#the girl characters are in fact. cool and have autonomy outside of men. even in early oop

[wirtsroom]

sure am living the high life by drinking girly gin drinks and marathonning one piece LMFAOOOOO anywaaaaaaays.

[chalkrevelations]

Episode 31 of Word of Honor, and in many ways OH MY GOD YES, but also, no, show, wtf?

As in, wt actual f is going on? Literally, what is happening?

(Spoilers, so scroll away and come back later, if you need to.)

So, first thing’s first: I feel like this one may end up a bit short, because a lot of it is likely to be just a bunch of keysmash flailing? (EDIT: No, I just came back up here to the top from the bottom, because this is NOT AT ALL any shorter than usual.) I’ll attempt a bit more than exclamation points and worry over whether my poor heart is able to take this, but we’ll see how it goes, because the first thing I’m going to do is say I knew it! and I told you so! I knew you weren’t planning to die, Zhou Zishu. I did call you a liar after Ep 30, and I was right. I mean, what’s the point of having the terrifying master of the Ghost Valley as your boyfriend husband if he’s not going to rescue you after you’ve been kidnapped for attempted ravishment by the evil prince? And get you the best wedding present ever, i.e., a bunch of new disciples? Omg, Zhou Zishu’s face when Wen Kexing finally calls himself a disciple of Four Seasons Manor! (I think he’s so overwhelmed, he doesn’t even realize when WKX calls him “shixiong” a minute before that!) Wen Kexing’s tiny pained smile that he just can’t seem to help when ZZS lays his hand on WKX’s head! That long shuddering breath ZZS lets out, and the way his shoulders just drop, like he’s finally let go of a huge weight! (The worry this brings me, because there are five and a half episodes left, my dude, and your husband is a troublemaker, and I would not be getting complacent, if I was you.) The fact that WKX has knelt to ZZS and called him zongzhu in front of the Ghost Valley contingent – there’s gotta be some political implications to that. Horseback riding! The way WKX keeps holding (up) ZZS! Lol at WKX being all, you all can leave now, we can take our honeymoon alone from here! ZZS knew he would come (I told you so)! Their smiles! Their soft little faces! (Merciless killers! How so fucking adorable?) The hairpin! MARRIED, Y’ALL. Censorship? I don’t know her. ANYWAY, that’s all just a bunch of flailing reaction to the first almost 20 minutes of emoporn. Also, Zhang Zhehan, you should not do suffering so pretty. It makes me feel like a bad person for still enjoying your face so much when your character is in so much physical and emotional distress.

Secondly, show. We need to talk. You should not be this opaque. I’m trying to piece together everything that’s happened in (vaguely) chronological order:

Sometime before dying (before breaking his heart meridians?), Han Ying tells Wen Kexing about the Four Seasons Remnants back with Prince Jin. All of Ep 30 happens, with Zhou Zishu and Xie Wang both making a mess of Awful Prince’s/Yifu’s plans. Xie Wang, the rest of the Scorpions, and the Ghost Valley team retreat back to a lair. Which lair? Who knows, at this point. Cao Weining talks to Fan Shishu. (He explicitly tells this to A-Xiang.) But does he also confront Mo Huaiyang? Because I feel like it must be significant that we get the same turn of phrase to describe Zhao Jing’s relationship with Xie Wang – asking a tiger for its skin – from Mo Huaiyang to Fan Shishu, and then attributed to Cao Weining when A-Xiang quotes it to WKX in the same ep. The show even emphasizes this for us to catch by drawing attention to A-Xiang’s use of it via her struggle to remember the idiom properly. (A. This episode’s convo between Mo Huaiyang and Fan Shishu, which is when we see Mo Huaiyang actually use the idiom, happens AFTER Cao Weining and Gu Xiang leave Gentle Wind Sword Sect. I went back and checked, and it is Mo Huaiyang who uses it, not Fan Shishu. B. In this same convo, Fan Shishu says he still needs to explain all this to the disciples somehow, so C. Was there a prior, unseen convo between just Cao Weining and Mo Huaiyang in which Mo Huaiyang practiced his excuses on poor, hapless Cao Weining first?)

Anyway, Cao Weining then goes to A-Xiang, who’s lit. and fig. in the dark at this point, in her rustic cabin outside the gated community. I notice Cinnamon Roll already has his bag packed. He is done. He lays out the current political web, and A-Xiang seems pretty sure of Liu Qianqiao’s ultimate loyalty to WKX. This is probably important in what happens next. Gu Xiang and Cao Weining decide to run away and elope but then … get captured and taken to the lair. On purpose? A-Xiang did see Liu Qianqiao with Xie Wang in the Secret Cave, standing shoulder to shoulder with Du Pusa as an apparent top-tier henchwoman, and she probably expects to be protected, but this seems like a pretty big gamble. I suppose you don’t survive the Ghost Valley without learning to take some risks. A-Xiang then leads Xie Wang and the Ghost Valley contingent to WKX (at burned-down Four Seasons Manor?) to, she says, let WKX take down Xie Wang. She notes Xie Wang’s use of some potion to control everyone – I assume the Drug Man potion, and I assume the monthly antidote is what’s keeping everyone in the Ghost Valley from going full Drug Man?

