I understand the instinct to write fiction that "deconstructs" a popular fictional heroine.
When there's a heroine of a well-known story whom everyone loves and considers a role model, but she's completely different from you and you know you'll never be like her, it makes sense to want to tear her down a little bit. Especially if she has flaws that her fans tend to ignore, or if there are supporting characters or other stories' heroines whom you like just as well if not better, but whom the fandoms either ignore or bash for not being like her. So it makes sense to want to write either (a) original fiction with a heroine who's more like you, with a character similar the popular heroine portrayed as more flawed, or (b) a perspective flip of the popular story that makes a different character the protagonist and frames the original heroine in a less positive light.
But sometimes, the popular heroine's flaws are already acknowledged in the original text, maybe even to excess; just because the fandom forgets them doesn't mean we should judge her more harshly than the already judgmental original author did. And maybe more importantly, sometimes in her original story, that heroine was a misfit or an underdog; maybe she was written to deconstruct an earlier concept of who "deserves" to be a heroine.
In one of the fantasy stories I write just for fun (which I might try to publish someday), I originally had a supporting character who was modeled after Jo March in Little Women. I didn't portray her very positively, because I wanted to highlight Jo's flaws that pop culture tends to overlook and to point out that other girls like her sisters are just as worthy to be heroines. But then I had second thoughts. Pop culture may sometimes overlook Jo's flaws, but Jo's creator and real-life counterpart Louisa May Alcott certainly didn't! Alcott is sometimes very self-deprecating in her portrayal of Jo! Maybe too much so. And among the Little Women fans whose favorite March sister is Amy and who passionately defend her online (a cause I support), I see them take bad faith interpretations of Jo’s character that aren’t the way I read her at all, and basically shame her for being a tomboy. I finally decided that Jo has been deconstructed enough.
So I made some changes to that character in my story and decided to model her after Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice instead. Goodness knows, the Austen fandom has always idealized Elizabeth too much, and sometimes been nasty about other Austen heroines (e.g. Fanny Price) because they're not feisty or witty like she is. And since Elizabeth is much more ladylike then she's often remembered as being, deconstructing her a little wouldn't feel like tomboy-shaming. But now I’m having second thoughts about this choice too. In certain parts of the Austen fandom, it seems to be popular nowadays to accuse Elizabeth of being "mean" – to Darcy, to her sisters, to Charlotte, or to anyone she ever has a negative opinion about – which most of the time just isn't true. I've also been concerned about what I’ve read of Elizabeth’s portrayal in The Other Bennet Sister, and how it frames her as something of a privileged foil to her underdog sister Mary. Because I realized that the original Elizabeth is an underdog in her own right: not compared to Mary, but compared to Jane. Unlike her older sister, who is more traditional heroine material, she’s not a model of beauty, gentleness, sweetness, or good manners: she’s outspoken, sassy, and cynical, rich people talk behind her back about her unfashionable manners, she has actual flaws and character development, and even her own love interest finds her looks only “tolerable” at first. Part of Austen’s whole point in creating her might have been to make a heroine out of a girl who wouldn’t normally be one.
For a similar reason, I have misgivings about people who want to deconstruct Emma because of how “unlikable” Emma is: for example, Andrew Davies’ planned sequel with Jane Fairfax as the heroine, which he wants to do because, in his opinion, “Jane Fairfax is the real heroine of Emma.” Some Austen fans argue that this is missing the whole point, because Jane Fairfax is the girl who traditionally would be the heroine. What makes the novel unique is that a character like Emma would typically be the "mean girl," foil to the heroine, à la Caroline Bingley or Mary Crawford, but instead she is the heroine, and is made likable despite her flaws and allowed to grow and change.
Writing new heroines who break the mold of what heroine "should" be? Fantastic! Let's keep that time-honored tradition going strong! But tearing down the heroines of previous generations, whose flaws are already laid bare in the original text and whose "failure" to fit the mold of an "ideal" heroine was part of the whole point of their creation? I'm now having second thoughts about that.
areudirty
pixelskylines
stormborns
dailybridgerton
origamiaround
yousharknotpass
titsay
discoholicmusic
amandla
