Women, fiction, and authorial intent. And Battlestar Galactica.
Between the end of "Battlestar Galactica" and the recent Classica discussions, I’ve been finding myself discussing and thinking about authorial intent…in terms of romantic arcs, entertainment value, etc. I mentioned before how I had issues with Ron’s reading of Kara in the finale, but then Karen analyzed the thing for me in a way that worked, and I…had less issues. So it occurred to me that I’m resisting that bit of canon not because I dislike it, but rather because of what I think it implies about Ron’s reading of Kara. And it’s got me wondering: Authorial intent. Do we approach it more loosely as women and/or when approaching female characters?
I remember having a similar discussion in class about religion and women, and how women approach religion more loosely (or, at least, are more likely to not be rigid when it comes to traditionally canon interpretations of women, etc) because sometimes, traditional religion doesn’t have the best take on women. In feminist theology, one thing that we discussed that stayed with me was how women react when they’re faced with the negative connotations of their gender in religion as it's widely taught/practiced. Leaving aside the acceptance path, they do one of these three things: Repress, reject, or reinvent/reinterpret. And…it got me thinking: can we apply a similar approach to women being faced with negative portrayals of women in fiction in terms of authorial intent? (Because, you know, fandom is totally just like religion ;)
I’ve always thought that part of the reason that women have a problem relating to other female characters in fiction is because so much of our fiction still approaches women characters as the other/object. So when women consume fiction, they have to make a choice: either continue to see themselves as Subject and identify with the male subject, or identify with the women and give up the subject position. This, of course, doesn’t excuse in any way the fact that most people refuse to take that extra step in trying to approach fiction from a different POV, but it’s still a factor. So what happens when you actually realize this pattern consciously, or realize that fiction is treating women in ways that it might not treat men? You can either drop that show/comic/book, and reject it. You can repress that bit of canon (as I do all the time), or you can reinvent canon by writing fic, fanwanking, or having your own personal fanon or interpretation.
In fandom, we all do this all the time to varying degrees. But I wonder if we do it more as women and/or more when approaching women in these canons?
I remember my high school English teacher being amused by the fact that I really liked Abigail Williams in “The Crucible,” but I’m pretty sure that she strongly implied in class that she didn’t like Abigail and wouldn’t grade well a paper that defended her. Meh. Another time, I was called on in Milton class to give my interpretation of Delilah. Delilah, for those not aware of the story, is a biblical character who married the hero Samson in order to lure the secret of his strength out of him so her people could defeat him in war. I liked Delilah. Because how is that not heroic in a culture that gives women very limited ways of being a hero? She could not fight in war, so she used something else to help her people. Not unlike Polyxena betraying Achilles. But, of course, that was *not* the canon interpretation, and my professor was all, “Of course, your interpretation is as valid as any, but I don’t think we’re meant to read her like that.” Um, thank you for giving me permission to look at my female characters more positively?
When approaching texts, I’ve always been able to find awesome women where the canon might not have intended for them to be awesome. Even in canon literature that may have been trying to say just the opposite thing. This is sort of why I just…don’t get the whole “There are no interesting women!” Because I’ve managed to find them in everything I’ve ever read and cared enough to stick with.
But how much of that has to do with my tendency to ignore authorial intent when it comes to things like that? I mean, if I took that into consideration, I would be required to hate Helen of Troy, I’m pretty sure. Hate Hemingway’s Brett Ashley, Milton’s Delilah, dislike Supernatural’s Bella, hate Roswell’s Tess, and possibly want BSG’s Boomer and Tory at least a little dead.
What disturbs me the most is when I feel like I have to dislike something just because even though my interpretation of it is positive, the writer intended it negatively. I don’t have a problem with Kara’s sexuality (you guys, it PAINS me to not be able to think of a single word for a woman who enjoys sex/is sexually active that doesn’t have negative connotations.) but I’ve ignored parts of it because of what I think Ron is trying to say about her. Why should I have to change my opinion on things I like or don’t mind just because I’m now taking into consideration the problematic authorial intent? Why can't I critque/hate the male writers while still loving the female characters? It’s not something I do often, so it’s odd when I have enough contempt for a writer where I feel the need to dislike something just based on that. So this is me making an active decision to *not* let Ron’s reading of Kara get in the way of my interpretation of her.