WKX and Xie Wang confer in secret. Probably about how much they both hate Awful Yifu. I mean, I assume Xie’er still hates Awful Yifu at this point, but who knows what tomorrow will bring? Probably a key point here: WKX is hiding whatever this was about from his husband. My dude, why are you still like this? I guess that explains the pained cast to that tiny little smile earlier. WKX then takes some of the Ghost Valley contingent and coordinates with the Four Seasons Remnants back in Prince Jin’s territory to rescue ZZS. Husband safely rescued, WKX now heads back to Ghost Valley, to … abdicate? He promises A-Xiang he’s going to come back safely, and my dude, I’m trying to believe you. I really am. I’m trying to have as much faith in you planning to be back all along as I had in ZZS not planning to die in Jin Palace all along, but here’s a key difference: HE LET YOU IN ON HIS PLAN. Which you were a key part of. I find your secrecy, by contrast, concerning.

Other things:

Love the little moment between Gu Xiang and Liu Qianqiao and Luo Fumeng when Beauty Ghost and Tragicomic Ghost turn to Xie Wang in righteous indignation and want to know what the fuck he thinks he’s doing to their little girl. Compare the reaction of these two moms to Happy Ghost being all, “Nope, this is a complete and total in with Wen Kexing right here in a pretty pink dress.” The show continues to draw a fairly bright line between the characterization of the women in the Department of the Unfaithful - who are terrorizing certain people, true, but also watching out for each other after ending up down on their luck – and the general run of men in Ghost Valley, who are basically rotten sociopaths straight out of Batman’s rogues gallery and will sell you out in a minute for their own gain. Yes, this has been made fairly explicit in Wen Kexing’s and A-Xiang’s commentary in past eps and later in this ep about trying to get the Department of the Unfaithful out of the line of fire while not caring if the jianghu burns down the rest of Ghost Valley, but this isn’t just favoritism or a whim, just some fond memories of Luo Fumeng being kind to them a couple of times in the past. I think there’s some commentary here on the kind of men who are so far gone they find themselves outside the bounds of “civilized” society and the kind of women who do – how much easier and quicker it is for a woman, that it could be any woman in the wrong circumstances, and how much further gone a man has to be than a woman to be considered a “devil.” We’ve seen these supportive interpersonal relationships among the women since Gu Xiang “adopted” her two girls in the first handful of episodes and told off Lovelace with the threat of Tragicomic Ghost – and the show is continuing to show it, not just tell it. It’s one of the things I’ve found frustrating about Wen Kexing a couple of times in past eps, when he’s trying to get A-Xiang’s two girls, or other women from the Department, to just leave and go do something else – I feel like even though WKX realizes their circumstances and their personalities are different from the rest of his Top Ten Devils, he’s not fully comprehending that they literally have nowhere else to go, that if they had any other options, they wouldn’t have ended up there in the first place. He called the two girls “puppies” when he talked about A-Xiang having to take care of them, but as Ghost Valley master, who’s enforced the independence of and protections for the Department of the Unfaithful, he’s walking away from his own basketful of puppies. Not to mention, this is one of the vanishingly small places in this particular version of the jianghu that we’ve seen women have any autonomy and power. I … think there may have been a few young female cultivators in Yueyang Sect, but while I’d have to go back and watch to be sure, I remember the Hero’s Conference being a whole bunch of men throwing their … weight around. Anyway, I also love that it looks like A-Xiang tries to kick Happy Ghost in the shin, because of course she does.

Visually, they had a cool thing going on there with the Tian Chuang behind WKX falling in concert with WKX lowering his fan, but they didn’t quite coordinate it enough, and then they cut away too soon. Bah. It was set up to be a very cool visual, if only they had committed to it. Meanwhile Duan Pengju, this asshole, omg. He’s trying to pull off the Collar of Evil and is not succeeding. Srsly, his Collar of Evil is droopy. It doesn’t stop him from monologuing like he’s the actual villain and not some sad-sack lackey. You showed the correct amount of amused disdain during your interaction, but I can’t believe you left him alive at the end of it, Wen Kexing.

I wasn’t really feeling Jing Beiyuan and Wu Xi up until this ep when Jing Beiyuan was teasing A-Xiang about her lack of shame over running away with her lover. OK, fine, you can stay, Qi Ye. Also, wow. Speaking of lack of shame, I can’t believe you just accused your husband of bride kidnapping right in front of everyone’s salads, because that is totally what just happened there.

