![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
On character hate, villains, and literary tropes
Just read a comment on my flist by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
copracat in which she made a fascinating point about character bashing in fanfic, which I wanted to expound upon.
It's a well-known phenomenon in fandom, that any character who comes between a pairing will be hated by some fans of that pairing. While it's not the only source of character hate, hatred of the interloper is perhaps the number one reason for char bashing. Sometimes the hated characters will simply be absent from fanfic, or otherwise ignored. But sometimes the chars will be bashed - portrayed in extremely negative, often wildly OOC ways, as scheming, selfish shrews out to ruin love affairs. When it comes to m/m pairings, such romantic interlopers are nearly always female characters (since almost all slashed male chars are canonically heterosexual, so their only canonical romantic partners are female. The reverse can be true with femme-slash pairings; Joxer was hated by some fans for being a potential threat to Xena/Gabrielle.)
copracat points out that such interlopers are a standard trope in romance fiction. A stock female villain in romances is the woman is trying to come between the lovers: "generally shallow, beautiful outside but ugly inside, a harpy to women and a sweet charmer to men, and will do anything to win the hero from the heroine." This is a classic figure: Cinderella's stepsister, Ursula in Disney's The Little Mermaid (Gaston in Disney's Beauty & the Beast is a male variant.) Her love isn't genuine; it's greed, fueled by envy and resentment, wanting what should rightfully be the heroine's. She's an obstacle in the path of True Love, and for a happy ending to be achieved, she must be defeated, losing everything she's unfairly taken.
Like most fiction tropes, this may not be a story that appeals to you personally, but it's one that works for a lot of people; it's a trope because it's emotionally satisfying to many. It's arguable whether it's intrinsically misogynistic; at least in traditional romances it's less blatantly so, because the villainess is losing to a heroine. When this trope is applied to a m/m slash pairing, then it becomes more problematic, because it's vilifying the major female character in the story.
The other problem is that in the original romances, the female villain is supposed to be hated; that's her role in the story, and to like her you must read the text subversively. But when a female character from a non-romance is cast as such a female villain, then that's a subversion of the original text, and is therefore nonsensical to anyone reading the text straight. Moreover, even if you do like slash, if you're not the sort of person who likes this particular romance trope, then the bashing can seem like pointless, malicious cruelty.
A basher who casts a female character as the evil obstacle in a slash pairing isn't necessarily doing it because they want to make people hate the character, or even because that's actually how they view the character; it's because it's how they want to view the character, what is the most emotionally satisfying way to see them, properly fulfilling their role as villainness. In the same way some fans "love to hate" the textual villains of a series, so do some bashers "love to hate" the chars who are villains in their personal reading of the canon, and enjoy fanfic that supports this view, enjoy seeing them get their just desserts - especially if it's never going to happen in canon.
If you are a fan of the bashed character, you may be frustrated with such OOC portrayals, but it will do no good to argue with a bashing fan. Part of the trait of a good female villainness of this style is that she's got the hero snowed; arguing her good points is only evidence that she's successfully fooling some of the audience, too. (Hence the seemingly paradoxical accusations laid on some characters, that they are simultaneously perfect Mary Sues and helpless, useless, pointless characters - the villainness's Mary Sue-ness is that she is perceived to be perfect, while in fact having no real skills beyond duplicity.) And liking this trope may slip over into misogyny with fans of strictly m/m slash who never like het pairings, because pretty much all female characters can be viewed as possible threats to slash pairings, and therefore all of them may potentially be cast as the hated villains.
But much fanfic in general is about casting characters in new roles, about telling different stories and using different tropes than are seen in the canon. And with many fans liking a good villain to hate in their stories, it's hardly surprising that a canon char may be relegated to that role.
