Eleven chapters into Game of Thrones now. It's actually turning out to be quite tolerable. I've only cursed at it twice since my last rant.
I did get to Arya, though. The tomboy princess. Which has sparked another rant.
Arya, you see, is terrible at embroidery, and all girly things. She is not conventionally pretty. She is good at riding and math, and wants to learn to use a sword.
Arya is a strongfemalecharacter written by a straightwhiteman.
I am not saying that straight white men cannot write strong female characters - case in point Joss Whedon. But there are a few things to keep in mind when writing them.
1. Don't define them solely by their femininity
Arya's main defining characteristic is that she is a girl who likes boy things. This is the same problem I have with crossdressing - the strongfemalecharacter is strong because she takes on a masculine role. That is not feminism. All that does is reinforce gender binaries and male supremacy.
2. Don't ignore her femininity
The fact that Arya has to be bad at embroidery to be good with a sword (presumeably) bothers me. I crochet. I also fence. You can have both! This goes back to the binary - because Arya likes boy things, she can't like girl things. I am also irked by the fact that no writer has ever had the balls to go ahead and make the princess a transman. Or at least a dyke. Something other than falling prey to compulsory heterosexuality.
Okay, yes, Arya lives in a patriarchal medieval society, and I think she ends up in an arranged marriage later, so I'm going to set her aside for a moment and look at other tomboy princesses.
1. Eilonwy, from the Prydain Chronicles, by Lloyd Alexander
Eilonwy is also better at swordplay than embroidery - at least, she has more fun with it. She is not played off as a master swordswoman, though; she just likes adventuring. And she's fun. She's the sharp-tongued, practical wit, who comes up with weird analogies for everything. Arya is a girl who likes boy things. See the difference?
In the end, though, Eilonwy marries Taran out of literary convention.
2. Suzy Turquoise Blue, from The Keys to the Kingdom, by Garth Nix
Suzy's also kind of an Eilonwy. Not a princess, though. More practical than witty, and wonderfully irreverent. She is not girly, but not because she is masculine. She just is.
And actually, she doesn't hook up with anyone. Then again, she's like ten, and it's a kids book.
3. Elayne, from The Wheel of Time, by Robert Jordan
I could also have gone with Egwene, but I'm trying to stick with the princess theme. She becomes a badass mother (no, literally), queen, and mage. All perfectly within her reach as a princess, without crossdressing or being "masculine." Though she does start swearing like a soldier to get man-cred.
Sort averts CH? There's some polyamory going on.
4. Isodel, from Year of the Griffin, by Diana Wynne Jones
I'm reaching a little with this one. Isodel is conventionally pretty and unconventionally badass. I mean, she rides a dragon. Not as part of a scheme to save the world, he just kind of fell platonically in love with her. Everyone kind of falls in love with her.
She falls in love at first sight with Emperor Titus. It's Jones, so it's sort of a parody. All of her romantic subplots go like, pretty much. No fuss, no bother.
5. Millie, from The Lives of Christopher Chant, by Diana Wynne Jones
Technically a priestess/goddess rather than a princess. Very powerful enchantress. Decides to escape oppressive temple life to become a British schoolgirl. Can you get much girlier than that?
Marries Christopher when they are much older.
6. Everyone with a vagina (and then some!) in The Last Rune, by Mark Anthony
Seriously. There are two queens in book one, neither of which rule over a matriarchy (I think it's insulting to say that the only way a woman can rule is if the ruler has to be a woman). Plus, the main female lead gets mistaken for a duchess, and is bad at embroidery because she is from the modern world where people don't do that anymore, not because she rejects feminine things; and her best friend is a baroness who practically runs a castle as part of her gender role, helps the heros save the world a million times, and eventually becomes a queen in her own right. Not to mention that there are female VILLAINS. I mean, how awesome is it that you have so many strong female characters that you don't worry that having female villains is going to put a negative portrayal of women in your book?
Aryn, the baroness, has to marry a prince to become queen, but it is also clear that he had to marry her for the populace to accept him as king, and the Final Battle is coming so they need a strong leader NOW. They don't love each other, but it's implied they learn to like each other.
7. Rapunzel from Tangled
Yeah, it's a movie. It's also past midnight and I did not start out intending to make a top ten list. I think I'll cut it at eight. But she's a flippin' Disney princess - girly girl icon. But she has personality beyond her gender, and she is interesting and fun. Also, remember what I said about female villains?
So she marries a prince in the end. It's a Disney movie. And they actually had good chemistry, as opposed to, say, Arial, who never actually talked to her prince.
8. Tek, from the Firebringer Trilogy, by Meredith Ann Pierce
Yeah, I'm really tired now. Tek's a unicorn princess. Actually, she's not actually a princess, but she marries a prince. And then she finds out she's actually the king's daughter, and they have an incest scare, but then it turns out the prince isn't the king's son (sorry, spoiler). She's a badass warrior, kind of Nala-like in that she can kick the prince's ass (hmm, Nala's another good one), but unicorn society doesn't exactly have gender roles, so in-universe, her warrior skills have nothing to do with her female-ness. Out of 'verse, however, they give her traditionally masculine characteristics, while the prince is the more "feminine" sensitive peacemaker type. But it's not over-the-top, and I like her.
Like I said, marries the prince. CompHet. It's not a married-ever-after, though; it happens at the beginning of book 2. So they have an actual relationship as a married couple.
I need to stop now before I stop making sense. Basically, Arya bugs me because she is flat, and Martin doesn't know how to write women. The End.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The Crossdressing Epic
This issue annoys me so much I can't sleep until I rant about it.
It all started with Scott Westerfeld's Leviathan, which I am currently reading because I feel obligated too, and because I might get money for writing a review of it. If you don't know, it is about an alternate history where WWI is fought with giant steampunk mechas and genetically engineered mutant creatures. It is a really cool setup, and it is a shame that it is ruined by completely awful protagonists.
