#on a personal note - I hated gendered stereotypes and tropes all my life and my discomfort has led to me questioning myself | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mimicofmodes · 3 years

Text

“The Ladies Waldegrave” by Joshua Reynolds, 1780 (NGS NG2171)

I’ve complained before about two very big pet peeves of mine - corset stuff and Regency women being dressed in 1770s-1780s clothes - but one that may dwarf them because of how frequently it comes up in historical and fantasy fiction is the oppression of embroidery.

That’s probably putting it a bit too strongly. It’s more like ... the annoyance of embroidery. Every character worth reading about knows instinctively that sewing is a) boring, b) difficult, c) mindless, and d) pointless. The author doesn’t have to say anything more than “Belinda threw down her needlework and looked out the window, sighing,” to signal that this is an independent woman whose values align with the modern reader, who’s probably not really understood by her mother or mother figure, and who probably will find an extraordinary man to “match” her rather than settling for someone ordinary. To look at an example from fantasy, GRRM uses embroidery in the very beginning of A Game of Thrones to show that the Stark sister who dislikes it is sympathetic and interesting, while the Stark sister who is competent at it is boring and conventional and obviously not deserving of a PoV (until later books, when her attention gets turned to higher matters); further into the book, of course, the pro-needlework sister proves to be weak-willed and naïve.

Rozsika Parker, in the groundbreaking 1996 work The Subversive Stitch, noted that “embroidery has become indelibly associated with stereotypes of femininity,” which is the core of the issue. "Instead embroidery and a stereotype of femininity have become collapsed into one another, characterised as mindless, decorative and delicate; like the icing on the cake, good to look at, adding taste and status, but devoid of significant content.”

Parker also points out that the stereotype isn’t just one that was invented in the present day by feminists who hated the idea of being forced to do a certain craft. “The association between women and embroidery, craft and femininity, has meant that writers concerned with the status of women have often turned their attention towards this tangled, puzzling relationship. Feminists who have scorned embroidery tend to blame it for whatever constraint on women's lives they are committed to combat. Thus, for example, eighteenth-century critical commentators held embroidery responsible for the ill health which was claimed as evidence of women's natural weakness and inferiority.”

There are two basic problems I have with the trope, beyond the issue of it being incredibly cliché:

First: needlework was not just busywork

A big part of what drives the stereotype is the impression that what women were embroidering was either a sampler:

sampler embroidered by Jane Wilson, 14, in 1791 (MMA 2010.47)

or a picture:

unfinished embroidery of David and Abigail, British, 1640s-50s (MMA 64.101.1325)

That is, something meant to hang on the wall for no real purpose.

These are forms of schoolwork, basically. Samplers were made by young girls up to their early teens, and needlework pictures were usually something done while at school or under a governess as a showpiece of what was being learned - not just the stitching itself, but also often watercolors (which could be worked into the design), artistic sensibility, and the literature, history, or art that might be alluded to. And many needlework pictures made in schools were also done as mourning pieces, sometimes blank, for future use, and sometimes to commemorate a recent death in the family. A lot of them are awkward, clearly just done to pass the class, but others are really artwork.

Many schools for middle- and upper-class girls taught the making of these objects (and other “ornamental” subjects) alongside a more rigorous curriculum - geography, Latin, chemistry, etc. At some, sewing was also always accompanied by serious reading and discussion. (And it would often be done while someone read aloud or made conversation later in life, too.)

Once done with their education, women generally didn’t bother with purely decorative work. Some things that fabric could be embroidered for included:

Jackets

Bed coverings and bedcurtains

Collars and undersleeves

Pelerines

Neck handkerchiefs and sleeve ruffles

Screens

Upholstery

Handkerchiefs

Purses, wallets, and reticules

Boxes

Book covers

Plus other articles of clothing like waistcoats, caps, slippers, gown hems, chemises, etc. Women’s magazines of the nineteenth century often gave patterns and alphabets for personal use.

(Not to mention late nineteenth century female artists who worked in embroidery, but that’s something else.)

You could purchase all of these pre-embroidered, but many, many women chose to do it themselves. There are a number of reasons why: maybe they wanted something to do, maybe they felt like they should be doing needlework for moral/gender reasons, maybe they couldn’t afford to buy anything - and maybe they enjoyed it or wanted to give something they made to a person they loved. That firescreen above was embroidered by Marie Antoinette, someone who had any number of other activities to choose from. It’s no different than people today who like to knit their own hats and gloves or bake their own bread, except that it was way more mainstream.

embroidery patterns from Ackermann’s Repository in 1827 - they could be used on dresses, collars, handkerchiefs, etc.

Second: needlework wasn’t the only “useless” thing women were expected to do

Ignoring the bulk of point one for now and the value of embroidery - I mentioned “ornamental subjects” above. As many people know, young women of the upper and middle classes were expected to be “accomplished” in order to be seen as marriageable. This could include skills like embroidery, drawing, painting, singing, playing the piano (as well as other instruments, like the harp or the mandolin), speaking French (if not also Italian and/or German), as well as broader knowledge and abilities like being well-versed in music, literature, and poetry, dancing and walking gracefully, writing good letters in an elegant hand, and being able to read out loud expressively and smoothly.

This wasn’t a checklist. As the famous discussion in Pride and Prejudice shows, individuals could have different views on what actually made a woman accomplished:

“How I long to see her again! I never met with anybody who delighted me so much. Such a countenance, such manners! And so extremely accomplished for her age! Her performance on the pianoforte is exquisite.”

“It is amazing to me,” said Bingley, “how young ladies can have patience to be so very accomplished as they all are.”

“All young ladies accomplished! My dear Charles, what do you mean?”

“Yes, all of them, I think. They all paint tables, cover screens, and net purses. I scarcely know anyone who cannot do all this, and I am sure I never heard a young lady spoken of for the first time, without being informed that she was very accomplished.”

“Your list of the common extent of accomplishments,” said Darcy, “has too much truth. The word is applied to many a woman who deserves it no otherwise than by netting a purse or covering a screen. But I am very far from agreeing with you in your estimation of ladies in general. I cannot boast of knowing more than half-a-dozen, in the whole range of my acquaintance, that are really accomplished.”

“Nor I, I am sure,” said Miss Bingley.

“Then,” observed Elizabeth, “you must comprehend a great deal in your idea of an accomplished woman.”

“Yes, I do comprehend a great deal in it.”

“Oh! certainly,” cried his faithful assistant, “no one can be really esteemed accomplished who does not greatly surpass what is usually met with. A woman must have a thorough knowledge of music, singing, drawing, dancing, and the modern languages, to deserve the word; and besides all this, she must possess a certain something in her air and manner of walking, the tone of her voice, her address and expressions, or the word will be but half-deserved.”

“All this she must possess,” added Darcy, “and to all this she must yet add something more substantial, in the improvement of her mind by extensive reading.”

Mr. Bingley feels that a woman is accomplished if she has the ability to do a number of different arts and crafts. Miss Bingley feels (or says she feels) that it goes beyond specific skills and into branches of artistic attainment, plus broader personal qualities that could be imparted by well-bred governesses or mothers. And Mr. Darcy, of course, agrees with that but adds an academic angle as well.

But what ties all of these accomplishments together is their lack of value on the labor market. A woman could earn a living with any one accomplishment, if she worked hard enough at it to become a professional, but young ladies weren’t supposed to be professional-level good because they by definition weren’t going to earn a living. All together, they trained a woman for the social and domestic role of a married woman of the upper middle or upper class, or, if she couldn’t get married, a governess or teacher who would share her accomplishments with the next generation.

(To be fair, almost none of the trappings of an upper-middle/upper class male education had anything to do with the kind of career training that college frequently is today, either. Men were educated to know the cultural touchpoints of their class and fit in with their peers.)

There are reasons that an individual person/character might specifically object to embroidery, but it was far from the only “useless” thing that an unconventional heroine would be required to do against her inclination by her conventional mother/grandmother/aunt/chaperone. Embroidery stands out to modern audiences because most of the other accomplishments are now valued as gender-neutral arts and skills.

“The Embroidery Frame”, by Mathilde Weil, ca. 1900 (LOC 98501309)

So, some thoughts for writers of historical fiction (or fantasy that’s supposed to be just like the 19th/18th/17th/etc century):

- If your heroine doesn’t like embroidery, she probably doesn’t like a number of other things she’s expected to do. Don’t pull out embroidery as either more expected or more onerous than them. Does she hate to sit still? I’d imagine she also dislikes drawing and practicing the piano. Would she prefer to do academic subjects? She probably also resents learning French instead of Latin, and music and dancing. Does she hate enforced femininity? Then she’d most likely have a problem with all of the accomplishments.

- If your heroine just and specifically doesn’t like embroidery, try to show in the narrative that that’s not because it’s objectively bad, and only able to be liked by the boring. Have another sympathetic character do it while talking to the heroine. Note that the hero carries a flame-stitched wallet that’s his sister’s work. Emphasize the heroine’s emotional connection to her deceased or absent mother through her affection for clothing or upholstery that her mother embroidered - or through a mourning picture commemorating her. There are all kinds of things you can do to show that it’s a personal preference rather than a stupid craft that doesn’t take talent and skill!

mourning picture for Daniel Goodman, probably embroidered by a Miss Goodman, 1803 (MMA 56.66)

#history #women's history #writing #embroidery #19th century #18th century #17th century #victorian #georgian #regency

1K notes · View notes

growingstronglikeahighgardenrose · 3 years

Text

Anti-blackness in 19th century England, why Queen Charlotte wasn’t black, and why it doesn’t matter in Bridgerton

I’d like to start by saying Bridgerton is a very amusing piece of absolute fiction. From the dresses to the music to the fanfic tropes it uses and the books it’s based on. It doesn’t even start to pretend it’s realistic. And being a piece of modern historical fantasy made by a woman born in this age, it is alright for the showrunners to give it a modern vibe. If you want, you can trace the lineage of every duke of Hastings there has ever been and know exactly who they were and what they looked like. Everyone knows there was never a black duke of Hastings, meaning there is no harm nor a deliberate attempt at “changing history” by the showrunners. They’re not pretending they’re portraying real events and real people of 1813. Therefore I accept that in this “alternative reality regency” it is fine for people of all ranks, including Queen Charlotte, to be black. I loved Golda Rosheuvel’s portrayal, I loved her looks, her acting and I tolerate her half-ishly accurate outdated wardrobe (for those interested in fashion history: look up “regency era court gowns”, old styles were worn but Charlotte would wear normal dresses day-to-day). I’m thrilled to watch her in the second season as well.

However, I will screech if I see people claiming Charlotte was black in real life. There were black people in Europe during all periods of history. They could be very influential and wealthy, and yes, they could even be nobility in some rare cases. There is a growing field of research tracing the steps of black people in Europe throughout time, revealing the often overlooked presence of black people. However, Queen Charlotte isn’t one of them. And I say this because claiming her to be black, would mean the British Monarchy, way ahead of its time, was accepting of black people. it would also mean the British people, who were more than a bit racist, generally accepted a (partially) black woman. Rather than Charlotte being black leading to her being described as black, I believe the confusion about her being black stems from people back in the day using racially ambiguous terms to make clear Charlotte looked ugly (because in a racist colonial world the best way to insult someone is by saying they look like a slave).

Being a historian, I do believe I have to give evidence for my claim. I’ll be using her ancestry, written descriptions and paintings. However, buckle up because you’ll be getting a lot of side information on other POC in art and literature. So if you’re interested in learning a bit about the relationship between the concepts of race and beauty in the 18th and 19th century, here we go. (note: if I use any offensive terms without direct citing someone, do let me know I will change them as soon as possible)

1. When did these rumours start

During the Regency Era, when the world was still a very colonial one, Queen Charlotte was described by some as having a big nose, full lips and an ambiguous complexion. However, her race was never debated, until academic discussions picked up around the 1940s.

2. Queen Charlotte’s family tree.

The Portuguese royal family definitely has Moorish blood in it. No one can contest that. Muslims and Europeans lived together on the Iberian Peninsula for 800 years. The question is whether that means that royals with a Portuguese ancestor can be called “people of colour”, and how far down the line people can still claim to be people of colour. Almost all royal households of Europe married into the Portuguese royal family at some point, yet of few royals it is said that because of that heritage, they are people of colour. That argument is only made for Queen Charlotte (imo that probably has a lot to do with the fact that the world is dominated by the Anglosaxon countries and that because of their worldwide tentacles and their language being the most universally spoken, the British Royal Family receives the most interest from everyone all over the world. Other royal families don’t get as much attention).

Note that I used the word people of colour, that is because the root of Charlotte’s supposed African heritage is not necessarily black. Let’s take a look at her family tree.

According to historian Mario de Valdes y Cocom — who dug into the queen’s lineage for a 1996 Frontline documentary on PBS — Queen Charlotte could trace her lineage back to black members of the Portuguese royal family. Charlotte was related to Margarita de Castro y Sousa, a 15th-century Portuguese noblewoman nine (!) generations removed.

Margarita de Castro e Souza herself descended from King Alfonso III of Portugal and his concubine, Madragana, a Moor that Alfonso III took as his lover after conquering the town of Faro in southern Portugal.

This would make Queen Charlotte a whopping 15 generations removed from her closest black ancestor — if Madragana was even black, which historians don’t know. That’s a lot of generations back. de Valdes y Cocom argues that, due to centuries-long inbreeding, he could trace six lines between Queen Charlotte and Sousa, which would mean Madragana’s genes were a bit more influential, but still 15 generations ago. That’s her grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grandmother.

So, let’s pretend it is true and her ancestor was black, let me be very rude. An ancestor that appears once in a person's genealogy, fifteen generations removed, represents a 215-th fraction of its descendant's ancestry. Queen Charlotte’s black ancestry would be less than 1%. In fact it'd be 0.007% (rounded up) of Charlotte's ancestry, and that's IF Madragana could be proved to be Moorish. And if Moorish was only used to describe a black person. However, the use of “blackamoor” “moorish” and “mozaraab” are not an alternative word for black. Indeed, there is no definitive skin colour attached to these descriptors.

It is generally accepted that Spanish Moors were the Muslim Amazigh (formerly known as Berber) inhabitants of the Maghreb, a stretch of land in north-Africa including parts of the Sahara, but not Egypt. During the Middle Ages, they occupied the Iberian Peninsula and other parts of southern Europe, before being finally driven out in the 15th century. The greatest period of unity was probably during the period of the kingdom of Numidia. Over the centuries, the word came to acquire a plethora of other meanings, some of them derogatory. Importantly, it cannot be ascribed a single ethnicity. Moors are not always black, this is false. They remaining people in Africa can be anywhere from Arab, to black people. But I’m not delving into north-african migration patterns and population changes. In Europe, the moors could thus be Arab, black and often mixed ethnicity, the natural result of coexisting and intermarrying with white Europeans for centuries.

http://acaciatreebooks.com/blog/royalty-race-and-the-curious-case-of-queen-charlotte/

3. Gender, Race and beauty standards

The world of the 19th century was riddled with Anti-blackness. Part of this continued from the medieval belief that white was good, and dark was bad (see white knight, fair lady, black knight, dark magic notions that still persist today). It also does not help that during the Regency Era, Greek and Roman antiquity were very trendy. Although the old roman empire was a culturally and ethnically diverse society, regency people focussed on fashion, hairstyles and looks from the classical art period of Greece. People aspired to look like the statues: elegant, slim and dainty and wanted “noble” features (straight slim nose, even face, cheekbones, etc). That’s why in the regency era people were complimented for having “alabaster skin” or a “Grecian profile” and so on. These medieval notions of fairness and the grecian beauty ideal, were juxtaposed against the medieval notions of darkness combined with deeply colonial conceptions of womanhood and race. In a world in which white people controlled other ethnicities, race soon became a weapon, a tool to be used against someone. Just like… gender. And yes, you’ll soon see how these two go hand in hand.

Throughout the nineteenth century the domestic world and the public sphere became more and more separate, with women being given less space to move and work. All women had to be dainty housewives: refined, sensitive and docile, clever but not too well read. Of course, this was an unattainable standard for most women. Only women in the top layer of society were able to lounge around and do nothing all day. Many had to work. Many things of what women were supposed to be: pale, soft hands, were direct signs that they didn’t have to do manual labour (out in the sun, using their hands). Women who could not fit in that small domestic sphere were increasingly (especially later on in the Victorian era) seen as unfeminine and unworthy of husbands. Coarse, manly, unfeminine, unrefined they were often called. Welcome to 19th century “masculinity so fragile”. Just imagining a woman working or reading made men felt threatened. They hated the idea women weren’t just lounging around waiting to please them and provide for them. https://www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/gender-roles-in-the-19th-century# https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/pit-brow-lasses-women-miners-victorian-britain-pants

Now look at this sketch of a female mine worker, one of many. Although the argument can be made she’s dark from the dirt, I want to point out that she’s also portrayed as scantily clad, wearing more manly clothes, being broader, wide of face and her hair appearing… quite curly.She’s the opposite of the beauty ideals, the opposite of what society wants a woman to be... and she’s suspiciously black-coded.

