#trick question its because of subconscious racism

[sherdnerd]

Today in wild takes I've stumbled across: in a list of examples someone gave as they complained about "brown-washing" of history by depicting folks as people of color... was Hannibal. Hannibal Barca. From Carthage. The city in North Africa, with roots in the region modern syria. A man who if not ethnically north African was likely Syrian. WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THIS MAN TO BE A WHITE GUY?!?!

[galemalio]

3 Examples of Racial Bias in Animation Storytelling

It’s not hard to grasp that a white person, while not explicitly or consciously racist in the sense we might usually imagine, is still inherently racially biased because they benefit from and grow up used to white supremacy.” - Scottishwobbly, Tumblr

This is nothing new. This is something POC (People of Color) have been talking about in separate fandoms. Nevertheless, it needs to be acknowledged by those unaware.

This article is not made to say that some of the animations that I will use as examples are bad. But in the hopes that we, as consumers and creators, will do better in the future in handling characters that are POC. 

Most often, racial bias in storytelling is when the narrative treats white or light skin toned characters better than darker skin toned characters. The darker skin toned characters are often POC-coded or actual POC.

White creators often do not notice their racial bias in their storytelling as they benefit from and grow up with white privileges and white supremacy. This can also apply to light-skinned POC who have light skin priviliges. 

Some of us don’t often see it but real people who relate to the characters of color do. Especially when it reflects from their experiences with racial bias, microaggressions, colorism and flat out racism.

So when they speak up, it’s important to listen to them to unlearn the racial bias we may have in ourselves. 

I will be emphasizing “the narrative” for I am criticizing how the story treats its dark-skinned characters and not because I am criticizing the characters themselves.

This article is critiqued by @visibilityofcolor​ as a sensitivity reader once and then additions were made before publishing. If you’re looking for a Black sensitivity reader, you can contact her. 

This article is a 14-minute read at average speed so buckle up. Unless you want to skip to your show mentioned below. External Tumblr Resources will be put in the reblog.

Here are three examples that I was made aware of. 

Example #1: The Narrative Treats the Light-Skinned Character at the Expense of the Dark-Skinned Character

Steven Universe was one of the animations that pushed lgbt+ representation in cartoon media. However, there are narratives here and there that showed racial bias. 

SU creator Rebecca Sugar was raised with "Jewish sensibilities" and both siblings observe the lighting of Hanukkah candles with their parents through Skype.[1] Rebecca Sugar also talked about being non-binary.[2] 

But as a white person, she (and the rest of the SU crew) is not aware of the inherently biased values from growing up and benefiting from white privilege. 

One example is the human zoo. There are people that have spoken up about this such as @jellyfax​​ of Tumblr who pointed out that the Crewniverse mishandled a loaded topic and reinforced a white colonist propaganda where the captive humans of mostly black/brown people are naive, docile and childlike in order to subjugate the people that they colonized. .

What I’m here is how a character of color from the main cast is more obligated to the lighter-skinned character. 

In the episode, Friend Ship, one fan had spoken out about how Garnet, who had been validly angry at Pearl, was compelled by a dangerous situation to forgive Pearl. Garnet is a Black-coded character. While Pearl is a light-skinned character.  

Garnet was mad at Pearl for tricking her into always fusing with her. Then they were trapped in a chamber that was going to crush them. In this situation, they have to fuse in order to save themselves but Garnet refuses to because she was still angry at her. 

In the end, they were forced to talk it out, for Garnet to understand Pearl’s reason for wanting to fuse with her and everything worked out well.

The narrative focused so much on Pearl’s self-worth issues at the expense of Garnet’s right to be angry. 

Yes, it showed that Pearl is trying her best to make up for it but Garnet should have been allowed to work at her own anger at her own pace instead of being obligated to consider Pearl’s feelings over her own. 

I wouldn’t have noticed it until someone had mentioned it. Because it was never my experience. 

But it’s there, continuing the message that it’s okay to put the emotional labor on Black people and disregard their own feelings for the sake of the non-Black people who have hurt them -particularly light-skinned women. 

White Fragility and Being Silenced White Woman Tears

Again, racial bias in animation storytelling is often not intentional because white creators do not experience it due to white privilege. 

Without meaning to, that scene alone shows Garnet as the Angry Black woman trope that is ungrateful and rude to Pearl who then ends up in tears. Without meaning to, Pearl with her light skin, became the tearful white girl trope that had to be sympathized over.

The Angry Black Woman trope is a combination of the worst negative stereotypes of a Black woman: overly aggressive, domineering, emasculating, loud, disagreeable and uppity.[13] 

The Tearful white girl trope comes from the combination of the stereotypes of white women being morally upstanding and delicate and therefore should be protected.[13] 

Which, unfortunately, many white women have taken advantage of.

These two tropes are harmful to WOC (Women of Color) because they experience the "weary weaponizing of white women's tears". This tactic employed by many white women incites sympathy and avoids accountability for their actions, turning the tables to their accuser and forcing their accuser to understand them instead.

(Image by Виктор��я Бородинова from Pixabay)

In "Weapon of lass destruction: The tears of a white woman", Author Shay described that white tears turns a white woman into the priority of whatever space she's in. "It doesn't matter if you're right, once her tears are activated, you cease to exist." [11] 

White woman tears have gotten Black people beaten and lynched such as Emmett Till. Carolyn Bryant who had accused 14 year old Emmett Till of sexually harassing her in 1955, admitted she lied about those claims years later in 2007.[15]

In Awesomely Luvvie's "About the Weary Weaponizing of White Women Tears", she states that the innocent white woman is a caricature many subconsciously embrace because it hides them from consequences. [10]

In The Guardian’s article, "How White Women Use Strategic Tears to Silence Women of Colour", Ruby Hamad shares her experience:

"Often, when I have attempted to speak to or confront a white woman about something she has said or done that has impacted me adversely, I am met with tearful denials and indignant accusations that I am hurting her. My confidence diminished and second-guessing myself, I either flare up in frustration at not being heard (which only seems to prove her point) or I back down immediately, apologising and consoling the very person causing me harm."[4]

This is not to say that all crying white women are insincere. But as activist Rachel Cargle said:

“I refuse to listen to white women cry about something. When women have come up to me crying, I say, ‘Let me know when you feel a little better, then maybe we can talk.’”[3]

One of the most quoted words in “White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.” is this:

“It is white people’s responsibility to be less fragile; people of color don’t need to twist themselves into knots trying to navigate us as painlessly as possible.”[3]  

When white women cry in defense, instead of taking accountability, People of Color are then gaslighted into thinking they’re the bad guy. This is emotional abuse and a manipulation tactic. 

People of Color shouldn’t have to bend backwards to accommodate discomfited white or light-skinned people who have hurt them. 

How She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (SPOP) Did It Right

Despite SPOP having good lgbtq+ representations, there are other biases in the show. Such as Mara, a WOC whose only purpose was to sacrifice herself for the white protagonist. There was also the insensitive joke in their stream regarding Bow’s sibling that perpetuated an Anti-Black stereotype which Noelle Stevenson has apologized for.[14]

But the scene I have encountered where the Black character was validly angry and his feelings were treated well by the narrative, came from SPOP.

