~~readings using Andersen's eucatastrophe romance cliche

[reenka]

Ahh, another day, another seme (this time in 'Motto Midara ni Shitsukemashou', a BDSM-ish sorta manga) that is 'strange and kind of cold' towards his uke for some unknown reason (he wants more BDSM?? I'm guessing). And it got me to thinking about how yaoi is partly (maybe even mostly) so addictive to me because it (like most shoujo) has these cold-ass frozen-hearted boys that do inevitably melt at least a little from the amazing powah of the uke's TWUE LOFF. *___* I mean, yeah, I know what a pathetic cliche that is, and I know how badly done it is most of the time in fanfic with characters that don't fit the mold at all (like Snape or Draco in HP, Brian in QaF), but....

The thing is-- the thing is, it's hard to really even talk about the classic idealistic view of romantic love without talking about How Love Saves Us. I think it's like, the variants of the Icy or Thorny/Lonely Heart (tm) really just make the saving more literal and more dramatic. Meaning, while love can and does save anyone and there are as many ways to need its so-called healing power as there are people, there's something pure (in the sense of Platonic forms and Agape love) about the person needing to be saved because without love, they're literally lost or they've either never really experienced romance/love before or have turned their back on it consciously.

It all started when I was little, and my favorite fairy-tale love-story was probably Andersen's 'The Snow Queen' (and maybe still is, though it's a toss-up depending on my mood & which one I'm thinking of at the time). I think that's actually one of the only times -ever- I've read something that uses this trope in a way that's literarily defensible. That scene at the end where Gerda weeps and literally melts the ice in Kai's heart (in one translation) has permanently stuck with me since the first time I read it. I think Andersen had a way of writing about deep emotional truths without being overly meta or preachy or stuffy, which only left the reader with that pure, transcendent sense of eucatastrophe Tolkien wrote about in his famous 'On Fairy Stories' essay. Ever since then, perhaps I've been trying to recapture that feeling of joyous release in stories with somewhat similar themes (and mostly failing).

In any case, most of the time the whole idea gets a bad rep because most of the time it's not written anything like Andersen.
    
But anyway... then I moved on to girlish crushes on distant and 'cold' love objects like Sherlock Holmes & Spock, and in my adolescence I don't remember any particular romance out of all the ones I read that really stuck with me. Well, unless you count a tiny bit of shoujo anime (more precisely, Please Save My Earth, which made an extreme impression on me at 17 or so).

I do think there's something tempting in seeing this emotional arc in stories not explicitly cut out for it the way yaoi/shoujo manga often is; there's a reason 'silly fangirls' don't just stick to their predictable custom-made romances, and it's because of that 'predictable' part. In reading something like a yaoi manga, generally we know the melting is merely a matter of time, willy-nilly, the seme can't escape our collective clutches. The Power of the Uke compels him!

It's only when watching a show or reading a story not explicitly guaranteed that the transformative magic really happens (the way Andersen's stories weren't because he was a writer who wasn't afraid of tragedy, but also the way QaF or HP or ms_manna's Administration series isn't guaranteed because it's not 'pure romance' and also because Toreth is so seriously emotionally handicapped). Something implicit within the melting-heart scenario requires that moment of truth, that overcoming to be genuine and therefore against all odds. The odds have to seem against it for it to seem near-miraculous when the iced-over character melts (or starts on the road to meltage), so romance genre (or yaoi manga) stories have an intrinsic handicap & 'normal' stories with more 'stand-alone' or realistic characters an immediate advantage.
~~

So I guess I want to defend fannish readings using that cliche (even though it so often leads to ridiculous badfic and OOCness), because-- well, because I personally do empathize and because the nature of the beast requires quite a bit of twisting that's really hard to do in any kind of story.
    Also, I want to defend the validity of 'wishful thinking' sort of readings just because I think it's an innate and natural part of the experience for a certain [idealistic] temperament of reader. Fiction exists to be taken subjectively, so on one level arguing for the 'true' interpretation of a character (beyond factual debates) seems wrongheaded; note, I'm not denouncing the existence of ICness as a concept and not saying I suddenly support OOCness, 'cause you know I don't if you know me at all. :> Ideally (...heh) you should be able to support your reading using canon as a springboard, but here we're talking about the -quality- of a particular reader's writing in terms execution rather than the theory of such response itself.