To be fair, the boy protagonist is not so bad, and by the time he is standing on top of a running mecha while being shot at, trying to cut loose a signal flare using his dead father's sword...yeah, he's cool. The girl is the one I want to punch in the face.
The problem with crossdressing epics is that, rather than providing a unique and intriguing view of gender roles, they fall far too easily into the trap of relying on gender stereotypes. Second, every sentence devoted to the girl worrying about someone discovering she is a girl, is a sentence in which nothing happens. I don't care if she is supposed to be a strong female protagonist, and a role model proving that girls can do stuff (if they dress like boys), I want to go back to the flaming sword mecha fight.
The girls who follow this path are all luckily tall, skinny, and flat-chested, but none are actually lesbians (or trans, for that matter). Because lesbians did not exist before the 60's, and certainly none of them tried crossdressing. I am not saying that the heroines of crossdressing epics should necessarily be gay; I'm just saying that it seems to never even have been considered.
Furthermore, CE's act all progressive and feministy, but again, why is being a boy the only option? Why can't she wear skirts and be married and be a devious manipulator, the power behind the throne? Or a spy? Or a badass housewife? Because people want to read a typical boy's adventure story, but be feministy and include a female protagonist who is not a princess that needs to be rescued. Or they are too lazy to come up with an original plot.
This is another problem of society marches on, and literature stays stuck in a rut, blindly following the patterns of novels from before and ignoring the plots of real life. Sexism does still exist today; a woman in a typically male profession will face it, leading to complications more interesting and relevant than trying to avoid being seen naked. At least Westerfeld does have historical context. Though considering girls have a lower body mass, you'd think they would be more in demand on bioengineered airships...
Which brings us back to my original complaint of wanting to punch that particular protagonist in the face. Her only defining character trait is being a girl. Otherwise, she behaves just like your average dopey farmboy protagonist (I have no idea if she actually comes from a farm or not). Westerfeld tries to compensate by assuring the audience that she is in fact a very good flyer. However, it comes off as insecurity in writing a female protagonist. She just has to be really super good at what she does. You know, to prove the sexes are equal and all.
I did track down a quote from Discworld that might help potential writers of CE's: "in an age before unisex fashions, trousers meant 'man' and skirts meant 'woman'. Trousers plus high-pitched voice meant 'young man'. People didn't expect anything else, and saw what they expected to see."
Which makes complete sense; if a girl is doing something so unthinkable, why is she so worried someone will think it? She's tall, skinny, and flat-chested, so what's to worry about? Get back to the plot already!
It all started with Scott Westerfeld's Leviathan, which I am currently reading because I feel obligated too, and because I might get money for writing a review of it. If you don't know, it is about an alternate history where WWI is fought with giant steampunk mechas and genetically engineered mutant creatures. It is a really cool setup, and it is a shame that it is ruined by completely awful protagonists.
To be fair, the boy protagonist is not so bad, and by the time he is standing on top of a running mecha while being shot at, trying to cut loose a signal flare using his dead father's sword...yeah, he's cool. The girl is the one I want to punch in the face.
The problem with crossdressing epics is that, rather than providing a unique and intriguing view of gender roles, they fall far too easily into the trap of relying on gender stereotypes. Second, every sentence devoted to the girl worrying about someone discovering she is a girl, is a sentence in which nothing happens. I don't care if she is supposed to be a strong female protagonist, and a role model proving that girls can do stuff (if they dress like boys), I want to go back to the flaming sword mecha fight.
The girls who follow this path are all luckily tall, skinny, and flat-chested, but none are actually lesbians (or trans, for that matter). Because lesbians did not exist before the 60's, and certainly none of them tried crossdressing. I am not saying that the heroines of crossdressing epics should necessarily be gay; I'm just saying that it seems to never even have been considered.
Furthermore, CE's act all progressive and feministy, but again, why is being a boy the only option? Why can't she wear skirts and be married and be a devious manipulator, the power behind the throne? Or a spy? Or a badass housewife? Because people want to read a typical boy's adventure story, but be feministy and include a female protagonist who is not a princess that needs to be rescued. Or they are too lazy to come up with an original plot.
This is another problem of society marches on, and literature stays stuck in a rut, blindly following the patterns of novels from before and ignoring the plots of real life. Sexism does still exist today; a woman in a typically male profession will face it, leading to complications more interesting and relevant than trying to avoid being seen naked. At least Westerfeld does have historical context. Though considering girls have a lower body mass, you'd think they would be more in demand on bioengineered airships...
Which brings us back to my original complaint of wanting to punch that particular protagonist in the face. Her only defining character trait is being a girl. Otherwise, she behaves just like your average dopey farmboy protagonist (I have no idea if she actually comes from a farm or not). Westerfeld tries to compensate by assuring the audience that she is in fact a very good flyer. However, it comes off as insecurity in writing a female protagonist. She just has to be really super good at what she does. You know, to prove the sexes are equal and all.
I did track down a quote from Discworld that might help potential writers of CE's: "in an age before unisex fashions, trousers meant 'man' and skirts meant 'woman'. Trousers plus high-pitched voice meant 'young man'. People didn't expect anything else, and saw what they expected to see."
Which makes complete sense; if a girl is doing something so unthinkable, why is she so worried someone will think it? She's tall, skinny, and flat-chested, so what's to worry about? Get back to the plot already!
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Quoth the Rowling, Pottermore
Sorry about the title. Couldn't resist. Despite which, I still don't have a clue what Pottermore is.
I am the Harry Potter generation, defined here as someone who 1) waited for a letter from Hogwarts, 2) went to a midnight book release. So I read it. I liked it.
Then it became popular.
If HP had not become so popular, I can see two ways my life might be different. 1) I would like it more than I do now, treasure it for its nostalgia purposes, immerse myself in the world. Or 2) I'd stick it in the back of the shelf and forget all about it.
As far as stories go, it is rather forgettable. There's a kid who discovers he has special powers and has to stop some evil dude from doing evil stuff. The characters are rather bland, rather stupid at times, and the magic stuff (wands and broomsticks etc.), which start out as delightfully whimsical, become more narmy as the series grows darker.
