It's an acknowledgment that disabled people can have negative emotions. In the context of what we're discussing, quite a healthy image really
Negative emotions are one thing. Negative actions are quite another. The degree of selfishness and cruelty with which Dean manipulates and exploits Emily is appalling -- and the fact is, there is no reason LMM could not have written exactly the same story without giving Dean a twisted back. He could have been just as selfish and grasping for some other reason, but LMM chose to give him a physical disability. I do not believe for one second that she was trying to make a thoughtful statement about how people with disabilities are Just Like The Rest Of Us, and I don't believe the book does make that statement. What it does is to reinforce the cliche that a twisted body reflects a twisted soul. I know LMM was a product of her times, but that doesn't make what she did right.
You can ship Emily/Teddy if you want; that really isn't germane to my argument. It's more a question of how Dean himself was portrayed that bothered me.
I would argue that it is the author's part to tell their story, not take responsibility for their audiences' worldview.
And I would argue that a well-told story will inevitably say something to the reader, and that every author needs to stop and think about what they are saying -- and whether it's worth saying -- when they write.
That is not the same as saying that every author should tell moralistic tales, or meet some kind of legalistic quota for the representation of minorities in their writing, or anything of that sort. It means that every author should be aware of the possible implications of what they are saying when they write characters in a certain way, and make an informed decision about whether they really want to make that implication, or whether the implication is an unfortunate or unworthy one.
How many of these girls will ever read a book featuring fully rounded and insightfully portrayed individuals?
There are plenty of books portraying fully rounded and insightfully portrayed individuals. There always have been, and there are still many of them around today. We white, middle-class, non-disabled people are not lacking for quality literature that represents Those Like Us if we want to find it. But it is much harder to find quality literature that offers rich, nuanced portrayals of characters who are not part of a privileged group of white, middle-class, non-disabled people.
Again, I am not advocating some kind of quota system, or writing preachy books about how People With Disabilities Are All Wonderful And Never Do Bad Things. I am suggesting that authors should be aware of the choices they make and the implications of those choices to the reader. If you still think that giving your character a twisted back or a degenerative disease is crucial to the story you want to tell, so be it. But realize what you're going to be suggesting when you kill off that character, or turn them into the villain of the book. Be aware that you are playing into a pernicious cliche which has been done many times in literature, and ask yourself if it is really -- really -- worth adding to that particular canon.
no subject
Negative emotions are one thing. Negative actions are quite another. The degree of selfishness and cruelty with which Dean manipulates and exploits Emily is appalling -- and the fact is, there is no reason LMM could not have written exactly the same story without giving Dean a twisted back. He could have been just as selfish and grasping for some other reason, but LMM chose to give him a physical disability. I do not believe for one second that she was trying to make a thoughtful statement about how people with disabilities are Just Like The Rest Of Us, and I don't believe the book does make that statement. What it does is to reinforce the cliche that a twisted body reflects a twisted soul. I know LMM was a product of her times, but that doesn't make what she did right.
You can ship Emily/Teddy if you want; that really isn't germane to my argument. It's more a question of how Dean himself was portrayed that bothered me.
I would argue that it is the author's part to tell their story, not take responsibility for their audiences' worldview.
And I would argue that a well-told story will inevitably say something to the reader, and that every author needs to stop and think about what they are saying -- and whether it's worth saying -- when they write.
That is not the same as saying that every author should tell moralistic tales, or meet some kind of legalistic quota for the representation of minorities in their writing, or anything of that sort. It means that every author should be aware of the possible implications of what they are saying when they write characters in a certain way, and make an informed decision about whether they really want to make that implication, or whether the implication is an unfortunate or unworthy one.
How many of these girls will ever read a book featuring fully rounded and insightfully portrayed individuals?
There are plenty of books portraying fully rounded and insightfully portrayed individuals. There always have been, and there are still many of them around today. We white, middle-class, non-disabled people are not lacking for quality literature that represents Those Like Us if we want to find it. But it is much harder to find quality literature that offers rich, nuanced portrayals of characters who are not part of a privileged group of white, middle-class, non-disabled people.
Again, I am not advocating some kind of quota system, or writing preachy books about how People With Disabilities Are All Wonderful And Never Do Bad Things. I am suggesting that authors should be aware of the choices they make and the implications of those choices to the reader. If you still think that giving your character a twisted back or a degenerative disease is crucial to the story you want to tell, so be it. But realize what you're going to be suggesting when you kill off that character, or turn them into the villain of the book. Be aware that you are playing into a pernicious cliche which has been done many times in literature, and ask yourself if it is really -- really -- worth adding to that particular canon.