Pervasive and passive stereotypes of black people have come into existence since colonialism. Cruel caricatures of black people were omnipresent. Going as far as to ascribe them animal-like features with big mouths, big ears, sloping foreheads and so on. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2712263?seq=4#metadata_info_tab_contents

I could write a million essays on how race and sex have been weaponized in the past. When the “exploration travels” first started, and even much later in art, faraway lands were portrayed as sultry lazy or untamed women, waiting to be conquered and domesticated. Transforming countries into women was done to make them “controllable”. Portraying them as lazy and wild was a way Europeans to give themselves license to colonize them. Just like women at home, these foreign lands needed the guiding hand of cultured civilized men showing them how to do things and ruling them. So either men could control women which was perceived as good, or they couldn’t in which case the woman was looked down upon and hated. I don’t have an exact reference for this one, but it was a very interesting topic in my class on “Global History” at University. But for now this one carries a good part of the load.

https://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/jezebel/

It is then no surprise the female black body became a site of seduction there for the white male’s taking. They literally became their property as slaves, just like a man’s wife was considered his property. White men sexualized black people, particularly black women, a stereotype that perpetuates to this day and age. See the link above for that as well. Black women became temptresses.

White women, of course, didn’t like that. They wanted their men to be theirs. So these 19th century Karens started hating them as well. These wild temptresses were out to catch their men with their “foreign looks”. Meanwhile white men hated the idea of white women being seduced by black men. And this, combined with the resentment for working class women, gave way to a kind of language people used to describe each other. All stereotypes (medieval+ working class women looks+ black looks) were stacked atop each other: dark, tempting, coarse, black, plump, uncivilized, wild, broad-faced, thick of lip… Hair didn’t much come into play in the 18th century since most people of high society wore wigs (which in paintings can look like type 4 hair but cannot be used as an indicator of race) but afterwards “tight coils” was also added to the list of features that weren’t deemed desirable. This physical robustness not only lies in the idea that people who work are “hardened” but by describing them with strong robust adjectives, upper class white people once again fuel the idea that these people were physiologically designed for hard work, like slave labour or mine work instead of life as a wife. See also present day notions common even in doctors how black people and black women don’t feel pain as much. A devastating prejudice that leads to black death, black mothers dying, black people’s health complaints not being taken seriously and so on.

4. Black, racially ambiguous and “foreign” coding in physical descriptions

So we all know the memes of “Historians say they were friends” and so on. It’s a fun meme, but this carefulness in naming things stems from the fact that A) sources are made by people and people are subjective as fuck B) it is deemed a big faux pas for a historian to look at history through a 21st century lens. The rabbit hole that is historical epistemology boils down to the claim that a thing cannot exist before there is a word for it. You need to be careful that you don’t apply a term to an event, person or society wherein that term didn’t exist, or the meaning of the term was different. We shouldn’t draw conclusions about the past with present day notions. When a person anno 2020 is described as dark, we know they’re probably south-east Asian or black. However, we may not believe that a person being described as dark in the 17th century means this person is black. I shall explain.

Back in a time when black equalled inferior, people found no better way than to ascribe black attributes to people they disliked. It is hard to find out whether these people were actually darkskinned, since portraits were commissioned and painted to the desires of the clients (they could ask to be painted with white skin). We have no photographs of the time period to verify whether people did really look the way people described. With few people able to move around the country by carriage, as this was expensive, most people relied on letters, books and papers to give them accounts of events and people, so if one person claimed a person looked like X, others oftentimes had no choice but to believe the account, as they lived too far away to verify. Thus I shall focus on the world of literature, where there were no real people we can compare descriptions to, to prove that the good guys were portrayed as fair, and bad guys were portrayed as… racially ambiguous without them having to be black, or any other ethnicity.

Fairytales: Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. There’s literally no argument to be made at all. But just take a look at fairytales from the Brothers Grimm. Nine times out of ten, the evil stepsisters and stepmothers are described as dark and ungainly while the heroine is fair. If there are transformations, the evil people get transformed into gross animals like toads, while the heroine is transformed into a fawn, a bird or a swan. I’m being unnuanced here, there are definitely heroines with dark hair (see snow white, but she’s still snow white of skin) and the reasons for ugly-animal-transformations has to do with the character traits that have been ascribed to those animals. These stories circuled orally since the middle ages, and most trace their roots back to even before that time. Though the world was not yet a colonnial one, it is a sign that darker looks were already linked to bad people. These notions of darkness have been absorbed into the notions about black people during colonialism. People already lived with concepts of fairness for good people and darkness for bad people in their heads, it became easy to continue these concepts when faced with black people.

Jane Eyre: Jane is described as green eyed (a very rare colour, most prevalent in white people), fairy-like, skinny and pale. Although Brönte tells us she is ugly (she indeed doesn’t confirm to beauty ideals at the time) she appeals to Mr. Rochester and fits more into the stereotype of beauty than her romantic rival: Berta Mason Rochester. Bertha’s laugh is “hysterical” and “demonic”, she is dangerous and injures her own brother. “What it was, whether beast or human being, one could not, at first sight, tell: it grovelled, seemingly, on all fours; it snatched and growled like some strange wild animal: but it was covered with clothing, and a quantity of dark, grizzled hair, wild as a mane, hid its head and face.”

Dear reader, Mr. Rochester is described as being tempted into a marriage, to a wild foreign animal-like madwoman with dark grizzled hair and red eyes. Although there is no description of her skin colour (Bertha could very well be any ethnicity) there are clear parallels in the way she is described and the way POC were described. In the context of the 1840s readers would instantly attach this picture to their preconceptions about others with a similar look. Jane doesn’t even need to describe Bertha’s personality, the readers have already decided what she’s like because they understand that the author means dark looks= bad personality. Dark looks= foreign looks. Additionally: Blanche Ingram, Jane’s other rival was described as a fine beauty with a stereotypically beautiful body but had an olive complexion, dark hair and dark eyes. These were desirable traits in England at the time, but the darker beauty of Blanche comes with a bad personality and in the end, she too is rejected in favour of our pale heroine Jane.

Wuthering Heights: Heathcliff has long confused readers. It is most probable, in my opinion, given the context of the time, that Heathcliff was of roma origin as roma were strongly disliked in England at the time, and he fits best in the stereotypes associated with them. It’s also much more probable that an English gentleman would take in an orphaned European child than a black child, especially given he raised him as a son (british people weren’t that kind, they wouldn’t raise a black child as their son). However, the author, still clearly relies on a certain set of dark characteristics to describe him. “I had a peep at a dirty, ragged, black-haired child; big enough both to walk and talk: indeed, its face looked older than Catherine's; yet when it was set on its feet, it only stared round, and repeated over and over again some gibberish that nobody could understand.” “He seemed a sullen, patient child; hardened, perhaps, to ill-treatment: he would stand Hindley's blows without winking or shedding a tear, and my pinches moved him only to draw in a breath and open his eyes.” “You are younger [than Edgar], and yet, I'll be bound, you are taller and twice as broad across the shoulders; you could knock him down in a twinkling; don't you feel that you could?” “Do you mark those two lines between your eyes; and those thick brows, that, instead of rising arched, sink in the middle; and that couple of black fiends, so deeply buried, who never open their windows boldly, but lurk glinting under them, like devil's spies?” “he had by that time lost the benefit of his early education: continual hard work, begun soon and concluded late, had extinguished any curiosity he once possessed in pursuit of knowledge, and any love for books or learning. His childhood's sense of superiority, instilled into him by the favours of old Mr. Earnshaw, was faded away … Then personal appearance sympathised with mental deterioration: he acquired a slouching gait and ignoble look; his naturally reserved disposition was exaggerated into an almost idiotic excess of unsociable moroseness;” “His countenance was much older in expression and decision of feature than Mr. Linton's; it looked intelligent, and retained no marks of former degradation. A half-civilised ferocity lurked yet in the depressed brows and eyes full of black fire, but it was subdued; and his manner was even dignified: quite divested of roughness, though stern for grace.” “He is a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect, in dress and manners a gentleman”

Once again: black eyes, heavy brows, black hair. He is rough, can stand a lot of heavy burdens, seemingly indifferent to pain. He has something devilish and uncivilized about him, and is oftentimes believed dumb. Admittedly, this portrayal is more nuanced, he has a knack for studying and he does look like a gentleman. But the author is clear that it is only superficial and he is still mad within. It thus becomes very clear, already only from literature, that if you want someone to look bad, you make them look manly, workmanlike and ascribe to them black features.

For more examples of racial ambiguity, casual racism and explicit racism in English 19th century books: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/victorian-literature-and-culture/article/casual-racism-in-victorian-literature/1B4B3B0538F8B7C6B58E6D839DCFEC92.

This technique was adapted by EVERYONE. Wanted to make your enemy look bad? Then write a very uncharming picture of them attributing them with stereotypical black features. The most common remarks were: broad noses, big lips, frizzy hair, swarthy and/or dark complexians, coarse looking and unrefined. If you wanted to be really rude you could start comparing people to animals and call them wild and unhinged because “madness” was and is a very common insult. Had an issue with your wife in the 19th century? Lock her up for “hysteria” and “madness”. Got a political opponent in the 2016 presidential elections? Call her mad and hysterical. Got an opponent in the 2020 presidential elections? Challenge his mental capacities. Psychological issues and disorders have often been used to make people look bad and invalidate them. Basically everyone who isn’t reacting in a neurotypical and stereotypical male way (i.e. show no emotions and so on) was classified as “unreasonable”, thus taking away their voice. So many interesting articles and books on this.So we have an intersection between race, womanhood and mental health that are used to control and reject women.

https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/chm/outreach/trade_in_lunacy/research/womenandmadness/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/4286909?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://www.routledgehistoricalresources.com/feminism/sets/women-madness-and-spiritualism

https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Women-Myth-Experience-Psychology/dp/0415339286

TLDR: In literature bad characters were often described with physical attributes that were seen as ungainly. They were codified with animal-like, manly and mad. They also had black and dark attributes to signal to the reader that they were not the heroes of the story. Bonus: they often met a deathly or bad end. Writers did it, but so did real people when they wanted to accuse a rival (Karl Marx being one such asshole for example, http://hiaw.org/defcon6/works/1862/letters/62_07_30a.html ). This is why we can not always trust written accounts of contemporaries before the age of photography when a person is described with racially ambiguous looks.

5. Descriptions of Queen Charlotte:

Just like Beethoven, Queen Charlotte’s main claim to blackness boils down to one ancestor at least two centuries before her birth, combined with contemporary descriptions of a certain hair type, wide nose and bad complexion. Descriptions of Charlotte during her lifetime describe a plain and small woman, with a wide and long nose, and lips that were not the rosebud ideal. As the court became accustomed to her, however, more people started complimenting her brown hair, pretty eyes and good teeth. Much of the imagery that has fuelled claims of Charlotte’s possible African ancestry is from the first few years of her time in England. Royal brides have been ripped to pieces by tabloids, and the public also performs a horrible hazing-like ritual(see: Kate Middleton was mocked for being a party girl, lazy and from working class background. Meghan Markle was described as an opportunist husband-snatcher. Diana was a “chubby child”. The ladies also got plenty of critiques on their looks). Once the bride gets through years of being bullied, critiqued for every little part of her being, she then suddenly comes out on the other end after a few years, becoming a darling and an attribute to the royal family. Could it be that royal brides are always, especially in a gossip heavy environment like a court, under deep scrutiny? This foreign princess hobbled off a boat, seasick, unknown by the English… And she didn’t speak a word of the language! Why would the English love her? I am not saying the accounts lie but I am saying beware of the person making the comments. Are they close to the monarch and his wife? Do they like Queen Charlotte? When where these comments made and why? And why did they choose precisely these words that had by now become commonplace to use as descriptors for unpleasant people? If we know people used racially ambiguous terms to describe people they disliked, it isn’t such a stretch to imagine they might insult a new queen with such terms.

Let’s look at what was actually said about her.

Horace Walpole: “The date of my promise is now arrived, and I fulfill it — fulfill it with great satisfaction, for the Queen is come. In half an hour, one heard of nothing but proclamations of her beauty: everybody was content, everybody pleased.”

Baron Christian Friedrich Stockmar, the royal physician to her grandaughter: “small and crooked, with a true Mulatto face.”

Sir Walter Scott: “ill-colored.”

Colonel Disbrowe (her chamberlain): “I do think that the bloom of her ugliness is going off.”

Queen Charlotte herself in a diary: “The English people did not like me much, because I was not pretty; but the King was fond of driving a phaeton in those days, and once he overturned me in a turnip-field, and that fall broke my nose. I think I was not quite so ugly after dat [sic].”

What we can conclude from these remarks that Charlotte was not very pretty, she even admits to that herself. But what are her actual physical attributes? She has light brown hair (I didn’t include a description of this, but it was generally reported), she had pale eyes (as can be seen in all paintings), was small, and had good teeth.

Above I gave two accounts that reported on her skin tone. Ill-colored could be anything like bad skin, rosacea or perhaps tanned (which also wasn’t deemed becoming for ladies). There was only one person, Baron Christian himself, calling her face what he did. As mentioned above, there can be multiple reasons why anyone would ascribe her those features, she did not have to be a “mulatto” to be described as one.

Most importantly, in a society with slavery, in which black people were looked down upon, I’d say the absence of more people calling her things like: dark, swarthy, black, mixed, brown and any and all things associated with black looks, is more telling than a few accounts mildly referring to her colour.

If Charlotte were truly the first black queen, the first black person in such a powerful position, and one of the few black people in England (less than 30 000 at the time), would there not be more talk? More descriptions of her look? She was seen every day by many people. People would be shocked, enraged, surprised, fascinated and so on. In an era when many people kept diaries in which they wrote down all they witnessed, many people would have given descriptions of her black/brown skin colour. In an era with cartoons and press… Her being noticeably black would have been a very big thing and we would have seen journalists and cartoonists draw her as dark. Cartoonists and diary writers mostly write or draw their honest thoughts. They weren’t censured.

6. Paintings of Queen Charlotte:

Queen Charlotte’s most striking likenesses, or so it is believed, were painted by Allan Ramsay, a prominent artist and staunch abolitionist. In 1761, Allan Ramsay (1713-1784) was appointed Principal Painter in Ordinary to the King (1761-84). As well as being Principal Painter, his portraits have been singled out by many as depicting Queen Charlotte with distinctly African features. It’s believed this was his way of displaying his abolitionist tendencies. He was an abolitionist, that much is true, and he was also friends with the legal guardian of the very famous black Dido. However why would the royal couple approve blatant African features, knowing those would not be well liked in an English queen? They would not have allowed these images. Clearly, they saw in these images only a likeness to Charlotte, and yes, that could mean she had fuller lips and a wider nose. Anyone can have those features. Personally, I find that a slightly larger nose and larger lips in some paintings are not sufficient proof to call her black. But let’s run over some of the paintings.

Most paintings portray her as a typical light-skinned royal with nothing bad about her complexion.

In these pictures she does not look black in the slightest, indeed I’d say her eyes and eyebrows look very light even, nor do her nose and lips, so often critiqued, look big, as was claimed.

Here we can see her nose looks a bit wider, and her lips a bit bigger. But is that really a convincing argument? Although certain features are more common to a certain race, they are not monopolized by one. Black people can have light hair and light eyes. It is unlikely, but it is possible. It’s just as possible for white women to have bigger lips, a wider nose, a rounder face and even… though rarely, there are white people who have no black relative they know of, white 4a hair. I’ve met a few of them. What I also want to note is that Queen Charlotte’s natural hair could have been crimped and combed until it stood upright and was stiff with powder, as was the fashion back then. It would give her hair a more frizzy look. In the picture underneath it, you can see her hair in fashionable artificially made curls that wouldn’t work on natural type 3 or 4 hair.

