A Love Supreme: Dollhouse Review 2.08

This two episodes a week schedule is really hard to maintain. This is a trucated review of episode 8. I enjoyed it (despite the presence of both Alpha and the supposed love between Ballard and Echo), but I didn’t love it the way I loved the previous episode, so there’s less ranting. Just a request that people don’t discuss the latest episodes in the reviews for this one out of respect for other people’s spoiler . I’ll try to get my review of Stop Loss up in the next few days, so that

I didn’t talk a lot in my last review about what had happened to Adelle – I felt that this episode shed so much light on her character, that it was worth holding some of the discussion off to this review. Adelle’s bargaining, craven reaction to Alpha, was very telling about how the three months we missed had changed her.

As Alpha said to her “All this bargaining, you don’t have anything I want that I can’t just take.” She’s lost her ability to bluff and negotiate – she didn’t just have her power taken away in that time, but her ability to use power, the desire to be in control and her belief in her ability to do so. ((I don’t think any of the characteristics she lost were characteristics to be admired in a human being, but she’s definitely a very different character without them))

I think part of it is that she’s lost the lies she used to tell herself, the ones where they were doing good. She knows she’s brought about the apocalypse for her own personal power, and I think that knowledge is one of the reasons she can’t assert herself the way she used to. ((Incidentally, I’ve seen it suggested in several places that they’re doing a season 5 of Angel and she’ll turn out to have a deep plan. I think this goes against everything we’ve seen in her character development in this episode. I also think it doesn’t make any sense – she hasn’t just joined some secret society or killed someone, she’s given Rossum the plans of how to bring about Armageddon.)) She told herself all sorts of lies, and she doesn’t have those lies anymore. All she has left is the will to survive.

I don’t think she’ll stay like this forever though, something must happen. The Adelle we saw in this episode would let Clive Ambrose take Victor’s body to eat crab in for the rest of his life. ((Making the Adelle we see now compatible with Epitaph One is, I think, an extreme challenge for the writers. I think they’re probably up to it)).

The new Adelle has implications for the rest of the dollhouse. One of the things that we had been seeing, over the course of the show, is that those running the dollhouse were regularly deciding that it was easier to let people have some freedom than maintain total control. ((This bares more than a passing resemblance to real life)) Echo wasn’t really acting like a doll, Victor and Sierra were spooning. The process some dolls went through in Needs worked (from the point of view of the dollhouse) in making them easier to manage, as did some freedom. But Adelle doesn’t feel like she can allow them that freedom anymore. Her grasp on power is too tenuous.

Her reaction to Echo, Ballard and Boyd makes perfect sense. Her response to Echo seemed particularly cruel, and well designed. I found it distressing to watch Adelle use Victor against Echo. Echo and Victor had been allies – and the situation she was in was terrifying enough without the breach of trust there. ((Not that poor Victor could help it – and more in the “is there anything Enver can’t do” files))

We even got a tiny Victor and Sierra moment, and I’m all about tiny Victor and Sierra moment. (although obviously I prefer large Victor and Sierra moments, or Victor and Sierra episodes, or “The Victor and Sierra Show”) I enjoyed Noir Sierra (that’s what she was right? I’m not an expert on film genres). It’s a shame that we haven’t seen more of that sort of thing, in the show. One of the many aspects of the show that Fox didn’t support.

I wasn’t overcome with excitement when I learned Alpha was going to be in these . I think Alpha was one of the biggest missteps of season one. Serial killers are profoundly uninteresting, and every decision they made about Alpha’s store made him more boring. I’m not a massive Alan Tudyk fan anyway.

But if they have to bring back Alpha I can think of worse things for him to do than go round systematically killing all the men who have hired Echo. In fact, by the old measure that the character who is meanest to Ballard is my favourite character for the episode, he was my favourite character for this episode (more on that later). It was particularly enjoyable to see him blow up Matt of the inane fantasies, because I hated that guy and who doesn’t love a pun?

Of the characters we’ve seen on screen that have had sex with an active 6 are dead (Hearne, bow-hunting guy, Matt of the inane fantasies, Nolan, teaser guy in a caravan and Ballard), 1 got stabbed in the neck, 1 is in prison, and 2 (Joel Myner and Adelle) seem to be intact. ((I am assuming that baby guy didn’t have sex with Echo – because they were new parents and she wasn’t what he needed)). That’s a much better ratio of rapists to consequences than in the real world. ((A fact that almost makes me uncomfortable. One of the things that bothered me most about X-files was that it was a moralistic universe – almost all the time, particularly in the early seasons, everyone who died deserved to die. While it’s satisfying to have people killing rapists left, right and centre, that’s not how the world works. I’d much rather watch an uncaring universe than a moralistic one, even a moralistic universe which shares my moral understanding)) Although how the dollhouse remains open with that survival rate among it’s clients is becoming more and more of a mystery.

