Whatever the purpose of it, it feeds stereotypes and still affects the way disabled people are treated today.

Again it comes down to somebody else speaking for your experience. Using a disability as a metaphor to narrowly express some part of an ableist experience.

It's odd that as I consider the issues I realize the import of the word "exploitation." Because I'm very familiar with many subgenres of film which are so explicitly exploitative that they're called "exploitation films."

Which goes back to my earlier comment about each era being somewhat blindered by its own presumptions. To cite an example, you know more about the state of racial tension in the late sixties / early seventies by watching a classic blaxploitation movie like Superfly or Coffy than you will by watching a very middlebrow movie like Guess Who's Coming To Dinner.

Again it comes down to somebody else speaking for your experience. Using a disability as a metaphor to narrowly express some part of an ableist experience.

Which I have already said I am fine with people using disability as a metaphor, but if in doing that they also exploit negative stereotypes, it annoys me.

but if in doing that they also exploit negative stereotypes, it annoys me.

But you also said you disliked positive stereotypes, with the disabled treated as saints. Every stereotype is reductive, limiting. And, by that standard, false.

But you also said you disliked positive stereotypes, with the disabled treated as saints.

Actually, I view this as a negative stereotype as well. Human beings are all one thing or another, and neither are disabled people. If a disabled character is treated as a human with both good and bad qualities, I'm fine with it. But all one thing or another are both bad imho.

FWIW, sj, I'm not trying to pin you down or prove an argument. I just think the ethical standards for any creator are somewhat slippery. People have to draw directly on their limited, intense personal experience and somehow manifest it - make it physical, apprehensible. Every writer exploits his personal experience to create in ways which are often inimical to the ethics of intimacy (i.e., to express your truth you impinge on others privacy).

That may seem far from disability issues but I think it's at the core of the creative process. You do things creatively that you would never do in your life.

If a disabled character is treated as a human with both good and bad qualities, I'm fine with it. But all one thing or another are both bad imho.

This goes back to the classic (and I think still illuminating) feminist quote: "Feminism is the radical proposition that women are human beings."

But using a disabled character as a metaphor tends to diminish that complexity.

But using a disabled character as a metaphor tends to diminish that complexity.

I don't think it necessarily has to, and, honestly, anyone that is still creating characters of any kind that are all one thing or all another, are not being very creative, imho. I may not be making as much sense as I want to at 2 AM.

My issue is also that she was using it as a workaround for a restrictive record contract. So, kind of double the exploitation.

My issue is also that she was using it as a workaround for a restrictive record contract.

I don't get this issue so much. It doesn't sound like she was any less committed to the project. I've seen some contractual-obligation records that make Evelyn Evelyn look like the Sistine Chapel.

Seriously, I think that's a false issue. People have tried to get out of bad contracts by doing stuff like grunting into a microphone for twenty hours, or sticking RCA with Metal Machine Music.

For whatever its flaws, Evelyn Evelyn wasn't just crapped out without attention or care.

honestly, anyone that is still creating characters of any kind that are all one thing or all another, are not being very creative

Well, Charles Dickens and William Gibson are both very creative writers who've made do with very two-dimensional characters at times. Not every writer focuses on the psychological depth and plausibility of their characters.

I think largely, the issue was less the problematic aspects that surround any cultural touchpoint that was exploitative, such as freak shows, and more that she was a wanky tool when the possibility of it being problematic was (shockingly gently) presented to her by disabled feminist fans.