Alright. Here it is. The inevitable post. I am finally going to talk about one of the most infamous heroins of all time.
I think everyone has done this. We've heard almost everything bad about her. She's pretentious, she's whiny, she's boy dependent, she can't take care of herself, and she's all around a very bland character. Nothing new.
But I'm going to go a little deeper into why I think a lot of people hate Bella so much, particularly regular readers. It's not just because she's a poorly constructed character, but also because we can see what she was intended to be. She had a blue print all lined out but then the work crew came in high as a kite with all the wrong building materials.
If that makes any sense.
So let's start from the beginning. I'm going to break this up into two sections:
1. The Self Insert Principal
I often like to analyze main characters through their author because often said character has a lot in common with the person who wrote them. We are told to write what we know, so why not create a character with a similar thought process and belief system as you? Bella Swan was without a doubt based off of Stephanie Myer, even down to the appearance (Brown hair, brown eyes and pale skin).
But there's a real danger with doing this kind of thing. And here's why.
See, I'm quite involved in writing fanfiction. It's a fun hobby for a writer. It can help you improve your basic craft, but it also gives you a pass on world building and character development because you're working with characters that already exist. Even so it can still help you fine tune and practice. But if you've ever looked on fanfiction.net, you see a rather infamous trend. Self inserts.
Self inserts are original characters inserted into a world like Harry Potter or Twilight to live the story with the main characters, and thus live out the author's dreams. They are character's based off of the author, with emphasis on based off of because a self insert is not so much a correct portrayal of the author but a reimagined perfect version of who the author wishes they were. So if the author is a nervous, shy, nonathletic girl with acne, they suddenly become witty, kickass and of course: the most beautiful thing any of the guys have ever seen.
And you know what? That's fine for fanfiction. Because really the basic goal isn't to create a realistic character. It's for fun and it's usually written to fulfill some sort of fantasy. Let the writer dream a little. Now if it's poorly written that's another story but, you know.
Bella Swan suffered from the self insert principal. Because she was the ideal imagining of Stephanie Myer. Everyone loved her though there was nothing about her that actually made her friendly, inviting or warm, boys thought she was attracted and many of them vied for attention, and she ends up as the love interest for not one, but TWO, supernatural hotties.
That makes her more of a cardboard character and it strongly figures in to point number two of why she is so hated.
2. An Insult to the group she was meant to draw in
Bella Swan certainly wasn't your typical teen girl. She hates shopping, she's anti social, she's clumsy and bad at sports, she's sarcastic, she likes high literature, and she has two supernatural boyfriends.
And you know what? Minus the supernatural boyfriend part, those characteristics completely reflect me in high school. I wasn't ever interested in shopping or things other girls liked, I had trouble engaging in social situations because I was paranoid and didn't like small talk, I was and still am terrible at sports and any athletic activity, my wit is dry, and hey: I like Great Gatsby, Hamlet and Fahrenheit 451. The people I'm friends with are largely the same way. You'd think that with all of these similarities, Bella Swan would really draw us in and make us sympathize with her.
But there's a huge problem.
See, a large portion of the book is Bella Swan whining about how terrible her life is... but she has nothing to whine about. Everyone loves her. She doesn't face being a social outcast like many of us with her personality traits do. Instead she's completely embraced by the community and boys.
You know what most people like Bella Swan have to deal with? I'll give you a list: Social ridicule, weird stares when you voice your opinion, the sound of muffled laughter when you are enthusiastic about a literary analysis, dried fruit thrown at you, being picked last for any sport, never getting a date to any homecoming or prom dance, being ostracized by boys, struggling with your identity and wondering if you are in fact doing something wrong.
Did Bella face any of those things? No. And yet she still complained. When people like Bella in the real world complain, it's often justified because they are going through a very difficult time, emotionally and mentally. They struggle with who they are as a person and wonder if they should abandon who they actually are in order to get more friends and be accepted. Bella's complaining was never justified. She was the tortured teenager without the TORTURE.
And instead of it being a dream come true for us nerds, it insulted us. It insulted us that someone like us could have so little problems and yet still be so sullen and dismissive of it. It insulted us that she could be so ungrateful. And it insulted us that this was how we were being portrayed to the public.
There were other little things about her personality too that seemed phoned in. Like that "loving great literature thing" I mentioned. Two of Bella Swan's favorite books are Romeo and Juliet and Wuthering Heights. Why were those her favorite? Because Stephanie Myer wants to use SYMBOLISM of course.
Plus Bella's love for Romeo and Juliet always bothered me because she seems like she's just saying she loves it. She says she used to have a crush on Romeo. No one had a crush on Romeo. He was a shallow jerk. He wasn't meant to be a heart throb. Just because I acknowledge that Romeo and Juliet is a great peace of prose (Because it really is) doesn't mean I don't think the plot and characters are kind of stale. Romeo and Juliet succeeds because of it's master writing. And if Bella was ACTUALLY a literary buff she would probably recognize that too. Plus her use of comparison to the work is completely messed up. Shakespeare is undoubtedly rolling and crying in his grave.
Twilight would have infinitely better if Bella wasn't a perfect re-imagining of Stephanie Myer in the life that she wanted. What if Bella actually struggled with her identity as a person and was ostracized because of her sullen attitude and dry wit but then connected with Edward because he was also ostracized? Then maybe the story could partially be about Bella slowly learned to let down the walls she had been building up do to years of social failure and bullying. Eventually a romance would develop between her and Edward and because she's so desperate not to lose the one person she's learned to trust, him being a vampire isn't so creepy to her. If it followed that plot I may have gotten into Twilight, despite the sparkling vampires.
But it wasn't like that. Funnily enough, Bella Swan's story is more liked by the extroverted shallow girls that often made fun of us introverted sarcastic girls in high school, and the ones Bella is actually supposed to connect? Let's just say we have placed her proudly on our dart boards.
So that's my psychological analysis of what make's Bella a hateable character. The other things other people have mentioned certainly play into it but the reasons I blogged about are my personal qualms with her character. Hope you enjoyed.
-Authoress Anonymous
PS: Tomorrow I think I'm diving into my first book review... it's going to be Divergent. We'll see how that goes.
