All About Pepper: some thoughts
More Civil War triggered thoughts, this time about someone who isn't in it (with a good reason), Pepper Potts. Because the explanation for her absence reminded me of a couple of things, and made some thoughts about Pepper and her characterisation in the movies versus fanon come together.
So, Pepper, when she shows up in fanfiction, or is talked about tends to be described with the default label often used for female characters in male heavy narrative, "awesome woman being awesome". "Awesome" usually being equated with social concerns as well as with general competence. I remember some stories exploring how the Extremis experience was for her after Iron Man 3 (which was what I was looking for to read at the time), but I don't think I've come across exploring something which the current Tony/Pepper breakup and the reason Tony gives for it when Steve asks (that he went back to superheroeing post IM3 and realised he couldn't give it up) reminded me of, which is a, to me, hugely important for Pepper's characterisation exchange between Pepper and Tony in Iron Man I. It comes when Pepper, upon realising Tony is set on a new crimefighting career, says she's leaving. Then we get this, somewhat paraphrasing because I don't have time to look up the exact wording:
Tony: All these years as an arms dealer you stood by me, and this is where you draw the line? Now that I'm trying to make up for the destruction?
Pepper: You're going to kill yourself. And I can't watch that.
What I'm trying to get at here: Pepper signed on for a job with Stark Industries when its primarily source of income was manufacturing and selling arms, and worked so well for it that even villainous Obediah Stane, not a sentimental guy, regrets the prospec t of killing her once she figures out the truth about him. If Tony was "The Merchant of Death", as the press called him, she surely was Death's Accountant. Throughout all existing movies, there is no indication this bothered her in the slightest. She goes from extremely competent personal assistant to extremely competent CEO, and after Tony stops the arms production line, it's her idea to put clean energy at the centre of SI instead (at least that's how I interpret the dialogue references in Avengers). This makes sense consisting Tony's recent inventions (or improvements on Howard's and Vanko's inventions, if you want to get technical) re: arc reactor. But if Tony hadn't had his epiphany in Afghanistan, Stark Industries had continued as it was and Tony had still made Pepper CEO, would Pepper have changed the focus that way, once she had the power? Maybe, but movie canon has given us no reason to assume that.
Don't get me wrong: I don't mean Pepper doesn't have her own ideas or standards. On the contrary. And I don't think she misses the arms trade. But there's no indication anywhere she sees "saving the world" (however you define that) as a worthwhile cause or wouldn't be equally as satisfied being the competent CEO of a company that, say, manufactures bubblegum. What the Extremis experience seems to have left her with was a very clear idea of what she doesn't want for her own life. As for Tony's life: an argument can be made that the early classification of superheroing as an expression of Tony's self destructive streak doesn't really change in Pepper's mind. And you can see where she's coming from: in IM2, being Iron Man is literally poisoning him and he knows it and does it anyway, in Avengers, he nearly ended up dead by nuke in space in order to save the day, in IM3, he gives a top terrorist (he thinks) his home address issuing a challenge and nearly gets them all blown up as a result. And then he creates (well, co-creates, but it was his idea) an AI whose idea of saving the world is to kill every human on it.
Still, Pepper able to live with and support Tony Stark, Profiteer Of Death, but not with Tony Stark, Self Destructive Superhero, says something interesting that I don't believe has been explored yet, or really faced yet. (Though I recall at least one great ensemble story by Lettered, "Let's do the time warp again", in which Pepper says to Bruce something along the lines of how she doesn't care about the world: she cares about Tony.) Possibly because it's not how much of fandom's idea of how a strong female character should be (if she's not a supervillain) goes. (Incidentally, yes, of course there are a lot of good reasons not to have a romantic relationship with Tony Stark, or to end one, without even touching on whether he's currently busy saving or destroying the world, but if Tony isn't misrepresenting things to Steve, and the way the scene plays doesn't make it look that way, those weren't the ones for Pepper (at least temporarily) breaking up with him.)
