Small Favor
question
Chauvinistic characters? (Not just about Small Favor)
Starr
Feb 19, 2020 07:16AM
So without anyone getting all preachy on me, I am curious and hope peple can have a mature non-judgmental conversation to help me understand something.
Given all the backlash - both well-deserved and also out of this world RIDICULOUSLY made up - to stories such as The Twilight Saga, the 50 Shades books, and others ... I was wondering if there are stories out there people LOVE with characters they ADMIT are problematic but don't make the characters BAD or TOXIC. i, PERSONALLY, see Edward Cullen as problematic but not a bad guy or even outright sexist or chauvinist. I DO, however, find JACOB BLACK more than a little problematic, and not for the reasons one might think. He's just a manipulative prick in my eyes, although I also personally still love all the books.
Another example I ran into reading a couple of reviews involve Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files. Harry Dresden is a self-confessed chauvinist, but not in a deeply toxic way. He considers himself old fashioned and believes in attempting to protect women, treating them as the weaker sex without forcing them to BE the weaker sex. At least that's how I see it. Esp. since there are so many female antagonists in the books that can kick his ass. Granted they're not HUMAN, but then ... he's a wizard.
My final example for now is most of the love interests from Christine Feehan fiction. Particularly the Dark (Carpathian) series. Again there is a stipulation that MAKES most of the men the overbearing chauvinists they are, but I don't consider any of them BAD.
Now I grew up in the 80s and 90s. I like - particularly in my fiction - bad boys and "manly men'. The take charge type. Very well could be that I started getting exposed to male characters like this at an informative age, but it hasn't caused me in any way to be accepting of the more toxic side of that behavior in real life.
Could anyone put their two cents into this conversation? I am not sure I'm making sense but I really wish I knew what the big deal was. I'm sure you all noticed I DID NOT defend 50 Shades. Not just because I haven't read it or watched any of the films (... all the way through, anyway...) but also because THAT series I COMPLETELY understand for being a horribly toxic example of chauvinistic misogyny.
Why do people think these characters are BAD for being FLAWED?
For the record, my favorite Carpathian is actually one of the most modern and progressive ... he may be a Carpathian with all those chauvinistic drives hardwired into his genetic makeup, but he was never actually part of the society that built upon those behaviors. So I understand the good and not-so-good aspects of the characters. I just DON'T UNDERSTAND what makes them BAD. And I don't understand why Christine Feehand doesn't get such constant shit for her portrayal of women being put in their places by overbearing men, when other people like Stephanie Meyer and Jim Butcher do. Ok, Meyer gears her Twilight books - and The Host - towards more impressionable teens. But Jim Butcher doesn't.
What makes it good or bad?
Given all the backlash - both well-deserved and also out of this world RIDICULOUSLY made up - to stories such as The Twilight Saga, the 50 Shades books, and others ... I was wondering if there are stories out there people LOVE with characters they ADMIT are problematic but don't make the characters BAD or TOXIC. i, PERSONALLY, see Edward Cullen as problematic but not a bad guy or even outright sexist or chauvinist. I DO, however, find JACOB BLACK more than a little problematic, and not for the reasons one might think. He's just a manipulative prick in my eyes, although I also personally still love all the books.
Another example I ran into reading a couple of reviews involve Jim Butcher's The Dresden Files. Harry Dresden is a self-confessed chauvinist, but not in a deeply toxic way. He considers himself old fashioned and believes in attempting to protect women, treating them as the weaker sex without forcing them to BE the weaker sex. At least that's how I see it. Esp. since there are so many female antagonists in the books that can kick his ass. Granted they're not HUMAN, but then ... he's a wizard.
My final example for now is most of the love interests from Christine Feehan fiction. Particularly the Dark (Carpathian) series. Again there is a stipulation that MAKES most of the men the overbearing chauvinists they are, but I don't consider any of them BAD.
Now I grew up in the 80s and 90s. I like - particularly in my fiction - bad boys and "manly men'. The take charge type. Very well could be that I started getting exposed to male characters like this at an informative age, but it hasn't caused me in any way to be accepting of the more toxic side of that behavior in real life.
Could anyone put their two cents into this conversation? I am not sure I'm making sense but I really wish I knew what the big deal was. I'm sure you all noticed I DID NOT defend 50 Shades. Not just because I haven't read it or watched any of the films (... all the way through, anyway...) but also because THAT series I COMPLETELY understand for being a horribly toxic example of chauvinistic misogyny.
Why do people think these characters are BAD for being FLAWED?