So the band is (almost all) back together, minus Chengling, who has definitely found out in the worst possible way that one of his dads is the terrifying master of the Ghost Valley that massacred his family and sect. So, this should go well.

Lol at Xie’er lounging in Wen Kexing’s Ghost Valley master seat like some kind of consort. He’s already got a husband, Xie’er. One that would not be happy with a concubine running around, I think. I do wonder what the full scope of their plan/understanding is, bubbling away under this stare-down.

A note – WKX’s hair is styled differently in this ep in the Ghost Valley master scenes than it has been before. Previously, those side bangs were further forward and a little bit chunkier, which, I think, narrowed his face and also helped emphasize the wild-eyed look. They’re wispier and back further, now, which I think softens his face, even when he’s trying to look imposing. Makes him look more, dare I say, human.

And now, I’m going to go have a few Han Ying/Bi Xingming thoughts, actually. God, those months after ZZS left, can you imagine what that was like for them? Han Ying having watched those nails placed in Bi Xingming’s shifu in the first ep, and then having to turn around and go to Bi Xingming and tell him that ZZS was gone, with the seven nails in him? Both of them trying to hold the Four Seasons Remnants together – and then Ying-ge comes back one day and says he’s found ZZS? Mutual aid and comfort, my dudes. Also some projection. I’m just sayin’. Meet me, I guess - this kind of sideline action and extremely rare pair thing is how I tend to roll.

[feminist-hot-takes]

Why “Pop Feminism” sucks

Feminism as popularized by the likes of Katy Perry, Taylor Swift, or Miley Cyrus can be defined simply as “believing in equality of women and men” or “loving yourself as a woman”. I’m positing that this “pop feminism” is interpreted to be the practice of encouraging female autonomy. Women should be able to do anything and everything they want to, free of outside coercion. While much of the earliest feminist conversations have been centered around proving that women are able to do X Y or Z as well as men can, current mainstream concerns are more about encouraging women to actually do those X Y or Z things, and granting them the access and power to do so more easily, without judgement. Women should be CEO’s, presidents, senators, police chiefs, principals, professors... women should share equally in the power men hold over our society, culture, and economy. It’s a numbers game. Women should be able to lead free, autonomous lives. Be a sex worker! Be a housewife! Be a teacher! Be a CEO! Be an instagram model! Be an oppressor! Do whatever you want. Any decision a woman makes “freely” is then feminist praxis. You want to quit your job, leave the demands of the workplace, and focus on raising your children in a household, despite some fake “feminists” telling you not to? Do it! You want to be an escort and live off of rich men? Do it! A woman who tries to tell you what you should or shouldn’t do, or who criticizes your actions to be actually ‘anti-feminist’ is NOT a real feminist, but rather a cranky old lady stuck in the second wave who needs to be fully liberated. Our biggest female celebrities are able to make millions of dollars off their sex appeal, participating in the “sex sells” scheme that has made women famous since the likes of Marilyn Monroe, and still be a feminist. This pop feminism is easy, accessible, fun, and profitable. Forever 21 will sell you “feminist” merchandise. Teen Vogue regularly publishes articles about “feminist” celebrities. Young girls can grow up watching scantily clad Katy Perry, Taylor Swift and Miley Cyrus shaking their asses in music videos, and realize their autonomous ability to “subjectify” their bodies in an empowering way, despite the fact that almost no male pop stars engage in the same supposedly “empowering” behavior. Ariel Levy discusses this rise in “Raunch” feminist culture of the 90s into the 2000s in Female Chauvinist Pigs to be highly influenced by neo-liberalism and the commodification of sexuality. 

What is this brand of feminism trying to prove? That women can do *literally* anything they want to and still be a feminist? Then what’s the point? Pop feminism places the sole defining factor of what is or isn’t feminist into the conscious intentions of the feminist actor, rather than the effects or results of their actions on themselves or others. There isn’t even any strong ethical framework in place to judge what those conscious intentions should be aiming at. For example, pop feminism doesn’t ask feminists to make decisions with the intentions of say, increasing one’s day-to-day happiness, or dismantling patriarchy. Women should just be able to do whatever they want, free of disruption or critique. Without a concrete goal or mission with which to monitor one’s conscious intentions of actions, this feminism falls flat. A progressive movement whose label can be stamped onto seemingly any woman’s actions as “feminist” does not change or better the conditions for women in any way. If we as feminists are not expected to change or monitor our own actions, make sacrifices, or even cater our actions to be intended to accomplish some sort of unified goal, how are we to change anything? Where is the sense in performing the same actions and behaviors for decades and expecting some different, better outcome each time?

