Of Princess and Politics

A very common character found in young adult books of the fantasy genre is the "Rebellious Princess". Often, it is the main character who is a rebellious princess or, if the main character is a male, his love interest. Although there have been many Rebellious Princes in literature, most of the character with this archetype is female, someone nobly born (despite the name, she needn't to be royal) from a good and important family who chafes at having to learn embroidery, manners, the piano-forte, and all of the things that are socially acceptable for a young lady of her birth to learn. She instead yearns to play swords and ride horses unchaperoned, wear breeches instead of gowns, openly insults the noble guests who have come to her fathers' hall, generally talk in an uncouth manner. I don't have anything against anyone that wants to defy gender expectations and wear breeches and ride horses; you do you. However I've observed that these types of characters often dismiss politics and diplomacy as fripperies, preferring to solve problems with force and swords. As a pacifist with keen interest on diplomacy and politics, I take offense in them being dismissed as "fripperies".

A lot of fantasy takes place in worlds resembling Medieval or Renaissance Europe, so one must take account the role of a noblewoman relating to diplomacy and politics in our Medieval/Renaissance Europe. Contrary to popular opinion, princesses do not sit around all the day doing nothing but embroidery work. A princess or a noblewoman in Medieval/Renaissance Europe, especially those who live in the Continent, certainly would have been busy receiving noble guests from all over the continent, particularly female relations of their husband/father/brother's guests. Yes, they do sit around and drink tea and talk about fashion, but noblewomen in those era play an important part too in spreading information or (mis)information. In a period where neighboring countries war frequently, information is vital to the success of military campaigns or peace accords. Gossips, literally, can change how wars end.  Scandals, hearsay, and rumors can shatter pacts and alliances or form new ones.

Etiquette and manners are thus important. Frayed relations means that people would jump at the slightest opening to undermine you. A false remark blown out of proportions. A wrong gesture to the wrong person. An imaginary or not-so imaginary snubs. Dresses that are too fashionable or not fashionable enough. Any of these can be a reason for turning away would-be allies or incensing old friends. It is important for a princess, indeed for any noblewoman, to learn how to best present themselves for the advantage of her house. Embroidery too is not a mere trifle hobby. In an age where most women are illiterate, embroidery is sometimes used to code secret messages and tell stories for those who do not have access to words.

Politics and diplomacy of nations are delicate matters yet they affect millions of people. Almost all of the rulers and decision-makers are men, yes, but women held powers too, albeit in the background. In the form of wives, mothers, and sisters, women played their part in politics through influencing the menfolk. It would be an exaggeration to say that women have enough power to completely influence their menfolk, manipulating them to follow their desire, but they still have power nonetheless. And this power they achieve without swords or force.

While I'll support any girl who prefer swords over sewing, I find that the attitude some books have, deriding girls who love sewing and etiquette lessons as mindless bimbos and dismissing the importance of manners and diplomacy, to be annoying and not to mention disingenuous. Power can be achieved through force and power can be achieved without force. Power taken by force is not superior than power taken through peaceful means. In fact, as a pacifist, I shall say that power taken through peaceful means are inherently superior than those taken by force. Dresses and etiquette are not fripperies and those who indulge in them are not less just because they conform to the then-socially acceptable notions of feminine pursuits.

You Deserve Better, Girl

[WARNING! MASSIVE SPOILERS FOR GAME OF THRONES]

Have you ever felt, when watching a TV show or reading a book or enjoying fiction and pop culture product in general, that that one female character that you really like, is getting shafted by the often-male writers? You know the one; everybody knows one. Maybe in the middle of the book, something really shitty and nauseating happens to her. Maybe in the middle of the show, her character gets written off and dies in a very undeserving manner. Maybe in the middle of the story the writer(s) decide to get her a lobotomy that completely changes her personality into the very opposite of what she's before. And you want nothing more than to get her and protect her from all the bad things, but all you can do is sit in front of your TV and whisper, "You deserve better."

This all occur to me often, so I'm used to the rage and disappointment, and pretty much prepared for my favorite female characters to succumb to the disaster at any time. However, nothing could ever prepare me to the fury that I felt when I saw what happened in HBO's Game of Thrones' latest episode.

