finally the shame brings understanding
I was discussing Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life with a co-worker, and this morning I read this discussion on the AV Club: Does it matter if Rory Gilmore is the worst? and I started thinking about how it does matter, if only in terms of ...I'm not sure how to put it, if there's a term for it I'm not remembering, but when as a writer, you want the reader to view a character a certain way but the audience views them completely differently. And if that's a failure of the writing or not. (spoiler: I tend to think it is!)
Now obviously, readers bring their own experiences and lenses to stories and thus, everybody watches/reads a different text, sometimes the difference is slight and sometimes the difference is great, and even a single person can have differing responses depending on where they are in their own lives at the time the come to and revisit a story. But even acknowledging that, for the most part, if I'm writing the protagonist to be a hero, I hope that it works and readers believe they're reading about hero, not a jerk who gets everything handed to them because of authorial fiat.
(As an aside, even when a text doesn't have this weird disconnect, some people invariably hate the protagonist - I mean, yes, certain characters are sometimes specifically singled out as Chosen Ones and the Draco Malfoys (or Julian Alberts) among us might complain that they get special treatment for what is after all a trick of fate, but I feel like as much as, say, Buffy or Harry annoyed me at times, I never doubted their overall heroism or that they'd been dealt a shitty hand along with that oh so special destiny. I mean, Buffy's basically told she's going to live a short, violent life and die horribly; Harry's left in an abusive situation for 11 years and basically raised like a lamb to the slaughter. And they both rise to the occasion and win out, again, because they're the protagonist, but also because they genuinely want to do the right thing. I also almost never felt that the narrative was telling me over and over that they were so great when their behavior didn't merit it; when they screw up, other characters let them know about.
Even a subversion of the trope - i.e., the Chosen One who fails completely at what they're supposed to do - is frequently widely hated *cough*Anakin Skywalker*cough*, though that's probably a bad example because it's not necessarily his status as a Chosen One or his eventual villainous behavior in contradiction to that status that makes audiences hate him, because he's condemned by both the other characters and the narrative for his terrible choices, and he's liked a lot better in his time as a villain, and it's not really clear what exactly he's supposed to really do the way it is for Buffy or Harry, but I can't really think of another one.)
ANYWAY.
All of which is to say I think the major problem with Rory is the McDreamy issue. Remember when we wanted McDreamy to get eaten by bears because of his shitty, shitty behavior, but the show presented him as a proper romantic lead, and more ludicrously, as a good man who we should actually swoon over? I feel like Rory is handled the same way, at least by the characters of the show, but I can never tell how much the Palladinos want us to love her the way the denizens of Stars Hollow love her, or if we're meant to view her critically even as they're handing her the Winter Festival Crown of Lights or whatever.
I mean, she doesn't often get called on her shit (and seemingly not at all in the revival - the fact that Lorelai basically said nothing when Rory revealed she was sleeping with Logan despite not yet having dumped Paul was ridiculous!), and when she does, it's always kind of with mixed messages. The only time I can think it wasn't was when Lorelai rightly read her the riot act for sleeping with married!Dean. Even then, she got rewarded with a trip to Europe, though that was more Emily scoring points off Lorelai than for anything Rory specifically did.
And yet Richard and Emily swoop in to support her after her Yale meltdown, which is caused by the other major time she's told she's not the Best Thing Ever, except this time it comes from Mitchum Huntzberger, who is presented as a villain we're supposed to hiss at, even though it turns out he's totally right! The revival shows us that Rory is not very good at being a journalist, or at least not the kind of journalist she aspired to be (i.e., the next Christiane Amanpour). And then she's still trying to hold herself apart from (and better than) the other thirtysomethings who've returned to Stars Hollow after being beaten up by the recession etc., and it's only by the grace of her trust fund and super rich dad and secret boyfriend that she's able to live the life she leads.
