![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaI wish I could say something halfway coherent about a possible source for fannish issues (well, those of largely slash fen) with a number of spunky, at least partially "male hero"-type girl characters. I'm thinking of anything from the resentment of (movie?) Wendy Darling to Buffy to OoTP!Ginny.
I think this also relates interestingly to movie!Hermione being fitted into that mold. I mean, it seems she's not like that in canon, and yet... I think she must have potential, since she's a Gryffindor, isn't she?
My thoughts on this are presently scattered, by my instinct is that Gryffindorishness is supposed to be used as a textual shorthand for this stereotype (or achetype or what have you): indomitable, spunky, fearless, brash, good-hearted and true (and thus generally also selfish, self-righteous, overly favored, prone to temper and usually victims to some unhealthy amount of zeal). It's not "real life" heroism by any means-- it's a story convention, and it's worked in countless tales since the dawn of story, as far as I can tell.
So it's interesting to me (and slightly sad), seeing this (female-centered) rebellion against the (unrealistically, fairy-tale-style)-- female rebellion. I mean, I bet if you asked your average 13 year-old girl, she'd say movie!Hermione (and OoTP!Ginny... and Buffy) was kewl, man.
These days, most people often look at things so... pragmatically, I suppose; so realistically and sensibly. We're not living in a heroic age anymore, so it seems to me like the ridiculous visions of valor & sudden awakening from conflicted, contradictory roots (am thinking Buffy & Ginny) is frowned upon as... unrealistic and/or unhealthy. It's all about the "healthy attitude", which is basically at odds with the traditional style of perceiving fairy-tales and legends, which excuses most things with "a good heart is what counts" and "the end justifies the means" a lot of times. Being raised on these has kind of warped me, hasn't it? I just realized that these postmodern societal concerns have had nowhere near as large of an impact, all things considered.
I think I've always been hard-put to identify with Hermione -because- she's such a restrained, "modern" sort of girl. I've actually always intuited that Ginny would be a much better rebellious-hellfire candidate, what with her being clearly emotionally-centric, given to daydreams and easily driven to apparent extremes (in CoS). Morally wrong behavior kind of goes hand-in-hand with this sort of recklessness, I think (though of course that's not the only route to take). Buffy's dark, unheroic side which tends to put people off her is a direct result of the heroism package, as far as I can see. There's really no such thing as a well-balanced, truly selfless hero, anyway.
Actually, while I don't think JKR gave Ginny enough attention to make the transition believable, OoTP!Ginny as a concept is completely believable to me, and in fact I find her necessary. It may have been a somewhat ridiculous decision to make movie!Hermione out to be some sort of OoTP!Ginny predecessor, but a character like that was needed-- male-type "strong" females (in that their strength is in their fierce attitude rather than in their compassion) are considered necessary these days to "balance out" the strength of the males. While people laugh at the OOCness of this shift in Hermione, the idea of "girl power" makes sense to the 14 year-old girl I remember being.
I was a kind of reticent, shy, overly bookish 14 year-old girl not that long ago, and I loved the idea of putting aside my dreams and pens and pencils and going out and kicking arse. One gets sick of being reasonable (and the result is naturally less than pretty). So while movie!Hermione is less than believable, I think I identify with Emma's desire to have her be like that, canon be damned. It's like, well, it'd be -nice-; in canon, the role fell to Ginny because Hermione was needed to be the cool head in between Ron & Harry, but as her own person, Hermione could do with some butt-kicking attitude. I mean... dude. Remember being 14?... Yeah. It would drive a saint to violence.
Anyway, I think fairy-tale archetypes (translated into children's-book stereotypes) do have their root in real people's psychological needs. The number of teenager-written Mary Sue and secret-powers fics should tell you that at that age, what a lot of adolescents fixate on is power-- the power to strike back, to be the best, to be on top. So it saddens me to see it dressed up in adult terms of unfairness and unhealthyness and some sort of ideological/political paradigms that would mean little to the teenagers in question.