That last paragraph could get me burned at the stake. Or at least accused of being a snob (why yes, I am still bitter).
Stop hating on Harry, he says. It's just a kid's book.
Just a kid's book.
So too is Warriors. So too is Artemis Fowl. So too is almost...every...single...frickin'...thing...by DIANA WYNNE JONES. And did I mention Narnia?
The problem of the matter is that Harry hits puberty. Narnia is like a roller coaster; you must be less than this high to ride. Rowling, with a book series that spanned seven years, had two choices: She could pretend puberty does not exist and keep her target demographic as 8-10 year olds. Or she could anticipate her aging readers and transition her books to YA.
And that, I think, is why HP became so popular. It aged with the readers. Not well (see Potter Puppet Pals Wizard Angst), but it is the only series I can think of that started out with a child protagonist and ended with a teenager that was written to act like a teenager. While most other books have to rely on new generations after the old one ages, the HP generation stuck with those books.
I can't think of many other reasons HP became so popular, though I suppose I could hazard a few more guesses...
-The action took place in a school. Everyone knows about schools. But this was a magic school, so it was interesting. Fantasy stories have a tendency to take the reader away from the familiar and recognizeable. Lots of forests. Castles. Places most people don't live.
-The magic was very generic. Nix had his light magic (or bells, but Sabriel isn't as nostalgic to me), Duane had her mystical Speech, Jones had...whatever Jones had. But to the average layperson, the connotations that go with the word "magic" are still waving a wand and mumbling a few funny words. So an ordinary person (for want of a better term) could pick up HP and recognize the magic.
And that's it. I mean, does anyone really care about any of the characters' personalities? Besides Sirius, that is? No, because the characters simply play their roles as Designated Hero with a saving-people thing, Designated Sidekick who backs him up in everything, and Designated Smart One who dispenses plot-relevant information and gives advice for the hero to ignore. Oh, and Designated Love Interest to...be fallen in love with. Though in all fairness, Ginny seems to be able to do a better job getting Harry to listen to reason than Hermione does.
I did not realize I was quite this bitter. I know that the world is not fair, and that Jones, who is the superior being, will never be as rich or famous as Rowling. And I wouldn't want her too. I would rather keep her private, personal, something I can form an instant connection over with a person. And I have resigned myself to the fact that HP has altered the face of fantasy forever. If I say I like fantasy, I usually hear a response like "Oh, like Harry Potter? Like Lord of the Rings? Like Terry Pratchett?" And the answer is no; like Sarah Monette and Diana Wynne Jones and Galen Beckett and Meredith Ann Pierce. Books by people who like magical stuff, but don't feel bound by genre constraints or the expectations of the readers.
Dammit, I guess I am a snob. I still remember those few years when fantasy was mine, and the choice was to feel like a freak for reading about magic, or to be proud of being different. So when the public eye turned on my secret niche, the only choice was to seek deeper obscurity. Or maybe I'm just irked that for most people, HP is the definition of fantasy, when it is so much more than that.
I am the Harry Potter generation, defined here as someone who 1) waited for a letter from Hogwarts, 2) went to a midnight book release. So I read it. I liked it.
Then it became popular.
If HP had not become so popular, I can see two ways my life might be different. 1) I would like it more than I do now, treasure it for its nostalgia purposes, immerse myself in the world. Or 2) I'd stick it in the back of the shelf and forget all about it.
As far as stories go, it is rather forgettable. There's a kid who discovers he has special powers and has to stop some evil dude from doing evil stuff. The characters are rather bland, rather stupid at times, and the magic stuff (wands and broomsticks etc.), which start out as delightfully whimsical, become more narmy as the series grows darker.
That last paragraph could get me burned at the stake. Or at least accused of being a snob (why yes, I am still bitter).
Stop hating on Harry, he says. It's just a kid's book.
Just a kid's book.
So too is Warriors. So too is Artemis Fowl. So too is almost...every...single...frickin'...thing...by DIANA WYNNE JONES. And did I mention Narnia?
The problem of the matter is that Harry hits puberty. Narnia is like a roller coaster; you must be less than this high to ride. Rowling, with a book series that spanned seven years, had two choices: She could pretend puberty does not exist and keep her target demographic as 8-10 year olds. Or she could anticipate her aging readers and transition her books to YA.
And that, I think, is why HP became so popular. It aged with the readers. Not well (see Potter Puppet Pals Wizard Angst), but it is the only series I can think of that started out with a child protagonist and ended with a teenager that was written to act like a teenager. While most other books have to rely on new generations after the old one ages, the HP generation stuck with those books.
I can't think of many other reasons HP became so popular, though I suppose I could hazard a few more guesses...
-The action took place in a school. Everyone knows about schools. But this was a magic school, so it was interesting. Fantasy stories have a tendency to take the reader away from the familiar and recognizeable. Lots of forests. Castles. Places most people don't live.
-The magic was very generic. Nix had his light magic (or bells, but Sabriel isn't as nostalgic to me), Duane had her mystical Speech, Jones had...whatever Jones had. But to the average layperson, the connotations that go with the word "magic" are still waving a wand and mumbling a few funny words. So an ordinary person (for want of a better term) could pick up HP and recognize the magic.
And that's it. I mean, does anyone really care about any of the characters' personalities? Besides Sirius, that is? No, because the characters simply play their roles as Designated Hero with a saving-people thing, Designated Sidekick who backs him up in everything, and Designated Smart One who dispenses plot-relevant information and gives advice for the hero to ignore. Oh, and Designated Love Interest to...be fallen in love with. Though in all fairness, Ginny seems to be able to do a better job getting Harry to listen to reason than Hermione does.
I did not realize I was quite this bitter. I know that the world is not fair, and that Jones, who is the superior being, will never be as rich or famous as Rowling. And I wouldn't want her too. I would rather keep her private, personal, something I can form an instant connection over with a person. And I have resigned myself to the fact that HP has altered the face of fantasy forever. If I say I like fantasy, I usually hear a response like "Oh, like Harry Potter? Like Lord of the Rings? Like Terry Pratchett?" And the answer is no; like Sarah Monette and Diana Wynne Jones and Galen Beckett and Meredith Ann Pierce. Books by people who like magical stuff, but don't feel bound by genre constraints or the expectations of the readers.