I’ve also been thinking about how all this imposed reading, authorial intent, male gaze POV make women characters…elusive. More so than the male characters, very possibly. And I wonder if we saw a bit of this in how there was such a loss of focus on women’s narratives on BSG? Dead women have been mentioned, but we also have all these women without a voice or a story or a coherent narrative. Because we have them filtered through the authorial intent, and then filtered often through the male narrative, male gaze, and the vision we get of them is so…distorted by everything. Is it any wonder that their narratives get lost between all these imposed readings?
Firstly, I’m not at all saying that women are the only ones this happened to because Lee’s character hasn’t had a direction this whole season, IMO. But I am specifically only looking at women, authorial intent, and how women approach women characters, and don’t care to get into a “BUT IT HAPPENS TO MEN, TOO!” discussion. I’m sure it does, (but I’m willing to bet it’s not for all the same reasons, other than, well, crappy writers.) This is not that discussion, though.
I first noticed this tendency on BSG with Cally, and Tyrol’s rant on her “vacant eyes.” The word vacant, used in the context of describing women, is one of those things that pushes my buttons. It’s such a loaded word when it comes to fiction and women’s treatment in fiction. Women, way more often than men, are used as texts within texts to embody whatever the writer wants them to embody for the sake of the narrative, symbolism, etc. Cally’s character got imposed with so much crap towards the end, and the show never really took her issues seriously. Some of her issues with Athena were valid, but the show treated it like racism on her part, instead of exploring Athena’s character in that light. Her mental health issues were coming from a very justified place, but it was treated as more of the “crazy women in the attic” syndrome. Even after she died, the show was still writing narratives on to her dead body, and not very flattering ones.
There’s the death of Dee, and what Ron said about it. He said, “Her whole family, her whole world, everything had been shattered. After Billy died and after she splits with Lee, probably all Dualla has is [the goal of Earth]." You know what’s wrong with that? The use of the word ‘probably.’ What does that mean when coming from the guy who wrote her? It means that even he doesn’t know her motivation for killing herself. It means that he’s imposing a reading on her that might not have been intended originally. It means that she is a text to be written upon, like Cally. At least they let her rest in peace and we didn’t get Lee talking about her after her death.
There’s Boomer. Boomer who had one of the clearest, strongest narratives in the first season. And once the writers lost focus on her, she just became…lost. And the writers never grasped her narrative successfully again. And she became such a plot device this last season. Shocking reveal: Boomer voted against her model! Why? No one really knows. Shocking twist: Boomer is sleeping with Cavil. Um, okay. Heartwarming gesture: Boomer forgives Ellen. Followed by another shocking twist: Boomer betrays everyone and steals Hera. And then another heartwarming gesture of rescuing Hera, followed by death. I strongly felt that the writers were just writing plot twists on to her character, and didn’t bother developing her character. Was this easier to do given that she was a female character, and women in fiction are more easily ‘written on’? She really is the best example of an important character in the subject position being reduced to the object position in the form of a plot device. I think I mourn the loss of her POV more than any other.
A lot of us continued to like Boomer despite all of this, but did Boomer’s character arc, as written in season four, deserve this? I think a lot of us were fanwanking and speculating on her motivations. Mainly because the show didn’t really give us too many valid ones. There are hints, yes, but nothing substantial.
And there's Athena, whose tragedy is much the same as Boomer's: Started out with one of the most focused and strongest character arcs that devolved into her being little more than a part of Helo's arc. I started out liking Helo/Athena a lot, but towards the end, I found myself feeling towards it the way I do about Angel/Cordelia, where I have a hard time liking it given that it led to Cordelia losing all aspects of her character that made her interesting. Helo/Athena wasn't nearly as bad, and I'm still very fond of them, but much of their potential got wasted when the writers reduced Athena's importance to the angst she could bring Helo's way. Then she shot Natalie, and then Boomer, and this was never explained because the writers depended on us chalking it up to a mother protecting her child. Because, you know, fictional women are prone to going insane when their children are threatened.
There’s Roslin. Roslin who was one of our strongest female characters to start with and a woman in a leadership role. And what became of her? She became part of Adama’s story at some point in season four, and lost her own character arc. Or, at least, stopped having an arc all her own. And then she died.
There’s Tory. Tory, who never even had a POV, who got a brief plot arc in season three, but to what end? So the writers could experiment with their notions of Cylon superiority or whatever using her. And then promptly forget about it. Authorial intent isn’t even an issue in her case, because I don’t think the writers ever even really…intended to do much with her? But they did remember her arc just in time so Tyrol could strangle her to death while everyone just stood there and watched.