(For the record, I'm not into this trope myself; I like my antagonists in shades of gray, and I don't care for villains in love stories. But that's just my personal taste, and I don't feel that fans who enjoy more black-and-white, straightforward tropes are in the wrong for liking them.)
copracat in which she made a fascinating point about character bashing in fanfic, which I wanted to expound upon.It's a well-known phenomenon in fandom, that any character who comes between a pairing will be hated by some fans of that pairing. While it's not the only source of character hate, hatred of the interloper is perhaps the number one reason for char bashing. Sometimes the hated characters will simply be absent from fanfic, or otherwise ignored. But sometimes the chars will be bashed - portrayed in extremely negative, often wildly OOC ways, as scheming, selfish shrews out to ruin love affairs. When it comes to m/m pairings, such romantic interlopers are nearly always female characters (since almost all slashed male chars are canonically heterosexual, so their only canonical romantic partners are female. The reverse can be true with femme-slash pairings; Joxer was hated by some fans for being a potential threat to Xena/Gabrielle.)
copracat points out that such interlopers are a standard trope in romance fiction. A stock female villain in romances is the woman is trying to come between the lovers: "generally shallow, beautiful outside but ugly inside, a harpy to women and a sweet charmer to men, and will do anything to win the hero from the heroine." This is a classic figure: Cinderella's stepsister, Ursula in Disney's The Little Mermaid (Gaston in Disney's Beauty & the Beast is a male variant.) Her love isn't genuine; it's greed, fueled by envy and resentment, wanting what should rightfully be the heroine's. She's an obstacle in the path of True Love, and for a happy ending to be achieved, she must be defeated, losing everything she's unfairly taken.Like most fiction tropes, this may not be a story that appeals to you personally, but it's one that works for a lot of people; it's a trope because it's emotionally satisfying to many. It's arguable whether it's intrinsically misogynistic; at least in traditional romances it's less blatantly so, because the villainess is losing to a heroine. When this trope is applied to a m/m slash pairing, then it becomes more problematic, because it's vilifying the major female character in the story.
The other problem is that in the original romances, the female villain is supposed to be hated; that's her role in the story, and to like her you must read the text subversively. But when a female character from a non-romance is cast as such a female villain, then that's a subversion of the original text, and is therefore nonsensical to anyone reading the text straight. Moreover, even if you do like slash, if you're not the sort of person who likes this particular romance trope, then the bashing can seem like pointless, malicious cruelty.
A basher who casts a female character as the evil obstacle in a slash pairing isn't necessarily doing it because they want to make people hate the character, or even because that's actually how they view the character; it's because it's how they want to view the character, what is the most emotionally satisfying way to see them, properly fulfilling their role as villainness. In the same way some fans "love to hate" the textual villains of a series, so do some bashers "love to hate" the chars who are villains in their personal reading of the canon, and enjoy fanfic that supports this view, enjoy seeing them get their just desserts - especially if it's never going to happen in canon.
If you are a fan of the bashed character, you may be frustrated with such OOC portrayals, but it will do no good to argue with a bashing fan. Part of the trait of a good female villainness of this style is that she's got the hero snowed; arguing her good points is only evidence that she's successfully fooling some of the audience, too. (Hence the seemingly paradoxical accusations laid on some characters, that they are simultaneously perfect Mary Sues and helpless, useless, pointless characters - the villainness's Mary Sue-ness is that she is perceived to be perfect, while in fact having no real skills beyond duplicity.) And liking this trope may slip over into misogyny with fans of strictly m/m slash who never like het pairings, because pretty much all female characters can be viewed as possible threats to slash pairings, and therefore all of them may potentially be cast as the hated villains.
But much fanfic in general is about casting characters in new roles, about telling different stories and using different tropes than are seen in the canon. And with many fans liking a good villain to hate in their stories, it's hardly surprising that a canon char may be relegated to that role.
(For the record, I'm not into this trope myself; I like my antagonists in shades of gray, and I don't care for villains in love stories. But that's just my personal taste, and I don't feel that fans who enjoy more black-and-white, straightforward tropes are in the wrong for liking them.)
no subject
The story is not about stopping the villain from causing great harm, but stopping them from getting they don't deserve, and showing the flaws that explain why they don't deserve it.