I would argue that this feminism even permits women to co-exist and excuse blatant misogyny in a cool “liberating” way. For example, young women may date or have sex with misogynist dirt-bags who see women as objects in order to gain security, housing, food, money, or “woke” clout, even when these women are not in desperate situations where this is their only way of survival. These men are powerful, and use women to maintain this power and status. This logic is troubling. If a slave consciously decides to remain a slave and maintain their perceived existence as an object or commodity to be owned in an effort to secure stability, housing, food... is this liberating? Perhaps in some cases, the risks of revolution or escape are great enough that remaining a slave is indeed a more safe choice. But I doubt anyone would say this is “liberating” in any sense. How is consciously intending the fulfillment of your own oppression liberating?  

This pop feminism is rampant in the mainstream music industry. Besides the celebrities already mentioned, Ariana Grande, Beyonce, Lady Gaga, and Ke$ha are additional spokesmen of this philosophy. Ironically, Ke$ha’s situation with her producer, Dr. Luke, is proof of the phony nature of pop feminism.

When Ke$ha came onto the scene, she was the embodiment of the drunk, stupid, party girl character who puked glitter, had sex in public, and lived life as a “free spirit”. This caricature was framed as feminist, liberating, and re-appropriating the “slut” stereotype. Ke$ha is a liberated feminist! Who can do whatever she wants! Years after her premiere on the scene with the party anthem “Tik Tok”, Ke$ha quietly left the pop world to focus on her lawsuit against her abusive and manipulative producer, Dr. Luke, who held complete control over her financially and professionally. After years of public struggle, weak support from fellow celebrities (ex. Taylor Swift sent over Ke$ha $250,000 in show of “support”, but didn’t do much else) and a stint in rehab for eating disorders and mental health issues, Ke$ha lost. 

Pop music is a machine. While Katy Perry shoots whipped cream out of her bra against an army of Snoop Doggs in a music video, she may be claiming self-objectification and empowerment. But on the other side of the screen are a whole slew of men, directing, monitoring, and profiting off of all things Katy Perry. Just as Marilyn Monroe’s sexualized image was directed and encouraged by the professional world of men around her in order to profit, the same goes for pop stars today. Only now, these pop stars tell us they’re intending to sexualize themselves. So it’s feminist...? Men in the music industry are now benefiting from the feminist branding, sometimes even more than the women they brand. They can continue to produce and control sexualized female celebrities as they’ve always done, but now, feminism is on their side. On the surface, Ke$ha may preach liberation and autonomy and intended sexualization, while behind the scenes, she’s suffering from the same mental health issues as notable sex symbols of the past (Marilyn Monroe, Judy Garland...) and subjected to major abuse. 

Why do we describe the identity of a “feminist” purely by a belief in equality for women and men? Feminists are defined only by sharing a belief, rather than sharing a commitment to action or goals. Feminism is then made apolitical, requiring almost no change in actions or behavior. You can be a republican and a feminist! You can be catholic and a feminist! While this apolitical nature helps the idea of feminism reach farther stretches of the population than say, the Black Lives Matter movement  what’s the point in a movement that carries no firm ethical framework or goal or mission? 

I would argue that this feminism of autonomy is touted mainly by women who don’t experience the more tangible and oppressive effects of patriarchy. Or at least, by women who are unable to truly acknowledge how patriarchy effects themselves.  If women were no longer raped, abused, silenced, and murdered, then of course, women could do anything. If we didn’t live in a patriarchy, a woman choosing to be a housewife wouldn’t have the same implications it does now. Rid of the link between objectification and abuse, self-sexualizing wouldn’t be such a big deal. But we don’t exist in a vacuum. For the women who are daily confronted with the uglies of patriarchy right in their faces, total autonomy isn’t going to do them much good. Autonomy, of course, should be the result of the feminist project. However, depending on it this early in the fight against patriarchy is putting the cart before the horse. Autonomy cannot be both the means and ends of feminism. 

What I’m arguing may lead to some conservative conclusions about women participating in sex work, pornography, etc and whether or not these actions can truly be enacted in liberating manners. As a woman who has freely participated in sex work in the past, I recognize the complexities of the issue on a personal level, and how confusing it can be to navigate as a young female within a capitalist state. It’s a matter of balancing the idealism of a feminist ethics and mission with the realistic situation women find themselves in while living in capitalism. Feminists have been arguing over the ‘sex wars’ for decades, and it seems sex-positive feminism has won. I’d like to dissect this problem more in a separate essay.

[tfrohock]

How to write strong male characters, or writing non-toxic heroes

Okay, that title is a tweak on all of the numerous blog posts I once read (and to be fair, wrote) about writing strong female characters. Remember those? Back a few years, you couldn’t swing a dead rat without knocking down a blog post on how to write a female character. I enjoyed those posts, not simply because what the authors were saying was true, but also because of the empowerment those essays gave to both the authors and the readers.