It's like... teenagers have their own politics, their own skewed ethics. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there in grade-school-to-High-School land, and yeah, there's usually no "fair" to speak of. Attitude passes for heroism and cowardly submission passes for "evil" pathetic dorkiness-- you either bully or are bullied. Thus, in a way, Ginny became bully material-- because to be capable of self-defense because she -had- to.
I don't know what I'm saying, exactly, except that I myself am clearly way too immature and stuck in wish-fulfillment fantasies of my own to discuss this rationally :> Or perhaps one could make the argument that JKR is a feminist :D ahahah which actually really amuses me. Incidentally, I suppose I should make clear that my "issue" with the negative press some semi-controversial heroines get is a feminist one at core, probably moreso than whatever left over teenage angst I possess. I mean, I definitely see Buffy, for instance, as a feminist icon in many ways, and would overlook (if not justify) her more ethically iffy behavior by the central fact of her overall admirable attitude. Ahh, it's The Attitude again, yes.
Is it feminist or just immature to admire Buffy because she kicks ass, is funny doing it, and meanwhile, manages to look good in a short skirt at the same time? I do believe this is an unattainable ideal, if it's actually feminist in the first place, but I can't help but see fairy tales as often feminist texts as well, contrary to popular opinion.
I can definitely see a feminist, grrrl-power kind of Hermione in later years, once she gets more systematic in her rebellion against whatever "institution" she chooses. I mean, I think her "defense" of the house-elves is just the intellectual equivalent of holding Malfoy at wand-point, say: it's basically born of righteousness run amok, but with social concern (for herself as projected onto others) at the center. I've actually never seen Hermione in a feminist light before, but now I believe she's more of a modern type of pre-feminist figure while OoTP!Ginny is more of a traditional fairy-tale approach.
Yeah. The meta, man. It is thick enough to choke on, isn't it? :>
I think this also relates interestingly to movie!Hermione being fitted into that mold. I mean, it seems she's not like that in canon, and yet... I think she must have potential, since she's a Gryffindor, isn't she?
My thoughts on this are presently scattered, by my instinct is that Gryffindorishness is supposed to be used as a textual shorthand for this stereotype (or achetype or what have you): indomitable, spunky, fearless, brash, good-hearted and true (and thus generally also selfish, self-righteous, overly favored, prone to temper and usually victims to some unhealthy amount of zeal). It's not "real life" heroism by any means-- it's a story convention, and it's worked in countless tales since the dawn of story, as far as I can tell.
So it's interesting to me (and slightly sad), seeing this (female-centered) rebellion against the (unrealistically, fairy-tale-style)-- female rebellion. I mean, I bet if you asked your average 13 year-old girl, she'd say movie!Hermione (and OoTP!Ginny... and Buffy) was kewl, man.
These days, most people often look at things so... pragmatically, I suppose; so realistically and sensibly. We're not living in a heroic age anymore, so it seems to me like the ridiculous visions of valor & sudden awakening from conflicted, contradictory roots (am thinking Buffy & Ginny) is frowned upon as... unrealistic and/or unhealthy. It's all about the "healthy attitude", which is basically at odds with the traditional style of perceiving fairy-tales and legends, which excuses most things with "a good heart is what counts" and "the end justifies the means" a lot of times. Being raised on these has kind of warped me, hasn't it? I just realized that these postmodern societal concerns have had nowhere near as large of an impact, all things considered.
I think I've always been hard-put to identify with Hermione -because- she's such a restrained, "modern" sort of girl. I've actually always intuited that Ginny would be a much better rebellious-hellfire candidate, what with her being clearly emotionally-centric, given to daydreams and easily driven to apparent extremes (in CoS). Morally wrong behavior kind of goes hand-in-hand with this sort of recklessness, I think (though of course that's not the only route to take). Buffy's dark, unheroic side which tends to put people off her is a direct result of the heroism package, as far as I can see. There's really no such thing as a well-balanced, truly selfless hero, anyway.
