I guess I’ll throw this under “Salmon Says Something Not Everyone is Going to Like”?
So, it feels like everywhere I go lately there’s a lot of debate pitting various mediums of storytelling against each other. And by that I mean like, books vs audiobooks, shows vs podcasts, etc.
Now, I love books. But I also love stories. And by that I mean anything that tells a story. There’s a reason my tumblr is literally titled “Just a Girl Who Loves Stories.” If they’re in my wheelhouse, I’ll take them in any format. I’ve even been convinced to step outside of my wheelhouse when someone is convincing enough about what I might love about this particular story. Stories get me through the day. Heck, stories have gotten me through every struggle in my life.
I have read thousands of books, watched hundreds of shows, played hundreds of games, and listened to dozens of tales.
You’ll note that the listening is my lowest number. And I must confess even when watching shows I have long been the type to turn on the subtitles because I will fail to catch what is said. I’ve even rewound and rewatched scenes while multi-tasking because I realized I’d lost track of what was happening even though I was listening. Same with podcasts and other forms of audio storytelling.
On the flip side, I am able to read a 300+ page book in a day, then proceed to recap the entire plot from start to finish, explain why someone is my favorite character in detail, and likely give you a list of my favorite quotes.
Why is that?
Well, it doesn’t have to do with literacy, though I’ve been complimented on mine before. It has to do with learning.
So, over 20 years ago, I taught cake decorating. (Yes, Salmon is old, this is established.) Now, the company I worked for held seminars which we as instructors attended to learn how to be better instructors. One of the lessons that really stuck with me from those seminars was about learning.
It was about how various people take in information and learn in different ways.
There’s a reason we had books, and those books had diagrams, but we still stood at the front of a classroom and spoke aloud all the information in said books. There was a reason we demonstrated what we were teaching them, and that our students then had hands-on practice.
This is because some people, you can hand instructions to. They can read them, and they can follow them with no issue. That same person, if you do not give them the written instruction - if you just verbally tell them what to do - they won’t be able to follow the instructions. They’ll do something wrong or forget steps.
The reverse is also true. You can hand someone a list of instructions and they can read it ten times, and still not be able to understand something on it. Yet, if you verbally explain it to them, they’ll get it done.
Meanwhile, some people need to see the diagrams to understand. Or some other form of visual representation - such as watching a demonstration.
Some people even then might not quite understand how something is meant to be done until they try it themselves. That’s when something finally clicks in their brains that connects the action to the description.
The bottom line is, not everyone’s brain is wired to learn the same way. What formats are best for each person vary. Which is why, in most learning environments, all of the possible ways to learn are implemented to at least some extent.
When I was younger, I think I was horrified at the notion someone might not like reading a book.
Older, and perhaps a tiny bit wiser, I like to think that by applying those long ago lessons on how people learn to storytelling, I can understand how that’s possible.
I also think it has a place in the discussion of story format.
Maybe your preferred medium of stories isn’t actually superior. It’s just that your brain is wired to learn best from that format, whereas someone else’s isn’t.
“Salmon says something not everyone is going to like.” You know the drill.
There seems to be this trend in newer shows where someone who was abused or mistreated always offers forgiveness to their abusers. And, in all honesty, it’s getting to the point where it’s bothering me.
I’m not talking about redemption arcs, or situations where both parties hold blame for hurting one another, or when characters make mistakes or bad judgement calls.
I’m talking about situations where one person fully abuses the other, does not redeem themselves, but the story decides it needs to explain the abuser’s behavior, and the victim forgives them. Even though there’s no redemption, even though they don’t express remorse. And it’s treated like this moment about how good the person is for doing this.
And the first time I saw it, I mostly ignored it. Then it happened again, and I was like - I don’t like this trend. Then it got to three and counting and I just…
Not forgiving someone is perfectly valid. Even if they did apologize, that doesn’t mean the wronged party owes them forgiveness. Let alone not offering it. It doesn’t make someone a bad person to be like - I don’t care the reason they were awful, they made the choice to be awful, and I choose not to forgive.