Dammit, I guess I am a snob. I still remember those few years when fantasy was mine, and the choice was to feel like a freak for reading about magic, or to be proud of being different. So when the public eye turned on my secret niche, the only choice was to seek deeper obscurity. Or maybe I'm just irked that for most people, HP is the definition of fantasy, when it is so much more than that.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Post in Which I Talk About Gay Marriage
So right now Minnesota's government is discussing a ban on gay marriage.
I, unfortunately, am not registered to vote in Minnesota, and so have confined my activities to getting entangled in a comment war on Facebook. At least my friend who originally posted this is an ally. A good ally.
See, a recurring motif of the people who commented was "I have gay friends, but I don't think gay people should get married because the Bible says no." I am not going to argue the religious aspect. I do not care what you do in the privacy of your own home - and honestly, people with those opinions aren't going to change them unless they want to. What bothers me is the hypocrisy.
If you can look someone in the eye and tell them that you never want them to get married, are you truly their friend? If you tell your friends that it's okay that they are gay, but you are trying to "change yourself for God," do you think they really believe that you are okay with the gay? And if you say it's okay for people to be gay, as long as they don't get married, then are you really approving of the gay?
It also bugs me how people think they can just say anything, as long as they follow it with "But I have gay friends, so I'm not homophobic." Do you think your gay friends approve of your favorite complaint being "That's so gay!" Do you think a piece of their souls does not quietly wilt every time they hear that phrase?
Back to marriage.
I think our society has progressed to the point where homophobia is for the most part frowned upon. Most people will say they don't mind gay people in theory; what other people do in the privacy of their home is their own business. But being gay is not confined to the privacy of one's own home. You take it with you to school, to work, to parties, to the grocery store, to the dentist, to the voting booth.
Being married is not confined to the privacy of your own home. You display the ring for the world to see. Women go from Miss to Mrs. In casual conversation, the second question after "How are you?" is "How is your significant other/family?" You go together to neighborhood get-togethers and family obligations. When you fill out forms and surveys, you check the box labelled "Married."
That is why gay marriage is frowned upon by apparent non-homophobes. Gay is okay, as long as no one sees it. Marriage is far too in your face. Let's just go back to the subculture of the 1950's.
The problem with people who do not use logic to back up their arguments is that it is impossible to use logic to counter them.
And so now that I have a proverbial bruise from proverbially banging my head against the wall, I leave you with the reason more people should know German:
I, unfortunately, am not registered to vote in Minnesota, and so have confined my activities to getting entangled in a comment war on Facebook. At least my friend who originally posted this is an ally. A good ally.
See, a recurring motif of the people who commented was "I have gay friends, but I don't think gay people should get married because the Bible says no." I am not going to argue the religious aspect. I do not care what you do in the privacy of your own home - and honestly, people with those opinions aren't going to change them unless they want to. What bothers me is the hypocrisy.
If you can look someone in the eye and tell them that you never want them to get married, are you truly their friend? If you tell your friends that it's okay that they are gay, but you are trying to "change yourself for God," do you think they really believe that you are okay with the gay? And if you say it's okay for people to be gay, as long as they don't get married, then are you really approving of the gay?
It also bugs me how people think they can just say anything, as long as they follow it with "But I have gay friends, so I'm not homophobic." Do you think your gay friends approve of your favorite complaint being "That's so gay!" Do you think a piece of their souls does not quietly wilt every time they hear that phrase?
Back to marriage.
I think our society has progressed to the point where homophobia is for the most part frowned upon. Most people will say they don't mind gay people in theory; what other people do in the privacy of their home is their own business. But being gay is not confined to the privacy of one's own home. You take it with you to school, to work, to parties, to the grocery store, to the dentist, to the voting booth.
Being married is not confined to the privacy of your own home. You display the ring for the world to see. Women go from Miss to Mrs. In casual conversation, the second question after "How are you?" is "How is your significant other/family?" You go together to neighborhood get-togethers and family obligations. When you fill out forms and surveys, you check the box labelled "Married."
That is why gay marriage is frowned upon by apparent non-homophobes. Gay is okay, as long as no one sees it. Marriage is far too in your face. Let's just go back to the subculture of the 1950's.
The problem with people who do not use logic to back up their arguments is that it is impossible to use logic to counter them.
And so now that I have a proverbial bruise from proverbially banging my head against the wall, I leave you with the reason more people should know German:
Lyrics and translation to follow in next post.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Deconstructions
I predict that within 10 years, Hollywood will have made a movie about Osama bin Laden's death. It makes a great story, after all. Those rugged, underdog, freedom-loving Americans taking down that evil warlord.
And now for something (almost) completely different.
We know the formulas. We know what to expect from your typical action movie, romantic comedy, superhero movie, or fairy tale. That is why "historical" based movies (as well as movies that come from books, or in fact any other source material) suffer so badly. They have to be shoehorned into the mold, often distorted beyond recognition.
However, there has been a recent trend among moviemakers and novel writers of deconstructing the familiar motifs. With varying degrees of success. Superhero stories with a sympathetic villain, for instance. Or fractured fairy tales. These deconstructions fall into three types.
1) Satirical deconstruction, in which the story is written using the formula in order to make fun of itself. Slapstick comedy.
2) Brutal Deconstruction, in which the story is shown to have a darker, often gorier side. Keyword, ick.
3) Practical Deconstruction, in which the story is played straight, but tries to act more realistic. Focus on characters.
And if you don't want to take my word for it, I have a long list of examples.