I mean, okay, imagine if 'The Snow Queen' was a popular fanfiction/original fic online serial being put out today (haha). I'm sure a lot of the more 'canon-whorish' readers would defend to the death their reading of Kai as irredeemable-- like, look, he just is the way he is, and if you're writing him as transformed by the power of Gerda's innocent love(!!) you're just being a silly OOC-writing fangirl.
    And okay, um, in that sense 'The Snow Queen' isn't the best example 'cause actually the whole story does build up to the ending & Gerda's whole quest involved 'saving' Kai (she just had no real idea how and it was more that she just wanted to find him & get him physically away), but the point is that it's -supposed- to be dire and it's -supposed- to fool you. That's why people seem like utter fanatic believer freaks-- because in that sort of story, faith is what gets rewarded, and the rationalists who say 'but that's how he is [now]' get their come-uppance.

Obviously, I mean, part of the reason 'The Snow Queen' can work and your average (more realistic) fanfic/theory about Brian/Toreth/whoever doesn't is that in the end, Gerda succeeded through magic as well as 'Teh Powah of Pure LOFF'. The whole thing was suffused in metaphor, symbol and just-- magic, so a more 'normal' narrative isn't going to get that kind of suspension of disbelief or leeway in general. Even I admit that I want to see -how- things work out in fanfic, and not just be handed a deus ex machina type transformation where everything's suddenly okay after all the dire build-up literally 'by magic'. To me as a 'sophisticated' adult(??!) reader, rational explanations come off as respecting my intelligence while glib platitudes or magic tricks just annoy me as though they cheated.

So I guess the situation is, my tastes become more discerning and demanding as my basic desires about what I want to see remain unchanged since I was but a wee little girl who really identified with Gerda. Oh man, did I :>

Comments

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

The rules for allegories are different from emotionally realist stories. But it also is that characters in allegories can't do the things that characters in emotionally realist stories. I don't think Furuba is allegorical. The characters are specifically characterized and have too many valences and relationships.

It's not as simple as you're making it out to be. If you believe myths can help people and give them hope, you can also believe they can harm people and make them unhappy. It's that they believe they're harmful because they're appealing. /shrug

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hmm, well, I wasn't claiming it -was- allegorical, just throwing it out there as an instance of a manga that had the 'pure/innocent love as savior' trope in a way I thought worked, so it might or might not have allegorical aspects (but probably not, yeah). I don't think allegories and emotionally realist stories have to be antithetical, though they're certainly very different in goals and execution... I think there can be a meta level and a 'realistic' basic level coexisting in a certain kind of (post-modern?) narrative. Umm, a good example is John Barth's Chimera (which is post-modern fiction). Especially the middle story about the Gorgon Medusa blends allegory and emotional realism pretty well (I think). Not claiming Furuba is post-modern, of course, just a thought :>

Oh yeah, I wasn't trying to make it simplistic or make grand sweeping statements about the nature/use of myth; also, um, I was being tongue-in-cheek, thus the emoticon :> That said, I was actually being against straightforward/simplistic readings of myths, not for them. I think classifying any mythic story squarely as either bad or good underestimates the power of a reader's individual perception and cultural baggage. While I hold no particular affection for Cinderella, I don't think it -has- to be taken a certain way, much less a negative antifeminist way or whatever. One of the things about myths/fairy-tales that makes them so powerful is how open to interpretation and individual reformation within one's psyche they are. As universal as they are personal, in many ways.

What I meant about 'the appeal of fairy-tales' wasn't talking in terms of 'positive' or 'negative' impact one way or the other, just the morally neutral escape into daydream and wish fulfillment (with some deeper truths disguised and some brutal realities often reflected). Any powerful story can harm or heal, but I don't think that you can guarantee any story would do one or the other. Calling any dream/fantasy in the context of a myth (or a more sexual 'fantasy') 'harmful' seems wrong-headed to me... mostly because it over-simplifies their 'message' contents, their effects and intricacies, actually :>

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

I haven't read it, I'm afraid, but I think that this is hard to do, and not what usually happens.