Pepper is far more socially competent than Tony; she pays attention to people, whether or not they're interesting to her, and takes care not to alienate them (unless they're Christine Everhart). (She'd never been such a good P.A. otherwise.) And she doesn't have either a god or a guilt complex. But I think an argument can be made that she doesn't really care about people, either, let alone issues; she cares about a few individuals, and that's it. Heretical thought: the closest female character we've seen to MCU Pepper Potts is Wilson Fisk's beloved Vanessa in Daredevil, i.e. a villain. (In a way Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones, too, but here their attitudes towards exes is a key difference. I don't think Pepper would ever fight a nasty divorce battle about money.)
Usually prioritizing a man above a cause/ethics is seen as a sign of weakness in a female character (but not in a male one, though whether or not Steve does that in Civil War is the type of thing fandom fights over for the rest of time), which is possibly why Fanon Pepper rarely is written that way. But the underlying assumption to this idea of weakness is that the female character in question gives up her own standards/ideals in favour of her love for a man, or for the man's ideas. And this specifically isn't the case with Pepper and Tony. A I said: Pepper was fine with the arms manufacturing and trading. It's Tony turning the destructiveness against himself that she can't stand, nor does she see possible saved lives of strangers as a justification for this. And when it becomes clear that he won't be able to stay away from this behavior for more than short breaks, she draws the consequence and gets out, at least for now.
Cooly competent business woman Pepper who doesn't really care whether she's making her living in the weapons or the energy industry isn't a character as sympathetic as Pepper being nice to Bruce or rolling her eyes together with Natasha at the guys' posturing, or the generic Awesome Lady Being Awesome that shows up now and then, but it's a side of the character I would be interested in reading about.
On another note, here is a Rolling Stone profile of Chris Evans, in which Steve's actor has this to say about the central conflict of Civil War:
" It's a nice role reversal," says Evans. "You have a company man like Steve who always believed in the hierarchy of the military, but in the last couple of movies has seen the people he was loyal to misuse their power. Whereas Tony, who's always danced to the beat of his own drum, is feeling guilt for the collateral damage they've left. But that's why I like this movie: There's no clear villain in terms of right and wrong. And the truth is, I actually think Tony is right. To see Steve prioritize himself over what other people need is selfish. That's what makes it interesting."
This entry was originally posted at http://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1168752.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.
So, Pepper, when she shows up in fanfiction, or is talked about tends to be described with the default label often used for female characters in male heavy narrative, "awesome woman being awesome". "Awesome" usually being equated with social concerns as well as with general competence. I remember some stories exploring how the Extremis experience was for her after Iron Man 3 (which was what I was looking for to read at the time), but I don't think I've come across exploring something which the current Tony/Pepper breakup and the reason Tony gives for it when Steve asks (that he went back to superheroeing post IM3 and realised he couldn't give it up) reminded me of, which is a, to me, hugely important for Pepper's characterisation exchange between Pepper and Tony in Iron Man I. It comes when Pepper, upon realising Tony is set on a new crimefighting career, says she's leaving. Then we get this, somewhat paraphrasing because I don't have time to look up the exact wording:
Tony: All these years as an arms dealer you stood by me, and this is where you draw the line? Now that I'm trying to make up for the destruction?
Pepper: You're going to kill yourself. And I can't watch that.
What I'm trying to get at here: Pepper signed on for a job with Stark Industries when its primarily source of income was manufacturing and selling arms, and worked so well for it that even villainous Obediah Stane, not a sentimental guy, regrets the prospec t of killing her once she figures out the truth about him. If Tony was "The Merchant of Death", as the press called him, she surely was Death's Accountant. Throughout all existing movies, there is no indication this bothered her in the slightest. She goes from extremely competent personal assistant to extremely competent CEO, and after Tony stops the arms production line, it's her idea to put clean energy at the centre of SI instead (at least that's how I interpret the dialogue references in Avengers). This makes sense consisting Tony's recent inventions (or improvements on Howard's and Vanko's inventions, if you want to get technical) re: arc reactor. But if Tony hadn't had his epiphany in Afghanistan, Stark Industries had continued as it was and Tony had still made Pepper CEO, would Pepper have changed the focus that way, once she had the power? Maybe, but movie canon has given us no reason to assume that.