Yeeaah. Not my favorite trope. ;) A bit too close to morality plays for my taste. Something I think JKR slipped into, frankly. Part of the reason I found the series so horrifying when it was all said and done.
So I get your explanation and... I'm not really soothed. It's still burning witches, isn't it? It pretty much is pointless, malicious cruelty, right?
no subject
So I get your explanation and... I'm not really soothed. It's still burning witches, isn't it? It pretty much is pointless, malicious cruelty, right?
Hmm. Well, kind of. I guess my point is that it's not pointless for the person doing it. They're getting satisfaction out of it; it's a fun read for them. What it's *not* meant to do is punish those fans of the character. With bashing, it seems like a lot of times fans of the character feel like the bashing is aimed at them, like it's intentionally hurting them, that it's trolling, basically. I'm arguing that it's not (at least not usually), any more than a writer who writes McKeller is intentionally trying to hurt OTP-loving-me.
no subject
The trick with morality plays is the need to have a strong moral rule running through it (something JKR failed miserably at doing). And then there's the even trickier bit of making sure the moral argument you're making is a worthy moral. What moral lesson are you teaching with this story?
If done well, it can be a good form of story-telling. But thinking its simplicity means it's an easy method of story-telling is where the danger comes in.
And that's why I'm not really soothed. Bashing is generally sloppy writing, as far as I've seen. And morality plays do not lend themselves to sloppy writing.
What it's *not* meant to do is punish those fans of the character.
Of course it is. You set a character up as an example of what's wrong with the world, of course you're punishing those who support what's hurting the world. Jennifer is a morally bad person because she answered back to Rodney and needs to be slapped down by John who'd never do such a thing. If you support Jennifer you're a Rodney-hater and a bad person.
I do agree that the people writing such things probably aren't thinking about the people who like the character they've set up as the scapegoat. For the most part they seem surprised such people exist. (But she's so morally disgusting! How could anyone like her?) But you can't say a character is an example of moral wrongs and not think you're saying something about the people who like her.
I'm arguing that it's not (at least not usually), any more than a writer who writes McKeller is intentionally trying to hurt OTP-loving-me.
IIRC, McShep is your OTP? I agree that someone writing McKeller isn't trying to hurt you. As long as it's only McKeller. But if a McKeller story includes a section that exposes John as a morally bad character, brought down by the moral goodness of Jennifer it is trying to hurt you. You're supporting a morally bad 'ship and a morally bad character. Aren't you a bit silly to fall for such an unlikable character? (Probably taken in by his sexiness and totally missing the bankruptcy of his character. Got to look out for the pretty ones. *g*)
Once again I don't think the writers of such things are consciously trying to hurt their readers. As you point out, they think they're writing a universal truth. The character is evil and if you think you like her, well, she's just got you snowed, too. But right there is the insult (I shall save you from your stupidity!).
no subject
A bashing-fic (depending on its nature) may be less about exposing a character's actual, canonical flaws, and more about casting her in a role. It's not a flattering role, but I don't know if it's saying anything about the actual, canon character, other than that the writer's not a fan.
I don't know if this is true; it's supposition on my part. I'd be curious to ask a basher if they actually think they're writing a char IC, or is the OOC deliberate. For some people, writing IC is the entire point; but that is not true of all fic writers.
Once again I don't think the writers of such things are consciously trying to hurt their readers. As you point out, they think they're writing a universal truth. The character is evil and if you think you like her, well, she's just got you snowed, too. But right there is the insult (I shall save you from your stupidity!).
Huh. That's the question, I guess. Who is the intended audience of a bashing fic? Is it written to try to convince people of a character's badness? In which case, yes, it's insulting. But if it's not meant for a fan of the character to read, then it's not about "saving" those fans at all; it's about satisfying an impulse.
