#the reason why is that louisa may alcott did not want jo marrying anyone

[literaphobe]

i feel like. when it comes to stories and various media adaptations. some people are so obtuse and their reluctance to accept multiple interpretations of fiction especially those that are ambiguous by design. feels so childish and stupid

im just saying like. anyone who goes ‘jo x laurie shippers are so stupid for liking them didnt you know the writer didnt want them to be together?’ only to say ‘jo and freidrich are soooo cute!!!!’ are deluded in a way no one can ever save

[princesssarisa]

Some more “Little Women” remarks: the problem of Beth

I honestly think most commentary I’ve read about Beth’s character is bad, both academic and from casual readers.

I understand why. She’s a difficult character. Modern readers who love Little Women and want to celebrate it as a proto-feminist work need to contend with the presence of this thoroughly domestic, shy, sweetly self-effacing character, seemingly the opposite of everything a feminist heroine should be. Meanwhile, other readers who despise Little Women and consider it anti-feminist cite Beth as the embodiment of its supposedly outdated morals. Then there’s the fact that she’s based on Louisa May Alcott’s actual sister, Lizzie Alcott, and does show hints of the real young woman’s complexity, and yet she’s much more idealized than the other sisters, which often makes readers view her as more of a symbol (of what they disagree, but definitely a symbol) than a real person.

But even though the various bad takes on her character are understandable, they’re still obnoxious, and in my humble opinion, not founded in the text.

Here are my views on some of the critics’ opinions I least agree with.

“She’s nothing but a bland, boring model of feminine virtue.”

Of course it’s fair to find her bland and boring. Everyone is entitled to feel how they feel about any character. But she’s not just a cardboard cutout of 19th century feminine virtue. So many people seem to dismiss her shyness as just the maidenly modesty that conduct books used to encourage. But it seems blatantly obvious to me that it’s more than just that. Beth’s crippling shyness is actively portrayed as her “burden,” just like Jo’s temper or Meg and Amy’s vanity and materialism. She struggles with it. Her parents have homeschooled her because her anxiety made the classroom unbearable for her – no conduct book has ever encouraged that! In Part 1, she has a character arc of overcoming enough of her shyness to make new friends like Mr. Laurence and Frank Vaughn. Then, in Part 2, she has the arc of struggling to accept her impending death: she doesn’t face it with pure serenity, but goes through a long journey of both physical and emotional pain before she finds peace in the end. Her character arcs might be quieter and subtler than her sisters’, but she’s not the static figure she’s often misremembered as being.

‘She needs to die because her life has no meaning outside of her family and the domestic sphere.”

In all fairness, Beth believes this herself: she says she was “never meant” to live long because she’s just “stupid little Beth,” with no plans for the future and of no use to anyone outside the home. But for readers to agree with that assessment has massive unfortunate implications! The world is full of both women and men who – whether because of physical or mental illness, disability, autism, Down Syndrome, or some other reason – can’t attend regular school, don’t make friends easily, are always “young for their age,” don’t get married or have romantic relationships, aren’t able to hold a regular job, never live apart from their families, and lead quiet, introverted, home-based lives. Should we look at those real people and think they all need to die? I don’t think so! Besides, it seems to me that the book actively refutes Beth’s self-deprecation. During both of her illnesses, it’s made clear how many people love her and how many people’s lives her quiet kindness has touched – not just her family and few close friends, but the neighbors, the Hummels (of course), the local tradespeople she interacts with, and the children she sews gifts for who write her letters of gratitude. Then there’s the last passage written from her viewpoint before her death, where she finds Jo’s poem that describes what a positive influence her memory will always be, and realizes that her short, quiet life hasn’t been the waste she thought it was. How anyone can read that passage and still come away viewing her life as meaningless is beyond me.

“She needs to die because she symbolizes a weak, outdated model of femininity.”

