![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
There is Nothing Wrong With Tina Greer
Jan. 14th, 2003 10:57 pmOk, I really liked that episode in the "hurts so good" way, but SV's treatment of a lot of the kryptomutants, and Tina Greer in particular, really bothers me.
But just as an aside, is Pete dead? Is he crawling to the Kent farm with a concussion trying to warn Clark? Is he fine and dandy, making out with the "real" Chloe somewhere?
The "mutations" of the Smallville populace, as per "Heat," simply amplify things which were already present. The amplified hyper presence of these things is then portrayed as monstrous/grotesque. There is no "except Clark. Clark is neat!" because Clark was never mutated. Clark's powers are not portrayed as a grotesque magnification, but rather as a natural progression or process of maturation. While Clark is simply growing up, the maturation process of those around him has been horrifically warped or changed. Therefore, Clark=good, natural, organic. Kryptomutants=bad, grotesque, mutated (a word whose relation to radiation and thereby science and technology seems hardly accidental). Therefore, Nature/Technology and/or Natural/Unnatural.
So, Tina Greer. In her first appearance, Tina was punished not only for her infractions against the legal code, but for her infractions against the social order. No, Tina. You must not attempt to be beautiful or popular. Don't you understand? You are a freaky geek and must accept your status as such. Any attempts to do otherwise must necessarily be totally evil. It seems hardly coincidental that lesbianism (i.e. unnatural desires) is being located as a product of a monstrous grotesque maturation process. The politics of defining any and every possible "incorrect" adolescence as monstrous (sexual activity, lesbianism, refusal of one's "proper place" in the social hierarchy) is becoming too obvious to accept as an unimportant "entertaining" aspect of the program. Only the naturally beautiful (Lana), those who accept their status on the totem pole (Chloe giving up Clark), and the naturally good (Clark) escape pathologization.
And what the hell happened to Pete!
Ok, I know that the show needs someone for Clark to fight each week, but does it really need to be so very obvious about it? Lex is such a wonderful character just because he isn't obvious. He's trying soooo very hard to do good and trying sooo very hard to figure out what good is (duty to parents? What if your dad is LL - what do you really owe him?). And yet, he does some potentially harmful things. At the same time, he's done quite a few truly selfless things (going into the plant in "Jitters"). Good guy, bad guy, or just a guy? Really, what this show needs is more Lex-like characters whose future isn't already foreclosed by comic book cannon. People who make mistakes, do good and bad things, and try to figure out who they are, where they're going, and what, if anything, they owe to the world. Without those characters, we're left with a very strict bifurcation between Tina and Clark, the Unnatural and the Natural, Evil and Good. If layered sexuality, imperfections, and the will to question social hierarchy all lie on the side of the kryptomutants, I may just join Tina in that adored adorned gehenna.
But just as an aside, is Pete dead? Is he crawling to the Kent farm with a concussion trying to warn Clark? Is he fine and dandy, making out with the "real" Chloe somewhere?
The "mutations" of the Smallville populace, as per "Heat," simply amplify things which were already present. The amplified hyper presence of these things is then portrayed as monstrous/grotesque. There is no "except Clark. Clark is neat!" because Clark was never mutated. Clark's powers are not portrayed as a grotesque magnification, but rather as a natural progression or process of maturation. While Clark is simply growing up, the maturation process of those around him has been horrifically warped or changed. Therefore, Clark=good, natural, organic. Kryptomutants=bad, grotesque, mutated (a word whose relation to radiation and thereby science and technology seems hardly accidental). Therefore, Nature/Technology and/or Natural/Unnatural.
So, Tina Greer. In her first appearance, Tina was punished not only for her infractions against the legal code, but for her infractions against the social order. No, Tina. You must not attempt to be beautiful or popular. Don't you understand? You are a freaky geek and must accept your status as such. Any attempts to do otherwise must necessarily be totally evil. It seems hardly coincidental that lesbianism (i.e. unnatural desires) is being located as a product of a monstrous grotesque maturation process. The politics of defining any and every possible "incorrect" adolescence as monstrous (sexual activity, lesbianism, refusal of one's "proper place" in the social hierarchy) is becoming too obvious to accept as an unimportant "entertaining" aspect of the program. Only the naturally beautiful (Lana), those who accept their status on the totem pole (Chloe giving up Clark), and the naturally good (Clark) escape pathologization.
And what the hell happened to Pete!
Ok, I know that the show needs someone for Clark to fight each week, but does it really need to be so very obvious about it? Lex is such a wonderful character just because he isn't obvious. He's trying soooo very hard to do good and trying sooo very hard to figure out what good is (duty to parents? What if your dad is LL - what do you really owe him?). And yet, he does some potentially harmful things. At the same time, he's done quite a few truly selfless things (going into the plant in "Jitters"). Good guy, bad guy, or just a guy? Really, what this show needs is more Lex-like characters whose future isn't already foreclosed by comic book cannon. People who make mistakes, do good and bad things, and try to figure out who they are, where they're going, and what, if anything, they owe to the world. Without those characters, we're left with a very strict bifurcation between Tina and Clark, the Unnatural and the Natural, Evil and Good. If layered sexuality, imperfections, and the will to question social hierarchy all lie on the side of the kryptomutants, I may just join Tina in that adored adorned gehenna.