I liked the return of Joel Myner (and the visual image of him running away from Paul Ballard down the beach was hilarious – I’d run too). Obviously he’s an entitled rapist creep, but I always thought it was interesting that the dollhouse was giving him what he wanted – not what he needed. That by giving him Rebecca every year they were ensuring that he could never really live in this world. He appreciated Rebecca in Echo, which I thought was awesome.

The bait and switch was beautifully done. Even if I had to grit my teeth through Alpha’s speech about how Ballard must really love Echo because he didn’t sleep with her. He quotes Nietzsche, what on earth does he know about human relationships?

But, clearly all that is forgiven, if Ballard is truly dead. At the end of watching Meet Jane Doe I was talking about how much I hated Ballard and the many ways I wanted him to die. But I knew that none of them could possibly come through “Ballard can’t die,” I said “But he could go into a coma, wouldn’t it be awesome if he was in a coma.” Dollhouse has a weird habit of granting my wishes, ((I complained that there wasn’t enough relationships between the dolls and I got Stage Fright (which I still think was under-rated). I complained that they were using sexual violence to tell stories, rather than telling stories about sexual violence and I got Man on the Street.)) so now Ballard’s in a coma.

Let’s hope it’s the permanent sort of coma. I understand that Tahmoh Penikett probably hasn’t been written out of the series and Epitaph One gets a little pesky at this point, but they could have imprinted Ballard with someone else (or that could be Alpha with Paul’s personality viewed through Echo’s brain). The only problem there is that I don’t think Tahmoh Penikett’s two and a half emotions make him doll material as an actor.

It’d be annoying if Echo and Ballard were a tragic love story (they were together and we killed one of them – it’s a new things Joss is trying). But far less annoying than watching him. How are we supposed to view Ballard? How do the writers see Ballard? At this stage I honestly have no idea. The last two episodes were constructed like an epic love story. As if the audience had been hanging out for the kiss since the beginning of the series. But they had to know that a large chunk of their audience were chanting “Go Team Alpha!” Ballard was always creepy, they knew he was creepy – they had him having sex with a dead Caroline and raping Mellie. So why do this? Why take Echo in this inexplicable, ridiculous and unearned direction?

But all’s well that ends well I guess – go coma!

Posted in Buffy, Whedon, etc. | 5 Comments

No Stupak or No Public Option: That's the Question

I think Karoli’s right, that’s going to be the big trade in conference. The language out of the Senate on choice is bad, but not nearly so bad as Stupak. It doesn’t expressly prohibit women from buying plans with abortion coverage on the exchange, and because of that, it’s unlikely to affect abortion coverage across the board the way Stupak did. (It will, of course, studiously avoid paying one thin dime for abortion coverage, and it will allow anti-choice states to opt out of this coverage — which is why it’s still bad).

But the Senate bill has no public option whatsoever. The House bill has the public option, and the Stupak language. And I think Karoli’s right: the big compromise is going to be a weakening of the anti-choice language or a weak public option and/or Medicare expansion, but not both.

For my money, I’d much rather have better language on choice and no public option than Stupak language on choice and a public option. The Nelson language is essentially at my threshold for tolerance of anti-choice gamesmanship; anything to the right of that should be fought. And frankly, I’d like to see better language in the final bill. The public option, contrawise, has never been something I’ve seen as essential. I don’t really care if plans are public, private, or non-profit, or a mixture of both. I guess I’d prefer a public option to none, but not more than I’d prefer more neutrality on choice to what we’ve got going now.

So I’ll throw it open to the crowd: would you rather see a public option, or keep choice from being weakened further? That’s probably the trade-off in conference. And it’s something to consider as we go forward.

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights, Health Care and Related Issues | 22 Comments

On Nader, Obama and the Health Care Fight

In an earlier post, while criticizing Nader for a racist comment (a criticism I agree with), Jeff wrote:

… if I was someone who was instrumental in ensuring the election of George W. Bush to the White House, I’d hide my head in shame. […] I will note that Nader is a big Kill the Bill guy. Now, I know that in and of itself doesn’t prove that killing the bill would be a disaster of Brobdingnagian proportions for the Democrats, one that would cause the party to spiral out of control for years.

Jeff, would you say Al Gore and Bill Clinton should hide their heads in shame?

After all, it was Gore and Clinton — along with the other “third way” leaders of the Democratic party in the 1990s — who chose to marginalize progressives. And once progressives realized they were being totally ignored, their predictable frustration created space for Nader’s 2000 candidacy.

But we’ve all learned our lesson, and will never take a chance on that happening again, right?

Cue Barack Obama’s presidency.

The White House does not view progressives as equal partners, as people who have legitimate concerns and priorities that need to be included in any deal. They still take the Clintonian view that the “left” can be appeased either through a few nice words in a speech, and if that fails, can be crammed down by being told they’re wreckers, being told this is the best progressives can get, being told that progressives are irrelevant (even while the WH’s defensive actions show they’re anything but irrelevant).