Actually, while I don't think JKR gave Ginny enough attention to make the transition believable, OoTP!Ginny as a concept is completely believable to me, and in fact I find her necessary. It may have been a somewhat ridiculous decision to make movie!Hermione out to be some sort of OoTP!Ginny predecessor, but a character like that was needed-- male-type "strong" females (in that their strength is in their fierce attitude rather than in their compassion) are considered necessary these days to "balance out" the strength of the males. While people laugh at the OOCness of this shift in Hermione, the idea of "girl power" makes sense to the 14 year-old girl I remember being.
I was a kind of reticent, shy, overly bookish 14 year-old girl not that long ago, and I loved the idea of putting aside my dreams and pens and pencils and going out and kicking arse. One gets sick of being reasonable (and the result is naturally less than pretty). So while movie!Hermione is less than believable, I think I identify with Emma's desire to have her be like that, canon be damned. It's like, well, it'd be -nice-; in canon, the role fell to Ginny because Hermione was needed to be the cool head in between Ron & Harry, but as her own person, Hermione could do with some butt-kicking attitude. I mean... dude. Remember being 14?... Yeah. It would drive a saint to violence.
Anyway, I think fairy-tale archetypes (translated into children's-book stereotypes) do have their root in real people's psychological needs. The number of teenager-written Mary Sue and secret-powers fics should tell you that at that age, what a lot of adolescents fixate on is power-- the power to strike back, to be the best, to be on top. So it saddens me to see it dressed up in adult terms of unfairness and unhealthyness and some sort of ideological/political paradigms that would mean little to the teenagers in question.
It's like... teenagers have their own politics, their own skewed ethics. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there in grade-school-to-High-School land, and yeah, there's usually no "fair" to speak of. Attitude passes for heroism and cowardly submission passes for "evil" pathetic dorkiness-- you either bully or are bullied. Thus, in a way, Ginny became bully material-- because to be capable of self-defense because she -had- to.
I don't know what I'm saying, exactly, except that I myself am clearly way too immature and stuck in wish-fulfillment fantasies of my own to discuss this rationally :> Or perhaps one could make the argument that JKR is a feminist :D ahahah which actually really amuses me. Incidentally, I suppose I should make clear that my "issue" with the negative press some semi-controversial heroines get is a feminist one at core, probably moreso than whatever left over teenage angst I possess. I mean, I definitely see Buffy, for instance, as a feminist icon in many ways, and would overlook (if not justify) her more ethically iffy behavior by the central fact of her overall admirable attitude. Ahh, it's The Attitude again, yes.
Is it feminist or just immature to admire Buffy because she kicks ass, is funny doing it, and meanwhile, manages to look good in a short skirt at the same time? I do believe this is an unattainable ideal, if it's actually feminist in the first place, but I can't help but see fairy tales as often feminist texts as well, contrary to popular opinion.
I can definitely see a feminist, grrrl-power kind of Hermione in later years, once she gets more systematic in her rebellion against whatever "institution" she chooses. I mean, I think her "defense" of the house-elves is just the intellectual equivalent of holding Malfoy at wand-point, say: it's basically born of righteousness run amok, but with social concern (for herself as projected onto others) at the center. I've actually never seen Hermione in a feminist light before, but now I believe she's more of a modern type of pre-feminist figure while OoTP!Ginny is more of a traditional fairy-tale approach.
Yeah. The meta, man. It is thick enough to choke on, isn't it? :>
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 01:55 pm (UTC)what a lot of adolescents fixate on is power-- the power to strike back, to be the best, to be on top. So it saddens me to see it dressed up in adult terms of unfairness and unhealthyness and some sort of ideological/political paradigms that would mean little to the teenagers in question.
It's understandable emotionally for a girl to be righteous and impulsive and express their rage (though for the life of me I don't know what Hermione was expressing their rage at in POA) but I don't think it's okay for adult women to condone abuse of boys who have done nothing but tease verbally.
I don't think feminism is about Buffy, of all things. Buffy is someone who abuses her own power and beats people unconscious with the simple justification that they are the evil male. Feminism isn't about this. It's not not about becoming a macho with tits. It's not about becoming the authority that oppressed you and fucking them up the ass because they did it first. It's about equality. Morals are the same for girls and boys, aren't they? What if it was Draco the one to punch Hermione because she'd said something about Pansy being a moron?
