by kyraroc » Sun Jul 21, 2002 10:32 am
RealitySpeaks -
You state the "the cliche is defined in 2/3 different ways". If you don't mind, I'll try to clear this up for you; the dead/evil lesbian cliche is the overwhelming tendency in the media that fictional "lesbians and, specifically lesbian couples, can never find happiness and always meet tragic ends." This seems to me to be spelled out clearly in the answer to question two.
Question one is not meant to provide a specific definition of the cliche, but to provide a general background and history for it in related to other media cliches. That's why question one talks about the cliche "generally" and question two defines it "specifically". "The death of a lesbian character [being] associated directly with the act of lesbian sex", raised in question 3, is an example of one typical way the cliche often occurs, but is again not a definition of the cliche itself. That is why it is talked about as being an "overused feature", "usually" occuring, etc., rather than being defined as the cliche itself within the question. I am sorry if you had trouble understanding this from the FAQ itself.
I am a little confused by your statement that if the cliche is media lesbians never finding happiness and always meeting tragic ends, then it is too broad because "this must mean that all lesbian couples must be happy and never die or go crazy (unlike all other couples)"; in other words, if I am not misinterpreting you - your wording was a bit confusing - you seem to argue that any media lesbian couple which experiences momentary unhappiness could be fit into the cliche. Or possibly you meant that no lesbians that did find momentary *happiness* could be fit into the cliche. At any rate, even if this were what was meant, it still wouldn't mean that all lesbian couples must be permanently happy to avoid being cliche; a cliche is broken by showing a balanced portrait across the media landscape, not by switching to the polar opposite cliche - in other words, it is not a cliche if lesbians on TV end up dead or crazy as long as there are also a credible number of examples of those who don't; this idea is covered extensively later in the FAQ. But in any case, you paint a rather strangely broad picture of what those words what mean given what those words are; surely there is an obvious difference between momentary unhappiness and "a tragic end". Lesbians can easily have a hard time of it under this definition without fitting into the cliche.
At any rate, the actual definition of the cliche makes the bulk of your argument - namely, that the actions on Buffy don't fit into the cliche because they were unintentional by the authors and/or they did not follow sex - largely irrelevant, whether or not they are accurate, which is, as you have seen, definitely a debatable point. The idea that intentions do not matter, only results, is also covered extensively later in the FAQ, and whether or not the death took place right after sex is an important side issue, since it adds some evidence to the case for a cliche, but a side issue all the same in terms of the main facts.
Moving on, you also state:
"By composition, the FAQ lacks . . . a strict logical system with a coherent argumentation as a basis for its conclusion."
Well, I will point out that this is a FAQ, not an essay. It is designed to answer a variety of related questions and provide information on a variety of related points dealing with a single subject, not to present a single thesis and provide supporting evidence and defense for it. It is further designed to do so in a manner that was as "stripped down" and easily scannable by the casually interested reader as was reasonably possible, not to present the most in-depth possible critical analysis (which would have easily been five times as long.) If you wish to read an essay on any of the subjects contained within the FAQ, several excellent ones have been written. You can find a few of them on the board in various threads.
At any rate, the FAQ's form - an assemblage of a variety of evidence, arguments, and information rather than a single coherent argument relentlessly studied to the fullest possible extent - is in fact suited to its purpose, and not a detriment.
Naturally, as you point out, this makes it "very hard to argue for or against it in an objective (scientific) way." This is because, once again, a FAQ is merely a series of related questions and answers, and was never intended to present a single "point" for debate. It is, of course, entirely possible to argue that the answer to any given (or all given) questions in the FAQ are incorrect, and some people have taken exception to one or more sections. But this is the only reasonable way to approach the matter; arguing against the FAQ as a whole is a meaningless excercise, because rather than being one side of a debate, it is a streamlined set of a variety of associated topics with a range of arguments from the emotional to the factual depending on the individual section. Your arguments against its form and structure therefore strike me as again largely irrelevant to what it actually is.
Moving on once more to a few final matters -
I cannot see how we are responsible for OTHER people accusing ME of being racist, sexist, and homophobic when we have not done so. Huh?
I find it extremely disingenuous of you that you take the words of one for the words of all and seem to regard us as having some kind of monolithic single opinion about these matters. If someone says something you believe incorrect or unwarranted, please address your response to that person rather than implying that everyone here shares their ideas and is attacking you. You have done that on several occasions.
And, finally, I must admit that is a continual surprise to me that people come to a Willow/Tara relationship fan board and express outrage that dislike is expressed towards sentiments contrary to Willow/Tara relationship fandom. Honestly, did you really expect not to raise any ire?
--- KR
And when you're done having Garfield's babies, can I have yours? Not quite sure how we swing that one, but I'm sure you'll think of something. 