SparkNotes takes this interpretation of Beth and it annoys me to think of how many young readers that study guide has probably taught to view her this way. No matter how feisty and unconventional Louisa May Alcott was, and no mater how much she personally rebelled against passive, domestic femininity, would she really have portrayed her beloved sister Lizzie as “needing to die” because she was “too weak to survive in the modern world”? Would she really have turned Lizzie’s tragic death into a symbol of a toxic old archetype’s welcome death? But even if Beth were a purely fictional character and not based on the author’s sister, within the text she’s much too beloved and too positive an influence on everyone around her for this interpretation to feel right. This seems less like a valid reading of her character and more like wishful thinking on the part of some feminist scholars.

“She's a symbol of pure goodness who needs to die because she’s Too Good For This Sinful Earth™.”

Enough with the reasons why Beth “needs to die”! At least this one isn’t insulting. But I don’t think it’s really supported by the text either. If she were a symbol of goodness too pure for this world, then she wouldn’t forget to feed her pet bird for a week and lose him to starvation. She wouldn’t get snappish when she’s bored, even if she does only vent her frustration on her doll. She wouldn’t struggle with social anxiety, or dislike washing dishes, or be explicitly described as “not an angel” by the narrator because she can’t help but long for a better piano than the one she has. Now of course those flaws (except for accidentally letting her bird die) are minute compared to her sisters’. It’s fair to say that only “lip service” is paid to Beth’s humanity in an otherwise angelic portrayal. But it seems clear that Alcott did try to make her more human than other saintly, doomed young girls from the literature of her day: she’s certainly much more real than little Eva from Uncle Tom’s Cabin, for example.

“She’s destroyed by the oppressive model of femininity she adheres to.”

This argument holds that because Beth’s selfless care for others causes her illness, her story’s purpose is to condemn the expectation that women toil endlessly to serve others. But if Alcott meant to convey that message, I’d think she would have had Beth get sick by doing some unnecessary selfless deed. Helping a desperately poor, single immigrant mother take care of her sick children isn’t unnecessary. That’s not the kind of selflessness to file under “things feminists should rebel against.”

“She’s a symbol of ideal 19th century femininity, whom all three of her sisters – and implicitly all young female readers – are portrayed as needing to learn to be like.”

Whether people take this view positively (e.g. 19th and early 20th century parents who held up Beth as the model of sweet docility they wanted from their daughters) or negatively (e.g. feminists who can’t forgive Alcott for “remaking Jo in Beth’s image” by the end), I honestly think they’re misreading the book. I’ve already outlined the ways in which Beth struggles and grows just like her sisters do. If any character is portrayed as the ideal woman whom our young heroines all need to learn to be like, it’s not Beth, it’s Marmee. She combines aspects of all her daughters’ best selves (Meg and Beth’s nurturing, Jo’s strong will and Amy’s dignity) and she’s their chief source of wise advice and moral support. Yet none of her daughters become exactly like her either. They all maintain their distinct personalties, even as they grow. Admittedly, Beth’s sisters do sometimes put her on a pedestal as the person they should emulate – i.e. Amy during Beth’s first illness and Jo in the months directly after her death. But in both of those cases, their grief-inspired efforts are short-lived and they eventually go back to their natural boldness and ambitions. They just combine them with more of Beth’s kindness and unselfishness than before.

“She wills her own death.”

Of all these interpretations, this one is possibly the most blatantly contradicted by the text. Just because Beth’s fatal illness is vague and undefined beyond “she never recovered her strength after her scarlet fever” doesn’t mean it's caused by a lack of “will to live”; just because she interprets her lack of future plans or desire to leave home to mean that she’s “not meant to live long” doesn’t mean she’s so afraid to grow up that she wants to die. It’s made very clear that Beth wants to get well. Even though she tries to hide her deep depression from her family and face death willingly, she’s still distraught to have her happy life cut short.