Well, yes, but on the other hand, what about Patient Griselda? I'm just saying that if you can interpret a myth positively, and say it is affirming, it's also valid to point out a myth's darker aspects, and some of the negative reasons it has universal appeal. Mmm, but I don't think that the sort of love in the story you're talking about is necessary sexual. Does calling it "beneficial" also seem wrong-headed? It expresses something, but I suppose people can either like or dislike what they interpret that "something" as.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I also think there's a genre of magic realism in fantasy, especially with Latin American authors, that does this as well, btw, though I'm not as well-versed as I should be. Another (more iffy) example of a blend of myths/allegories and emotional realism is the better myth/fairy-tale retellings in general; 'Chimera' is one of that genre of stories. AS Byatt wrote a lot of stories in that vein as well, but there's actually a lot of retellings these days (most of them not meta or allegorical and just sort of lame, taking the magic out of it in some way). Just writing a story that references a deeper/larger story as an 'echo' can work like that (a sort of allegory-as-subtext situation). I actually really like stories like that, but they don't tend to be either well-known or popular 'cause of the complexity and perhaps the difficult reading level for some :>

I think we're talking somewhat about the difference between a fable or 'teaching myth' (mind you, the use of those back in the day & their reception/use now are quite different) and a fairy-tale. Aesop's Fables also had quite an obvious message, but then they're not fairy-tales; some things lumped in with 'fairy-tales' or legends are also transparent, though usually there's some ambiguity (one example is the Grail legend, for example, but another is Robin Hood-- another is the Bluebeard folktale, etc).

Um, yeah, it's totally valid to point out a myth's darker aspects, seeing as usually they're there as teaching tools (in the fables especially); I just think that focusing only on that one aspect would be misleading and over-simplifying. In fact, -most- fairy-tales have their dark, grimy and often morbid sides to the point where I'd be hard-pressed to find even one happy-shiny old tale, really. These are old, old stories, and judging them by the modern standards of self-help and political correctness somehow seems ridiculous to me :> Which isn't the same as ignoring their darkness-- it's just a question of understanding its place, history & function in the story rather than taking issue with the whole fairy-tale itself. Of course, people being people, they'll take any myth that's truly reflective of the human psyche and twist it to their purposes; so if their purposes are themselves twisted, no wonder there's 'negative' universal appeal. That's what I was talking about with fusion of the universal & the personal interpretation, somewhat.

Yeah, I wasn't saying it was necessarily sexual (that was another semi-related tangent, sorry-- they seem to just pollute my points but I can't help myself). I think liking or disliking is one thing, though (as in, I pretty much dislike Cinderella, myself, as far as fairy-tales go) and passing judgment on the worth of that fairy-tale for the public at large is another. I think any poweful myth or story can be 'beneficial' if the person interprets it in a way that's beneficial, and no amount of moral spoon-feeding (like in fables or religious myths) can replace that individual connection with a story's heart. :)

[worldserpent.livejournal.com]

I read Possession, which was quite good, but which I would also classify as a perfectly acceptable realist novel, but I'm not sure that's what you're talking about.

I'm talking more about a meme, really, less than the actual myth. But, if you want to get into oversimplifying, all discussions of a myth will ultimately be oversimplifying because they will fail to take into account individual reactions, and everyone will twist it to their own purposes. So I mean, I think the human psyche is already inherently possessing its own darkness.

I don't believe in censorship, really, but as I see it from your perspective, what people are complaining about is how there are destructive interpretations of certain myths, which they believe people take as models for their lives. Like you can say these are misinterpretations, but who's to decide that which individual interpretation is the misinterpretation and which is the true one? Of course, banning them is probably not the best way to redeem them... it seems that the modern solution is retelling them.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ahh, well, she wrote a few fairy-tale based short stories more in a meta direction... there's a collection, especially, called The Djinn in the Nightingale's Eye.