However as I said before, I’m not fond of using paintings as proof since they were made-by-demand. Painters would starve if they painted their patrons unflatteringly. There are black people, indeed, even black nobles, ex-slaves, diplomatic ambassadors who had themselves painted with a dark skin colour since the Middle Ages. You can even see the distinction between people of darker-skinned sub-Saharans and North African descent in these pictures. And painters certainly knew how to paint black people for centuries (see: "The Image of the Black in Western Art" by Harvard University Press and “Revealing the African presence in Renaissance Europe”). One such example a noble who did have black heritage was Alessandro de Medici who was nicknamed “the Moor”. Moors referred to black Islamic people. His mother was Simonetta da Collevecchio, a servant of African descent. In this case the argument that many Italians are dark of complexion and have dark hair cannot be used to explain his appearance. If other Italians thought he looked like them, they wouldn’t have paid such attention to his looks because they would have deemed it normal. I’m using 3 paintings of him by 3 different artists. The first picture really is ambiguous, it is only by combining all three that we can say that yes, his looks do fit the bill. If we only had the first picture, would we really be confident to claim him? This goes to show that you can’t say someone has a certain ethnicity based on one painting.

This person was comfortable in his own skin but there were probably just as much, if not many more nobles and wealthy families with mixed blood that had themselves painted white when they were not. Who would disagree? Who would even know? Nine chances out of ten barely anyone who wasn’t from the direct neighbourhood didn’t know what they looked like, and never would. Once the POC died, all that would remain would be a very white looking painting, and no one would know the bloodline had become mixed.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/29/tudor-english-black-not-slave-in-sight-miranda-kaufmann-history

What is, then, a reliable source? An answer, for famous people, is cartoons. Just like we now attach more credibility to a paparazzi picture of Khloe Kardashian than to one of her heavily photoshopped pictures on Instagram, you can trust cartoonists to not try and make people look good. Note: cartoons are always over-exaggerations. Any physical attribute will be enlarged beyond belief for comedic purposes. King George and his wife were often pictured in cartoons. If there was anything very noticeably foreign about Charlotte’s looks, they would portray it. However, what we find is that these cartoons never portray Charlotte as darker than the other people. She wasn’t shown as being black.

Conclusion:

Queen Charlotte cannot be called black on the basis of her portraits, cartoons or bloodline. If ever there was a trace of black blood in her veins, it was so light it had become undetectable and could not have influenced her appearance. Just ask yourself this question: would you call yourself a certain ethnicity, or claim certain roots, based on one ancestor 200 years in your past? If no, then you also shouldn’t say that Charlotte had black roots or was mixed.

The case of Queen Charlotte does, however, reveal the deeply racist British society of the Georgian Era, which deemed all black physical features ugly, and deliberately used all physical traits associated to the black race as an insult. Keep this in mind, as well as rampant anti-Semitism and hatred for Roma people, every time you read a novel from the time period, or read a tasteless description of a real person from the era. People were cruelly treated based on their heritage, and even if their heritage was purely white, they could be ascribed certain racial features, just because people were racist pricks.

While that’s the unfortunate reality of the time period, I do believe we are allowed to enjoy an alternate reality as an escape, where just for once, race isn’t an issue. So continue on, Bridgerton!

Meanwhile, I’ll be here keeping my fingers crossed for the stories of real black people living in Europe, or black kings and queens in Africa, to be told in a movie or series. The entire world has always existed, it makes no sense for all period movies to keep being focussed on white people in England, Rome and the US.

#bridgerton #Queen Charlotte #Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz #british monarchy #racism in history

119 notes · View notes

its-chelisey-stuff · 3 years

Text

My 2020 in dramaland pt 2/4

Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it and happy holidays to everyone!! These are my favorite korean dramas of the year (I stand by these titles and I’m not ashamed of them lol). In chronological order:

My Holo Love: Say what? Who? First of all, I think this is a seriously underrated kdrama. I made a review on it here. Female lead had face blindness and Male Lead was a genius programmer. I know how this sounds but it all works for the plot, actually. Loved every moment of it (I watched it twice, and I rarely do that with dramas). A sort of sci-fi/fantasy romcom drama with a really unusual (and thus my favorite, EVER) love triangle and a nostalgic feel to it. While looking at my list of kdramas I knew I couldn’t treat Holo like all the others LOL it was special for me and still is.

OTP: They had sizzling chemistry! I honestly bought every cliche because of it. Including love at first sight.

Thing I enjoyed the most: The story was simple and had a lot of cliches but they kinda worked to the story’s advantage. This show is an example of why I fell for kdramas almost 10 years ago. Plus, the CGI wasn’t bad. It’s ony 12 eps and they don’t really last an hour. A one day watch.

Do I recommend it? I LOVED it, but I recognize it’s not for everyone, but if you’re looking for something fun, cute and light to binge-watch that still has some drama and a lot of romance and a happy ending, this is for you.

Find me in Your Memory: Beautiful. Awesome chemistry. Very romantic. She’s an actress, he’s an anchorman. She forgets a lot of things, he literally can remember most things REALLY WELL. She falls for him first, he tries to put distance because of his terrible past in his dating life lol but she wins him over and by the end, he loves her more than anything and anyone. They overcome a lot of crazy shit, and being together it’s hard, but it’s worse being apart. I made a review.

OTP: Loved them both individually and together. And honestly, THAT chemistry was perfect.

Thing I enjoyed the most: The chemistry and the acting by the leads. I became a fan of both because of this.

Do I recommend it? You really haven’t seen it? Please do it. Hahahaha Well, do it if you want to see a good melo knowing what that involves (romance, sadness, lots of tears, some frustration, etc). A really sweet and happy ending that was very well deserved. My favorite melo of the year Sorry Brahms!.Also, fair warning, it has a stalkers’ sub-plot.

The King: Eternal Monarch: You all know what this is about. And I said everything I wanted in my posts (I was mostly fangirling like crazy). Here’s my last one about it. I loved the acting and the story a lot. But I think the drama should have been longer. Also, I loved the energy of the actors behind the scenes, idk why, but it always warms my heart to see the actors get along on set. Sure, it could be a publicity stunt, but I just don’t think it was the case with this one. And I know not a lot of people liked the two lead characters and said they had no chemistry but imo they were great characters and the actors had LOTS of chemistry. It’s just that it wasn’t very well translated in the first eps, but it was fixed. This, I believe, was a more of a direction problem, rather than a script or acting one.

BTW if the drama was already about time travel and parallel worlds, I had NO problem believing in destiny and that the leads were meant to be. It was fantasy, you guys, not rocket science.

OTP: the main couple loved each other passionately and fiercely. He waited 20+ years to meet her and another 20+ years (practically) to see her again AND she was willing to risk getting stuck in a timeless void just to be by his side because otherwise he would be all alone. Now, that’s love! Personally, I loved their ending.

Thing I enjoyed the most: The King ahahaha I’m a shameless fan, what can I do? He was a good man and a gentleman but a ruthless king thirsty for justice and vengeance. I cheered when he killed his uncle lmao. Also, all the mutuals I “met” thanks to this drama. You guys made the experience even better with your posts and your theories!! *sends hugs*

Do I recommend it? Look the story is great in my eyes. I did understand it and the mechanics of the time travel and the parallel worlds. The King explained everything quite a few times. I say this because most people that didn’t like it say they couldn’t understand the story and/or it made no sense. To me, it did. But I can see why this wouldn’t be for all. That being said, I shamelessly recommend it lol.

More than Friends: The faces they’re doing in the poster, are the ones I did while watching the last 4 eps of this drama HAHAHA which made me real sad/angry because I LOVED the story from ep 1 to 12. So, this is on the list MERELY BECAUSE OF LEE SOO, the male lead, played by Ong SeongWu. I went crazy and wrote about almost every scene on the drama lol I was obsessed. You can read my review about the whole thing here.

OTP: Wonderful chemistry. The best either of the actors have had so far with any of their co-stars. Then again, SeongWu has only been in 2 dramas and 1 movie. And Shin YeEun hasn’t been in a lot but had really good chemistry with Park JinYoung in He’s Pyschometric. (btw that drama is superior, I highly recommend it!)

Thing I enjoyed the most: The magnificent character development that Lee Soo went through. He was a completely different person in ep 16 compared to the selfish jerk in eps 1-4 (SeongWu’s acting in this convinced me he is one of the best actors of his age, and one of the best idols turned actors at the moment). And I loved discussing this drama with the only other 10 people who were watching it hahaha Thanks y’all.

Do I recommend it? They advertised it as a romcom, but it really isn’t. It’s more of a slice of life/melo drama. I believe this is better as a binge-watch, but do not expect mindblowing plot, since it’s a character driven drama. So, do check out my review about it and have a go at it, I guess hahaha If not, you could see my posts about the show here and still know everything, because I pretty much covered the entire drama HAHAHA.

Note: I kinda think this drama is sort of a “500 days of Summer” situation, people either sympathize with ML or FL and hate the other. Or both HAHAHA It’s all about perspective, I guess.

Tale of the Nine Tailed: Everything you could ask for in a fantasy drama. For me, it was perfect and it made me cry like a baby. I made a review on the finale. I actually liked that he got his powers back at the end. Also, the main couple was the most functional couple I saw this year in kdramas. Which is crazy if you take into acount that he wasn’t human and both had a lot of pain and traumas from their pasts. Which shows that communication and trust is key to every relationship.

OTP: THEY LOVED EACH OTHER SO MUCH! AND WERE BOTH HOT. SO HOT FOR EACH OTHER. I kinda ship the actors now lol

Thing I enjoyed the most: Jiah, Yeon and Rang. The romance and the relationship between Rang and Yeon, which is what actually made me cry in the end. But we all knew it was coming.

Do I recommend it? Hell Yeah. Might not be for everyone, but if you like fantasy and romance, one heavily connected with the other, and the reincarnated lovers trope which I adore! then this is your drama.

Honorable Mentions:

You know, they almost made it. But something held me back. Still, it didn’t feel right to put them with the other dramas. So they got an honorable mention with my favorite ones.

Itaewon Class: This was, in general, a tragedy. But I loved it. Ooops. Dude was only stopping a classmate from bullying another and got his whole life ruined: got expelled, his dad was killed, he went to jail and had to start from the bottom and reached the top all thanks to one special and unique young girl. My eyes were full of tears when he finally got his happiness at the end and justice for his dad. Plus, it deals with a few topics that are still taboo in Korea. And the whole world tbh

OTP: SLOW BURN. Super slow lol For a moment there, I thought they weren’t going to be endgame, but they were and I WAS THE HAPPIEST.

Thing I enjoyed the most: Park Saeroyi and Yiseo. And the acting from the whole cast, actually. They did a really good job.

Do I recommend it? Yes. My brother hadn’t seen a kdrama in years and he saw this one. He enjoyed it greatly. I don’t know why I say this as if my brother were some kind of point of reference or expert in kdramas, but y’all need to trust me when I say this is impressive hahaha.

Into the Ring: This woman only wanted a job that could give her stability and a good pay check because her family was in huge debt. She ended up becoming a district representative that learned the real hard way a good person cannot live peacefully among politicians. She got the hell out of there in the end, thank God. Sera was a great heroine that really deserves to be called that. Loved her so much.

OTP: A super cute one that defied gender stereotypes in a delightful way. He was HER secretary at one point!

Thing I enjoyed the most: Listen, everything. It was really well done. I binged it in 2 weekends. I regret not doing a final review about it, but I just couldn’t find the time and if I do one now, it’s not gonna make the drama justice because I’m sure I’ll miss details. I did make 2 big posts about the sismance and romance.

Do I recommend it? YEP. Go see it now lol

Do you like Brahms?: Most people complained about the leads being way too depressed and miserable in the last third of the drama. I didn’t mind that, because you see, it’s what you’d expect from a melodrama lol What did leave this drama out of my favorites is the reason why they were so miserable in the first place and the 2 never actually had a long and meaningful conversation about their problems as individuals and about their relationship and it was SO needed. It was literally their thing at the start of the drama: the way they could be open with each other and communicate so damn well. But that was nowhere to be seen in the end. Still, they had a happy ending and after all that suffering, I appreciated that. I made posts about each ep. Here is the post about the last one.

OTP: Two introverts that kissed on a music room for the first time AND made out on a piano. ON THE PIANO, Y’ALL!! *fans self*

Thing I enjoyed the most: The leads. The only TWO decent people (and friends), everyone else was an awful person. Oh, and the team leader. Such a great lady!

Do I recommend it? OMG Yes? It’s hard to say it but I try to judge the drama overall and how in love I was for the most part rather than how much it frustrated me in the last few eps. If you want to watch a melo with classical music that instead of healing makes you sadder, a love hexagon that makes you want to kill secondary characters and an OTP that gets their HEA despite all that, this is your drama.

Live On: This is a last minute addition, but given the fact that it will air the last ep on the first week of 2021, it kinda technically counts as this year’s. And I do love it. A mini drama about high schoolers. Here’s my post about the first ep and about the most recent one (with spoilers) It’s just a really well done, romantic, cute and fun with touch of mystery, coming of age story.

OTP: The most popular girl in high school and the smart president of the broadcasting club. Started as strangers, then went on to disliking each other, became friends and then liked each other. Also, ML is quite straightforward and flirtily honest lol

Thing I enjoyed the most: How short it is and the pace of the story. The main couple and the way the mystery was written, not a lot so it’d make the whole drama just about that, but enough to make an interesting backstory that sets FL on her journey and in the process, brings the six main characters together.TW: the whole mystery revolves around bullying.

Do I recommend it? If you like high school romances, YES. It’s only 8 eps long! You can binge it on a saturday or a sunday and I assure you it won’t be a waste of time. Kinda wish I could erase it all from my mind so that I could experience the whole story right away. I envy those who can binge it.

#kdrama #the king: eternal monarch #my holo love #find me in your memory #more than friends #tale of the nine tailed #kdrama review #itaewon class #do you like brahms?#into the ring #live on #tkem #fmiym #end of the year drama review

66 notes · View notes

writing-with-olive · 4 years

Text

A few tropes to avoid: LGBT addition

Note that this is not a complete list, but rather some tropes that I tend to see a lot that are tiring if not downright offensive and hurtful. This turned out to be a very long post, so most of it ended up below the cut. Press J to skip.

Gay/Lesbian

[id: two flags. The one on the top is the lesbian pride flag. The one on the bottom is the gay pride flag /end id]

Anything hypersexualizing

It’s just... not good representation. No one likes to be hypersexualized. Ever.

The one gay/lesbian in the heterosexual friend group

This tends to come across as tokenism. Not real representation. Also, people tend to be friends with people they connect with. This is why a lot of LGBT people form groups. It’s actually far more likely in the real world for there to be a gay friend group with one straight person.

The homosexual dies first

Yay there’s a gay/lesbian person! Representation! oh... they died five minutes in? That sucks.

Look, if there’s a lot of death happening in your story, it’s fine if a gay person dies, but please stop making the first death a gay person. And if you decide to kill of a gay person, make sure it’s not the only one.

The gay that refuses to admit he’s gay but he’s super feminine so he has to be

Femininity does not equal being gay. I’m not entirely sure where this trope (and general misconception) came from, but it’s tiring to see it getting beaten into the ground

Femininity is fine as a trait, but it should not be the tell that a character’s gay. Finding other dudes attractive or being attracted to other dudes should be the main tell.

(Bi/pan, Trans, Nonbinary, Genderflux/genderfluid, Ace/aro all below the cut)

Bi/Pan

[id: two pride flags. The one on the top is the pansexual pride flag. The one on the bottom is the bisexual pride flag /end id]

Anything hypersexualizing

See above. I’m tired of it. It’s not good representation.

The bi/pan character is a cheater

Bi/pan people aren’t any more likely to cheat than anyone else. The fact that the general pool of people bi/pan people are attracted to is larger doesn’t really change that. Please don’t make your bi/pan character a cheater.

The “no this character is with a [guy/girl] now so that means they’re [straight/gay] not bi”

This is bi erasure. Bi/pan people are still bi/pan when they’re dating a dude. Bi/pan people are still bi/pan when they’re dating a girl. Bi/pan people are still bi/pan when they’re dating a nonbinary person. Period.

The “this character can’t be bi/pan - they’ve only slept with one gender/they’re a virgin”

Being bi/pan is about being attracted to people of two or more genders/being attracted to people regardless of gender. It doesn’t matter who they’ve slept with. If they’re bi/pan, they find more than one gender attractive.

Trans

[id: the trans pride flag /end id]

“Hi I’m John, but I used to be Jane.”

In no world is this realistic. Trans people are not going to introduce themselves to anyone by using their deadname (their name given at birth that no longer applies to them). There are lots of other ways to show a character is trans.

Trans dudes have to be hypermasculine, and trans girls have to be hyperfeminine

This is just untrue... being a more affeminate trans dude doesn’t make him any less of a man. Being a more masculine trans woman doesn’t mean she’s any less of a woman. Not conforming to the most stereotyped version of their gender does not mean they’re not a valid person

“He - she - did the thing” when referring to a trans woman and vice versa for a trans man in prose.

