I think there is so much more to be said about both these topics that the reader of TV Guide Mag brings up. Is it okay for a TV show to just ignore slavery when dealing with the Civil War, simply because the it is entertainment, “not to be taken seriously”? And why are people unsure whether The Vampire Diaries has strong female characters (other than the fact that they are mostly killed off)? Topics like these are why TV networks created Summer/ hiatus … ah, if only the quarter were over and I could devote my time to writing such essays this weekend.

I have added new pictures of ian photoshoot.
If you see them.
Enjoy !

I think “PC” is hurled around as an epithet too often, usually as an excuse for privileged people to go on living in their bubbles without other people’s hurt spoiling their fantasy and ignoring the fact that those without privilege do not have the luxury of pretending discrimination and -isms never happened or happen.

Since when is making entertainment historically accurate or morally sensitive a bad thing?

I’m also waiting for a leading black female character with an unrepentant afro and dark brown skin to appear in any mainstream fantasy show or film, but I’m not holding my breath. This in no way reflects on the highly talented and beautiful Lawson and Graham; it’s just an observation.

That being said, there are only 42 minutes per episode to move the plot along. I think there could have been an effort to make some of the tomb vampires ex-slaves and complicate the moral relativity in the show, but producers are so scared of confusing Americans that I doubt they’d do such a thing. Sad. Some of us are savvy, guys! We can take shades of gray!

I think Bonnie has a ton of agency in this show. She comes off as the most powerful character in the series by the end of Episode 22, and she’s not afraid of anyone. The downside is that she’s not happy anymore, but hey. Elena is the only person capable of checking Damon. Caroline is a positive influence in people’s lives by episode fourteen.

I don’t see physical strength as being the only indicator of agency, but if we’re going to make that claim, how do Katherine and Isabel manage to do the ass-kicking that they do? The argument holds no water for me.

Wow!  What is with all the denial about slavery?  Why can’t a show who has black characters and has former slave owners talk about slavery?  It would be entertaining to me.  It is glaring to some people that the Civil War is mentioned and Slave owners are brought up over and over again but slaves are ignored.  It interferes with our enjoyment of the show.  It doesn’t have to be a lecture.  Just some sort of acknowledgment that slavery was part of the Civil War and a big part of a town that thinks that the 1800s was the best time ever.  If the show did not want to go there, it should not bring up the Civil war every two mins.  It just keeps reminding me about what the Civil War was about.  And what is with this recurring “diss” about the history channel.  What kind of bs is that?  When you see certain things, you expect other things to go with it.  For example, if you see a hospital, you expect to see doctors or nurses or orderlies in it.  If you look up into the sky during the day, you expect to see the sun or clouds.  Can you imagine a show about nurses without doctors?  Or vice versa?  So it goes with Civil War and slavery.  With former slave owners and slaves.  I think one of the above posters is correct.  It is a copout.  It is a way for people who like to pretend that slavery does not exist to erase that history from our collective consciousness.  Our entertainment is a huge part of our culture.  It is what we talk about a lot of the time.  What does it say about some people that they want to erase slavery form our stories/entertainment/culture?  Even when the Civil War and slave owners are part of said story?  I also find it curious that a lot of people are very sensitive to sexism on the show but (sometimes the same people) are fine with . . . being “racialist”(?)

I don’t understand why the idea that the past affects the present should
be relegated to the library or to being PC. I mean, isn’t that THE POINT OF
NARRATIVE? LOL.

It also irritates me because I HATE when
people say things like “it’s a guilty pleasure, it’s obviously not great TV”
or “it’s just supposed to be entertaining!” What does that even mean?!
How is interesting stuff not entertaining? How are themes not
entertaining? Personally, I find a bunch of incoherent romance and pity
party drama possibly the least entertaining thing on earth. And why
shouldn’t TVD be “great TV”? Is there a law that “great TV” has to
be….Idk, by HBO or oriented more toward men or something? I don’t
think TVD is great, but that’s because the plotting and dialogue and
character development have been shitty, not because it’s doomed to not
be “great TV” by its genre or its network. *eye roll*

I don’t get why the “entertaining” and “guilty
pleasure” argument gets bandied around. Because TVD is a certain genre
or geared toward a certain demo, it’s SUPPOSED to be shallow and
incoherent? UGH. Is that just a lack of self esteem on the part of the
fandom? I mean, I don’t think that just because a show is geared toward
my age group or gender or involves personal/domestic concerns (as
opposed to business ones) it should automatically be shallow and stupid.
I think it can be great. Arrgh.