Showing posts with label romance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label romance. Show all posts
Friday, June 29, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Villainesses (And what makes them fall short)
Here's a fun talk: Villains. I love villains. If anyone is to ask me who my favorite character in a book or movie is, it is almost always: A) a villain, B) someone with a dry wit or C) A really tortured character
Or D) All of the above. LOOKING AT YOU SEVERUS SNAPE!
But besides that, my favorite villain usually isn't... a woman. And this is not because I don't the women can't be completely awesome villain because I think they can. But the problem is the angle directors, writers or actors often take with a villainess.
And that is: They make their main weapon their sexuality. Yeah. You know who I'm talking about. I call this Poison Ivy Syndrome, named after a villain from Batman who charms men by her use of her beauty and poisonous plants which usually make men fall in love with her so that she can horribly kill them. But that's all that special about her.
And there's the problem. Her main weapon is the fact that she is attractive and can manipulate men. Which makes her completely nonthreatening to women. I often don't find female villains as threatening as male villain because A) I am a woman and B) I am a straight woman. Why should I be intimidated by someone who's power doesn't really affect me?
This is probably only a woman's standpoint because I'm sure men find them very intimidating. But characters like poison Ivy also give woman a bit of a bad name: That we're manipulative and evil and crazy. Now, this is true with some women but certainly not the majority.
That being said, their are certainly villains who are women and are done right so lets look at a few of them:
Bellatrix: Oh yes, everyone knows this one. This woman's weapon wasn't that she was beautiful (Though Helena Bonham Carter certainly is). It was that she was bat. shit. crazy. insane. Honestly, this woman was as terrifying and powerful as she was oddly hilarious. When ever I read about her I enjoyed her presence even if my heart was pounding. This especially holds true to her portrayal on screen (Which is phenomenal). There's a certain scene in the sixth movie right after Dumbledore is killed. The death eaters are marching through the forest to escape. But Bella isn't marching. She's skipping. And giggling. And singing. Then she sets Hagrid's hut on fire while jumping up and down, squealing like an excited school girl.
I was laughing at her antics but yet there was still a feeling of discomfort at how crazy she was. And even though I was laughing I think my face was frozen into a WTF face. Because, Dumbledore just died and I should be sobbing.
But I just can't because of Bellatrix.
That's the trick with her character. She has an edge to her that makes her both funny, uncomfortable and terrifying which is something you really need from a villainess.
Lust: Ok so first off: I doubt most of you know who this is. Second off: I know the title makes it seem like she's the exact opposite of what I like in a villainess. Because her name is Lust. Lust is a character from a little anime known as Fullmetal Alchemist, which happens to be my all time favorite. Lust is one of the first villains introduced in the series, though she isn't the main villain.
Yes, she is beautiful and this does come in handy. But half the time she isn't even using her beauty to her advantage. It just kind of works for her. And besides being beautiful: Lust is scary and intimidating. Maybe it's the voice, maybe it's her mysterious presence or maybe it's her sharp finger nails which can grow to any length and pierce through anything at will, but she is a deadly combination of charm and scary.
This combo still could have failed (And it did in an alternate telling of Fullmetal Alchemist known as Brotherhood) but Lust was an incredibly interesting character at her core. So though she was beautiful, she still seemed like a real person with her own problems and flaws and you really grow to like her throughout the series. When she seems more real, she also seems more scary. Whereas Poison Ivy got little to no development and just wanted to take over the world.
Alphard: Again, probably none of you have heard of this. She's from an anime called CANAAN which is much more underground than Fullmetal Alchemist. My explanation of this one is short:
1. The main character and Alphard's rival is a woman and therefore there isn't much exploitation of sexuality needed as the main character wouldn't be affected by it.
2. Alphard is a complete bad-ass with great aim with a gun and superb skill in hand to hand combat. Why charm the guys when you can kick them to kingdom come?
3. She also has the "interesting character" factor going for her.
4. She's the head of a terrorist organization and she's only in her early twenties
And that's about all I need to say.
Disney Princess Villianesses: The funny thing is, I think kids films handle villains who are women the best. Because they can't be overtly sexual in anything. It's Disney. Their villains actually have to be intimidating and scary.
And boy are they! Some of Disney's best villains are women. Everyone remembers Maleficent, Ursula and the Evil Stepmother because they were just so cruel, hateful and honestly more interesting than whatever Disney princess they were up against. They could turn into monsters, they had evil minions and they didn't need men for their evil schemes.
Usually they worked for something like revenge rather than taking over the world. Ursula wanted revenge for being shunned by the mermaids, the evil queen wanted revenge because she was no longer the prettiest in the land, Maleficent wanted revenge because she didn't get a birthday invitation (That's got to be my favorite. What, you didn't try to kill the daughter of a king when he snubbed you? Clearly you aren't having a sensible reaction).
If there's one thing Disney did well, it was definitely villains and the women are no exception.
So that's all for the villains talk today. And while I know most of you think Bella Swan is a villain she was not in this post (But it is coming. Dear God it is coming)
Tommorow I'm talking about a bit more obscure stereotype that irritates me. See you then!
-Authoress Anonymous
PS: I also got my first rejection yesterday! Woohoo! Let it begin!
Or D) All of the above. LOOKING AT YOU SEVERUS SNAPE!
But besides that, my favorite villain usually isn't... a woman. And this is not because I don't the women can't be completely awesome villain because I think they can. But the problem is the angle directors, writers or actors often take with a villainess.
And that is: They make their main weapon their sexuality. Yeah. You know who I'm talking about. I call this Poison Ivy Syndrome, named after a villain from Batman who charms men by her use of her beauty and poisonous plants which usually make men fall in love with her so that she can horribly kill them. But that's all that special about her.
And there's the problem. Her main weapon is the fact that she is attractive and can manipulate men. Which makes her completely nonthreatening to women. I often don't find female villains as threatening as male villain because A) I am a woman and B) I am a straight woman. Why should I be intimidated by someone who's power doesn't really affect me?