I specify in prose because if someone has just come out, and characters are tripping up over pronouns but trying to learn and correct themselves, then that’s usually fine (though make sure to research what’s acceptable around this and what isn’t).

The whole calling attention to someone’s pronouns by misgendering someone and then flamboyantly correcting yourself when they’re trans thing can actually be kind of transphobic. When you’re writing prose, you don’t have any excuse so don’t do this.

The trans guy finding a bunch of ace bandages (or something similar) and using them to bind his chest

Yes, this is realistic. Yes, a lot of people do this, but it is an extremely unsafe way to bind. If your character binds, do your research. If they bind unsafely then SHOW THE NEGATIVE RESULTS of binding unsafely (difficulty breathing, cracked ribs, spinal problems, etc) they can be pretty severe. A lot of people don’t know how to bind and take cues from what they see in the media. Don’t perpetuate false information.

Nonbinary

[id: the nonbinary pride flag. /end id]

The nonbinary character has to be flatchested and vaguely masculine in order to be nonbinary

Nonbinary people are still nonbinary when they’re feminine. Nonbinary people are still nonbinary when they’re masculine. Please reflect this in your stories, as people take cues for how society works based off of the cumulation of the media they recieve.

Misgendering during an argument

This is actually really damaging to nonbinary people. What happens is that people see that it’s okay to misgender someone if they’re mad, when in reality, pronouns are a right, not a privilage to be stripped away whenever you get mad. If you were really mad at your country’s leader, you wouldn’t misgender them when you rant. You can hate them with all of your being and you probably still wouldn’t misgender them. Why is it any different with nonbinary people?

All the nonbinary people were AFAB (assigned female at birth)

It’s not inherantly wrong to have AFAB nonbinary folk in your story, but it is nice to see AMAB (assigned male at birth) nonbinary characters as well. There’s a lot less representation for them, so the more representation the better.

Being nonbinary is a phase - you’re actually binary trans or cisgender

Some people identify as nonbinary and do later find out that they identify more with a binary gender, but there’s also a lot of people who are just... nonbinary. It’s hugely dissapointing when a character that’s meant to be representation turns out to actually not be. Especially if they were the only nonbinary character.

Genderfluid/Genderflux

[id: two flags. the one on the top the genderfluid pride flag, and the one on the bottom is the genderflux pride flag /end id]

The one character in the background who’s genderfluid/genderflux in chapter three and then never seen ever again

Just include a genderfluid/genderflux character that’s actually relevant. It’s not that hard, and it’s really not that confusing. Their gender changes sometimes. They might switch their pronouns accordingly.

The genderfluid character who’s short, vaguely masculine and has brightly died hair.

This one isn’t exactly offensive, per se, but it does feel like this is the only representation of a genderfluid character that I ever see, and that my friends ever see. Diversity is more than just having people who use different labels. It’s also about showing the different walks of life within those groups. There are a lot of genderfluid/flux people who don’t look like the stereotypical genderfluid/flux person, and they deserve representation just as much as everyone else.

The genderfluid character is the alien

This is a cop-out. It’s fine if you’ve got a race of genderfluid/flux aliens. Awesome, actually! Just add a genderfluid/genderflux human character too.

The genderfluid person who wakes up in the morning and “decides” if they’re going to be a boy or a girl today.

There are a couple things wrong with this. The first is that genderfluid people don’t just “decide” which gender they are. Their gender is more of it’s own entity. There’s not much of a choice with it. It just is.

From my own experience I can assure you that genderfluid people don’t just wake up in the morning with a random gender and then that’s their gender for the day. For me personally, my gender will change somewhere between once every three hours and once every three days, but it’s surprisingly rare that it’s overnight. It can even happen in the middle of conversations and stuff like that.

Genderfluid people don’t just switch between being a boy and being a girl. There’s a lot of space in between: nonbinary, maverique, agender, just to name a few.

Ace/Aro

[id: two pride flags. The one on top is an aromatic pride flag, and the bottom is an asexual pride flag. /end id]

The character’s horrible backstory turned them ace/aro

This is not to negate the fact that some people do identify as ace/aro after a traumatic event. That being said, most ace/aro people are just...ace or aro. There wasn’t any backstory. That’s just the way they are. Seeing that a lot more represented would be awesome.

The character’s got a mental illness because they’re ace/aro

Being ace/aro does not mean you have a mental illness. The idea that it does being spread through the media people consume is very harmful and it increases the stigma around being ace/aro, in a place where there really shouldn’t be. Yes you can have a mental illness and be ace/aro, but they’re not usually correlated.

The ace character can’t be ace because look they’ve got a partner!

Ace is short for asexual meaning you don’t feel any sexual attraction. That does not mean you can’t feel any romantic attraction. Therefore, your character can be hella ace and still have a partner that they’re romantically attracted to

If your character was aroace (a term that’s short for aromantic asexual), then they probably wouldn’t be interested in having a partner.

The character who’s aro/ace but then “finds the right person” right at the end

If they’re demisexual/demiromantic, then that’s different, but it does make it feel like the “flaw they were overcoming” was being ace/aro, and that’s both damaging to the community, and it’s also just dissapointing. There are a whole host of other flaws that your character could have that are much more worth the reader’s time.

215 notes · View notes

darklightsworld · 3 years

Note

Hello, I remember you saying some time ago you didn't like how female characters are portrayed in (current) anime because of how annoying and, maybe, misogynistic their archetypes are. Could you maybe elaborate on this point? I feel similar but can't articulate well and always end up feeling like I'm the one being misogynistic whenever this type of subject comes up in conversation x.x Sorry if this comes up as too personal.

Sorry about the late reply, I have been busy with a conference. Also sorry, because my answer is a bit long and all over the place ^^;

This is a difficult question, especially because nowadays people like to think in black and white, and everything is so extreme, like if they don’t like something, then it must be wrong and eliminated, not to mention the policing of every content based to this – which kills diversity and dismisses personal (and gendered) preferences. What I think is really a personal preference and not exactly a general critique of female characters in anime, especially because there are many factors to consider (genre, age and gender or the target audience, cultural background, etc.), and there’s also the audience with its multiple readings.

Personally I dislike most female character types manga and anime has to give, because I’m not really a person for overly feminine and girly things. The Japanese ideal is very cutesy and it’s the standard in both media for men, women and also real life. Not just looks, there is also the behavior side of things, the cutesy, childish, girly ideal, the passivity, helplessness, pretending to be stupid, etc, and I outright hate it when female characters are treated as stupid, clumsy messes. The question is, though, is this ideal really conservative and an embodiment of the toxic patriarchal system? Actually not necessarily. They definitely originate from the oppressive system, but over the decades girls made these ideals their own, and turned them into a weapon to get what they want. Even in real life, fashion is very feminine for me, always with frills, ribbons, flitters, tons of dresses and skirts, and it’s difficult to find plain clothes without any decoration, not to mention all the cuteness in goods and stuff, but as for the behavior of girls and women, the cutesy ideal seems more like a role to be played at a certain age or for certain purposes, like getting things they want and eventually the man. A woman, who didn’t like this ideal herself defined it as “they had to play the wounded deer”. Actually women, who use this role too much and even among women, are usually hated – this is the infamous burikko.

But no matter how they were in their younger years, married women don’t use this role anymore, and they seamlessly slip into a different identity, one that rules the family and the finances with iron fist (I’m stereotyping) – nothing cutesy, helpless or stupid about that. The Japanese themselves are aware of this cutesy role, both men and women, it’s their version of cunning flirtatiousness, it’s just a very different type of flirtatiousness than in the West. For example, there is currently even a tv show enacting certain situations where this cutesy behavior is used to get the man, and the hosts rate how effective the cutesy behavior was. But while I understand intellectually that these are not necessarily misogynistic stereotypes, I have some kind of a visceral hatred for them. The above tv show makes me outright nauseous. It’s a personal preference, and I don’t think I have to like these character types. But I also don’t think they should be erased from Japanese media, and it would be a mistake trying to push my very independent Western values onto such a different culture, so I rather avoid these characters – which is not easy.

So, what does this mean for anime and manga? Both are largely determined by genres (manga more than anime), genres work with clean-cut character types, tropes, traditions and reader expectation, so there is a reason why female (and male) characters are the way they are in different genres. Male-oriented works will obviously have female characters that appeal to men even if the work doesn’t have in your face fanservice shots (though let’s face it, if it’s anime, most of them do). I don’t like these female character types, I don’t think I have to like them, they are clearly not geared toward me, but I also don’t think they shouldn’t be there in a clearly male-oriented media. Sure, there can be discussions about removing overly exploitive situations, harassment and rape or things like that, but I’m not really against letting men have their fun – because I expect to have that same freedom in media geared toward women. There are occasionally unisex anime, but usually they still serve one or the other demographic in a way, and I don’t think it’s possible to create truly unisex anime that everybody will be satisfied with – fanservice for women will always bother men, and fanservice for men will always bother women.

Shōjo manga is a more difficult question, because somewhere in the 70s romance started to focus on imperfect heroines who still got the best guy, because he loved them regardless of their imperfections (“I love you the way you are”), and since then the genre is full of the stupid, clumsy, indecisive, housewife material archetype without any dreams beyond getting the boy (or very old-school women job dreams), which does not appeal to me either, so I usually avoid most romance shōjo manga, especially the high school variant, and even most josei manga, because I don’t care for the adult version of the same with marriage as the end goal *shrug* Actually it’s not even about these things only, like, I disliked Arte too (though not shōjo manga), despite it trying (and failing) to pose as a feminist social commentary, just because the mc way annoying. Fortunately there are a lot of other types of shōjo manga as well, even with more appealing female characters or the best, without female characters (plus the whole BL scene), so it’s not all that bad, at least in manga, not so much in anime. Interestingly, I’m much more compatible with shōjo manga by fujoshi artists. If I like a shōjo manga, usually the artist ends up coming out as a fujoshi after a while by posting BL fanart on her twitter or drawing outright BL manga – it’s been a pattern XD

Anime is more difficult, but I also admit, that my tastes might be extreme. In Japan there are many female fans who love the cute female characters of male-oriented media. Many women like Love Live, for example, because the girls are, I quote, “so cuuuuuute” – while I am fighting nausea… Yeah, Japan is imbued with cute. It’s especially difficult, because I’m usually not willing to watch a series even if there are such female characters in supporting roles or as a second protagonist with male characters I would love to see (Cop Craft was a recent-ish example). And while I avoid female only casts on principle, sometimes there are surprises. For example, the Yashahime anime has terrible writing, but I don’t hate the three main female characters (even if occasionally the anime has some iffy things to say about femininity).

I also mentioned multiple readings. It is important to note that the audience does not necessarily interpret everything the same, especially if there are cultural differences. One of the most famous examples for this is Sailor Moon, which was the incarnation of girl power and emancipation in the West in the 90s, but it has the same “dumb heroine gets the dream guy” trope, and the same conservative message of getting married and giving birth to children as any average shōjo manga, and the same “so cuuuuute” packaging. It really depends on the audience what they get away with.

All in all there are preferences, genre conventions, cultural differences, so the whole thing is quite difficult. But I don’t think you need to be worried about not liking or being uncomfortable with certain character types. And it would be a stretch to consider tastes like mine, for example, misogynistic. Sure, even in real life I make a wide berth around overly girly or feminine women (among others), but it can’t be helped, you can’t like and be friends with everyone, and I guess they wouldn’t like me or wanting to be my friend either. And that’s fine, and I don’t think it’s misogynistic for me to reject certain types of femininity for myself and to interact with, as long as I don’t want to erase or invalidate them, or deem them as inferior – and I don't. Of course, this is the attitude I expect towards myself as well. Live and let live 🖖

#magnoliawaltz

9 notes · View notes

4pondsinabox · 4 years

Text

Women of the Waverider: Zari Tarazi

You know how some things “fans” say just really don’t sit right with you and you just sit there letting things fester in your brain for weeks and weeks until it all tumbles out into one giant essay? So yeah.

A few weeks ago, I created an extensive post on the Legends of Tomorrow Amino analyzing who I have found to be the four most hated characters on this wonderfully wacky time-travel show. All, naturally, are women and two are evidently non-white. Very curious, wouldn’t you say? After pissing some people off by stating “inherent societal misogyny affects the way we perceive female characters, especially when they act similarly to beloved male characters,” I resolved to move my argument here and see what other damage I could do.

For length purposes, I’m only focusing on Zari for today, but will be happy to transfer the others over if this makes any number of notes. Now, down to business:

Why do I love Zari 2.0 and Why Should You?

“Annoying” and “Spoiled brat” are the words I most commonly see associated with Zari Tarazi. Because the first of these is completely unhelpful in arguments (tell me WHY you find her annoying, then we can talk), I will focus on the second and how much it completely ignores her family dynamic. In the very first episode she is introduced, Zari is shown to be constantly ignored by her parents in favor of her brother. By definition, she cannot be spoiled because she’s not even given the attention she craves, much less whatever she wants. It’s no wonder her relationship with Behrad was strained to start with, when the favorite child is so evident. This is where her social media followers come in.

Kids are always in need of attention, of someone to take pride in their efforts and tell them they are doing a good job. When they don’t receive this attention, they latch on to something or someone else. Clearly, a young Zari, who had launched to fame with her dragon taming and received no evident approval from her parents, turned to her fans for support. Zari Tarazi is no longer a child, but old habits die hard and posting photos and videos online is her way of feeling like SOMEONE cares about her. “I have millions of followers but no friends” is what tells Ava and the audience that Zari has tried for so long to get people to like her from afar but has made no personal connections in the process. This is why her relationships with other members of the Waverider, which gradually grow over the course of the series, are so so important.

Ava was her first true friend, the person who connected with the real Zari, not the facade she created for social media. For the first time, Zari belonged somewhere, with a team no less. That little smile when she is told she is finally part of one? It tells all. She connected with Mick through their shared experiences with fans and supported him when he didn’t know how to deal with a particularly difficult troll. She had every intention to try and befriend Astra, even after getting off on the wrong foot. Zari wants only to make connections with people, real people, in a way she’s never been able to before. It’s hardly a crime to want to look good in the process.

The phrase “Zari 2.0 doesn’t fit with the Waverider team because she lacks experience like the old Zari” is misogynistic at its core. Zari 1.0 was “experienced” because she saw her family killed and had to grow up fast to survive. “Experience” is not the word you are looking for here, it is trauma, and trauma is not what makes women interesting. Zari Tarazi IS different in personality from the rest of the Waverider team, but that’s what makes her such a critical addition. When Mona was booted off, the writers needed another character who could lighten up the team in Ray’s absence. Zari brings the Drama but also Humor and Fun to a group of people who often forget how to have it. Amidst an ex-assassin, a studious clone, a grumbling thief, stressed shapeshifter, and brooding magician, someone who knows how to throw a good party and host it with style turned out to be a welcome change for many of them. Prior to this, only the men were given the chance to goof off while the women were always in charge of missions and rules, so isn’t it refreshing to see these gender stereotypes reversed?

But that’s just scratching the surface. Something else Zari possesses that none of the others do? Social skills. Who else was going to teach Ava how to lure popular party woman Marie Antoinette out of her element? Who else could have come up with the crazy suggestion to start a sorority and successfully draw out the god of wine and parties? Zari 2.0 may not have visible superpowers or be a hacker, but she understands people, which is something none of the other legends can claim and is a kind of superpower in itself.

The most ironic argument frequently made against her character? How John Constantine should never be paired with someone so different from him. The woman who, despite evident self-hatred, acts superior to everyone else is somehow different from John “drown my sorrows in alcohol and distance myself from everyone to act too cool for them” Constantine. Zari may have a bigger wardrobe and John might wear the same outfit over and over again, but fundamentally they have much common ground in the way they see themselves and how they hide it by acting superior around other people. This relationship wasn’t hastily thrown together like Nate and Zari 1.0, who have absolutely nothing in common. “John would never choose to be with someone like her!” You mean someone who acts just as stubborn and full of themselves as he is? Their big egos were bound to clash at first, but these similarities won each other over in the end.

It’s so easy to reduce feminine characters to dumb airheads and this is exactly why posts “defending womanhood and femininity” have been trending so much the last few years. It’s exactly why Tala herself pleaded with the fans in an interview to “please give this new Zari a chance” BEFORE any episode had even aired. Women are told that to be “strong” and successful in life they should act more like men, which is far from the truth. Zari Tarazi IS feminine, but also a successful, adored businesswoman who knows how to get what she wants. Viewers might hate her for it, but she subverts the “dumb feminine woman” trope in a way that’s incredibly important for fashion and makeup loving women today.

