A Simple-Minded Stream of Consciousness Reading of The Avengers (w/ spoilers)

Looking at the film through the lens of sexuality reveals what appears at first to be a fundamental binary of the movie: Hetero-Heros vs. Homo-Villains.

Let's start with the negative, the Other who negatively defines the Self of the Heroes & Audience. This reading notes the particular ways in which Loki is sexualized, often minor or tangential but still grossly stereotypical.

His posh English Accent -- with something of a lilt on the high tenor end -- often sounds effete to American ears (and probably many British ears too). He has long dark hair -- stylized hair. He wears elaborate, fashionable outfits. Hates and envies his Jock Older Brother: Thor, (Heterosexual) God of Thunder. He has unresolved Oedipal issues with his one-eyed adoptive father: Odin, King of the Gods and All-Father. Loki's not really one of the Asgardians (would Ass-Guardian be TOO obvious?), but a Frost Giant -- are there Frost Giant women? -- so he seems to be the product of a mono-sexual masculinity. His chief weapon is a (phallic) spear given to him by a mysterious alien power which he uses to figuratively steal the hearts of men -- at least, his army of mind-slaves appears to be exclusively male (correct me if there were females in Loki's human army, certainly the main 2 were male: Hawkeye/Barton & Selvig). But, the transmission of his power is through contact, and seems to be a sort of infection of the mind, as well as a rape of it (cf. Hawkeye's description upon recovery). He wants to invade and enslave all of humankind, whom he commands to get "on [their] knees!" before him.

Loki is backed by an army of unisex lizard aliens. Led by a mysterious "Him," who is revealed post-credits (to those in the know) to be Thanos, the Marvel cosmic supervillain personification of Death (from Thanatos, the Greek daemon of death and Freud's term for the "death drive," associated by Lee Edelman with homosexuality, blah blah blah). Loki wants to open a secret dark hole to let in the invading aliens and their giant evil flying sperm whales.

On the other side, the heterosexual powerhouse of the Avengers Men (and super-hot Chick). I think that it is fairly obvious that in comparison to Loki the Avengers are explicitly heterosexual -- or rather, their sexuality is mostly invisible, normal, normative, only a small part of their character when visible. It is presumed and not referenced in the same way that Loki's sexuality is somewhat more explicitly displayed.

But, in case it is not obvious, here's a very brief summary of the markers of heterosexuality of Our Heroes:

Tony Stark/Iron Man: Notable Playboy, now with Sexy Serious Girlfriend. Tony Stark's girlfriend appears more than any other non-hero female in the film. Scantily clad, also his personal assistant/mother/ego massager. And he says to Captain America that he's a billionaire playboy. So, he's super-hetero.

Thor: Super macho dude, in love with Natalie Portman (seen on a computer screen to remind us), plus that Sif warrior-woman clearly has the hots for him too.

Bruce Banner/Hulk: Betty Ross (Liv Tyler/Jennifer Connolly) is his tragic lost love from previous films. Mostly de-sexed here as Mark Ruffalo plays the Woody Allen version of Bruce Banner.

Steve Rogers/Captain America: A man out of time, we are briefly reminded in a flashback of his lost love from WW2, who aged and died while he was frozen. Also mostly de-sexed except for two exceptions: one VERY notable, discussed later; the other the star-struck Waitress in an Old-Timey Diner outfit whom he saves, and who later talks about him on the news.

Natasha Romanov/Black Widow: Super-sexy Super Spy, damaged but deadly, with some sort of bond to Hawkeye, whom she fights with while fighting to win him back from the All-Male Loki Army.

Nick Fury: The father figure. Like Odin, missing an eye. Old enough, gruff enough that his patriarchal authority need not prove its sexuality. It is assumed. Still, while he isn't sexualized, he does have a super hot female assistant, loyal to the death.

But then I realize, the heterosexuality of the heroes is actually far more explicit than the homosexuality of the villain. That is to say, the homosexuality of Loki is secondary, it is implied by tired stereotypes, never explicitly stated. The sexuality of the other characters, in so far as they are sexual at all, is heterosexual and at least a bit explicit. This assertion of heroic heterosexuality against vaguely effete unreproductive anality seems a bit anxious -- the lady doth protest too much, methinks syndrome.

Next time: A few notes on the finer points of the characters and their relationships.

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


While stuck in an unexpected layover, picked up the Book that Everyone's Talking 'Bout (applause). Here's the good and the bad.