Rory's plotline in the revival would have worked better for a 23 or 24 year old, but since she's not that young anymore, I can't use that as an excuse for the text we actually got. I feel like the disdain shown to the thirtysomething gang means that we're supposed to believe that Rory isn't like them, that she's just visiting Stars Hollow, she's not back to stay, as she keeps reminding people who are, as ever, delighted to see her. Unless, again, we're supposed to read it the way it comes off rather than as Rory intends.
I don't generally have this much trouble discerning the way I'm supposed to read something, but in this case I do wonder.
It's interesting to contrast her with Lorelai, who is also often terrible in her entitlement and privilege (especially in later seasons of the show), but I find Lorelai mostly much easier to sympathize with, because she does what Rory never seems to - she works hard and fights for everything, and only begins to rely on her parents' money and family name in order to get things for Rory, rather than herself. She puts herself through school, she works her way up from maid to general manager of the Independence Inn, she makes the Dragonfly work, etc. and she does it all with the deeply hurtful knowledge that her parents love her but have no desire to know who she really is and in fact think that everything she is, is wrong. (I know it's not ASP-sanctioned, but the moment where Richard acknowledges how proud he is of her in the series finale was so good.) And because Lorelai is often called out on bad behavior, it's much easier for me to swallow. The show loves her, but it acknowledges that she's flawed and makes mistakes and can be thoughtless and selfish and unlikable.
That's also why Emily, who often comes off as a monster, also makes you feel for her as the layers are peeled back and you learn why she is the way she is.
This comes up in the AVC article I linked above in regard to Paris. Paris is also a pretty awful person a lot of the time, and she's had an even more privileged upbringing than Rory, but I never feel like Paris takes anything she has for granted - she works and fights and claws and screams to keep what she's got and get what she feels she deserves, rather than sitting back and expecting it to be handed to her, the way Rory does, even at the ripe old age of 32.
I don't really have any conclusions, but I definitely think it's a thing writers should pay close attention to when writing their characters - it's one thing for the character to think they're hot shit, but another for the narrative to confirm that, even when their actions don't warrant it, and it can cause a huge disconnect with the audience if that's not the intention. (Again, for whatever authorial intent is worth.)
***
This entry at DW: http://musesfool.dreamwidth.org/891217.html.
people have commented there.
Now obviously, readers bring their own experiences and lenses to stories and thus, everybody watches/reads a different text, sometimes the difference is slight and sometimes the difference is great, and even a single person can have differing responses depending on where they are in their own lives at the time the come to and revisit a story. But even acknowledging that, for the most part, if I'm writing the protagonist to be a hero, I hope that it works and readers believe they're reading about hero, not a jerk who gets everything handed to them because of authorial fiat.
(As an aside, even when a text doesn't have this weird disconnect, some people invariably hate the protagonist - I mean, yes, certain characters are sometimes specifically singled out as Chosen Ones and the Draco Malfoys (or Julian Alberts) among us might complain that they get special treatment for what is after all a trick of fate, but I feel like as much as, say, Buffy or Harry annoyed me at times, I never doubted their overall heroism or that they'd been dealt a shitty hand along with that oh so special destiny. I mean, Buffy's basically told she's going to live a short, violent life and die horribly; Harry's left in an abusive situation for 11 years and basically raised like a lamb to the slaughter. And they both rise to the occasion and win out, again, because they're the protagonist, but also because they genuinely want to do the right thing. I also almost never felt that the narrative was telling me over and over that they were so great when their behavior didn't merit it; when they screw up, other characters let them know about.
Even a subversion of the trope - i.e., the Chosen One who fails completely at what they're supposed to do - is frequently widely hated *cough*Anakin Skywalker*cough*, though that's probably a bad example because it's not necessarily his status as a Chosen One or his eventual villainous behavior in contradiction to that status that makes audiences hate him, because he's condemned by both the other characters and the narrative for his terrible choices, and he's liked a lot better in his time as a villain, and it's not really clear what exactly he's supposed to really do the way it is for Buffy or Harry, but I can't really think of another one.)