Nor is it wrong to be angry at the person for what they did. There’s this whole “anger is evil” thing going on in modern stories and… anger is a valid emotion. It’s a valid reaction to abuse and mistreatment. The villainization of anger bothers me and seems to go hand in hand with this “good characters must forgive their abusers” trend.
Honestly, when did we stop cheering when the villain got their ass beat for their past misdeeds?
When did we stop waiting excitedly for the moment when the character stands up for themselves and fights back?
When did we start pandering to the notion that forgiving abusers is the only way for a character to be truly good?
Cuz I have to be honest here. I’m not loving the message.
Time for “Salmon Says Something Not Everyone is Going to Like”. (Really, just filter #salmonrants and #salmon rants to avoid these if they bother you.)
So, I’ve ironically raged a lot in defense of shipping over the years. Despite the fact that, I would be the first to tell you that platonic bonds, found family, and friendship saves the world are among my favorite tropes. Despite the fact that I have written dozens of non-romantic fanfics over my years in different fandoms. Despite the fact that most of the time I don’t even like the main ship of the stories I invest in.
But, I’ve also written about why I hate love triangles, and why I don’t like “realistic endings”. How I feel the defense of platonic bonds often comes out the most often the moment someone dares suggest a queer interpretation rather than in an honest wish for more plotlines involving platonic bonds.
What I’ve never done, apparently, is talk about why I, despite often getting more invested in the platonic bonds of a show over the main romances, have such a negative reaction to unhappy endings to ships, or having certain characters end a story without a romance.
I saw a post for a show praising this type of “realistic”, “non-romantic” ending, and it was a show I disapproved of their choice of endings in that way, and it got me thinking. Especially since there’s another show I would truly favor a non-romantic ending for a character who I know isn’t getting that. So I decided I needed to boil down the difference in how these two shows could evoke such opposing feelings about the end of character arcs for me.
And it comes down to the art of Storytelling.
At the end of the day, these are all pieces of fiction. And everything put into that fiction, into that story, is what makes your audience feel certain ways. Towards characters; towards relationships; towards endings.
If you spend a large amount of your audience’s time on a romance, if you spend so much of a character’s presence in the story on them having romantic feelings for someone, then expecting the audience to find a non-romantic ending satisfactory is unreasonable.
If you want a non-romantic ending to be satisfactory, you need to work for it just as much as you do your romantic ending. You need to place as much emphasis on the platonic bonds as the romantic ones. You need to write less scenes for the romance, and more scenes for the platonic bonds. If the character has very seriously pursued romance, you need to show when this stops mattering as much to them. You need to end the pursuit of romance and show them finding their happiness during the actual story.
If you have built your audience’s expectations up with a romantic plot, only to drop it at the very end, it’s little wonder if your audience finds it unsatisfactory.
Contrary, if you spend much of a character’s story on how little they desire or value a romantic relationship, shoving them in a romance is not going to be satisfying to a good portion of your audience. It’s a rare story, and actually telling it and then going back on it feels just as much a betrayal as a non-romantic ending after a romantic build up.
I would love some more stories about platonic bonds. I would love stories showing characters having happy endings that aren’t a romance. But I don’t want lazy stories who I have not seen put in the work to actually tell them, get a pat on the back for supposedly upholding platonic stories and non-romantic endings.
No ending is ever going to be 100% satisfactory for its entire audience. But to me, build-up should equal pay-off. Not delivering isn’t a bold plot twist, it’s just poor storytelling.
Time for Salmon’s going to say something not everyone is going to like. You know the drill. Yadda, yadda.
So, originally my goal was to write a fandom specific rant about this, in regards to the treatment of a certain character in canon. And I still might do that. But that would be a different rant. I don’t have high expectations when it comes to classism in published work. Nor do I admittedly have much faith in people calling it out. Perhaps that's part of the reason I am far fonder of high fantasy than contemporary fantasy, and my taste in science fiction tends towards dystopian, retrofuturism, or older works closer to science fantasy or space opera. Honestly, a lot of high fantasy actually tends to be very anti-classism, and numerous older science fiction made anti-classism allegories.