Bow, a black character, was validly angry at Glimmer, a lighter skinned character. Glimmer made a lot of bad decisions, one of them was using Adora and their friends as bait, without their knowledge, to lure out and capture Catra.  

Glimmer tearfully apologized in Season 5, Episode 4. Adora readily forgave her. But Bow didn't. 

They faced dangers along the way but the story didn't put them in a dangerous situation where Bow has to forgive Glimmer in order to get out of it. 

This was Glimmer's words of apology:

"Look, I know you're still mad at me. Maybe you'll be mad at me for a really long time. I deserved it. And maybe... maybe we'll never be friends like we used to be. But I'm not going to stop trying to make it better. I made a mistake with the heart of Etheria. I should've listened to you and I'm sorry. You get to be mad. For as long as you need to be. But I'm not going anywhere. And when you're ready, I'll be here."

In short, Bow was allowed to take the time to be mad and not just get over it for someone else’s sake. The story validates his feelings and he was allowed to take his own pace. That is emotional respect the story gave to him.

Example #2: The Narrative Gives Better Endings or Portrayals to Colonizers than Their Victims

Avatar: The Last Airbender has handled dark themes well such as genocide, war, PTSD, disability and redemption with great worldbuilding.

However, I never noticed the racial bias in ATLA until people spoke up of the double standards in ATLA’s treatment of light-skinned colonizers compared to their dark-skinned victims-turned-villains.

The characters in question -Iroh, Azula, Jet and Hama- are all flawed and well-rounded in a believable way. But how the narrative treats them is unequal.

General Iroh is an ex-colonizer who gets to redeem himself and not answer for his past war crimes, living a peaceful life as a tea shop owner. The only reason Iroh changed was when he was personally affected by the negativity of their military subjugation -his son’s death. It wasn’t the harm of the Fire nation ravaging Earth kingdom villages or cities and affecting millions of people that opened his eyes.

Azula, the tyrannical daughter, had closure of her mother's rejection when she was a child and was able to escape imprisonment.

Jet and Hama, victims of colonization who have done bad things, did not get similar conclusions to their stories OR compensation for what they have gone through from the Fire Nation's colonization. 

Jet was given a second chance but was arrested for trying to expose Zuko and Iroh being firebenders -firebenders who were their enemies for conquering their villages. Then he died from the injuries of the person who had brainwashed and mind-controlled him. 

Hama was imprisoned for life. 

Compared to the sins of the light-skinned colonizers, the narrative didn’t give Jet and Hama the development where they could heal from their trauma, receive compensation for what happened to them and really have a chance in life. 

The dark-skinned victims of colonization just became a lesson to the viewers how they shouldn’t hold grudges for being colonized. The end. They have received consequences for their actions but there is no continuation to their stories after that. 

It almost seems like the narrative is saying that because they have harmed colonizers who have no part in their trauma (and in Jet’s case, some Earth kingdom villagers), they are therefore unworthy to be given an actual chance in life. 

While Azula and Iroh, who have actively participated in conquering, colonizing and attacking the Earth Kingdom itself, were.   

Someone once said that if indigenous people have control over Hama’s story, it would have been done differently. But the ATLA crew are white, non-indigenous people who prioritized redeeming colonizers instead.

The narrative has also affected how the ATLA fandom thinks. If most fans are asked who they would want to be redeemed, the popular option would be Azula over Jet or Hama.

Once again, I don’t think the ATLA crew noticed it due to their racial bias. But still, the harm is done and the racially biased message is continued: 

The colonizers and their descendants don’t have to make amends for the colonizers’ crimes. Or if they do, only lightly since it’s in the past (no matter how recent that past is). 

The colonized who rebel will tend to hurt innocent people and then get a grisly end for getting in way over their heads.  

I would venture as far as to say that the narrative may have the  added subconscious desire to quiet their white anxiety on the vengeance of the colonized. As I have learned when writing about Vodou stereotypes and how they have stemmed from the history of white anxiety of Black vengeance, of Black fetishization and of dissolution of the white race through intermarriages.

In @visibilityofcolor’s blog, someone asked:

 “So I saw some of the really heated debates on here and on twitter about how if Iroh and Azula can be portrayed sympathetically despite their actions then characters like Jet and Hama should've been given a chance too. Do you think that the writers understood the implications of only redeeming characters from the colonizer/fascist nation but not giving the characters who suffered because of their fascism a second chance too?”

To which VisibilityOfColor replied:

“No, because at the end of the day, the writers are white. When it comes to stuff like this, it’s no surprise when we see white writers redeem problematic characters before they actually redeem victims of those racist problematic characters. For instance, Dave Filioni, who worked on both avatar and star wars rebels, did the same thing when redeeming agent kallus who was an soldiers in the imperial army and took credit for a genocide. where as victims of the empire were still painted in negative lights. i really don’t think they understand.

They have this ‘be the better person’ view on things, which is what a lot of white people tend to emulate when it comes to people of color standing up to their oppressors. and unfortunately, these are ideas passed on to children, esp minorities. that they should forgive people and communities who hurt them and ‘be the better person’. this is why white ppl don’t need to write narratives for people of color.”

Example #3: The Narrative Favors the Light Skinned Character Than Dark Skinned Character in Similar Situations

I would like to reiterate that racial bias in storytelling is often not intentional. I am not saying the creators and the people who support them are bad people. No.

However, I encourage that once a racial bias is made known in our work, it is our responsibility to change them to stop the perpetuation of its harmful message.

Hazbin Hotel is a popular cartoon with whimsical designs and its concept opens the conversation about redemption. The creator, Vivziepop may not have noticed the racial bias in her cartoon as a white Latina [5] that grew up with and benefits from white privileges, along with the Hazbin crew. 

In the Youtbe video, "Hazbin Hotel - How Art took over Writing", Staxlotl states:

“I understand that there was a lot of time and effort put into this pilot, almost three years worth of effort. But I think most of that time was spent into the art and visuals when it should’ve gone into polishing the writing in the characters.”[6]

Once again, I’m not here to critique the characters but how the narrative treats its dark-skinned characters.

The story treats Charlie, the white-skinned, “Disney-esque” protagonist princess differently from how it treats Vaggie, the dark-skinned, more outspoken and protective Latina girlfriend of Charlie who supports the princess’ cause. 

In its pilot episode, both girls experience humiliation. While Charlie is portrayed by the story as someone the viewers have to feel sorry for...

...Vaggie is portrayed in her humiliation as the butt of the joke for the viewers.

While they both didn’t like what Angel Dust did, Charlie was sympathized over in the narrative as a moment... 

...while Vaggie’s angry but valid callouts were dismissed and ignored as part of the comedy.

While Charlie was someone that needs to be protected in the narrative... 

...Vaggie is left to fend for herself. 

Again, I don’t think the creators noticed the racial bias of their cartoon. However, this racial bias is reflected in the harmful perceptions that dark-skinned women, particularly Black women and Black girls, are more mature, tougher and need less protection at a young age.[7] 

This adultification bias perceives them as challenging authority when they express strong or contrary views and are then given harsher discipline than white girls who misbehave.[8] And this continues when they grow up.

