406: Critical Analysis

A few weeks ago, I thought I would like the Snow Queen plot, but now I’ve had enough of the Evil Luna Lovegood act. The intelligent dreamy babbler works as a supporting character, but like a laxative: for occasional use only.

LOL!

Snowing: While I don’t like Snowing for the most part; I find the character of Snow to be a strong and independent person. However, since she gave birth to Noah (yes that is what I call him) the writers feel she should be a dingbat. She doesn’t have the Bandit Snow spunk. In this episode I would have expected her to be in the forefront of the action. Nope, nada, zip….Having a child changes you but not this much.

I call the baby Nemo because eventually Charming is going to end up finding him (though he kind of did already when Zelena took him). Also Nemo spelt backwards is omen.

I agree about Snow being a “dingbat”, she’s kind of been that even before Nemo was born. It seems that when the curse broke, whilst everyone else reverted back to their original personalities, Snow’s Mary-Magaretness became centre stage.

Regina/Robin: I don’t like Robin. I like Regina and then I don’t. In this episode I liked Robin even less than before. Regina handled the situation better, but I just don’t see them together. I don’t buy that they are soul mates. I don’t believe in the pixie dust. Instead of him I would like her to be with someone like Will. She needs someone that will test her and aggravate her at the same time. Like you know normal couples. I don’t see playful banter with them.

I agree with this 100% apart from the Will pairing only because he has his own true love. But totally agree about Robin. I’ve been very critical of Regina lately but this episode she kind of redeemed herself. But Robin needs to get lost now. I had a feeling this would happen at the end of 3B. OQ was written into a situation where, unless it was handled very carefully, it would make the characters look bad. That’s exactly what has happened now to Robin. Whereas before he was a fairly decent guy, though not necessarily the sharpest tool in the box, now he just seems like a slimy douchebag.

Let’s talk about women.

Specifically, let’s talk about the idea that ONCE writes strong women.

I think before you can discuss “strong women”, you have to define “what makes a strong woman?”

Does being in a relationship make a woman any less strong?
Does accepting help from others make a woman any less strong?
Does asking for help from others make a woman any less strong?

Why does introducing a man into any situation suddenly make a woman “weak” in comparison? Why does a man saving a woman make the woman a “damsel in distress” whilst a woman saving a woman shows independence and teamwork?

Perhaps Anna was trying to show off to impress Belle that made her fall on her face rather than a lack of ability?

I love that we’ve got such a MIX of strong female characters, which doesn’t just mean they’re BA in a fight.

We’ve got girls who dress/behave all along the feminine-masculine spectrum, and even the strongest girls (like Emma & Mulan, who arguably behave in the most masculine ways) sometimes embrace their softer sides (Emma’s date dress?). And you’ve got women who don’t fit the traditional “strong female character” mold at all, like Belle, but still save the day in their own ways. (Last night was not Belle’s save the day night. But we’ve seen her do it. It is not a failing for her to sometimes need her husband or her father or her mother or heck, even Archie, to help her out.)

Because if it diminishes a woman to need a man’s help for -anything-, then does it not also diminish a man to need a woman’s help?

I love that Belle is allowed to save the day in a dress sometimes. I love that Rumple is allowed to save her sometimes. I love that I can believe, in the end, they will save each other every time–just like Snowing.

Disregard

I never said you did, but the implication as I read it seemed to be that the female characters weren’t being written as “strong” just because last episode they weren’t all Miss independent.

I read an excellent essay the other day how writing strong women isn’t as important as writing interesting women. As it applies to this topic, I’ll share it here. (Edited for language)

Well, first of all, WELCOME TO ONE OF MY PET PEEVES.

A female character does not have to be “strong” (whatever your definition of that is) to be a good character.

Women can be strong, or wussy, or emotional, or stoic, or needy, or independent, and still be legitimate people and interesting characters.

In our totally understandable desire to see portrayals of strong women (in reaction to decades of damsels in distress and women as appendages), we’ve somehow backed ourselves into this corner where the only acceptable portrayal of a woman in the media is a strong, kick-butt woman. That is not doing women any favors. It just leads to the attitude that you have to be ONE WAY ONLY to be legit as a woman. You shouldn’t have to be Natasha Romanoff or Xena to be considered a good character. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good Buffy as much as the next person, but that should not be the only acceptable portrayal. It should be okay for a female character NOT to be strong, too. Let’s take Molly Hooper as an example. She is not the stereotypical “strong” woman. But heck, she went through medical school, didn’t she? She’s smart, and she’s funny, and she serves a story function – she is not a major character, but she doesn’t have to be. But her character gets criticized because she pines after Sherlock. What, you never pined after somebody? Did it make you invalid as a person? You never got a bit silly over a crush? I know I did. And I still consider myself a strong woman. It should be okay for Molly to have a crush on Sherlock without getting the “oh, she’s so pathetic, what a terrible example, what a horrible female character” thing she so often gets. Yes, because it’s so terrible that a female character should reflect an experience that like 99% of us have had.

Screw writing “strong” women. Write interesting women. Write well-rounded women. Write complicated women. Write a woman who kicks butt, write a woman who cowers in a corner. Write a woman who’s desperate for a husband. Write a woman who doesn’t need a man. Write women who cry, women who rant, women who are shy, women who don’t take no crap, women who need validation and women who don’t care what anybody thinks. THEY ARE ALL OKAY, and all those things could exist in THE SAME WOMAN. Women shouldn’t be valued because we are strong, or kick-butt, but because we are people. So don’t focus on writing characters who are strong. Write characters who are people.

The only bad female character, if you ask me (and you did), is one who’s flat. One who isn’t realistic. One who has no agency of her own, who only exists to define other characters (usually men). Write each woman you write as if she has her own life story, her own motivations, her own fears and strengths, and even if she’s only in the story for one page, she will be a real person, and THAT is what we need. Not a phalanx of women who can karate-chop your head off, but REAL women, who are people, with all the complexity and strong and not-strong that goes with it.

This is why I disagree with the “damsel in distress” criticism of Irene in the last scene of Scandal. Here’s the thing about being a damsel in distress…it’s only bad if that’s all she is. If the character’s defining characteristic is being a damsel in distress, that’s bad. But if an otherwise complex character with lots of other agency and actions happens to be in distress, then…that’s all it is. She is in distress. That happens. Characters are often in distress, or there would be no plots. Should a female character never be allowed to be in distress, at ALL, to be valid? No.

A strong female character is one who is defined by her own characteristics, history and personality, and not solely by the actions or needs of other characters. She is a person in the story, not a prop. That is the best definition I can come up with. Note that my definition did not involve martial arts.

I thought this was well expressed. Female characters don’t have to be constantly shown to be kicking butt to still be multi-facetted. The mark of bad writing is when a character (male or female) merely becomes one-dimensional or an accessory. Also, I’m reminded of something George R. R. Martin said once about how he writes such convincing female characters:

There’s one thing that’s interesting about your books. I noticed that you write women really well and really different. Where does that come from?
George R.R. Martin: You know, I’ve always considered women to be people.

Martin is a great author, and one of the reasons his stories never grow old is because he creates such vibrant characters, both male and female.

So if I remark that Snow White seems a shadow of her former self, it’s not because she’s not out slaying ogres or shooting bows an arrows. It’s because she has been relegated to a secondary character and her story is no longer worth telling in the minds of the writers. Yes, she’s a mother of a young child, but that doesn’t mean she has to be written as a one-note supporting character. The same goes for Charming, whose role is a big question mark. It seems like both Snow and Charming have ceased being strong characters, not because they lack physical strength or got married, but because they’ve been sidelined.