|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 2:08:57 GMT -5
whenever someone says there’s no misogyny in the books i wonder to myself if they’ve read dotc yet cause uh. well that arc alone has filled so so many fridges… dotc is a good arc but the misogyny in it gets really uncomfortable at times, definitely the most pronounced it gets in the series (but it is present in other arcs besides dotc) Really? I never saw a lot of misogyny in DotC, can you point out a few instances? [opens up the fridge] would you like bright stream, storm, or turtle tail? just the way most of the love interests are written is very weird, and they all feel very interchangeable and disposable (and many of them are disposed of)
|
|
|
Post by tema on Jan 3, 2022 2:16:11 GMT -5
the way most of the love interests are written is very weird, and they all feel very interchangeable and disposable (and many of them are disposed of) That's how 95% of the characters in the series are written.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 2:22:52 GMT -5
the way most of the love interests are written is very weird, and they all feel very interchangeable and disposable (and many of them are disposed of) That's how 95% of the characters in the series are written. true, but in dotc we have a bunch of female love interests who die to further the arcs of the protagonist (as i said above, bright stream, storm, and turtle tail). it’s a very very common and well documented misogynistic trope, female characters who exist only to be killed off for whenever the male protagonist needs to be angsty before being quickly forgotten about
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on Jan 3, 2022 3:05:01 GMT -5
Really? I never saw a lot of misogyny in DotC, can you point out a few instances? [opens up the fridge] would you like bright stream, storm, or turtle tail? just the way most of the love interests are written is very weird, and they all feel very interchangeable and disposable (and many of them are disposed of) I never really saw that as misogyny. The writers creating characters for the sake of the protagonists having a love interest and drama is not really sexist, it just means that they put less work in these love interests than for example the love interests in TBC (Stemleaf is a really good love interest imo). We also have some really strong female characters in DotC, who turn out to be powerful leaders (Tall Shadow and Wind Runner), and we even got an ultimate girlboss out of Tall Shadow, someone who never had a mate, kits, or a single thought about that in her body (atleast in her novella). I understand why you might see it as misogyny, and I have to agree with you that most of the female characters in DotC are really bland, but I don't think that means DotC has a lot of sexism in it, just poorly written female love interests.
|
|
|
Post by tema on Jan 3, 2022 9:11:06 GMT -5
That's how 95% of the characters in the series are written. true, but in dotc we have a bunch of female love interests who die to further the arcs of the protagonist (as i said above, bright stream, storm, and turtle tail). it’s a very very common and well documented misogynistic trope, female characters who exist only to be killed off for whenever the male protagonist needs to be angsty before being quickly forgotten about I'm not going to lie, but every single time I read or hear someone say "(x) is a (y) trope," I discount a lot of their argument. Tropes are not tools for judging media, tropes are just repeated things in storytelling. If you want to claim that their only purpose is to further some male character and thus be objectified, or anything similar, then by all means, I can't and won't stop you, but trying to leave it at "this is a trope, so it's bad" is a reductionist statement that doesn't actually address the media being talked about. It's a mental trap that avoids talking about a piece of media by talking about completely separate media.
|
|
#a3c5e6
Name Colour
𝓣𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓵
Warrior Fanatic
All hail me, the flower-flushing queen of Prague
|
Post by 𝓣𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓵 on Jan 3, 2022 10:23:01 GMT -5
I don't really agree. She-cats aren't really restricted from doing anything, and the closest thing we get to it—female leaders being unable to have kits—it's clearly not something we're meant to agree with. And just look at the context:
In the very next chapter, we get this:
It's possible Echosong was just saying this to get Leafstar to focus on the Clan more, but the fact that Firestar never mentioned this should say something, him originally being an outsider and a tom aside, but he knows Bluestar's story, so you'd think he would've told her if it were really that important. And again, we're clearly not meant to agree with this idea anyway, considering Leafstar goes against it anyway. Just because a good character says something doesn't mean we're always meant to agree with them.
As for Bluestar, she was a new mother, so Sunstar choosing her as the next deputy was unlikely, as she would've been expected to focus on them. Even while she was barely showing, Sunstar wanted her to move into the nursery and the fact that he's basically her father figure probably had something to do with it. He also heavily implied that he wouldn't have chosen Thistleclaw anyway, so we're probably meant to take the situation as ambiguous at best, even despite Goosefeather's visions (it should probably be noted that the vision about Thistleclaw being covered in blood did end up happening, just not in the way he and Bluefur thought it would, something that isn't really new for Goosefeather anyway).
Honestly, the fact that Squirrelflight was still deputy while she had kits (as a substitute has never once been mentioned, unless that gets changed for whatever reason) should indicate that this isn't really that big of an issue for the most part.