The White House hasn’t yet grasped that some basic and timeless rules of politics still apply: that you have to deliver something to your supporters to keep them on board.

I’m not a “kill the bill” person; I think we’re better off passing the bill and trying to improve on it. Nonetheless, it’s likely that kill the bill activists have made the bill marginally better than it would otherwise be (as Nate Silver argues). There’s an important lesson in that. The Obama administration expects progressives to meekly compromise our goals and priorities, over and over, while Obama and Reid rush to proffer a hanky every time Lieberman/Nelson/Snowe has a sniffle.

Elections aren’t won by the best policy ideas — if they were, there wouldn’t be a Republican in congress. Elections are won, by and large, by the side that works harder. In 2008, an angry and passionate left kicked the ass of a demoralized Republican party. We’re in danger of seeing that dynamic in reverse in 2010. Obama and the Democrats, by giving virtually nothing to progressives — not even a good fight — have demoralized the left. So who’s going to make the phone calls and knock on the doors in 2010, and in 2012?

Nader is a jerk, but the 2000 Nader campaign was a perfectly ordinary response by progressive Democrats to Clintonism. Lacking a home within the Democratic party, progressives looked elsewhere. I think the pain of George W. is too fresh in everyone’s minds for progressives to look for a new political home — yet. But if progressives are too dispirited to campaign for the Democrats in 2010, it’ll have the same effect.

And without Nader to scapegoat, who will Democrats blame if they get their asses kicked in 2010?

Posted in Elections and politics | 24 Comments

That’s the News From Lake Wobegon, Where All the Women are Strong, All The Men are Good Lookin’, and all the Pogroms are Above Average

I used to live a block west of Garrison Keillor when I lived in St. Paul. Occasionally when out jogging, I’d cross paths with the humorist, out pushing his daughter in a stroller, and I’d nod politely, as talking in such a situation would be un-Minnesotan. I knew quite a bit of Keillor’s oeuvre, of course; growing up in Minnesota is was impossible not to know a bit about the fictional hamlet of Lake Wobegon; indeed, I did a sixth-grade map project about a search for Lake Wobegon, which, as all Minnesotans know, is located under the fold they made in the map to hide the fact that the state was just a bit too big.

At any rate, I’ve seen A Prairie Home Companion live, and I’ve read Keillor’s writings in the Star Tribune for years, and generally speaking, I like the guy. But even though Keillor is the apotheosis of “One of Us,” ((In Minnesotan, “One of Us” denotes a native Minnesotan, especially one who “made it big.” It usually refers to a native, or at least someone who lived here a long time, but it can include someone who got the hell out of Dodge the second he or she could, like F. Scott Fitzgerald or Bob Dylan.)) I can’t let his latest missive go. Because unfortunately, whether intended in humor or not, Keillor has written a ham-handed, angry, and anti-Semitic column about Christmas that is, quite flatly, offensive. And that doesn’t even get to the part where he attacks my religion.

Keillor starts off okay, talking about what a douche Larry Summers is. Okay, I think we can all agree on that, and if Keillor talks about his financial mismanagement of Harvard rather than his comments that women’s girl brains can’t handle science, well, Summers’ stupidity is a target-rich environment. Then, suddenly and without warning, Keillor takes a hard right turn into Lake Bigoted:

You can blame Ralph Waldo Emerson for the brazen foolishness of the elite. He preached here at the First Church of Cambridge, a Unitarian outfit (where I discovered that “Silent Night” has been cleverly rewritten to make it more about silence and night and not so much about God), and Emerson tossed off little bon mots that have been leading people astray ever since. “To be great is to be misunderstood,” for example. This tiny gem of self-pity has given license to a million arrogant and unlovable people to imagine that their unpopularity somehow was proof of their greatness.

And all his hoo-ha about listening to the voice within and don’t follow the path, make your own path and leave a trail and so forth, encouraged people who might’ve been excellent janitors to become bold and innovative economists who run a wealthy university into the ditch.

Now, do I believe that the Unitarians at First Church of Cambridge reworked “Silent Night?” Yeah, sure I do. It seems like the kind of thing my fellow UUs would do. Of course, being Unitarians, I’ll bet you a mythical sawbuck that half the congregation goes ahead and sings the original lyrics anyhow, and a non-trivial number try to sing in German, and nobody much cares, because that’s how Unitarians roll. Of course, the fact that it is a German hymn — “Stille Nacht” — rather suggests that the lyrics have already been reworked. Come on, Garrison, real Christians sing in German.

Also: Ralph Waldo Emerson? Transcendentalist philosopher, author of “Self-Reliance,” the man who said, “A man of genius is privileged only as far as he is genius. His dullness is as insupportable as any other dullness”? That Ralph Waldo Emerson? Really? Huh. I guess I don’t see how Emerson’s philosophy of individual responsibility and nonconformity leads to a conformist Harvard president betting money in the stock market, but hey, that must be the “joke.”