And Caprica. Caprica who started out as the most compelling Cylon character we had, who was sort of our POV into the Cylon psyche. And Caprica possibly became more lost than anyone else. Sometime in season four, her arc became all about Tigh’s pain. So not only did we get Caprica filtered by the authorial intent, but even within the story, we’re removed from her POV by having her pregnancy arc given to us almost completely from Tigh’s POV. Tigh mentions his dead baby after the miscarriage, but did we see Caprica mentioning it again?
And then there’s Kara. Who arguably has fared the best out of all the female characters in that we never lost her arc or lost her POV. But we have to deal with Ron’s weird reading of her character and his weird take on female sexuality. And I hate to bring Hemingway into it, but the only difference between Brett and Kara is that men don’t actually sit around and bond over their unusual love for Kara and how Kara is a bit of Siren/Circe figure who kind of destroys men. Except! There is apparently totally a cut scene on the French release where Anders and Lee did just this. Sigh, I’m glad it was cut. And I wish I could find it again on youtube to see if my original interpretation of the scene holds.
The thing is, this last season, I saw a lot of meta, fic, etc, about female characters. Meta that analyzed their motivations, and fic that rewrote their arcs, or made them clearer, or reinvented bits of their canon. And I also noticed that a lot of people stopped watching because of the treatment of women on the show.
I don’t think this is unique to BSG, and tend to think that a large part of Buffy’s demise had to do with Buffy’s narrative becoming secondary to Spike’s at some point for the writers and for fandom. (You know, in the last two seasons that totally don’t exist!)
There was the bit with Tess on “Roswell,” where the Tess fans outright rejected “Departure” because to accept it would mean that we agreed that Tess was evil all along.
Lastly, in fandom, I’ve also seen something I am going to refer to as negative reinvention: wherein, the women characters get imposed with negative readings when there wasn’t one intended. We’ve seen this with Dee and fandom implying that Dee married Lee for status, etc. In fact, I think we see this a lot when it comes to women getting in the way of fandom’s OTPs. We’ve seen this with Emma Frost, where apparently, Scott slept with her because she telepathically forced him to. Um, no? The canon gives no indication for this, so the only reason fans believe this is so Scott doesn’t have to get any blame for having cheated on his wife. This is one of the more problematic aspects of reinvention in fandom: people fanwanking canon to absolve male characters while blaming female ones.
Which brings me back to my original point on authorial intent and female characters.
Mostly, I’m interested in how everyone else approaches authorial intent. Do you think you approach it differently as a woman (or as a man?) Or approach it differently in terms of male characters vs female characters? And how do you respond to sexist patterns of characterization of women?
I remember having a similar discussion in class about religion and women, and how women approach religion more loosely (or, at least, are more likely to not be rigid when it comes to traditionally canon interpretations of women, etc) because sometimes, traditional religion doesn’t have the best take on women. In feminist theology, one thing that we discussed that stayed with me was how women react when they’re faced with the negative connotations of their gender in religion as it's widely taught/practiced. Leaving aside the acceptance path, they do one of these three things: Repress, reject, or reinvent/reinterpret. And…it got me thinking: can we apply a similar approach to women being faced with negative portrayals of women in fiction in terms of authorial intent? (Because, you know, fandom is totally just like religion ;)
I’ve always thought that part of the reason that women have a problem relating to other female characters in fiction is because so much of our fiction still approaches women characters as the other/object. So when women consume fiction, they have to make a choice: either continue to see themselves as Subject and identify with the male subject, or identify with the women and give up the subject position. This, of course, doesn’t excuse in any way the fact that most people refuse to take that extra step in trying to approach fiction from a different POV, but it’s still a factor. So what happens when you actually realize this pattern consciously, or realize that fiction is treating women in ways that it might not treat men? You can either drop that show/comic/book, and reject it. You can repress that bit of canon (as I do all the time), or you can reinvent canon by writing fic, fanwanking, or having your own personal fanon or interpretation.
In fandom, we all do this all the time to varying degrees. But I wonder if we do it more as women and/or more when approaching women in these canons?
I remember my high school English teacher being amused by the fact that I really liked Abigail Williams in “The Crucible,” but I’m pretty sure that she strongly implied in class that she didn’t like Abigail and wouldn’t grade well a paper that defended her. Meh. Another time, I was called on in Milton class to give my interpretation of Delilah. Delilah, for those not aware of the story, is a biblical character who married the hero Samson in order to lure the secret of his strength out of him so her people could defeat him in war. I liked Delilah. Because how is that not heroic in a culture that gives women very limited ways of being a hero? She could not fight in war, so she used something else to help her people. Not unlike Polyxena betraying Achilles. But, of course, that was *not* the canon interpretation, and my professor was all, “Of course, your interpretation is as valid as any, but I don’t think we’re meant to read her like that.” Um, thank you for giving me permission to look at my female characters more positively?