I can see the argument with she-cats suffering for the sake of a tom's development (especially where DotC is concerned), but I don't think that's necessarily indicative of any misogyny, though I could just be missing something here.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2022 11:37:28 GMT -5
true, but in dotc we have a bunch of female love interests who die to further the arcs of the protagonist (as i said above, bright stream, storm, and turtle tail). it’s a very very common and well documented misogynistic trope, female characters who exist only to be killed off for whenever the male protagonist needs to be angsty before being quickly forgotten about I'm not going to lie, but every single time I read or hear someone say "(x) is a (y) trope," I discount a lot of their argument. Tropes are not tools for judging media, tropes are just repeated things in storytelling. If you want to claim that their only purpose is to further some male character and thus be objectified, or anything similar, then by all means, I can't and won't stop you, but trying to leave it at "this is a trope, so it's bad" is a reductionist statement that doesn't actually address the media being talked about. It's a mental trap that avoids talking about a piece of media by talking about completely separate media. i don’t think you’re understanding what i’m saying. tropes aren’t always fun and can often be a repeated stereotype when applied to a minority character. “bury your gays” comes to mind. the issue is not that the same thing happens again and again, but why it is happening. i don’t have something against tropes, i have something against misogyny lol dotc is misogynistic, end of discussion, moving on to something else. how about the “is bluestar blue or gray” thread?
|
|
|
Post by tema on Jan 3, 2022 11:43:53 GMT -5
I'm not going to lie, but every single time I read or hear someone say "(x) is a (y) trope," I discount a lot of their argument. Tropes are not tools for judging media, tropes are just repeated things in storytelling. If you want to claim that their only purpose is to further some male character and thus be objectified, or anything similar, then by all means, I can't and won't stop you, but trying to leave it at "this is a trope, so it's bad" is a reductionist statement that doesn't actually address the media being talked about. It's a mental trap that avoids talking about a piece of media by talking about completely separate media. i don’t think you’re understanding what i’m saying. tropes aren’t always fun and can often be a repeated stereotype when applied to a minority character. “bury your gays” comes to mind. the issue is not that the same thing happens again and again, but why it is happening. i don’t have something against tropes, i have something against misogyny lol dotc is misogynistic, end of discussion, moving on to something else. how about the “is bluestar blue or gray” thread? No. My problem isn't that I misunderstood you. My problem is that I did, and see the problem with that generalization that completely misses the point of documenting tropes. Even on "Bury your gays," there are several examples on that page that are a complete stretch (the Bugsnax bit comes to mind; calling that game homophobic because the player can evoke BYG misses the point for that game's ending completely, especially since two of the three romance plots there are from pairs that identify as the same). dotc is misogynistic, end of discussion, moving on to something else. how about the “is bluestar blue or gray” thread? Declaring the end to an existing debate is not sound for making a convincing point, nor is it respectful to the people on the opposite side of the fence. If people don't believe that "dotc is misogynistic" holds water, repeating that statement and adding "end of" isn't going to convince them to change their mind.
|
|
|
Cloudstorm
Don’t let it kill you. Even when it hurts like hell.
|
Post by Cloudstorm on Jan 3, 2022 13:45:54 GMT -5
So killing off fictional characters is now considered a hate crime and misogynistic??. I mean them repeating the same trope does get redundant after awhile, and is kinda lazy writing, but it’s not like their characterless, completely personality void cutouts that don’t have a soul of some degree, and plenty of male characters get iced in the arc as well, they just weren’t love interests to the Protags, but evoked anguish and progressed the plot just as well, obviously losing a love interest hits deeper, but both are equally awful, and in no circumstance are the female characters in DoTC treated lesser or that their beneath the toms. Killing off a fictional character regardless of Gender isn’t grounds to rationalize that the writer is Misogynistic or a misandrist or feels any contemptuous or hatred towards either gender. And there’s no misogynistic culture being enforced with the She-cats being treated as servants or slaves etc underneath the toms, or them being denied the rights and privileges that the toms are allowed.