But in recent years, there’s been a lot more historical fantasy and contemporary fantasy/science fiction, and that seems to come with a heaping side of casual classism in the writing. Nor do I mean this in a “there is addressed classism in the writing.” No, when I say there is casual classism, I mean there are statements made and stereotypes used and neither the story or the writers call themselves out on it. And, sadly, this really does carry over into the fanfiction and meta of various shows. There’s been a few times I’ve almost back buttoned out of fics that I otherwise was really enjoying when the writer suddenly drops in something classist without even blinking. And not in an unreliable narrator way. In an “I’m serious about this statement” type of way. Usually, I remind myself of the classism in the show, unclench my jaw, and keep reading. Once or twice, I have just noped out, though.
So, right now you’re probably like, well this seems very vagueing, Salmon. And I don’t intend to call out any one fandom, nor any specific meta or fics. But i do have a list of examples. So let’s get to those.
Cleanliness
This is a big one. When a character is poor there are always comments made about their cleanliness. Indications that they’re filthy or smelly. Or that their living areas are dirty or stained or smelly. And, really? It’s classist crap.
I have been inside so many middle-class homes that were so filthy that I was frankly forced to wear a customer service smile to pretend that my skin was literally not crawling. (Like, you're my friend babe, but when there are moldy strawberries on the rug by your couch - I am uncomfortable.) I have met people from all walks of life whose hygiene was very questionable. And, honestly, cars? I swear, the more disposable income a person has, the less they seem to care about the state of their cars. The poorer they are, the cleaner they seem to keep their vehicle. (Probably because there’s a very real possibility of them having had to sleep in their car at one time or another and it's much harder to sleep in the backseat if it's covered in empty food containers and sticky substances.)
“But what if they don't have a washer/dryer?” There are these two things called “handwash” and “drip dry”. Also, laundromats exist.
“But without a shower and/or tub, they'd obviously be dirty.” I don't know how to tell you this but a bar of soap, a cloth, and a sink and/or water basin are enough to clean off visible dirt and prevent you from smelling. It's nowhere near as nice as a hot shower, but it will get the job done.
And old things are not automatically broken, dirty, or stained. Well cared for things can last for years.
Alcoholism & Substance Abuse
The factor about this that annoys me is less about anyone telling a story about alcoholism or substance abuse. It’s in the fact that the moment a poor character drinks multiple times, or uses any type of drug even once, they are almost always written as alcoholics or addicts. The few times the story does not refer to them as such, the fandom is quick to start referring to them as such. Moreover, this happens regardless of whether middle-class and upper-class characters in the same story drink just as often or use drugs more than once. There are multiple stories focused on alcoholism or addiction with a middle-class or upper-class character. That’s not really the issue, either. The problem is in the fact that if writers don’t go out of their way to state that a middle-class or upper-class character is an alcoholic or addict, nobody suggests they are. Even if they are shown drinking numerous times. But put a drink in a lower-class character’s hand even once, and suddenly they’re an alcoholic.
Literacy
Overall fiction and fandom alike seem to fall into the notion that literacy is directly connected to class. Both historically and contemporary. The problem is that the issue is not at all so clear-cut. Literacy is still an issue today, and an even bigger issue historically - but the problem with literacy is who was illiterate is a very mixed bag. Really, there is a lot related to literacy including time period, location, gender, religion, and what type of work someone's parents did. There were many times and places in history where you could absolutely write a story where an upper-class child is completely illiterate because it was deemed an unnecessary skill, and a poor child is very literate because they were taught by a parent whose work required them to be able to read and write. Nor is literacy directly related to if a child attended school - there were other ways to learn to read and write. So while in any type of historical or historical fantasy having a larger portion of characters be illiterate is more realistic, relegating it strictly by class is not.
Working Class Jobs vs College
This is going to be my longest rant. NGL, this one is a little personal. Simply put, there is a lot of very casual referencing to working class jobs in a derogatory fashion. Commentary that prescribes to the notion that anyone who did not attend college and earn a degree is unintelligent, incompetent, or lazy. This varies from actually insulting the working class jobs outright, using negative stereotypes for working class characters, and/or to a much more insidious form of it where it is made to be about how a character is “too good” or “deserves better” than being working class. The latter is the most frustrating because people do not even seem to be aware of how insulting it is. The underhanded meaning of it.