In a 2017 study, Black women and girls aged 12-60 years old confirmed they are treated harsher by their white peers and are accused of being aggressive when they would defend themselves or explain their point of view to authority figures.[8] 

This bias also coincides with the Spicy Latina trope of a brown-skinned, hot-blooded, quick-tempered and passionate woman.

Everyday Feminism described this trope as "Although objects of desire for many, the spicy Latina may have too much personality to handle. So much so that she is often viewed as domineering or emasculating." [16]

Sounds familiar? (Look at Angry Black Woman trope above.)

Why is it that a light-skinned character, Charlie, is allowed to be vulnerable and be sympathized while the dark-skinned Latina character, Vaggie, is mocked, dismissed and expected to tough it out?

Severina Ware had to remind the world in her article that relates to the bias against dark skinned characters:

“Black women are not offered the protection and gentleness of our white counterparts. We are not given permission to be soft and delicate. We are required to exhibit strength and fortitude not only because our lives depend on it, but because so many others depend on us. Black women should not be charged with the responsibility of saving everyone when nobody is here to save us.”[12] 

As @cullenvhenan​ of Tumblr has said in her post:

“if you're a white creator and your brown/black characters are always sassy, reckless, aggressive or cold and your white characters are always soft, demure, shy and introverted you should think about maybe why you did that”

(Image above from Iowa Law Reviews’ “Aggressive Encounters & White Fragility: Deconstructing the Trope of the Angry Black Woman”)

Detecting Your Own Racial Bias

It would be hard. No matter how much you edit and create, you may miss it because it was never your experience. 

So how do we prevent our racial bias from creeping into our creations?

Listen to POC and their feedback.

As @charishjb from Instagram has shared, here is one of the things that we can do (tumblr link here) [9]:

Consider POC voices. Listen to their experiences. Hire sensitivity POC readers. Put multiple POC voices in positions of leadership in creative projects.

Then we can stop the racial bias that perpetuates again and again in the media. I hope for that future.

[normal-thoughts-official]

Fandom racism anon here and yeah absolutely (I didn't realise I had anon on lol)

Because while LOTR has problems within its themes (ie the orcs can be seen as to be coded as people of colour, especially since they ride elephants) the explicit message of the book is evil bad

Because the only people who work for sauron are evil. There are no morally grey people, they aren't misguided or tricked they just are evil and want to take over the world

And yeah I totally agree that this is more of a literal take on like empirical war (is that the word) and that makes total sense considering Tolkiens history

Whereas I would say that the allegories in shaowhunters is way more based on racial conflict within a country itself especially slavery, I can't remember if this is show Canon but is it that they have the warlock tropheys? I remember that in the books magnus talks about shadowhunters hanging warlock marks on their walls? (sorry to bring the books up)

Idk it's very hollow to me, unlike with LOTR though it's a different allegory it's totally irritating to show many of these supremecists as morally misled. LOTR says bad guys are bad guys, shadowhunters says well yeah they did follow a guy which thinks that downworlders are subhuman and should be eradicated but they just made a mistake

I want to compare this to tfatws which while it isn't really fantasy I just feel like it shows how the priorities of the writer can impact the message of the show so powerfully (I know u aren't up to date so I'm gonna be pretty vague)

There's a scene in tfatws where the new white perfect captain America does something bad and doesn't pay for the consequences - done to comment on white privelege and how America condones white supremacy and how Sam is in comparison to that

Mayrse and Robert revealed to be part of the circle! And paid no consequences Shock horror my parents were the bad guys (even rho they were either implicitly or explicitly extremely racist the entire time) also I haven't finished the seires but do the lightwoods ever try to get their parents to face the consequences?)

Only one actual really critiques the situation and the reality behind it whereas the other one is just to centre the white characters once again and present them in a further sympathetic light

AND ANOTHER THING! I was mostly talking about show Canon here and I'm sorry to bring up the books but I literally can't believe I hadn't picked up in this before.

So like downworlders = people of colour, Simon is a vampire so is coded as a person of colour. However in the books in the last one he stops being a vampire and becomes a shadowhunters instead, coincidentally that's also when he starts dating Izzy HOW IS THIS ABLE TO HAPPEN!!????

I mean I know cassandra clare is lazy right? The original seires is by far the worst of all her writings but come ON!!!!! By the allegory has he become the white man!????? These books made no fuckin sense when I read them at 15 and they make no sense now I'm digressing anyways

I don't know man I wrote this ask because I was trying to find some fantasy book recommendations on booktube and SO MANY of them were about slavery or general ly extrême préjudice with à White protagonist to save this 'poor souls'.

Also I was watching guardians of the galexy the other day and realised nearly every movie set in space is just bigger stakes imperialism - planets instead of countries. Literally star wars, star trek, guardians of the galexy 2, avengers infinity war - all are facing genocidal imperialistic villains without actually paying much, if any attention to those effected

Just writing this ask made me exhausted I'm so tired of lazy writing and exploiting other people's struggle. I'm white and I'm trying to be more critical about the movies, shows and books I watch and read but let me know if I said something off here❤️❤️ you gotta get up to date with tfatws man, Sambucky nation is THRIVING!!!!

i'm not sure i agree that the whole "the evil people are evil" thing is a good thing, because i feel like more often than not making the bad characters just like... unidimensionally evil just means that the reader will be like "lol i could NEVER be that guy" and when it comes to racism that is a dangerous road to take because white people already believe that racism is something that Only The Most Evil People, Ergo, Not Me, Can Do, which makes discussions of stuff like subconscious racial bias and active antiracist work become more difficult because people don't believe they CAN be racist unless they're like, Lord Voldemort

which is not to say that racism should be treated as morally ambiguous, just that the workings of racism should be represented as something that is not done only by the Most Hardcore And Evil, but rather as a part of a system of oppression that affects the way everyone sees the world and interacts with it and lives in it

yes the warlock trophies are mentioned in the show, albeit very quickly (there is a circle member who tells magnus that his cat eyes will make "a nice addition to his collection" and then it's never mentioned again because this is sh and we love using racism for shock value but then not actually treating it as a serious plot point or something that affects oppressed ppl). and you are absolutely right, shadowhunters (and hp, and most fantasy books) has genocide as its core conflict and treats it, like you said, in a very hollow way, treating racism as both not a big deal and not something that is part of a system of oppression, but really the actions of a few Very Bad People. it's almost impressive how they manage to do both at the same time tbh

i think you hit the nail right on the head with this comment, actually. for most of these works, racism is SHOCK VALUE. it's just like "lol isn't it bad that this bad guy wants to kill a gazillion people just because they are muggles? now that is fucked up" but it's not actually an issue. in fact, when this guy is defeated, the whole problem is over! racism is not something that is embedded into that world, it's not a systemic issue, it's not even actually part of what drives the plot. the things that led to this person not only existing but rising to power and gathering enough followers to be a real threat to the whole world are never mentioned. it's like racists are born out of thin air, which is dangerously close to implying that racism is just a natural part of life, tbh

anyway my point is, it is never supposed to be questioned, it is never part of a deeper plot or story, its implications are barely addressed except for a few fleeting comments them and there; so, it's not a critique, it's shock value, even though it is frequently disguised as a critique (which is always empty and shallow anyway. like what is the REAL critique in works like hp or sh/tsc other than "genocide is bad"? wow such a groundbreaking take evelyn)