For the record, my favorite Carpathian is actually one of the most modern and progressive ... he may be a Carpathian with all those chauvinistic drives hardwired into his genetic makeup, but he was never actually part of the society that built upon those behaviors. So I understand the good and not-so-good aspects of the characters. I just DON'T UNDERSTAND what makes them BAD. And I don't understand why Christine Feehand doesn't get such constant shit for her portrayal of women being put in their places by overbearing men, when other people like Stephanie Meyer and Jim Butcher do. Ok, Meyer gears her Twilight books - and The Host - towards more impressionable teens. But Jim Butcher doesn't.
What makes it good or bad?
reply
flag
I think what makes this good or bad is how the author approaches this mindset and the character.
Is the chauvinistic attitude of the character reflected by how woman are portrayed?
In the case of The Dresden Files I think this answer is no. As you said, Harry fully admits he's chauvinistic. He also admits that his attitude has caused him to feel sympathy for enemies just because they're women and at times underestimate them. This always bites him in the butt. When he displays this attitude towards friends like Karren or Susan, they treat this attitude the same way a parent would deal with a misbehaving kid. Especially Karren. Then they proceed to show Harry how wrong he is.
If Butcher portrayed the women as being damsels in distress, validating Harry's chauvinistic attitude that would be different. But how he's written, Harry is a well meaning and multifaceted character that has his flaws thrown in his face all the time. Yes, Harry does save his friends, but they have also saved him on more than one occasion.
If the women were portrayed as being beholden or subservient to the hero or just there to provide motivation for the main characters then I would say the author deserves some flack. This was/is a huge issue in a lot of comic books. The girlfriend/wife of the hero would have something horrible happen to them just to push the story. They would rarely have any agency of their own.
One writer, Gail Simone, referred to this as "fridging" after the girlfriend of Green Lantern was killed and left in the hero's fridge. There was no reason but to give the hero a vengeance arc.
The difference to me is that Butcher writes this as a character flaw and the women have their own characters and development. While some comic authors treat women as window dressing and just there to give the hero motivation.
Then you have a writer like George RR Martin. In his case we're looking at a civilization that's based on the middle ages. In that time period in the real world, women had little to no rights unless they were part of a rich family or nobility. Martin doesn't write this as the way things should be, just the way they are in that world. Even then though, the women have their own motivations and drive the story themselves. That being said, horrible things happen to the women (and men) in his books. He's received some criticism for this. I understand it, but in his case don't agree with it.
I haven't read the other series you mentioned so I can't say with any certainty regarding 50 Shades or Twilight.
Is the chauvinistic attitude of the character reflected by how woman are portrayed?
In the case of The Dresden Files I think this answer is no. As you said, Harry fully admits he's chauvinistic. He also admits that his attitude has caused him to feel sympathy for enemies just because they're women and at times underestimate them. This always bites him in the butt. When he displays this attitude towards friends like Karren or Susan, they treat this attitude the same way a parent would deal with a misbehaving kid. Especially Karren. Then they proceed to show Harry how wrong he is.
If Butcher portrayed the women as being damsels in distress, validating Harry's chauvinistic attitude that would be different. But how he's written, Harry is a well meaning and multifaceted character that has his flaws thrown in his face all the time. Yes, Harry does save his friends, but they have also saved him on more than one occasion.
If the women were portrayed as being beholden or subservient to the hero or just there to provide motivation for the main characters then I would say the author deserves some flack. This was/is a huge issue in a lot of comic books. The girlfriend/wife of the hero would have something horrible happen to them just to push the story. They would rarely have any agency of their own.
One writer, Gail Simone, referred to this as "fridging" after the girlfriend of Green Lantern was killed and left in the hero's fridge. There was no reason but to give the hero a vengeance arc.
The difference to me is that Butcher writes this as a character flaw and the women have their own characters and development. While some comic authors treat women as window dressing and just there to give the hero motivation.
Then you have a writer like George RR Martin. In his case we're looking at a civilization that's based on the middle ages. In that time period in the real world, women had little to no rights unless they were part of a rich family or nobility. Martin doesn't write this as the way things should be, just the way they are in that world. Even then though, the women have their own motivations and drive the story themselves. That being said, horrible things happen to the women (and men) in his books. He's received some criticism for this. I understand it, but in his case don't agree with it.
I haven't read the other series you mentioned so I can't say with any certainty regarding 50 Shades or Twilight.
I agree, great summaries! A viewpoint character's flaw is not reflected in the world overall which makes it standout more as a flaw as opposed to the world around them reinforcing their flaw which would just make the series a lot worse and reflect poorly on the author. Dresden Files is a great example!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