However, when I floated the idea on Twitter of writing a similar post about male characters, I was met with some snark, such as a recommendation to gender-flip everyone, or make all of the characters female. Frankly, the suggestion of gender-flipping the characters and suddenly all-is-well-with-the-world-and-bluebirds-sing as a solution tells me the individual in question hasn’t been around toxic women, which is another blog post altogether, but suffice to say that gender-flipping isn’t a cure and completely avoids the toxicity of some male characters.

Another individual advised me to write a gender-balanced novel, which tells me they haven’t read mine.

For the record: the male/female ratio from Where Oblivion Lives is 17 men and 15 women. This is a rough count from my style sheet and omits anyone who is/was an actual historical person.

With a bisexual protagonist married to his gay partner, I was highly conscious of the number of females and their roles as I wrote the story. Whenever possible, I made the supporting characters females in high-profile jobs (such as Sofia, who is the chief of Guillermo’s spy unit, and Carme, who is more badass than all the men put together) wherever and whenever possible. However, we’re not here to talk about them.

“TOXIC MASCULINITY" AND WHY I DISLIKE THE TERM

The term “toxic masculinity” is mutable, depending on the time period, who is defining it, and whether it is the product of popular jargon or actual gender studies. No one denies that male violence and sexism are issues that need to be addressed on a cultural level; however, the cause of those issues aren’t necessarily masculinity. Men do not burst from the womb loathing women and fighting the other babies in the nursery. Misogyny and violence are learned behaviors, and one of the many places where men learn those toxic behaviors is by reading books with characters who make misogyny and violence an acceptable part of being male.

Also, I’m not here to lead a discussion in gender studies, because I’m not qualified for that. I’m a writer and we’re here to talk about writing characters that provide positive role models not just for young men, but also for young women. So rather than “toxic masculinity,” I’ll be talking about the toxic behavior we normally ascribe to men, and how I avoided making the men in my novels behave in ways that would make violence and misogyny seem appealing.

I gave the toxic behavioral traits of glorifying violence and power-structures to my antagonists, Jordi and Karl. They believe they are “destined for greatness” and that by virtue of birthrights and poorly constructed ideals of male dominance, their place is assured. Stylistically, I approach these aspects of character through their actions and by what the other characters observe of Jordi’s and Karl’s behavior.

For example: we never go into Karl’s point-of-view, but we see him through Diago’s eyes as Diago walks through a drawing room, looking at pictures of Karl standing triumphantly over big game animals he has killed. Diago notes that “Karl likes killing things.” However, it’s not so much about killing as it is about Karl’s need for dominance over other creatures.

Does this mean that Guillermo and Miquel don’t possess toxic behaviors? No.

The difference between the Jordi/Karl and Guillermo/Miquel dynamic is that Jordi/Karl see nothing wrong with their behavior and make no efforts to change. Guillermo and Miquel, on the other hand, tend to listen when confronted about their behavior, and they do make sincere efforts to modify not just their actions, but also the thought processes that lead to those actions, thereby making an active effort to break the cycle of toxicity.

WRITING NONTOXIC HEROES

Is not as hard as it sounds; although it takes a lot more than just adding more women to the cast. The women have to be proactive and possess agency of their own, and the men need to respond to them as equals.

One of my favorite scenes from Where Oblivion Lives is the dinner scene, where Guillermo’s eight-year-old daughter, Ysabel, decides to make her stand for independence. Her mother, Juanita, is in full support of her daughter and coaching her from the sidelines. Guillermo’s behavior is toxic in that he wants to control the situation, and he uses manipulative means to do so. At the same time, this particular scene is the catalyst for some of the subsequent changes in Guillermo’s personality later on in the novel.

I’ve edited this scene down to its essential parts, but it all begins after dinner when Ysabel asks if she and Rafael and can go outside and play fútbol:

Guillermo traded a calculating look with Juanita. “I don’t see the harm in it.” Before Ysabel could move, he pointed at his jubilant daughter. “But it had better be fútbol and not that spy game you’ve started playing. No more of that. I don’t want you creeping around the compound listening under windows. Do you understand me?”

With her round face and thick auburn curls, she was an eight-year-old version of her father, right down to the way her face belied her guilt when caught flat-footed in a scheme. “How am I ever going to be a proper nefil if I don’t learn how to gather information?”

“If you want to be a proper nefil, you’ll follow orders and I’ve just given you one.”

Ysa showed no sign of letting the argument go, however. “You said you learned on the streets when you were younger than me.”

“That was a different time.”

“Not that different,” Juanita said.

Guillermo’s cheeks flushed pink. “Whose side are you on?”

As cool as her milk-pale skin, Juanita rested her chin on her hand and met her husband’s glare. “It’s not about sides. If she was a boy, you’d be complimenting her on her acumen.”

“That’s not fair,” Guillermo shot back. “I give my experienced female Guards the same respect and assignments as I do the males.”

Ysabel seized the opening. “How did they get their experience?” She didn’t give him a chance to answer. “By doing the work.”