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on Jan 3, 2022 14:11:48 GMT -5
I'm not going to lie, but every single time I read or hear someone say "(x) is a (y) trope," I discount a lot of their argument. Tropes are not tools for judging media, tropes are just repeated things in storytelling. If you want to claim that their only purpose is to further some male character and thus be objectified, or anything similar, then by all means, I can't and won't stop you, but trying to leave it at "this is a trope, so it's bad" is a reductionist statement that doesn't actually address the media being talked about. It's a mental trap that avoids talking about a piece of media by talking about completely separate media. i don’t think you’re understanding what i’m saying. tropes aren’t always fun and can often be a repeated stereotype when applied to a minority character. “bury your gays” comes to mind. the issue is not that the same thing happens again and again, but why it is happening. i don’t have something against tropes, i have something against misogyny lol dotc is misogynistic, end of discussion, moving on to something else. how about the “is bluestar blue or gray” thread? It's really not. These female love interests are in no way below the male characters. None of the female characters in DotC were below the male characters. Yes, these love interests were created so the pov characters could have character development, but that doesn't mean there is nothing about these love interests. Turtle Tail is someone who chooses for herself. She doesn't need a man, she wants one. When she felt like Gray Wing was disinterested in her, she chose for herself and she chose to leave. She chose to find a peaceful future in which she could be happy. Tom came into the picture, and she eventually became mates with Tom, but when Tom started to abuse her, Turtle Tail chose for herself again, and left because she knew Tom wasn't treating her right and she knew she deserved better. Gray Wing, the cat she always loved, finally showed interest in her, and she allowed him to father her kits. She was feisty, taking the lead over Gray Wing when he was making decisions that weren't good for him. Storm always was a confident she-cat, knowing that she had great abilities of her own and that was proven when she left Clear Sky because she was sick of him treating her like someone who needed the biggest amount of protecting. How is that misogynistic? A she-cat who defied her mate and leader because she was sick of him protecting her, and eventually leaving him to live alone, not even accepting the help of his brother? Bright Stream definitely had the least personality out of these three, but god, you can't ignore how badass it actually is that she insisted to fight off the eagles and saved Gray Wing from being taken by one while she was pregnant. She didn't only have loyalty for her mate, she had loyalty for every single cat on the Sun Trail group. Even though these characters were created for Gray Wing and Clear Sky, that doesn't mean the existence of these characters is misogynistic. All of these characters have some really badass and independent personality traits, and they are in no way treated as being below their love interests (not by the narrative, but also not by the characters).
|
|
|
Post by Amber on Jan 3, 2022 16:35:08 GMT -5
I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, I'm really trying not to be, but I think some people are misunderstanding what fridging is. It has nothing to do with a character (usually a female character) being strong or independent or whatever and dying. It's when a character (again, usually and overwhelmingly a female character) is killed off (or even goes through something like torture) for no reason other than for the sake of pain/motivation for another character (quite often a man). I don't feel like going in depth about this and I'm not going to respond to any replies because I don't have the spoons for it right now, but here's a good video (or I thought it was good at least) explaining fridging more in depth for those interested:
While tropes are fantastic tools for storytelling, some can be harmful. Bury your gays isn't homophobic because queer characters die; it's homophobic because queer characters are the only ones to die in a piece of media while straight (heterosexual and heteroromantic) cisgender characters get have a happy ending. Fridging isn't misogynistic because a woman dies; it's misogynistic because it reduces a woman's death and pain as motivation to a man's story. The focus isn't on her pain or what happened to her or even commentary on what caused her death and/or pain, it's on how the man (or men) deal with her death/the harm she expierenced. With all that said, I do think there are issues with how Warriors has treated its female characters. At least in the past, I haven't properly read a Warriors book in years. Anyway, there's definitely a fridging issue that's been prevelant through most of the books/arcs. I would count Spottedleaf, Willowbreeze, Silverstream, Ferncloud, Sorreltail, Bright Stream, Storm, and probably others I'm forgetting as being fridged. And while there's equality between male and female warriors, I think part of the issue for some people has to do with the leadership aspect. This is just speculation on my part, but we see that she-cats and toms do the same tasks, however there's more male leaders and deputies compared to female leaders and deputies*. I think it comes across as things not truly being equal for some people, especially when adding Bluestar's and Leafstar's situations to the whole thing. Again, all of this was simply speculation on my part, but I have wondered if that plays a part for some people. * It's not a bad thing for there to be an uneven amount of male and female characters in leadership positions, and I think it'd be kind of weird if the amount of male and female leaders/deputies was equal. There are more male leaders and deputies than female leaders and deputies, though, and I think it was worth noting. (This turned out way longer than I thought. Sorry about that.)
|
|
|
Post by tema on Jan 3, 2022 18:01:54 GMT -5
I'd be more inclined to agree with that second paragraph if the trope page didn't try to force examples like the Metal Gear section, which, to imply that it's "straights who have a happy ending and not gays" is not how the series plays out at all.
