#MetaAnalysisForTheWin | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

worstloki · 3 years

Note

please read the article 'How White Fandom is Colonizing "Character-Coding"' by Shafira Jordan and quit while you're ahead

Okay, so I read it and see the problem, and I’ll try to address all their points in order because I don’t wholly agree with the article. I know it’s a lot to read so I’ve put tldr; sections at the end of each :)

Misusing the Term Reinforces Negative Stereotypes for Marginalized People

The article essentially argues that labeling characters which are villainous as POC-coded is bad because they’re not morally pure and doing so "reinforces the idea that people of color are naturally dangerous and not to be trusted.”

Which is fair as you don’t want all the representation to be of ‘bad’ characters, but I also don’t believe all representative characters have to be ‘good’ either as it would be equally racist to divide good/bad in such a way. Not that I would place Loki under ‘bad’ to begin with, but arguing that characters shouldn’t be labelled as POC-coded for reasons unrelated to what’s presented in the narrative or because they did bad things is :/ even if lack of good representation is a prevalent issue in current Western and influenced media.

Ideally there should be a range of representative characters that fall into ‘good’, ‘bad’, and ‘anywhere in-between’ because variety and complexity in character types should, in theory, be treated as common practice (which can only happen with a multitude of representation!).

And a bit unrelated but... within the fictional context of Thor 1, all the Jotnar (sans Loki) are presented to the audience as ‘bad’ by default. They desperately want to get their Casket back to the point of attempting stealing it (from the ‘good’ characters), they fight the heroes and even when the gang and Thor (’good’ characters) are enjoying or going overboard with taking lives it’s inconsequential, Laufey wants to kill the opposing king (who just happens to be a ‘good’ character) and will resort to low-handed methods to do so, etc. The narrative itself is from the frame of reference of the ‘good’ and we only see warriors of Jotunheim though so we understand why it’s like this, because regardless of their race/experiences the narrative carries, even if it most definitely would be seen as racist from our real-life perspectives if the ‘monstrous’ race were presented by actual people of colour, even if it would make sense for the people on on different realms living in different environments to be different from each other, and realistic even for that to be the root of some conflict.

tldr; not using a specific label to prevent negative presentations of the characters seems a bit strange to do when the coding would be based off the text, but with limited representation available I see why it would be done, even if I still believe minority-coding is free game to expand/interpret.

Improperly Labeling a Character as “POC-coded” Suggests the Experiences of All People of Color are the Same

The article argues that labeling Loki as POC-coded “suggests that all people of color have the same experiences, when in reality, people of color come from different places, have different cultures, and have different traditions.” And while it’s true that the term doesn’t go into detail about which particular experiences (and these experiences can vary vastly due to diversity!) the appropriate measure would be to remove the umbrella term POC altogether as people of colour tend to also vary. But that’s also exactly why it’s an all-encompassing general term? It’s a way to denote anyone who isn’t “white” and has the associated cultural privilege that comes with the concept of white supremacy.

And, obviously, in the fictional setting presented, the concept of white supremacy is not prodded at, but cultural supremacy is definitely one that makes recurring appearances, right next to the parts about Asgard being a realm built on imperialism with ongoing colonial practice.

My take on this is that Loki’s narrative features a struggle with identity after finding out he’s of a different race and was being treated differently his entire life and being Jotun was presumably a part of the reasoning even if he didn’t know it. He’s basically treated as of less worth for inherently existing differently. I do believe that racism is a common-enough POC experience, but that while Loki was born with blue skin he passes/appears white which is why I don’t say that Loki is a POC, just that he has been coded/can be interpreted this way.

There’s also the entire thing with Loki trying to fit in and prove he belongs by trying to fit the theory and be The Most Asgardian by committing genocide (which ultimately makes no difference as he’s still not the ‘acceptable’ version of Asgardian), and the denial/rejection of his birth culture in destructively lashing out towards them (which even Thor is confused by because Loki isn’t typically violent), and the fact his self worth plummets and he is passively suicidal upon finding out he’s Jotun (internalized racism? general drop in self-worth after finding out he’s adopted and has been lied to? Bit of both?), but what do I know, I’m sure none of those are, at their base, common experiences or relatable feelings for anyone or decent rep because we see such themes on-screen presented wonderfully in different lights all the time.

tldr; every set of experiences could be different, some types of discrimination could overlap, if you limit an umbrella term to only very specific circumstances then it’s no longer an umbrella term.

Suggesting that White Characters are Meant to be Seen as People of Color Ignores the Actual Characters of Color that are Present in these Stories

I don’t agree with most of this section, but that may just be the way the arguments are put together, which I don’t blame the author for.