“This character is working class but they're intelligent so clearly they shouldn't be working class” basically only seems uplifting because people are sold on the idea that working class = stupid.
“This person is working class but they must find a way to go to college in order to have a meaningful life.” Because having a meaningful life is directly connected to your career and tax bracket?
There's nothing inherently bad about stories where a character wants a different life. What is bad is the suggestion that the reason for this isn't personal (“My dream is X.”), but simply because working class jobs are “beneath” the character (“But they are capable of getting a “real” job” (As opposed to what exactly? A phony one?)), or that happiness is tied to ambition (“But it's such a waste of their life to just be an X!”).
Knowledge/Skills
Being lower class also doesn't mean a character has limited fields of knowledge or skills available to them. You can learn things outside of a classroom. Libraries exist. I have never been in the book section of a second-hand store that didn't have someone's abandoned textbooks and multiple shelves of non-fiction. You can self-teach yourself an instrument. A neighbor can teach you arts and crafts. A co-worker can teach you a second language.
Look, I don't hate the master cooks, or the mechanically inclined lower class characters. But that doesn't have to be the limit. They can speak three languages. They can be an expert on local history. They can be bizarrely obsessed with African Elephants! Niche interests exist.
It's just so disappointing to see how prevalent these types of things are in modern fiction. It's equally disheartening to see how even when it isn't in the fiction itself, it may still be a prevalent attitude or concept in the fandom. It makes me want to shake people sometimes, because it's easy to see how they don't realize the people they are being so derogatory towards are people they're literally sharing fandom spaces with.
Okay, so time for Salmon says something not everyone is going to like. Always, always, always, right? This is a fandom rant - Roswell New Mexico - mostly about Episode 08 of Season 4. And mainly revolves around Michael, but not because I’m complaining about Michael. The exact opposite. As always, tags are avoided, so please respect that.
First off, I literally had to go look it up because suddenly I was doubting my own memories of the episodes but…
Isobel didn’t teach Rosa how to pick out individual sounds. Michael did! Isobel and Max were trying to help Rosa with her powers, but they totally failed - partly because Rosa was still angry at Max, but still the facts are they failed. The one who succeeded was Michael - because he was a fellow musician and could tell her in words that made sense to her. So why was Rosa talking about Isobel teaching her to pluck out the sounds? Did the writers fail to double-check their own episodes? Because that was definitely, definitely Michael.
Yeesh, like… let’s give credit where credit is due here, okay? I love Izzy, but she was the most help to Maria, not Rosa. Moving on…
I now feel like I know why Kyle couldn’t return to New Mexico yet, Dallas had to be shoved through the quicksand portal, and Isobel had to be with Tezca the entire episode. Because if any one of the three of them were present, they would never have allowed the others to lie to Michael about Alex. Liz, Max, and Maria are seriously the King and Queens of bad decisions, but this one has to take the cake. (Liz is the highest on my character list of the three but she still has a long list of very bad decisions.)
I absolutely hate that Michael’s reaction to the lies was treated as wrong. That the writing claims it was him falling back on old habits and “acting like a baby” - because, honestly? This time his anger was justified. Keeping this from him was a betrayal of trust. All season, Michael has made an effort to be open and honest with everyone. He has struggled but ultimately worked hard to not fall on old habits and succeeded. So, no, his anger wasn’t him acting like a child or being unnecessarily cruel. Everyone he has been making an effort with all season repaid that openness by lying to him.
Max definitely deserved to be punched - because this is not the first, second, or even third time of this sort of behavior from Max. The Pod Squad has kept saying - no more making decisions for each other (s1), no more making decisions unless it’s all three of us (s2); no more lying to each other (s3). Michael and Isobel have put in a shit ton of effort to keep by those words. And then there’s Max. So, no, Michael should not have to apologize for his anger or his behavior towards the man who is supposed to be his brother and have his back. Max deserved it. 1000%.
