Subject: That's a really interesting point.
Author:
Posted on: 2016-09-27 12:30:00 UTC

You absolutely won't see the same 'who cares if it's unrealistic, it's empowering!' argument for stories which turn black cultures into white ones, or have uber-masculine Suvians (ie, Stus) conquering everything, or make every religion have churches they go to on Sunday, or whatnot. It's a very targetted 'THIS type of bad writing shouldn't be criticised!'.

On the flip side, there's a solid reason for that: all three of those examples involve taking something that historically dominates the cultural landscape in the writer's area (white people, men, Christianity) and have them dominate more. The argument for female Suvians is that they're taking a historically weaker group (women) and making it stronger. In other words, write New Orleans as if it were white, and it's awful. Write Seattle as if it were black, and it's a deep insight into racial etc etc.

On the flip flip side: the majority of female Suvians don't actually come across as stronger women. The whole 'everybody loves them' cliche? That's an extension of the whole 'a woman's only value is in how much men like her' idea which leads to perfume adverts looking like underwear adverts. It's not strength if the thing you're over-intensifying is a bad idea to start with.

(And 'she can beat Boromir with one hand tied behind her back!' assumes that strong characters have to be physically strong - ie, that value is obtained only by achieving ultra-masculinity. Why yes, this is what we should be teaching our girls! [/sarcasm])

~do not go to hS for counsel, for he will say both no and yes

PS: My daughter's favourite toys are a) pink unicorns and b) tennis balls for kicking and throwing around the room. I got this.

Reply Return to messages