about simon and the book thing: i actually knew about this and the weird thing about this is that, like... simon is jewish, and he's implied to be ashkenazi (calls his grandma bubbe which is yiddish, which is a language spoken by the ashkenazi ppl), and it seems like cc is always toeing the line between him being accepted by shadowhunters and then not accepted by them, which sounds a lot like antisemitic tropes and history of swinging between (ashkenazi) jewish ppl being seen as the model minority myth and thus used as an example by white christians, and being hated and persecuted. i'm not super qualified to talk about this since i'm not jewish and i'm still learning about/unlearning antisemitism and its tropes, and i don't really have a fully formed thought on that, tbh; it just reminds me of the whole "model minority" swinging, where one second simon is part of the majority, the other he's not, but always he is supposed to give up a part of himself and his identity in other to be "assimilated" by shadowhunter culture. this article (link) covers a book on jewish people and assimilationism into USan culture, this article (link) covers british jews' relationship with being considered an ethnic group, and this article (link) talks a bit about the model minority myth from the perspective of an asian jewish woman

it just really calls to my attention that cc chose to make her ashkenazi jewish character start off as a downworlder and then become a shadowhunter. i don't think she made that decision as a conscious nod to this history, because it would require being informed on antisemitism lol but it's incredible how you can always see bigoted stereotypes shining through her narrative choices completely by accident. it just really shows how ingrained it is in our collective minds and culture

and anyway, making a character go from the oppressed group to just suddenly become the oppressor is just. wtf. not how oppression works, but most of all, really disrespectful, especially because she clearly treats it as an "upgrade"/"glowup" that earns him the Love Of His Life

also, out of curiosity, are you french? it seems like your autocorrect changed a few words and i'm pretty sure extrême and préjudice are the french versions of these words, and since u said ur white, that's where my money would be lol

[davidmann95]

Velvet's battle is a great choice, though I'll always have a special place in my heart for the fight against the Grimm Deathstalker and the Nevermore in Episode 8. That said, what do you think of the individual members of Team RWBY?

I decided to wait on this until I caught up on the series thus far, which I just finished doing the night before last in pretty much the only time in my life I’ve ever really properly binged anything other than comics, and…wow. I knew RWBY was a thing just as a matter of course from being on this site and Youtube, and from watching Death Battle, so I picked up some major beats by osmosis. But my main impression was that it was a charming pseudo-anime online thing of decent quality that unsurprisingly got heavier as it went along as such things tend to do, with extremely rad fights and music along the way; figured it’d be more than serviceable to watch while I was on the treadmill as a disposable distraction from the agony of propelling my wheezing, sweating, loathsome meat-scaffolding forward.

I did *not* expect it to eventually end up after growing pains a - while far from flawless - intensely engrossing story of all-consuming personal and generational pain and people who choose to love and do the right thing in defiance of that trauma and loss and hopelessness, where also occasionally a corgi gets fastball specialed at mechas. Though once it became clear that’s what it is, it pretty clearly sat at an intersection of a hell of a lot of my favorite things, especially when characters copped in-universe in both the main series and spinoff material that this is basically a superhero thing. My initial impressions re: the fights and music were on-point though.

I actually have quite a few thoughts on pretty much all the protagonists of note at this point (other than I suppose Oscar and Maria. Like them both though, and I do hope that nice boy’s brain somehow doesn’t dissolve into the blender of Ozpin’s subconscious), but I’ll just stick with the core four here as requested for now unless someone asks otherwise. Weiss is the simplest to get at the core of, I’d say: her arc is learning that fuck rich people, actually. She’s a seriously difficult character to get onboard for at first - especially if you’re watching those first episodes for the first time in 2019 - as the mean unconsciously racist rich girl who learns to be less mean and racist but still kinda mean. But after you’ve extensively seen the hideously toxic environment she grew up in, and fully understand her efforts to grow past the empty values it inculcated in her in favor of everything she was raised to think of herself as above, she becomes a hell of a figure to root for. Assuming RWBY is gonna go, say, a respectable 10 seasons given it was just renewed through 9, I could easily see the upcoming 7th be the climax of her arc with her return to Atlas and likely further reckoning with the consequences of her families’ actions beyond how they’ve hurt her personally.

Yang is also, in a certain abstract narrative sense, simple, in that she’s built around the very oldest trick in the book for characters whose main deal is ‘can punch better than absolutely anyone’: give them problems that cannot be solved by punching. Except in her case it’s less a material “well, this person is invulnerable to punching!” or “well, actually this other person can punch most best of all” issue blocking her path than “punching cannot solve depression, abandonment issues, questioning whether what she considers her purpose in life is one she’s truly pursuing for noble reasons or if she even has the resolve for it anymore after what’s happened to her, or PTSD”. Yet, while it may not be the kind that manifests in the form of punching people with a smirk and a bad pun anymore (much as she still definitely does that all the time) what ultimately drives her and defines her is still her strength: to move forward, to forgive, to let go, to do the right thing in spite of the risks. Which could easily come off as some unpleasant “you just have to get over your moping!” dismissal - there’s a bit with her dad that means it saddles riiiiight up to the edge of that - but there’s a weight to how her traumas remain a consistent factor in her life and have shaped her outlook even as her circumstances and day-to-day disposition improve that makes it feel thematically like it’s coming from a place of acknowledgment and endurance rather than denial, even if it’s not handled perfectly. Great to see her apparently recapturing some more of her joie de vivre based on the trailer for Volume 7, and how that’ll interact with how she’s grown should be interesting.

Blake is…tough, because you fundamentally cannot talk about Blake without getting into the Faunus, which is maybe the biggest aspect of RWBY that leaves it in the realm of Problematic Fave. It really, really wants to have something substantial to say about the proper response to racism, and every now and then it pumps out a “capitalism greases the wheels of systemic oppression and vice-versa” or “it’s perfectly reasonable for the oppressed to seek to fight back directly against their oppressors, and even the pacifist in the room can recognize that’s a defensible approach that deserves its place”. But then Abusive Boyfriend Magneto literally murders nuance in Vol. 5 episode 2, and it descends into some borderline “but what about black on black violence” respectability politics shit. It’s the classic X-Men setup - this persecuted race of often superpowered folks torn between pacifism and efforts to prove themselves to their oppressors, and those who think they should rise up and annihilate the flatscans - with most of the same pitfalls, but also we haven’t had over 50 years to get used to that just being how it works here, and it doesn’t have the excuse of having to expand as best it can on a metaphor that was originally devised before most of the people currently handling it were born. All of which would be rough enough, but given I watched this right as Jonathan Hickman’s been completely refining the entire X-Men paradigm outside that outdated binary, it especially grates. I’d love to be directed to any solid counterarguments - I’ve heard it might actually be an analogue, and a well-done one, for The Troubles, which I am one million percent unqualified to evaluate - especially since apparently one of the writers grew up in a mixed-race household, and at the end of the day I’m a white guy who may well be talking completely out his ass. But it sure comes off at a glance as some well-intentioned dudes stumbling through stuff that’s not their business, and that’s inextricable from Blake’s character when so much of her story is her navigating through that metaphor. Hopefully with new writers coming onboard this is something that can be navigated more insightfully in the future.