The main culprits for the formula/deconstruction trap are variants of the Hero's Journey - namely, Superheroes, Fairy Tales, and fantasy literature. For instance, a satirical deconstruction of the superhero genre would be...well take your pick. I have not seen "Kick-Ass," but from the trailers I believe it one of these. What I am familiar with is the film "Mystery Men." A ragtag group of heroes with some awkward superpowers defeat a not very memorable villain. Played for laughs.
A brutal deconstruction, on the other hand, is Watchmen, both the film and the graphic novel. No superpowers, just the silly costumes and crime-fighting. The characters are set along a scale of pathetic idealist to villain who kind of has a point.
The closest thing to a practical deconstruction that I am familiar with is "The Incredibles." Yes, it follows the typical superhero pattern, but it has a few deconstructive elements. It might almost be considered a family drama.
Now for Fairy Tales. You know what I'm going to say. Yep. Shrek (Note that "Fairy Tale" in this sense is more of the Disneyfied version, rather than actual folk legends). In fact, Shrek was created by a disgruntled former Disney employee and is essentially a declaration of war on the entire Disney franchise. Need I say more?
A brutal deconstruction is, without a doubt, Gregory Maguire. Author of Wicked. No, not the musical - that got re-Disneyfied until it wasn't sure what it was supposed to be anymore and sucked. Good music, though.
A practical deconstruction is harder to pin down. I have not seen "Enchanted," so cannot offer any opinion on that. Perhaps "Ever After." She marries the prince after talking and having an actual relationship with him, and becomes a princess to actually take care of the people in the kingdom.
And of course my passion, fantasy. You may have gathered by now that as much as I love this genre, I love to hate it as well.
Terry Pratchett is definitely the iconic satirical deconstructor. I have only read one of his books, so I don't have much to say about it, but there isn't really that much to say.
Brutal deconstructions of fantasy have been gaining in popularity. Terry Goodkind was the first one I have been aware of. Before he went all crazy anti-socialist and still thought he was writing a fantasy epic. Very...detailed battle scenes. Other writers such as Mercedes Lackey sometimes attempt to do this, and heap misfortune and trauma upon their characters, but somehow at the end, all the important people get to ride away on their pretty white horse with seemingly no lasting psychological harm. This is a case of Failed Deconstruction.
My very favorite books ever - The Last Rune series, by Mark Anthony - is a practical deconstruction of fantasy. In fact, it is hardly a deconstruction at all. The story is played completely straight, with the ordinary protagonist from the Real World becoming the prophecized Hero who has to save the Pseudo-Medieval European Fantasyland from a Dark Lord. The reasons that this series is not cliche garbage are many and subtle, so I will only mention one: Anthony treats his characters like real people. All of them. He also (okay, two) strikes a very delicate balance between "Good always wins," and "The world sucks."
What did any of this have to do with bin Laden?
The key to a practical deconstruction is making the story realistic, which also has the effect of making the story complex. But complex stories don't make money. When we go see a movie for an afternoon's entertainment, we want to be entertained. We don't want to think. That is why formulas are so useful. The audience already knows what is going to happen and can enjoy the movie without any major worries.
Bin Laden's death changes nothing, and I don't have to know anything about politics to be certain of that. Al-Qaeda is not going to fall apart like the army of orcs at the end of Lord of the Rings. But America is so locked into our ideals/formulas/tropes/narratives that we fail to realize that. Real life is a messy and boring deconstruction of fiction that nobody wants to read.
And now for something (almost) completely different.
We know the formulas. We know what to expect from your typical action movie, romantic comedy, superhero movie, or fairy tale. That is why "historical" based movies (as well as movies that come from books, or in fact any other source material) suffer so badly. They have to be shoehorned into the mold, often distorted beyond recognition.
However, there has been a recent trend among moviemakers and novel writers of deconstructing the familiar motifs. With varying degrees of success. Superhero stories with a sympathetic villain, for instance. Or fractured fairy tales. These deconstructions fall into three types.
1) Satirical deconstruction, in which the story is written using the formula in order to make fun of itself. Slapstick comedy.
2) Brutal Deconstruction, in which the story is shown to have a darker, often gorier side. Keyword, ick.
3) Practical Deconstruction, in which the story is played straight, but tries to act more realistic. Focus on characters.
And if you don't want to take my word for it, I have a long list of examples.
The main culprits for the formula/deconstruction trap are variants of the Hero's Journey - namely, Superheroes, Fairy Tales, and fantasy literature. For instance, a satirical deconstruction of the superhero genre would be...well take your pick. I have not seen "Kick-Ass," but from the trailers I believe it one of these. What I am familiar with is the film "Mystery Men." A ragtag group of heroes with some awkward superpowers defeat a not very memorable villain. Played for laughs.
A brutal deconstruction, on the other hand, is Watchmen, both the film and the graphic novel. No superpowers, just the silly costumes and crime-fighting. The characters are set along a scale of pathetic idealist to villain who kind of has a point.
The closest thing to a practical deconstruction that I am familiar with is "The Incredibles." Yes, it follows the typical superhero pattern, but it has a few deconstructive elements. It might almost be considered a family drama.
Now for Fairy Tales. You know what I'm going to say. Yep. Shrek (Note that "Fairy Tale" in this sense is more of the Disneyfied version, rather than actual folk legends). In fact, Shrek was created by a disgruntled former Disney employee and is essentially a declaration of war on the entire Disney franchise. Need I say more?
A brutal deconstruction is, without a doubt, Gregory Maguire. Author of Wicked. No, not the musical - that got re-Disneyfied until it wasn't sure what it was supposed to be anymore and sucked. Good music, though.
A practical deconstruction is harder to pin down. I have not seen "Enchanted," so cannot offer any opinion on that. Perhaps "Ever After." She marries the prince after talking and having an actual relationship with him, and becomes a princess to actually take care of the people in the kingdom.
And of course my passion, fantasy. You may have gathered by now that as much as I love this genre, I love to hate it as well.
Terry Pratchett is definitely the iconic satirical deconstructor. I have only read one of his books, so I don't have much to say about it, but there isn't really that much to say.