This is probably only a woman's standpoint because I'm sure men find them very intimidating. But characters like poison Ivy also give woman a bit of a bad name: That we're manipulative and evil and crazy. Now, this is true with some women but certainly not the majority.
That being said, their are certainly villains who are women and are done right so lets look at a few of them:
Bellatrix: Oh yes, everyone knows this one. This woman's weapon wasn't that she was beautiful (Though Helena Bonham Carter certainly is). It was that she was bat. shit. crazy. insane. Honestly, this woman was as terrifying and powerful as she was oddly hilarious. When ever I read about her I enjoyed her presence even if my heart was pounding. This especially holds true to her portrayal on screen (Which is phenomenal). There's a certain scene in the sixth movie right after Dumbledore is killed. The death eaters are marching through the forest to escape. But Bella isn't marching. She's skipping. And giggling. And singing. Then she sets Hagrid's hut on fire while jumping up and down, squealing like an excited school girl.
I was laughing at her antics but yet there was still a feeling of discomfort at how crazy she was. And even though I was laughing I think my face was frozen into a WTF face. Because, Dumbledore just died and I should be sobbing.
But I just can't because of Bellatrix.
That's the trick with her character. She has an edge to her that makes her both funny, uncomfortable and terrifying which is something you really need from a villainess.
Lust: Ok so first off: I doubt most of you know who this is. Second off: I know the title makes it seem like she's the exact opposite of what I like in a villainess. Because her name is Lust. Lust is a character from a little anime known as Fullmetal Alchemist, which happens to be my all time favorite. Lust is one of the first villains introduced in the series, though she isn't the main villain.
Yes, she is beautiful and this does come in handy. But half the time she isn't even using her beauty to her advantage. It just kind of works for her. And besides being beautiful: Lust is scary and intimidating. Maybe it's the voice, maybe it's her mysterious presence or maybe it's her sharp finger nails which can grow to any length and pierce through anything at will, but she is a deadly combination of charm and scary.
This combo still could have failed (And it did in an alternate telling of Fullmetal Alchemist known as Brotherhood) but Lust was an incredibly interesting character at her core. So though she was beautiful, she still seemed like a real person with her own problems and flaws and you really grow to like her throughout the series. When she seems more real, she also seems more scary. Whereas Poison Ivy got little to no development and just wanted to take over the world.
Alphard: Again, probably none of you have heard of this. She's from an anime called CANAAN which is much more underground than Fullmetal Alchemist. My explanation of this one is short:
1. The main character and Alphard's rival is a woman and therefore there isn't much exploitation of sexuality needed as the main character wouldn't be affected by it.
2. Alphard is a complete bad-ass with great aim with a gun and superb skill in hand to hand combat. Why charm the guys when you can kick them to kingdom come?
3. She also has the "interesting character" factor going for her.
4. She's the head of a terrorist organization and she's only in her early twenties
And that's about all I need to say.
Disney Princess Villianesses: The funny thing is, I think kids films handle villains who are women the best. Because they can't be overtly sexual in anything. It's Disney. Their villains actually have to be intimidating and scary.
And boy are they! Some of Disney's best villains are women. Everyone remembers Maleficent, Ursula and the Evil Stepmother because they were just so cruel, hateful and honestly more interesting than whatever Disney princess they were up against. They could turn into monsters, they had evil minions and they didn't need men for their evil schemes.
Usually they worked for something like revenge rather than taking over the world. Ursula wanted revenge for being shunned by the mermaids, the evil queen wanted revenge because she was no longer the prettiest in the land, Maleficent wanted revenge because she didn't get a birthday invitation (That's got to be my favorite. What, you didn't try to kill the daughter of a king when he snubbed you? Clearly you aren't having a sensible reaction).
If there's one thing Disney did well, it was definitely villains and the women are no exception.
So that's all for the villains talk today. And while I know most of you think Bella Swan is a villain she was not in this post (But it is coming. Dear God it is coming)
Tommorow I'm talking about a bit more obscure stereotype that irritates me. See you then!
-Authoress Anonymous
PS: I also got my first rejection yesterday! Woohoo! Let it begin!
Monday, June 25, 2012
Disney Princesses (And why they're kind of fascinating)
And no, I don't mean fascinating characters. Because a lot of them, especially the early ones, aren't the least bit interesting. I mainly take interest in the princesses because you can see them evolve through time based on what man's definition of a perfect woman was in the time period.
Don't believe me? Let's take a look.
Snow White: This movie came out in the late 30's and it's no surprise that the woman portrayed was reserved, submissive, lived for house work and of course was beautiful. She just loved to help the seven little men in the cottage by doing all of their work. She was also innocent which was an attractive trait at the time because innocent women were relatively gullible and therefore didn't question men as much.
She also had the most grating and damn annoying voice every put on the big screen, rivaled perhaps, by Jar Jar Binks.
Cinderella: She's blonde and beautiful but most importantly: Hard working. This is particularly interesting because this movie came out in 1950. This was shortly after World War II in which woman had actually obtained a lot of power. They got real jobs while the men were over seas and practically helped run the country. But with the end of World War II, domestic work was once again the proper thing for a woman. This was heavily advertised even by the government. Women were empowered by World War II and it took a lot of propaganda to bring them back to house wife status and give the jobs back to the men.
Cinderella was a picture perfect example of this submissive housewife who was saved from poverty by a strong man. She was reworded for her domestic work and made a princess, so therefore all women should do domestic work and they will be rewarded.
Aurora: This is a princess largely based on the look of the "perfect girl" at the time. We're still in the fifties (1959) but this wasn't exactly a "look at this domestic woman" approach. This was a princess who didn't do much at all. But she looked like the perfect woman of the time. Long blonde hair, full red lips, blue eyes and of course, a waist the size of a tooth pick (Take a look at fifties dresses. You'll see what I'm talking about) She still relied on a man of course. And besides sing and dance and be unconscious she did nothing. But hey, men at the time liked that kind of thing. She was more of eye candy or an arm decoration than an actual character.
Ariel: Disney took a break from the classic Disney princess for awhile and The Little Mermaid didn't come out until 1989. It was a huge jump. By this time the heroins started actually doing something. Acting on their dreams for a man, taking matters into their own hands, selling their souls in order to have a chance at a man...