Reading some of the examples on there like the Maggie & Annie entry, which is completely contrary to what this alleged trope is, or the Invincible entry are really making me legitimately wonder if this actually is a trope and not some conjecture invented by some outrage-blogger that a bunch of people ran with.
|
|
|
Post by Skypaw13 on Jan 3, 2022 18:55:11 GMT -5
I'd be more inclined to agree with that second paragraph if the trope page didn't try to force examples like the Metal Gear section, which, to imply that it's "straights who have a happy ending and not gays" is not how the series plays out at all. Reading some of the examples on there like the Maggie & Annie entry, which is completely contrary to what this alleged trope is, or the Invincible entry are really making me legitimately wonder if this actually is a trope and not some conjecture invented by some outrage-blogger that a bunch of people ran with. But TV tropes didn't invent the fridging a woman or the bury your gays trope. They've been around forever, TV tropes is just a database recording their existence. TV tropes is also a wiki, meaning anyone can add their opinions to it. Just because there's a few examples you disagree with doesn't mean the entire trope doesn't exist. Also, people's analysis of media can differ. You not seeing the misogyny in a particular work doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any. That's why these tropes are tricky to define.
|
|
|
Post by Spooky Alice on Jan 3, 2022 19:14:01 GMT -5
I'd be more inclined to agree with that second paragraph if the trope page didn't try to force examples like the Metal Gear section, which, to imply that it's "straights who have a happy ending and not gays" is not how the series plays out at all. Reading some of the examples on there like the Maggie & Annie entry, which is completely contrary to what this alleged trope is, or the Invincible entry are really making me legitimately wonder if this actually is a trope and not some conjecture invented by some outrage-blogger that a bunch of people ran with. the "women in refrigerators" trope was first coined and discussed by gail simone. an award winning comic writer
|
|
|
Post by tema on Jan 3, 2022 23:44:51 GMT -5
But TV tropes didn't invent the (..) the bury your gays trope. They've been around forever, Somehow, I doubt that. Just from a cursory search, I'm finding conflicting results ranging from allegedly starting back in the 1970s (according to Hollywood Reporter: ...But the article stating this is also making the 200-IQ statement that people dying in the Walking Dead is problematic, so I'm going to take that with a grain of salt. I'm also finding an article by McNair Scholar Journal claiming that it came from the 19th century, but that one is going so far as to claim that the trope will have one homosexual partner surviving, only to realize their attraction is a phase. I'm willing to believe that definitions can change over time, but using that in the same moniker as people just being outraged bu a gay character dying is a huge stretch. Moreover, that definition is aligning with what Tropedia is giving. Now, when I read that definition and see people calling things like "one of the lovers dies" a subversion, that doesn't tell me that the definition has broadened its usage, that tells me that the label is being haphazardly thrown around and losing impact to the point where it's just a retread of "the Lost Lenore." I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this trope because now more than ever I don't get it, but that's at least something more than the literal nothing I'm being given here. TV tropes is also a wiki, meaning anyone can add their opinions to it. Just because there's a few examples you disagree with doesn't mean the entire trope doesn't exist. The statement that anyone can edit it is a complete nonargument that simultaneously contradicts the whole "few examples" excuse. Just like most wikis nowadays, TVTropes has members that regularly patrol the pages they take a particular interest in and try to keep them up to standard. That's how most popular wikis operate now. There should be some standards, but most of the examples I'm recognizing are irrelevant. It's not good, my dude. I harped on the Metal Gear examples because the last statement of the main paragraph points out why the trope doesn't apply at all; since almost every character in that series can die. That type of thing should be caught immediately by the author writing that, but it isn't. Honestly, it almost feels like the author cares more about making some progressive statement than using the website for its purpose or respecting the work discussed. (And for those curious, the last-last part of the MGS bit covers Revolver Ocelot as "being devoted" leading to his death. Ocelot. The chronological final boss of the 'Solid' series.I'm not a big fan of the whole 'it's just some bad examples' bit either. How many "bad examples" would be good enough here? If someone's going to state that a trope is inherently bigoted on a structural level, then why is that trope's definition seemingly haphazard? Let's take this one step further and ask about a book I'm not seeing on TVTropes: Tallstars Revenge. Under the more loose definition being thrown around, this book should fit the trope since Tallstar dies at the end. Yet, this is after he's lived a full life and now can join StarClan happily after remembering and talking with his """friend""". We have confirmation at that point that Jake has long passed as well, but given that he disappears much earlier from the entire larger story at play, he for all intents and purposes died young. I would ask a hypothetical of "is it right to use this to call Tallstar's Revenge homophobic because it can be argued that it uses that trope," but let's not waste any time with that and answer with a resounding 'no,' since the actual passing of both characters has nothing to do with passing judgment onto any group of people, it is the logical end of a story covering a character's life, and reducing it to those levels strips away the context of the story to the point where it is inherently lacking in order to use it to pass off judgment to an entire work. That is why saying that something is a trope and thus (x) is not a criticism. It does not cover the actual media discussed. Doing this is categorically unsounded, and TVTropes even makes fun of this idea in their "a Tropeless Tale" article. Also, people's analysis of media can differ. You not seeing the misogyny in a particular work doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any. That's why these tropes are tricky to define. That is simply untrue. Let's get the easy rebuttal out of the way foremost: why can't the reverse be stated? If everything supposedly differs because of interpretation, then who is to say that you're not applying some attribute to the series that doesn't describe it? If I may lose patience for a moment, I don't see an argument that basically amounts to 'it's all subjective but it's there anyway' and think my agency is being respected, I feel like someone is trying to play me for a fool. But to get back on topic, the two aren't even comparable statements, when you toss around a label for something, you're making a claim. It is not up the people reading your post to decide to accept some "differing view" that might or might not be there, it's up to the claimant to provide something substantial to back that up. This goes double for severe commentary like "misogyny." When you state that a work is misogynistic, you state that it promotes an attitude harmful to women. I'm not going to talk about how that is not the type of thing to toss around lightly, and instead remind everyone that this is the same series that gives us some pretty bad*** female characters. Trying to state that the series inherently promotes anti-women sentiment when we have characters like Mistystar, Leafpool, Ivypool, Leafstar is... and Im sorry, but I can't think of a better word, but kinda silly.