Before wining that the writers transformed Zari into a bunch of stereotypes, actually watch the show and rethink why you might feel the way you do about a certain character. It’s safe to say not every character clicks with every fan, but boiling hatred towards a confident, influential, feminine woman just ... does not translate well.

#zari tarazi #zari 2.0 #legends of tomorrow #lot ladies #arrowverse #the waverider #character analysis #long post

34 notes · View notes

bthump · 4 years

Note

I am curious why you don't like het pairings across the board since I ship both het and same sex pairings . I understand LGBTQ+ peoples' desire to see themselves represented in media , but I think that when it comes to fandom people tend to fetish same sex pairings especially mlm pairings and bashing female characters that get in the way of their ship.

I’ve done my fair share of navel gazing about why I hate 99.9% of het in media since I was a teen and I could write a long list of reasons that probably influence my preferences, like gender essentialism, the vast vast vast majority of creators being men influencing how they write women + het relationships in ways that offend me, the fact that it’s the default and my interests are often influenced by spite, the rote way it’s usually written, i hate 99% of the tropes that are usually associated with it, the fact that irl I have 0 interest in engaging in a hetero relationship myself and therefore can’t relate...

but yeah ultimately I don’t know or care or think it matters lol, the vast majority of het ships just do not spark joy for me.

And now, The Discourse, which I would love to put under a cut but apparently that’s just not in the cards right now, thanks tumblr.

please don’t reblog I guess?

I just like, disagree with the rest of your ask lol, sorry. And I know this is a very standard take in fandom so I’ll try to explain why I disagree. I appreciate you asking politely Anon and I’m hoping this doesn’t come across as too annoyed or anything - like I’m annoyed by the discourse in general lol, not by you specifically.

In my experience in online fandom the most female character bashing I’ve seen, and the most vicious, has come from fans of rival het ships, and regardless I don’t particularly consider “bashing” fictional characters to be much of an issue. The problem is when people do so in offensive ways (eg “she’s a slut” or w/e lol), and then the issue is people believing and saying offensive shit, not people hating fictional characters, and the focus should be on general awareness of what misogyny (among other oppressions) is and how to avoid perpetuating it in all areas of life, and not on declaring groups of fans problematic depending on which fictional characters they do or don’t like.

And sure, some majority m/m fans do bash female characters, and some do it in offensive ways, but I don’t think it’s at a rate higher than other het fans, or even f/f fans in the few fandoms with rival f/f ships ime, so it bugs me that people act like it’s an m/m fangirl thing.

I also think fandom discourse wildly misuses the term “fetishizing.” Fetishizing, in yk oppressor/oppressed contexts, means to reduce someone down to a single aspect of their being in a way that dehumanizes them. And like 99% of fanfic does the opposite, shipping is all about being invested in and exploring characters as people (or trying to, bc lbr it’s amateur fiction and writing fully fleshed out 3 dimensional people is a skill that amateurs can’t necessarily be expected to have perfected, which is a big reason discourse focusing so hard on problematic fanfiction is a waste of time lol). Someone who isn’t a gay/bi man getting turned on by imagining 2 dudes fucking and writing a story about it isn’t automatically fetishizatizing gay men, even if it’s a straight woman doing it, even if it’s 2k words of sex written to turn readers on.

Fetishization doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with sex - it can, but it can also be sexless. For instance, a gay character showing up in one episode of a sitcom to make limp wrist jokes, or a gay character showing up in one episode of a drama to die of aids and make you sad, is fetishization. Conversely a pwp about say Guts and Griffith fucking after a battle or something is almost guaranteed to have more care and consideration for the emotions involved and characterization, because the people who are inclined to write that are already invested in the characters as characters rather than generic gay stereotypes.

Fic writers can write offensive/homophobic/fetishizing things just like anyone else can (and having het ships as well as gay ships doesn’t make someone less likely to write homophobic things either), but the way fandom discourse reduces everything to wide generalities is less than useless imo, the key is to address actual specific behaviours, like the aformentioned “I hate X female character” vs “X female character is a slut who doesn’t deserve Y.” The former is a non-issue, the latter is a symptom of ingrained misogynistic attitudes.

Anyway ultimately I think fanfic is like, the least useful thing for media oriented discourse and activism to focus on for various reasons including the lack of reach and impact fic has, the lack of systemic quality control, the fact that fic writers aren’t pros and aren’t getting paid, the fact that fic writers aren’t pros and shouldn’t be expected to have the talent required to convey difficult subjects in completely inoffensive ways even if their personal politics are beyond reproach - because it does take straight up writing skill as well as understanding, the fact that fic writers have no industry power or influence, the fact that the vast majority of fic writers are marginalized in some way themselves (and misogyny against real women should always take precedence over misogyny against fictional women), the fact that many are just teenagers, etc

tl;dr I don’t think women preferring to ship m/m is inherently problematic, and I don’t think the current state of online discourse is equipped to even address the cases when it can be problematic lol because nuance is virtually impossible in unmoderated spaces where reblogging/tweeting divorces something from context and twitter posts and tumblr asks have a character limit and vague non-specific hot takes always get more clout and notes than carefully considered nuanced discussions and essays - and amateur unpublished writing is so unimpactful in the grand scheme of things that it barely matters anyway.

#ask #b #Anonymous #theme: discourse

26 notes · View notes

protectwoc · 4 years

Text

thots on little women (2019)

or, y’all are giving greta gerwig too much credit (part two)

The character arc that was changed the least from the source material, but that still manages to personally offend me the most, is, of course, Amy’s. It’s no secret that Gerwig is an Amy stan, or at least more of a fan of her than most people. I am as well, which is why I am so disappointed with this particular arc.

It’s honestly more disappointing because Gerwig handled parts of Amy’s arc extremely well, namely, her relationship with Laurie. Gerwig did an excellent job of making Amy and Laurie’s relationship feel less like a consolation prize since Laurie did not end up marrying Jo and more like a fully realized and reciprocal relationship, arguably more so than Alcott herself. HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the Amy/Laurie relationship is not the only important part of Amy’s characterization in the novel, and unfortunately, it is in the movie.

Amy starts out the novel as a selfish twelve year old girl, which is evidenced in no other but the infamous book-burning scene. However, throughout the novel, she grows out of that selfishness and into a more selfless, self aware woman. (Again, whatever your thoughts on “learning to be selfless” as a trope in women’s narratives are not necessarily relevant.)

For example, in the first half of the novel, one of Amy’s most notable chapters deals with pickled limes. For anyone who only watched the movie or doesn’t quite remember the book, a short summary:

Amy, the only one of the March girls who attends school, is upset because the girls in her school have been trading pickled limes. The limes are seen as a status symbol, which can be traded for little trinkets, bestowed upon favorites, or indulged in in front of your enemies. The pickled limes trend has become so popular that the teacher, Mr. Davis, has banned them in the classroom, which has done nothing to curb their popularity. Amy, who is relatively popular among her classmates regardless of her relatively lower class status, has been gifted several limes but had no way to return them, is greatly “in debt.” When Meg gives Amy enough money to buy a whopping twenty-five pickled limes, she flaunts and preens her way around the classroom until a girl she snubbed tattles to the teacher and gets all twenty five limes taken away.

This scene is a good example of the beginning of Amy’s arc of overcoming her one major personality flaw. It shows how her selfish nature is really just immature behavior, and as she ages, she matures out of that childishness. Another good example of this arc happens when Beth contracts scarlet fever. At first, she complains, saying that she would rather contract the deadly disease than to go to her Aunt’s house, but as she remains there, we see her mature and even grow fond of Aunt March. Her personal arc independent of Laurie was a big part of Amy’s plotline, and it was unfortunately left out of the movie.

The most glaring example of this is the omission of one of the most important scenes of Amy’s arc in the book: the occurrences at the fair. Again, indulge me in a brief summary for those who won’t know exactly what I am talking about:

The mother of one of Amy’s friends, Mrs. Chester, holds a three day fair for all of the girls in Amy’s social circle. As Amy is the most talented and most well-liked of the girls, she has the best table at the fair, at the very front, where she is to sell her beautiful artistic creations. However, her friend, May Chester, is jealous of her, and seeing this, Ms. Chester takes the table from Amy and gives it to May, relegating Amy to the back corner to sell flowers. At first, Amy is incredibly upset, and takes all of her art back to the table with her, however, after talking with her family, who are properly indignant on her behalf, she resolves to be gracious and humble and gives her own drawings to May to sell. Seeing this, Jo tells Laurie to take all of his handsome, college-aged bachelor friends to Amy’s table, which he does, and they spend the entire next day of the fair flirting with her and buying every one of the flowers from Amy. On the final day of the fair Amy, who has entirely overcome her own selfish wishes, tells Laurie and his friends to go do the same to May. This string of selfless acts is seen by Aunt March and Aunt Carrol (who in the novel has half of Aunt March’s role in the movie) and is the premier reason behind Aunt Carrol deciding to take Amy to Europe instead of Jo.

Leaving this scene out of Amy’s narrative in the movie is, I think, unforgivable. The inclusion of this scene would have exponentially improved Amy’s arc, for three major reasons:

This scene is the culmination of Amy’s “selfish to selfless arc”. Again, regardless of your opinions on whether this is a good lesson for her to learn, it is an arc, and as the movie stands currently, she simply doesn’t have one. The occurrences at the fair show her finally growing out of her childhood vices into the mature woman we see in Europe, and to exclude this scene does her a disservice.

Prior to her trip to Europe, this is one of the only scenes in the novel where Laurie and Amy have any sort of interaction. If Gerwig wanted to more fully develop the Amy/Laurie romance I cannot imagine the logic behind leaving this scene out. It would make the romance seem less rushed, which has been a common critique of their love story since the book came out, and would even provide context for Amy’s “Not when I have spent my entire life loving you” line which Gerwig added to the narrative.

As previously mentioned, this scene is one of the main reasons behind Amy being allowed to travel to Europe with Aunt March/Aunt Carrol. Within the movie, this reasoning is less obvious, especially given the fact that Aunt March had already told Jo she would take her to Europe, and the inclusion of this scene would have made the trip feel more earned for Amy.

Greta Gerwig has made no secret of the fact that she both a feminist and a fan of Amy March. I am both of those things as well, which is why I cannot understand her logic behind robbing Amy of a complete arc. In the movie, the most important parts of Amy’s arc are all tied to a man. Even that arc is not as fully developed as it could be. Gerwig did a magnificent job with Amy’s overall likability, but that is not the same thing as writing a fully realized arc for her.

But even though Amy is my personal favorite character, and I am more personally invested in her arc, Gerwig’s mishandling of Amy is not the most egregious sin committed in this movie. That honor is reserved for Jo’s arc.

Part Two: Jo

A Buzzfeed article entitled “The New ‘Little Women’ Makes Space for Jo’s Queerness” claims that “Gerwig’s adaptation, without being too explicit about it, does gorgeous justice to that [queer] reading.” An Advocate magazine article called “Greta Gerwig Brings Out the Inherent Queerness of Little Women” makes the bold claim that the 2019 Little Women “offers the queerest and most feminist reading yet.” An even bolder declaration by them magazine says that “The New Little Women Basically Proves Jo is Queer”. Gerwig has been lauded both by critics and by her own actors for creating an explicitly queer narrative for Jo March.

As previously mentioned, I do not generally read Alcott’s Jo as queer. However, upon my first encounter with this headcanon, I could immediately see why so many people did see her this way, and why this interpretation is so beloved. Jo has a lot of non-stereotypically straight traits that have made her something of a queer icon in many progressive literary circles. Both the way she bemoans being “born a woman” and her intense desire not to marry spoke to a lot of queer or non-cis readers, many of whom were excited to see her portrayed this way on the silver screen. And though I am not particularly attached to this headcanon, as a bi woman, I too was excited to see her that way.

And then… I didn’t.

Look, I hate to burst y’alls bubble, but there is literally not a single second in the movie where Jo is anything resembling queer. At best, she could be read as aromantic/asexual, but that’s about it. (Note: Obviously I don’t intend to imply that being aro/ace is somehow “lesser than” being L G B or T, but obviously the form of queerness people were expecting is one in which Jo is explicitly attracted to women.) There are no subtle looks in the direction of another woman, no scenes in which Jo expresses any negative emotion towards the idea of marrying a man specifically. She doesn’t even have a single female friend outside of her sisters.

One of the reasons the 2019 Jo (and by extension, Laurie), have been hailed as queer icons is their relative gender fluidity. Jo and Laurie exchange clothes throughout the movie, which was intended to display their “gender fluidity”. I knew about this particular facet of the movie before going to watch it in theaters, so I was looking for these occasions specifically, and I still couldn’t tell that they were supposed to be gender neutral. Maybe that’s just me, because I don’t know a lot about civil war era clothing, but whatever.

The other reason that Jo is considered queer in the movie is her rejection of traditional Civil War era femininity. She doesn’t want to get married, and she has no interest in “girly” things like dresses or parties. But neither of those things are specifically queer. Being “not like other girls” as your premier personality trait is not queer, it’s just garden-variety misogyny.

Even Jo’s big scene where she laments her competing desire to stay unmarried and her intense loneliness, has nothing marking it as explicitly queer. “I’m so sick of people saying that love is just all a woman is fit for,” she bursts out. Love. Not love for a man. Not even marriage. She is decrying the entire concept of love.

“But Rae,” I can hear you asking, “what about the ending, where it’s implied she doesn’t marry Professor Bhaer and gets to publish her novel?” To that, there are two important things to consider. One: the ending is intentionally portrayed as optional. Even though it is heavily implied that Jo did not go off and get heterosexual married at the end, it is possible to ignore that ending or do some light mental gymnastics to make the two versions of Jo’s ending coincide. And I’m not just saying this as a worst-case-scenario, I actually have seen people do this, in fandom and my own life.

Secondly, even if you take the ending as completely factual, we still have all the scenes involving Bhaer previous to the ending to give some hint of Jo’s sexuality. We never see her even look at another woman, but she flirts with Bhaer and blushes when he looks at her and asks for his opinion on her work. Even ignoring the straight-as-default setting of most casual viewers, canonically, Jo has only ever shown interest in men. One man specifically, but still.

“But she could still be bi/pansexual, or suffering from compulsory heterosexuality,” I hear. And this is basically the crux of my argument. In fandom, you don’t have to assume straight as the default, and it's probably better not to. Bi/pan headcanons for “straight” characters are a good, positive way of adding to a fandom culture. However, when it comes to canonical representation, the opposite is true. Representation is not representation if it is not explicit.

I’m not saying that queer viewers cannot feel represented by Jo in this movie. I personally feel represented by Hermoine Granger as a black woman, due to her “wild, bushy hair” and her penchant for social activism (SPEW). However, I cannot give JK Rowling credit for that representation because she had nothing to do with it. She did not do any of the hard work to actually make Hermoine a black woman. In the same way, we cannot credit Gerwig with adding queer representation to Little Women, because she didn’t.

Conclusion: The Response

I know reading this essay probably makes me seem like a Greta Gerwig-hater or like I disliked the movie. Both of those things are untrue. As previously mentioned, I loved the movie. I’ve watched the Amy/Laurie scenes of the movie like a hundred times already. I also don’t hate Greta Gerwig. This is the only movie of hers that I’ve seen, but I heard all about Lady Bird and its popularity, and I think the directing of Little Women was excellent. The fact that Greta Gerwig is a very talented filmmaker is not necessarily an arguable point.

I don’t believe that Gerwig had to fully develop any of the sisters. I don’t even think that Gerwig is required to add queer representation (or racial diversity for that matter) to her movies. Greta Gerwig decided to adapt an extremely white, cishet Civil War era book into an extremely white, cishet Civil War era movie. Hot take time: she is entirely in her rights to do that.

BUT. The thing that bugs me the most about the movie, and is basically the impetus behind me writing this essay, is the response to the movie. For whatever reason, Gerwig’s Little Women adaptation has been deemed more “woke” than it actually is. Little Women (2019) has been lauded for its strong female presence (even though there are only white, cis, straight women), for it’s development of the other, non-Jo sisters (even though it doesn’t), and for giving its lead space to be queer (even though she isn’t).

Greta Gerwig made an excellent film, but she did not do anything that has never been done before. I liked the movie, but I’m not about to go campaign for Greta Gerwig or the movie to win an Oscar. In general, we need to be less willing to acclaim those who do the bare minimum.