Wait what?
Ok, so Ariel still fell in love at first sight and made some pretty stupid decisions out of her desperation for one guy. But she made a little more effort. She was still beautiful of course. She had red hair and she showed her navel (Which showed that rules for women were looser at this time). I hate Ariel but I'll get into why in a later post.
Belle: Oh yeah. The first brunette princess. And I don't count Snow White because her hair was black and she was a doll, not a human being. Belle was the first princess to do the following: Be intelligent and love reading, have an imagination that extended beyond boys, not fall in love at first sight, stand up for herself and get angry with reason, be emotionally deep, have standards.
Yeah, I like Belle, and she really showed that women were starting be appreciated as people rather than eye candy or just creatures who needed a man to complete them.
I know a lot of people claim Beauty and the Beast was a tail of one poor girls Stockholm's Syndrome, but this is completely unfair, especially considering that she didn't warm up to the beast until he stopped being a dick and actually tried to impress her and be nice to her. He had to make the first step. Belle wasn't shallow and she was also genuinely kind and smart. The first really three dimensional woman character, I believe, in a Disney film. Though she unfortunately may have created the "I'm misunderstood but beautiful" cliche I see a lot of... (The Bella Swan rant is coming)
Jasmine and Pocahontas: I'm including these two together because they came out just a few years apart and accomplished about the same things. Just one better than the other. Both pandered to the growing popularity of "exotic beauties" which was growing in the 90s. And they were still women who did things other than think about men.
Jasmine actually rejected a lot of men and fell for Aladdin, not because he was dashing but because he seemed to understand her. They seemed to be friends before love interests. And even when someone came along who looked like Aladdin she pushed him away. This proves she actually was attracted to a personality. She still had to be saved by Aladdin, but he was the main character.
Pocahontas actually saved John Smith in the movies but she was a much less interesting character. Pocahontas wasn't a good movie either, and it she still fell in love at first sight which was a bit of a step back. But she still did stuff.
Mulan: I love this woman. She is my favorite by far, even though I don't even think she's a princess... were there princesses in China? I don't think so... but I digress. Mulan came out in a time that woman power was becoming popular. You had shows like the Power Puff Girls and other girl super heroes becoming popular and fighting with the guys. So Mulan joined the parade and single-handedly saved China. Go her! Plus her original motivation was to save her father, which I really like because I like observing family ties in stories. She falls in love with a man later but she does get to know him first. And she beats the Hun leader... 'nough said.
Tiana: It's too bad that this movie is underrated because I really like it. Tiana is an example of a woman who worked for a dream that didn't involve marriage. She wanted to own her own restaurant and make a name for herself. Reasonable dream. Much like Belle, she also doesn't take any of Prince Navin's crap until he starts to change. She never gives up her dream but she eventually adds Navin to it and I love her story arc. She worked for her dreams and was independent but not completely cut off from men.
Rapunzel: Last one I promise. Not only do I feel Rapunzel had reasonable motives and a very likable personality, but her relationship with Eugene was well developed, even if it only happened in like a day. They had nice conversations with each other and they didn't actually get married until later. Rapunzel is also strong without being Mulan tough, which I really like in a character because I don't believe a woman needs to be physically strong to be well developed.
We really see from the transition from Snow White to Rapunzel the transformation of the Disney princess based on societies standards and we can see that in books too. So I'll be observing some of these tropes in the next few days.
In other news: The query letter is sent! Now it is a waiting game. Take a deep breath...
-Authoress Anonymous
Don't believe me? Let's take a look.
Snow White: This movie came out in the late 30's and it's no surprise that the woman portrayed was reserved, submissive, lived for house work and of course was beautiful. She just loved to help the seven little men in the cottage by doing all of their work. She was also innocent which was an attractive trait at the time because innocent women were relatively gullible and therefore didn't question men as much.
She also had the most grating and damn annoying voice every put on the big screen, rivaled perhaps, by Jar Jar Binks.
Cinderella: She's blonde and beautiful but most importantly: Hard working. This is particularly interesting because this movie came out in 1950. This was shortly after World War II in which woman had actually obtained a lot of power. They got real jobs while the men were over seas and practically helped run the country. But with the end of World War II, domestic work was once again the proper thing for a woman. This was heavily advertised even by the government. Women were empowered by World War II and it took a lot of propaganda to bring them back to house wife status and give the jobs back to the men.
Cinderella was a picture perfect example of this submissive housewife who was saved from poverty by a strong man. She was reworded for her domestic work and made a princess, so therefore all women should do domestic work and they will be rewarded.
Aurora: This is a princess largely based on the look of the "perfect girl" at the time. We're still in the fifties (1959) but this wasn't exactly a "look at this domestic woman" approach. This was a princess who didn't do much at all. But she looked like the perfect woman of the time. Long blonde hair, full red lips, blue eyes and of course, a waist the size of a tooth pick (Take a look at fifties dresses. You'll see what I'm talking about) She still relied on a man of course. And besides sing and dance and be unconscious she did nothing. But hey, men at the time liked that kind of thing. She was more of eye candy or an arm decoration than an actual character.
Ariel: Disney took a break from the classic Disney princess for awhile and The Little Mermaid didn't come out until 1989. It was a huge jump. By this time the heroins started actually doing something. Acting on their dreams for a man, taking matters into their own hands, selling their souls in order to have a chance at a man...
Wait what?
Ok, so Ariel still fell in love at first sight and made some pretty stupid decisions out of her desperation for one guy. But she made a little more effort. She was still beautiful of course. She had red hair and she showed her navel (Which showed that rules for women were looser at this time). I hate Ariel but I'll get into why in a later post.
Belle: Oh yeah. The first brunette princess. And I don't count Snow White because her hair was black and she was a doll, not a human being. Belle was the first princess to do the following: Be intelligent and love reading, have an imagination that extended beyond boys, not fall in love at first sight, stand up for herself and get angry with reason, be emotionally deep, have standards.
Yeah, I like Belle, and she really showed that women were starting be appreciated as people rather than eye candy or just creatures who needed a man to complete them.
