writing, books, Victorian stereotypes, and why historical fiction can be so crappy

[newmoonstar]

I dug out a path to my computer! I can write again! And I have! I actually sat down one day and got several pages written!

Of course, I didn't write anything the next day, or the day after that, because I've been reading Northanger Abbey instead. *sheepish grin*

I'm almost finished with Northanger Abbey, and I would be done with it already, but I got sidetracked into reading A Great and Terrible Beauty by Libba Bray instead. It was so shiny and new, and had such an awsome cover. (One thing I really have learned in all my years as a voracious reader, is that you usually CAN judge a book by it's cover.)

Accordingly, it was pretty much what I expected it to be, entertaining, but utterly brainless. Ever since Harry Potter pretty much all YA books have to involve boarding schools and magical powers, and I was willing to go along with that because I thought it would be cute in the Victorian setting. But, unfortunately, it turned out to be one of THOSE books by one of THOSE authors who for some inexplicable reason think all women in the Victorian era were poor suffering victims, never allowed to have lives or thoughts of their own, always hemmed in by the demands being proper ladies, and that every man in the Victorian era was a brute or a dolt who demanded that all women must be kept in their place.

Oy vay.

Why does this stereotype persist? Why do people think that throughout all history all women have been oppressed? Are they not paying attention to anything, or are they just that stupid? I am SO sick of historical fiction about girls fighting for their independance in the face of the supposed backward ideas toward women's lib in their time. Women have ALWAYS been authors and artists and thinkers and whatever the hell else they wanted to be throughout history. Just because the prevailing male dominated culture didn't encourage it, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why do we think that if women don't settle for the status quo now, that they would have then?

Probably because a lot of women DO settle for the status quo now, sadly enough. I think the authors who write about stifled Victorian girls are probably stifled modern girls. I wish society could just grow up and get past it so I could have interesting historical fiction to read, about girls who have exciting lives and adventures, instead of just stories about girls pining away wishing for exciting lives and adventures.

It's monstrously frustrating. And it's why I seriously have to start writing more now.

Comments

[solidor.livejournal.com]

So, so very much agreed.

[newmoonstar]

A sane human being at last! What would I do without you? ;-D

I know you have to deal with a lot of the same kind of stuff in your Art Theory paper; I heartily wish you luck.

[solidor.livejournal.com]

Ugh, it's horrible. While I do admit that there are issues for female superheroes (big ones), most people blow them entirely out of proportion. In the modern era, female heroes have been strong and have made a difference. Yes, most first had to get approval from their male counterparts in some way (Batgirl, Supergirl, Aquagirl, even Huntress' entire career has been often manipulated or disapproved of by Batman), but that doesn't mean that now they aren't portrayed as strong, capable women. There are still exceptions, but...well, yes. Totally blown out of proportion.

Now, getting into their origins...

(and I do wish I knew why all female heroes have to start their careers because of some horrible wrongdoing that reeks of social case -- rape, abuse, molestation. Can women not just be strong because they are these days? What a novel thought.)

[newmoonstar]

I know! Why do women always have to be portrayed as victims all the time? Doing that is just a way of dehumanizing them; so that they'll be defined by that label instead of as a full human being. And it's especially insidious in comics. People need heroes because we see a reflection of ourselves in them; we need to believe in ordinary people who can do extraordinary things, as is often the case with superheroes, who are ordinary people half the time, and then fight for truth justice, and the American/Bat/Spider/whatever way in the guise of their alter egos the rest of the time. But to give women a reflection of themselves as having to be victims in order to be part of this, that to be a victim is the normal and only way of things sets a very dangerous precedent. To refuse to acknowledge women as whole people in the same way that men are is the same as saying that they can't be or shouldn't be.

But I'm not really that knowledgable about comics specifically. I hear they're getting a lot better than they used to be, and nowadays there are independant comics that are more progressive than the old school biggies like DC and Marvel.

But anyway, good luck with your thesis! :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_toffee/]

i just finished pride and prejudice today. it's my favorite jane austen book. Elizabeth Bennet was a pretty independent thinker, right? Jane was sort of...floopy, and Lydia was just aggravating.