On Strong Women, Agency and Default Narrative States

I've read some really fantastic feminist-leaning literary criticism lately:  This one here on how Your Default Narrative Settings Are Not Apolitical, and the one it inspired, challenging the Women, Cattle and Slaves Narrative.  And, also, Hunger Games is a Sexist Fairytale.  With so many fantastic discussions going on all around, I feel I should step in to offer my own two cents.

The whole concept of "strong female character" is one fraught with problems.  On the surface, it seems simple enough: We want to fill our fictional worlds with the kind of women our daughters can look to as role models.  We want narratives that resonate with women and the problems and triumphs and tribulations we face.  This should not be a difficult order to fill.

But time and again, it goes sideways.  Usually one of three things happens:

1. The women are depicted as "strong" in a masculine sort of way, suggesting that the only way to be a strong or valuable woman is to deny your femininity and act like a man.  (a common problem in fantasy) 
2. The women are depicted as "strong," but are still not as strong as the men around them, and a good portion of their strength seems to be diverted toward being sexy.  (a common problem in superhero stories)
3. The women are portrayed in traditional women's roles, facing traditional women's problems, and even if they are strong it doesn't seem to really matter since they're not affecting a large enough sphere.  (a common complaint about "women's fiction.") 

Over and over again, these things end up happening.  The stories get caught up in a false dichotomy: Either you can be strong like a man, or you're stuck in outmoded gender roles.  Become a dude, or be worthless.

And this is so fucking frustrating because there's such an obvious solution and people seem to keep on missing it.  Maybe it's a fundamental misunderstanding of the word "strong."  I can't blame you.  It's a complicated word.  Did you know that it has 16 definitions in the dictionary?  According to good ol' Merriam Webster's, strength can mean:  Physical power, intellectual power, wealth, superiority, lack of weakness, resistance to injury, and many other things besides.  

A good synonym for "strong" might be "empowered":   to promote the self-actualization or influence of.  

And a good synonym for "empowerment" might be "agency": the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power.  

So, I posit:  A strong female character is a character who has agency, both in her own life and in the story.  

This is not rocket science.  Characters should have the ability to act freely, make their own choices, and feel the consequences -- both good and bad -- of those choices.  If you were to write male characters who had no agency, nobody would have any patience for it.  It's a fundamental law of storytelling that characters make choices that drive the story forward.  The very definition of "plot" is: Character + Conflict + Stakes.  The way the character solves the conflict is how the story is resolved.  

Yet, somehow, with women, we ignore these rules completely.  Honestly, did any of you notice, before it was pointed out by The Last Psychiatrist, that Katniss never really does anything?  That she manages to survive the Games through sheer dumb luck and deus ex machina?  That she spectacularly manages to not resolve any conflicts?  

Yet, it's deeply, culturally ingrained that women do not have agency.  That a lack of agency is a defining characteristic of womanhood.  Apparently, having agency is the function of testicles, which is why we say "grow a pair" or "have some balls" to people who are too frightened to take action.  It's why people who are cowardly (ie, lacking in agency) are often referred to as "pussies."  This is also why "emasculate" means both "remove a man's genitals" and "deprive of strength or vigor".  There is no female equivalent of emasculation, possibly because women apparently had nothing of value stored in their genitals in the first place.  

Here's some examples I'm sure you all know:  
Female folktales:  Cinderella gets to wed a prince because she's given a bunch of gifts, and doesn't actually have to do anything herself.  The wife in Bluebeard (does she even have a name?) manages to fuck up the one and only choice she makes in the story, but it's OK because her brothers come to her rescue.  In Sleeping Beauty and Snow White, the titular characters succeed in getting the guy while unconscious or essentially dead.  How's that for lack-of-agency.  
Male folktales:  The youngest son gets to inherit the kingdom through cunning and trickery, with the help of a magical cat in Puss in Boots.  A tailor gets to....inherit a kingdom through cunning and trickery...in The Brave Little Tailor.  Jack manages to gain riches and notoriety....through cunning and trickery...even though he kind of fucked things up with the giant in the first place.  

Now, I'll grant you, there are a few folktales that buck this trend.  For example:  It's Gretel who dispatches with the witch in Hansel and Gretel (and BOTH of them survive through cunning and trickery).  And in Fitcher's Bird, the heroine saves not only herself but her sisters.  What's that?  You don't know Fitcher's Bird? Oh, never mind....

One last point before I open this one up for discussion.  A book should have strong female characters (read: characters with both agency and vaginas) just as it should have strong male characters (read: characters with agency and penises).  This does not mean that female characters need to be paragons of feminism.  Perfect people -- people without flaws, who are the embodiment of an ideology -- make shitty characters, regardless of gender.

All right -- discuss!  I eagerly await your comments on this one. 