While anger can lead someone astray if it runs rampant or is used in place of other emotions - that doesn’t mean it is never justified. The idea that someone does not have the right to speak up in anger when they are mistreated is a load of crap. You don’t want someone to call you out? Don’t be an asshole. If you are an asshole, then - no - nobody owes it to you to play nice. Nobody has to keep quiet and not say you’re an asshole. They have every right to call you on your crappy behavior. You made your bed, so gd lay in it.
Which leads me to the last complaint - and oh, how I wanted to punch my screen.
So Liz gets to own up to her behavior to Michael. “The Lair is closed to liars” “I deserve that.”
Max gets to own up to his behavior to Liz. “I should have pushed back harder on keeping Michael in the dark.” and to a lesser degree to Michael. “You were upset, I reckon you still are and I didn’t do you any favors hiding the truth from you.”
But Maria, of fucking course, does not. She almost does, we get so gd close to her finally admitting to poor behavior, and the writers - of course - have Michael cut her off and apologize instead. And Maria, of course, does not bother to argue that he deserves her apology.
Do the writers want me to hate her? Seriously, is that the goal here? Cuz at this point, mission accomplished. I hate, hate, hate when they do this to female characters.
“I did 50 things wrong but never have to apologize and every character fawns over me and whoever doesn’t gets treated like they’re the bad guy.”
Amber from the Tribe, Elizabeth Lochley from Babylon 5, and Alyssa from The Order all suffered from this shitty ass writing choice. They’re all absolutely awful. They are downright cruel to people, make terrible decisions, never admit when they’re wrong - and the writing bends over backward and has characters bend over backward to claim they are gd Saints. I hate every single one of them, and Maria is written exactly the same way. So, fine, towel thrown in. She is officially chucked into the “I hate this character” bin. All I can do is grit my teeth through her scenes, and be thankful Liz didn’t get picked for this crappy Female Saint writing choice - as it usually is the main female who is.
It’s time for another episode of “Salmon says something not everyone is going to like.”
I find myself in a very odd place with this particular topic. Especially because I am someone who places a lot of emphasis on platonic relationships in my own writing. I’ve also spoken of adoring various interactions in shows because they were about friendship, family, found family; etc. However, over the last couple of years, I’ve also noticed a great deal of negative reactions to queer interpretations of fiction inside fandom spaces. Negative reactions to queer interpretation outside of fandom spaces remain sad but unsurprising to me. Inside is a different and very frustrating story.
When I first came into fandom places - at the risk of showing my age, that would be over two decades ago now - I slid right into the portions of it that were open to queer interpretation of stories. Honestly, as a lesbian growing up in the time and places I did - original queer fiction was not easily accessible. Queer Representation was nigh onto non-existent. Fandom, and Fanfiction specifically, was a place I could turn to fill in that lack. Yes, there were portions of fandom even then that reacted negatively to queer interpretation and representation, but as the years passed I delighted in watching that portion grow smaller and smaller.
Which is probably why I can’t help but feel that certain types of posts I’ve started to watch pop up over the last few years in “defense” of “platonic relationships” are passive-aggressive attacks on queer interpretation - whether the writers of said posts realize it or not. I have no doubt at least some of the posts are made by those who are against any type of queer interpretation and fully aware of the fact, but I also feel that some are being made with an unconscious bias the writers are not aware they’re expressing.
I’ve noted this across multiple fandoms, so I am not going to do any kind of call-out on specific shows or specific posts. What I will say is that several newer stories (Including Books, TV Shows, Movies; etc.) are using romantic literary devices between two characters of the same gender and then protesting queer interpretation when it is brought up. This, unfortunately, has led to the defense of “The Great Platonic Relationship” inside of fandom spaces by those who are not taking a hard look at what is really happening. Which, imo, is three things.
Queer-Baiting. By using these literary devices, companies are able to sell to the queer audience the possibility of queer romances without truly delivering. This also allows them to maintain the ability to deny that the interpretation was ever intentional by defending their right to tell platonic stories.
Unconscious Bias. The writers think nothing of using a romantic literary device between two same gender characters because they honestly are blind to the idea that characters should be interpreted as anything but heterosexual unless specified otherwise. While they would automatically work hard to avoid romantic literary devices for platonic m/f relationships, they don’t even think about possible queer interpretations until it is brought up by the audience.