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 02:04 pm (UTC)Also, this is anti-feminist in nature. It's pandering to men's refusal to take any kind of non-cute chick in consideration as a heroine.
no subject
Date: 2004-06-08 02:22 pm (UTC)Okay, long after tomorrow (porn writing tonight) but while I think it's emotionally okay for teenagers to be righteous and impulsive and express the rage (though for the life of me I don't know what Hermione is expressing their rage at in POA), it's not okay for adult to tell them they're right. I am a feminist, and feminism is not about Buffy. Feminism is not about kicking the evil man's ass and abuse your power while doing it- even when they've done absolutely nothing to you.
It's about equality.
I hope moms these days aren't teaching their daughters it's okay to punch males who do nothing but tease them verbally because boys have been on top for so long it's time to fuck the up the ass. That's not what feminism is about at all. Girlpower is not about becoming a macho with tits. It's not about becoming the authority that oppressed you.
Anyway, I know that (a surface viewing of) Buffy & movie!Hermione isn't what grrl-power is all about-- if anything, I was explaining/highlighting the appeal to teenage girls themselves, about which these stories are being told. I was saying, of course Emma Watson digs this idea-- and I remember being 13/14 & so on and being rather keen on the whole arse-kicking venture myself.
I mean, these films (as well as BtVS & such)-- who are they directed at? Girls (and less so, boys) who're around this age, aren't they? And this is what they respond to. It's just-- in there. This -need- for that sort of heroine, this sort of story.
One grows up, of course, and realizes how silly it is to fight fire with fire (and I think BtVS was supposed to be about Buffy's journey to mature womanhood/heroism/feminism mostly). I wasn't saying that feminism is -about- this in total, just that the unrefined urge behind this sort of thing can be seen as a sort of pre-feminist (or protofeminist? something like that).
Yes, certainly, it's about equality in -real life- (in adulthood especially), but it's also about what works in stories, in terms of interpreting these characters, isn't it? I mean, some things work differently in stories because it's a metaphor or a wish-fulfillment thing or an allegory or something.
So while Tank Girl (one of my all-time favorite characters) would just kind of be a joke in the real world, what with the blowing things up and "sticking it to The Man" quite literally, one shouldn't take her that way. She's a metaphor, I think, an archetype in the same way that movie!Hermione can definitely be seen as a story-element & a metaphor.
I think in canon, actually, the more reserved & thoughtful Hermione is definitely more of a true feminist figure in the making than say, OoTP!Ginny or movie!Hermione, but. There's still (feminist) value in these stories, I feel, especially because movie!Draco wasn't really a "real" seeming person so much as an... I dunno... almost a running gag. I mean, in canon too, he's just a convenient punching bag, and this seems awful and unfair until you realize that in context it's more of a metaphor & a convenient plot-device than anything. Of course, in a good story, all characters are "real" characters, and there are no stock villains or whatever, but. *sigh*
I just think I'm much more comfortable with relegating some things away, away, away from the icky outside world with its real morals and its real issues. Wah, allegories/parables & ironically, parodies make my head hurt since they're so much more dependent on author intent. :>
no subject
Date: 2004-06-09 12:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-10 02:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-06-11 03:18 am (UTC)I dunno if I think it was supposed to be "okay" so much as "understandable". I mean, it didn't -really- hurt him... I guess? The scene kind of boggles me, but I think Hermione was just supposed to have lost it (at least Ron seemed to think so). Or something.
I don't think she was punishing a subhuman "creature" there, though she did call Draco a cockroach. If anything, how could Hermione, house-elf champion, lash out at someone she thought was subhuman creature? It's kind of ridiculous. I think it was supposed to be in the same vein as OoTP!Harry's beating up of Malfoy after Quidditch. Not that that was a Good Thing, but.
I wasn't defending her, just sort of going, well, kick-ass!Hermione isn't a bad idea necessarily, even though canonically, it's more than a bit ridiculous. Or something. Did I even -have- a point? -.-