|
|
|
Post by tema on Jan 3, 2022 23:45:38 GMT -5
I'd be more inclined to agree with that second paragraph if the trope page didn't try to force examples like the Metal Gear section, which, to imply that it's "straights who have a happy ending and not gays" is not how the series plays out at all. Reading some of the examples on there like the Maggie & Annie entry, which is completely contrary to what this alleged trope is, or the Invincible entry are really making me legitimately wonder if this actually is a trope and not some conjecture invented by some outrage-blogger that a bunch of people ran with. the "women in refrigerators" trope was first coined and discussed by gail simone. an award winning comic writer That's not the article nor trope we were talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Skypaw13 on Jan 4, 2022 1:03:07 GMT -5
But TV tropes didn't invent the (..) the bury your gays trope. They've been around forever, Somehow, I doubt that. Just from a cursory search, I'm finding conflicting results ranging from allegedly starting back in the 1970s (according to Hollywood Reporter: ...But the article stating this is also making the 200-IQ statement that people dying in the Walking Dead is problematic, so I'm going to take that with a grain of salt. I'm also finding an article by McNair Scholar Journal claiming that it came from the 19th century, but that one is going so far as to claim that the trope will have one homosexual partner surviving, only to realize their attraction is a phase. I'm willing to believe that definitions can change over time, but using that in the same moniker as people just being outraged bu a gay character dying is a huge stretch. Moreover, that definition is aligning with what Tropedia is giving. Now, when I read that definition and see people calling things like "one of the lovers dies" a subversion, that doesn't tell me that the definition has broadened its usage, that tells me that the label is being haphazardly thrown around and losing impact to the point where it's just a retread of "the Lost Lenore." I'm not going to claim to be an expert on this trope because now more than ever I don't get it, but that's at least something more than the literal nothing I'm being given here. TV tropes is also a wiki, meaning anyone can add their opinions to it. Just because there's a few examples you disagree with doesn't mean the entire trope doesn't exist. The statement that anyone can edit it is a complete nonargument that simultaneously contradicts the whole "few examples" excuse. Just like most wikis nowadays, TVTropes has members that regularly patrol the pages they take a particular interest in and try to keep them up to standard. That's how most popular wikis operate now. There should be some standards, but most of the examples I'm recognizing are irrelevant. It's not good, my dude. I harped on the Metal Gear examples because the last statement of the main paragraph points out why the trope doesn't apply at all; since almost every character in that series can die. That type of thing should be caught immediately by the author writing that, but it isn't. Honestly, it almost feels like the author cares more about making some progressive statement than using the website for its purpose or respecting the work discussed. (And for those curious, the last-last part of the MGS bit covers Revolver Ocelot as "being devoted" leading to his death. Ocelot. The chronological final boss of the 'Solid' series.I'm not a big fan of the whole 'it's just some bad examples' bit either. How many "bad examples" would be good enough here? If someone's going to state that a trope is inherently bigoted on a structural level, then why is that trope's definition seemingly haphazard? Let's take this one step further and ask about a book I'm not seeing on TVTropes: Tallstars Revenge. Under the more loose definition being thrown around, this book should fit the trope since Tallstar dies at the end. Yet, this is after he's lived a full life and now can join StarClan happily after remembering and talking with his """friend""". We have confirmation at that point that Jake has long passed as well, but given that he disappears much earlier from the entire larger story at play, he for all intents and purposes died young. I would ask a hypothetical of "is it right to use this to call Tallstar's Revenge homophobic because it can be argued that it uses that trope," but let's not waste any time with that and answer with a resounding 'no,' since the actual passing of both characters has nothing to do with passing judgment onto any group of people, it is the logical end of a story covering a character's life, and reducing it to those levels strips away the context of the story to the point where it is inherently lacking in order to use it to pass off judgment to an entire work. That is why saying that something is a trope and thus (x) is not a criticism. It does not cover the actual media discussed. Doing this is categorically unsounded, and TVTropes even makes fun of this idea in their "a Tropeless Tale" article. Also, people's analysis of media can differ. You not seeing the misogyny