“They weren’t eight years old.”

“I want to learn, Papá.”

Seeking to help his friend, Rafael said, “Ysa is really very good at it, Don Guillermo, and she is very careful.”

High praise indeed, given that Rafael spent his first six years on the streets. Nonetheless, Diago touched his son’s arm and whispered, “Be still.”

Guillermo ignored everyone but Ysabel. “This has nothing to do with your gender. You’re my daughter. If something happens to you, my heart will die.”

An appeal to the emotions. Nice save, Diago thought, taking mental notes in case Rafael developed a sudden interest in proving his value to the Inner Guard through espionage. Fortunately, his son seemed more intent on picking the almonds off his plate with his fingers.

Ysa stood her ground and retorted, “I’d be in a lot less danger with your guidance.”

And touché. Diago wondered what prompted her to challenge her father today. A quick glance at Juanita told him that whatever the reason, she supported Ysa’s cause, because she assessed her daughter’s attitude with the eye of a maestro watching her student deliver a master performance.

Juanita said, “She has your craving for knowledge, Guillermo, and she is ready to begin learning about the family business.”

Guillermo’s cheeks reddened again, but this time from chagrin rather than anger, because everyone at the table knew Juanita spoke the truth.

She continued, “Besides, she’s right: it’s better she work under your supervision rather than running amok on her own.”

* * *

Although I don’t actually state it, a couple of things can be noted from Guillermo’s behavior:

He doesn’t immediately deny Ysabel’s request and send her to her room. The closest he comes to an ultimatum is “If you want to be a proper nefil, you’ll follow orders and I’ve just given you one.” However, he doesn’t cut her off when she continues the argument. This shows he does respect his daughter’s opinion as well as her personal autonomy.

Nor does he treat her like a child. He tries to reason with her on an adult level, and even though he’s manipulative at one point, he knows in his heart of hearts that both of the women in his life are right. That much is evident from his actions. As much as he wants his little girl to stay a little girl forever, he recognizes the fact that she isn’t mortal and that he is going to have to eventually teach her the family business, ugly though it is.

As Guillermo’s character arc develops, we see him proactively working toward changing how he views his daughter and her place in Los Nefilim. Ysabel blossoms into a strong leader in the second novel, primarily because of her parents’ partnership and mutual respect for one another.

Any character (male or female) can certainly possess toxic behaviors—in this particular scene, it’s Guillermo wanting to be overprotective to the point of crippling Ysabel—but the key to making the character non-toxic is having them resist that impulse to lash out and exert dominance over others based on nothing more than the power dynamics of the relationship. Guillermo exhibits a willingness to listen, and subsequently, a willingness to change. These two points are what elevates him over his brother, Jordi.

GIVE THE TOXICITY TO YOUR ANTAGONISTS

As the antagonist, Jordi and Karl exhibit the classic toxicity often associated with male characters. They are abusive, violent, and in their reasoning, the world belongs to them. They feel justified in their excesses. And I deliberately give them those characteristics, because by showing toxic behavior in all its ugliness, I have the chance to contrast the two types of men.

WHY SADDLE THE WOMEN WITH THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SHOWING MEN THEIR TOXICITY?

Parenting is a partnership, where the spouses play to one another’s strengths and weaknesses. In this case, it just happened to be Juanita nudging Guillermo in the right direction. Later on in the same novel, Miquel has his own ideas of how to raise Rafael, which Diago ignores, so it’s not about women but about spouses.

It also just so happened that I needed a character arc for Guillermo and the issue of Ysabel’s upbringing fit his personality perfectly while showing that men make good parents. Which brings me to my final point …

WORDS HAVE POWER

… and our characters exist through our words, so they, too, have power. Writing a story requires being conscious of the world around us, but also of the world we want to see. In stories, we shape our worlds through our characters and their interactions, which often mirror our own. Fortunately, we don’t always have to show our readers the world as it is, but we can explore the world as we’d like to know it. Shifting the toxic behavior normally associated with men from the heroes to the antagonists gives us a chance to reshape our world.

[roxilalonde]

Vriska Serket and the Antihero’s Archetype

In other news, I am endlessly fascinated with the Spidertroll. So I wrote an essay about gender, social perspective, literary archetypes, stages of morality, and Vriska Serket. 

First off: I’m not here to argue that Vriska is perfect. She fucks up. In some cases, she fucks up to the point where she seriously hurts others, mentally and physically, and becomes seriously toxic company. I’m not here to excuse her behavior wrt Tavros, or to justify her treatment of others’ emotional needs, because neither is healthy or defensible. But what I am interested in is how she ended up being the Fandom Recognized “worst troll ever” in a group with (a) a murderous bigot, (b) an abusive murderclown, and (c) a racist with a penchant for bestiality and a characteristic lack of regard for consent. 