And while in the *fandom* the Keller-hate is prevalent, in the *canon* there is zero dislike of Keller. So fans who don't like her - for whatever reasons, could be as simple as that they're doctors and hate all medical chars on TV - get no release onscreen. So they can only get it in fanfic, and thus make up stories, AUs, in essence, where Keller is as disliked as they wish she was in canon.
Ditto the anti-McKeller in fanfic - fanfic tends not to bash non-canon pairings, because there's no point; you can just ignore them. But if you're writing post-s5 canon, and want Rodney or Keller in another relationship, then you *have* to break up the McKeller somehow, explain why it doesn't work out. And quite a few McSheppers go for the gentlest, low-key breakups possible, but they're still going to be denying the McKeller's ship - not necessarily because they want to hurt fans of the McKeller, but because there's no choice.
(Hmm. Now I'm curious how John/Teyla or Ronon/Teyla shippers handle Kanaan...)
no subject
[...]
So fans who don't like her - for whatever reasons, could be as simple as that they're doctors and hate all medical chars on TV - get no release onscreen. So they can only get it in fanfic, and thus make up stories, AUs, in essence, where Keller is as disliked as they wish she was in canon.
But then it's about the character, not the trope. They don't like a character so they make up a way in which she's bad. Like you said, it's satisfying an impulse. The trope satisfies the need to bash a particular character, but I don't think the bashing is done to satisfy a need for that particular trope.
If the writer doesn't think the character they're bashing is deserving of bashing why are they bashing them? If it's just a need to create the romantic trope (moral badness to highlight moral goodness) why not create an OC? The only thing that makes sense is that it does have something to do with the actual character. So, for the writer, they're going for IC. Maybe an exaggerated IC, but they're writing to tear a specific character down.
...quite a few McSheppers go for the gentlest, low-key breakups possible, but they're still going to be denying the McKeller's ship - not necessarily because they want to hurt fans of the McKeller, but because there's no choice.
I agree there are a few, and I've read and enjoyed those fics. But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about fics that set Jennifer up as morally bad character so that John can shine just a little brighter. Taking a character that other fans may like and ripping her apart so another character looks better. (Tearing down the girl to lift up the boy, which is a bit problematic, imo.)
It's divisive in a way a simple 'ship is not, I think because it's an attack form of fic. I think especially since it's not consistently warned about.
(Hmm. Now I'm curious how John/Teyla or Ronon/Teyla shippers handle Kanaan...)
I've read a few John/Teyla (not many) and I've not seen Kanaan bashed. He generally just fades away.
no subject
I do think bashing fic is targeting the bashed character, and deliberately. I don't think it's usually intended to be an attack on the fans of that character, though I can see how it can be taken that way. And it would be nice if it were warned about.
(Tearing down the girl to lift up the boy, which is a bit problematic, imo.)
This is problematic, though it's confusing because it's yoinked from the original trope, which was tearing down the girl to lift up another girl. It becomes extra-twisted in some fics with single-sex relationships; I've seen fic where one male char is bashed in favor of another male char in a slash triangle. And the standard reverse with two guys in love with the same girl, and one guy is portrayed as an asshole (I believe Harry/Hermione 'shippers sometimes so bashed Ron?) (and I don't read much femme-slash, so I don't know if there's ever cases where a guy is torn down in favor of a girl. I did hear Joxer was hated by some Xena/Gabrielle fans?)
I guess my point is...when fans don't like a 'ship, and prefer another 'ship, this is a trope they sometimes turn to? But whether they warp chars OOCly to fit them to it, or whether they particularly use this trope out of the desire to bash, I don't know.