in a particular work doesn't necessarily mean there isn't any. That's why these tropes are tricky to define. That is simply untrue. Let's get the easy rebuttal out of the way foremost: why can't the reverse be stated? If everything supposedly differs because of interpretation, then who is to say that you're not applying some attribute to the series that doesn't describe it? If I may lose patience for a moment, I don't see an argument that basically amounts to 'it's all subjective but it's there anyway' and think my agency is being respected, I feel like someone is trying to play me for a fool. But to get back on topic, the two aren't even comparable statements, when you toss around a label for something, you're making a claim. It is not up the people reading your post to decide to accept some "differing view" that might or might not be there, it's up to the claimant to provide something substantial to back that up. This goes double for severe commentary like "misogyny." When you state that a work is misogynistic, you state that it promotes an attitude harmful to women. I'm not going to talk about how that is not the type of thing to toss around lightly, and instead remind everyone that this is the same series that gives us some pretty bad*** female characters. Trying to state that the series inherently promotes anti-women sentiment when we have characters like Mistystar, Leafpool, Ivypool, Leafstar is... and Im sorry, but I can't think of a better word, but kinda silly. I'm going to keep my response short because I'm actually pretty angry right now. This is the fifth time I've written my response so I hope it's measured enough. You are putting words in my mouth, putting up massive strawmen, and assuming statements I didn't even make. All this on top of a debate that I didn't consent to or start. I was not debating. Yes, my statements are all "nonarguments" because I wasn't arguing. I was pointing out (1) how TVtropes works, and (2) that people's analyses differ. I was making absolutely zero claims about sexism/misogyny itself, and I was barely talking about the tropes in question. I'm not going to write out responses to everything you said because I'm not interested in debating (never was). If you want my actual opinion, I actually agree with you that the series isn't sexist. I'm not going to respond to any more posts you make in this thread, as I believe it would be unhealthy for both of us. Have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by tema on Jan 4, 2022 1:20:16 GMT -5
I'm going to be brief as well since there are a limited number of ways I see being cordial about this. If you're not looking for a debate (or don't want to consent to one), then entering a conversation already underway to make a lecture isn't going to get your desired outcome. This whole ordeal that I'm strawmanning your argument and "putting words into your mouth" is not entirely accurate either. I tried to stress the point that I was not arguing from definitions you gave rather than make an attempt to validate that information from outside sources as most of the discussion so far seems to be charged absolute platitudes. Maybe I do owe you an apology. I'm just already getting tired of this sect of fandom drama already, and it hasn't even fully dropped yet. So... take that if you will: I'm sorry for unleashing that torrent on you.
|
|
|
Post by Flamefrost on Jan 4, 2022 6:34:22 GMT -5
I don't think "fridging" is the right term for the deaths in DOTC, and saying so is ignoring the fact that this arc simply had a lot of tragic deaths of both toms and she-cats.
Moon Shadow died to further Tall Shadow's plot development and thus the eventual formation of ShadowClan. River Ripple's (male) mentor also died and literally only served to explain how he got his name. Frost died which furthered Petal's character as a staunch Clear Sky supporter. Tom died defending Acorn Fur, which is why she decided to become a SkyClan cat. Lightning Tail died for Thunder which caused so much grief that it created the first warriors vigil. I mean, Gray Wing died unable to raise his kits just like Storm and Turtle Tail, would you say he was "fridged" for Slate's character development in the subsequent books?
Point is, male characters get killed off just as often as female characters. The only reason there aren't any male love interests killed off is because all the PoVs in DOTC are male and HarperCollins is well... the way it is.
Edit: And just to answer the thread question, I do think there is misogyny in the books, albeit unintentional and not a core facet of warriors life. I think its a lot of author and editor unconscious bias that has seeped through. This isn't helped by fan misogyny, which as someone who's been active in this fandom for almost 15 years I can attest to (I myself was guilty of the "not like other girls" mindset and thus hatred of "promiscous" Squirrelflight and "lazy" Daisy, whoops), which definitely put pressure on the team as can be seen by Vicky's reason for Ferncloud's demise. That being said, I don't think it's intentionally malicious and I thinj recent series have definitely tried to correct it.