I know a lot of people claim Beauty and the Beast was a tail of one poor girls Stockholm's Syndrome, but this is completely unfair, especially considering that she didn't warm up to the beast until he stopped being a dick and actually tried to impress her and be nice to her. He had to make the first step. Belle wasn't shallow and she was also genuinely kind and smart. The first really three dimensional woman character, I believe, in a Disney film. Though she unfortunately may have created the "I'm misunderstood but beautiful" cliche I see a lot of... (The Bella Swan rant is coming)
Jasmine and Pocahontas: I'm including these two together because they came out just a few years apart and accomplished about the same things. Just one better than the other. Both pandered to the growing popularity of "exotic beauties" which was growing in the 90s. And they were still women who did things other than think about men.
Jasmine actually rejected a lot of men and fell for Aladdin, not because he was dashing but because he seemed to understand her. They seemed to be friends before love interests. And even when someone came along who looked like Aladdin she pushed him away. This proves she actually was attracted to a personality. She still had to be saved by Aladdin, but he was the main character.
Pocahontas actually saved John Smith in the movies but she was a much less interesting character. Pocahontas wasn't a good movie either, and it she still fell in love at first sight which was a bit of a step back. But she still did stuff.
Mulan: I love this woman. She is my favorite by far, even though I don't even think she's a princess... were there princesses in China? I don't think so... but I digress. Mulan came out in a time that woman power was becoming popular. You had shows like the Power Puff Girls and other girl super heroes becoming popular and fighting with the guys. So Mulan joined the parade and single-handedly saved China. Go her! Plus her original motivation was to save her father, which I really like because I like observing family ties in stories. She falls in love with a man later but she does get to know him first. And she beats the Hun leader... 'nough said.
Tiana: It's too bad that this movie is underrated because I really like it. Tiana is an example of a woman who worked for a dream that didn't involve marriage. She wanted to own her own restaurant and make a name for herself. Reasonable dream. Much like Belle, she also doesn't take any of Prince Navin's crap until he starts to change. She never gives up her dream but she eventually adds Navin to it and I love her story arc. She worked for her dreams and was independent but not completely cut off from men.
Rapunzel: Last one I promise. Not only do I feel Rapunzel had reasonable motives and a very likable personality, but her relationship with Eugene was well developed, even if it only happened in like a day. They had nice conversations with each other and they didn't actually get married until later. Rapunzel is also strong without being Mulan tough, which I really like in a character because I don't believe a woman needs to be physically strong to be well developed.
We really see from the transition from Snow White to Rapunzel the transformation of the Disney princess based on societies standards and we can see that in books too. So I'll be observing some of these tropes in the next few days.
In other news: The query letter is sent! Now it is a waiting game. Take a deep breath...
-Authoress Anonymous
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Start with a friendship (Then maybe happen on a romance)
I guess I'm just in a romance kind of mood, aren't I? It's funny that I get so passionate about this kind of thing since I'm not a fan of romance... maybe that's why.
I want to talk for a moment about romance in Harry Potter and how little there was of it in comparison to adventure, magic and FRIENDSHIP.
I put emphasis on friendship because that's how I like my relationships done. They start as friendships and they happen to be something more. They progress slowly. Like most relationships. Throughout the Harry Potter books the focus was on Ron, Harry and Hermione as friends. There were some moments of sexual tension between Hermione and Ron but it wasn't obvious until the 6th book (In my opinion). Then it developed.
And it made sense because they had been friends for six solid years. That's a long time to know someone and when you're that close to them, it's natural to start feeling something more. Before the 6th book, Hermione could have just as easily gone with Harry. Likewise, Ginny and Harry's relationship made sense too. It started out as a crush, then Harry saved her life and then eventually feelings developed when they were older.
Not only is this realistic but, as Tex said in his recent comment, it leaves possibilities open to the readers to play with pairings in their minds. (And readers get into that stuff. They have WARS. And I always pick the wrong guy but that's a post for another time)
I'm going to go back to my books for a minute. There are actually three romantic relationships that end up happening in these books. But at the start of my writing I only knew that one of these was going to happen.
I'm not going to give names because I don't like spoilers but I'll label them: the main character, was always going to end up with boy 1. I was going to have it progress slowly because they didn't have enough page time in the first few books for be to develop the relationship outside of a crush. But I did have it planned.
However I had another relationship that just sort of... happened. Main character's best friend (Who is a very violent, stubborn and impulsive character) get's into trouble a lot and this other character always happened to be around when it happened. We'll call him boy 2. Boy 2 doesn't like to see others hurt when he can do something about it so when MC's Best friend is getting kicked around, he ends up saving her and almost gets the crap beaten out of himself (Cause he's kind of a wimp. But I still love him to death).
Later in the book there was another situation where boy 2 stopped MC's best friend from doing something she would regret, again almost getting himself killed. This wasn't really because he was attracted to her, just because he doesn't like seeing others in danger. When they started having conversations in book 4 I realized that I really liked them together and it could work. But I built their relationship first on a friendship. That's what I think made it work the best.
The third relationship was a case where I knew the two characters were friends in the past but had a bit of a falling out (Which I'm totally not going to get into because it's a MAJOR spoiler) and writing their conversations I realized that that friendship might have been something more (I love making up things when it actually feels like I'm discovering them). Just the tension in their conversations reflected that.
I wasn't even going to make anything of it on page because I wasn't sure how to do it because these were two of my hardest characters to write. Then my friend, who happened to love both of these character, insisted I write a scene, even if I didn't put it in the book (Because she wanted to read it). I did and it happened to work. So one romantic involvement became three. What do you know?
There's still very little actual scenes for romance because I try to keep the focus on the life threatening stuff. But I find that relationships are not only more realistic, but a lot more fun to write if they start out as friendships. Because then you discover the relationship which is ever so much fun!
-Authoress Anonymous
I want to talk for a moment about romance in Harry Potter and how little there was of it in comparison to adventure, magic and FRIENDSHIP.
I put emphasis on friendship because that's how I like my relationships done. They start as friendships and they happen to be something more. They progress slowly. Like most relationships. Throughout the Harry Potter books the focus was on Ron, Harry and Hermione as friends. There were some moments of sexual tension between Hermione and Ron but it wasn't obvious until the 6th book (In my opinion). Then it developed.