The answer: It’s a long story.

Let’s talk about Vriska.

Absolutely necessary in any constructive discussion of Vriska’s character is an examination of her upbringing. Her lusus, a.k.a “Spidermom,” is demonstrably the worst parent of any of the trolls. Keeping her alive requires Vriska to routinely kill or be killed, and it obviously strains her; the psychological effects of having such a huge burden placed on her at a young age are demonstrated here; she voices a strong dislike for her lusus here. Further, Spidermom fails to care for Vriska to any extent you would expect from a parent, and Vriska seems delighted to be rid of her once the game starts. When confronted with the task of killing her parent, she is neither frightened nor even unhappy about it - her only concern is whether she’ll be able to do the job.

Your surroundings as a child define how you view the world and relate to it. Changing that perspective is difficult, and takes years of work and support. People in fandom like to characterize Vriska as a suave manipulator, cruel and unfeeling to the plight of others unless it benefits her to be concerned. But reading her pesterlogs, you would only believe that if you took everything she said at face value, which is a thin reading. A face-value reading implies that Dave likes puppets, Rose hates her mother, and Caliborn is a tactical genius. The impression Vriska gives is that of a person with a fundamental inability to connect with other people, who struggles with empathy in particular. She experiences sympathy - feeling bad that others are suffering - just fine. (Terezi and Kanaya, for example, are both recipients of her sympathy, after she does them harm.) But empathy, or the emotional understanding of others’ emotions as they experience them, she lacks, which evidences that her emotional intelligence never developed as a child (or she can’t do empathy, generally; neither is a character deficit so much as a product of circumstances outside of her control). Passages I think are useful reading here: these pesterlogs with Aradia and John, and the famous pirate cave monologue.

Now, let’s throw in Mindfang. From the onset, Vriska has two clearly established models in her life: a neglectful (arguably abusive) lusus, and an inaccessible, deified ancestor who glorifies violence and unlawfulness. Her value of Mindfang seems to come from Mindfang’s “coolness,” i.e., the fact that Mindfang is never awkward or incompetent. Of course a socially inept child is going to deify someone who’s always in control of their self-presentation. Especially since the Mindfang narrative that Vriska reads is entirely written by Mindfang, so there’s probably some severe manipulation of the facts going down to make her seem cooler than she is. 

And then Doc Scratch. An omniscient deity meddling in the affairs of a prepubescent girl from a young age, informing her that she has no choice in most of her critical decisions, and pushing her towards the decisions that will make possible the Alpha Timeline. He humors her desire for attention and importance by predicating his attention to her on her obedience; when she rebels, tries to develop an independent conscience, he criticizes her. From a young age, Vriska is being told that morality is impossible because everything in the universe is predetermined. That her choice doesn’t matter. Her life is a series of desperate grasps at free will, which has been denied her since birth. So she exerts her control over others to mimic the ways of her role models, Mindfang and Scratch. This is where Tavros comes in. 

That said: Vriska’s treatment of Tavros is inexcusable. It’s degrading, physically harmful, and toxic. Again, I’m not trying to defend it. But I want to point out that it comes from her trying to “improve” him, to change what she perceives as a flaw - his cowardice and indecisiveness. Already, Vriska is an improvement on her predecessors in that when she exerts control over others, she does it out of a misguided belief that she’s improving society - not solely for selfish reasons. And she points what she perceives as flaws with Tavros’ character. (Her comments about his disability, notably, which are ableist and inexcusable, do not fall under this category.) In trying to play Mindfang, and make him into her Summoner, the inept Vriska ends up hurting him. It doesn’t stem from malignancy; it stems from instability, and a lack of emotional intelligence. That’s where virtually all of her problems come from.

Additionally, her egotism in thinking she can “fix” Tavros can be traced to Spidermom and Mindfang, too. Her need to step out of her idols’ shadow leads to a desperate search for recognition, first and foremost a positive one. She’s a neglected child who desperately wants attention. What she does to get that attention is coached in the norms of a brutally violent society, but is a cry for help nonetheless.

Let’s talk about antiheroes.

Contrary to popular belief, an antihero is not just “an imperfect hero” or “a hero who doesn’t always do the right thing.” The antihero, specifically, is a person with ethical principles designed to contrast the protagonist - whom you root for even if they make the wrong choices. The AH has the same goals as the Protag, but a different set of ethics from whence they derive those goals. From TV Tropes:

“An Archetypal Character who is almost as common in modern fiction as the Ideal Hero, an antihero is a protagonist who has the opposite of most of the traditional attributes of a hero . . . often an antihero is just an amoral misfit. While heroes are typically conventional, anti-heroes, depending on the circumstances, may be preconventional (in a "good" society), postconventional (if the government is "evil") or even unconventional. Not to be confused with the Villain or the Big Bad, who is the opponent of Heroes (and Anti-Heroes, for that matter).”