Brutal deconstructions of fantasy have been gaining in popularity. Terry Goodkind was the first one I have been aware of. Before he went all crazy anti-socialist and still thought he was writing a fantasy epic. Very...detailed battle scenes. Other writers such as Mercedes Lackey sometimes attempt to do this, and heap misfortune and trauma upon their characters, but somehow at the end, all the important people get to ride away on their pretty white horse with seemingly no lasting psychological harm. This is a case of Failed Deconstruction.
My very favorite books ever - The Last Rune series, by Mark Anthony - is a practical deconstruction of fantasy. In fact, it is hardly a deconstruction at all. The story is played completely straight, with the ordinary protagonist from the Real World becoming the prophecized Hero who has to save the Pseudo-Medieval European Fantasyland from a Dark Lord. The reasons that this series is not cliche garbage are many and subtle, so I will only mention one: Anthony treats his characters like real people. All of them. He also (okay, two) strikes a very delicate balance between "Good always wins," and "The world sucks."
What did any of this have to do with bin Laden?
The key to a practical deconstruction is making the story realistic, which also has the effect of making the story complex. But complex stories don't make money. When we go see a movie for an afternoon's entertainment, we want to be entertained. We don't want to think. That is why formulas are so useful. The audience already knows what is going to happen and can enjoy the movie without any major worries.
Bin Laden's death changes nothing, and I don't have to know anything about politics to be certain of that. Al-Qaeda is not going to fall apart like the army of orcs at the end of Lord of the Rings. But America is so locked into our ideals/formulas/tropes/narratives that we fail to realize that. Real life is a messy and boring deconstruction of fiction that nobody wants to read.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Was ist Literatur?
What is Literature?
What kind of stupid question is that?
This is why I do not like literature classes. I do like reading, and analyzing, and asking questions about texts. The problem is that sometimes people get a bit carried away with regards to asking questions. You are only supposed to ask them when you actually want an answer - and when you have something to gain from the answer.
Literature is just a word; and like every word, it has several meanings and shades of meaning. For instance, it is often thought of as 1) what pretentious old academics call their favorite books (or the books they want you to think are their favorites), but anyone who works with it in depth usually takes the broader definition of 2) any and all written art. A colloquial meaning, and the technical meaning. No need for a philosopher; this is a job for a linguist.
I do not care if "a book is the ax for the frozen sea inside us" (Kafka). I do not care if the goal of art is "to capture this world in such a way as to show how it is, but as though it had its source in human freedom" (Sartre). All I know is that I need books the way I need food, and that if I don't write, I will die. And that is enough of an answer for me.
What kind of stupid question is that?
This is why I do not like literature classes. I do like reading, and analyzing, and asking questions about texts. The problem is that sometimes people get a bit carried away with regards to asking questions. You are only supposed to ask them when you actually want an answer - and when you have something to gain from the answer.
Literature is just a word; and like every word, it has several meanings and shades of meaning. For instance, it is often thought of as 1) what pretentious old academics call their favorite books (or the books they want you to think are their favorites), but anyone who works with it in depth usually takes the broader definition of 2) any and all written art. A colloquial meaning, and the technical meaning. No need for a philosopher; this is a job for a linguist.
I do not care if "a book is the ax for the frozen sea inside us" (Kafka). I do not care if the goal of art is "to capture this world in such a way as to show how it is, but as though it had its source in human freedom" (Sartre). All I know is that I need books the way I need food, and that if I don't write, I will die. And that is enough of an answer for me.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Scheisse! - Ich bin eine Ausländerin.
It is difficult to be a foreigner. If I have gained one useful thing from this whole experience, I will at least have a better understanding of non-native English speakers in America.
I am one of those people for whom looking stupid is one of the worst fates in the world. I am terribly self-conscious about my speaking when I am around real Germans. I know I screw up just about every ending, and that my vocabulary is not that great, and don't get me started on my accent. However, I take offense when people assume that because I am from America, I am at a certain level of German. That is to say, not able to pass the DSH 2 exam that allows me to study like a regular student at a German university. Which I have. Yes, I'm bragging; I think I deserve it.
I can write very well in German. I also read German books. The problem is, that doesn't show when you talk. People only judge your language proficiency by speech. Worse, mental capacity is often judged based on oratorial proficiency. So for instance, if you attempt to make a joke/pun/play on words/clever converstaion piece that worked last week, you might end up with a German kindly explaining a grammar rule to you.
I do not need the Germans to explain their language to me, considering that I am the one who has made a study of the grammar and rules and probably know the mechanics better than most native speakers. I need experience. I need to decipher the Hessian accent, and function in the back-and-forth of normal conversation. I need to get the courage to make mistakes in front of native speakers, and the reassurance that at least I am understood. If I need something explained, I will ask - and please explain in German. Do not immediately grope after the English translation. I am not some kind of linguistic invalid that needs to be coddled.
The point is: When confronted by a non-native speaker of your native language, handle yourself thus:
1) Ignore mistakes, unless you really cannot understand.
2) If I ask you what you mean, repeat what you said just a little bit slower and clearer. There are some things the classroom does not prepare one for. Like regional accents and normal conversation.
3) If I want a word clarified, look for synonyms or explanations in your language. Don't fall back on translation.
4) Assume that I know all the grammar theory already.
5) Tell me I speak well, or have a good accent, or something. Even if it's a lie. I like the reassurance. And I'm not going to believe you, even if you are telling the truth, so you may as well lie.
6) Do not patronize. I can think, you know. In fact, many people consider me smart. If you get over the fact that I am a non-native speaker and actually got to know me, you would find out that I have a whole lifetime of experiences, some of which might even be interesting. A foreigner is not a tabula rasa.
7) And remember: My English is better than yours.
Because I am handling a language that is not native to me, I lack the shading and inflection that comes naturally to you. That does not mean I lack emotion or opinion. Because I have a hard time expressing myself, that does not mean that there is nothing going on inside me. Seriously people - don't judge. This is a case of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Personally, I think everyone needs to experience being a stupid foreigner (being a tourist doesn't count; you're already stupid) at least once in their life.