And it made sense because they had been friends for six solid years. That's a long time to know someone and when you're that close to them, it's natural to start feeling something more. Before the 6th book, Hermione could have just as easily gone with Harry. Likewise, Ginny and Harry's relationship made sense too. It started out as a crush, then Harry saved her life and then eventually feelings developed when they were older.
Not only is this realistic but, as Tex said in his recent comment, it leaves possibilities open to the readers to play with pairings in their minds. (And readers get into that stuff. They have WARS. And I always pick the wrong guy but that's a post for another time)
I'm going to go back to my books for a minute. There are actually three romantic relationships that end up happening in these books. But at the start of my writing I only knew that one of these was going to happen.
I'm not going to give names because I don't like spoilers but I'll label them: the main character, was always going to end up with boy 1. I was going to have it progress slowly because they didn't have enough page time in the first few books for be to develop the relationship outside of a crush. But I did have it planned.
However I had another relationship that just sort of... happened. Main character's best friend (Who is a very violent, stubborn and impulsive character) get's into trouble a lot and this other character always happened to be around when it happened. We'll call him boy 2. Boy 2 doesn't like to see others hurt when he can do something about it so when MC's Best friend is getting kicked around, he ends up saving her and almost gets the crap beaten out of himself (Cause he's kind of a wimp. But I still love him to death).
Later in the book there was another situation where boy 2 stopped MC's best friend from doing something she would regret, again almost getting himself killed. This wasn't really because he was attracted to her, just because he doesn't like seeing others in danger. When they started having conversations in book 4 I realized that I really liked them together and it could work. But I built their relationship first on a friendship. That's what I think made it work the best.
The third relationship was a case where I knew the two characters were friends in the past but had a bit of a falling out (Which I'm totally not going to get into because it's a MAJOR spoiler) and writing their conversations I realized that that friendship might have been something more (I love making up things when it actually feels like I'm discovering them). Just the tension in their conversations reflected that.
I wasn't even going to make anything of it on page because I wasn't sure how to do it because these were two of my hardest characters to write. Then my friend, who happened to love both of these character, insisted I write a scene, even if I didn't put it in the book (Because she wanted to read it). I did and it happened to work. So one romantic involvement became three. What do you know?
There's still very little actual scenes for romance because I try to keep the focus on the life threatening stuff. But I find that relationships are not only more realistic, but a lot more fun to write if they start out as friendships. Because then you discover the relationship which is ever so much fun!
-Authoress Anonymous
Friday, June 22, 2012
Side Dishes and Spices (How I like my romance served)
I've stated before that I have nothing against romance in YA. I find it a nice touch if done well. I usually don't go to a book advertised as contemporary romance of course because fantasy and sci-fi are more my cup of tea.
Here's my take on it. If you say your book is fantasy, fantasy should be the main feature. Not that hot boy who's not human. The hot boy who isn't human should be a side plot. Same with dystopian.
Going back to the Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins did a wonderful job of blending romance with life threatening situations. Because let's face it: When you're thrown into an arena to fight to the death, hot baker boys are REALLY low on your priorities list. As they should be. A revolution to change the world as we know it takes top billing to romance. Because if my life was on the line or everyone was looking to me to lead them, I would not be thinking about boys.
To me, romance in books like these (Books with some sort of higher calling or goal. Life threatening stuff and all that jazz) are like spices. Put on just the right amount and it will taste great but overload them and the spices blot out the taste of the food. They could even make you reach for a gallon of water.
In my own novel (Which is urban fantasy) I do have romance. It just doesn't amount to much until late in the series. No one kisses until book four (the last book). When my main character meets the boy who will eventually be her love interest, she does acknowledge the fact that he is attractive but cocky but she doesn't linger on it too long because HELLO! She's in the middle of an escape attempt and good looking guys are low on the priorities list. A few more references are made but it's more of a typical teenage crush. There's not much time for romance to build.
Same thing in book 2. There are hints of that relationship and I start also building another possible relationship between two other characters. Book 3 the relationships grow more and by book 4, yes some of the romantic tension is finally unleashed. But the romantic plot is smaller. That's the way I like it.
It's all opinion of course. Tell me how you prefer your romance in books! I'm curious.
-Authoress Anonymous
Here's my take on it. If you say your book is fantasy, fantasy should be the main feature. Not that hot boy who's not human. The hot boy who isn't human should be a side plot. Same with dystopian.
Going back to the Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins did a wonderful job of blending romance with life threatening situations. Because let's face it: When you're thrown into an arena to fight to the death, hot baker boys are REALLY low on your priorities list. As they should be. A revolution to change the world as we know it takes top billing to romance. Because if my life was on the line or everyone was looking to me to lead them, I would not be thinking about boys.
To me, romance in books like these (Books with some sort of higher calling or goal. Life threatening stuff and all that jazz) are like spices. Put on just the right amount and it will taste great but overload them and the spices blot out the taste of the food. They could even make you reach for a gallon of water.
In my own novel (Which is urban fantasy) I do have romance. It just doesn't amount to much until late in the series. No one kisses until book four (the last book). When my main character meets the boy who will eventually be her love interest, she does acknowledge the fact that he is attractive but cocky but she doesn't linger on it too long because HELLO! She's in the middle of an escape attempt and good looking guys are low on the priorities list. A few more references are made but it's more of a typical teenage crush. There's not much time for romance to build.
Same thing in book 2. There are hints of that relationship and I start also building another possible relationship between two other characters. Book 3 the relationships grow more and by book 4, yes some of the romantic tension is finally unleashed. But the romantic plot is smaller. That's the way I like it.
It's all opinion of course. Tell me how you prefer your romance in books! I'm curious.
-Authoress Anonymous
Thursday, June 21, 2012
YA Romance (What irks and surprises me about it)
First off, I'm not against romance in YA. I do think it's a relevant issue. Many teenagers are experiencing their first relationships in high school and reading romance gives them something to relate to. It's one of the most fascinating things in the world to many teenagers, especially girls, so it doesn't surprise me that a lot of books focus on it.