Indeed, you’re going to find that this column by humorist Keillor is heavy on “jokes.” Not, alas, jokes.

All right, so far, we just have an incoherent jab at Unitarians, the kind Unitarians make weekly. ((Seriously. A running joke at my church is the fact that the last line in our usual chalice-lighting reading has been rendered alternately as “Spirit of Life” or “Spirit of Freedom,” and that we have about an equal division of people saying each. We find this to be both amusing and fitting.)) It wasn’t a particularly funny joke, but okay, I can let it slide. They’re not all gonna be gems.

What comes next, though, crosses over from not particularly funny to outright offensive.

Unitarians listen to the Inner Voice and so they have no creed that they all stand up and recite in unison, and that’s their perfect right, but it is wrong, wrong, wrong to rewrite “Silent Night.” If you don’t believe Jesus was God, OK, go write your own damn “Silent Night” and leave ours alone. This is spiritual piracy and cultural elitism, and we Christians have stood for it long enough. And all those lousy holiday songs by Jewish guys that trash up the malls every year, Rudolph and the chestnuts and the rest of that dreck. Did one of our guys write “Grab your loafers, come along if you wanna, and we’ll blow that shofar for Rosh Hashanah”? No, we didn’t.

Christmas is a Christian holiday – if you’re not in the club, then buzz off. Celebrate Yule instead or dance around in druid robes for the solstice. Go light a big log, go wassailing and falalaing until you fall down, eat figgy pudding until you puke, but don’t mess with the Messiah.

Now, here is where I as a Minnesotan am required by law to say that these two paragraphs don’t say what they say. They’re not a bitter, angry complaint that Irving Berlin wrote “White Christmas” and that Garrison Keillor surely didn’t mean to suggest that non-Christians can’t celebrate Christmas.

But I’m not so sure that’s true. And even if it is true — that this is meant as a joke — it fails the first rule of comedy: it isn’t funny.

Indeed, while Keillor may be attempting satire here, it doesn’t really read as satirical. It reads as a particularly nasty barb, a shot across the bow of non-believers. Moreover, who is Keillor’s target here? I think I’m supposed to think it’s intolerant Christians, but I don’t think that. I really feel like his target is Unitarians and Jews, and other nonbelievers during the holiday season. This doesn’t feel like satire. It doesn’t read like satire. This reads angry.

I want to give Keillor the benefit of the doubt here. I really do. But I’m sorry, I just can’t. Whether he meant to or not, he penned a column that is nasty and offensive, and yes, anti-Semitic. And whatever he meant, that’s how the words read to more than a few people. I hope that Keillor apologizes quickly. And I hope that he doesn’t fall back on the tired, “I was just joking” defense. Because I’m sorry, Garrison, jokes are supposed to have humor embedded in them, and they’re not supposed to afflict the afflicted. This is a disappointing column from someone who should be better than this.

I guess it’s like Ralph Waldo Emerson once said — “Every hero becomes a bore at last.”

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Media criticism | 27 Comments

Why I Hate Grading Papers – Part 2

One word: plagiarism. I spend a great deal of time at the beginning of the semester, on the first day actually, talking about it, explaining it and making sure my students understand my policy, which is: If I catch you willfully trying to fool me by passing off someone else’s work as your own, you will fail for the semester, no second chances. I lecture in excruciating detail–with more than a few examples of students who were passing (one was even getting an A) whom I failed because I caught them willfully plagiarizing–about why I take it personally when someone tried to do this: because it means that he or she thinks either that I am stupid, that I won’t know the difference between her or his writing, which I have been reading all semester, and the professional-grade writing that students inevitably hand in when they plagiarize, or that I don’t care enough about my job actually to pay attention to the work that students hand in. I repeat this warning several times during the semester, with a shorter version of the same lecture, especially when I assign any paper that involves even the smallest amount of research. I even tell my students how I am going to catch them. Most plagiarism these days involves students cutting and pasting stuff from the web, and if it’s on the web, I tell them, Google can find it. “Please,” I ask them, “don’t put me in the position of having to fail you. If you are having problems with an assignment, come talk to me. As long as you are someone who has been coming to class and doing the work–even if you’ve been getting D’s–I’d rather work something out (an extension, whatever) to make it possible for you to do the work than to fail you for plagiarism.”

Inevitably, though, there are students who don’t believe me or who think they are smarter than I am, and this semester is no exception. I have caught three plagiarists in my Technical Writing class, and it’s really pissing me off. First, the assignment they plagiarized–writing a set of instructions, a description and a process analysis–while not necessarily easy, is not hard to do well on if you take the time to do it right. Second, two of the students were clearly passing; one of them was on his way to getting a B. (The other would have ended up with a D+ or a C, depending on how he did on his final paper.) Third, the remaining plagiarist does not have English as his first language, and so the work he’s been handing me has not only been sprinkled with the kinds of grammatical errors one would expect from someone writing in his second language; even when his writing was grammatical, it had a slight “accent” that betrayed his country of origin. So what did he hand me? A grammatically perfect description of a light bulb, as if I wouldn’t notice the difference.