I am one of those people for whom looking stupid is one of the worst fates in the world. I am terribly self-conscious about my speaking when I am around real Germans. I know I screw up just about every ending, and that my vocabulary is not that great, and don't get me started on my accent. However, I take offense when people assume that because I am from America, I am at a certain level of German. That is to say, not able to pass the DSH 2 exam that allows me to study like a regular student at a German university. Which I have. Yes, I'm bragging; I think I deserve it.
I can write very well in German. I also read German books. The problem is, that doesn't show when you talk. People only judge your language proficiency by speech. Worse, mental capacity is often judged based on oratorial proficiency. So for instance, if you attempt to make a joke/pun/play on words/clever converstaion piece that worked last week, you might end up with a German kindly explaining a grammar rule to you.
I do not need the Germans to explain their language to me, considering that I am the one who has made a study of the grammar and rules and probably know the mechanics better than most native speakers. I need experience. I need to decipher the Hessian accent, and function in the back-and-forth of normal conversation. I need to get the courage to make mistakes in front of native speakers, and the reassurance that at least I am understood. If I need something explained, I will ask - and please explain in German. Do not immediately grope after the English translation. I am not some kind of linguistic invalid that needs to be coddled.
The point is: When confronted by a non-native speaker of your native language, handle yourself thus:
1) Ignore mistakes, unless you really cannot understand.
2) If I ask you what you mean, repeat what you said just a little bit slower and clearer. There are some things the classroom does not prepare one for. Like regional accents and normal conversation.
3) If I want a word clarified, look for synonyms or explanations in your language. Don't fall back on translation.
4) Assume that I know all the grammar theory already.
5) Tell me I speak well, or have a good accent, or something. Even if it's a lie. I like the reassurance. And I'm not going to believe you, even if you are telling the truth, so you may as well lie.
6) Do not patronize. I can think, you know. In fact, many people consider me smart. If you get over the fact that I am a non-native speaker and actually got to know me, you would find out that I have a whole lifetime of experiences, some of which might even be interesting. A foreigner is not a tabula rasa.
7) And remember: My English is better than yours.
Because I am handling a language that is not native to me, I lack the shading and inflection that comes naturally to you. That does not mean I lack emotion or opinion. Because I have a hard time expressing myself, that does not mean that there is nothing going on inside me. Seriously people - don't judge. This is a case of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Personally, I think everyone needs to experience being a stupid foreigner (being a tourist doesn't count; you're already stupid) at least once in their life.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Love
Everything there is to say about love has already been said. However, I have not said everything I have to say.
Love is that feeling you get when someone looks at you, merely looks at you and recognizes you, and you feel like you're going to throw up or burst into tears or simply explode, because how dare they give you the hope of an actual relationship. How dare you actually even think of one. You would be lucky enough to become mere passing acquaintances - any deeper of a relationship, and you would likely discover that this person is not nearly so wonderful as you imagine them to be, or worse, they would discover that you are nothing special after all.
Some people believe that we are all half-people searching for our other half so that we can become whole. I don't buy that. The place in my heart that hurts is not a lack, not a hole, not some kind of void that needs to be filled. It is a promise, no, less than a promise. It is a potential. A possibility. That even though I am a whole person now, I might still be able to join with another person and make my life even more wonderful than it is now. I don't need another person in order to live a happy and fulfilling life.
That doesn't mean it never hurts. Considering I equate love with nausea, it most definitely hurts. And I'm sick of this awkward dance of trying to spend more time with a person while not letting them know what effect their presence has on you. I'm apparently good at hiding my feelings. It makes me wonder: It seems like we're never on the receiving end. But what if we are and we just don't know? And how would you react if you found out someone you hardly knew felt nauseous around you?
Sometimes I wish that we were birds who had an inborn mating dance. It would be so much simpler instead of trying to comply to unspoken rules learned from the media and the behavior of acquaintances. For instance, it is not socially acceptable to ask someone the second time you meet them: "Are you gay? I think I might have a crush on you, but I'd like to be certain first. And if you want to be just friends, that's fine too, mostly I'd just like to know." Or: "You're really pretty. And I'd probably be killed in your country for saying that." Or: "I know you're gay and single, and I don't know much else about you, but let's go out and see what happens, because you look like you might be interesting."
Oh yes, I have extra risk when professing my love. If you are straight, you have a 90% the other person will at least consider going out with you. If you aren't, there's also a good chance that your object of affection will be squicked out at worst, accepting but emotionally unable to reciprocate at best. Plus you have to go through the extra step of finding out if a person might potentially not be straight, instead of simply being able to see a gender.
Essentially, this post boils down to: Why are there so many interesting straight girls? Why is it so hard to tell straight girls from gay ones? Why does society and the media try to tell you that a lover is a necessity in life? Why do I want to be in love? And why does being in love have to be so uncomfortable?
Right now I have the excuse that I'm only here temporarily to keep myself from investing my emotions too deeply, but once I get home it will be only my fear holding me back.
Love is that feeling you get when someone looks at you, merely looks at you and recognizes you, and you feel like you're going to throw up or burst into tears or simply explode, because how dare they give you the hope of an actual relationship. How dare you actually even think of one. You would be lucky enough to become mere passing acquaintances - any deeper of a relationship, and you would likely discover that this person is not nearly so wonderful as you imagine them to be, or worse, they would discover that you are nothing special after all.
Some people believe that we are all half-people searching for our other half so that we can become whole. I don't buy that. The place in my heart that hurts is not a lack, not a hole, not some kind of void that needs to be filled. It is a promise, no, less than a promise. It is a potential. A possibility. That even though I am a whole person now, I might still be able to join with another person and make my life even more wonderful than it is now. I don't need another person in order to live a happy and fulfilling life.
That doesn't mean it never hurts. Considering I equate love with nausea, it most definitely hurts. And I'm sick of this awkward dance of trying to spend more time with a person while not letting them know what effect their presence has on you. I'm apparently good at hiding my feelings. It makes me wonder: It seems like we're never on the receiving end. But what if we are and we just don't know? And how would you react if you found out someone you hardly knew felt nauseous around you?