It isn't so much that there's one 'true' interpretation and one false-- that's part of my point, really. It helps to know the history & context of a myth (which is more objective) and take it in that context as much as possible before decrying it as harmful. Memes -are- different 'cause they're distillations that don't necessarily have one specific source; but if there's a large constituency (like teenage girls) that's attached to a meme & consumes various stories that perpetuate it-- I think one should once again look at it in its complex real context rather than just label it as harmful or positive either way.

I do agree that it seems people retelling them is how they deal with changing cultural climates and changing needs for the story. I think they were made to be retold though, on some level, 'cause that's how they stay vital and alive, really :>

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

Um, yeah, it's totally valid to point out a myth's darker aspects, seeing as usually they're there as teaching tools (in the fables especially); I just think that focusing only on that one aspect would be misleading and over-simplifying.

But I don't think they're ignoring the other aspects. I think they're saying: there is this aspect, too, which is disturbing. Plus intent doesn't have a lot to do with how cultural standards seep into a piece of art.

These are old, old stories, and judging them by the modern standards of self-help and political correctness somehow seems ridiculous to me :>

True (well, except that I'm one of the few believers in political correctness.) The problem arises when the myth persists in culture despite the so-called changes. I think the myth of Cinderella does. There is also the problem that just because feminism, say, didn't exist back then female subjugation was still wrong, though you can't blame the members of the culture . It's not a matter of blame but just of saying "Man, but society back then sure sucked."

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I believe worldserpent was talking about people who said 'this fairy-tale is representative of a harmful myth/meme and is therefore a negative thing'. That's ignoring the other aspects because it's not specifying one aspect but referring to the whole story/idea to start with and even condensing it to a 'meme' with a set cultural meaning.

There are problems, I think, mixing the actual fairy-tale (a story, often with many rather different variants and expressions among European and other cultures, in the case of the most archetypal stories) and the 'cultural myth'. The current version of that myth may have been rooted in Disney as much as the written tale, or even rooted in half-assed retellings and 'understandings' that don't involve full retellings during one's childhood the way it used to. I don't think you can equate the larger cultural myth (mixed up with & polluted with so many other sources) with one of the original fairy-tale sources. Projecting values onto the story isn't that story's fault, it's the function of that culture; without that specific iteration, there would exist another to fill the void. But by fighting that meme, it's important not to confuse it with the notion of 'fighting' the fairy-tales themselves; on the archetypal story level, that's just unhealthy denial of self.

In the specific case of Cinderella or really any 'non-feminist' fairy-tale-- they're not a fair and direct representation of culture then or now, though there are more culturally flavored variants (like Russian Cinderella-type tales). The basis for Cinderella is only vaguely European and not very specific-- it can and is often found in Asian and even African tales. Besides, there's no set time-period because the nature of fairy-tales is to be constantly remade and retold-- they're pretty atemporal by design. Not that you can't study their social or anthropological aspect or find it lacking in progressiveness, umm, but really to predominantly focus on that would be to miss the point, I think. Feminist dialectic can be an interesting lens, but ultimately no fairy-tale can comfortably exist squarely within that paradigm.

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

'this fairy-tale is representative of a harmful myth/meme and is therefore a negative thing'.

That's not how I hear it. It's more like "the part of this fairy-tale that represents a harmful myth is a negative thing." All the narrative and emotional aspects you cite in the post are acknowledged, just irrelevant to this point.

Not to be all post-modern, but isn't "the current version of that myth" the only version of the myth that exists, at least in the context of a political reading? What feminist addresses isn't what was told hundreds of years ago, but what is told and believed now.

Feminist dialectic can be an interesting lens, but ultimately no fairy-tale can comfortably exist squarely within that paradigm.