[WARNINGS FOR MASSIVE SPOILERS AND RAPE]

I haven't watched Game of Thrones since Season 3, a season where, I felt, everything started to go downhill. I enjoyed the first and second season, but I hated the third season and found nothing in me that could compel me to continue. Still, I'm an avid fan of the books, so I sometimes tune in to recaps to see where the show is heading and how they handle particular story-line. Part of the reason why I abandoned Game of Thrones is I can't handle all of the rape and female nudity. Now, it's not that I'm against nudity in general, but I'm not comfortable with the way the show handles female nudity. It's like, naked women all day, every day. Where my dicks at, yo? We get to see titties and pussies, but where's my close-up shots of glorious male asses and dicks?

The way they treat female characters in the TV show is also an issue to me. Almost every female character is sexualized. In the books, for example, Margaery Tyrell "seduced" Tommen with kittens, but she never had sex with him because Tommen is nine and Margaery is (technically) considered a grown woman. In the show, Margaery is much older, probably in early-to-mid twenties, and Tommen too, but it's clear that he's meant to be in his early-to-mid teens, so when show!Margaery actually seduced Tommen and had sex with him, I had to throw up. They (D&D) did her so wrong. Margaery changes from an older sister figure in the books to a sexual predator in the show. They change an innocent relationship to a sexual one, all for the sake of getting Natalie Dormer naked. Tommen's innocent, familial, brotherly relationship with Margaery is supposed to highlight how young and unfit for him to be king; to have that relationship sexualized is disgusting. Margaery, girl, You deserve better.

Although that's deplorable, it happened a few episodes ago, and I'm not here to discuss that. Oh, no.

I'm here to discuss how Sansa was raped.

Yes, you heard that right. Sansa Stark was raped. By sadistic psychopathic douchebag extraordinaire Ramsay Bolton. In the confines of Winterfell, her old home and the only place where she'd felt completely safe.

Book readers will know that Sansa's storyline is taken directly from Jeyne Poole's, where she's forcibly married to Ramsay (as fake!Arya), raped repeatedly (sometimes by dogs!), and generally tortured. So that kind of thing happens in the book, however D&D has made it clear that they will not hesitate deviating from the novels, like how they completely erased Arianne Martell from the show. Arianne is a POV character in the book, which makes her quite important, so her omission will bring quite a big change to how the plot works in the show. The show has deviated greatly from the book (not bringing Lady Stoneheart, for example), so they can, in theory, choose not to incorporate the whole "Ramsay rape" storyline. So why do they choose to incorporate it, using an in-story underage character when her actor conveniently turn eighteen?

The show has been criticized repeatedly for overly-sexualizing female characters and for repeatedly showing rape, sometimes only for titillation and male gaze. Consensual sex scenes in the book turn into rape/non-con in the show. This has been a grievance for many fans and fandom blogs, but I think most fans drew the line on Sansa's rape. The Mary Sue, a prominent women-oriented fandom blog, has decided not to promote the HBO show anymore. They felt that the rape is unnecessary, because we've already seen Sansa overcoming abusive men and we know that Ramsay's a sadistic asshole. Sansa's and Jenye's storyline generally serves, both in the book and show, as a vehicle for Theon's character development, by acting as a catalyst for his resistance to the 'Reek' identity. Note how, in the show, that the rape is off-screen; the camera pans to Theon to show his reaction.

A female character's rape is used to show a male character's manpain. We don't see how Sansa feels about this; we see Theon's horror. Sansa is distant, unimportant, in her own rape - it's all about Theon.

I have great distaste for 'rape as a plot device' trope. Most of the time, I would drop a book/show immediately if there's such scene. Sometimes, I feel like it's used insensitively, only acting as a reason for angst and manpain between two characters, or as a way to code that "this character is sad! you should feel bad for him/her!" Often, it's all about how their significant other found out about the rape, and how they feel and not the victim themselves. Besides, sometimes the rape adds nothing to the plot, unnecessary, and it only serves to brutalize a female character (because it's always female characters that gets raped in fiction).

In this case too, I feel like the rape is very much useless. We've already seen Sansa go through so much - assault and abuse from Joffrey and further assault and abuse from Littlefinger - so we really don't need to see her brutalized further. It's already established that Ramsay is a sadistic asshole by how he treats Theon and everyone around him. In fact, due to the show's history for sexual violence in the show, rape is pretty much expected. As soon as Sansa's brought out of the Eyrie and Sophie Turner turns eighteen, everyone knows that Sansa will probably have some sort of sex scene forced upon her.

Furthermore, the rape happened in Winterfell, and from a narrative point of view, this is a bad move and an unnecessary cruelty. A good part of Sansa's plot in the books is that she sees Winterfell as the only place where she's always been happy. Where nothing bad happens to her. When her family is still one and her dad and siblings are still alive. She sees Winterfell as the light in the end of the tunnel, a source of hope. Winterfell and memories of her family are why she remains Sansa, why she keeps going even after all she's been through, and why she doesn't break, though she's thrown repeatedly.