“ Implying that Loki is a person of color completely ignores Heimdall and Hogun, the only Black and Asian Asgardians who appear in the movie. ”

Characters such as Hogun and Heimdall which are played by actual people of colour have smaller roles in the films and any prejudice they could face for being POC in-universe isn’t made apparent, while Loki at the very least comes to the realization that something he couldn’t change (race, parentage,) was having him treated differently his whole life and had to come to terms with it. The Vanir/Aesir are also both treated similarly on-screen, and Heimdall having dark skin isn’t plot relevant, whereas Jotnar are treated as lesser consistently and are relevant through the movie (breaking into the vault, Thor and co. attack Jotunheim, Loki’s deal with Laufey, the attempted regicide (and the successful one XD), destroying jotunheim, Loki saying he’s not Thor’s brother,).

I also see including characters as POC-coded as... more representation? In all canon-compliant interpretations of the characters Hogun being Vanir is always explicitly mentioned because it’s a fact that just is, up to the appearance and even the world-building of Vanaheim in some fanworks use particularly East Asian culture as inspiration. I have never come across a Marvel fandom Heimdall interpretation where he’s not Black... but because these characters are more minor/side-characters of course they get less attention!

“ In Loki’s fandom, Heimdall’s name sometimes gets thrown in to suggest that it was he all along who was the real villain due to his “racism” against Loki and the rest of the Jotun. It is, of course, ironic to suggest that somehow the only Black Asgardian to appear in the movie can oppress the privileged white prince. “

I... don’t know where to start with this. But the example of theorizing given in the article wasn’t suggesting Heimdall was bad or trying to explain his actions in Thor 1 by saying he is Black... and just looking at a character’s actions shouldn’t be done less or more critically because of skin tone in my opinion. Heimdall may have been trying to do what was best and protect the realm but if the audience didn’t know that Loki was up to dodgy things then the coding would be switched around because he was trying to spy and committed treason and then tried to kill Loki. People... can hold feelings towards others... regardless of skin... and suspect them... for reasons other than skin... although I do still have questions about whether Heimdall knew Loki was Jotun or not. (Even if I personally don’t think it’d make a difference to how he’d treat Loki?)

Some Loki fans have also suggested that because Jotuns have blue skin that this alone makes him a person of color (even if the audience is only allowed to see Loki in his true Jotun form for mere seconds of screentime). This, again, shows a lack of understanding when it comes to race. It doesn’t matter what skin color the Jotuns have.

Race can differentiate between physical and/or behavioural characteristics!! Not being blue all the time doesn’t make him any less Jotun!! He’s got internalized stuff to work through and is used to being Aesir!! At least 1 parent is Jotun so even if Loki was passing as Aesir he’s probably Jotun!! (I don’t know how magic space genetics work for sure but Loki being Jotun was an entire very important jump-starting point in Thor 1!!). It’s a fantasy text and typically things like having different coloured skin indicates a different race or is sometimes if a species has multiple then is just considered a skin colour. That’s how coding works!! The Jotnar are very specifically the only race we see in the movie with a skin-tone not within the ‘normal’ human range, which alienates them to the audience from the get-go!! They’re an “other” and on the opposite side to the ‘good’ characters.

Both Loki and his birth father, Laufey (Colm Feore), are played by white men, and it is impossible for a white man to successfully play a character of color.

The specification of men here bothers me, but yes, you don’t get ‘white’ people to play characters of colour if it can be avoided. (And it can be avoided.)

This also connects with the previous point made that people of color come from various places. There is nothing specifically about the Jotun that could be traced to any specific person of color, and even if there were, there would be no way for white men to portray them without being disrespectful.

This is where arguments about the definition of coding and how specificity/generalizations and do/don’t come in. I know I’m subjective and lean towards the more rep the better, but while I agree ‘white’ people wouldn’t be able to respectfully play a POC I don’t think that rule should have to carry over into fantasy-based fiction. I know texts reflect on reality and reality can reflect within texts, but if contextually there is racial discrimination and there are similar ideas which resonate with the audience’s own experiences I’d say it’s coded well enough to allow that.

tldr; Thor 1′s narrative revolves mainly around Thor and Loki, of which race is kinda kinda a significant theme in Loki’s part of the story. Not so much explored with less-developed side characters such as Heimdall and Hogun, even though their actors are actual people of colour.

How Much of this is Really Well-Intentioned?