Again, I’m not good at writing conclusions. At a certain point I’m going to just start repeating myself, so I’m going to go ahead and cut myself off now. Again, if anybody has any opinions on this, agree or disagree, please come talk to me about it! I’d love to hear any other thoughts.

#little women #little women (2019)#raetalks #meta #meg march #jo march #beth march #amy march #timothee chalamet #emma watson #saorise ronan #eliza scanlen #florence pugh #greta gerwig

47 notes · View notes

hamliet · 5 years

Text

MXTX Ladies’ Week: Girls, Goddesses, and Ghosts

After writing about Scum Villain’s female cast here and MDZS’s here, it’s time to write about Heaven Official’s Blessing’s female cast... which is actually smaller than the other two in quantity but imo, in quality, is far greater. Most of the women do not die, and several have fantastic arcs. They’re allowed to be kickass, to make their own decisions, to be morally flawed, to be extremely feminine, to be emotional, to be ugly, and to even be villains--and the whole while, the story depicts them with empathy.

So let’s start with the mortals. This is again more a ramble than a direct meta.

The Humans:

Me, skipping happily into TGCF, immediately loving one character, and her dying like ten chapters in:

Yes, I’m talking about Xiao Ying. I also realize I said that most of TGCF’s female characters don’t get killed off, so I’m not leading off with a convincing argument (she is the only one who really does).

Little Ying’s role in the narrative is as a parallel to Xie Lian and a way to introduce the main themes of the story, which her arc encapsulates. A teenage girl who is noted to be physically unattractive, she’s introduced to us praying to Feng Xin for protection. The god who she prays to for protection from whomever is stealing the brides comments cruelly on her appearance, foreshadowing how corrupt heaven is, and Xie Lian quickly realizes that someone has tried to humiliate her already by cutting a hole in the back of her skirt, hinting at the theme of human cruelty and suffering. He is kind to her, and in return, she helps him prepare for his undercover mission to catch the bride thief, showing the the answer to her prayers is through her own work and kindness, and the connections she makes (with Xie Lian in this case).

The reader quickly learns that Little Ying might not be physically beautiful, but she has a beautiful heart, taking care of a scarred ghost who lives in the mountains (Lang Ying). Yet people turn on her and scorn her when she tries to protect Lang Ying, because humanity is often cruel to their own, and an orphan girl who is unattractive is a target. Yet, unlike the rest of the crowd gathered by the house where all the brides have been stolen away to, she wants to help. But her attempts to help, to save everyone, get her killed, and it’s noted that they do not actually help.

Softly, she said, “I feel as though my entire life, there weren’t many days where I lived happy.”

Xie Lian also didn’t know what to say, and gently patted her hand. Little Ying sighed, “Oh well, forget it. I might just be someone……born unlucky.”

This is something that repeats in Xie Lian’s arc as well: he often winds up hurting where he tried to help (as with Jun Wu, too), and sacrificing oneself is looked at, as it is in MDZS, with nuance in TGCF. Little Ying did not need to die. There’s a futility to human suffering in TGCF: it doesn’t bring a purpose, it isn’t glorious, and it doesn’t always make someone a better or worse person. It just is.

Yet it’s also worth noting that the story is asking: when society treats you a certain way because of things you cannot help, such as gender, appearance, and economic status, what power do you have to decide your fate? The answer is what brings comfort to Little Ying in her last minutes: she’s not alone. Xie Lian stays with her as she dies. Little Ying, too, made an effort to make sure others were not alone (Lang Ying). Suffering is unbearable, but if you’re not alone, there is comfort.

The Demons:

Two of the demon ladies are fantastic deconstructions of female character stereotypes: the crazed ex (Xuan Ji) and the evil seductress (Jian Lan).

(remember this meme? it plays into the crazy ex trope too)

Xuan Ji is the scorned woman who murders brides to vent her frustration at the world (and at Pei Ming, the lover who abandoned her). She is Little Ying’s counterpart in the first arc, in that while Little Ying is a Xie Lian parallel, Xuan Ji is a parallel to our main antagonist, Bai WuXiang, in that she’s determined to take out her misfortune on literally everyone around her. But she is in genuine pain, which the novel takes care to note:

Under her long hair, her tears started to fall as she said, “I’ve waited for him for centuries, what important matter does he have? Back then, in order to see me, he would cross half of the border in a single night, so what important matter could he have now? So important that he wouldn’t even be willing to see me once? An important matter? He doesn’t actually have one, right?”

It’s not portraying Pei Ming as a poor sad victim here; on the contrary, his treatment of Xuan Ji is condemned. She betrayed her army for him, and he doesn’t like her because, in many ways, he comes across as a chauvinist (at first. This is later unpacked too, but that’s for another meta).

“General Pei does not like strong-minded women, and Xuan Ji’s natural disposition is strong-willed. This is why they could not stay together for long. General Xuan Ji was unwilling to let go, so she said to General Pei that she was willing make sacrifices and change herself. Thus, she voluntarily abolished her martial arts and broke her own two legs. In this way, she did the equivalent of breaking both her wings and tying herself to General Pei. Despite all this, General Pei didn’t abandon her. He took her in and looked after her, yet, he still wouldn’t take her as his wife. Because General Xuan Ji’s long-cherished wish could not be fulfilled, she killed herself in hate. Not for any other reason, but only to make General Pei feel sad and aggrieved.

Again, harming yourself for the sake of someone else is not presented as a good thing in TGCF. The story does a good job of pointing out that both sides can be at fault; there isn’t a black and white, one is evil and the other good situation in the story. Because Xuan Ji then won’t give up and makes it her mission to torture and humiliate Pei Ming, which she does the former and tries for the latter on numerous occasions. Yet the conclusion to their arc is Pei Ming finally telling her:

...it was Pei Ming who abandoned Xuan Ji first, this female ghost also killed countless after, trying to kill them time and time again... looking like this, she was a little pitiful.

Pei Ming looked back at her, and in the end, he only said, “Xuan Ji, it’s time you wake up.”

“Wake up what.” Xuan Ji was confused.

“That you’ve become this way, I’m part of the reason, but a majority of it is by your own decisions. You’ve done so much but you can only move your own heart, I’m a steel-hearted man. Rather than love me, why don’t you go love yourself.”

He yanked back his robes from Xuan Ji’s hold, and left without looking back.

It’s not that he’s innocent in how he treated her (he isn’t), and it’s not that Xuan Ji’s pain isn’t real, but what we do with our suffering is the pivot on which everyone’s character arc in TGCF swings, and so just as Pei Ming finally decides to take responsibility for his actions, so does Xuan Ji. And after she finally lets go of her resentment, she is able to dissipate and leave the world, entering into a reincarnation cycle.

Jian Lan is originally portrayed to us as Lan Cheng, a vulgar-tongued prostitute who is the mother of a demonic murdering ghost baby, CuoCuo. Yet eventually the reader finds out she was actually a potential concubine for Xie Lian and, after the kingdom of Xian Le fell, she became a prostitute, and CuoCuo is actually the son of Feng Xin, one of Xie Lian’s best friends. Feng Xin promises to take care of them, but Jian Lan tells Xie Lian this in the end:

"having Cuo Cuo is enough for me. Who hasn’t made promises or swore to the mountains and the seas when they were young? Talking of affection, of love, of forevers. But, the longer I hung around in the world, the more I understand, something like ‘forever’ is impossible. It’s never going to be possible. Having it once was already good enough. No one can truly achieve it. I don’t believe in it anymore.”

It’s not that the story wants to imply that forever really isn’t possible (Hua Cheng and Xie Lian’s relationship counters this), but it also doesn’t invalidate Jian Lan’s choice.

“What you’ve said are all things of the past. What was love once doesn’t mean it’ll last. To be a charity case and a nuisance, I’m not interested.”

“Why would he think you both a nuisance?” Xie Lian asked, “Don’t you know the kind of person Feng Xin is?”

“You, His Highness the Crown Prince, you have never lived the common life, so of course you’d think things are that simple. He won’t now, and he won’t on the surface either. But once time gets dragged out, then nothing could be sure.

It’s her choice, and her choice not to risk trying love with Feng Xin again is respected by the narrative. Her choice parallels Xuan Ji’s, but unlike Xuan Ji, Jian Lan’s problem was never that she cared too much about a cast-off lover, but that she did not want to tell said lover the truth. Now that she has, her choices and her freedom to decide her fate remain. She too is not alone: she has her son.

The last demonic ghost character is Ban Yue, another Xie Lian parallel. She is an orphan girl, mistreated, and later a high priestess of Banyue. She states Xie Lian’s words “I, too want to save the world,” and says that she took his teachings to heart.

She’s noted to be very lonely, and after Xie Lian “died” saving her, she finds someone to cling to in Pei Su (Pei Ming’s descendent). Once they find out the kingdom of Banyue plans to destroy the city itself and everyone around it, Ban Yue opens the gates for Pei Su to slaughter everyone in the city--but at least the people outside it will survive. It’s a complex moral decision that doesn’t have an easy answer.

“You also said, ‘Do what you think is right!’” Ban Yue told him.

‘....what… nonsense! … Why did I keep saying those kinds of things… I’m nothing like that at all… am I??’ Xie Lian thought.

“But, I don’t know what’s right anymore.” Ban Yue said.

Xie Lian froze.

Ban Yue’s sulky voice buzzed from the pot, “I thought I was doing the right thing, but in the end it was me who opened the gates that let in the enemy who slaughtered my people... But if I didn’t open the gates, the Banyue people would terrorize the Midlands and hurt more people... I really wanted to do well as the Head Priestess. But, not only did I opened the gates, I killed them, and refused them human flesh. If they didn’t feed on human flesh they’d suffer, and I couldn’t relieve them of that suffering... It’s like no matter what I did, the result was going to be bad... I know I didn’t do things right, but can you tell me, where did I go wrong?”

Hearing her question, Xie Lian rubbed the back of his neck and said slowly, “I’m sorry, Ban Yue. The answer to that question, I’d not known it back then, and now… I don’t think I know the answer now either.”

The thing is, if Xie Lian hadn’t gotten himself “killed” saving her, the gates wouldn’t have been opened. Yet, if he didn’t sacrifice himself, she would be dead. There isn’t a right or a wrong choice; it’s complex morally. It also foreshadows what will happen in Book 2, when a flashback reveals to us that Xie Lian himself learned the hard way that there isn’t always a way to save everyone through the fall of his kingdom Xian Le.

The Goddesses:

My favorite female character in TGCF is YuShi Huang, or the Princess who Slit Her Throat. She’s not dead though; she’s a goddess whose quick thinking saved her family’s kingdom. She’s a Xie Lian parallel in that she is a laughingstock; Pei Ming is noted to have led a siege against her kingdom and have mocked her cruelly in her life. However, YuShi Huang, being the youngest of sixteen children, become the unlikely heir who saves her father and her kingdom, and later will grow to save those who laugh at her.

She has a kind, self-sacrificing personality like Xie Lian, but she does warn Xie Lian when she helps him by lending him her spiritual device to give his kingdom water that rain is a limited resource, and there’s only so much that he can do. She’s in other words a mite wiser than Xie Lian is at this point--if Little Ying can be seen as him in his childlike stage, trying to save everyone, and Ban Yue as his adolescent phase of character development when he’s started to question, then YuShi Huang can be seen as his parallel once he matures--which is why the reveal of just who the Lord Rain Master is comes very late in the story. Her wisdom is used to save and to heal what she can (such as smuggling Hua Cheng to Xie Lian), but she knows she cannot do everything.

She also foils Xuan Ji, in that both are from YuShi and were treated cruelly by Pei Ming in life. However, she ultimately saves Pei Ming several times, and when Xuan Ji passes on, she performs a passing service for the ghost. Pei Ming’s subsequent... embarrassment (schoolboy crush? It’s kinda questionable based on the explicit parallels with Xuan Ji, and Xuan Ji’s outright accusations of him liking her in dialogue with him) over how YuShi Huang saved him is also rather amusing.

Aaaand then there’s the other goddess. Ling Wen has the distinction of being the only complex MXTX character I struggle to like. (Jun Wu used to be on this list but. Writing him helped me like him. Not so much with Ling Wen--but I do think she’s a well done character so please note that my dislike is purely my personal opinion and not an accusation of narrative failing nor an implication that anyone should not stan her (by all means, do so!))

She’s a Jun Wu parallel in many ways, which is why she’s the only god who winds up on his side even after all he’s done comes to light. Her role in a corrupt and sexist court is also not unsympathetic: she’s often worshipped in her male form, so she adopts it, she was mistreated by the literature god before her, and she’s angry about it (every woman who’s seen men get promoted ahead of them in an office can feel this on a--hem--spiritual level). Her anger is justified, and it’s hilarious how the Upper Court cannot actually function without her and so her punishment for her crimes essentially amounts to “please just do your job.”

She’s also only character who does not have a close relationship with anyone, and this is almost certainly deliberate in response to the unfairness and the sexism and cruelty of the world and how it treats her, as a woman. She tells Xie Lian:

“Something like a genuine heart is made to be trampled...”

After a long silence, Xie Lian said, “You said ‘similar to him’. So, was General Bai Jing like this too?”

Ling Wen smiled lightly, “Why else would he be deceived by me?”

...

Xie Lian said, “… you wanted to help General Bai Jing in becoming a Supreme, and have him wake to his senses, right?”

Ling Wen gave a small laugh, “Your highness, don’t say it like I would do anything for him. After all, I’m cold-blooded and recognized no loved ones, so why would I do anything like that?”

Her closest relationship is with the Brocade Immortal Bai Jing, someone she transformed into an object. But if, as Xie Lian implies, she wanted to awaken Bai Jing again, it may imply that she might be lonely and long for connection after all, even if she is afraid to take the risks involved in human connection. Hopefully she’ll be able to connect again, now that the gods are incredibly grateful to her for doing the job none of them could do. Like Jun Wu, she has a chance.

#tgcf #heaven official's blessing #hob meta #tgcf meta #tian guan ci fu #mxtx meta #mxtx ladies week #ling wen #yushi huang #ban yue #xiao ying #jian lan #xie lian