Thoughts on Gatsby

I watched Gatsby today.  I was never a big fan of the novel (sacrilege, I know) but Baz has never steered me wrong in the past, and I was intrigued from the trailer -- and its perfect casting.  I also drug my boyfriend along and was pleasantly surprised to learn that he loved it.  Somehow he escaped high school without ever reading the book, so he didn't know what he was getting into.

Anyway.  Oh, what to say.  I can't precisely say that I liked it.  I'm not quite sure that The Great Gatsby is a  book that's meant to be liked.  It's messy and uncomfortable, a story occupied entirely by unlikeable people leading vacuous lives.  But it's a story that does make you think, and the film certainly left me full of thoughts.

First among them:  The matter of Daisy.

Why is it that so many people hate her so much?  I can't help but pity her.  She's victimized by everyone who touches her:  Her boorish, unfaithful husband.  Her charming stalker.  Her cousin, who's so enamored with aforementioned stalker that he never intercedes in what is clearly a doomed situation -- and who instead facilitates it.  She has no agency and makes no choices.  She's a well-bred woman from old money; you can't tell me her family would have stood for her marrying a penniless soldier.

I'll grant that she's vapid and morally vacuous, holding a certain upper-class apathy and caring only about the most frivolous of things.  But that's hardly a character trait unique to her.  In the Gatsby universe, those attributes describe nearly the entire cast.  The only character with any inch of humanity is Carraway, and he's so caught-up in voyeurism that he never acts.

And Gatsby himself, charmingly heroic though he may appear, is a disturbing figure.  Here is a man who has built up this image of Daisy, placed her on a pedestal and courted his image of her for years.  He doesn't see her as a person, only as a facet of the life and image he wants for himself.  Like everything else he has, Daisy is just something to be acquired, an achievement.

Not only is his obsession with her creepy, but he goes about courting her through a series of Grand Romantic Gestures that (as grand gestures are wont to be) are laden with manipulation.  He intends to buy her affection, and if that doesn't succeed he will emotionally blackmail it out of her.

And further complicating matters, there are at least two layers of unreliability in the storytelling.  First, any information we get from Gatsby himself is automatically suspect.  He's not exactly a man well-known for his truthfulness.  What's to say that the "truths" that come out later aren't just a different flavor of lie?  And then everything he says is once more filtered through the eyes and ears of Nick Carraway, a man who I'd argue is too in love with Gatsby to ever be critical of him.

When I say "in love with", I don't necessarily mean homo-erotically -- although you could make a compelling argument for that.  But even if you ignored that subtext, Nick is still obsessed with Gatsby and everything he stands for.

I say the whole thing is a mess, and pinning it entirely on Daisy is unfair and -- I'll say it -- sexist.

The other thing that was stirring in my brain while watching:


We have this interesting myth in our society, the story of the "self-made man."  The story goes that if you work hard enough, you'll be rewarded with fortune.  It's at the core of our meritocracy and it's basically the aspiration of the entire middle class.

But at the same time, we kind of hate the self-made man.  We hate old money because it wasn't earned -- but we hate new money, because we don't trust it.  After all, we work hard, and we aren't rich and famous.  Surely the people who are have done something wrong or duplicitous.

There used to be a common motif in fairy tales:  the low-born hero who ends up acquiring wealth through a mixture of cunning and trickery.  These trickster heroes transcended class boundaries at a time when doing so was well-nigh impossible.  An example is the hero of Puss in Boots, or The Brave Little Tailor.  These trickster heroes have fallen out of fashion in more modern times, though, perhaps because moving through class boundaries has become somewhat easier.  Now when we see them, we distrust them and generally consider them to be villains (Petyr Baelish comes to mind).  

I don't know for certain that Gatsby was the last of the American trickster heroes in literature, but he certainly is one, and I think his death is a stand-in for the death of the motif in general.  Here is a man who has truly created himself, even going so far as to re-name himself.  But it was dishonest, and such a thing cannot go unpunished.

Anyway.  Like I said -- so many thoughts.  Anybody else care to weigh in?

The Never-Ending Debate About Quality

I spent a little time last night crumpled into a ball of existential woe.  There were many reasons for this, but one of the issues at the core of my unhappiness was a pervasive feeling of loneliness.  I had gotten pulled into several online arguments among writers, and all of them left me miserable and confused.

Art is a tricky, confusing thing.  On the one hand, it seems that all art is subjective.  How do you tell whether a piece of writing is "good" or "bad"?  Can you just hold it up to a rubric of expected qualities and tropes?  What about the writing that breaks all the rules but is deemed "good" (or even "amazing") all the same?  What about books that are loved by readers but hated by critics, or vice versa?  And what about the books that everyone agrees are awful, but love anyway -- those "guilty pleasure" stories?