Sometimes I wish that we were birds who had an inborn mating dance. It would be so much simpler instead of trying to comply to unspoken rules learned from the media and the behavior of acquaintances. For instance, it is not socially acceptable to ask someone the second time you meet them: "Are you gay? I think I might have a crush on you, but I'd like to be certain first. And if you want to be just friends, that's fine too, mostly I'd just like to know." Or: "You're really pretty. And I'd probably be killed in your country for saying that." Or: "I know you're gay and single, and I don't know much else about you, but let's go out and see what happens, because you look like you might be interesting."
Oh yes, I have extra risk when professing my love. If you are straight, you have a 90% the other person will at least consider going out with you. If you aren't, there's also a good chance that your object of affection will be squicked out at worst, accepting but emotionally unable to reciprocate at best. Plus you have to go through the extra step of finding out if a person might potentially not be straight, instead of simply being able to see a gender.
Essentially, this post boils down to: Why are there so many interesting straight girls? Why is it so hard to tell straight girls from gay ones? Why does society and the media try to tell you that a lover is a necessity in life? Why do I want to be in love? And why does being in love have to be so uncomfortable?
Right now I have the excuse that I'm only here temporarily to keep myself from investing my emotions too deeply, but once I get home it will be only my fear holding me back.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
I Got Gaynst, But I'm Not a Gayngster*
*Terms are defined here and here
When people think of homophobia, they think of gay-bashing and bullies and suicidal teenagers and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but in reality, homophobia does not come from laws. It doesn't matter that I can get married in Iowa, or that I can be in the military and talk about my sex life (had I one) at the same time. Homophobia comes from homework and television commercials. It comes from a girl complaining "That's so gay!" and being called on it, explains that she isn't homophobic because she has a (token) gay friend. Being systematically ignored, outlawed, and laughed at is better than being burned at the stake**, but far from an equal existence.
Another incident: "'Schwuel', that means humid, right? Not 'schwul.' That means...like when a man is very feminine. (Giggle)." Well, no, it means when a man is sexually attracted to another man, but that's all details. Every single one of my complaints here is a tiny little detail, and perhaps it could seem like I am blowing this out of proportion and making too big a deal out of this. But it adds up. Always being the butt of a joke. Always finding out that people you thought you respected consider you to be the butt of a joke, even if they wouldn't dream of applying it to you specifically. And most importantly, the media that are not screened for political correctness and just go off general knowledge - those are the most dangerous. Like worksheets for German as Second Language students.
So please. Have some consideration, world. Know we are out there. Realize that 10% is not an insignificant amount in a class of 20 people.
-----
**The word "faggot" comes from an old English word meaning "kindling," back in the days when homosexuals were burned as witches. So every time you call someone a fag, you are threatening to burn them at the stake. Chew on that.
I suppose I’m one of the lucky ones. I grew up in a large city in a country where I am at least legally allowed to exist, was never picked on, have accepting parents without religious fervor, and a large circle of like-minded friends. All I need is a lover, and I could make my own “It Gets Better” video. Or maybe not, considering that it was never all that bad in the first place. Except for maybe the uncertainty and self-loathing, but that came from a lot of sources.
Dear Dan Savage, it’s great to know that I'm going to have a great life with my partner and sperm-donr baby when I'm, like, 40, but that doesn’t make being nineteen today any better.
For instance, today in my German class, the theme was divorce. We had a lovely sheet of statistics telling us that couples who live in a city have a 44% greater chance of separating. Or if the woman works full-time, a 25% increase. Or if the woman has more education, a 45% increase.
Looking at those numbers, it occurred to me that they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. I am never going to have to deal with being more educated than a husband. But according to this worksheet, I don’t exist. In a marriage, there is “the woman” and “the man.” No other option. In fact, it is essentially illegal for me to get married (in my home state/most places in the world). So I simultaneously do not exist and am illegal.
Now imagine discussing this topic in a room of 20 people who all are just treating it like another worksheet and are not having their existence violated.
Do you:
a) out yourself, make a scene, and complain to the management about implied homophobia in the curriculum material?
b) keep silent and do not take part in this discussion, all the while hating yoursef for a coward?
c) mention the existence of homosexuality while not directly connecting the issue to yourself and test the waters, seeing what the rest of the class really does think about homosexuality, while at the same time wondering how many of them are now suspicious?
d) Turn into a raging feminist and ask why can’t the man stay at home why the woman works, and why is manly pride socially acceptable but one can’t have female pride without turning into a raging lesbian feminist?
When people think of homophobia, they think of gay-bashing and bullies and suicidal teenagers and Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but in reality, homophobia does not come from laws. It doesn't matter that I can get married in Iowa, or that I can be in the military and talk about my sex life (had I one) at the same time. Homophobia comes from homework and television commercials. It comes from a girl complaining "That's so gay!" and being called on it, explains that she isn't homophobic because she has a (token) gay friend. Being systematically ignored, outlawed, and laughed at is better than being burned at the stake**, but far from an equal existence.
Another incident: "'Schwuel', that means humid, right? Not 'schwul.' That means...like when a man is very feminine. (Giggle)." Well, no, it means when a man is sexually attracted to another man, but that's all details. Every single one of my complaints here is a tiny little detail, and perhaps it could seem like I am blowing this out of proportion and making too big a deal out of this. But it adds up. Always being the butt of a joke. Always finding out that people you thought you respected consider you to be the butt of a joke, even if they wouldn't dream of applying it to you specifically. And most importantly, the media that are not screened for political correctness and just go off general knowledge - those are the most dangerous. Like worksheets for German as Second Language students.
So please. Have some consideration, world. Know we are out there. Realize that 10% is not an insignificant amount in a class of 20 people.
-----
**The word "faggot" comes from an old English word meaning "kindling," back in the days when homosexuals were burned as witches. So every time you call someone a fag, you are threatening to burn them at the stake. Chew on that.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)