On a purely personal basis however, Blake’s a standout in terms of relatability when her story comes down to a pretty universal shared horror: how to climb back from having fucked up. She tried really hard to do the right thing, was taken advantage of and led into doing things she eventually realized were wrong, was so shaken that she couldn’t tell who to trust, and then the situation spiraled out of control on every possible front just as things finally seemed to be stabilizing. The way a single mistake - enabled and exacerbated by an abusive past relationship in her case - expands into a self-loathing far beyond the bounds of anything she could possibly be responsible for is brutal and completely understandable, and seeing her start put her self-esteem back together with the help of those closest to her and the power of her original convictions is arguably the single strongest, most clearly conveyed individual character arc in the series. I’m very curious where it goes from here: Adam’s finish represents a logical climax and the setup for a happily-ever-after with Yang (or Sun if they end up going that way after all) for her to coast through the remainder of the series on, but the way emotional consequences have played out in the series thus far I doubt her demons are going to be put to bed that simply.

Finally there’s Ruby, and I am contractually obligated to note up front: she is clearly not a Superman analogue. There is precisely zero percent chance that she was conceived as such or was ever deliberately executed in such a way that mirroring him was kept in mind. Though she IS a super-powered idealist raised in the middle of nowhere with a significant deceased parent who wears a red cape, flies, gives inspiring rallying speeches, has black-ish but primary color-tinted hair, and has a mysterious birthright that involves being able to shoot lasers from her eyes, plus she has a dog who also essentially has superpowers, plus she tells someone they’re stronger than they think they are, plus Yang basically quotes a bit from Kingdom Come regarding her in Rest and Resolutions. But it probably goes a ways in explaining why she works so well for me.

There’s more to it than that of course, though it does bring up the closest way in which she relates to the superhero paradigm: she doesn’t go through an arc in quite the same way as the others, instead being an already solidly-defined character who is simply illustrated by how she interacts with the people and situations around her. She learns and grows and matures, but her most basic motivations and goals and outlook haven’t really changed since the day she enrolled at Beacon. She’s a good, caring person, a leader archetype who still has more than enough personality to spare to keep from falling into the genericism that can often plague that role. A big part of the key I believe is that she’s the audience surrogate in a profound way beyond the obvious touchstones of her frequent awkwardness and self-doubt: the reason she does this is because she was inspired by stories. She’s a fan, ultimately, but one who learned all the right lessons, whether recognizing from day one the way reality falls short of the tales she was raised on but still believing in the ideals they represent, or openly holding up Qrow as a role model while being willing to call him on his shit when push comes to shove. It’s a romantic, hopeful perspective that stands out sharply from even our other heroes even as it mirrors their struggles, but as of yet there’s little to suggest it comes from a place of naivete so much as a belief that it’s the only way to bear the pain of the world and continue to believe in it. Bit by bit it’s clear she’s heading for a breaking point, but all signs point to that being a matter of her ability to withstand what she’s been through, rather than any doubt that it’s necessary, and should that time come she’s inspired plenty who’ll be able to help her back onto her feet the way she has for so many others. So while I understand her speeches apparently grate on some, as far as I’m concerned keep them coming, they’re the beating caring heart of the series and often the sole respite in the eye in the storm.

[preserving-ferretbrain]

Markedly Worse Than Expected

by Dan H

Sunday, 27 February 2011

Dan really disliked Marked~

As Ferretbrain enters its fifth year (have we really been doing this for that long?) I sometimes fear that our articles in general – and my articles in particular – have become too self-referential. This is especially true given that recently most of what I have been reading has been books that were voted off from our recent

TeXt Factor Special

.

Six months or so on, I'm still rather pleased with the way the original TeXt Factor turned out – while the whole premise is clearly stupid, every time I've actually tried to finish one of the books we voted out (at least, one of the books we voted out before the point where everything got quite good) I've felt that the experience thoroughly vindicated our original decision to just stop reading the damned thing.

This was certainly true of Marked.

We voted off Marked in

the first round of the Halloween Special

for a variety of reasons, mostly that its protagonist was a horrible, horrible person and that all the stuff about the heroine's “Cherokee ancestry” felt like a big pit of terrible fail waiting to happen.

We were basically right.

Faint Praise

A friend of mine used to have a saying which he used to employ in order to acknowledge the fact that something which he felt was utterly without merit presumably had some value to other people. He would say: “For people who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing that they like.”

This is about the limit of my ability to praise the (apparently very popular) Marked. I can see how it would appeal to certain types of person in certain types of ways. Unfortunately the type of person is “horrible people” and the method of appeal is “by playing on their worst and most selfish instincts.”

Okay, this is an overstatement, but basically Marked is written in the voice (and presumably for a target audience) of a teenage girl who is unbelievably selfish, utterly judgemental, hates everybody who is not part of her immediate social circle, and who believes (it seems quite justifiably) that she is the centre of the entire universe. This is not necessarily a problem in itself – it is perfectly reasonable for books to have unsympathetic protagonists, and as an evocation of a particular kind of thoroughly horrible teenager Marked succeeds admirably – the problem is that the protagonist's repugnant qualities are routinely vindicated by the world in which she lives, and frequently lauded as virtues (particularly her harsh and incessant condemnation of girls she considers “sluts”).

Identity and Appropriation

An area of American race politics about which I know absolutely nothing, and which I would not under ideal circumstances touch with a barge pole, is the question of who is and is not entitled to legitimately identify as Native American.

To present a broad, oversimplistic view of a complicated situation, there are a lot of white people in America who unreasonably appropriate Native American culture and identity, often on the basis of a spurious blood connection (“I'm one-seventeenth Cherokee!”), people also often use this sort of iffy cultural appropriation to excuse other sorts of crappy behaviour (“I'm one-seventeenth Cherokee therefore nothing I say can ever be construed as racist”).

Where it gets more complicated (and I am aware that it gets vastly more complicated, and that this is still an oversimplification of the complexity of the whole thing) is that there are plenty of people who genuinely are “one sixteenth Cherokee” and whose claim to a Native American cultural heritage is never the less completely sound. Not all Native Americans live on reservations or run casinos. It is very tempting for people like me to assume that if somebody lives a life which is more or less the same as my own, that said person cannot be a “real” Native American – this of course is actually a form of subconscious racism, it is easy for me to assume that all Native Americans live picturebook lives of harmony with nature and genteel poverty, when in fact they're twenty-first century people just like me.

Now the thing is, I do think that the way in which “Zoey Redbird” identifies with the Cherokee people in Marked actually does fall into the category of skeevy cultural appropriation but I am very very conscious that I am in danger of dismissing somebody's real and genuine cultural identity just because they don't fit my personal stereotype of a member of their race.

So to start off with, here are some things which I don't think cause a problem, even though they might seem to.

I do not think it is a problem that Zoey passes as white. A lot of Native Americans do.

I do not think it is a problem that Zoey is essentially a normal American teenager. It is extraordinarily important to remember that Native Americans are not some kind of fantasy race, they're real people. I am absolutely certain that there are sixteen year old Cherokee girls who read Gossip Girl and had crushes on Leonardo di Caprio.

I do not think it is a problem that Zoey moves freely between two cultures, taking the elements she likes from both. A person of mixed cultural and racial heritage has a complete right to all of the elements that make up their identity, not just the minority part.

