I absolutely don't think that such a critique is any reason to stop loving a character, or even an entire story. I think one could only argue that it's reason to stop if one assumes that the author sabotaged the character on purpose, in which case I, personally, would start to pull back from the story. I'd be feeling like the author is taking jabs at me, the reader/viewer, for liking this character. As though the sabotage is meant to also carry a message that as the character is dismissed, so am I dismissed for thinking this character should get or deserves more than she's given.
However, I think that attributes a level of malevolence to authors that probably isn't there. Like I've said elsewhere, I think you can't really peg what's in a writer's head, and it's possible that even the most egregious are entirely unaware of the impact/implications of the way they treat certain characters. Sexism can be just as blind and ingrained as any other -ism, after all. I do think that if you have thirty-something volumes and the author has repeatedly trod the same shove-the-female path over and over, that you might have enough, textually, to say there's a significant pattern... but even then, any analysis is going to step into subjective (and therefore arguable) territory if we try to claim the author intends to sabotage. It could be the author really only intends to focus on the main character, ergo, the supporting/female characters "simply aren't important enough" to warrant any additional attention.
But part of the point (for me, at least) in writing posts like these are in hopes that such might create conversation that might eventually come to the attention of writers/readers, to let them know that they're being called out -- even if they never had any but the best of intentions. Because I think it's entirely possible that for many writers, and creators, that they just "never stopped to consider" the implications of what they're doing -- and that they should, I think, get credit for at least attempting to include stronger female characters. It's just that their reliance on other genre conventions (needing a sacrifice, needing an example, etc) is undermining their sincere wish to have solid female characters alongside the male characters.
no subject
Date: 27 Sep 2010 07:13 pm (UTC)However, I think that attributes a level of malevolence to authors that probably isn't there. Like I've said elsewhere, I think you can't really peg what's in a writer's head, and it's possible that even the most egregious are entirely unaware of the impact/implications of the way they treat certain characters. Sexism can be just as blind and ingrained as any other -ism, after all. I do think that if you have thirty-something volumes and the author has repeatedly trod the same shove-the-female path over and over, that you might have enough, textually, to say there's a significant pattern... but even then, any analysis is going to step into subjective (and therefore arguable) territory if we try to claim the author intends to sabotage. It could be the author really only intends to focus on the main character, ergo, the supporting/female characters "simply aren't important enough" to warrant any additional attention.
But part of the point (for me, at least) in writing posts like these are in hopes that such might create conversation that might eventually come to the attention of writers/readers, to let them know that they're being called out -- even if they never had any but the best of intentions. Because I think it's entirely possible that for many writers, and creators, that they just "never stopped to consider" the implications of what they're doing -- and that they should, I think, get credit for at least attempting to include stronger female characters. It's just that their reliance on other genre conventions (needing a sacrifice, needing an example, etc) is undermining their sincere wish to have solid female characters alongside the male characters.