Don't get me wrong: I don't mean Pepper doesn't have her own ideas or standards. On the contrary. And I don't think she misses the arms trade. But there's no indication anywhere she sees "saving the world" (however you define that) as a worthwhile cause or wouldn't be equally as satisfied being the competent CEO of a company that, say, manufactures bubblegum. What the Extremis experience seems to have left her with was a very clear idea of what she doesn't want for her own life. As for Tony's life: an argument can be made that the early classification of superheroing as an expression of Tony's self destructive streak doesn't really change in Pepper's mind. And you can see where she's coming from: in IM2, being Iron Man is literally poisoning him and he knows it and does it anyway, in Avengers, he nearly ended up dead by nuke in space in order to save the day, in IM3, he gives a top terrorist (he thinks) his home address issuing a challenge and nearly gets them all blown up as a result. And then he creates (well, co-creates, but it was his idea) an AI whose idea of saving the world is to kill every human on it.
Still, Pepper able to live with and support Tony Stark, Profiteer Of Death, but not with Tony Stark, Self Destructive Superhero, says something interesting that I don't believe has been explored yet, or really faced yet. (Though I recall at least one great ensemble story by Lettered, "Let's do the time warp again", in which Pepper says to Bruce something along the lines of how she doesn't care about the world: she cares about Tony.) Possibly because it's not how much of fandom's idea of how a strong female character should be (if she's not a supervillain) goes. (Incidentally, yes, of course there are a lot of good reasons not to have a romantic relationship with Tony Stark, or to end one, without even touching on whether he's currently busy saving or destroying the world, but if Tony isn't misrepresenting things to Steve, and the way the scene plays doesn't make it look that way, those weren't the ones for Pepper (at least temporarily) breaking up with him.)
Pepper is far more socially competent than Tony; she pays attention to people, whether or not they're interesting to her, and takes care not to alienate them (unless they're Christine Everhart). (She'd never been such a good P.A. otherwise.) And she doesn't have either a god or a guilt complex. But I think an argument can be made that she doesn't really care about people, either, let alone issues; she cares about a few individuals, and that's it. Heretical thought: the closest female character we've seen to MCU Pepper Potts is Wilson Fisk's beloved Vanessa in Daredevil, i.e. a villain. (In a way Jeri Hogarth in Jessica Jones, too, but here their attitudes towards exes is a key difference. I don't think Pepper would ever fight a nasty divorce battle about money.)
Usually prioritizing a man above a cause/ethics is seen as a sign of weakness in a female character (but not in a male one, though whether or not Steve does that in Civil War is the type of thing fandom fights over for the rest of time), which is possibly why Fanon Pepper rarely is written that way. But the underlying assumption to this idea of weakness is that the female character in question gives up her own standards/ideals in favour of her love for a man, or for the man's ideas. And this specifically isn't the case with Pepper and Tony. A I said: Pepper was fine with the arms manufacturing and trading. It's Tony turning the destructiveness against himself that she can't stand, nor does she see possible saved lives of strangers as a justification for this. And when it becomes clear that he won't be able to stay away from this behavior for more than short breaks, she draws the consequence and gets out, at least for now.
Cooly competent business woman Pepper who doesn't really care whether she's making her living in the weapons or the energy industry isn't a character as sympathetic as Pepper being nice to Bruce or rolling her eyes together with Natasha at the guys' posturing, or the generic Awesome Lady Being Awesome that shows up now and then, but it's a side of the character I would be interested in reading about.
On another note, here is a Rolling Stone profile of Chris Evans, in which Steve's actor has this to say about the central conflict of Civil War:
" It's a nice role reversal," says Evans. "You have a company man like Steve who always believed in the hierarchy of the military, but in the last couple of movies has seen the people he was loyal to misuse their power. Whereas Tony, who's always danced to the beat of his own drum, is feeling guilt for the collateral damage they've left. But that's why I like this movie: There's no clear villain in terms of right and wrong. And the truth is, I actually think Tony is right. To see Steve prioritize himself over what other people need is selfish. That's what makes it interesting."
This entry was originally posted at http://selenak.dreamwidth.org/1168752.html. Comment there or here, as you wish.