two interesting articles for DWP fans; also, stuff
I've just read two articles about Andy Sachs and Miranda Priestly: one on Salon.com, and another on, okay, some site I've never heard of, but whatever. The second explicitly rebuts the first.
These articles are a good example of why I often feel intellectually flip-floppy. I read the Salon article, and thought at once, "Yeah! Yeah, that's the ticket. It bugged the shit out of me when Andy acted like such an entitled ass and didn't appreciate how hard Miranda works!" Then I read the second article, and thought, "Yeah! That's also the ticket! Miranda might be brilliant, but she's also an asshole, and she shouldn't get off the hook for that!"
I realize that the two viewpoints are not exactly diametrically opposed to each other, but what can I say: it is still disconcerting when one comes immediately on the heels of the other. Ultimately, I agreed with what both articles had to say about the characters, even when they said different things. It's hard being me, y'all.
But both articles also annoyed me, and LET ME TELL YOU WHY, INTERNETS. Because, while reading them, I gave the impression that each author was telling me whether it was Morally Okay to enjoy the movie or not; that a) if I don't see Miranda Priestly as a feminist icon, then I've been brainwashed by the patriarchy, or b) if I DO see Miranda Priestly as a feminist icon then I'm "no kind of feminist at all" (an actual quote from the second article). I felt as if I was either being granted or denied permission to enjoy the movie, based on how Upstanding The Film Really Was. It was all very superior and condescending, and left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
As some of you might know, I'm a graduate student, and am not exactly allergic to critical analysis or, for that matter, condescension. I tend to roll my eyes (metaphorically!) when my students say, "But why do we have to think about everything? Why isn't it enough if I just say I like it or don't like it? Why does it matter?" Discourse matters, of course. And no discourse can ever be completely objective, or removed from an author's/observer's/interlocutor's viewpoint. And toffee-nosed editorials have been around since people developed noses that were capable of going all toffee-esque. But...dude. Seriously. There is a difference between saying "This film has some really problematic issues when it comes to gender" and saying "This film has some really problematic issues when it comes to gender and you are a bad person if you like it."
Wow. I didn't mean to turn this into a rant on authorial privilege/responsibility, or reader response. Looks like I just did! But my point was: I would love to invite you to read both articles, if that's your kind of thing, and let me know what you thought: about the tone of each or either, about Miranda and Andy, about that fuzzy pair of socks you're wearing right now, about anything at all!
The Salon.com article
The rebuttal to the Salon article
These articles are a good example of why I often feel intellectually flip-floppy. I read the Salon article, and thought at once, "Yeah! Yeah, that's the ticket. It bugged the shit out of me when Andy acted like such an entitled ass and didn't appreciate how hard Miranda works!" Then I read the second article, and thought, "Yeah! That's also the ticket! Miranda might be brilliant, but she's also an asshole, and she shouldn't get off the hook for that!"
I realize that the two viewpoints are not exactly diametrically opposed to each other, but what can I say: it is still disconcerting when one comes immediately on the heels of the other. Ultimately, I agreed with what both articles had to say about the characters, even when they said different things. It's hard being me, y'all.
But both articles also annoyed me, and LET ME TELL YOU WHY, INTERNETS. Because, while reading them, I gave the impression that each author was telling me whether it was Morally Okay to enjoy the movie or not; that a) if I don't see Miranda Priestly as a feminist icon, then I've been brainwashed by the patriarchy, or b) if I DO see Miranda Priestly as a feminist icon then I'm "no kind of feminist at all" (an actual quote from the second article). I felt as if I was either being granted or denied permission to enjoy the movie, based on how Upstanding The Film Really Was. It was all very superior and condescending, and left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
As some of you might know, I'm a graduate student, and am not exactly allergic to critical analysis or, for that matter, condescension. I tend to roll my eyes (metaphorically!) when my students say, "But why do we have to think about everything? Why isn't it enough if I just say I like it or don't like it? Why does it matter?" Discourse matters, of course. And no discourse can ever be completely objective, or removed from an author's/observer's/interlocutor's viewpoint. And toffee-nosed editorials have been around since people developed noses that were capable of going all toffee-esque. But...dude. Seriously. There is a difference between saying "This film has some really problematic issues when it comes to gender" and saying "This film has some really problematic issues when it comes to gender and you are a bad person if you like it."
Wow. I didn't mean to turn this into a rant on authorial privilege/responsibility, or reader response. Looks like I just did! But my point was: I would love to invite you to read both articles, if that's your kind of thing, and let me know what you thought: about the tone of each or either, about Miranda and Andy, about that fuzzy pair of socks you're wearing right now, about anything at all!
The Salon.com article
The rebuttal to the Salon article