When approaching texts, I’ve always been able to find awesome women where the canon might not have intended for them to be awesome. Even in canon literature that may have been trying to say just the opposite thing. This is sort of why I just…don’t get the whole “There are no interesting women!” Because I’ve managed to find them in everything I’ve ever read and cared enough to stick with.
But how much of that has to do with my tendency to ignore authorial intent when it comes to things like that? I mean, if I took that into consideration, I would be required to hate Helen of Troy, I’m pretty sure. Hate Hemingway’s Brett Ashley, Milton’s Delilah, dislike Supernatural’s Bella, hate Roswell’s Tess, and possibly want BSG’s Boomer and Tory at least a little dead.
What disturbs me the most is when I feel like I have to dislike something just because even though my interpretation of it is positive, the writer intended it negatively. I don’t have a problem with Kara’s sexuality (you guys, it PAINS me to not be able to think of a single word for a woman who enjoys sex/is sexually active that doesn’t have negative connotations.) but I’ve ignored parts of it because of what I think Ron is trying to say about her. Why should I have to change my opinion on things I like or don’t mind just because I’m now taking into consideration the problematic authorial intent? Why can't I critque/hate the male writers while still loving the female characters? It’s not something I do often, so it’s odd when I have enough contempt for a writer where I feel the need to dislike something just based on that. So this is me making an active decision to *not* let Ron’s reading of Kara get in the way of my interpretation of her.
I’ve also been thinking about how all this imposed reading, authorial intent, male gaze POV make women characters…elusive. More so than the male characters, very possibly. And I wonder if we saw a bit of this in how there was such a loss of focus on women’s narratives on BSG? Dead women have been mentioned, but we also have all these women without a voice or a story or a coherent narrative. Because we have them filtered through the authorial intent, and then filtered often through the male narrative, male gaze, and the vision we get of them is so…distorted by everything. Is it any wonder that their narratives get lost between all these imposed readings?
Firstly, I’m not at all saying that women are the only ones this happened to because Lee’s character hasn’t had a direction this whole season, IMO. But I am specifically only looking at women, authorial intent, and how women approach women characters, and don’t care to get into a “BUT IT HAPPENS TO MEN, TOO!” discussion. I’m sure it does, (but I’m willing to bet it’s not for all the same reasons, other than, well, crappy writers.) This is not that discussion, though.
I first noticed this tendency on BSG with Cally, and Tyrol’s rant on her “vacant eyes.” The word vacant, used in the context of describing women, is one of those things that pushes my buttons. It’s such a loaded word when it comes to fiction and women’s treatment in fiction. Women, way more often than men, are used as texts within texts to embody whatever the writer wants them to embody for the sake of the narrative, symbolism, etc. Cally’s character got imposed with so much crap towards the end, and the show never really took her issues seriously. Some of her issues with Athena were valid, but the show treated it like racism on her part, instead of exploring Athena’s character in that light. Her mental health issues were coming from a very justified place, but it was treated as more of the “crazy women in the attic” syndrome. Even after she died, the show was still writing narratives on to her dead body, and not very flattering ones.
There’s the death of Dee, and what Ron said about it. He said, “Her whole family, her whole world, everything had been shattered. After Billy died and after she splits with Lee, probably all Dualla has is [the goal of Earth]." You know what’s wrong with that? The use of the word ‘probably.’ What does that mean when coming from the guy who wrote her? It means that even he doesn’t know her motivation for killing herself. It means that he’s imposing a reading on her that might not have been intended originally. It means that she is a text to be written upon, like Cally. At least they let her rest in peace and we didn’t get Lee talking about her after her death.
There’s Boomer. Boomer who had one of the clearest, strongest narratives in the first season. And once the writers lost focus on her, she just became…lost. And the writers never grasped her narrative successfully again. And she became such a plot device this last season. Shocking reveal: Boomer voted against her model! Why? No one really knows. Shocking twist: Boomer is sleeping with Cavil. Um, okay. Heartwarming gesture: Boomer forgives Ellen. Followed by another shocking twist: Boomer betrays everyone and steals Hera. And then another heartwarming gesture of rescuing Hera, followed by death. I strongly felt that the writers were just writing plot twists on to her character, and didn’t bother developing her character. Was this easier to do given that she was a female character, and women in fiction are more easily ‘written on’? She really is the best example of an important character in the subject position being reduced to the object position in the form of a plot device. I think I mourn the loss of her POV more than any other.