ANYWAY.
All of which is to say I think the major problem with Rory is the McDreamy issue. Remember when we wanted McDreamy to get eaten by bears because of his shitty, shitty behavior, but the show presented him as a proper romantic lead, and more ludicrously, as a good man who we should actually swoon over? I feel like Rory is handled the same way, at least by the characters of the show, but I can never tell how much the Palladinos want us to love her the way the denizens of Stars Hollow love her, or if we're meant to view her critically even as they're handing her the Winter Festival Crown of Lights or whatever.
I mean, she doesn't often get called on her shit (and seemingly not at all in the revival - the fact that Lorelai basically said nothing when Rory revealed she was sleeping with Logan despite not yet having dumped Paul was ridiculous!), and when she does, it's always kind of with mixed messages. The only time I can think it wasn't was when Lorelai rightly read her the riot act for sleeping with married!Dean. Even then, she got rewarded with a trip to Europe, though that was more Emily scoring points off Lorelai than for anything Rory specifically did.
And yet Richard and Emily swoop in to support her after her Yale meltdown, which is caused by the other major time she's told she's not the Best Thing Ever, except this time it comes from Mitchum Huntzberger, who is presented as a villain we're supposed to hiss at, even though it turns out he's totally right! The revival shows us that Rory is not very good at being a journalist, or at least not the kind of journalist she aspired to be (i.e., the next Christiane Amanpour). And then she's still trying to hold herself apart from (and better than) the other thirtysomethings who've returned to Stars Hollow after being beaten up by the recession etc., and it's only by the grace of her trust fund and super rich dad and secret boyfriend that she's able to live the life she leads.
Rory's plotline in the revival would have worked better for a 23 or 24 year old, but since she's not that young anymore, I can't use that as an excuse for the text we actually got. I feel like the disdain shown to the thirtysomething gang means that we're supposed to believe that Rory isn't like them, that she's just visiting Stars Hollow, she's not back to stay, as she keeps reminding people who are, as ever, delighted to see her. Unless, again, we're supposed to read it the way it comes off rather than as Rory intends.
I don't generally have this much trouble discerning the way I'm supposed to read something, but in this case I do wonder.
It's interesting to contrast her with Lorelai, who is also often terrible in her entitlement and privilege (especially in later seasons of the show), but I find Lorelai mostly much easier to sympathize with, because she does what Rory never seems to - she works hard and fights for everything, and only begins to rely on her parents' money and family name in order to get things for Rory, rather than herself. She puts herself through school, she works her way up from maid to general manager of the Independence Inn, she makes the Dragonfly work, etc. and she does it all with the deeply hurtful knowledge that her parents love her but have no desire to know who she really is and in fact think that everything she is, is wrong. (I know it's not ASP-sanctioned, but the moment where Richard acknowledges how proud he is of her in the series finale was so good.) And because Lorelai is often called out on bad behavior, it's much easier for me to swallow. The show loves her, but it acknowledges that she's flawed and makes mistakes and can be thoughtless and selfish and unlikable.
That's also why Emily, who often comes off as a monster, also makes you feel for her as the layers are peeled back and you learn why she is the way she is.
This comes up in the AVC article I linked above in regard to Paris. Paris is also a pretty awful person a lot of the time, and she's had an even more privileged upbringing than Rory, but I never feel like Paris takes anything she has for granted - she works and fights and claws and screams to keep what she's got and get what she feels she deserves, rather than sitting back and expecting it to be handed to her, the way Rory does, even at the ripe old age of 32.
I don't really have any conclusions, but I definitely think it's a thing writers should pay close attention to when writing their characters - it's one thing for the character to think they're hot shit, but another for the narrative to confirm that, even when their actions don't warrant it, and it can cause a huge disconnect with the audience if that's not the intention. (Again, for whatever authorial intent is worth.)
***
This entry at DW: http://musesfool.dreamwidth.org/891217.html.
people have commented there.