?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

There is a picture I look at when I am feeling generally useless, or terrible, or unmotivated, or despairing, wishing that I had depth perception so I could be a truck driver or you know, any sort of mathematical ability so I could be an accountant.

I find anger very motivating - look at that!

Ms. Magazine did a piece on young adult literature and feminism in their fall edition, and they interviewed me (I felt so fancy. Mum, Ms. Magazine, check me out, are you proud?) They also interviewed smarter people than me, including the editor of the Demon's Lexicon series, Karen Wojtyla. She also edits Holly Black's books, so you can see she is clearly a fabulous editor and all mistakes I make are on me and not her.

I haven't read the piece yet (curse you Irish postal system, always losing my things) but I do remember saying at one point that I loved young adult books the best, and was proud to be writing them at this time, because it was thrilling that teenage girls, who are pretty often denigrated - seen as silly, shrieky, with girly being an insult, and so on - have created this golden age of a genre by loving literature. (Which is not to knock the guy or the grown-up readers of young adult, of course!) It makes me happy to think about people getting profoundly engaged and profoundly influenced by media.

I myself am very influenced by media. Okay, so let me admit to being gross sometimes. I think we all are, sometimes: the last time I realised I was being gross (both sexist and racist, actually) was... earlier today. But let me admit to a time I was specifically gross. At one time in my late teens/early twenties I wouldn't have thought I could be sexist. Because I was a feminist, and all! And yet I clearly remember discussing the female characters in the Harry Potter series and saying such things as 'She's too perfect - but I don't like the faults she has.' It took seeing people say the exact same things I'd said, but about girl characters in books/movies/TV shows I really loved, for me to realise 'Oh, wow. I was being pretty sexist, right about then.' And then I felt awful. But I'm really glad I got to read and watch the girls in books, movies and TV shows that I loved, just the same.

(Memo: this is not to say criticising fictional girls is bad! But one rule for me is seeing different criteria applied to guys than girls - if a guy character never gets criticised for being too perfect/who he's dating/what he's wearing, for instance, that's an indication that Younger Sarah might be doing it wrong.)

The thing about the picture that makes me angry - it doesn't make me angry just because it's sexist, which hey, it is. (Gentlemen: a world of adventure awaits! Ladies: well, you're ladies, right? That is your ONE ONLY POSSIBLE job? Leaving alone the fact that, say, schemer or match-maker might be a better description of what Emma actually does with her time.)

What this picture is really about to me is a portrayal of limitations placed on awesomeness. (I'm not making a call about the shows it portrays, just talking about the portrayal.) And the fiction I like the most is that which says 'There is no limit on awesomeness.' Because, and this seems a ridiculously obvious thing to say, having no limit on awesomeness means more awesomeness.

Like, my very, very first fantasy novel of all time was Tamora Pierce's In the Hand of the Goddess (I think my mother thought it was historical) and I didn't think much about the way the heroine being the action-heroine star of the show, who uses contraception and has sex with several dudes and it's all good. I just thought 'that is an awesome book.' Because I didn't have to trip on any limits to awesomeness put there.

Another example of limits put on awesomeness: books like What Katy Did and The Secret Garden. I love them. I love The Secret Garden so much it's kind of embarrassing. But in both of them a main character gets a seemingly-almost-magically complete healing, and that's a limit placed on awesomeness because it does tend to suggest a character cannot reach their full awesomeness without said healing. But those books were written a while ago, whereas R.J. Anderson's Knife (Spell Hunter in the US) was written quite recently. The wheelchair-using hero, Paul, is offered magical healing, and he says 'Yeah, thanks, but no, there's something else I want.'

The past is another country. We're learning to do things better here.

In Cindy Pon's Silver Phoenix I learned stuff about Asian myth that I didn't know, and that was awesome. I spent a good deal of time explaining and doing imitations for a monster made out of the bits of dead people to my increasingly upset friends.