I’ll admit that I’m probably biased, because as as a person on the autism spectrum who’s also struggled with social anxiety and led an introverted, home-based life, I personally relate to Beth. If I didn’t find her relatable, these interpretations would probably annoy me less. But I still think they’re based on a shallow overview of Beth’s character, combined with disdain for girls who don’t fit either the tomboyish “Jo” model or the sparkling “Amy” model of lively, outgoing young womanhood, rather than a close reading of the book.

[ourmrsreynolds]

Jon, Arya and the Childhood BFF to Lovers Trope: Or, why everyone ships J0nsa

I had an argument with my sister which was precipitated by her quipping “nobody likes childhood BFFs” and “hot new guy is always endgame.” I almost flipped a table. I sat there and I seethed for 30 seconds and then I texted her back PIRATES OF THE MOTHERFUCKING CARIBBEAN and I gotta say I was p pleased with myself because yes, Elizabeth and Will end up together even though Jack Sparrow exists and is indisputably hot.

My sister and I are reading Jenny Han’s To All the Boys I’ve Loved Before. This is a story that sets out to deconstruct the trope of “It was always gonna be you and me,” and while my sister can crow all day about how Hot New Guy Gets the Girl, I want to examine why it makes thematic and structural sense for that to be endgame. I think it comes down to the protagonist, who seldom ventures out of her comfort zone and has trouble letting herself want things. The combination of extremely deep feeling and almost pathological constraint is what makes her story so compelling—because in the course of the novel she learns to unabashedly want things, to reach out and take them: and what she wants is the sardonic lacrosse-playing jock, not the Boy Next Door she’s had a crush on since forever. One of the running gags in the background is her nine-year-old little sister inventing increasingly far-fetched reasons she should be allowed to have a puppy, because the kid “knows what she wants and will do anything it takes to get it.” The contrast with hyper-repressed Main Character could not be more pronounced. I ask you, who does Main Character remind you of? Not Arya, for a surety. This is one thousand percent Sansa.

After the finale aired Jenny Han and some other YA authors were dragged on twitter for openly shipping J0nsa, which, I mean (a) it was more “ugh fan fiction” and “ew incest” and “think of the children!!1!” than anything specific to J0nsa (b) of course she ships J0nsa. Of fucking COURSE. J0nsa is not a childhood BFFs ship, because the whole point is that Sansa’s character development leads her to see Jon in a new light. It’s above all about Sansa’s arc and the scales falling from Sansa’s eyes and there isn’t room for someone who has always seen the value in Jon, who has always loved him best. Because that would not be sufficiently Pride & Prejudice-y. Allow me to remind everyone that Pride & Prejudice is (1) the ur-Romance novel and (2) about people changing their minds and revising their initial judgments. Ffs it was originally titled “First Impressions.” This is the dominant narrative wrt romantic love, then—that one must fall in love, that it must be accompanied by major character development and reevaluation of preconceptions. This is the appeal of Enemies-to-Lovers.

Listen, I don’t ship a pairing because I think it’s endgame; I ship it because I think it’s interesting. What I’m trying to do here is formulate a theory as to why so many people find Jon & Sansa’s dynamic interesting, as compared to the small handful of us who find Jon & Arya’s dynamic interesting. I’m not engaging with the people who are anti-incest on principle (if you’re not into incest this is maybe not the fandom for you). I think it has a lot to do with the sort of romantic stories we elevate and validate. Gendrya is a wildly popular ship, and it falls very much in the Childhood BFFs mold, but I think we can all agree that Gendry & Arya are not a finished product—they have a lot of stuff to work on, and what shippers are interested in is the process of them hammering it out. Jon and Arya though? They’re already president of each other’s fan clubs, where’s the tension or drama in that? The obstacles to their relationship are external and plot-driven rather than internal and character-driven. And I say unto you: This is Arya’s creation myth: Before there was anything, there was Jon. That’s it that’s my kink that’s the kind of all-encompassing bond I’m about. The absolute trust they repose in each other gives me LIFE. I’ve seen some J0nsas parry the “she’s not even his favorite sister” argument with “because she’s his wife not his sister” and like ... ok valid ig but the whole reason I’m interested in Jon/Arya is because they set no boundaries on their love?? They are each other’s e v e r y t h i n g. I mean if you want to read about two strangers fumbling their way towards feelings that’s fine but do not pretend to me that J0nsa is some kind of underdog ship. It’s the most basic of ships -- it’s a Pride & Prejudice ship. (Gendrya otoh is Persuasion, which is the best Austen novel don’t @ me.) For in-universe reasons why J0nsa undercuts Jon and Arya’s unconditional love this is a great post, but I’m going to stick to the meta reasons people ship what they ship.