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on Jan 4, 2022 6:49:00 GMT -5
I don't think "fridging" is the right term for the deaths in DOTC, and saying so is ignoring the fact that this arc simply had a lot of tragic deaths of both toms and she-cats. Moon Shadow died to further Tall Shadow's plot development and thus the eventual formation of ShadowClan. River Ripple's (male) mentor also died and literally only served to explain how he got his name. Frost died which furthered Petal's character as a staunch Clear Sky supporter. Tom died defending Acorn Fur, which is why she decided to become a SkyClan cat. Lightning Tail died for Thunder which caused so much grief that it created the first warriors vigil. I mean, Gray Wing died unable to raise his kits just like Storm and Turtle Tail, would you say he was "fridged" for Slate's character development in the subsequent books? Point is, male characters get killed off just as often as female characters. The only reason there aren't any male love interests killed off is because all the PoVs in DOTC are male and HarperCollins is well... the way it is. Edit: And just to answer the thread question, I do think there is misogyny in the books, albeit unintentional and not a core facet of warriors life. I think its a lot of author and editor unconscious bias that has seeped through. This isn't helped by fan misogyny, which as someone who's been active in this fandom for almost 15 years I can attest to (I myself was guilty of the "not like other girls" mindset and thus hatred of "promiscous" Squirrelflight and "lazy" Daisy, whoops), which definitely put pressure on the team as can be seen by Vicky's reason for Ferncloud's demise. That being said, I don't think it's intentionally malicious and I thinj recent series have definitely tried to correct it. Tom actually died defending Sparrow Fur, but I understand the confusion. Also, I agree with you. DotC is an arc with a lot of tragic deaths, and if you are just gonna ignore the male deaths and only focus on the female ones and then call it misogynistic, that just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. The only reason people focus more on the female characters is because their love interests are male pov characters. Moon Shadow got iced for Tall Shadow's character development, but nobody cares about that because Tall Shadow is not a pov character.
|
|
|
Post by Sand 🎃 on Jan 4, 2022 10:38:25 GMT -5
Going to remind everyone on this thread of our Forum Rules specifically as there's been several posts on this thread that are basically rule breaking. - Listen in good faith, don't seek to disagree.
- No snark, no micro or macro aggression.
- Be awesome.
If you cannot comply with the rules, then please rethink and rewrite your comments. You also have the option to not post. You have many options, it's up to you to make the right choice.
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Jan 4, 2022 11:46:46 GMT -5
hmmm I have some issues with tropes like fridging. i understand the concern and there are times when it's obvious, but for the most part, it relies too much on the reader's subjective interpretation. there's no clearly definable limits to the trope, which means it gets applied to a wide variety of fictional situations and there's no way to distinguish "real" fridging from misinterpretation of the text, besides the readers' subjective opinion.
i guess another way to put it: at what point does a female character's death count as a fridge? like how much of their characterization has to be about their male love interest for her death to be considered fridging? and the matter of whether her death is only about the male love interest's trauma is really a question of subjective analysis. there's times where it's very obvious, but a lot of accusations of fridging aren't, and depends in part on how you as the reader choose to interpret it.
i think the concept becomes tricky for me solely because a side character dying to further the development of the protagonist is part of story structure. the side characters largely exist to further or add to the characterization of the main in some way, regardless of whether they are fully-fledged and well-written in their own right. that's why they're called supporting characters. they exist to support the main's story. so the female love interest dying to further the male protagonist's development is not in itself a misogynist plot device. whether that particular female character had much personality is a question of effective writing (i.e. the protag's reaction to the death will feel shallow if the audience isn't given much reason to care about a cardboard character).
to me, it takes a misogynist tone when this particular plot device happens repeatedly in the same story, esp if there are no other prominent, well-written female characters. IIRC the reader concept of fridging became popularized by superhero comics: it was extremely common for male hero to get a girlfriend, for her to appear minimally for a few issues, and then the hero returns from a quest/mission to find her violently murdered (e.g. body stuffed in the fridge, which is where the term "fridging" comes from) to further his trauma/vengeance story. this in itself isn't bad, but the sheer frequency that this trope was used in various or the same comic series in which there were few other prominently featured female characters is what made people say, "okay, this carries misogynist overtones." and they're right. but the problem is a lot of people began to associate any case of female love interest dying as misogynist, which (imo) isn't true.
personally, i do not think DOTC's "fridging" examples are misogynist. i don't think "character exists only to die and further protagonist's arc" is an intrinsically wrong or bad thing, just part of how story structure works. it's the pattern in relation to the whole that matters. DOTC had several well-written and prominent female characters, and the distribution of suffering and tragedy is pretty well disbursed between the genders, imo. death is an extremely prevalent theme in warrior books because of its survivalist story -- DOTC in particular, as it essentially takes place before a structured peace system and a culture that encouraged minimal violence. so it's not really a surprise that death of side (and main) characters is a prevalent plot tool. (i mean, think of how many character die overall in TPB alone -- only two of them, Silverstream and Spottedleaf, are male love interests, and regardless i would strongly argue against them only dying to further Firepaw and Graystripe's respective development).
this is just my perspective on it as a writer. people are free to disagree, and i'm always interested in hearing others' input.