Conscious Bias. The use of romantic literary devices for platonic same gender relationships, that are only used for romantic heterosexual relationships and never vice versa continues to sell an “othering” of queer relationships. The defense of “The Great Platonic Relationship” is gaslighting. Something purposefully used to suggest allowing queer interpretation, even when nothing in the story is changed by the interpretation, is “wrong”.
Honestly, I’m a firm believer in “Death of the Author”. I don’t really care what TPtB say. Everyone interprets stories in their own way and by their own experiences. And, yes, queer interpretation is part of that. If a queer interpretation of what I am watching or reading appeals to me, that is the interpretation I am going to stick by regardless of what anyone has to say on the matter.
What I would ask those in fandom spaces is - before you jump on someone for queer interpretation of a scene or a phrase or a plot - ask yourself this:
Off the top of my head how many times can I think of this same literary device being used for a heterosexual romance in fiction?
Off the top of my head can I list at least a solid dozen times this literary device was used platonically between a male and a female character?
Because, honestly, you’re going to find the answers three-quarters of the time to be:
Dozens
Not even close
Yes, platonic relationships are important in fiction. No, platonic relationships shouldn’t be treated as less important than romantic relationships in fiction. But if the only time anyone defends platonic relationships in fiction is against queer interpretation, then it has nothing to do with platonic relationships at all. It’s just a way to protest queer interpretation without admitting to it.
Time for another episode of “Salmon says something not everyone is going to like.”
So, I'll start by telling you flat out that, despite being on ao3 for years, I never knew you could sort by kudos until about a year ago. I'll also tell you flat out that since discovering that knowledge I have used this function exactly 0 times. And I will never use it.
I want to be nicer about this. I do. But I spend a lot of time reblogging posts helping reassure fanfic writers not to judge themselves by their likes and kudo counts.
And you lot are out here flat out telling people to sort by kudos because those fics are “better”?? That once you get to a certain kudo level “the quality goes down”??
Yeah, no. Screw being nice. Fucking check yourselves. You have no right to tell a bunch of fanfic writers whose fics you just admitted you have never even bothered to read that their work is bad. You came across a fic you didn't like? I'm shocked. Capital “Sh.” /sarcasm. I'm sure you did. I'm also sure it had nothing to do with the kudo count.
Not gonna bother putting a fine point on it, most fics get a lot of kudos for three reasons:
It’s written about a popular ship
It's written about a popular character
It's written by a popular fanfic writer in the fandom
That's it.
Gen fics, case fics, and friendship fics never get the same level of attention romantic fics do.
Fics about less popular ships and characters will never reach the kudos level fics about popular ships and characters reach.
Popular fanfic writers are often someone who has either been in the fandom longer or is more prolific than other fanfic writers. They're work may be good - I'm not saying it's not. But fanfic writers who came to a fandom past “peak popularity” of a fandom will never reach the kudo levels on their fics that the ones who wrote during the height of fandom popularity did. Writers who write more fics for a fandom often get more kudos on all their fics because people follow them to their other fics. Where a writer with only a couple of fics or only one fic in a fandom won't have that same experience, and will struggle to get their fic(s) noticed. Especially in larger fandoms.
Look, kudos are like a best seller's list. (Which I also never bother to use.) Objectively, the books on the best seller's list are considered well written. I personally have read books, not because they were on said list but because the premise sounded interesting, and thought “This book is a steaming pile of garbage.”
I never look at how many kudos a fic has before I click in. There's been a few times I've noted them while clicking out that has left me feeling like those books from the bestseller lists I disliked. How is this so popular when, to me, it's garbage? (I have never commented on or left a review for fics I dislike. That's what my back button is for. Nor do I support anyone who does. Reading is an extremely subjective hobby, and fanfic writers are offering you their hard work for free. If you don't like oatmeal cookies, don't eat the free oatmeal cookie and then complain because it's an oatmeal cookie!)