But that being said, I've always have had issues with this genre and how it speaks to teenage girls. So I'm going to outline a few of these in today's post.
1. He's hot... and that's about all I've got
A lot of YA romances that I've read are based solely on attraction. On the beauty of the man's eyes and hair and face and abs and sparkling skin. And that's fine as an initial spark. Teenagers are often first attracted by the appearance. Which is why a lot of nice guys get snubbed. But then these relationships based soely on attraction continue and the books tend to mistake them for true love. Case in point: Twilight.
I hate to reference Twilight. Everyone has. But it's just so hard not to, especially when talking about YA romance. So do forgive me for bringing it up here.
In Twilight, paragraphs (Long paragraphs) are used to describe Edward, the gorgeous and sparkly vampire, over and over again. But no amount of brilliant golden eyes or gorgeous pale skin can hide one obvious fact: He has the personality of this sentence.
2. Different does not make interesting:
Sure Edward has cultured hobbies and is protective but that doesn't really make a personality. It makes him "different" but not interesting (Which was the same problem with Bella but that's a post for another time). He was, in fact, perfect. Which doesn't exist. It really doesn't.
Contrast our vampire with Jacob, the werewolf. This boy had tons of personality. He was supportive and kind and a good friend yet he still had flaws. He had anger issues, he got jealous, sometimes he was selfish. But that's teenage boys. And personality comes with flaws, not just the good things. It's a combination of strengths and weaknesses that make a character interesting and makes us want to root for them even when they make bad decisions. (And yet Jacob still gets the shaft. So obnoxious)
So you can't just add "different" qualities and expect them to translate into personality in your writing.
3. True love... in high school
Yeah, this one especially irks me. Because 99 times out of 100, you do not find your true love in high school. Sure you hear those stories about the childhood sweethearts who married and lived happily but those are few and far between, especially in today's society. (I knew a girl in high school who had thirteen boyfriends in one year. That shouldn't even be possible).
Most girls and boys aren't mature enough to handle a serious relationship in high school. They still have a lot to learn and a lot of room to grow in who they are before they can actually commit themselves to another person. The reason you see a lot of couples get married in college or shortly after is that they have grown up and become comfortable with themselves as a person. That makes for a healthier relationship.
So romantic advice aside, it's obvious why it really irks me when Bella and Edward get married right out of high school because of "true love". Because you never made a stupid decision when you were that age did you? The reason this bothers me is this was a relationship based solely on attraction. I never really saw any chemistry between the two. It's not like they ever had moments where they were just having fun and laughing with each other, fixing a motorcycle instead of gazing into each others eyes (Like what her and Jacob did... I should probably stop talking about him)
Initial attraction does not equal true love, especially not in high school. I don't care if the guy is a vampire, it just doesn't happen.
So yeah, those are my three main problems with romance. But have I seen YA romances that do it right?
Yes.
Funny enough, they're usually dystopian too. Hunger Games I thought handled the romance well in the fact that the whole thing wasn't really love at first sight. Katniss was mostly playing it up for the camera to stay alive. That's awesome. Plus she still had a reason to like him outside of his looks. He kind of saved her life when she was starving. That gets him points. It's mostly his generosity and kindness that attracts her.
Second example is Matched. This is sort of a forbidden love type story since you're arranged to marry someone based on logic. However, big shock, the main character starts falling for another boy, even though the person she's matched with has been her best friend. And I can see why she falls for the other boy.
Initially it's not because of his looks, but just because he's mysterious. Which teenage girls definitely go for. But she starts falling for him because of his personality, which is also quite interesting. This is an example of a character with different hobbies, who actually is done right (Like Edward could have been). And I loved this character. I actually got into the romance in this book and I don't do that very often because romance isn't my genre.
So that's my post on YA romance today. Wow... long post. Thanks for reading if you're even still here!
-Authoress Anonymous
But that being said, I've always have had issues with this genre and how it speaks to teenage girls. So I'm going to outline a few of these in today's post.
1. He's hot... and that's about all I've got
A lot of YA romances that I've read are based solely on attraction. On the beauty of the man's eyes and hair and face and abs and sparkling skin. And that's fine as an initial spark. Teenagers are often first attracted by the appearance. Which is why a lot of nice guys get snubbed. But then these relationships based soely on attraction continue and the books tend to mistake them for true love. Case in point: Twilight.
I hate to reference Twilight. Everyone has. But it's just so hard not to, especially when talking about YA romance. So do forgive me for bringing it up here.
In Twilight, paragraphs (Long paragraphs) are used to describe Edward, the gorgeous and sparkly vampire, over and over again. But no amount of brilliant golden eyes or gorgeous pale skin can hide one obvious fact: He has the personality of this sentence.
2. Different does not make interesting:
Sure Edward has cultured hobbies and is protective but that doesn't really make a personality. It makes him "different" but not interesting (Which was the same problem with Bella but that's a post for another time). He was, in fact, perfect. Which doesn't exist. It really doesn't.
Contrast our vampire with Jacob, the werewolf. This boy had tons of personality. He was supportive and kind and a good friend yet he still had flaws. He had anger issues, he got jealous, sometimes he was selfish. But that's teenage boys. And personality comes with flaws, not just the good things. It's a combination of strengths and weaknesses that make a character interesting and makes us want to root for them even when they make bad decisions. (And yet Jacob still gets the shaft. So obnoxious)
So you can't just add "different" qualities and expect them to translate into personality in your writing.
3. True love... in high school
Yeah, this one especially irks me. Because 99 times out of 100, you do not find your true love in high school. Sure you hear those stories about the childhood sweethearts who married and lived happily but those are few and far between, especially in today's society. (I knew a girl in high school who had thirteen boyfriends in one year. That shouldn't even be possible).
Most girls and boys aren't mature enough to handle a serious relationship in high school. They still have a lot to learn and a lot of room to grow in who they are before they can actually commit themselves to another person. The reason you see a lot of couples get married in college or shortly after is that they have grown up and become comfortable with themselves as a person. That makes for a healthier relationship.