In the fantasy space viking world Heimdall and Hogun don’t face any on-screen prejudice and their appearance is not mentioned (which is nice, for sure! good to have casual rep!) but adding on to the roles they play in the narrative the explicit fantasy-racism in the movie isn't aimed at Asian/Black characters, but towards the Humans -to a lesser extent- and the Jotnar, including Loki, who only just found out he comes under that bracket.

The article mentions how fandom space toxicity often “reaches the actors who portray the characters,“ which is true, and it’s shameful that people have to justify their roles or presences are harassed for the pettiest things like skin tone/cultural background, but I don’t see coding characters as removing the spotlight from interesting characters such as those which are actually POC, rather expressing a demand for more rep, since well-written complex characters which are diverse are often absent/minor enough in the media, and therefore can get easily brushed aside in both canon and fandom spaces.

tldr; It’s obviously not a replacement for actual representation, but, if a character is marginalized and can be interpreted as coded, even if they would only be considered so within the context of the textual landscape, I don’t see why spreading awareness through exploring the coding as a possibility for the character shouldn’t be done, even if the media is being presented by people who are ‘white’ or privileged or may not fall into the categories themselves, as long as it’s done respectfully to those it could explicitly represent.

#please don’t patronize me by asking to quit while i’m ahead #it doesn't help anyone #so anyway i've summarized my opinion on the coding thing here for the many anons whose answers could be answered in this ask alone #i think i covered everything?#the article started out okay but I found it kinda :/ in places even though there were valid concerns #I do believe that in-universe context and creators of the media should be taken into account #and that if marginalized themes can be touched on by non-marginalized groups then... great? fictional texts can help people understand #i do also think that rep being presented should if not on-screen have people working on the product to support and ensure it's done well #the world is cold and harsh and cruel and i just wanted a desi Loki AU but here we are #I've got to try and summarize how I think Thor 1 presents Loki's part of the narrative well with POC-coding there because of fantasy-racism #even if the POC-coding is ignored the themes of racism are far too apparent to ignore #loki spends the entire film being a multi-dimensional character and having an entire downfall fueled by grief and a desire to be loved #I don't think attaching a label to such a character would be a negative thing... but perhaps for casual watchers it'd be a bit :/#apparently not everyone takes into account the 1000+ years of good behavior around that 1 year of betrayal/breakdown/identity crisis/torture #MetaAnalysisForTheWin #MAFTW #ThisPostIsLongerThanMyLifeSpan #TPILTMLS #AgreeToDisagreeOrNot #ATDON #poc-coding #yes i ignored everything not about loki in the article what about it #hmmm I know people are going to disagree with me with what should and shouldn't be allowed #I know some people are okay with it but some don't like the poc-coding thing #and that's fine #completely understandable #makes me uncomfy to talk about fictional space racism in comparison to real life but I do think that lack of rep is why coding is important #for some people coding is all that they get #but also!! @ifihadmypickofwishes suggested the term racial allegory and I do believe that is also suitable here!! so I’ll try using that too #rather than poc-coding even though I still believe it applies

141 notes · View notes

worstloki · 4 years

Text

instead of actually showing people moving on from their mistakes and choosing to follow a more heroic path the MCU gives heroes who have already been through their “worst” behaviour before they’re even introduced on-screen and as a result they’re framed as heroes from the beginning.

Its hero-framing and there is nothing wrong with that but its why marvel is unable to present an actual complete character redemption arc where people change for the better or worse: they forget there are things between good and evil, and that a change from ‘evil’ to ‘good’ is possible without having someone go from ‘villain’ to ‘hero’ to do it.

examples of hero-framing are:

- tony as the merchant of death is where tony’s journey to becoming a hero begins. he isn't shown as the person carelessly approving weapon deals or flippantly signing off weapons of mass destruction after his transportation is attacked. the only glimpse into his earlier actions which he strives to make up for with good deeds is assuming comments such as “I'd be out of a job with peace” and his proud display of the Jericho and glimpses at previous one-night stands are regular behaviour, of which none are immediately morally ‘bad’ on his part with all things considered. As the audience we aren't shown how low of a person Tony started off as, making him easily forgivable because from what we’ve seen his few acts of on-screen bad were minor acts and that outweighs the good we see him do once he gets the suit functioning.

- black widow’s dripping ledger is brought up multiple times as she tries to make up for her past as an assassin. meanwhile, the closest glimpse into any of what she did was loki listing things. there were no details, only that she did bad things and she feels guilty and is trying to make up for it. she is introduced as ‘good’ with her ‘bad’ past self being referred to as a different person, since the audience has not actually seen proof of her actions.