Well, ultimately very almost no piece of art can exist squarely within that paradigm because culture is sexist and was only recently challenged on it, but I'm not sure we're framing this discussion the same way.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Okay, quote:
Also, people feel it is a harmful cultural myth, a la Cinderella, so they dislike it for political reasons.
This basically equates 'it' (the fairy-tale) with 'it' (the cultural myth). That's what I was responding to. Anyway, the 'it' here is ambiguous at best. Besides that(!!) I was talking about 'The Snow Queen', not 'Cinderella', and I think they're nowhere -near- on the same level of either popularity or harmfulness as being non-feminist. I don't see 'The Snow Queen' as being non-feminist at all, especially the self-sacrificing/healing love aspect. Maybe it's not the kind of love these people want, but to call it non-feminist just pisses me off. In that sense, inserting 'Cinderella' into it is just misleading and I don't even know how to address it properly since it is, after all, my least favorite fairy-tale and in fact I don't like how it portrays the ultimate feminine wish-- however, of course, the Prince on a White Horse (or whatever) is a persistent aspect of fairy-tales. At least here the girl does something for her desire for a better life (or whatever) rather than being purely a 'prize' for the prince's cunning/bravery or getting him -only- and purely 'cause she's so beautiful. So in some sense it's more proactive than it could be, or something. It's all pretty complicated, but in any case, maligning the fairy-tale seems uncalled-for.

To me, the story is the story, the interpretation is separate, the cultural myth something related but also separate. The nature of fairy-tales is that they exist as archetypes within the human psyche & are retold orally, and therefore transcend most typical 'old stories', so post-modernism doesn't apply. Though you can retell a fairy-tale/myth in a post-modern fashion & in fact I love the times I read those stories, because in a way fairy-tales are perfect for multi-layered readings/retellings. They can condense and expand at will, really far in either direction.

That said, I don't mind a political reading if it's 'just a reading'; when it becomes the dominant or an aggressive reading that tries to be definitive or culturally wide-ranging, that's when I have issues. Something about politics makes for that 'wide impact' feeling since we're always talking about these pressing current things in the culture; there's this sense that 'this is what's important' inherent in political discourse in general, and that just makes me bristle.

And of course, as usual, no, we're not framing this discussion the same way :>

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

But from that quote, it sounds like they dislike it (which is an emotion) not reject it in its entirety.

I admit I don't remember the Snow Queen all that well, but if it has self-sacrifice and healing from woman to man, I can see why people would find it harmful or a symptom of harmful cultural myths. The cultural myth is what's addressed, the fairy-tale is just a tool, and feminism sees it as such. I think we're framing it differently because you want feminism to concern itself with eucatastrophe and it's not its deal, which is what I meant by saying the absolute fairy-tale doesn't exist in the analysis of society->art->society dynamics.

You imply the existence of the absolute fairy-tale (with no attached interpretation and no attached cultural myth) and inside a feminist reading that doesn't exist. The critic may very well concede the eucatastrophe power (which impacts the person) and the proceed to analyse the myth (which impacts the society). No absolute fairy-tale can exist in feminist theory but then, no feminist theory can exist in an eucatastrophe oriented readings. They're at the same time mutually exclusive and not, because they address sepatate issues.

(Now I actually think that the absolute fairy-tale can't exist anywhere, but that's a separate lit crit issue.)

I feel like feminist readings and marxist readings always meet a lot of resistance from people who are very defensive because they feel feminism and marxism want to deny any legitimacy to the art they enjoy, but this isn't the case.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

But. Harmful cultural myth-- so the whole thing's harmful; no specifying a 'part' is harmful, no if/then/but, so I assume it's some sort of 'whole package' deal. Anyway I hate getting bogged down in logistics/semantics arguments... -.-;;;

Anyway, when feminism gets extended to saying love itself (which can easily be self-sacrificing, devoted, rescuing, healing, persistent in the face of coldness-- all these things)-- that is somehow 'unfeminist', I just get pissed. Romance isn't unfeminist, 'cause people are people and women are women. No one's being exploited or treated unfairly because of their class/gender/social status here, what the hell. She just loved Kai since they were children, and then Kai became a bastard because of the slivers of ice from the broken mirror of distortion, and she believed in him so she went to the ends of the earth (literally) to find him. Because she loved him. And... y'know, she was the hero. She rescued him. That's the very opposite of unfeminist, so any application to having a political issue with this story just sticks in my craw!! People really don't know what they're talking about sometimes & get carried away -.-;;;

There's no absolute fairy-tale; every fairy-tale is fractured and specifically culturally contextual, which I've actually talked about several times. I think the archetypal level and the specific cultural interpretation exist simultaneously, but neither is equivalent to the 'cultural myth' based on the story. Like, there are at least 3 'major' tellings of Sleeping Beauty-- Perrault and Brothers Grimm being two-- and that's what I mean by specific interpretation 'cause no retelling is 'absolute' in that sense. However, there's an archetypal Story behind the story-- the meta-story-- that's pretty unchanging & is the thing all these retellings have in common, but is definitely not the same as the current 'cultural myth' based on that fairy-tale, whatever that might be.