200 notes · View notes

thisiswhatwereupagainst · 4 years

Text

TL;DR Went into Captain Britain and Excalibur just to read Meggan, expected to hate Brian, found out they both were bad to each other and are both very injured, traumatized characters grappling with gender norms in their own way, and I have a lot of sympathy and love for them BOTH now even if they definitely are not a good couple at this point. So, I am keenly interested in Meggan Puceanu as a character and a concept. Just learning some very basic things about her prompted THIS META POST three years ago. And that was before I really plunked down and decided to read all her stuff in order. And while I have yet to read ALL of it by a longshot. But I’ve gotten through about 20 issues now, from her first appearances in “The Mighty World of Marvel” in 1984, to meeting and joining up with Brian Braddock/Captain Britain in the second series of Captain Britain in 1985, to the first five issues of Excalibur in 1985. So yeah, keep in mind reading this, I am only up to Excalibur #5. And I know I probably should wait before writing all this stuff, read more, see if my interpretations hold true. But I have so many thoughts and I just can’t wait that long! So please read on with the understanding I may be proven completely wrong in these perceptions later. That said.... I had some basic knowledge of Brian and Meggan’s dynamic. I knew that she was completely emotionally dependent on him, that her every emotion hinged on his approval and attention, that a lot of her very identity was based around pleasing him as his girlfriend. I also knew he’d been a real dick to her, and that his descent into alcoholism had made him an even bigger dick. So, I was really prepared to dislike him. And while I do still dislike the power imbalance that their relationship was founded on, I ended up having very different feelings about Brian himself than I expected---I thought I was going to encounter a shitty macho man himbo asshole who treated Meggan like shit just because. Seriously, look at THIS and THIS and THIS! What a JERK! I was all prepped to despise this guy and yell about toxic masculinity and how Meggan deserved better. Instead, what I found was someone who was as broken and in pain as Meggan herself, but who got far less sympathy for it than she did, both from other characters and from fans. The first big shock that I got was that Brian had been raped twice by female villains in the second Captain Britain series, before Excalibur began. I had actually read about this a couple years ago on TV Tropes, but seeing it was something else. I wrote a longer post about it HERE As noted in the post, Brian never told anyone about either of these incidences as far as I know, nor getting any kind of therapy or treatment. He also started drinking after this happened. And as of Excalibur beginning, Betsy is dead (or so he believes) and he’s grappling a lot with that too. I think it was unethical of him not to rebuff Meggan when she first came on to him, for reasons I’ll discuss later in this post, but also makes sense for his character, not because he’s an unethical person but because he’s actually very passive and seems to just accept whatever is demanded by him of others; he talks about this with Courtney, how he has no choice in being Captain Britain, how it was imposed on him, asking if he’s a coward for just wanting a little of his own life and she unsympathetically says it’s “obscene” how he “can’t be bothered” to “take charge” of his own life (Excalibur #3). It’s a very unusual flaw for a male character. In his own way, he’s at the mercy of what others demand him to be as much as Meggan is with her powers, and I find that really interesting. I already knew that Meggan is very much a reflection of the demands placed on women by society, literally twisting her own emotions and physical forms to coincide with what is considered beautiful and what others desire, whereas Brian, it turns out, is himself a reflection of the demands placed on men---he has to be a warrior, whether he likes it or not (and he doesn’t, it’s part of his backstory that he doesn’t see himself that way at all), he has to be the hero and take care of the girl and he feels he has to just go with it when Meggan decides he’s her man and she needs him. And Meggan is more flawed than I expected. She’s oftentimes shockingly selfish in her obsession with Brian. For instance, when his ex Courtney is kidnapped by the sadistic murderous Arcade, Brian is understandably upset, and this troubles Meggan because she thinks that his being upset means he still cares for Courtney. The selfishness there is staggering; a woman’s life is in danger and Meggan’s first concern is her own love life, and she assumes that the only reason Brian could care about said woman’s life being in danger is if he’s in love with her. Or when Brian’s drinking is first brought up by the rest of the team, Meggan says it hurts her that he turns to those bottles instead of to her (Excalibur #3). So, her problem isn’t that Brian is obviously becoming addicted to alcohol, it’s that SHE isn’t the one that he turns to. She’s got a lot of moments like this. That said, I LIKE this about Meggan. It makes me like her MORE. It makes her WAY more realistic and flawed and human than the archetypical frail damsel who is just an accessory to her man that I was expecting. She’s clingy, she’s possessive, she’s downright nasty and hostile over him a lot! She may not think of herself as a real person, but the writers treat her as one, complete with flaws. Her dependency isn’t treated as a good or romantic thing either, it’s not held up as a female virtue like I was expecting; Brian is actually bothered by it, he confides in Kurt that he doesn’t think he can handle how she relies on him for everything, how he actually PREFERS Courtney because unlike Meggan, Courtney is her own woman-- “She doesn’t seem to NEED me as completely and desperately as Meggan seems to. Sometimes I feel I’m the total and absolute focus of Meggan’s life. It’s a responsibility I don’t think I’m capable of handling.” And Brian is right, this ISN’T a good thing to do in a relationship, Meggan is putting a lot of unfair emotional weight on his shoulders, and he’s already got a lot to bear from his own trauma and loss. In fact, one could even argue that her behavior would be seen as toxic if the genders were reversed. She’s still very sympathetic, of course, because this is coming from a place of real insecurity and need and probably her powers too, but it’s more three-dimensional and complicated than what I originally expected. But I like that. Because again, it’s more realistic, both in terms of Meggan’s behavior and in Brian’s reaction to it---he doesn’t WANT a woman being totally dependent on him and thinking the sun shines out his ass and needing him for everything, he wants another human being. That’s not what I expected a Bad Macho Man Stereotype to be saying! But in fact, Brian says another thing he prefers about Courtney is “she’s her own woman” and “I can talk to her, Kurt.” (Excalibur #5) Brian is a man who wants to be able to have someone he can be VULNERABLE with, to talk with as an equal about his fears and anxieties---which he does with Courtney, as mentioned---and he can’t do that with Meggan because of the pedestal she puts him on and her needing so much care herself. He says as much himself to Kurt. He also recognizes that he himself probably isn’t equipped to deal with Meggan’s issues, she needs much more help than he can give. This isn’t an idealized thing at all, this is a realistic depiction of two very emotionally injured people in a very messed up dynamic that is bad for BOTH of them, hurting them BOTH. Up til actually reading it, I was expecting it to be one-sided, with Meggan being the only one suffering, but it’s not! And Meggan being like this, of being obsessed with Captain Britain and behaving in a very “cliche” way over him, makes a TON of sense for her, she’s not just obsessed with him for no reason like a typical “just the hero’s girlfriend” character. Meggan grew up being kept secret in her family’s camper-trailer for her then-monstrous appearance, til during the Jasper’s Warp when reality shifted into a world that was putting superhumans, including herself, into concentration camps. While she was in the camps, Captain Britain was a legend as a liberator and freedom fighter who was fighting back against the regime for the sake of people like her. And when reality returned to normal, Meggan was one of the few people who remembered that it had ever changed; she remembered the camps, and she remembered Captain Britain. Even though she’d never even seen him at that point, she clung to him as her one hope. Then the real Captain Britain found her when she was homeless and living in an abandoned warehouse, and he lets her live with him in his mansion because she has nowhere else, which is probably more kindness than she’s ever been shown in her life, and from someone she idolized. Which, as I said way earlier in this essay, does make their relationship an inherently unethical one because of their power imbalance, as he’s got a lot of power over her in terms of being the one providing her with a home, food, clothing, etc., not to mention her emotional dependency that’s obvious well before she makes a move on him. So we’re already starting on really problematic territory. But it makes SENSE for her. Add to that Meggan was raised on television in a VERY literal sense. Again, she was locked up in her camper trailer all day every day her whole life, and so she spent most of her time just watching TV. It’s shown that this has given her SOME UNREALISTIC IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO BEHAVE so I think that absorbing the media’s depictions of how women are “supposed” to behave towards their men is actually pretty realistic. She’s not doing this because the writers think this is just how women are----NONE of the other female characters act at all like she does!---but because SHE thinks it’s what’s normal and expected, and she’s probably very much imprinted on the media’s fantasy fairytale depiction of relationships. Given how she grew up as an ugly monster and seeing herself as such, I can very much see her as latching on the idea of “beautiful sweet woman who is valued for her beauty and being with the lead man and has no identity apart from that” that’s prevalent in media, which she would take for a reflection of reality, a reality that she thought her whole life would be denied to her. So all her behavior has a good in-character reason; she could even be read as a criticism of trying to enact gendered media stereotypes in real life and how they can’t actually work in the complexity of the real world, and how damaging they are to those who absorb them. What’s also funny is that despite appearing to be the standard “strong man, pretty woman” couple, especially with Brian becoming emotionally distant and cruelly pushing her away whilst she’s very emotional and obsessed with pleasing him, is they actually subvert this paradigm as much as they play it straight. The Juggernaut WIPES THE FLOOR with Brian at one point, and then Meggan shows up, shapeshifts into a GIANT MUSCULAR VERSION OF HERSELF, and comes to his rescue with Rachel and Kitty! That’s right, a buff lady and two other ladies save the dude in distress! And then afterwards, she acts like SHE was the one in danger, resuming her default petite form and jumping into his big manly arms while he asks if she’s alright and she says “Always in your arms!” ---it’s hilarious! (Excalibur #3) And of course, speaking of subverting gender stereotypes, there’s Brian’s desire to have a partner he can be vulnerable with, which is really astounding to me----he’s very much grappling with the expectations of toxic masculinity in a way that’s harming him as much as Meggan. Not just in relation to Meggan, but also, as mentioned before, in relation to not having control of his own life as Captain Britain, and being responsible for others. In particular, he’s messed up over Betsy’s (seeming) death, and over not having protected her, as a man would be expected to protect his sister. In the panel right before the “changeling cow!” scene I linked earlier, THIS IS WHAT HE SAYS. He doesn’t see himself as any good if he doesn’t meet impossible standards. And while Meggan reacts to pain by getting teary, Brian consistently reacts to his pain (or trying to hide it) by getting ANGRY, which is consistent with how women vs men are socialized. Which is not to say it’s anything but VISCERALLY HORRIBLE when he lashes out at Meggan, especially given how dependent she is on him, and she absolutely SHOULD have dumped his ass then, but it’s also a lot more three-dimensional than the emotionally abusive drunken bad boyfriend stereotype I was expecting. I know I’m a broken record on this, but I am just so shocked at how sympathetic I ended up being to a guy I was so prepared to hate and was so cruel to a character (Meggan) that I was already very sympathetic to and invested in. Instead, I’m invested in them BOTH now and want to see them BOTH heal from this, and from each other. So, basically, I was really ready to be mad about Meggan’s lack of agency and her dependence on Brian. And these are things that happen. But the writers are clearly AWARE of it, and treat them as issues to be addressed and overcome. Meggan and Brian come off not as the cliche male and female stereotypes they first appeared, and that I expected, but very critical examinations and sometimes subversions of them, and both are shown as being hurt by the expectations of their gender, and being hurt by each other as they enact those expectations. It’s not totally perfect, not by a long shot, but it’s very interesting and a lot more nuanced than I expected some straight white guys in the 80s to be writing, it’s definitely a far cry from the typical idealized relationship between a hero and a leading lady, and I’m pretty impressed with it. And I’m looking forward to reading more.

#meggan #Meggan Puceanu #brian braddock #excalibur #captain britain #meta

17 notes · View notes

ante--meridiem · 5 years

Note

Why do people in fanfiction and fanart show grindelwald as the dominant partner? Like if you think their dynamic doesn’t fall neatly into the dom/sub categories and the demarcation is blurred. It is said that Albus dressed flamboyantly later in life but he’s very tall and already had stubble when he was 18. Conversely gellert is described as good-looking in a way that inspired protectiveness (from Harry) and is a Seer, a magical trait mostly associated with women

Hi anon!

Uh, I really don't think I'm the right person for this question. Dom/sub dynamics are... not really terms I think in. (Not because I'm opposed to it or anything, I just find it very strange that people take it as the natural lense through which to view a relationship dynamic. I mean, a relationship should be an equal partnership, what's with the insistence of figuring out who's "dominant"? Also the whole framework smells suspiciously of heterosexual gender stereotypes. Buuttt I digress). Since you're here, though, I'll do my best to answer.

The straightforward Doylist explanation is that, looking at a cross-fandom sample, hero/villain ships tend to portray the villain as dominant. It's a trope. I'd pin it on narrative structures that have the villain as the aggressive party, and the hero as the reactive one; a structure which certainly applies in this case, since Grindelwald is the one with a cause and Dumbledore is (very reluctantly) reacting. However, the fact that they ended up in this dynamic is largely a matter of circumstances and may not say much about their dynamic when they were actually together, so perhaps it's not the most satisfying answer.

To discuss what I actually think their dynamic would be like: I doubt either of them would be satisfied being consistently submissive. They were drawn to each other's power, after all; having either of them submit completely would likely have lost the other's interest. That said, I can see why it's easier to imagine Albus being submissive. He already has loving relationships with other people (in a non-romantic sense, obviously) so he's more practiced with vulnerablity and compromise. Hell, even the fact that he's in Godric's Hollow that summer is the result of him compromising for the sake of his loved ones. We don't know that Gellert has any similar ties; the fact that he ended up staying with Bathilda suggests there's no-one closer to him, and while he and Bathilda got on well there's no sign that he would sacrifice or compromise anything for her. So, if one of them had to be more vulnerable, it would be easier to see Albus doing it; it's not as big a deal for him. Gellert, meanwhile, would likely feel threatened by the loss of power at first; he's used to relying on himself and seeing others as rivals or threats, the concept of feeling safe surrendering power to someone he loves isn't as easy for him.

That said, I actually find submissive Gellert much more interesting because of this. Gellert is all about power, as symbolised by his interest in the Elder Wand. Giving it up, in any form, would be the ultimate show of love and trust for him. I imagine Gellert as someone who has difficulty admitting affection sincerely in words. He can sweet-talk and manipulate with ease, but - maybe precisely because of that - I imagine that he would be frightened of the weight of admitting something too honest. So, he would admit it in actions instead - like surrendering, letting someone else dominate him, something which has massive significance for a person with narcissistic tendencies who would normally hate to put someone else "above" himself in any sense. So yes, I think Gellert being submissive would definitely happen, but would be shown more rarely because of the much greater emotional impact and significance when it does happen.

... Well, I said I was the wrong person to ask, but considering how much I had to say, maybe not?

(As a side note: what's the quote that says he was good-looking in a way that "inspired protectiveness"? I don't remember anything like that.)

#Grindeldore #Relationship dynamics #Meta #Ask #Thank you for asking!#Even if the question isn't really up my ally

48 notes · View notes

kokkuri3 · 4 years

Note

Hello! Which books/arcticles/etc can you recommend If I am interested in writing character`s analyses as good as you?

This was SUCH a flattering ask to receive and I'm glad you respect me enough to ask it!! I thought about this question for a while and my answer is this:

There are a few books and articles I can recommend. The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Writer's Journey are both important works among literary analysis circles and their deconstructions of fundamental character archetypes are, in my opinion, very helpful to know. Articles on character analysis specifically are in my experience a little hard to come by, and most focus more on the writing of the essay more than the analysis itself. WriteAnyPapers has a not bad article on it.

The books and articles I linked all explain fundamental character archetypes, and how they fit into a larger work. Having an understanding of these groundworks is important to being able to interpret characters and literature as a whole, at least in my opinion. What you're actually looking for, however, probably isn't what's in those books. What you want to know is probably more along the lines of "how do you come to interpret characters like this." In which case, I think it's better if I just give some advice myself.

1. Consider the greater whole.

This is the most important advice I have. When I say "consider the greater whole," I mean that one must always put any event, line, or character into the context of the story or character as a whole. Everything a character does, says, or narrates is part of their larger characterization. To take it a step further, characters exist as part of a greater narrative, and are part of a larger context. It's important to understand these as a network of interacting elements, and not as singular, independent episodes.

How does this character behave differently from other characters? In what way do they behave the same? Who is important to them, and to who are they important to? Why do they matter to the story as a whole? For this last question, consider not only plot, but themes and symbolism.

Essentially: everything is connected, so you have to consider what one thing has to do with another. (Note: sometimes, this also means taking the cultural context of a character or work into consideration. I don't think that's always necessary for character analysis, though.)

2. Consider more than just what's text.

By which I mean: take into account not only stated or directly shown characterization, but more subtle instances, as well. Not every event in a character's life will be shown, nor will their every thought. Learn to interpret subtext, identify symbolism, and recognize double meaning.

Subtext is a very important part of a narrative, despite being often overlooked or regarded as non-canon. For some purposes, I understand why subtext is held as lesser than canon (for example, I wouldn't call a character who is never explicitly stated or shown to experience same gender attraction 'canonically gay'), but for character analysis, your purpose is already to come to a conclusion that's not immediately obvious. By throwing away subtext, one erases a genuine part of a character's writing, making what they reach a bad faith interpretation (meaning, one made with an agenda).

Symbolism is often used to communicate characterization in a subtextual manner. This symbolism can be associated with particular events, or attached to a character design. If you see a specific symbol recurring throughout a work, try to see if there is any connection between its appearances. Some symbols aren't recurring within a specific work, but are associated with certain qualities across multiple works. I don't do symbol analysis as often as I do character analysis, but here's an analysis that's more the former (on scissors, specifically) and here's one that's more the latter (on white dresses as a symbol of purity.) By learning to recognize and interpret symbolism, one is able to see more aspects of a character than they would have otherwise.

Essentially: Not everything about a character will be explicitly stated, so it's alright to interpret a character based on guesses or assumptions, so long as these are backed by canon.

3. Do not conflate a character and their archetype.

One thing that happens often, and which bugs me to hell and back, is when assumptions are made about a character based on an archetype they appear to be, even when these assumptions blatantly conflict with canon. This rule is less "how to write a good character analysis" and more "how to not write a bad one," but I see this done so often I had to include it.

Is this character actually stupid, or did you just assume they were because they have traits associated with stupid characters? Is this character actually competent, or did you just assume they were because they have traits associated with competent characters? Is this character actually flirtatious, or did you just... You get my point.

In many ways this is also about combating stereotypes. You should always check your analysis for traits that are potentially racist/misogynist/homophobic/etc., and make sure canon actually supports these traits.

Character archetypes aren't bad-- they, like all tropes, are tools. Having a framework for a character can be helpful in writing them, and by creating a character that can be easily associated with other, similar ones, one can essentially shorthand to the reader what their position in the narrative will be. But well written characters are always greater than their archetypes. Identify which archetypes you associate with a character, and try to figure out if there are any ways in which they avert, subvert, or otherwise go against traits typical of their archetype.

Essentially: Make sure you're thinking about the character you're analyzing, and not other, similar characters.

4. Don't let personal biases cloud your judgement.

Fictional characters are not your friends. Nor are they your enemies. Developing a personal attachment or relationship to characters is natural, and I certainly do it. When analyzing a character, however, you shouldn't let any emotions you have warp your perception of the text.