- thor is the closest thing to an exception to the hero-framing as he is introduced as brash and arrogant and it is shown in action. Even if only due to loki, thor’s flaws and unsuitability to rule are brought up and his journey to heroism begins after the audience has glimpsed him as ‘bad’, which means thor’s character development would need to be more comprehensive to further him into the role of ‘good’ as well as ‘hero’ after being shown happily committing genocide but then refusing to stand and watch it occur later in his debut film. His character development regarding his ‘bad’ traits never occurs on-screen, and he is regarded as a hero regardless of any actual change.

- Gamora is introduced as the most dangerous woman in the galaxy and working under thanos since childhood it is unquestionable that she has killed/had no regard for innocents. rocket groot and peter start off as criminals too, but in showcasing them together their past selves are easily disregarded for their new team dynamic and action sequences, where they’ve all committed crimes and are okay not mentioning them and instead focusing on the stopping the bad guy part. With the past Gamora being brought to the future her previous establishment as a hero influences the audience’s views on her.

Prime examples of the reverse where characters are initially framed as villains are Loki and Ava, with Wanda and Nebula being framed as ‘good’ but acting evil conditionally:

- Loki scenes which humanised the character when he was being introduced to the audience were intentionally removed to establish his change in Thor 1 as going from ‘slightly evil’ to ‘full-tilt evil’ as a natural reaction even before he had been proven to have done anything bad. marvel was unable to show loki ‘redeeming’ himself after New York and sought to kill him off doing a good act and apologising for his previous bad actions instead of actually becoming a ‘good’. After that he is withheld from becoming labelled as a ‘good’ person because of his past actions which keep being brought up especially in Ragnarok. Despite being implied a victim he is framed as the villain throughout his appearances and is made to ‘redeem‘ himself, dying before he gets to exercise actions other than his own sacrifice as an actual ‘hero’.

- Ava was trained as a weapon, and even when no longer under contract sees no problem with killing others to achieve her goal and fix herself. Even though she was willingly ‘bad’ her actions were seen as negligible once she achieved her goal and the problem was solved, with her switching to a ‘good’ individual without any moral changes. She is presented as a victim to the problem.

- Wanda, although introduced as a villain who messed with the heroes minds (cruelly) and unleashed the hulk with knowledge of what he would do this close to civilians (intentionally causing the unnecessary deaths of innocents??), regardless is accepted as a hero after switching allegiances after realising she would be dying along with the rest of the planet if she did not switch sides. She was introduced as a victim/prisoner despite consenting to the experimentation with the gem and results in an arc similar to loki’s in thor 1 where she (and Pietro) become circumstantially evil due to the events around them, except instead of dying and returning on the villain side she notices her mistake and puts aside hate to join the good side again. her journey, although appearing to take her from bad to good, actually starts with her as a good person who became bad but simply became good again.

- Nebula is introduced as being overshadowed by Gamora who is favoured. she is presented as a victim, even if her hostile reactions are witnessed more directly by the audience, and she is shown as not ‘bad’, simply trying to be ‘good’ where the only example to follow is the favoured Gamora. While her change from ‘bad’ to ‘good hero’ is partially shown, the changes in her morality are naturally presented, implying the changes happened off-screen, if not a one-time thing.

tldr; marvel’s character arcs are incomplete and basically all of them lack portions of the beginning or end, leaving gaps in the development of the characters. all the redeemable characters are explained as already being ‘good’, and are victims in their own rights, even if it isn't addressed. They have yet to present someone who actually changes from ‘evil’, although Loki is the closest they have come, even if he’s only a villain because he believes himself to be.

#no reasons for the moral changes or the sudden gained value of life #except for tony i guess #but he wasn't shown actually committing bad actions #he was shown suffering for those actions and then changing #loki was framed as a villain despite being a victim but marvel never got around to addressing that #everyone else either pulled a 180 or actually secretly had morals and the ability to love being hidden deep down #the closest thing to an actual on-screen bad person becoming good was Ava #Loki was bad but if the mind stone was involved it wasn't his fault #he still took the blame and worked on building himself back up so he gets second place for successful arcs with tony in first place i guess #no one kill me for attempting to comment on marvel's presentation of people who are 'bad' and 'good' i don't normally write stuff like this #mostly because articulation is only my forte if i get to be dramatic about it #nebula and wanda aren't framed as villains when they're introduced but loki and ava are ( with Ava not getting the WHY explained till later)#but since Ava isn't shown after she's healed we don't know enough to comment on her goodness #MetaAnalysisForTheWin #MAFTW #TPILTMLSP #ThisPostIsLongerThanMyLifeSpan

69 notes · View notes