By the way, you probably don't have to worry about the sweatshop stuff. Almost everywhere where that occurs, if the sweatshops closed, people wouldn't be getting nice jobs instead. They would probably become subsistence farmers, since that's what most of them were doing before the sweatshops arrived. Being a subsistence farmer, especially in Asia, is far, far worse than working in a garment factory. There's a very good account of precisely why it is so awful in one of Steven Pinker's books, "Enlightenment Now". If you visit the poorer parts of Asia you will readily encounter one of his examples (as I did): old people who, after a lifetime of bending over rice paddies, cannot stand up straight. And those were the ones that lived.
No? If my face changes children's actions from playing to crying and running away, and adults' actions from comfortably prattling to wincing and looking away and trying hard not to mention anything related to looks, it doesn't make me a great beauty.
It feels like you cherry-picked one example to make your case... You'd have to construct very elaborate argument to prove that contemporary characters such as Elsa, Moana, Pearl in Zog, Merida, etc are moral monsters.
Anna is a better (non-)example than Elsa: Elsa is very obviously doing great wrong by deciding to only focus on herself and therefore negligently freezing the country.
Moana is hardly a #girlboss: she's dutiful rather than individualistic, unlike most current princess stories. This means the plot has to twist and make her duty somehow turn out to be identical to her individual dream anyway, which sucks artistically but seems morally fine.
I think that maybe you’re applying maybe too many contemporary standards to a historical adaptation (similar of the same thing you’re refuting), but women haven’t historically had as many options or opportunities to express agency… there’s maybe a false dichotomy we are being presented with “princesses for children” and “princesses for adults” but the analysis feels fairly shallow and in lockstep with the aforementioned false dichotomy presented to us ?? Idk I think you’re a dope writer but this is ringing a tad bit hollow
i think contemporary stprytellers are applying today's standards to historical stories. like yes "womem historically had less opportunities" but catherine of valois was dowager queen of england within two years pf these events? she had less power then henry v but wayyyy more power than you or me & older stories like shakespeare deal w that more honestly than contemporary stories
This is a great analysis. I particularly liked the analysis of the absurdity of Kate's demand for respect.
That said, I'm not sure that artists have as much ability to influence powerful people as you might think. If an artist popularizes a good idea, it's really the good idea that's influential. There are lots of bad ideas artists have, even popular ones, and very few of them get adopted. On the other hand, you often see powerful people, interest groups or institutions get their bad ideas put into practice. Many of them are still in practice! That's where the real influence is.
Indeed, tropes about bosses (girl or otherwise), and business in general, are a great example. Artists have been showing terrible ideas about how bosses do and should behave for decades, maybe centuries, and bosses, especially good ones, have been behaving entirely differently for the same period.
Thank you for writing this. I care a lot about what I call the "New Princess Culture" and it's masked evil traits. My main creative writing project is supposed to be a condemnation of its, well, hateful squeamishness.
By the way, you probably don't have to worry about the sweatshop stuff. Almost everywhere where that occurs, if the sweatshops closed, people wouldn't be getting nice jobs instead. They would probably become subsistence farmers, since that's what most of them were doing before the sweatshops arrived. Being a subsistence farmer, especially in Asia, is far, far worse than working in a garment factory. There's a very good account of precisely why it is so awful in one of Steven Pinker's books, "Enlightenment Now". If you visit the poorer parts of Asia you will readily encounter one of his examples (as I did): old people who, after a lifetime of bending over rice paddies, cannot stand up straight. And those were the ones that lived.
“if beauty is the power to change how someone else acts with how you look”
provocative formulation!
is it???? seems normal
lots to say here but i'm scared the (other) beautiful women will see it
my readership is known for their extreme loveliness
No? If my face changes children's actions from playing to crying and running away, and adults' actions from comfortably prattling to wincing and looking away and trying hard not to mention anything related to looks, it doesn't make me a great beauty.
It feels like you cherry-picked one example to make your case... You'd have to construct very elaborate argument to prove that contemporary characters such as Elsa, Moana, Pearl in Zog, Merida, etc are moral monsters.
Anna is a better (non-)example than Elsa: Elsa is very obviously doing great wrong by deciding to only focus on herself and therefore negligently freezing the country.
Moana is hardly a #girlboss: she's dutiful rather than individualistic, unlike most current princess stories. This means the plot has to twist and make her duty somehow turn out to be identical to her individual dream anyway, which sucks artistically but seems morally fine.
I think that maybe you’re applying maybe too many contemporary standards to a historical adaptation (similar of the same thing you’re refuting), but women haven’t historically had as many options or opportunities to express agency… there’s maybe a false dichotomy we are being presented with “princesses for children” and “princesses for adults” but the analysis feels fairly shallow and in lockstep with the aforementioned false dichotomy presented to us ?? Idk I think you’re a dope writer but this is ringing a tad bit hollow
i think contemporary stprytellers are applying today's standards to historical stories. like yes "womem historically had less opportunities" but catherine of valois was dowager queen of england within two years pf these events? she had less power then henry v but wayyyy more power than you or me & older stories like shakespeare deal w that more honestly than contemporary stories
This is a great analysis. I particularly liked the analysis of the absurdity of Kate's demand for respect.
That said, I'm not sure that artists have as much ability to influence powerful people as you might think. If an artist popularizes a good idea, it's really the good idea that's influential. There are lots of bad ideas artists have, even popular ones, and very few of them get adopted. On the other hand, you often see powerful people, interest groups or institutions get their bad ideas put into practice. Many of them are still in practice! That's where the real influence is.
Indeed, tropes about bosses (girl or otherwise), and business in general, are a great example. Artists have been showing terrible ideas about how bosses do and should behave for decades, maybe centuries, and bosses, especially good ones, have been behaving entirely differently for the same period.
Thank you for writing this. I care a lot about what I call the "New Princess Culture" and it's masked evil traits. My main creative writing project is supposed to be a condemnation of its, well, hateful squeamishness.
*its
killer title
This is great. I find it pretty appalling how much actual influence the West Wing had...