Lol, I know there are a lot of points to cover, so no problem. These responses take like an hour to draft up and it’s very time-consuming. Also #LucienDeservedBetter is my first thought upon waking and my last thought upon going to sleep, so it’s safe to say I’ll never stop being a bitter bitch about that LMAO
Okay, on your point about conflict and political correctness, I’ll readily admit that I struggle with applying that term to anything because of its negative connotation. Political correctness is a rather tepid term used to describe any action that takes care not to offend people, and I prefer to describe that behaviour as “common decency”. Political correctness, to me, isn’t grand gestures or undertaking significant research, it’s just small decisions in one’s day-to-day life, like modifying language and remaining aware of microaggressions. For that reason, I struggle to apply it to SJM’s work because the power structures in her fictional worlds are so unclear to me and every expression of equality (usually gender equality) is something you’re basically beaten over the head with again and again, not something displayed in small ways.
From your example about fae males, I can see that you mean politically correct in the sense that them being offensive towards women is something that should be excused (or something that is at least explained) because they aren’t human. I have heard this argument before, I’ve looked into it, I’ve even tried re-reading things with it in mind and I just don’t buy it. Maybe it’s because my mind was already made and I couldn’t try to open it up enough, but I don’t understand how their species makes them exempt from being gross assholes.
You also drew a comparison between the wyverns and suriels and the fae males, but I personally feel that there’s a HUGE difference there. We’re not supposed to think that wyverns and suriels are sexy #BoyfriendGoals.
I’m glad you agree there’s an issue with people thinking that fae male behaviour is something that should be emulated in men in real life, but I also wonder if you think that young women would be able to tell the difference? Because I’ve seen ToG books in piles for under 12s at bookstores and there’s even a post going around about kids in Year 7 (13 years old) reading ACOTAR as an advanced reading thing (I think? Whatever it is, it’s school-sanctioned because I remember that that in particular shocked me). What do you think about those young women being exposed to this behaviour in YA books at formative times in their lives? I know that when I was 13, hell even 15 I would not have had the maturity or the experience to metabolise these messages and transform them into something healthier. The only thing that set off alarm bells for me was that these males sounded like the men I’ve dealt with, the ones that believed they were owed my time and affection and company and body because they were “nice guy feminists", and I like those, right?
Also, for me, the argument that there’s a discernible difference between the behaviour of human men and fae males and these are actually intended to be distinct falls apart post-ToD with this lovely quote:
I am happy to be corrected, but there are no fae in ToD, right? So both men here are human. I know Chaol is, and it’s his inner monologue, and that’s damning enough as far as I’m concerned. We also don’t need “male” as a noun because they’re human, not fae, but whatever.
The fact is that this behaviour may have peaked in SJM’s writing after her inclusion of fae, but it’s pervasive and speaks to an underlying misogyny present throughout all interactions she writes, romantic or not. This is what we’re putting in the hands of young girls and calling feminism.
I think the assertion that misogynistic behaviours are a flaw is … I just struggle with it a little. It does nothing to hinder their individual narratives. Their love interests call them pricks for it, but it becomes loving and indulgent. A flaw that doesn’t have a negative impact isn’t a flaw in my opinion. They’re just misogynistic and no one cares.
Conflict doesn’t have to come from open bigotry, nor does it have to be built on sexist, racist, homophobic, and ableist tropes. Plenty of YA authors manage without that. Rick Riordan and Leigh Bardugo, for example (though Leigh is disabled herself, so ableism isn’t as much of an issue in her writing). I personally feel there is more conflict in Six of Crows than in the entire ACOTAR trilogy, and that’s managed without its male heroes and love interests making casual comments like “territory claimed” and getting away with it. (As a side note, can you imagine Nina’s face if Matthias said that? A nice thought for this beautiful evening.)
I agree that conflict-free stories aren’t fun to read about, but these things don’t create conflict between characters unless it’s plot convenient. Tamlin’s storyline does address this, yes, but it’s never mentioned that what he did wrong wasn’t just locking Feyre up in ACOMAF, it was taking her from her family to begin with. It wasn’t just grabbing her once in ACOMAF, it was biting her after Calanmai in ACOTAR. And what Rhys did UtM? Just as bad. He lied to her, manipulated her, assaulted her, drugged her, and got to explain it all away with a tragic backstory. It angers me to be encouraged to root for a character whose behaviour has ever been so disgusting, and that his victim should thank and love him without him ever issuing a genuine apology. Velaris is not a good enough excuse. He didn’t have to do half of what he did.
But that doesn’t mean it causes conflict. Not once she sees Velaris and his friends and writes how he’s the most handsome High Lord over and over again.