(...as usual, I'm tempted to say it's probably some of both. But that gets to be an unsatisfying answer, after a while...)
no subject
*snerk* Oh did they EVER bash Ron. Same principle, I suppose: he and Hermione were fairly obviously being set up to be together, therefore cue shipper hate. In fact, it wasn't uncommon for Harry/Draco fics to bash Ron too. Ginny and Cho got a lot of this too, despite the fact that Harry/Cho canonically fell to pieces pretty quickly.
no subject
I do think bashing fic is targeting the bashed character, and deliberately. I don't think it's usually intended to be an attack on the fans of that character, though I can see how it can be taken that way. And it would be nice if it were warned about.
Agreed! :D
This is problematic, though it's confusing because it's yoinked from the original trope, which was tearing down the girl to lift up another girl.
True. Though there are problems with the original trope in that for so long the proper behavior of a good or worthy girl was someone who "knew her place", while the bad ones were often striving for what could be seen as a form of independence. So it wasn't necessarily a "female friendly" trope despite the amount of women within the story. (I think this trope is one of the ones being fought against when we ask for stories where we see female friends.)
But that's probably looking too deeply into the history of the trope itself. Because I agree with you that fandom tends to use it for different reasons. And male characters aren't always safe, either.
I guess my point is...when fans don't like a 'ship, and prefer another 'ship, this is a trope they sometimes turn to?
*nods* Yeah, it's a perfect weapon for a 'ship war. (I don't think I saw any bashing-Keller stories following this trope until after canon sailed the McKeller 'ship.)
But whether they warp chars OOCly to fit them to it, or whether they particularly use this trope out of the desire to bash, I don't know.
I think there probably is a sense that the writer is capturing at least something accurate about the character they're bashing. There could be some conscious exaggeration of course, but they're trying to show exactly why character X is so, so wrong for character Y who obviously belongs with character Z.
Also, I was thinking about OCs getting used in this particular trope, and I'm pretty sure I can recall reading some. So there's definitely those who enjoy the trope in and of itself.
no subject
Oh, I definitely think this trope can and does get used to reinforce misogynistic ideas. As well, Sheafrotherdon and a couple others were arguing that you can't divide a trope entirely from its history, which is a valid point. At the same time, I think there is a danger in making assumptions about the motives or innate tendencies of a fan based on what tropes they like; that they may inadvertently be calling on sexist themes does not necessarily mean that they are sexist, or that they are motivated by sexist ideas.
--Interestingly, I was thinking about animanga, and realized that shoujo sometimes has a different version of the trope that would be more acceptable to most fans. In several shoujo I can think of, there is a rival girlfriend char - a girl with a mad crush on the heroine's boyfriend, and is antagonistic to the heroine out of jealousy. In most of those animanga, however, the crushing girl eventually becomes friends with the heroine, realizes that the heroine and the boyfriend are made for each other, and becomes a staunch supporter of their relationship. So it fulfills the need to prove that the OTP is the superior relationship, while not tearing down the interloper char (or at least, building her up again after taking her down - in the shoujo, while usually the jealous girl eats some crow for being so antagonistic, it's not always played that the heroine is morally superior to the jealous girl, so much as that she is the better match for the guy in question.)
It would be like a McKeller/McShep fic where in Keller, after breaking up with Rodney, somehow became best friends with Sheppard and started advising him in dating Rodney. Which I suspect you would find rather more palatable!
no subject
I do agree that assigning motive is a dangerous thing. But I think looking at trends and questioning them is a good thing. IOWs, not saying everyone who bashes a female character is a sexist, but rather questioning why so many female characters are being bashed. It looks sexist, but is it actually informed by sexism? Which, I think you're coming at that question with your post.
In most of those animanga, however, the crushing girl eventually becomes friends with the heroine, realizes that the heroine and the boyfriend are made for each other, and becomes a staunch supporter of their relationship.
Oh, I've run across that before! You're right it's an interesting twist. (I love reading/watching stories from various cultures for just those sort of differences.)
It would be like a McKeller/McShep fic where in Keller, after breaking up with Rodney, somehow became best friends with Sheppard and started advising him in dating Rodney. Which I suspect you would find rather more palatable!
Hee! Much more palatable than a bashing. ;)