One of the overarching mystery arc in the A Song of Ice and Fire is whether or not the Stark children can go back to Winterfell. Can they come home, and thus achieve their happy ending, or will they die without ever seeing Winterfell again? Some fans predict that the Stark reunion, if it does happen, would happen only at the last books, as a way to bookend the series. The Starks are together in the first book, at the end of summer and the start of autumn. Come autumn, they're scattered from their homes and from each other. Now winter is coming, their enemies weakening, and the Stark children start to fight back after being downtrodden for so long. It is only proper that come spring, they would be reunited once again in their ancestral home, as a way to signify how the Starks have regain their powers.

Sansa's premature homecoming ruins that narrative. She has come to Wintefell, but without her siblings and the Starks are not restored to power. If the big homecoming does happen in the show, it will feel hollow, because Sansa has come home, and she's brutalized. Winterfell is not a comfortable memory for her, Ramsay's assault destroy that. Even her home isn't a safe space for her.

Sansa, girl. You deserve better.

Cherry Bomb: Fandom and Flawed Female Characters

Another Cherry Bomb post, y'all, and this time I'd like to talk about flawed female characters and how the fandom treats them. Lady Catelyn, Sansa; this is for you.

Now, you must be wondering why I specifically choose those two characters in my dedication. Well, that's because they are a perfect example of flawed female characters and how the fandom treats them.

Lady Catelyn Stark and her daughter Sansa Stark is not the first thing that most people had in mind when they hear the words "strong female character". They are non-combatants, their powers lay in their manners and words, and  they have made mistakes before. In other words, a far cry from what most mainstream media outlets' description of "strong female character". But I disagree. As previously touched upon on the last Cherry Bomb, I think they are the perfect example of a strong female character; hell they are strong characters, period. They are not the untouchable, hard women that most people expect; they have flaws and dreams and motivation and that's what makes them strong as a character.

But I am not here to lists the endless reason why Lady Stark-Tully and Sansa is the true queens of Westeros. I am here to discuss the various way fandom respond to them. Spoiler alert: it ain't pretty.

Here in Cherry Bomb, we don't name names other than our own. But if you want to, you can easily open Google and type any recap of any episode that heavily features Lady Catelyn. I guarantee most of the comments will proclaim her as a "whiny bitch" and how She is The Worst (tm). Or, if you're a book-reader or someone who doesn't mind seeing spoilers, you can type in the url of several fansites for ASOIAF and search the forum. Any discussion regarding the storyline of all the current characters will have at least one person proclaiming Sansa to be "useless" and how She is The Worst (tm). A favorite thread of mine blames all the bad thing that happens in the series--I repeat, ALL THE BAD THINGS THAT HAPPENS IN THE SERIES--to Sansa and Lady Catelyn. Ned Stark's execution, the War of the Five Kings, the burning of Winterfell: all of them is the result of Sansa Stark and her mother's action.

The question is why? Why are they so hated? Why are they considered useless, compared to the many characters? Why is everyone focusing on their mistakes compared to the mistakes other characters made? (I'm looking at you, Ned Stark)

The answer lies in the patriarchal nature of our society. Because of the olden tendency to depict women as silly and incapable of making correct decisions, the writers of today feel they have to make their character flaw-less in order for it not to be sexist. As a result, female characters are often unattainable, horribly-written Mary Sues. Readers, used to this imbalanced characters, have a unrealistic high standards for female characters that they don't have for male characters. They expect female characters to be right, to get out of the way, to soothe the male characters' feelings and ego, to be perfect, to show and have no emotion.

Sansa and Lady Catelyn are not written as female characters. They are merely written as characters. GRRM didn't treat them any more or any less than any of his other characters. They have flaws, they have principles, and they have emotions. Neckbeards cannot deal with that. They are used to seeing "strong female characters" and are not used to strong characters who happens to be female.

It is amazing to see how fandom treats different characters based on their gender. For example, Jon Snow was like a textbook example of teenage wangst with all his complaining and angsting how he will ~never be a Stark~ and how he's conflicted of his allegiance to the Night Watch and new-found relationship with Ygritte. Yet I rarely see any hate for him. Sansa, meanwhile is a twelve-year old girl who had to see her father killed by the same people that she thought she could trust, who had the rest of her family killed brutally by the people they trusted, who had to suffer from abuse/sexual assault from the man who was technically her guardian. Yet everyone blasted her for every mistake she made. Yes, in the first book she was a little bit annoying and woefully naive, but she's a twelve year old. Twelve-year olds are meant to be annoying and woefully naive.