Here is the thing I will die mad about: Everybody takes childhood BFFs for this hegemonic trope and wouldn’t it be so eDgY to subvert it by making her fall for a HANDSOME STRANGER instead. Jfc have you seen the biggest young adult franchises of the past decade? They are: Twilight, The Hunger Games, The Mortal Instruments. Spoiler alert none of the heroines end up with their childhood bffs. I know the love triangle is hardly the point of The Hunger Games but facts are facts. It’s been 150 years and the Little Women fandom is still generating twice as much Jo/Laurie fic as Jo/Bhaer fic because Louisa May Alcott did Jo March dirty by not letting her marry the man she clearly belonged with. I just think the idea of there being someone you belong with, always have and always will, is ultimate #goals and this is the hill i will die on.

I look at Sansa and Arya’s starting points, when it comes to Jon, and however their arcs resolve in the end I cannot imagine how you could retcon J0nsa into some kind of lifelong attachment?? Here is Sansa in the wake of Lysa’s death, mulling her options:

there was nowhere for her to go. Winterfell was burned and desolate, Bran and Rickon dead and cold. Robb had been betrayed and murdered at the Twins, along with their lady mother. Tyrion had been put to death for killing Joffrey, and if she ever returned to King’s Landing the queen would have her head as well. The aunt she’d hoped would keep her safe had tried to murder her instead. Her uncle Edmure was a captive of the Freys, while her great-uncle the Blackfish was under siege at Riverrun. I have no place but here, Sansa thought miserably.

She lists Tyrion among her potential refuges, without once mentioning Jon! TYRION. Unreal. Even Brienne weighs the possibility of Sansa going North to Jon, and Brienne has literally never even met Sansa:

though all her siblings had been slain, Brienne knew that Sansa still had an uncle and a bastard half brother on the Wall

In case anyone requires reminding, Arya takes every possible opportunity to suggest “hey we could go to the Wall instead of wherever we’re going!”:

"I know where we could go," Arya said. She still had one brother left. Jon will want me, even if no one else does.

Maybe I should go to the Wall instead of Riverrun. Jon wouldn't care who I killed or whether I brushed my hair

One of these girls has been trying to get back to Jon for going on four books now. The other one thinks about Jon Arryn more times in her POVs than she thinks about Jon Snow (18 Arryns out of 27 total hits for “Jon” in all Sansa chapters). I’m not saying Sansa hasn’t grown and changed, or that her reunion with Jon might not evolve into something interesting; it’s just not a dynamic I personally care about. I’m definitely not saying that authors deserve to be publicly shamed for shipping fictional characters, but I think an author’s shipping preferences are revealing and shed light on their choices as far as which stories they choose to tell. I’m saying I ship Jon/Arya and I accept it’s not the ship dynamic that appeals to most people but here I am.

[imheresothedeadcanrestinpea-blog]

Do strong female characters still exists?

It’s me again. Been a while, right? well... this post has been created thanks to a random thought in my brain were I compared Sarah (from Labyrinth) and Tauriel (yes, her again, I know that many years have passed but I’m still pissed by her existence).

So what do we understand by “Strong Female Character” or, better yet, what do we want as one?

Lately the entertainment industry has placed in our brains that a Strong Woman is the one who can kick ass just as good as a man. Is it like that? My answer is no.