Bad: Katniss is a bit of a Mary Sue -- everyone loves her, she's good at everything. The science fiction elements are too soft and plot devicey: I get that Katniss is a kid and to her the tech will seem amazing and beyond her comprehension, but still. As an example of something that I found particularly lazy: the little parachuting gifts that her trainer would send while she was competing in the games. This allowed Collins to artificially do a few things: move along the so obviously telegraphed love triangle between Peeta, Katniss, and Gale by having K&P make out; introduce challenges to keep the story going and not have Katniss overwhelm the game competitors, then easily resolve the challenges that so that Katniss never suffers TOO much.



Neutral: Basically a reworking of "Battle Royale"



Good: Doesn't shy away from serious emotions and serious violence, which I think is good; don't sugar coat or dumb things down for kids. Always nice to see a powerful young girl protagonist who doesn't wilt in favor of her boyfriend. Lots of action, good pacing, quick read. Solid, enjoyable writing.



View all my reviews

The Neutronium Alchemist by Peter F. Hamilton

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


The second epic part of Hamilton's epic-length epic about an epic war in an epic science fiction future. Did I mention that it's epic? Because it is pretty epic. Perhaps too much so. Hamilton's space opera is filled with larger than life characters, dramatic escapes, technicolor explosions, super-future tech -- described in plenty of loving technobabble -- and plots within plots within plots.

(Spoilers follow)

Among the multiple plotlines, the central story is the rise of various factions of the Possessed across the human universe. The most powerful and threatening is led by a returned Al Capone, who is able to rally his fellow returning dead into a formidable interplanetary organization. A fascinating concept, although Capone's dialogue can be, at times, reeeeeeally cheesy -- one of the downfalls of Hamilton's writing. Complexities multiply in this volume as Dr. Mzu begins her search for the deadly Alchemist, pursued by multiple competing factions (including the Possessed), the returned spirit of Fletcher Christian pursues satanist Dexter Quinn in an attempt to atone for his past misdeeds, the Kiint reveal their own past contact with the Beyond, and an entirely new, mysterious group of seemingly immortal beings emerge in the conflict with the Possessed. Fun, big, bold, and a bit ridiculous.



View all my reviews

Sexing the Cherry by Jeanette Winterson

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Reminiscent of works such as Italo Calvino's "Invisible Cities" or Alan Lightman's "Einstein's Dreams." A novella of multiple perspectives, fantasies, transforming identities, past and present. During the Interregnum, a foundling named Jordan sets sail to explore the world, discover new fruits, find love, find himself; back in England, his adopted mother -- an impossibly massive creature known only as the Dog-Woman -- brutalizes hypocritical Puritans and longs for the presence of her son, the only person with whom she has ever shared love. The book is airy, fantastical, often confusing in its blurring of reality, fantasy, internal and external worlds; it starts to fall apart, I think, when a modern story is juxtaposed with the historical fiction. Perhaps others will find the mixture of these two stories more compelling, but for me, it caused the work to teeter over the edge: it had been barely held together by the threads of dream logic and imagination, but the temporal disjunction just made it a bit too frayed for me. Still, a beautiful, poetic work for the most part.



View all my reviews

When Nietzsche Wept by Irvin D. Yalom

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


I wouldn't call it "great literature," but Yalom's novel is a smart, engaging read. Yalom's alternative history posits a meeting between Josef Breuer -- one of the fathers of psychoanalysis and a mentor of Sigmund Freud -- and a young Friedrich Nietzsche. The dialogue can be clunky at times, often coming across as two intellectuals philosophizing to one other rather than two human beings talking, but Yalom has a firm grasp of Nietzsche's thought -- firm enough that he can critique its extremes and flaws while still admiring its scope, audacity, and insight. Readers more familiar than I with clinical psychoanalytic technique will probably also find the discussions between doctor and patient fascinating for their exploration of the tensions, limits, and benefits of the "talking cure"; for me, they were compelling, but I simply don't have the expertise to parse out some of the subtext. Overall very enjoyable, thoughtful, and compelling.



View all my reviews

Some Questions I would like to ask various people involved with Doctor Who

To anyone involved with the first Doctor (William Hartnell) and the early years of the show: During your time, so many "firsts" were established: the first companions, the first appearance of the Daleks, the first historical story, the first return of a previous villain, etc. And so many characteristic images or narrative tropes were established: the Doctor in an apparently deadly spot cliffhanger, the unseen monster attacks someone on camera, etc. These things have all become part of the grammar of the show. What other sorts of lasting impacts do you think you or your period had on the show? What do you see now and say, "That's pure Bill Hartnell" or "That's straight out of Episode 1.4" etc?