A lot of us continued to like Boomer despite all of this, but did Boomer’s character arc, as written in season four, deserve this? I think a lot of us were fanwanking and speculating on her motivations. Mainly because the show didn’t really give us too many valid ones. There are hints, yes, but nothing substantial.
And there's Athena, whose tragedy is much the same as Boomer's: Started out with one of the most focused and strongest character arcs that devolved into her being little more than a part of Helo's arc. I started out liking Helo/Athena a lot, but towards the end, I found myself feeling towards it the way I do about Angel/Cordelia, where I have a hard time liking it given that it led to Cordelia losing all aspects of her character that made her interesting. Helo/Athena wasn't nearly as bad, and I'm still very fond of them, but much of their potential got wasted when the writers reduced Athena's importance to the angst she could bring Helo's way. Then she shot Natalie, and then Boomer, and this was never explained because the writers depended on us chalking it up to a mother protecting her child. Because, you know, fictional women are prone to going insane when their children are threatened.
There’s Roslin. Roslin who was one of our strongest female characters to start with and a woman in a leadership role. And what became of her? She became part of Adama’s story at some point in season four, and lost her own character arc. Or, at least, stopped having an arc all her own. And then she died.
There’s Tory. Tory, who never even had a POV, who got a brief plot arc in season three, but to what end? So the writers could experiment with their notions of Cylon superiority or whatever using her. And then promptly forget about it. Authorial intent isn’t even an issue in her case, because I don’t think the writers ever even really…intended to do much with her? But they did remember her arc just in time so Tyrol could strangle her to death while everyone just stood there and watched.
And Caprica. Caprica who started out as the most compelling Cylon character we had, who was sort of our POV into the Cylon psyche. And Caprica possibly became more lost than anyone else. Sometime in season four, her arc became all about Tigh’s pain. So not only did we get Caprica filtered by the authorial intent, but even within the story, we’re removed from her POV by having her pregnancy arc given to us almost completely from Tigh’s POV. Tigh mentions his dead baby after the miscarriage, but did we see Caprica mentioning it again?
And then there’s Kara. Who arguably has fared the best out of all the female characters in that we never lost her arc or lost her POV. But we have to deal with Ron’s weird reading of her character and his weird take on female sexuality. And I hate to bring Hemingway into it, but the only difference between Brett and Kara is that men don’t actually sit around and bond over their unusual love for Kara and how Kara is a bit of Siren/Circe figure who kind of destroys men. Except! There is apparently totally a cut scene on the French release where Anders and Lee did just this. Sigh, I’m glad it was cut. And I wish I could find it again on youtube to see if my original interpretation of the scene holds.
The thing is, this last season, I saw a lot of meta, fic, etc, about female characters. Meta that analyzed their motivations, and fic that rewrote their arcs, or made them clearer, or reinvented bits of their canon. And I also noticed that a lot of people stopped watching because of the treatment of women on the show.
I don’t think this is unique to BSG, and tend to think that a large part of Buffy’s demise had to do with Buffy’s narrative becoming secondary to Spike’s at some point for the writers and for fandom. (You know, in the last two seasons that totally don’t exist!)
There was the bit with Tess on “Roswell,” where the Tess fans outright rejected “Departure” because to accept it would mean that we agreed that Tess was evil all along.
Lastly, in fandom, I’ve also seen something I am going to refer to as negative reinvention: wherein, the women characters get imposed with negative readings when there wasn’t one intended. We’ve seen this with Dee and fandom implying that Dee married Lee for status, etc. In fact, I think we see this a lot when it comes to women getting in the way of fandom’s OTPs. We’ve seen this with Emma Frost, where apparently, Scott slept with her because she telepathically forced him to. Um, no? The canon gives no indication for this, so the only reason fans believe this is so Scott doesn’t have to get any blame for having cheated on his wife. This is one of the more problematic aspects of reinvention in fandom: people fanwanking canon to absolve male characters while blaming female ones.
Which brings me back to my original point on authorial intent and female characters.
Mostly, I’m interested in how everyone else approaches authorial intent. Do you think you approach it differently as a woman (or as a man?) Or approach it differently in terms of male characters vs female characters? And how do you respond to sexist patterns of characterization of women?