I look for fics by tags. Characters, ships, tropes, themes, episodes, ect. I choose which fics I read based on a combo of tags and summary. Which is probably why I like fics that put pieces of scenes in the summary, because to me it's like when paperbacks put a teaser at the front of a book. I've bought many a book because of the teaser page. I've clicked many a fic because of the piece they've posted in the summary.
I'm not saying to stop sorting fics by kudos altogether if that's what you've always done. Some people like best seller lists. That's their prerogative. But I've never met someone who honestly enjoys reading who would ever suggest that books not found on the bestseller's list are bad just because they aren't on a bestseller's list. Nor would they ever refuse to read a book because it wasn't on one.
So, to be frank, especially in larger fandoms, if you sort by kudos? You're missing some of the best fics you'll ever read.
And to all the fanfic writers with low kudos who have to put up with posts insulting your hard work despite the fact that those writing said posts having never even read a single word of them:
You're amazing. And your kudo count has nothing to do with how good your fic is.
My Mom says Princess Ardala is Awesome… and I’ve come to the conclusion that I don’t think she’s wrong.
Now, a good portion of the people who are reading this are probably actually saying, “Who the heck is Princess Ardala?” Which, fair. Not everyone is an old-school sci-fi nut like me. (Which I can blame a good portion of on my Mom, too.)
So, in short, she’s a space princess from a 70s sci-fi tv show (Buck Rogers in the 25th Century) who ran around in sexy costumes and spent most of the show trying to seduce and marry the main male character despite her being one of the main antagonists who was supposed to be attempting to conquer the planet.
So you’re probably thinking, and your Mom thinks this character is awesome? And, honestly, the first time she said it many, many years ago I felt a bit the same. My mom was kind of my hero growing up - I would never have thought of her as anything but a feminist given the independence and beliefs she worked hard to instill in her daughters. She’s not perfect, and we’ve had plenty of arguments in my adulthood about various subjects. But when it comes to women’s rights we’re usually on the same wavelength. So a sexy villainess from a 70s sci-fi was not a character I expected to hear praise from her for.
But then I thought about it, and was like… huh…
No details, but compared to how my mom raised her daughters, my mom was definitely not raised with feminist ideals. So the idea of her seeing this character - this sexy space princess who was like - “Yeah, I’m gonna dress however the eff I want. Oh, and I’m gonna pursue a hot guy cuz I want to bang him.” That probably was like, “Wow.” to her. And viewing her through that lens I was like, you know what? Ardala is pretty damn amazing.
In recent years, I’ve seen a lot of female characters from older stories picked apart because people look at them through modern lenses. And, yes, through the modern lens these characters are lacking and they would need reimagining for use in any modern tellings of the stories. But that doesn’t mean the characters were worthless as they existed in the stories of their time.
I have definitely seen people badmouth characters and character types that meant a lot to me growing up. Female fighters I would definitely put on that list. Yes, you can almost always find a female fighter in a show these days. But in the days I was growing up these characters were rare gems. Do you have any idea how much I worshiped Bathsheba from Battle Star Galactica, Callisto from the X-men comics, and Leela from Doctor Who in my youth?
Do you know what it was like for a girl growing up at a time and place where females were never praised as fighters or warriors, to find out the end of Return of the King? To have the villain declare, “No man can kill me!”, have Eowyn remove her helmet and declare “I’m not a man”, and kill the villain? It was unimaginable. You do not want to know how many times my sisters and I reenacted that in our childhood because, yes, my mom did read us those books as bedtime stories.
The first time I read Pellucidar by Edgar Rice Burroughs and it was like:
Dian (A cavewoman from a prehistoric society): Attacks a Dinosaur because it attacks her husband.
David (A scientist who traveled to her world): “That’s my wife!” (insert heart eyes)
I was like, damn, where has this relationship dynamic been my whole life?
Older stories are always problematic in a variety of ways, and I understand why a lot of people don’t like them for that. But if you’re going to take the effort to consume media from the past, it helps to research a little about the time period and country it’s from. You might be surprised how simple actions that you may be thinking of in terms of, “duh, of course, women can do that,” weren’t that simple at all. And these female characters doing them were definitely some little girl’s hero.
Or, y’know, a young mom’s badass sexy space princess.