Finally, I do not think that it is a problem that, looking at the photograph in the back of the book, P.C. and Kristin Cast don't “look” Native American. This is true for two reasons. Firstly, pursuant to my first point above, it's possible that they're actually genuinely from a Native American cultural background, and just happen to have relatively pale skin. Secondly, as ever authorial intent is not a major concern. Even if P.C. And Kristin Cast are presenting a cultural identity to which they have a legitimate claim, they might still be doing it in a way which feels like or encourages appropriation of that culture.

Here are the things that do make me think that the Native American elements in Marked can be read as skeevy cultural appropriation:

Firstly, Zoey's Native American heritage is exclusively associated with magic, mysticism and the supernatural. Her one link to that part of her heritage is her Grandmother, who runs a lavender farm and is part of a long line of Cherokee wise women. Zoey is, of course, the natural heir to that power. Her Grandmother is also, for some reason, entirely au fait with and accepted at the House of Night, which is otherwise extremely dismissive of humans. Zoey's Cherokee heritage is routinely cast as part of the same world as the vampires. Although in this world the vampires are clearly the cool, sexy, interesting people and we are supposed to sympathise with them they are still ultimately not human. Although the series (being very much a teen-angst Family Romance) takes a very dim view of humans in general, that does not really make it okay to put “humans” in one box and “Native Americans” in another

On a second, related note, the spiritual beliefs of the Cherokee people (to which Zoey is heir, and for which she feels a strong affinity) are presented as compatible (and at times interchangeable) with the clearly Wiccan-derived beliefs of the House of Night. The vampyre rituals which involve drawing pentagrams, calling the corners, and raising the four elements are presented as blending seamlessly with Zoey's grandmother's traditional cultural practices, despite the fact that pentagrams and a four-element cosmology are strictly European cultural artefacts. It even declares that the Greek Goddess Nyx is one and the same as Grandmother Spider which, well I don't actually know enough about either figure to tell you the differences or similarities, but we're dealing with figures from completely different mythologies – I strongly suspect that saying “Nyx is also Grandmother Spider” on the basis of their both being female deities with an association with night is sort of like saying “Jesus is also Eros” on the basis of their being male deities who have an association with love. It all combines to create the strong impression that Marked uses Cherokee culture as a source of cool special effects and exciting mystical sounding ideas, rather than as something that real people really believe in.

The third thing that pushes my skeeve buttons regarding Zoey's Native American identification is that her “Cherokee features” are always exaggerated by her vampirism. Zoey is always at her most Cherokee when she is at her most inhuman, her most exotic, her most unnatural.

To put it another way, there is never any sense that Zoey's Cherokee heritage is just a part of her, it is never something she just takes for granted as part of her cultural background. It is always presented as something alien, exotic, and mystical. Now I recognise that this could be seen as a realistic portrayal of a sixteen year old girl. It's possible that if you were sixteen and felt like an outsider as many do, that you would fixate on a part of your background that you perceived as mysterious and exotic and would exaggerate the mystery and exoticism of it. On the other hand the rest of the world reinforces this creepy Othering of Cherokee culture – Zoey's heritage really does give her magic powers, her Grandmother obviously feels Zoey really gets it, and of course no amount of subjectivity on the part of the narrator can explain why Cherokee spiritual beliefs are suddenly so compatible with Wicca.

I've spent a really long time talking about this, which is ironic because it's not actually the thing I found the most annoying.

Ain't Shit But Ho's and Tricks

I spend a lot of time on FB dissing people for being sexist. Usually I'm on (comparatively) safe ground because the people I'm dissing are men, and usually what I'm saying is something like “I think this author is being sexist in this way, and I think I can recognise it because I think they are indulging in a sexist impulse which I sometimes recognise in myself.”

I find myself in a difficult position with Marked in that I find its portrayal of women and girls extremely troubling, but am naturally a bit leery of saying “hey, you women are writing about women wrong! Let my penis explain why!” On the other hand, the whole book is full of creepy gender-essentialism and slut-shaming and it's important to recognise that women can be sexists too.

In the first episode of the TeXt Factor Halloween Special, Kyra observed that the thing about Marked was that it really did feel like it was written by a Mom-and-Daughter team, in that it often used very teenage language to express very adult concepts. To put it another way, Zoey reads like a teenage girl who has totally internalised the preconceptions and prejudices of her slightly creepy, more-conservative-than-she-thinks-she-is, sex-negative mother.

So we keep getting lines like:

Did you know that your oldest daughter has turned into a sneaky, spoiled slut who's screwed half the football team? Kinda like those girls who have sex with everyone and think they're not going to get pregnant or a really nasty STD that eats your brains and stuff. Well, we'll see in ten years, won't we? Of course there are girls who think it's 'cool' to give guys head. Uh, they're wrong, those of us with functioning brains know it is not cool to be used like that. Tucked into her countrified jeans was a black, long-sleeved cotton blouse that had the expensive look of something you'd find at Saks or Neiman Marcus versus the cheaper see-through shirts that overpriced Abercrombie tries to make us believe aren't slutty.

And that's from the first ninety pages.

Now I don't want to get too far up on my Minority Warrior horse here, I don't want to say “this book is harmful to young women” or “this book is actively immoral” or anything but as the book progresses it does seem to send profoundly unhelpful and contradictory messages to its primary audience.

The vampyres of the House of Night have a matriarchal society (although it seems to be grounded in some distinctly patriarchal ideas), and the vast majority of the adult vampyres we encounter in the book are female, and every single one of them is drop-dead gorgeous and incredibly sexually alluring, and their sexual allure is held up as something to aspire to.

For example, here is the description of the Vampire High Priestess Neferet:

She was movie-star beautiful, Barbie beautiful. I'd never seen anyone up close who was so perfect. She had huge, almond-shaped eyes that were a deep, mossy green. Her face was an almost perfect heart and her skin was that kind of flawless creaminess that you see on TV. Her hair was a deep red – not that horrid carrot-top orange red or the washed-out blond-red but a dark, glossy auburn that fell in heavy waves well past her shoulders.

I'm breaking this up here mostly to draw attention to the next line, but while I'm adding filler text, I'll just quickly ask: what the hell is up with “almond-shaped eyes”, it's used everywhere but seriously what the hell other shape are eyes supposed to be?

Anyway, the description continues thus:

Her body was, well, perfect. She wasn't thin like the freak girls who puked and starved themselves into whatever they thought was Paris Hilton chic … This woman's body was perfect because she was strong, but curvy. And she had great boobs.

So having just spent half a page describing this woman who fits exactly into an unrealistic, unattainable beauty standard and how amazingly wonderful and gorgeous this makes her and how girls can and should aspire to look like her, she then takes a random sideswipe at girls who aspire to a slightly different beauty standard.

Now just to be clear, I am not complaining that Zoey is not in favour of anorexia. Eating disorders are bad and people who have them need help, not condemnation (I'm not going to get into the whole pro-ana thing here). But Zoey doesn't say “this woman was beautiful because she was confident in her own body, unlike those girls who feel so much pressure to conform to other people's ideas that they puke and starve themselves.” No she says as an objective statement: This Woman's Body Was Perfect. I know we don't get much detail about Neferet's figure, but we aretold that she's “Barbie beautiful” which combined with “strong but curvy” implies fairly strongly that she looks more like Christina Hendricks than Amber Riley.