To anyone who played a companion:
What other Doctors do you think would make for an interesting pairing with you? And I don't mean as actors, but I mean as characters: which incarnation of the Doctor besides the one(s) you served with would be an interesting counterpart for your companion? (I'd ask the same question of the Doctors re: companions)

To Stephen Moffat and/or Russel T. Davies:
Over its long original run, Doctor Who went through so many versions and tones. What eras do you think are particularly influential for your vision of the show? I'm thinking of the Sylvester McCoy/Andrew Cartmel years as particularly important for the style of the new Who, do you think that's the case?

To anyone involved in the show, but particularly the Doctors:
In those episodes where the Doctor meets past (or future) incarnations of himself, he never seems to much care for them. Why do you think that is? Do you think any particular Doctors would get along remarkably well or poorly, and why?

To Stephen Moffat:
Speaking of Doctors meeting themselves, the old series had a few fairly celebrated occurrences of just that. On the new series, there have been a few teases of the same (the Next Doctor, the Impossible Astronaut) as well as the brief cameo of Peter Davison in a short. Do you think you'll ever do any full-blown Doctor cross-overs? If not, why do you think they don't fit with the new series? If so, what do you think they add to the show, and would you want to combine Old & New series Doctors, just one or the other, or what?

To Stephen Moffat:
You've said that you plan to keep the Daleks off-screen for a while, as their threat becomes diminished when the Doctor beats them handily on a regular basis. Besides simply keeping them off the air, what other ways do you think are useful for keeping the threat of villains palpable, for keeping the tension alive?

To Stephen Moffat and/or Russel T. Davies:
How do you manage the tension between Doctor Who as an ongoing serial with an indefinite (perhaps non-existent?) end-date, something that in a sense requires a return to status quo every week, a minimizing of changes
and Doctor Who as a story with a beginning, middle, and end, that has to develop and go somewhere or else will become stale? Do you feel more of an obligation to change the Doctor and his world or to expand it and keep the series alive for as long as possible?

To anyone involved with the show:
What are the most threatening villains of the series, and why?

I had some others, but I can't remember them now.

Unhistorical Shakespeare: Queer Theory in Shakespearean Literature and Film by Madhavi Menon

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


Really 3.5 stars. A more thorough (and even-handed) review from me is forthcoming on Shaksper.net, so I thought I'd make just a few overall comments and mention the things that really bothered me about this book.



Menon is clearly very intelligent, and her work is very theoretically sophisticated. Her argument about the problems with the way scholars "do history" is significant and timely. BUT... at times her desire to differentiate herself from what she calls "heterohistory" results in her obscuring or even contradicting her argument. Her primary argument is that scholarship that assumes a paradigm of difference distorts/obscures its subject in many ways; how ironic, then, that she is so insistent about how different her work is -- to the extent that she distorts/obscures some potentially interesting ideas. This is, though, only natural when one attempts to do something as ambitious as Menon does in this book.



The other thing that bugged me about the book were the rather pretentious lines Menon sprinkled throughout the work. Sometimes intended to be humorous, other times as poetic statements that encapsulated her ideas, they were usually both annoying and off-topic. A few of the most egregious examples:



1) In her chapter on Venus and Adonis and teleology: 'In such a realm, we would stop having successful sex. Or, perhaps, more unhistorically, we would have sex endlessly.' She'd just written about how the poem is essentially devoid of sex/sexual completion (but not desire), but, OK, whatever.



2) In her chapter on Titus Andronicus and origins (which is, I think, the best chapter, besides the introduction): "Shakespeare does not deprive Ovid of a tongue. Instead, he mingles his juices with that of the Roman to produce a melange of tastes that homohistory finds delectable." This is just pretentious. Probably should have gone the way of that old chestnut (Hemingway's?) about always deleting your favorite sentence from your work.



3) In her chapter on Shakespeare in Love and authenticity: "Shakespeare in Love suggests that the sanitary and historical act of giving face is always stained by the messy and unhistorical scene of giving head." Um, what? This is really, really lame, and the oral sex metaphor has nothing to do with (and never otherwise appears, as far as I noticed) in the chapter.



That said, the introduction was pretty great and will be useful to anyone interested in sexuality/desire, Shakespeare, and historiography.



View all my reviews