Aranea is a villain. She directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (winning the session, and/or bodily autonomy). Gamzee is a villain: he directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, not dying). The Condesce is a villain: she directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, winning the session). Vriska is not a villain, archetypally: she does not oppose the goals of our protagonists, most of the time, and in fact helps in achieving them. Putting aside the question of whether she’s a bad person, she’s not a Bad Guy.

Her code of ethics most closely aligns with an Antihero - in this case, a preconventional one. There’s a neat article to be written about Vriska’s advancement along the Kohlberg stages of moral development, but for our purposes, “preconventional” just means “I do things for me, and to the extent that doing things for others will do things for me.” Her main goal: fame and glory. Subsidiary goals: help her teammates to win the game, and create a new universe. Unlike traditional preconventional actors, she doesn’t care about her own life and wellbeing, or if she does, only insofar as they can aid her ultimate goal, which is attention and acclaim.

AG: I only ever wanted to do the right thing no matter how it made people judge me, and I don't need a magic ring to do that.

Let’s talk about gender.

Take a moment and tally up all the male antiheroes in popular media you can remember. (Count them twice if they get a redemption arc.) Off the top of my head: Zuko, Lestat, Derek Hale, Nico di Angelo, Severus Snape, Jason Todd, Captain Jack Sparrow, Han Solo, Spike, Tyrion Lannister. That’s without a single glance at the TV Tropes page, either. Those are all from some of the most popular media of the past twenty years: ATLA, IWAV, Teen Wolf, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Batman, PoTC, Star Wars, Buffy, Game of Thrones. 

Now count the women. (Count them as half if their “alternative code of ethics” is “I sleep with and lie to men to get what I want, which is almost exclusively money, until I met Protagonist, who changed my evil ways.”) Personally, I’ve got a decently sized list, but at least half are from Homestuck, with others being characters I go out of my way to explore: Arya Stark, Princess Bubblegum, Marcelline, most women from House. I’d give it to Furiosa, too, although that’s arguable. Maybe you have a long list; if so, please tell me what you’ve been reading/watching lately, because these women are either sidelined in the popular media they appear in, or aren’t depicted in popular media to the same level that their male counterparts are at all. (Note: the one-off female antihero, on the other hand, is incredibly popular, perhaps because the writer doesn’t need to develop her character or give her a substantive arc: see Jyn from ATLA, Calypso from PoTC, Narcissa Malfoy from HP.) 

Here’s why: people are much more inclined to forgive a man for doing bad things than they are to forgive a woman. You can chalk this up to any number of stereotypes about women in media: that they have to be nurturers, or that their “purity” is an important aspect of their being. Regardless, if you look over the TV Tropes page for the antihero (even with the obvious miscategorizations), and you’ll find the vast majority are men. Writers have realized that audiences are far more interested in a morally grey, badass, complex, tragic-backstoried man of action than a woman of the same persuasion. 

Let’s go back to talking about Vriska.

Contrast the fandom’s reception of Vriska with its reception of Eridan. To clarify: Eridan, ultimately, isn’t an antihero. He’s a villain. He murders people. He wants to commit genocide. Furthermore, he has no discernible motivation for this except being a bigoted asshat. But you don’t see 2,000-word callouts for Eridan, despite there being a large portion of fandom that wholeheartedly stans him. This doesn’t mean you can’t be interested in Eridan as a character, or even that you can’t like him, although I don’t understand the appeal, personally. But it means that condemning Vriska, all of whose mistakes are clearly motivated and regretted, probably isn’t the hill you want to die on.

I envision a hypothetical world where Vriska is written a boy. And I guarantee you, in that world, there’s a dedicated group of fans who - unironically - call him “a perfect sinnamon roll” and “my innocent son.” His trauma is openly discussed and sympathized with in fandom. Vrisrezi is in the top 5 most popular Homestuck ships on AO3. The Scourge Bros are the most popular troll ship, period. 

We forgive Terezi for manipulating Dave. We forgive Terezi for manipulating and murdering John. Because hey, narratively speaking, they end up fine, right? (Just like Tavros does.) But Vriska is where we draw the line in the sand. Because she’s an antihero, whereas Terezi has always been a nice, comfortable female protagonist. She doesn’t conflict with John & Co. She is clearly motivated by the Greater Good. Vriska is not.

Conclusion

Vriska isn’t simple. Female characters who aren’t simple inevitably cause controversy, to a much lesser degree than male characters of the same nature. Furthermore, the fact that she isn’t a protagonist in the classical sense - whereas most of her group, in contrast, are clearly written as protagonists - makes her appear “worse” than the others, or even, at an extreme “the worst.” Disliking her is perfectly understandable. Thinking she’s a bad person is reasonable. But please don’t do either without considering why she does what she does, and evaluating for yourself whether she deserves the reputation she has.