A Strong Character (male or female) is the one that doesn’t give up no matter if the odds are on it’s favor or not. Someone who literally has the world against but is still ready to fight in the name of whatever he or she protects because deep down he/she knows is the right thing to do according to his/her morals. It’s quite important to highlight the “ is the right thing to do according to his/her morals” so we don’t fall through the ilussion that everything this character does is good or in name of a greater good: no everybody is goodie-goodie, you know... a villain can -and should- be a strong character too. He/she must evolve by learning from his/her mistakes and assume the consecuences of his/her actions. Doesn’t it sounds more compelling than an “super awesome strong character”? It does to me.

Strong Female Character

In the field of “women inside fictional stories” you can find the typical “Damsel in Distress”, the (so feared) “Mary Sue” and, I’d like to believe, the “Strong Female”.

For several years the Damsel in Distress was the norm. That virginal, pure, sweet girl or princess that had to be rescued from the claws of evil so she could live happily ever after in the arms of her beloved was The Thing. She was a role model back on the day when girls had to marry beasts (that sometimes were kind of a good guy after all) like Belle, or “be nice” like Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and Snowhite. Beeing physically weak was (apparently) quite appealing in a young woman and it was even better if she was ill as well (nothing to serious,off course, but enough for her to lie in a couch all day suffering... and I’m not making this up, I’ve read it in Agatha Christie’s autobiography. She complains more than once of how her grandmother seemed to wanted her to embody Camille’s -or La Dame aux Camélias- lead character so she could get a husband). All of us has seen this girl at least once.

Time passed by and women became a little more powerful year after year. And no, I didn’t made a big jump from 1700′s to the final days of 2016. I’m talking about those women who started to write and, while doing it, creating a new place for women. Louisa May Alcott, the Brontë sisters, Jane Austen, Mary Shelley are the names that all of us know and many might have read -I didn’t, I’ve only read Shelley’s Frankenstein, the others are not my cup of tea- and I’m quite sure that there are many many more. With them Strong Females were born. I know, “all of them dressed in pretty dresses and had no violent action nor knew how to fight... how could they be Strong Females?” well... maybe because they were always fighting to have a voice? or because they were trying to break the tradition of beeing a daugther to become a wife and later a mother? Jo March, trying to be a writer and not caring if anyone said that she wasn’t feminine enough (when she cuts her hair to get some money or because she whistles!), not to mention certain sacrifices she (and her sisters) do to live day by day, is a strong character. Would you deny it? Maybe she’s not “the one” that will end an evil goverment, she won’t beat the crap out of her enemies nor will face the world alone holding nothing but a pocket-knife... but she’s strong and anyone can relate herself with her (and a young woman who doesn’t like “Little Women” and never could read beyond the chapter of the party at Laurie’s -after trying to read the book twice- is saying that!). Josephine March can kick some serious Strong Female’s asses today and she was “born” in 1868! Those were real Strong Females and that’s why nowdays they are still considerated role models -maybe-.

The All Mighty Mary Sue: now we found a big jump in time... times where women gotta be everything (good, pure and innocent at the same time that she’s a master assasin who can kill a hundred men blindfolded in the middle of the dark). I know that “Mary Sue” has becomed pretty much a curse word specially among those who write this type of characters -or at least enjoy them-. No-one likes to say that they like a token character that is as empty as the head of a Barbie doll and brings nothing to the story beyond her charming presence. Ok, there is another kind of Mary Sue, the Lead Character, she and her issues are the main reason why the story exists (Bella Swan from Twilight is a good example). In both roles (side character or main one) she’s worthless and depends A LOT of the men around her. Main Character Bella is nothing without her relationship with Edward, Jacob and her dad. Sure, she’s got some female friends but, in comparison with those three guys, she hardly talks to them. How do you think the book would’ve been without the love story and the differences with her dad? Side Character Tauriel (sorry, I can’t help it) is nothing without her relationships with Thranduil, Legolas and Kili. And she has NO female friends. What other version of this character could’ve existed without all of it?

