However, I am not going to second-guess everything.
And I was never arguing that you should.
There's one absolute that I am arguing here: that context is unavoidable and undeniable. One can't say it doesn't exist, and one can't say it doesn't ever matter. This was in response to other posters who were suggesting that portraying Susan as shallow and silly was no different than portraying, say, Uncle Andrew, as shallow and silly. I personally feel there's very essential difference between those two authorial choices, given that shallowness and silliness are two very familiar misogynistic female stereotypes in a literary tradition that has a long legacy of misogyny.
But I have never argued for one-strategy-to-rule-them-all with regards to cultural baggage. In fact, as I wrote in the post that I linked to in an earlier comment (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rilina/166778.html), I think absolutes are probably the worst way to deal with it. One shouldn't second-guess everything (what I call in that post the "corrective" strategy), but it's probably an equally bad idea to second-guess nothing (what I call the "defiant" strategy).
But if one has to surrender something about a character simply because one is afraid that it may seem stereotypical, that fear and inclination should be questioned.
I have never suggested writers always have to "surrender something about a character simply because one is afraid that it may seem stereotypical." For example, I've never argued that female characters can never be stupid; in a previous comment I was quite careful to note that of course it would be ridiculous to say such a thing. If stupidity is key to Female Character A in your story, by all means make her stupid. But don't be surprised if readers squawk if there seems to be a regular pattern of female stereotypes--from the madonna/whore dichotomy to the vapid blonde who can't program her VCR and everything in between. As I said in previous comment, C. S. Lewis probably could have gotten away with making Susan reject/forget Narnia for shallow reasons if that choice didn't also seem to be part of a larger pattern of hostility towards certain kinds of femininity.
Anyway, there's a big jump between arguing that authors must recognize the cultural context in which they write and arguing that authors must second-guess every decision they make--right down to the heroine's eye color. I didn't make that jump; or if I did accidentally make it by implication, it was unintentional and wrong of me to do so.
no subject
And I was never arguing that you should.
There's one absolute that I am arguing here: that context is unavoidable and undeniable. One can't say it doesn't exist, and one can't say it doesn't ever matter. This was in response to other posters who were suggesting that portraying Susan as shallow and silly was no different than portraying, say, Uncle Andrew, as shallow and silly. I personally feel there's very essential difference between those two authorial choices, given that shallowness and silliness are two very familiar misogynistic female stereotypes in a literary tradition that has a long legacy of misogyny.
But I have never argued for one-strategy-to-rule-them-all with regards to cultural baggage. In fact, as I wrote in the post that I linked to in an earlier comment (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rilina/166778.html), I think absolutes are probably the worst way to deal with it. One shouldn't second-guess everything (what I call in that post the "corrective" strategy), but it's probably an equally bad idea to second-guess nothing (what I call the "defiant" strategy).
But if one has to surrender something about a character simply because one is afraid that it may seem stereotypical, that fear and inclination should be questioned.
I have never suggested writers always have to "surrender something about a character simply because one is afraid that it may seem stereotypical." For example, I've never argued that female characters can never be stupid; in a previous comment I was quite careful to note that of course it would be ridiculous to say such a thing. If stupidity is key to Female Character A in your story, by all means make her stupid. But don't be surprised if readers squawk if there seems to be a regular pattern of female stereotypes--from the madonna/whore dichotomy to the vapid blonde who can't program her VCR and everything in between. As I said in previous comment, C. S. Lewis probably could have gotten away with making Susan reject/forget Narnia for shallow reasons if that choice didn't also seem to be part of a larger pattern of hostility towards certain kinds of femininity.
Anyway, there's a big jump between arguing that authors must recognize the cultural context in which they write and arguing that authors must second-guess every decision they make--right down to the heroine's eye color. I didn't make that jump; or if I did accidentally make it by implication, it was unintentional and wrong of me to do so.