The whole thing is so complicated, and it's very easy to take an easy way out and say, "All art is subjective, there is no such thing as quality."

But that doesn't seem right.  Surely we can objectively state that a child's scribbling is not the same as a literary classic, just as we can tell that a person's first attempt at playing the piano is not on the same level as a grand master pianist.  We can identify skill when we see it.

So then there's other theories tossed around.  One popular one seems to be, "If it sells well, it must be good."  The idea suggests that quality is democratic, that it's something that can be voted on.  This is a very popular theory of late.  Not only are there best-sellers lists guiding the purchasing decisions of buyers, but art and services of all kinds are decided by popular opinion:  from game shows like American Idol to Yelp ratings to up-votes on Youtube and even social media like Reddit, the theory seems to be that if a lot of people like something, it must be good.

Yet even that seems unsatisfying.  There are lots of things that are popular that aren't particularly good, and things that are great that are unpopular.  Consider, for example, Honey Boo Boo, or Justin Bieber.

Which of course leads to some people holding the opposite reaction:  If something is popular, it must suck.

Like I said, this whole thing is a hornet's nest.  Something that seems so simple gets very complicated and ugly very fast once you start debating it.

I would argue that good art is effective.  That is, it does what the creator intends for it to do, and it's well-received by its target audience.

The question then becomes an issue of defining your target audience, and determining what does and does not work for them.  It also means accepting that your target audience may not be big enough to make your work "Popular."  You have to decide: Do you want to stay loyal to a small but loyal target audience, or do you want to appeal to the masses in hopes of greater success?

Myself, I'm in the "small but loyal" camp.  Of course, I would like it if my books spilled over into other groups and gained popularity and became break-away hits of awesomeness, but that's not really in my control.

What about you guys?  Do you know who your ideal readers are?  Do you have any tips for reaching your target audience?  Or do you think that something else determines quality?  Let me know in the comments!

The Only Way Out is Through

Do you ever find yourself re-learning the same lessons over and over?  It's a bit frustrating, knowing that you should have listened better the first time, but it does serve to really drive home the point.

Today, I re-discovered something that I've always known (but frequently need repeated): Sitting down and writing solves more problems than sitting around and thinking.  If you're stuck, the fastest way to get through the block is simply to keep writing.  More often than not, you'll figure out the solution eventually and circle back to fix it.

This seems a little counter-productive at first, which is why I always forget this important lesson.  How are you supposed to do something if you don't know what you're doing?

And maybe not everyone writes the way I do, so maybe this advice doesn't work as well for others.  Take it with a grain of salt, certainly.  But for me, writing is an act of sculpting, like working with clay.  I start with a small piece, then add and shape and trim and shape some more.  I tend to add words when I revise, and part of that is because I have to get through the forest before I can see it properly.

There's a psychological component to this.  Our brains are hard-wired to try to make sense of things.  After the fact, we always try to piece things together to understand them.  That's why they say, "Hindsight is 20/20."  When you're in the thick of a problem, you can't always see the best way out of it.  It's only once you've gotten through it that you look back and say, "Ahh, I should have done X!"

Lucky for you, in your book world, you can go back and do X.  You can travel in time and change the future.

Anyway.  All this occurred to me today as I was struggling to get past a tricky part in my manuscript.  I got to a place where a particular plot point was suddenly much more important than it had been up to then, and the incongruity was confusing me.  I knew that the characters had to feel the dire importance of this plot point, but I had no idea why any of them would care about it.  It was forced and awkward and so very frustrating.

But I pushed through and wrote a random off-the-cuff scene that had nothing to do with anything -- a little flashback to a character's childhood.  And when I wrote it, I realized three things:

1. It was way more important than I'd initially thought.  
2. It was several chapters too late.  
3. It was the first of many references that would make sense of the plot point. 

So I cut and pasted the scene several chapters earlier, then went through and edited it all for continuity.  Now, knowing that piece of information earlier clouded what the narrator would say later, and everything tied together.  

I ended up having a very productive day of writing after all that, and I never would've gotten there if I'd stopped to puzzle out the plot rationally.  

So, as a reminder for myself (and whomever may be reading and struggling): If you get stuck, just keep going.  You can swing back around to fix it once you figure it out.  

And now for something different...ELSKER by S.T. Bende

As you guys know, I occasionally run promotional posts for fellow authors -- and here's one that looks enticing :)

Elsker by ST Bende

Book I of The Elsker Saga

Release: April 22, 2013

Genre: New Adult Paranormal Romance

Length: 61,000 words

Publisher: Entranced Publishing, Blush

Blurb:

Kristia Tostenson prefers Earl Grey to Grey Goose and book clubs to nightclubs, but when she transfers from her one-stoplight town to Cardiff University in Wales she falls in love with Ull Myhr. Her new boyfriend isn’t exactly what she was expecting. He’s an honest-to-goodness Norse God — an immortal assassin fated to die at Ragnarok, the battle destined to destroy Asgard and Earth. Kristia’s crazy visions are the only thing that can save their realms.