Strong Females in movies

As I said, lately we had wave after wave of “strong female characters” that are just amaizing in everything they do and, sometimes, are even better than the men around them. Is it bad? No, but it could be a big “yes�� depending on the story or in how often we get to see it.

All movies nowdays seem to believe that having a super-powerful woman is good and having a more “traditional” one is as bad as having a damsel in distress. Times have changed, I know, we do not need to “have” a man to be someone as it used to happen in the ‘50s... we can save ourselves, we can use guns, we can fight but does that mean that we are strong? Physically strong: sure... Strong-strong? not quite.

Of course it’s awesome to see a good fight on a movie (I quite enjoy them) but beyond the fantastic moves of this character we love is there anything to back it up? Is there a good reason to take that road? Was there a better choice? Here’s the random thought on my brain that made me write this article. Scene comparison ahead:

Labyrinth (1986):

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

Let’s see... In both cases the heroines (filled with anger while thinking of calling Tauriel like that) find themselves against someone who doesn’t let them go on or their journey to save a baby brother (Sarah) or hot dwarf  a bunch of dwarves (Tauriel). In both cases this obstacle is an authority figure, Sir Didymus -guardian of the bridge- and Thranduil, the Elvenking. It’s the same dilemma... but two different reactions. Sarah, a teenager, chooses to talk to the guardian, to be reasonable with him so she can get his permision... and she has it! Tauriel, an adult elf, chooses to shut up and threatens the King’s life.

“You idiot! Tauriel is trying to save the dwarves lifes, there’s no time to talk and be nice! It’s a war!” Oh, really? What if I tell you that Sarah only has 13 hours to save her baby brother before he turns into a goblin? Actually maybe she has less than three hours to save him in that scene, considerating that sometime later we see a 13 hours clock marking 11 sharp. She doesn’t have that much time does she? We saw that Ludo defeated Sir Didymus and that he’s also capable of holding him in his hand, Sarah could’ve easily asked Ludo to hold him until she crossed the bridge... heck! she could’ve kicked Sir Didymus out of her way and cross! But she didn’t because she didn’t needed another enemy behind her and she had no reasons to be a jerk. Tauriel decided that convincing her King to help her was a waste of time. After all why a man that knows her, raised her, gave her a job, and send his son to get her back to his kingdom (so she wouldn’t get into trouble) would care about her or her needs? He’s a  cold hearted King, after all (major eye roll).

Which one is the strongest (and again, we’re not talking about physical strength)? The one that chooses to be gentle and polite or the one that chooses brutal force? It can be resumed in this: wisdom or brutality?

It’s quite funny that the question of wisdom or brutalilty shows up since Tauriel is a Silvan Elf, and they are -as said by Tolkien- less wise and more dangerous. As I said before “less wise” doesn’t mean “stupid” nor means “savage” as everybody seems to believe. Tolkien was reffering to the way of living of this elves, who turned away from the Valar’s invitation to join them and decided to live in a more “natural” way. A possible paralel to our society would be the hippie movement... we wouldn’t call them savages, would we?

As a character that was created to show how merceful we are it’s quite shocking to see Tauriel taking such a violent turn to get what she wants. The worst thing now is that we (anti-Tauriel people) can’t even say that that’s how teenagers behave, since Sarah in her 15s has shown the opposite reaction.

I ask you: of all the movies you’ve seen this year... did all the women took the high road instead of the easy one -that one beeing beating the crap out of someone to get what they wanted-? If violence was used: was this choice the only option? Did them had a really good reason to do so? If the answer is a “yes” congratulations! you’ve watched a movie with a strong female character (or at least, a good try to be one).

Can a Female Strong Character fall in love?

Of course she can!

Many people believe that their favourite females are criticized because they’ve fallen in love. Once Upon a Time said it first: love is not weakness, it’s strength. Everything’s OK if the girl loves someone, the problem begins when this love is the only reason why she moves a finger or when there’s nothing more for her than it or when love blinds her and makes her take stupid choices (and even forget her awesome set of skills).