There is a lot of room for improvement in media. I was horrified to read this post on Elizabeth Scott's blog talking about the LGBTQ landscape in YA - less than ten per cent of submissions have books with gay characters? Not even protagonists, though there should be more - less than ten per cent have them even there existing at all in a whole cast of characters? Methuselah on a bicycle.

But one of the most popular YA series in the world right now (The Hunger Games) centres on an action heroine. I saw a whole crowd of (mostly teenage girl) readers let out a spontaneous cheer at the mention of the gay couple in Cassandra Clare's Mortal Instruments books. There are books like Malinda Lo's Ash with a lesbian romance front and centre, and also teens can watch a video of someone saying 'hey, I'm okay, I'm awesome, I have this great partner, I wrote a book!' And that matters. (And since I have mentioned both Cindy Pon and Malinda Lo, I wish to link to their Diversity in YA, because I think it's an excellent thing that I am really proud to be part of.)

So, I've got to believe it's getting better, it's getting better all the time. And I look at Awesomeness-Limiting portrayals of media and I think 'that's not all there is, there is going to be more and more awesomeness until the awesomeness-limiting is eliminated.' And creating (to the best of one's ability, which I do, though I've been deliberately not mentioning my own stuff in this post) and appreciating awesomeness?

That's really important. So I think about that, and I feel better.

In fact, I feel awesome.

Comments

vvvexation
Jan. 27th, 2011 03:25 am (UTC)
McGonegall is old and apparently thus undesirable.

Wait, so it's bad when female characters get married and it's bad when they don't? (Not that we know McGonagall never married, anyway -- we don't know anything about most of the teachers' personal lives.) And the fact that McGonagall shows herself to be pretty badass doesn't count for anything?

As for Tonks, she didn't exactly stay home once she was a mother, did she? And would it have been such a terrible thing if she had, given that it would've kept her kid from being orphaned?
flameraven
Jan. 27th, 2011 04:12 am (UTC)
I think McGonegall is badass and awesome. What I'm saying is the books seem to regard her to be not a candidate for a relationship because she's older. Granted we don't learn much of her backstory, but the way she's portrayed (especially in the movies) it seems like they ignore that aspect. I don't know if that's making any sense.

I don't remember the exact circumstances of Tonks/Lupin (I'd actually forgotten Tonks died too) but I do remember being really irritated at how mopey Tonks got in...Book 5? I'd elaborate further, but I can't remember clearly just what her drama was.
vvvexation
Jan. 27th, 2011 04:46 am (UTC)
What I'm saying is the books seem to regard her to be not a candidate for a relationship because she's older.

Or maybe because none of the Hogwarts professors, of any gender, are seen to be in romantic relationships?

And yeah, I was kind of annoyed by Tonks' mopiness when I read it as pining-over-a-man, but it can also be read as worrying-because-her-loved-one-is-in-danger, which is a lot less annoying. Anyway, my point about her not being a SAHM still stands, as does my point about its being inconsistent to complain about female characters having love lives and also complain about them not having love lives.
flameraven
Jan. 27th, 2011 04:06 pm (UTC)
*sigh* It seems people have really misinterpreted what I meant.

For the record, my initial complaint was that throughout the books, we get a lot of interesting girl/women characters, who are awesome in their own right, and then at the end of the books it's like boom! all marriage and babies. I'm talking about the information presented in the books, not interviews or any side information that most people aren't going to have ready access to.

It's that ending that I object to, and the whole reason I posted in the first place. Sarah's post was about how this advertisement was terrible because it only had one woman, and her profession was just 'Lady.' I feel like HP sort of threw the same thing at us- you have all these awesome women, and the only information you give us about their future is who they married and what their kids are like? I find that really frustrating.
vvvexation
Jan. 28th, 2011 12:10 am (UTC)
Yes, but as people have been reminding you, that's all the information the books gave us about the male characters too.

Profile

unmade
sarahtales
Sarah Rees Brennan
Sarah's Lexicon

Latest Month

November 2016
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930   

sarahreesbrennan@gmail.com

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow