Sinnful 2¢ — The Rising Trend of Abusive YA Characters

I have not added any new posts to this for awhile.  Frankly, I have been sick and concentrating on other things.  I haven't gotten my thoughts sorted out enough to even begin writing a post.  Honestly, life has just taken precedence and nothing has rattled me enough to dig out my well-worn soap box.  However, after Parajunkee's post about the Goodreads drama and what constitutes as a review (http://parajunkee.com/2012/01/book-blogging-101-what-is-a-review.html), I started thinking about things.  After finding a webpage which discusses the drama (http://cuddlebuggery.blogspot.com/2012/01/first-five-days-on-goodreads.html), as well as other issues on Goodreads, I felt this blog post ruminating. While I find Parajunkee's post quite interesting, I am not addressing the issues of bad reviews, what is a review, or how people handle said reviews/opinions.  There has been enough of that across the book blogging sphere, and you can read it at your leisure.  Even though I have opinions about it, that is neither here to there.  For me, however, something stood out even more and has been sitting in the back of my mind for quite some time.

After I read the Twilight Saga, I was very put off by the author's cavalier attitude towards stalking and abusive behavior (you can read my full rant here: http://sinnfulbooks.blogspot.com/2011/11/sinnful-2-twilight-series.html).  I figured that it was something completely off kilter with the author.  However, as I started to read more young adult novels, I noticed that it is a startling trend!  In many—not all—young adult novels, the main love interest tends to be an overbearing, abusive stalker.  And, for the life of me, I cannot understand why.

In this (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/230059544) review on Goodreads, the reader confronts the issues and behavior of a severely unhinged character.  And, even though the behavior is disgusting, the author defends the behavior (http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/zz64/Kemisz86/McGuireBlogpost1.png)!  Honestly, I'm not sure what is worse, writing the behavior or defending it.

To me, the most sickening thing about this is how easily young girls accept this as normal.  They make doe eyes at characters like Edward Cullen and Patch (Hush, Hush love interest); however, these boys are abrasive, verbally and physically abusive, stalkers, and so on.  I cannot understand why authors are writing these characters.  Girls have a hard enough time dealing with self-esteem and self-worth issues on top of the normal teenage angst without adding this element.  These boys are written as these beautiful, dark, mysterious man any girl would want, so it is natural that teenage girls will flock after them.  However, teenagers are very impressionable.  They use young adult novels as a way to experience life and to show them life lessons.  What are we telling this new generation of women?  We are teaching them to be weak, that they are not worth a decent man, etc.  And, to take it further, it is showing boys that this is desirable behavior.

People, with the continuation of these books and male leads, we are creating and nurturing a generation of abusers, stalkers, and victims.  Girls—and, of course, boys—need good, strong role models.  They need to be taught to value themselves and others.  Relationships where one partner will mention that they have considered killing you (Hush, Hush) or sat outside your window watching you sleep (Twilight) is not cute or attractive.  I'm sorry, but it is wrong and not normal behavior.

I could go on and on about this.  I feel very, very strongly about the current trend in young adult books.  And I am seriously concerned at the attitude of acceptance by parents, readers, and authors.  Teenagers do not have enough life experience to understand the serious ramifications of these behaviors; however, the completely blase response of the authors and the rising trend of this character base is a serious concern.

Sinnful Cents -- Chivalry, Courtly Love, and the Case of Harry Dresden

Sitting down to lunch with a friend on Saturday -- who shall be called Ninja -- we started discussing The Dresden Files. Through various circumstances, we are both reading through the books. He keeps waffling on whether he will finish the series; however, in the interim, it is nice to talk to him about the books. We have both discovered we share a lot of the same opinions about the books. Reading through the books, we both find that Harry is too "knight-in-shining-armor." Not only is it extremely unbelievable, but I have to wonder if the author is using Harry as a Marty-Stu. The other thing that annoys me -- and Ninja -- is the continual comment that he is just being chivalrous. I keep asking myself, "Why can't Butcher just call it being 'courteous' or 'polite'?"

After posting my views on the Twilight series, I found that I enjoyed Sinnful 2¢. However, I have been struggling to find a topic to write about. After the conversation with Ninja, my husband suggested that I write a rant about it. Studying medieval lit. for years, I find the concept of chivalry -- or the modern interpretation of it -- to be kind of offensive. It annoys me that people call common courtesy chivalry. So, with that, I very enthusiastically dove into research in an attempt to write my rant. However, after our move, I cannot locate all of my medieval books, so I had to rely on internet sources and various papers I wrote throughout my college career.

With that in mind, here's my 2¢:

Chivalry

The word chivalry comes from French word, chevalier. Basically, as my medieval professor always said, it means "guy on a horse." However, it came to be known as a code of ethics to govern knights and their actions. Before the period of chivalry, knights were a feudal lord's "everyday-grunt." Their behavior was vile and inappropriate. They often pillaged, enjoyed the spoils of war, and treated the enemies in a a manner not befitting what modern times views as a knight. To combat this issue, a code of conduct was made in order to govern them. However, the Bishop Etiene Fougeres felt that the lower classes were not civilized enough to follow this new code. "In 1241, Henry boosted the Bishop's cause by declaring that English gentlemen with a certain amount of property would be classified as a knight." (Sara Dustin)

Okay, getting that out of the way, here is a definition of chivalry: It is an institution of knighthood, which refers to a group of mounted men. The 12th century has chivalry as ". . . a moral, religious and social code of knightly conduct . . ." Further, it ". . . idealized life and manners of a knight at home in his castle with his court." (Wikipedia)

There are three major duties a chivalric knight must follow:

• Duties to countrymen and fellow Christians
• Duties to God
• Duties to women

With this last duty, we enter into the realm of courtly love.

Courtly Love

In Europe during the middle ages, marriages were not based on love. Quite the contrary, marriage was for alliances, furthering families, elevating status, and so on. In an attempt to allow the nobility a chance to express this desire, courtly love was born. However, since it was limited to the nobility, the ideal lady was one of higher status or the employer's wife (in the case of Lancelot, it was Guinevere). According to the New World Encyclopedia,

Courtly love was a medieval European conception of nobility and chivalrously expressing love and was secret and between members of nobility. It was not practiced between husband and wife.

Andreas Capellanus wrote down the rules of courtly love in De Amore (Concerning Love). While they are too numerous to fully list here, this is the first four:

• Marriage is no excuse for not loving
• He who is not jealous cannot love
• No one can be bound by a double love
• When made public love rarely endures

He also states that "there have been only four degrees in love . . .":

• The first consists in arousing hope
• The second in offering kisses
• The third in the enjoyment of intimate embraces
• The fourth in the abandonment of the entire person

In addition, he states that young peasant women should not be involved in courtly love. If she cannot be "put aside," she is to be taken by force. After which, the knight needs to move onto a lady deserving of courtly attentions.

With the three duties a knight must follow, the Virgin Mary ends up becoming the ideal model for women and the lady at the centre of courtly love. This, of course, proves to be problematic. "It involves a paradoxical tension between erotic desire and spiritual attainment."

Thoughts

I have written several papers on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (SGGK). The idea of women being the central controlling force in the story has always fascinates me. Women have always been seen as less than; however, I believe that, through courtly love, women are able to dictate how the court should act.

When the audience first meets Gawain, his courtly love ties are to the Virgin and Guinevere. However, through a course of events, he ends up turning from his Lady and the Virgin while rejecting his knightly duties of courtly love.

While there are several arguments against Morgan being at the crux of the poem, there is just enough evidence to prove it. However, it would be fair to state that, not just Morgan, but also the other women had a crucial card to play in the poem. The battle between the women represents the inherent battle between good and evil; furthermore, it also symbolizes the struggle between the factions of knighthood and the warring loyalties. The poem is used to say that chivalry is flawed because of its inherent contradictions, which are shown through the conflicts of the women. The Gawain poet is trying to show the readers that even a perfect knight cannot be perfect; they cannot be held to those standards, because they will inevitable fail. Gawain realizes this and tries to change; however, he finds that he lives in a world that does not allow that change to take place. (Sunderman 11)

So, to be blunt, it is impossible to be a secular knight and a sacred knight. Further, because of the natures of knightly chivalric duties, a knight is inherently set up to fail. One cannot honour/pursue his lady, partake in courtly love, and honour the Church and the Virgin.

Harry Dresden

At the very basic level, chivalry means you are of the knightly class. You have some level of nobility, and you must pursue your lord's lady at some level. You are to become her champion, you are to compare every woman to her, and so on. And, yes, in the middle of it chivalry is also a code of conduct. However, it cannot be fully removed from courtly love and vice versa. I just find myself frustrated with Dresden using chivalry as an excuse for his stupidity. Would a knight hold the door for his lady? Yes. Would he exalt a far away love? Yes. Would a knight do the same for a woman of lower breeding? No. With the truth of chivalry and courtly love, I would rather say that a gentleman is being polite.

Harry just needs to can the crap, admit that he's too overly stupid, and get on with life. Brainlessness, being duped by women, and being just plain stupid does not count as chivalry. Just admit that Harry has a "knight-in-shining-armor" complex and refuses to use his brain rather than his penis. Grow up, sprout a pair, and act like an adult!

And, just to add insult to injury, could Butcher be a little less obvious with Harry's status as a Marty-Stu? I understand that characters are somewhat a reflection of the author, but seriously?

Well, that's my 2¢

Sinnful 2 Cents -- Twilight Series

With Breaking Dawn pt. 1 hitting the theatres last week, there has been another resurgence of Twilight. On Facebook, the local Hastings, little girls screaming about Edward, scary Twilight Moms coming out the the woodwork, and throughout the book blog community. Aside from my close friends and family, I haven't said much about the Twilight series.

Back in 2008, I took a class in Young Adult fiction in relation to education. Out of the several books we had to read for class, we had to pick an additional 15 across YA genres. Since Twilight hit the bestsellers list (and a friend of mine highly suggested it), I decided to find out what all the hype was about. And, honestly, I still don't get it. It took me about two hours to finish the book, and I swore I would never read any other book written by Meyer. However, later that year, I would be drawn back into her messed up world of teenage romance and angst.

I worked at our local theatre for about a year. They were getting ready for the Twilight fever with the release of the new movie. Since I didn't finish the series, I decided it would be a good opportunity to finally pick it back up. In addition, my parents started reading the series after my brother had suggested it (I still cannot get over this! My brother is a very picky reader!). After delving back into the series, I still cannot find any redeeming qualities, and I cannot understand why parents would allow their children to read such drivel.

With that intro, I will ascend my soap box and give my opinion about why the Twilight series fails.

Bella Swan: The Passive Co-Dependent

The character of Bella Swam is a poor role model for teenage girls. Not only is she extremely dense and has no common sense, she cannot function without Edward or a strong man taking charge (e.g., when Jacob comes into the picture after Edward leaves). She is dependent wholly on him and finds his outrageous behavior acceptable. While I understand that teenagers live passionately and are highly melodramatic, Bella's seemingly attempted suicide when Edward leaves really makes me wonder about her mental health.

Further, Bella was exceptionally 2D and over dramatic – crying at the drop of a hat (25, 51, 391, and on). She is also a martyr (25). She feels like nothing more than a stereotype. Her whining was over the top. Not sure whether she realized it, but Bella is the perfect Mary Sue.

Teenage Voyeurism Taken Too Far

In YA novels, teenagers find a way to live vicariously through the characters. They are essentially voyeurs. Therefore, the parental figures are not as present and the characters have more freedom to experiment, fall, and eventually learn life lessons. However, the fact that Bella is able to travel back to Arizona without anyone knowing and later to Italy is too far fetched. Also, what life lessons does she learn? How to be a cock tease? Full dependency on someone? Never learning to grow up?

The Case Against Edward Cullen: The Archetype of a Classic Abuser

Edward is the perfect model of a classic abuser.

• He is extremely jealous of other men, especially Jacob. He forbids Bella from even seeing him in a friend capacity.
• He is controlling and restricts her movements (e.g., intentionally taking the engine out of her car.)
• Several times he mentions that he could easily kill her.
• He shows up unannounced (e.g., breaking into her room at night to watch her sleep).
• He tried to kill himself
• Uncontrolled temper
• He has physically detained her (Twilight, 103, 104)
• He isolates her from family and friends under the excuse that only he/his family can protect her

And, sadly, the list goes on.

While the idea of a person you love watching you sleep is kind of sweet, Edward broke into her room and watched her several times before they really met or where an item. How is that not stalker behavior? Why is Meyer showing this as perfectly appropriate behavior for men to exhibit? Do we want girls to seek out abusive relationships? Do we think so little of our daughters?

Biology 101: Stephanie Meyer's Creative Alternative to Biology

Biology, anyone? Reading Breaking Dawn, I have to wonder whether Stephanie Meyer ever took an elementary bio class or had basic sex-ed. The way she explains Bella's pregnancy makes no sense. Granted, a vampire being able to impregnate anyone is fully in the realm of fiction; however, her reasoning is just plain stupid! It would have been better not to try and explain it and have Carlisle completely clueless. First of all, when girls hit puberty, they have the maximum amount of eggs they will ever have. Ladies, our bodies do not generate more. Men, on the other hand, constantly regenerate their sperm cells. How, with that in mind, does her explanation work? Bingo! It doesn't.

What is This Plot You Speak Of?

Plot . . . Ah, plot, that wonderful chain of events that make up a story. It is something that Meyer really didn't think too much about. The plot of the whole series can be summed up in one simple sentence: Girl falls in love with boy and ends up with him despite a few setbacks. There you go, ladies and gentlemen, that is the plot of a four book series. Anything else is just filler fluff.

Jacob and the Infamous Deus Ex Machina

Jacob imprinting on Renesmee pushes the boundary of what is appropriate. Not only was it a cheap way to fix the love triangle with Bella, it made Jacob into a pedophile. It was obvious that Meyer was an immature writer and wrote herself into a box. As a reader, I would have rather seen Jacob just slip into the background with unrequited love. Of all the characters, he was my favorite. Meyer did him a disservice. Plus, Horace makes it perfectly plain to poets not to rely on the Deus Ex Machina to solve plot issues.

"You Must Not Do It Until You Go Through It"

Meyer's stated purpose for writing the books is a noble and admirable one. With teen pregnancies and underage sex seemingly on the rise, it is good to give girls a role model that abstains. However, Bella is obsessed with sex! Further, she is showing the couple acting in ways that Bella's father would disapprove of. How is her alternative better than fornication? It also shows girls that if you're itching for a good fuck, just catch I guy right out of high school and get married. I'm sorry, but getting married because you're horny is not a good reason to take vows. I guess that Bella's life lesson in all of this is that continual disobedience will get you what you want in the end.

Because Only Real Men Sparkle

Every author has to make things their own and put their own spin on creatures. However, Meyer's interpretation of vampires is ridiculous! I understand the attraction to vampires. When I was a teenager and saw Interview With the Vampire, I secretly imagined myself with Lestat. Dangerous, out-of-bounds men are sexy! However, it is hard to find emo vamps that sparkle (oh, don't for get vegetarian) as anything but pansies! In addition, I still don't understand why they go to high school. With how excluded they are, it seems pointless. Another thing is their reaction to blood and Carlisle's profession. There is only so much self control someone can exhibit constantly around something they desire. I find his resolve unbelievable.

I'd Like to Buy an Adjective

Flashy writing and 50+ point Scrabble words does not make you a good writer. And it does not make you look intelligent. Come on, "diminutive municipality" is overkill! When it takes you multiple metaphors, similes, and adjectives to describe something, you run into word vomit and bogged down writing. Honestly, I felt that at least half of the length of each novel was needless word filler. She should have paid more attention to the story and less time reading a thesaurus.

"Look at Me, I'm Mannequin Skywalker!"

There is no real character development. I felt that some of the side characters are more fleshed out than Bella and Edward. There also needs to be a balance of flaws and virtues. Bella's clutziness is so over the top, she is shown as stupid, impulsive, and flighty. She doesn't have many virtues until she becomes a vampire. On the other hand, Edward has no flaws. There is only so long, as a reader, I can suspend my disbelief.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my 2¢.