Believe it or not, there’s a title for those strong females that after falling in love became -pretty much- damsels in distress or that were never intended to be Strong Females: Trinity Syndrome (you can read more about it here)

A strong female who falls in love? Glad you ask. The first one that comes to my mind is Lisbeth Salander from the Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, she goes through hell and yet falls in love but it never really affects her personality in a negative way (she was distant to people around her and opens up to Mikael -the guy she loves- but only with him and SPOILER ALERT once her heart breaks she’s still the same one). What about Princess Leia (RIP Carrie Fisher) she was tough, and smart and completly capable of comanding a group of rebels... but she falls in love anyway and it doesn’t change her at all. Any ot Tolkien’s women who fall in love are still the same and because of their love they push the boundaries and accomplish great deeds (Lúthien), others doesn’t need to fall in love to do so (Éowyn, Haleth). There are many more examples, sadly no so many from the last decade.

I’d like to do just one more comparison before finish this part.

Singin’ in the rain (1952)

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Both of them ended up facing the love of their lives (yikes! in Tauriel’s case). Both men think that only because of their looks (probably) they got the girl and will live together happily ever after but first, they have to charm her and both go the wrong way with sexual innuendos, touches and glances. Kathy Selden (RIP Debbie Reynolds) knows what’s going on and thinks of the best way to get out of such situation, she even uses physical strength when it’s needed. She won’t let a men to get his way with her. Tauriel knows what’s going on and decides to go on with the game... say what? Girl, you hardly know him! He could be a dangerous prisioner... and you’re flirting with him? How did you get the title of Captain of the Guard? I wonder if any orc has pulled such a move on her and if she reacted the same way.

Again, we have a strong female and a female (I’ll even say that she’s how men would love to see women behave).

Conclussion

So? Do they still exists? Yes, I think. There aren’t many, but every now and then one shows up (Lisbeth Salander is the last one I’ve meet so far).

What about all the other women in the movies and books? They could be strong characters if the writers could put a little more effort. So far we have the male idealization of a woman (you know: super hot, awesome fighter, love-sick puppy, independent but not that much) and the female version of this male idealization (fighter, sometimes insecure, lives to love her man and protect him, etc). It’s quite scary if we see them like that. I wouldn’t be frightened if all girls grew up the way I did; I know, I’m not the best example out there, but I know that I was taught not to let anyone (male or female) to put me down or to “show me my place”. And this teaching came from my family, not movies, TV shows or books (at least not in my early years) this three tools were for entertainment purposes, nothing more.

Today we live in a different world were the image prevails and this is the same world were parents have no time to be with their kids or doesn’t know how to prepare them for the world out there or don’t want to be the kind of parents that smother their kids by controlling what they watch or read because that will make them “bad parents”. It’s not like that, kids depend on us all. WE have to be their role models, not a character or toy. How come that I grew up playing with my Barbie dolls and I don’t want to be a supermodel or blonde or super skinny? Because I had a good education at home. How is it possible that I grew up watching and admiring the Disney’s princesses and yet I’m not looking for Prince Charming nor I care if I look like them or not? Because I was taught the difference between a movie and the real life. I also learned, many years later, that gender doesn’t matter: if a character has a good set of morals we can apply them too... who cares if said character was a men or a woman?

I wish that newer generations could be able to learn that you have to be yourself, that makes you strong not your ability with the sword but the reason why you’re using it and the fears you’re facing.

I wish that newer generations wouldn’t need a Strong Female Character because they’ll be their own.

[bassandlace]

Little Women, Jo and Amy March, and how I have confirmed that if I had to despise only one thing about me, it would be that I allowed myself to let my passions and talents die.

So I watched Little Women with my roommates and I felt so heartened by the characters but also kind of sad. I hope I can articulate this as best as I could and maybe you’ll understand why I’m saying this if you read on. This is me needing to release, and I cannot promise you there won’t be spoilers.