So romantic advice aside, it's obvious why it really irks me when Bella and Edward get married right out of high school because of "true love". Because you never made a stupid decision when you were that age did you? The reason this bothers me is this was a relationship based solely on attraction. I never really saw any chemistry between the two. It's not like they ever had moments where they were just having fun and laughing with each other, fixing a motorcycle instead of gazing into each others eyes (Like what her and Jacob did... I should probably stop talking about him)
Initial attraction does not equal true love, especially not in high school. I don't care if the guy is a vampire, it just doesn't happen.
So yeah, those are my three main problems with romance. But have I seen YA romances that do it right?
Yes.
Funny enough, they're usually dystopian too. Hunger Games I thought handled the romance well in the fact that the whole thing wasn't really love at first sight. Katniss was mostly playing it up for the camera to stay alive. That's awesome. Plus she still had a reason to like him outside of his looks. He kind of saved her life when she was starving. That gets him points. It's mostly his generosity and kindness that attracts her.
Second example is Matched. This is sort of a forbidden love type story since you're arranged to marry someone based on logic. However, big shock, the main character starts falling for another boy, even though the person she's matched with has been her best friend. And I can see why she falls for the other boy.
Initially it's not because of his looks, but just because he's mysterious. Which teenage girls definitely go for. But she starts falling for him because of his personality, which is also quite interesting. This is an example of a character with different hobbies, who actually is done right (Like Edward could have been). And I loved this character. I actually got into the romance in this book and I don't do that very often because romance isn't my genre.
So that's my post on YA romance today. Wow... long post. Thanks for reading if you're even still here!
-Authoress Anonymous
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
YA Urban Fantasy Stereotypes (Particularly of the romance variety)
Once upon a time, most fantasy took place in an imaginary, medieval set world. Then it started branching out to futuristic societies, post apocalyptic worlds and sci-fi. And then, not too long ago, a new genre caught on. Urban fantasy, in which a paranormal or fantasy element is put into our modern day world.
I love urban fantasy. I really do. I think mixing the fantastical with our world allows for really unique possibilities. In a way, Harry Potter was one of the first to do this in the Young Adult genre because it did take place in our world and it did have issues with muggles. It wasn't really urban fantasy because most of it did take place in a world of its own (The wizarding world. Really, dealing with muggles was more of a passing inconvenience). I do believe that Harry Potter started the trend of YA fantasy taking place in our modern world.
Then a new trend was created. A romance trend. And I think we all know what book started that explosion (Here's a hint. It has sparkles.) Sure there was romance in urban fantasy before Twilight but this little "vampire meets human" novel started the avalanche of paranormal romantic shlock.
And there's the problem. It seems like everything in the young adult genre these days involves three things: A hot boy who isn't human (Or just a hot boy), a mostly normal girl (who may have an ability of some sort) and an unbelievably unrealistic romance based almost solely on attraction.
Now whenever people hear the term: YA Urban Fantasy, they kind of expect the plot to be mostly romance. And it annoys me to no end.
YA romance is almost always idealized, especially in urban fantasy when the male love interest is just the most attractive thing on the face of the planet, always supports and protects the main heroine and is usually the strong one in the relationship.
Have any of these writers met teenage boys? Honestly, they are not any of those things. They can be protective but they're also easily jealous and insecure about how their girlfriend and others see them. They still make poor choices. Sometimes they're selfish. Teenage boys and girls who are "in love" fight a lot and have a lot of disagreements.
Girls, likewise, are easily annoyed by the jealousy of their boyfriend but will also sometimes over react when he talks to another girl. They over analyze relationships. They are also insecure about how others see them. And in Urban fantasy, these issues are often neglected. The guy is just perfect and the girl is just so lucky to have him. True love.
Barf.
When I pick up Urban fantasy I expect to read something kick ass and intense, not a two paragraph description of the love interest's eyes. I expect that from romance. Urban Fantasy and romance are not the same thing. Everyone just seems to think they are.
-Authoress Anonymous
PS: I'll be continuing on this rant for the next few posts. I have more points to make on YA romance but I don't want to ramble on too long in one setting.
I love urban fantasy. I really do. I think mixing the fantastical with our world allows for really unique possibilities. In a way, Harry Potter was one of the first to do this in the Young Adult genre because it did take place in our world and it did have issues with muggles. It wasn't really urban fantasy because most of it did take place in a world of its own (The wizarding world. Really, dealing with muggles was more of a passing inconvenience). I do believe that Harry Potter started the trend of YA fantasy taking place in our modern world.
Then a new trend was created. A romance trend. And I think we all know what book started that explosion (Here's a hint. It has sparkles.) Sure there was romance in urban fantasy before Twilight but this little "vampire meets human" novel started the avalanche of paranormal romantic shlock.
And there's the problem. It seems like everything in the young adult genre these days involves three things: A hot boy who isn't human (Or just a hot boy), a mostly normal girl (who may have an ability of some sort) and an unbelievably unrealistic romance based almost solely on attraction.
Now whenever people hear the term: YA Urban Fantasy, they kind of expect the plot to be mostly romance. And it annoys me to no end.
YA romance is almost always idealized, especially in urban fantasy when the male love interest is just the most attractive thing on the face of the planet, always supports and protects the main heroine and is usually the strong one in the relationship.
Have any of these writers met teenage boys? Honestly, they are not any of those things. They can be protective but they're also easily jealous and insecure about how their girlfriend and others see them. They still make poor choices. Sometimes they're selfish. Teenage boys and girls who are "in love" fight a lot and have a lot of disagreements.
Girls, likewise, are easily annoyed by the jealousy of their boyfriend but will also sometimes over react when he talks to another girl. They over analyze relationships. They are also insecure about how others see them. And in Urban fantasy, these issues are often neglected. The guy is just perfect and the girl is just so lucky to have him. True love.
Barf.
When I pick up Urban fantasy I expect to read something kick ass and intense, not a two paragraph description of the love interest's eyes. I expect that from romance. Urban Fantasy and romance are not the same thing. Everyone just seems to think they are.
-Authoress Anonymous
PS: I'll be continuing on this rant for the next few posts. I have more points to make on YA romance but I don't want to ramble on too long in one setting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)