When Zoey talks about “those freak girls who puked and starved themselves” it sounds a lot like as if she is criticising aims rather than methods. Certainly she is extremely critical of the (one or two) fat people she meets in the book so her issue is clearly not with people trying to lose weight. The problem with “those freak girls” is not that they're trying to make themselves thinner (that's only sensible) it's that they're doing it in order to look like Paris Hilton, instead of like a “real” woman.

I should probably take a step back here and say a couple of things (the second being, in part, a counterpoint to the first). The first thing I should say is that it is possible that the House of Night series is actually being extraordinarily subtle and sophisticated, and that all of these examples of Zoey being judgemental about other girls are going to be shown to be false and hypocritical in future volumes, but I sincerely doubt it.

This brings me to my second point, which is that I can absolutely see where a lot of the problems with this book come from. If I was a mother, trying to write a Young Adult book with the help of my teenage daughter, I would almost certainly wind up putting these kinds of messages into the book in the honest belief that I was setting a positive example for young girls. A lot of Zoey's most hateful pronouncements feel like the kinds of half-truths that a well-meaning parent would tell their daughter in order to help her more-or-less get by in the complicated world of adolescence. If you're trying to explain to your fifteen year old about oral sex, I suspect most parents given the choice between:

“It has lower risk than vaginal or anal sex, but you can still contract most sexually transmitted diseases, if you try it and find you don't like it then stop and don't let anybody make you feel you have to, on the other hand if you find you get pleasure out of it then as long as you're aware of the risks then it's alright, and doing it won't make you a bad person. And remember that just because you give a guy a blowjob it doesn't mean you have to have sex with him, but also remember that guys might not see things the same way, most importantly remember that nobody has the right to control what happens to your body except you”

and

“Girls who do that are stupid and have no self-respect.”

most would choose the latter. Most mothers, I suspect, would far rather tell their daughters that oral sex was something only bad girls did than have to have a conversation about what spunk tastes like. Then there's the risk analysis element: from a perfectly understandable perspective, if you tell your kid that it's okay to enjoy giving head, then the worst case scenario is that she dies of a sex-disease. If you tell her it's not okay to enjoy giving head, then the worst case scenario is that she misses out on something she might have found sexually fulfilling. I can absolutely see why, if you were a parent, you would want your little girl to grow up thinking like Zoey.

The problem, of course, is that it just doesn't work that way. Teaching your children to be frightened or ashamed of sex doesn't, in practice, stop them from having it (the waters are muddied here by the fact that actually a lot of teenagers – by accident or design – avoid sex anyway) what it does is make the sex they do have less safe, both physically and psychologically.

But I digress.

In the latter half of the book, most of Zoey's ire is directed at Aphrodite. To be fair, Aphrodite is a horrible person (although she's kind of made of straw – like most school-story rivals her role is to be a threat to the heroine even though the heroine is superior to her in every way). When we first meet Aphrodite, she is trying to give a guy a blowjob. This is evidence that she is a terrible person. Pretty much the whole of the rest of the book is devoted to the systematic observation that Aphrodite is evil, and therefore a whore, and therefore more evil. She pretty much never appears on the page without Zoey having some criticism of her sexual conduct: her boobs are too big, her lips are too red, she moves her hips too much when she dances.

It is worth remembering that all of this is set against the background of a supposedly matriarchal society. The book makes a great play of the fact that it is women who rule the world of the vampyres, but their matriarchal culture seems grounded in patriarchal assumptions about gender roles. So yes, the priestesses are in charge, but all of the warriors are males, because Male Vampires Are The Protectors (this is stated very explicitly, at least three times) and while the book is very big on Goddess Worship and feminine imagery and The Almighty Power of Womanhood, it does this by presenting a very specific, very conservative, and very contradictory idea of what it means to be a woman.

So all of the adult vampires are presented as beautiful and sexy and confident and powerful, but Aphrodite is condemned for being the wrong sort of beautiful and the wrong sort of sexy and the wrong sort of confident and the wrong sort of powerful. The whole book is a study in the fucked up, contradictory rules that young people, particularly young women are brought up with. You mustn't be fat, but you have to have curves. You have to be sexy, but you can't want sex. Boys have to want you, but can't think they can have you. You have to be strong and clever, but not too strong and too clever, and not too ambitious. You can be beautiful and terrible and powerful and unbeatable, but your role will always be to serve others, and no matter how much power you have, you must leave your protection in the hands of the males, because they have their role just as you have yours.

Cultural appropriation and horrible gender-fail aside, the book is also just shoddily paced. Like a depressing number of these books, the heroine is such a complete Mary Sue that the only real tension is exactly when she will employ her effectively unlimited power to solve whatever the current problem is. Marked sets up quite an interesting plotline involving students dying and coming back as evil spirits, but it only kicks off in the last third and is clearly intended as the metaplot of the entire series. So the climax of Marked is just Zoey's showdown with Aphrodite, except that Zoey has near-unlimited supernatural power, and has the actual high Priestess of Nyx on her side, so in the end you wind up feeling kind of sorry for Aphrodite who, in a certain sense, just gets bullied mercilessly by the asshole protagonist and half the teaching staff.

Indeed you can sort of see the final confrontation as a microcosm for everything that is wrong with the book. In theory, Zoey is supposed to be the plucky underdog going up against the socially and supernaturally superior Aphrodite. In fact the reverse is true. Everybody hates Aphrodite (because she's an evil bitch whore slut whore bitch hag slut whore), the entire teaching faculty and the Goddess Nyx Herself have outright stated that Zoey is all that and a bag of chips. So what casts itself as an inspiring tale of triumph over adversity is really the story of somebody with every conceivable advantage stomping over somebody who does not have those advantages. In much the same way, the book casts itself as being this subversive, anti-authoritarian text (it spends a lot of time condemning the People of the Faith for their hypocritical, controlling natures and there's a particularly galling bit where Zoey “I Hate Sluts” Redbird goes on about how much she hates closed-minded people) when it actually just reinforces a lot of deeply conservative, borderline harmful ideas.

So yeah. One to avoid maybe.Themes:

Books

,

Sci-fi / Fantasy

,

Young Adult / Children

,

Judging Books By Their Covers

~

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

~Comments (

go to latest

)

Melissa G.

at 17:59 on 2011-02-27Thanks for slogging through this for me, Dan! I almost want to read it for how bad I know it will be, but I can't quite manage to put my brain through such torture.

My only knowledge of the House of Night series comes from the few chapters of the fifth book that I read with my student. At this point, Zoey's special snowflake-ness is of epic proportions. She has all these tattoos now, which no one has ever had before OMGWTFBBQ!? She's so special it hurts, and not just that, it seems like she knows she's special and Better than You and thus goes around with this air of superiority.

And, dude, poor Aphrodite. It's like her character is constantly getting shat on by the author despite the fact that she is no threat at all anymore and that at this point she and Zoey are FRIENDS. She's been completely de-powered at this point (she is human now, what?), and it just seems like the author keeps taking potshots at her as she's trying desperately to crawl out of range. It's just painful to watch.