Simply because you like a character does not mean you should look over their flaws. Sometimes, analysis can lead you to the conclusion a character you thought was good was actually pretty terrible. That's alright, and you're not betraying anyone by pointing out a character's dubious actions or flaws. Similarly, you can't make up reasons a character you hate is a terrible person. By framing actions not originally written as malicious as though they are a crime, one creates a bad faith interpretation.

And, by extent, just because you find a particular subject difficult does not mean you should ignore it. Bad faith interpretations go both ways, and interpretations made having erased all traces of taboo subject matter are as much made on false pretenses as interpretations made while fetishizing these.

Essentially: Fictional characters aren't real, and thus won't be hurt by your analysis. You shouldn't feel guilty or vengeful in creating a disparaging analysis, nor should you feel supportive or shameful in creating a supportive one. And it's OK to have mixed feelings on a character-- I take it as a sign of good writing.

Otherwise, my advice is a lot more broad. Simply familiarizing yourself with literature and its analysis should help you. Try to learn from other people. In my opinion, being a writer myself and learning to develop my own characters has positively influenced my interpretation. TVTropes as a website... Isn't great, but it is a pretty good way to learn to identify patterns across media to help with analysis and is also pretty fun to scroll through (actually looking at TVTropes character analyses isn't recommended though they tend to be pretty terrible). Wikipedia explains a lot of important analytical terminology (I reference foils a lot, for example). Have discussions with other people familiar with what you're analyzing, and don't be afraid of being wrong. Interpretation of art is subjective, so what's true to you is as true as anything. :)

Good luck !!! If you want any more advice, please let me know-- and keep in mind, a lot is just practice! I've been on Tumblr for 5+ years, and only recently have I begun making any... Decent analysis posts. As you further engross yourself, you'll be more able to identify important aspects of character and other devices such as subtext and symbolism. Even if your interpretation doesn't get much attention, keep going!!

Hope I could help!!

#writing #writeblr #OP I am you #answers #anonymous #BOTH of the posts I liked are PH/Kagepro Oops... I have autism #long post

9 notes · View notes

lo-lynx · 5 years

Text

The reluctant (masculine) hero in GoT and Harry Potter

(Spoiler warning for episode 8x04 of Game of Thrones)

In the latest episode of Game of Thrones Varys and Tyrion talks about who would be the best ruler of The Seven Kingdoms; the queen who has spent years trying to get the throne, or the potential king who doesn’t want it. (NOTE: I AM NOT TAKING A STAND ON WHO WOULD BE THE BETTER RULER) Varys then says: “Have you considered the best ruler might be someone who doesn’t want to rule?” (Game of Thrones 2019: 57:34 min) This plays right into the classic trope of the reluctant hero, the character who doesn’t want to lead but is forced into the situation and turns out to be the hero. Another example of this is Harry Potter, who never wants to be the chosen one, but ends up leading the fight against evil nonetheless. In the seventh Harry Potter book the issue of power and how it can corrupt is very present, and in their final dreamlike discussion Harry and his mentor Dumbledore discusses just that. Dumbledore says:

It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. Those who, like you, have leadership thrust upon them, and take up the mantle because they must, and find to their own surprise that they wear it well. (Rowling 2007: 575)

I couldn’t help but to think of that quote after watching that latest Game of Thrones episode and ruminating on how alike Jon Snow and Harry Potter’s journey of reluctant leadership are. Jon Snow declines leadership several times in both the books and the show, in this latest episode of the show they emphases several time how he doesn’t want the throne. The books obviously haven’t gotten that far, but there as well this trope is evident when Jon initially doesn’t want to be the Lord Commander of the Night’s Watch (Martin 2000/2011: 519). This recurring theme in stories of the hero not wanting to lead is interesting and is most likely there to make us more sympathetic towards them. But as @arhythmetric on twitter wrote (and shout out to her for being the inspiration of this text), not everyone has the opportunity to be a leader in the first place:

I understand the appeal of the “reluctant monarch” but I continue to hate it because it almost always cuts against those to whom power doesn’t just fall into their laps. Look at who gets to be the reluctant monarch every time: straight, able-bodied white men.

The myth of the reluctant leader cuts against women, POC, LGBTQ, disabled people, those who DON’T already have power. And when they try to take some of it, they get painted as power hungry for wanting something denied to them. Because we have to fight for it in a way those who just get it don’t. (arhythmetric 2019)

There are a million ways one could analyse the reluctant hero, why some leaders are seen as legitimate and some not, but one thing that struck me as interesting is the way the importance of them to be masculine.

As many have written before, the traditional hero in Western stories are male, and masculine (Goodwill 2009: 15). But what does masculine mean? RW Connell (2008: 109) writes that there are different types of masculinities in society, that are all a result of the gender relations that exists. She sees gender as a way to organise social praxis, that is, how everyday life is organised based on the reproductive arena (i.e. bodily functions such as attraction and child bearing) (Connell 2008: 138). Moreover, by describing the different kinds of masculinity that exists she makes it clear that there are hierarchical relations between them as well (Connell 2008: 114). She describes different types of masculinity, but here I want to focus on hegemonial masculinity. Hegemonial masculinity is the type of masculinity that is on the top of the gender hierarchy. It is the ideal version of masculinity and the one that best preserves men’s power over women. It’s important to note that this might not be what we often think of as the most masculine, it doesn’t have to be a body builder for instance. In Sweden (where I live) I’d probably describe it as a white middle class man, who works out (but not too much), is a responsible dad, is handy and likes being outdoors, but is also “with the times” and tech-savvy… You get it, the ideal. The point is that hegemonial masculinity is different in different contexts. One important part of it however is that it often excludes certain types of men, for instance LGBTQ men are often seen as “too feminine” (Connell 2008: 116). Another example is that men of colour for instance might represent a marginalised masculinity, something framed as the opposite of the (white) hegemonic masculinity (Connell 2008: 117).

How does this all connect to the reluctant hero? Well, I would consider most heroes to be examples of hegemonic masculinity. In many ways, that is what makes others rally around them as leaders, even if they don’t want to be those leaders. If we use Harry Potter and Jon Snow as examples they very much fit many of the requirements to be ideal masculine heroes. Firstly, they’re both white, straight (as far as we know…), able-bodied and men. Like Varys said in this last Game of Thrones episode “Yes because he’s a man. Cocks are important I’m afraid.” (Game of Thrones 2019: 1:01:08 min) (Note: I obviously don’t think genitals determine one’s gender, but the world does, including in Westeros) But while they’re both fighters they aren’t merciless, both of them try to spare people from death when they can, often to their own detriment. (Martin 2011/2012: 829 & 1064; Rowling 2007: 64) This shows that they aren’t just super-masculine killing machines. The fact that they don’t want to be leaders also show that they are somewhat humble, another good trait. But the fact that they can afford to not be ambitious, and still becomes leaders is in my opinion dependant on the fact that they fit the image of hegemonic masculinity so well.

Wahl, Holgersson, Höök and Linghag (2011) discusses how gender impacts hierarchies in organisations, and what kind of leader someone can be. They write about three aspects that impacts one’s ability to rise in the hierarchy; ability/opportunity, power, and the composition of the group (Wahl et al. 2011: 77). The first aspect is about what kind of ability one perceives themselves to have to advance. Someone with limited resources/opportunities will limit their own ambition, but someone who starts off with many opportunities will have a higher self-esteem and make use of the opportunities they have. When it comes to power, someone with a small amount of power becomes more authoritative and has to use force to get their will through (Wahl et al 2011: 79). But someone with more power can afford to be more relaxed and thus is generally more liked. Finally, the group’s composition matters because if you are in a minority (for instance being a woman in a male-dominated workplace) you become more visible (Wahl et al 2011: 80). This can be negative because you then become a representative of that whole minority and might have to suffer from stereotypes that exists. You might also feel more pressured to perform well, feeling that you are a representative of for instance all women. A final consequence might be that the majority group might feel threatened by you infringing on what has previously solely been their territory.

Does any of this sound familiar? Those last points in particular, in my opinion, very much describe how Daenerys and Jon have been described in this last season of Game of Thrones. Authoritative and disliked, or less bothered by formalities and more liked by the people. Daenerys is a stranger, not only as someone having lived in another country, but also as a woman trying to rule. She becomes hyper visible in this way, and as Varys says, perhaps people would be less forgiving if she was a man. Jon on the other hand doesn’t want to rule, but people keep trying to force it on him. He can keep turning down leadership, but people will still accept him as a leader. If Daenerys didn’t actively try to seek power no one would give it to her. This is in the end why so many reluctant heroes are white straight able-bodied men, they can be reluctant and still be given power. I’m not saying that someone that isn’t a white man is automatically a better ruler. But I am saying that it’s much easier for such a person to gain power. If a woman, POC, LGBTQ+ person, and/or disabled person doesn’t actively seek it no one will give it to us. But a good hero doesn’t seek power.

References:

arhythmetric (2019). I understand the appeal of the "reluctant monarch"(…) [twitter post], 6th of May. https://twitter.com/arhythmetric/status/1125377350596812801 [2019-05-06]

Connell, R.W. (2008) Maskuliniteter. (2nd edition). Göteborg: Bokförlaget Daidalos AB [this is the Swedish translation of Connell’s book Masculinities]

Game of Thrones (2019). The Last of the Starks. [TV-show] HBO, 5th of May.

Goodwill, J-A. S. (2009) THE ACTION HERO REVISIONED: AN ANALYSIS OF FEMALE “MASCULINITY” IN THE NEW FEMALE HERO IN RECENT FILMIC TEXTS. Master dissertation. University of South Africa.

Martin, G.R.R. (2000/2011). A Storm of Swords 2: Blood and Gold. London: HarperVoyager.

Martin, G. R. R. (2011/2012). A Dance with Dragons. London: HarperVoyager.

Rowling, J.K. (2007). Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Wahl, A., Holgersson, C., Höök, P. & Linghag, S. (2011). Det ordnar sig: teorier om organisation och kön. Lund: Studentlitteratur.

#game of thrones #got #got spoilers #harry potter #feminism

112 notes · View notes

curseofstrahdxeli · 5 years

Text

Inverting Stereotypes in Curse of Strahd

Originally from this reddit thread by JimCasy

Modules

While looking for some art to post in my Curse of Strahd group, I ran into this interesting article on racial stereotypes in this long-time classic D&D adventure. For the sake of this post, I won't be debating the observations or stereotypes the article covers. Instead, I'll be taking these at face value, and seeing how one could work the story in a way that inverts these stereotypes in ways that actually enhance the overall story and experience of Curse of Strahd.

A Note on Stereotypes and Storytelling

It's been my experience thus far as a DM that stereotypes need not always be avoided. Indeed, many players come to the table to live out some of the common tropes of D&D. At the same time, I've also found that bending these tropes, working in more variable gender roles, and generally subverting players' expectations has made for much better storytelling.

The Vistani

Though the campaign begins likely with the party trusting the Vistani, if you play it by the book, they're likely to hate these wandering Romani-counterparts nearly as much as they hate Strahd himself. While the twist is good, I think we're served better by dishing out a more intricate picture of these people.

This one is very easily addressed! Some of my plans:

Rather than mostly thieves, bandits and thugs, we can throw in a bunch of different stat blocks for Vistani, which also have corresponding personal traits we might expect.

Bards. Vistani are all about music and entertainment! Every Vistani camp should have a musician or two, and perhaps every other camp has a particularly magical one (aka Bard). This character can use Song of Rest to help characters recover, and perhaps even be recruited to help the party out on their many missions. This character would be mostly interested in uplifting spirits, gaining renown, and is a perfect source for humor in this very dark setting.

Druids. Vistani have to eat, care for animals, hunt, and obtain fresh water on their many travels. It only makes sense that a Vistani Druid or two wander around Barovia helping the various camps make ends' meet. These would be more of a neutral bent, more interested in the state of the land and its creatures than the politics of the Vistani and Barovians. They would likely be willing to grant insight to the characters on the creatures of the land, and serve as temporary guides.

Guards. While the book states Vistani aren't allowed in Vallaki, I think throwing a few Vistani guards into the mix shows that this prejudice is pushed back upon and not always tolerated. Rather than assuming that this kind of segregation has won out in Barovia, it creates more tension to have character which break the mold. Vistani guards would be more willing to turn a blind eye to characters trying to do good - such as feed or even release prisoners. They may also cause distractions for the players or assist them in town in other ways, provided it doesn't get them into too much danger. These guards would be respected and appreciated by some Barovians who can't provide much entertainment or soul-ful light on their own.

Craftspeople. The Vistani have tons of trinkets, instruments, weapons, leather armor, and other supplies that all need to be made and cared for. This is an important stat-block or character type to subvert the typical criminal stereotype, as it shows these are a people who work and create for themselves (though some still resort to thievery and deception!).

Some others would be Scouts, Priests, Archers/Hunters, Knights, and Veterans.

Alignment changes: have more Good Vistani in the mix.

We have a couple of options here. We can maintain the overall structure of the story and the alignment of the main Vistani characters (who are mostly in line with Strahd one way or another), OR we can flip these on their heads and change up the core story to account for that.

If we do the former, we can simply throw in more Vistani NPC's (per above examples) that break the mold and are actually Chaotic Good like Esmerelda. While she is most likely to join the party on their adventures, the other Good Vistani will serve as temporary helpers and guides along the way. They may even hint at the underhanded plots of other Neutral and Evil Vistani.

Madam Eva is a central figure to the story, and she's said to be chaotic neutral. However, I'm likely to play her more as Neutral-Good, as her ultimate aim to free Strahd from his curse is definitely good. The means by which she attempts to do this may stray into grey areas, but particularly in the story with our players we can highlight her inner tension (once they learn more of her history), and not simply cave to allow her to be a more neutral and sometimes evil character.

With Madam Eva as a central leader of the Vistani, this inner-tension she has would be shared among her people. While some can be played as a bit more opportunistic and villainous, the story gains a great deal more depth if most Vistani are chaotic-neutral or neutral-good. They're primarily a very creative, poetic, passionate, musical, talented and charismatic bunch, with some bad apples who use their talents for their own gains.

Drunkenness

This one is easy - not all Vistani need to turn to the drink. It's a cop-out and overplayed stereotype! However, to play up the Vistani's love of the party we can throw in other types of recreation and creativity. Depending on your group, this could include more herbal remedies, druidic magic, competitive hunting games, card games, duels (physical or poetical), and lots of romance.

Prime example: rather than the party stumbling upon a wagon filled with 4 drunken, unconscious Vistani, I think it'd be far more interesting that they stumble into a wagon filled with 4 sleeping Vistani lovers.

Lying

Break this trope by having some Vistani actively abiding by a code of honor to never tell a lie. This would include telling things straight even if it means harm to them at times!

Theft (of children and otherwise)

Vistani can be providers not only to themselves but also to lonely Barovians struggling under the oppression of Strahd. Many Vistani don't see Strahd in a more tragic light - so too would they see the listless souls wandering about his realm. They may even see it as an important spiritual exercise to soothe the suffering of these empty vessels whenever they can. Perhaps some even believe that the souls of Barovians can be rekindled, and it's their life challenge to try to do so.

"The Evil Eye"

I'm likely nixing this entirely from my game, as I don't believe it adds much at all and plays into a very negative stereotype. This is D&D! Loads of characters have magic, including the Bestow Curse spell. Play up other types of spells that some Vistani can have, as well as Divination magics.

The Mongrelfolk

I'll be referring to them instead as the Fael-Iasg ("Fail-y-as-ick") which means "wolf-ish" in Gaelic. This avoids bad stereotypes, and also adds some culture and flavor to them.

In our game, I'm not going to play them as idiotic or unable to speak. Instead, they'll be susceptible to going into "wolf-mode", at which times they'll become more animal than human. However, when they're in their humanoid mood, they'll be able to communicate. Just not super well, since they're not the most sociable of folk.

In my view these are not a whole lot different than Kenku, and so I'll be playing them in a similar way. They're the result of a curse laid down centuries prior, and while there is some tragedy to their story, they do their best with what they've got. They can be incredibly strong, fast, and sneaky.

Ultimately I'll be playing them a bit as a different genus of Werewolves, though less powerful.

To maintain the horror elements of some of the encounters with these folk, it's fairly simple - some of them have been possessed by a spirit of the land that has corrupted Barovia. This would be Baba Lysaga - not Strahd himself. These Fael-Iasg are known to get out and attack villagers at times, and is a big reason why they've become more isolated.

That's all for now! Thanks for reading.

#;;post: Written #;;important #I won't be adding all of these #but I use utilize some #;;group: Vistani #;;group: Mongrelfolk

5 notes · View notes