Bad Disability Tropes in Children's Fiction: Please Don't.

[rj_anderson]

I was reading a MG fantasy novel last weekend which I quite enjoyed. It had nice solid worldbuilding, a dynamic and resourceful MC, an interesting cast of supporting characters, and the stakes and dangers were high enough to keep the tension going. I was quite impressed with it overall, and became even more so when a new character appeared on the

Comments

[shoebox2]

Excellent essay... albeit I'm not quite getting the rage against Dean Priest, who is psychically twisted because he's physically so, not the other way around (as per, say Shakespeare's Richard III

[rj_anderson]

I'm not quite getting the rage against Dean Priest, who is psychically twisted because he's physically so

But how is that any less offensive, to say that someone is psychologically twisted because of their physical disability? And in any case, it seems like a chicken-egg scenario. Which came first in Montgomery's mind, Dean's physical disability or his flawed psyche? We don't know.

In any case, my rage isn't against Dean, it's on his behalf. If Montgomery had written him as a less compelling character, I wouldn't have come to care as much about him as I did. A near-miss can be more infuriating than a complete fail -- and it certainly was in this case, because as soon as he appeared on the scene I thought fatalistically, "Well, I like this guy a lot, but it's no good hoping he and Emily will get together. Not only because he's so much older, but because he has a physical disability and we all know that characters with disabilities never get to be the love interest, especially in older novels." And then his friendship with Emily

[lady_schrapnell]

YES. To all this! Dean's disintegration into unforgiveable behaviour, Teddy's 'rightness' of body and soul... Gah! The last of the Emily books squicked me out so severely I could never reread.

Rosemary Sutcliff's Eagle of the Ninth? I think Marcus's grieving and acceptance of being crippled is perfectly handled, and of course has nothing to do with his romantic life. Doubt it's a coincidence that Sutcliff herself was -- well, maybe I should urge you to read her autobiography, if you haven't already. It's very powerful.

Hilary McKay's Casson family books has a girl who becomes a very close friend of the family's (later romantic interest for someone too!) in a wheelchair. Love that series. (Oops - just scrolled down a bit more and see they've been recced already. Another never hurts though - they are realy fantastic.)

Oh, and it isn't quite what you're asking for, but I was very taken with Linda Urban's A Crooked Kind of Perfect, and my daughter Becca read it and loved it too. The dad has mental health disabilities, and it's

[rj_anderson]

Thanks for those recommendations! I had to read EAGLE OF THE NINTH in school, but it's been so long I'd forgotten it included an experience of disability. I really must try Sutcliff again one of these days.

And glad to know I'm not the only one who feels strongly about the EMILY books! So much to love there, but... ouch.

[fabulousfrock]

Argh. I always thought Dean got screwed. Not within the book, but by LMM. There was some discussion, back when I was on the LMM list, of how she often made her heroines get together with somewhat bland men, and perhaps it was because of her own issues with men in her life. Dean was one of the most compelling characters in any of her books and suddenly he turns around and becomes a total jerk...has always driven me nuts.

Of course, even reading them for the first time at age 11, I also thought Dean was hawt. I always went for the older guy with tragic past.

[rj_anderson]

Ooh, a serious LMM fan! I enjoy a lot of her books, but I'm not that hardcore. That must have been an interesting discussion.

And yes, I too was drawn to the older guys with tragic pasts, so my sympathies were fairly well primed for Dean. :)

[fabulousfrock]

Well, I'm mainly an Emily fan more than an LMM fan...

Aw, who am I kidding, I've read every LMM novel except Magic for Marigold and all her diaries and many of her short stories. That probably does qualify me for hardcore, doesn't it...

When I first read Emily I even noted in my diary, with what sounds like some childhood disappointment, "Finished the Emily books. Emily married Teddy Kent."

Meh. It was back to crushing on Jonathan from the Xanth novels for the moment, I guess.

[shoebox2]

But how is that any less offensive, to say that someone is psychologically twisted because of their physical disability?

Because it's not a direct equation of disability with evil, as Shakespeare intended with Richard III. It's an acknowledgment that disabled people can have negative emotions. In the context of what we're discussing, quite a healthy image really, regardless of authorial impetus.

I didn't feel that Dean's behavior to Emily really grew organically and naturally out of his character. I felt it was a cheap and rather horrible way to get rid of the Imperfect Guy so Emily could have the (boringly) Perfect Guy.

I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. :)

Montgomery carefully -- if admittedly sketchily -- denotes Teddy as Emily's soulmate from the beginning, while Dean is steadily more condescending and controlling.
So I've never felt like I was being manipulated towards Teddy and/or away from Dean; the latter simply wants what he can't have, so over-reaches in his despair -- an extremely human

[rj_anderson]

It's an acknowledgment that disabled people can have negative emotions. In the context of what we're discussing, quite a healthy image really

Negative emotions are one thing. Negative actions are quite another. The degree of selfishness and cruelty with which Dean manipulates and exploits Emily is appalling -- and the fact is, there is no reason LMM could not have written exactly the same story without giving Dean a twisted back. He could have been just as selfish and grasping for some other reason, but LMM chose to give him a physical disability. I do not believe for one second that she was trying to make a thoughtful statement about how people with disabilities are Just Like The Rest Of Us, and I don't believe the book does make that statement. What it does is to reinforce the cliche that a twisted body reflects a twisted soul. I know LMM was a product of her times, but that doesn't make what she did right

[c_canadensis]

I would have said the same thing about why it's not quite so bad when the bitterness stemmed from the real consequences of the disability than if it the disability was just somehow a manifestation of his soul. But maybe I'm just being defensive because I loved the Emily books (and a Swiftly Tilting Planet but I agree with you there, RJ).

At least he isn't completely evil and twisted - yes, he does something absolutely horrible, but he does show some grace in the end by confessing and eventually giving her the house of her dreams.

I'm definitely not arguing with the general point about having a more balanced representation of disabled people in fiction.

[rj_anderson]

I loved A SWIFTLY TILTING PLANET too, and still re-read it every few years. And I don't think L'Engle meant Matthew's portrayal to be at all negative, as he's such a compelling and sympathetic character. It was more that I was annoyed at Zillah for not seeing how much Matthew loved her, how worthy he was of her love on every level, and how unfair the whole scenario was. Plus, there are so many other books where the PWD character doesn't get to live a full and happy life or love and be loved in return (unless, of course, he or she can be magically healed first)... it was just a last-straw kind of thing for me.

But hey, it kickstarted me into writing Knife, so I am forever in L'Engle's debt in that respect.