I agree that Tamlin’s progression from love interest to abusive ex was a good thing to see happen in YA, but Feysand cancels that out for me, especially after ACOWAR and the death pact. I loved seeing Feyre recognise the issue and turn away from it, except that then it didn’t feel like she was turning, she was being pulled, and she ended up being pulled right back into the arms of someone that proved he was willing to hurt her to achieve what he wanted long ago. And then they never talk about that again.
Personally, I don’t know that I’ll ever feel that a fictional context excuses inappropriate behaviour. There’s also a difference between reading about someone being disemboweled and reading the “territory claimed” bullshit because young readers (and women in particular, because that’s the audience we’re talking here) aren’t likely to meet a witch that feasts on the blood of men. They are likely to encounter boys their own age raised on violent porn and casual misogyny who are making comments just like these. And when we make that appealing? That’s a problem.
Again on your point about violence, I believe there is a big difference between stylised and genre-typical violence and casual sexism. Young girls don’t meet dragons or evil fae kings and queens. They meet boys that treat them like meat. Our responsibility as writers in these areas are two different things.
To avoid using my own writing as an example (because that’s opportunistic and weird), I’ll talk about something that I love both critically and for similar reasons that I dislike SJM’s work: the TV show The Originals.
Over the course of four seasons:
An attractive, ship-worthy male openly professes to being a feminist and practices what he preaches
A centuries-old wlw eats rapists and invites their victims to run away with her
A young, beautiful girl in distress is found by an immortal man who immediately starts a war over her, takes her under his wing, and goes “well I guess I’m her dad now”
Two wlw fall in love amidst drama and violence. Both have names and character arcs and backgrounds and trauma and history. It’s imperfect, but it’s present and important
The first person to call them “girlfriends” is one of their asshole brothers, and he means it kindly and takes the time to validate the relationship amidst a lot of other shit going on for him, like his daughter’s life being in constant danger or losing his brother to a violent demon. His history is more violent than Rhys’s (burning whole villages that he didn’t like, open slaughter, etc) but his sister is entirely comfortable with him knowing about her bisexuality and her current relationship and none of this is a dramatic twist of events
Though the seat of power is constantly entangled in a game of musical chairs, the only two people shown to hold it peacefully and fairly are men of colour who work together, and this is directly linked to how reasonable, rational, and fundamentally good they are in comparison to the white family that tries to occupy the throne every chance they get
People who suffer from trauma are given entire episodes to deal with it, more often than not with the aid of a practicing psychologist
This is also the same series where, in the first episode alone:
Five people are beheaded in the first 2 minutes
A man slits open a woman’s throat with a vine and takes her corpse to use as leverage in negotiations with her family
Two hearts are ripped out
Two immortals have a pissing contest for 5 minutes, stabbing and beating one another up repeatedly
And that’s one episode. Which of these lists has more of an impact on me? On my values? On the values of others? It’s not list 2.
The little things matter. Representation matters. I don’t give a flying fuck about the violence on this show, nor any book; it doesn’t make me want to kill people, or curse them, or burn them alive. But watching people support women and be critical of their surroundings makes me want to be better at that. I don’t experience fae and dragons or vampires and witches in my real life. I do experience men that believe they’re entitled to me. I do experience ableism, people who want to cure me when I can’t be, people who say things like “if I were you I’d want to kill myself” (which is what abled people are saying when they write that, by the way). I do experience homophobia and unsafe environments that force me to remain closeted (and yet I’m supposed to pity Azriel for making Mor uncomfortable? I should pity Rhys for making her unsafe in her own city?).
Ultimately, these aren’t tropes that are criticised by the narrative. At no point do I see that Sarah thinks that Azriel shouldn’t make Mor feel like she has to screw men so he doesn’t get too close to her. I don’t see that Sarah believes that a disabled person can be happy without magic to help them survive. I don’t see that Sarah believes that it’s wrong for a man to refer to a woman as “territory”. She includes these things again and again and does nothing to reassure me that I, as a cripple, as a survivor, and as a wlw, am reading a narrative that respects me and condemns people that disrespect me. It’s just whatever sounds cool at the time, and god forbid someone criticise that on Twitter.
On the point of her style, while I understand it being subjective, there are basic rules to writing like “repetition is bad” that stand true no matter what. These are separate from the subjective things I don’t understand, like “male” and “female” to describe non-gendered things like smiles or promises or doorknobs. I agree that’s a matter of taste, but the em-dashes are something any editor worth their salt would cull the living fuck out of and I genuinely don’t understand how that didn’t happen.
I haven’t read ToD, but I have been fed snippets by friends (fans and antis alike). I detail my feelings more clearly before (you can probably find more if you search “anti sjm” on my blog), but the basics are that I knew going in that I wasn’t going to like it because a) I don’t like her style, as established, and b) it would mention Aelin hundreds of times, and c) it’s about a depressed disabled man who wants curing. That’s what she based the entire book on, so I gave it a miss.
Have you read it? If so, what were your thoughts?