All three of them are going to fail for the semester.

And now that I have vented, I am going to bed. I need the sleep.

Cross posted on It’s All Connected.

Posted in Education | 7 Comments

Shut Up, Ralph Nader

You know, if I was someone who was instrumental in ensuring the election of George W. Bush to the White House, I’d hide my head in shame. But not Ralph Nader. No, he’s back, happily using racist epithets to refer to the current president, who is, at last check, an African-American:

Nader, who has been viciously critical of Obama since before his inauguration, said he was encouraged to see many of the president’s campaign allies beginning to turn on his agenda.

“Is the title of your article ‘I told you so?’” he asked. “This is what I meant a year ago when I said the next year will determine whether Barack Obama will be an Uncle Tom groveling before the demands of the corporations that are running our country or he’ll be an Uncle Sam standing up for the American people.”

naderYou know, words really fail me. I don’t really know what possesses an old white guy to use the words “Uncle Tom,” you know, ever, but I really don’t get why a soi disant progressive would use those words to describe the first African American to serve as president. Quite frankly, it’s disgusting, and it stands as exhibit 3,492 in my ongoing argument that Ralph Nader is one of the worst humans alive today.

I will note that Nader is a big Kill the Bill guy. Now, I know that in and of itself doesn’t prove that killing the bill would be a disaster of Brobdingnagian proportions for the Democrats, one that would cause the party to spiral out of control for years. I mean, hey, Nader was right about the Ford Pinto, so, you know, it’s possible he could be right again. But I do know that given his record since 2000, if Ralph Nader says the sky is blue, I’m going to assume it’s pink until further examination. After all, he once declared there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush, and…well, let’s just say that didn’t exactly work out for the United States, humanity as a whole, or the universe in general.

Posted in Elections and politics, Health Care and Related Issues, Race, racism and related issues | 39 Comments

How Things Should Be Done

As we all know at this time, the junior Senator from Minnesota refused to agree to granting Sen. Joe Lieberman, JoeForJoe-Conn., an additional minute or two beyond the ten he’d been recognized:

Now, it’s a minor moment, one that those who aren’t familiar with the arcana of parliamentary procedure would see as…well, kind of weak. But this is exactly the sort of thing that we need more of from the Democrats.

Look, first off, Lieberman wasn’t being cut off maliciously — Franken cut him off because, frankly, Democrats are trying to get the health care bill done, and they’re drawing a firm line that when you have ten minutes to speak, you have ten minutes to speak. This does end one of the old rules about the comity of the Senate — that members could speak a bit more if they needed to — but it does so in response to a breakdown in comity regarding cloture, which used to be used only once in a great while, but now is used routinely.

One of the frustrations that I share with my progressive friends is that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has been running the Senate as if it’s still 1990, and the general rules of comity hadn’t broken down. They have. And, to be blunt, it’s not the Republicans’ fault that the breakdown in the “gentleman’s agreement” over cloture has happened. Yes, I think they’re being irresponsible, but from their perspective, they’re doing what they have to do to stop a bill they oppose, and they’re using the tricks allowed by parliamentary procedure to slow things down, and hopefully stop them.

When your opponents begin using parliamentary procedure against you, you can do three things. First, you can give up on what you’re trying to do, at least for now — not smart, but on a minor issue, maybe the best course of action. You can pretend it isn’t happening — which has been Reid’s stance thus far. Or you can start pulling out your own arcane, weird rules that allow you to make trouble for the minority.

It’s that last one that Reid needs to do. At this point, starting over with reconcilliation is probably not going to work (though fixing the bill that gets through via reconcilliation can and should be on the table). But back in June or July, that was very much a possibility and very much something that Reid could have pushed through. And he should have pushed things through via a muscular definition of reconcilliation that went above and beyond the spirit, and if necessary, the letter of the rules. As the Republicans noted during the debate over the nuclear option, a ruling from the chair on a point of order requires only a simple majority to uphold, and all that needs to happen to let a bill through that is non-conforming to Senate rules is for the chair to rule it doesn’t violate the rules, and a majority of Senators to agree with him or her.

Reid threatening to make reconcilliation essentially allow for everything might be enough to crack the Republicans on cloture — because the loss of the filibuster would be a disaster for the minority. And once reconcilliation’s established meaning was “whatever the majority says it is,” that would doom the filibuster once and for all. It’s easy to imagine Republicans agreeing to be more agreeable on cloture motions in exchange for the ability to use it when it really, really mattered.