I identified with Jo so much. Or well, my 13-year-old self could identify with Jo so much in the sense that she writing was her life, books were here love, she didn’t think marriage was for her even when her best friend confessed his love for her. On the flip side, 21-year-old me identifies with the latter half of Jo’s character, I let go of writing, I lost someone so close to my heart she was almost like a sister to me, I feel so alone. (When she admitted that to her mother in the attic, I pretty much broke down. I felt her at that moment. I was her at that moment.) Also, her saying that if she was one of the characters in books, it would be so much easier (very meta of L. M. Alcott, btw) I was like “GIRL, MY EXACT THOUGHTS.” But unlike her, I wasn’t able to pick up writing up again enough to finish the novel I always wanted to write. I’m still in the attic, crying in the realization of how lonely I feel, and the fear that I will continue to be lonely.

One other thing about Jo was the teaching thing. Coincidentally, I flew to a different continent to become an English teaching assistant late last year. What are the odds, right? And I’ve learned to love kids enough to entertain the idea of building a school months ago. This part is just ramble but I needed to also state that little fact too, I guess. 

I also identify with Amy but in a more idealistic way. I wish I honed my skills and continued to study art. Also, I admired how she was strong and firm with conviction as to what her goals were and what she wanted out of life (marrying rich for all the valid reasons, heck yeah). Not being afraid to state what she wants, as she mentions in the earlier scenes. Yes, Ma’am!

Although, I really wanted to rip Amy’s head off when she burned Jo’s writing. I would be vicious. 

The thought, “Why didn’t I read this book when I was younger?” or “Why didn’t anyone tell me to read this book in school?” crossed my mind. (Hello, I was in an all-girls school HOW COULD I HAVE MISSED THAT???) Young me needed to read about Jo. I do have to commend the universe for its impeccable timing, tho. Making me watch it in my “limbo” stage of life. Even at this age, (how old do I really think I am???) I need to know about Jo and Amy and Meg and Beth and Marmee, let’s not forget about Marmee, the mother I aspire to be beside my own mother. I need those little women in my life. Even though I am fully aware that it is fiction, it was written to reflect that that is important. And, man, did Louisa May Alcott just friggin nail it, man. 

I keep on forgetting how powerful feeling like you can relate to someone so much, on-screen or in books, is. (Maybe because I’m Asian and also a girl so you know, media didn’t really do so well for that audience, growing up, but it’s getting there.) This year, I wanted to bring back the sides of me that I neglected for maybe four or more years. The side of me who loved writing so much her parents were concerned about what “Wattpad” was and if it was harmful (Yeah, I’m that old). The side of me that wasn’t afraid to use up paper and materials to create something and make art. Those two are the aspects of me that I miss the most, honestly. I miss my creativity. I miss the excitement and insatiable need to put everything on paper as soon as I thought of it or grab whatever I could to create what I was envisioning. Those sides of me have been neglected for so long and I fear they’d be too far gone to be resuscitated but as difficult it may be to get them back, I will fight to get them back. I know it won’t be an overnight thing coz, after all, it took 4 to 7 years of me not cultivating and supporting myself and not having the confidence in myself to be proud of my work enough to show my family and peers in my formative years that lead me to lose those sides. So I know it will be challenging but, I need them back. That was when I felt the most whole. I miss that version of me. Now that I’m older, and studied different things and experienced more in life, I want what I've learned during the years I let go of art and writing to mix with the “re-nurtured” sides of me.

I want to believe that it’s not too late to pursue my passions. (I’m 21, I know it’s relatively young but I always feel like there’s an invisible hourglass just pressuring me and making me hyper-aware of my timeline.) And I want to believe everyone has got their own pace. I shouldn’t compare myself to others. It’s a mindset that I have to adopt to go against the less growth-oriented thoughts I’ve entertained in my head.

The brain’s a little battlefield sometimes. 

But yeah, that’s pretty much the ramble as I am now quite sleepy and have to go to work tomorrow. So, bye.

8th of January-9th of January 12:11 AM