Her orderly life just got very messy.

Book trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MaJIgkk-CI

Buy Links:

Kobo: http://www.kobobooks.com/ebook/Elsker/book-h7Bk69_5n06_14jqUhk-Cg/page1.html?s=MDjO03uxek-K4vwciTWJxA&r=1

Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Elsker-The-Saga-ebook/dp/B00CGL33S2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366782935&sr=8-1&keywords=elsker

Barnes & Noble:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/elsker-st-bende/1115161284?ean=2940016665375

Entranced:

About the Author:

Before finding domestic bliss in suburbia, ST Bende lived in Manhattan Beach (became overly fond of Peet’s Coffee) and Europe… where she became overly fond of the musical Cats. Her love of Scandinavian culture and a very patient Norwegian teacher inspired the ELSKER series. She hopes her characters make you smile and that one day pastries will be considered a health food.

You can follow ST Bende on Twitter @stbende, or send an e-mail to stbende@gmail.com.

Author social media links

Blog: http://stbende.blogspot.com/

Goodreads: http://www.goodreads.com/stbende

Twitter: https://twitter.com/stbende or @stbende

Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/stbende/

Excerpt:  

ELSKER - Book 1, THE ELSKER SAGA

At eight o’clock, a firm knock interrupted my reading. I picked my way through the flower shop that our living room had become and opened the door.

“Oh good, you kept my peace offerings.” Ull treated me to a rakish grin.

“Just a few of them,” I muttered. “Come on in.”

“Oh, no. You must come with me.”

“Why?” I challenged. Ull sighed.

“Are you going to fight me at every turn?”

“Probably.”

“Please come.” He looked so adorable standing on my stoop, his scarf casually thrown across the grey sweater under his coat. I gave in quicker than I meant to.

“Fine.” I grabbed my coat from the closet by the door and shoved my keys and wallet into the pocket. “Where are we off to?” I closed the door behind me and followed Ull into the brisk night, waiting for his promised explanation.

But he didn’t say anything. Instead, he put his hand on the small of my back and guided me away from campus. I shivered and noticed that Ull wore his jacket open, at ease in the chill. As we rounded the corner, Ull dropped his hand to clasp mine. It was so warm, so strong, and for a moment I forgot to be mad at him. We walked in silence as he led me down the main road. After two right turns, I found myself standing in a quiet garden.

Ull had brought me to a church.

The Beast in the Bedchamber: Free Weekend

In case you hadn't already heard, The Beast in the Bedchamber is free this weekend.  You can download it from Amazon here and read it on your computer, Kindle, or a kindle app on any Android, iPad or iPhone.

Cover Reveal: Adorned by Georgeann Swiger

Today I'm happy to take part in a cover reveal for author Georgeann Swiger for her upcoming book, Adorned.  Check this out:

Adorned by Georgeann Swiger

Title: Adorned (Book I in The Trinity of Souls series)

Author: Georgeann Swiger

Publisher: Entranced Publishing

Genre: YA paranormal romance

Length: 80k words

Release Date: 4 November, 2013

Blurb:

When seventeen-year-old Anya finds out she’s actually an angel being trained to protect humanity, she discovers that becoming an angel has nothing to do with wings and haloes. For Anya, becoming an angel has to do with death—her death.

Micah, the angelic soldier ordered to protect her until she transitions from human to angel, promises her death will be a glorious experience as long as she follows his rules. But getting Anya through this life and to the next isn’t as simple as Micah expects. His job becomes even more difficult after he unwittingly performs a miracle that exposes Anya’s hidden angelic light.

With her secret out, Hell’s legions begin targeting her. Unfortunately, Hell’s minions are the least of Micah’s worries. He’s more concerned about the forbidden human emotions he’s developed toward Anya. Even more troubling, is she seems to love him too. And giving in to those feelings, could mean dire consequences for them both.

About the Author

Georgeann Swiger earned her degree in journalism from West Virginia University, and then spent five years as an anchor/reporter at WBOY-TV in Clarksburg, WV. After having children, she left television news to be a stay at home mom. During that time, she discovered creative writing was more fun than writing about real life tragedy. Imagining interesting characters and having them come to life on the page is now her passion. When she’s not writing, she works as a substitute teacher. She lives in Reedsville, West Virginia with her husband, two kids, a beagle dog and a temperamental cat who tries to rule the house.

Website: http://www.georgeannswiger.com/

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Georgeann-Swiger/354944307955157

Twitter: https://twitter.com/GeorgeannSwiger

Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/geoswager/