hopefully by this point in the season, we have made choices as to where our viewing allegiances lie. (The show assumes they are not with the Fellowship!) What benefit is made to the show in choosing to have Gabe attempt to rape Sookie? We already know he is a 'bad guy'. He has already tried to kill Jason, made disgusting remarks about Sookie's (and Jason's) character. How does watching this improve the show? Yes--rape = bad. Hopefully, we understand that. However, if this rape cements the fact that Gabe is a Bad Guy, what about the implied rape that occurs implicit in vampirism?
Is the show trying to explain that there are levels of rape? That this forcible, screaming, degrading rape is somehow worse than a rape that the victim doesn't quite realize? That a loss of agency doesn't matter as much as a physical conflict?
Certainly there are no apologies being made for Maryann. Her control over others is frowned upon by those who realize what is happening (and by exposing her, the show judges her actions as well). Is she a worse offender because she is a woman?
And finally, Arlene's belief that she's date raped Terry... I have only read a few reactions of the episode, and the viewers found this funny. Shame on you, who laughed, and shame on you True Blood, for playing rape for laughs.
Some of these issues are being addressed. No one gets off scottfree in this show. But I worry that too many think of this show as campy and fun and don't take the time to consider the narratives they are consuming.
Ultimately, True Blood seems to be sending mixed messages on the idea of brainwashing/rape/loss of agency. From what I understand about Sookie, it's not likely that she'll wake up anytime soon. So who will? Where does that leave us?
I'll go ahead and preface this by saying that I don't read TB meta (does it exist?), and I also don't read the books by Charlaine Harris, so I have no idea how they compare (aside from the first book, which I hated).
Last night's episode brought up several issues for me that concerned me enough to write about (this is a rare, rare occurrence. I usually rely on other people.) For me these were:
- the use of glamor to take away free will (I know this has been covered before on the show)
- the use of vampire narrative to take away free will (or the use of narrative to take away free will in general)
- the use of attempted rape to define a 'bad guy'
- the use of mistaken rape (well...) for laughs
- how to define what Maryann does in terms of agency or rape
Before I get to these, I do want to explore for a moment some things that I think True Blood does right. For example, the characters of Hoyt and Jessica. These are two semi-positive depictions of virginity (until this episode, if we can assume), and quite possibly the healthiest relationship on the show. Shades of gray are usually nicely displayed, and while making an enemy of the church might seem cliche in a vampire show, Sookie voiced a nice line in the episode, that "Jesus would be ashamed of you." Making it clear that none of this is black and white.
If the vampires "coming out of the coffin" metaphor is perused to its fullest matter (vampires = gays?) then it becomes problematic, however it serves as a nice blanket metaphor for most persecuted groups. We might even make the Martin Luther King Jr/Malcom X parallel between Bill and Eric (or maybe Bill and the Texas vampires), with of course, some other complications.
But, to the point of this post (as one could, and I'm sure have, spend much longer on the broad points of the series).
So, we're to understand that glamoring is simply a part of vampire lore. Vampires are seductive, they hypnotize their prey. This makes sense to a degree - not many people would go willingly to such a death, especially before it became a fad. However, we can't ignore that beneath this is another narrative. The vampire is taking control of the victim by means that the victim has no control over. On the show, this is used for the purposes of learning information, making an easy kill, and within the flashback sequences of Bill and his maker, I certainly got the feeling -- if not the direct message -- that glamoring can also be used to obtain sex. Glamoring has always been portrayed somewhat sexualized; eyes widen, darken. The vampires speak with a lower voice tone and tend to touch the victims in a "caring" manner. [This could be interpreted as a generic caring, I suppose, especially concerning the scene where Bill arrives at Jessica's home and glamors her little sister. I don't think we are supposed to interpret that interaction as sexual, and Bill's intention is hardly sexual at the time.]
No matter how we read this action, the result is the same. The vampire becomes more empowered (when they already have many advantages), and the victim comes out of the experience (if they do) dumb and believing whatever their attacker wills. The Fangtasia attendant has many traits of a repeated victim.
Recently, the show has used characters such as Hugo to voice the opinions that the vampire narrative can result in a lack of agency. (This has been continually addressed from the beginning of the show, but the difference then was that the questioning came from a place of generic distrust of the different, and was therefore dismissed.) Sookie can now question her role in her relationship with Bill. I am not saying that Sookie has no agency, but suggesting perhaps that she doesn't realize the full extent to which she is being controlled.
Thankfully, in recent episodes the "so-and-so is mine" dialogue seems to have died down, however that narrative is an inherent part of vampire/human relations. There is a power dynamic in play. If Bill wanted to prevent Sookie from doing something, he very well could. Does she know/recognize this? Perhaps not -- in the same way that Hugo doesn't realize that becoming a member of the church will not make him anything more than a 'filthy fangbanger' to Gabe.
Which brings me the next point. Hopefully by this point in the season, we have made choices as to where our viewing allegiances lie. (The show assumes they are not with the Fellowship!) What benefit is made to the show in choosing to have Gabe attempt to rape Sookie? We already know he is a 'bad guy'. He has already tried to kill Jason, made disgusting remarks about Sookie's (and Jason's) character. How does watching this improve the show? Yes--rape = bad. Hopefully, we understand that. However, if this rape cements the fact that Gabe is a Bad Guy, what about the implied rape that occurs implicit in vampirism?
Is the show trying to explain that there are levels of rape? That this forcible, screaming, degrading rape is somehow worse than a rape that the victim doesn't quite realize? That a loss of agency doesn't matter as much as a physical conflict?
Certainly there are no apologies being made for Maryann. Her control over others is frowned upon by those who realize what is happening (and by exposing her, the show judges her actions as well). Is she a worse offender because she is a woman?
And finally, Arlene's belief that she's date raped Terry... I have only read a few reactions of the episode, and the viewers found this funny. Shame on you, who laughed, and shame on you True Blood, for playing rape for laughs.
Some of these issues are being addressed. No one gets off scottfree in this show. But I worry that too many think of this show as campy and fun and don't take the time to consider the narratives they are consuming.
Ultimately, True Blood seems to be sending mixed messages on the idea of brainwashing/rape/loss of agency. From what I understand about Sookie, it's not likely that she'll wake up anytime soon. So who will? Where does that leave us?