Moving on, the fifth book has a lot more sex/sexual situations in it between Zoey and Erik, and I actually found it almost too sexual for a teen book. But perhaps that's me being prude. Shrug. Might also be noteworthy to mention that Zoey lost her virginity to not-her-boyfriend because he magically seduced her or something, which is all kinds of annoying to me, because it's not HER fault she lost her virginity to another guy. I mean, god forbid she just make an actual mistake and have to take real responsibility for it. But no, we'll just make it someone else's fault.

Also from the fifth book on the subject of race fail, a character named Kramisha gets introduced. Kramisha is the very epitome of the sassy black girl stereotype. She talks with poor grammar and outdated black slang, and she's all sassy and confrontational. And you can argue that these kinds of black people do exist in real life and there's nothing inherently wrong with it, but from what I can tell, Kramisha is the only black character around so it's a little unsettling that she's so cartoonishly stereotypical.

We also have token gays!! And they spend all their time talking about being gay, and how being gay means they know how to cook, and how they watch Project Runway (because, you see, they're gay), and how they know about interior design because they're gay, and gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay. I think you get my point. It's just a bit much. Let them have another character trait. Really, it'll be fine. Also, one of them was described as walking in the room "[screaming] like a girl" and fainting. Fantastic. This is one of those "get off my side" things, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, that was my rant. And granted, I haven't read much of the book (not to mention it was the fifth one) so my complaints may not be entirely grounded, but these were my impressions. And I really can't bring myself to read another word of it because it's just garbage. For so many reasons.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 19:49 on 2011-02-27

At this point, Zoey's special snowflake-ness is of epic proportions. She has all these tattoos now, which no one has ever had before OMGWTFBBQ!?

Yeah, she gets a lot of those at the end of book one (tattoos seem to magically appear on Vampyres as a consequence of their utter awesomeness, although I'm not really sure it counts as a tattoo if it occurs naturally, isn't that just your skin?)

The super-specialness starts out pretty unbelievably insane in the first book and sounds like it only gets worse. In book one we discover that Zoey not only has powers of a variety which are normally only developed by adult vampires, but that her powers are also stronger and greater in number. Basically all adult vampires get a supernatural power called an "affinity", and very rarely they might get an "affinity" for one of the five elements, even more rarely they might have an "affinity" for two or more elements. Zoey of course has an affinity for all five elements (Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Spirit) already and this has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE IN HISTORY EVER.

Moving on, the fifth book has a lot more sex/sexual situations in it between Zoey and Erik, and I actually found it almost too sexual for a teen book. But perhaps that's me being prude.

I suspect that's one of those YMMV things. I'm personally okay with sex in teen books: I mean they're already saturated in sexual imagery, and I'd kind of rather they were honest about it. Does she at least stop being so judgmental about other girls' sexual behaviour?

Might also be noteworthy to mention that Zoey lost her virginity to not-her-boyfriend because he magically seduced her or something, which is all kinds of annoying to me, because it's not HER fault she lost her virginity to another guy.

I think what would annoy me more in this situation would be if she lost her virginity to another guy because of being magically seduced, and the book didn't flag up that this was, y'know, date rape. Annoying as "I cheated on my boyfriend but it is okay because it was MAGIC" is, it's somewhat less annoying than "I was magically coerced into having sex with a guy, and the only thing that matters about this fact is that it was unfair to my boyfriend because he didn't get to take my virginity."

Also from the fifth book on the subject of race fail, a character named Kramisha gets introduced. Kramisha is the very epitome of the sassy black girl stereotype ... from what I can tell, Kramisha is the only black character around so it's a little unsettling that she's so cartoonishly stereotypical.

I believe that Shaunee (if she's still in it) is black as well, as is one of Aphrodite's minions (although I believe the text describes her as "obviously mixed" - because you can totally tell whether somebody is mixed-race just by looking at them).

We also have token gays!!

Ah, Token Gay is also in the first book (Damien, yeah). To be fair they get some points for allowing the guy to have an actual relationship, although they lose them again for taking the "gays = women (= gender-essentialist stereotypes of feminine behaviour)" angle.

I suspect that a lot of the tokenism actually comes about as a result of everybody except Zoey being an entirely one-dimensional character who exists solely to tell her how awesome she is (or to tell her that she isn't awesome and be proven TOTALLY WRONG).

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 20:57 on 2011-02-27

The super-specialness starts out pretty unbelievably insane in the first book and sounds like it only gets worse.

Yeah, I forgot to mention the bit where her dream with Kalona (which is not really a dream) tells us that she's the reincarnated form of Kalona's lover/person who sealed him away. The Mary Sue-ness is mind-boggling.

Does she at least stop being so judgmental about other girls' sexual behaviour?

I didn't notice anything blatant, but I wasn't really looking for it. And I don't feel like going back and checking. :-)

I think what would annoy me more in this situation would be if she lost her virginity to another guy because of being magically seduced, and the book didn't flag up that this was, y'know, date rape.

I'm not sure how it was handled exactly because it happened in the book previous to the one I was reading. But I think it was considered to be sort of date rapey. All I know is that's why she and her boyfriend broke up, and it's made her feel sort of hesitant about having sex again.

I think the sex aspect might have bothered me more because it sounds like an adult writing a sex scene in an adult way that just happens to have teenagers in it. If that makes sense. It felt much like romance novel writing, which there isn't anything wrong with but it turns the sexual situations into fantasies rather than what I would feel is a realistic description of a teenage relationship. But as you said, YMMV.

I believe that Shaunee (if she's still in it) is black as well,

Oh, right, I forgot about her! Fair point. The fifth book kind of just kept lumping new characters and old characters on me from the second chapter on so it was hard to keep them all straight.

I suspect that a lot of the tokenism actually comes about as a result of everybody except Zoey being an entirely one-dimensional character who exists solely to tell her how awesome she is (or to tell her that she isn't awesome and be proven TOTALLY WRONG).

Yes. This. So much.

permalink

-

go to top

Dan H

at 21:59 on 2011-02-27

Yeah, I forgot to mention the bit where her dream with Kalona (which is not really a dream) tells us that she's the reincarnated form of Kalona's lover/person who sealed him away. The Mary Sue-ness is mind-boggling.

I don't think Kalona's shown up yet.

I think the sex aspect might have bothered me more because it sounds like an adult writing a sex scene in an adult way that just happens to have teenagers in it.

I think I see what you're saying, although I doubt I'll read further to see for myself.

permalink

-

go to top

Melissa G.

at 22:05 on 2011-02-27

I don't think Kalona's shown up yet

Kalona is a scary powerful God-like dude that got released in the fourth book. He's the big bad for the rest of the series, I think, and of course he's obsessed with Zoey.

Apologies for spoilers, but I don't think anyone cares?

permalink

-

go to top

Wardog

at 11:24 on 2011-03-01If anything this review just validates our joint decision NOT TO READ THE DAMN THING.

permalink

-

go to top

Robinson L

at 21:06 on 2011-03-25

If I was a mother, trying to write a Young Adult book with the help of my teenage daughter, I would almost certainly wind up putting these kinds of messages into the book in the honest belief that I was setting a positive example for young girls.

You know, the more I grow up, the more I fortunate my sisters and I are to have such freaking amazing parents.

permalink

-

go to top