My criticism of Reid is not that he’s unable to make Joe Lieberman less of a douche, or Ben Nelson less of a Republican. Those are problems that would have bedeviled Lyndon Baines Johnson at the height of his powers. No, my problem is that Reid doesn’t seem to understand that parliamentary procedure can be wielded as a weapon by the majority as well as the minority. He seems to be perfectly content with the rules of the Senate as they are, and completely unwilling to look to the places where they can be bent. And that’s a shame. Because one of the key jobs of the Majority Leader is to find ways in the rules to get the majority’s will enacted. And it’s a place where Reid has simply proven to be incompetent.

Posted in Elections and politics, Health Care and Related Issues | 6 Comments

Meet Jane Doe: Dollhouse Review episode 2.07

It is hard to review an episode where you adored most of it, but had to watch some scenes through your fingers because you didn’t want to know (the closest I can come up with is the last episode of Buffy – there’s a special feminist cut that only exists in my head and doesn’t include Spike).

I’m going to start with the non-awesome: the unnecessary, unearned, out of nowhere, unawesomness of Ballard and Echo.

To start with the scenes in her apartment were badly written. Echo actually starts a conversation “So about that thing that happened three months ago, which we would have talked about already so I don’t need to explain it to you, but the audience has just seen it so I’ll start talking about that.” Then it’s exposition central, not made any less exposition central when Echo tells Ballard ‘you knows this’ and he doesn’t have the wits to reply ‘but the audience doesn’t.’ Even a plausible, non-creepy love story would be hard to tell with such clunky dialogue.

The three month skip forward was a real problem, Ballard and Echo’s relationship and (I can barely type this) the fact that she’s in love with him feel completely unearned. And as someone who would never have liked this development, no matter how well it was done, part of me is glad that we missed out watching most of it.(Although I could have totally got behind it if they’d made it all about Ballard’s creepiness) As it was I had my fingers over my eyes for some of the scenes. If they’d taken the time to do it right it would have gone longer, and that’s the last thing I wanted.

But, in terms of drama, in terms of making good TV, we need to see why she’s in love with him (if we’re going believe that she is, which obviously I’m denying – I actually think she was lonely and he was there, and you do strange things when you’re isolated and dealing with so many imprints). Until this episode we had no idea how she felt about him, except that she saw him as an ally. Now suddenly we’re supposed to see it as love?

But the real problem with Echo and Ballard was, as always, Ballard. I didn’t think it was possible for the writers to make me hate Ballard more for *not* sleeping with Echo, but oh look I do.

Ballard believes that Echo has the capacity to decide to return to the dollhouse – to a situation where she will have sex she is not consenting to on a fairly regular basis – but not to consent to sex. That’s a fucking patronising attitude to take. She expresses that this makes her feel like a freak, and he doesn’t even engage with her feelings. He is not interested in her, or her desires, never has been, and feels entitled to make decisions for her.

Which isn’t to say that I think that Echo and Ballard should have slept together (I really don’t). Just that the way the writers have portrayed them not sleeping together has made me hate him even more. ((Although at this point, Ballard could lead a revolution, solve my internet problems, provide me with a lifetime supply of Whittakers Dark Almond Chocolate and magic the ideal sources for my PhD out of thin air and it’d probably make me hate him more.))

I think the writers could have told this story but made Ballard less obnoxious – if he’d expressed his unwillingness to have sex with her as something about him rather than something about her. For example, if they referenced what Ballard did to Mellie and Madeline – if he’d told Echo the story and made that the reason he didn’t feel uncomfortable.

My favourite line with the episode (and Eliza Dushku delivered it perfectly) was “I try to be my best” – full of attitude. God he deserved it.

OK that’s most of the whining about this episode – now to the awesome. Apart from the problems with the Echo/Ballard relationship, the three-month skip forward really worked for me. This clearly could have been a seasons worth of material, and a lot of the stuff in the dollhouse would have been more satisfying with a build-up over time. But I found this episode fascinating and easy to follow.

I enjoyed not knowing exactly where the characters were, and making increasingly accurate guesses. The slow reveal of Echo’s actual situation were great (except where this revealed Ballard’s continued existence). But it was within the dollhouse that this story telling method had real strength. I think our lack of knowledge illustrated a truth about the situation where no-one was sure what was going on, or where they stood, or who they could trust. ((At the beginning of the ep Topher states that he will never trust a woman again, and by the end of the ep he’s set the apocalypse in train by trusting a woman. Dramatic foreshadowing is a dangerous thing))

My only concern was that the episode felt a little bit weirdly structured. In the teaser we had a brief scene inside the dollhouse and an even briefer scene of Echo. Then we cut to a longer scene with Echo, which covered everything in the teaser scene and more, and then we cut to three months later. I think the episode would have been more coherent if the teaser had established the situation, and the rest of the episode was three months later. It’s not like Dollhouse hasn’t had long teasers before – the teaser for Spy in the House of Love was ten minutes.