And Ned Stark was pretty stupid. Telling your best friend's wife that you're going to tell your best friend that the children you claim to be his is actually your brother's before you tell somebody else first is damn idiotic in any setting, much less Westeros, where people have been killed for showing more intelligence. Yet I don't see him being blamed or flamed for it. But the instance Catelyn freed the Kingslayer in hopes to get her daughters back somehow makes her the Worst Ever. I agree that the move is pretty fucking stupid, but why doesn't Ned Stark get the same vitriolic remarks about his intelligence?

Now, this doesn't mean that they don't deserve criticism. Like any good character, they deserved and must be critique. But the hate that they get is so intense you have to wonder if our patriarchal society has something to do with it.

Cherry Bomb: Strong Female Characters vs "Strong" Female Characters" Part I

Like tea, most female characters in fiction comes in two flavors: strong and weak. Since the advent of third-wave feminism, however, there are a surge of "strong" female characters in fiction, whether it's in literature or TV, and they tend to lean towards the hard-hitting kind, with physical prowess, no non-sense attitude, and brash personality.

Basically, they become more 'masculine'.

Now, I'm not saying these ladies aren't strong as a character, or that masculine women are somehow less of a woman. In the hands of a good writer, these characters can come alive into complex people with flaws and a story right before our very eyes.

But there is a trend that I see, a worrying trend I might add, to transform these characters into a one-note character. "Strong" women in TV and books these days are just that; strong. They do not have any other purpose to the story other than to break walls and take names (which is an awesome thing, to be honest) and then get killed five minutes later. They shun emotion and everything girly, ridiculing women who are into fashion and make-up (therefore, those who are more 'feminine' than them), further promoting the notion that us women have to fight against each other. They proudly claim they do not have any female friends, that they love hanging with guys because they don't have as many drama as girls (nevermind the fact that these so-called 'brotherhoods' often have fights over girlfriends and video games the could generate as much, if not more, drama). Women are stupid and emotional, they say, and lacks the sophistication of men.

You can see why this kind of thinking can be a problem, especially since most of these characters crop up in YA/Romance fiction. And then that's not touching the whole glamorization of violence. Full disclosure: I'm a pacifist and I don't appreciate the way that YA novels these days have fights and battle as their main shtick. I know that's a really common way to put some action into your book and make it more interesting, but there are ways to write a good and gripping book without having a fight every two pages. And international peace discussion is thrilling too! I mean, how many people can actually say that they help prevent WWIII by  inviting Russia and America's leader over for dinner? That's riveting stuff, folks! The sauce of your steak determines if people die!

And one of my main problem these kind of "strong" characters is that they rarely have some kind of an emotional response to the consequences of their own action. Human beings are not meant to hurt each other (no matter how those pessimists think), and if they do, they'll likely to have serious mental issues. You can't just blowup a building and the only thought you have is whether or not the Main Love Interest has feelings for you. Even the most hardened and experienced warriors have a high chance of developing PTSD, and you expect me to believe a sixteen year-old girl goes about her life without a care after killing hundreds of people?

Of course there are people who thinks about burgers and ducks before they snipe someone in the head; people cope in different ways. But the thing with these characters is that they do not feel anything. Oh, their inner monologues is filled with purple prose about how Main Love Interest makes them feel all funny inside and they don't like it because Warriors Aren't Meant to Have Emotions, but they are mostly flat characters, unable to comprehend or display any emotion besides anger and selfishness. They cannot have any emotions, ever, because they are awesome and they are strong and emotions are flaws and if they have flaws then they are not strong. They sometimes have a tragic past that cements their position as rebels in society, and a convenient Freudian explanation to why they have such hard personality.

Generic cookie cutter backstory and Mary Sue-like perfection (though they try to deny) does not make a "strong" character. Ironically, the writers effort to differentiate their female characters from the others have resulted in bland characters that are strong only in their physics and weak in everything else.

There are a lot of things that I have in my mind about this issue, particularly how the media and fandom treats flawed female characters and the thinking that "nonviolence=weak" that is so present in many YA novels and their fandoms. But this is ten o'clock, I have yet to brush my teeth and do my prayers; I shall have to bid goodbye for now and see you next time.