The funny thing is how much room there is for awesome feminist retellings of fairy-tales; there's a book called 'Kissing the Witch' is literally all about retelling the fairy-tales from the feminist/lesbian pov and it works great, both subverting and celebrating the nature of the tale. It can be done and it's fully legitimate! The problem isn't the subversion or the twisting/re-accessing the old tale, it's just labelling it as 'problematic' in a blanket fashion as if that totally addresses it enough to dismiss it. People who love the stories can do anything with them as far as I'm concerned, but I get protective when I see crit from people who don't truly understand & love the stories as they are before critiquing them in any type of reading, feminist or any other.

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

... so about that non-combative listening thing...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I may be starting to get defensive but I'm still listening -.-;;;

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

Okay, I know why you're being defensive because I've seen it played out so many times before. What you have to understand is that the semantic/logistic distinctions are important because they reflect important distinctions in focus.

If I made a marxist criticism of HP, would you feel attacked? I wouldn't delegitimize HP the story (and all the reasons why people enjoy besides the classist ones) because that story exists together with the story of class in it.

Let's go back to Cinderella (because the way you talk about Snow Queen it doesn't seem anti-feminist at all). These categories you use: the archetypal Story, the specific cultural interpretation and the cultural myth. They're important and they're all attached to the fairy-tale but an attack on one doesn't mean an attack to the other. You get angry at feminists because they attack the cultural myth (and not the other two levels) but you also concede the cultural myth is problematic. My instinct is that you don't really want to separate the three levels because you don't want any of it criticised (because that's usually the way people react to these readings. In a way, "It's just for fun!" is the same as saying "It's just an eucatastrophe!")

Feminism doesn't say love is antifeminist (?), it's when sacrifice is gendered (and simultaneously the gender gets defrenchised) that the story is anti-feminist. This is not the case with Snow Queen, right?

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, I wasn't really getting angry 'with feminists', hahah, 'cause in any case most feminists don't bother with arguing with fairy-tales; the closest I've seen is them appropriating them in retellings (like 'Kissing the Witch' and 'Women Who Run With the Wolves', though that's more Jungian, it's also feminist). My real initial issue was really dragging 'The Snow Queen' into its larger reflection on the cultural myth(!) of girls loving icy bastards or whatever (that I was talking about). Even then, I don't see what's so politically incorrect; it's just lame and unrealistic, it's not like it's got a larger-scale movement behind it. People aren't lining up for emotionally challenged assholes, even though 'bad boys' are popular, but that's a subtly different stereotype & anyway I don't wanna get into that too.... Suffice it to say, I don't see anything you could really pick on with 'The Snow Queen', so any consecutive comparison to 'Cinderella' gets therefore confused and sullied by that ambiguity.

I don't know if I want to unite all three levels (even in my head, I don't feel any particular attachment to the 'cultural myth' aspect, which is really the issue-- it's not that I wanna unite all three and more that I often feel the cultural myth part is optional, at least for me). So because I feel it's somewhat secondary, it's more frustrating that the criticism centers on it while seemingly 'ignoring' the story in its cultural/archetypal context, but it'd be okay if I was really certain the criticism is -only- of the cultural myth part (which I wasn't).

I don't like gendered sacrifice either; in many fairy-tales, the guy's the one undergoing the Hero's Quest and going through hell for love, which I feel is more sexist 'cause it's more common (and the woman is a symbol/reward and therefore disenfranchised, perhaps, whereas neither Kai nor Gerda were treated unfairly so wtf) so I like it when girls are the ones going through the adventure and trials and effort. Anyway, I just felt the disapproval seemed diffuse/ambiguous, so I wasn't sure anymore -what- was being 'attacked'; then I started nitpicking to show why I really did think the emphasis wasn't clear and by the time I nitpick I always feel defensive :>