The politics, and implications, of Echo and Ballard were completely fucked up, but I did appreciate that it wore the rest of its politics on its sleeves. In the scene at the grocery store they brought out the reality of hunger by focusing on the food and people eating. It was just a tiny segment, but it asked questions that very rarely get asked on TV, about the distribution of resources. This wasn’t some sci-fi, unreal sort of poverty, this was linked in with the very real poverty of food stamps. Like Echo and Galena, this episode asked why they couldn’t have food when they were hungry.

Then there was the portrayal of police and immigration. It wasn’t just that these police were portrayed as racist and violent, or that watching Echo beat them up was satisfying. It was that there was nothing about this which suggested that these particular cops were bad apples. They say straight out that this is how the system works. When Ballard came in their only reaction was disbelief that anyone would give a shit.

Now I’m the first to admit that I am pretty highly invested in people breaking out of prison. But I thought that whole sequence was incredibly exciting and very well done. The plan went wrong, as of course it must, but it seemed like a plan which had a chance of working, and when you’ve got Echo’s ninja skills it’s understandable that that’s your plan B. Even watching that sequence on the third and fourth time I find those break-out scenes gripping. (Although I do start to think things like: since when do the underwires of bras come out that easily). And Matt may have had the most inane fantasies in the world, but his imprint came through with her motorcycle riding skills. ((Possibly the woman who wore the dress that was actually a shirt, also modified the scrubs Echo wore. I’m pretty sure standard issue scrubs don’t include bust shaping. You know Fox is getting desperate when they’re like “But, but, but, this script says Eliza Dushku is just wearing baggy clothes and scrubs – we have regulations against that kind of thing. Can they be sexy scrubs?”))

There’s been a little too much Echo rescuing woman of colour for my liking (the kidnapped girl, the pop star, Sierra and now Galena. I was going to say that she’d rescued every woman of colour with a role of any size, but then I remembered Ramierez, Victor’s handler, which is telling in itself). How about Sierra rescuing Echo for once? Or even just a WoC character that Echo doesn’t rescues who is important to the plot of an episode.

What I did like was that it wasn’t just Galena being rescued, they put in some small touches of her taking an active role – particularly finding the keys. We don’t know much about her, but she wasn’t portrayed as passive.(( I don’t really know how to talk about this; the whole terminology around being traumatised due to your powerlessness is so messed up. ‘Victim’ has been pathologised almost beyond redemption. ‘Survivor’ feels pointed at those who don’t survive. I think it’s important not to create a hierarchy of correct ways to respond to trauma. I feel that this thought should possible be a blogpost and not a footnote.)) She had obviously learnt English when she was in jail – she was prepared to fight for her life, even if she didn’t have Echo’s resources.

Echo needs other people, and she knows that. Right back in the beginning (when she got Galena into this mess) she was looking for a friend. She really is a people-person and that’s what’ll make her stronger than Caroline.

While Echo was rescuing people out of jai, over in the Dollhouse they were bringing on the apocalypse. I could have done without the Dubai-ness of the new house. Couldn’t they have been opening a new house in Winnipeg or somewhere? Clearly we’re not supposed to see American men in charge of the Dollhouse as un-misogynist. But when there’s no need why even open the door to ‘oh look at how scary and misogynist middle-eastern men are’? ((OK and this is a bit of an extended rant, but the whole OMG Harding is bad because he’ll send the actives out to a guy who likes to inflict pain thing didn’t work for me. Just as the ‘we don’t hire out the actives to be submissive, didn’t work for me. Dominatrix Echo liked to inflict pain, I’m sure she’d be a perfectly fine person to send out an active too (if the universe wouldn’t collapse from the weight of that one.) Boyd in particular has always taken the position “the most objectionable sex for actives to have is sex that I’m not into.” To me the key question seems to be will they hire out dolls on engagements where the imprint isn’t going to consent? I think that was supposed to be the implication of him quoting Marquis de Sade, that he didn’t want someone who would enjoy it. But that whole side of the dollhouse, and the lines people draw has been so muddy. I know the original desire to explore desire was destroyed by Fox, and maybe there was a point to these lines but never got to be explored. But I think it’s unfortunate that the show has ended up drawing boundaries around acceptable desire based on categories other than consent.))

Apart from that I thought the power struggles inside the dollhouse were fascinating. Like I said, I think the fragility of the people and relationships in the new regime were underscored by our lack of knowledge. Were people being cautious, were they on different sides, were they playing each other?

In many ways this was Adelle’s episode just as much as it was Echo’s. We see now the monumental consequences of her paranoia in the two parter. Olivia Williams (and the costume department) did a great job of conveying Adelle’s new status and just how hard it was for her. She was clearly kept on just for the sake of humiliating her, as she had to get Topher to sign-off on things. She had already lost so much by the time we saw her.

She regained her power not through her wits, her bluffing, or her ability to play a very bad hand very well, but by stealing something. What we saw was crawling back, even though she tried to insist that she was claiming some power. I think her character has been fundamentally changed by this, and it’ll have huge implications. I think Episode 10 was very revealing about where Adelle’s character is, but I’ll leave that to my next review to discuss.

And then there’s Topher, who needs a better hiding place. Like everyone else in the Dollhouse he’d learnt to play games. And, as Harding was surprised to discover, he was smart enough to put it all together. These developments fitted so well with the Topher we saw in Epitaph One. (And I think knowing where we’re going absolutely enriches the show). I think if you told me after I saw Ghost, that Topher was a tragic character I’d end up having much sympathy for I wouldn’t have believe you, but it’s true, and it has felt very real.

While there wasn’t enough Victor and Sierra in Meet Jane Doe, at least there was some. It’s amazing how much can be done with those two in under thirty seconds. We never saw the relationships that the scientists developed, but we don’t need to. Topher wipes them, and the scientists part, but then Victor and Sierra walk away together. They really are the most awesome couple in the history of the universe (or at least the history of TV).

I’m not saying that we should forgive Adelle for bringing on the apocalypse. I’m just saying that if Victor and Sierra had been split up that might have been worse than a burning car and a smudged Felicia Day.

I think that scene had its problems though, while it’s possible they were making a point when they had black woman in an Asian woman’s body being silenced while a bunch of white people applauded, I think it was too subtle (particularly given as a sizeable chunk of their tiny audience was thinking ‘oh look Maurissa’). And the only reason I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt that they might have been trying to say something, is because the person being silenced was the writer of the episode, which obviously adds a layer of complexity. Plus I’ve seen some other stuff she’s done and she’s clearly thought about issues around race, appropriation and identity.

Then just as Adelle has reclaimed her house, asserted her dominance over Topher and made it clear that no one is ever going to challenge her again, Echo comes back. (Don’t these people know they’re on Joss shows, saying things like that is asking for trouble) Now usually I’d make fun of slow-motion sequence with swelling music. But Echo’s return was epic and I loved it. I think it was something about Eliza Dushku’s performance made that whole sequence. That and the moment when she recognised Victor and Sierra and they recognised her. Seriously this show needs to build on those relationships rather than show Echo always interacting with Boyd and Ballard, the tag-team of annoying masculinity.

Eliza Dushku was really good in this episode – really phenomenally good. She nailed every moment (even the ones I didn’t want to see). I’ve always thought she was engaging, but sometimes her performances quite work for me (in particular I had real difficulties with the eyes half shut remembering Echo of early season two). But in this episode it all came together. Every single one of those changes, and characters and emotions was clear. She wasn’t alone, of course, Olivia Williams was the other stand-out, and everyone else, except Tahmoh Penikett and his three expressions, were fantastic.

I’m so very sad there’s only 5 to go (given that I’ve already watched A Love Supreme).

Posted in Buffy, Whedon, etc. | 11 Comments

Review of N. K. Jemisin's The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms (Orbit Books, 2010)

More spheres floated in this room, dozens of them. They were fantastically varied—of all shapes and sizes and colors—turning slowly and drifting through the air. They seemed to be nothing more than a child’s toys, until I looked closely at one and saw clouds swirling over its surface.

Sieh hovered near as I wandered among his toys, his expression somewhere between anxiety and pride. The yellow ball had taken up position near the center fo the room; all the other balls revolved around it.

“They’re pretty, aren’t they?” he asked me, while I stared at a tiny red marble. A great cloud mass—a storm?—devoured the nearer hemisphere. I tore my eyes from it to look at Sieh. He bounced on his toes, impatient for my answer. “It’s a good collection.”

Trickster, trickster, stole the sun for a prank. And apparently because it was pretty. The Three had borne many children before their falling-out. Sieh was immeasurably old, another of the Arameri’s deadly weapons, and yet I could not bring myself to dash the shy hope I saw in his eyes.

“They’re all beautiful,” I agreed.

It was when I reached this passage, on page ten of N. K. Jemisin’s debut novel The Hundred Thousand Kingdoms (forthcoming from Orbit Books in 2010), that I fell in love. Continue reading

Posted in Whatever | 4 Comments

Why I Hate Grading Papers

Edited because of privacy issues.

According to one of my students, in a paper he wrote meant to talk about the different approaches to history in Maxine Hong Kingston’s China Men and Island, edited by Him Mark Lai, Genny Lim and Judy Yung, China has historically been infused with a “racial ideology of male masculinity” and that is why so many “Chinese Americans believe in racial inequality.” I wish I could quote the entire two sentences for you; they are truly precious. It’s not just the poor quality of this writing per se that gets to me, though, it’s that phrases like “racial ideology of male masculinity” appear all over the essays I have been getting from far too many of the students in the literature class I have been teaching–as if the students were choosing one word from column A, two from column B, etc. in order to come up with a sentence that sounds so intellectually profound that I won’t notice it doesn’t really mean anything. It is depressing and debilitating when the papers handed in by my freshman composition students are, in many ways, better written than the ones handed in by the students in an advanced literature class.

Posted in Whatever | 13 Comments