|
|
|
Post by Skypaw13 on Jan 4, 2022 12:21:29 GMT -5
hmmm I have some issues with tropes like fridging. i understand the concern and there are times when it's obvious, but for the most part, it relies too much on the reader's subjective interpretation. there's no clearly definable limits to the trope, which means it gets applied to a wide variety of fictional situations and there's no way to distinguish "real" fridging from misinterpretation of the text, besides the readers' subjective opinion. i guess another way to put it: at what point does a female character's death count as a fridge? like how much of their characterization has to be about their male love interest for her death to be considered fridging? and the matter of whether her death is only about the male love interest's trauma is really a question of subjective analysis. there's times where it's very obvious, but a lot of accusations of fridging aren't, and depends in part on how you as the reader choose to interpret it. i think the concept becomes tricky for me solely because a side character dying to further the development of the protagonist is part of story structure. the side characters largely exist to further or add to the characterization of the main in some way, regardless of whether they are fully-fledged and well-written in their own right. that's why they're called supporting characters. they exist to support the main's story. so the female love interest dying to further the male protagonist's development is not in itself a misogynist plot device. whether that particular female character had much personality is a question of effective writing (i.e. the protag's reaction to the death will feel shallow if the audience isn't given much reason to care about a cardboard character). to me, it takes a misogynist tone when this particular plot device happens repeatedly in the same story, esp if there are no other prominent, well-written female characters. IIRC the reader concept of fridging became popularized by superhero comics: it was extremely common for male hero to get a girlfriend, for her to appear minimally for a few issues, and then the hero returns from a quest/mission to find her violently murdered (e.g. body stuffed in the fridge, which is where the term "fridging" comes from) to further his trauma/vengeance story. this in itself isn't bad, but the sheer frequency that this trope was used in various or the same comic series in which there were few other prominently featured female characters is what made people say, "okay, this carries misogynist overtones." and they're right. but the problem is a lot of people began to associate any case of female love interest dying as misogynist, which (imo) isn't true. personally, i do not think DOTC's "fridging" examples are misogynist. i don't think "character exists only to die and further protagonist's arc" is an intrinsically wrong or bad thing, just part of how story structure works. it's the pattern in relation to the whole that matters. DOTC had several well-written and prominent female characters, and the distribution of suffering and tragedy is pretty well disbursed between the genders, imo. death is an extremely prevalent theme in warrior books because of its survivalist story -- DOTC in particular, as it essentially takes place before a structured peace system and a culture that encouraged minimal violence. so it's not really a surprise that death of side (and main) characters is a prevalent plot tool. (i mean, think of how many character die overall in TPB alone -- only two of them, Silverstream and Spottedleaf, are male love interests, and regardless i would strongly argue against them only dying to further Firepaw and Graystripe's respective development). this is just my perspective on it as a writer. people are free to disagree, and i'm always interested in hearing others' input. I agree with almost all of this. "Fridging a Woman" is an inherently subjective trope and there are almost no clear and obvious examples of it that everyone can agree on. Though in my experience the trope is often brought up to newbie writers less as "never do this" and more as "if this happens in your book, you have to be really careful and aware of the message you're sending". To me the difference between fridging and not fridging is if I can actually see the authorial intent. Not everyone reads books the same way I do, so it's not an objective measure, and I wouldn't claim that it is. So to me, Silverstream's death is NOT fridging even though it checks all the boxes because Silverstream got a significant amount of focus, I was able to connect with her as a character, and her death scene was focused on her and the tragedy of the romance, not just Graystripe being sad. Also to me, Storm's death in the first book of DotC is blatantly fridging to the point of being offensive because they introduce this side character who Gray Wing spends a lot of time thinking about but not very much time with, only for her to die soon afterward, clearly and obviously so Thunder could have a backstory. Pretty clearly my opinion is based not just on the scenes in question, but my opinion on the overall book. I think Forest of Secrets is well-written and The Sun Trail is not. I think that's just an inherent factor of the fridging trope; people are more likely to notice it as a bad thing if other aspects of the book are not up to par. For me, fridging is about if I can see the skeleton of the story, if that makes sense? I'll probably be okay with a woman dying for a man's storyline if I can't immediately tell that's what's happening. Yes, this is subjective. Edit about DotC: I don't necessarily think one instance of misogyny makes an entire arc sexist either. Like, just because Storm's death offended me as a woman doesn't mean I think the whole arc is problematic, especially given I, uh... didn't read past Book 2, lol. It was ONE of the reasons I didn't read much further (seeing Bright Stream and Storm in quick succession was rough), but based on other people's statements on the rest of the series, I'm now inclined to believe they're one-off examples.
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Jan 4, 2022 12:51:03 GMT -5
Skypaw13 Yeah, I think that makes sense, even if it's not entirely how I view fridging v. not fridging. storm's introduction and subsequent death to me isn't misogynist so much as just bland and shallow writing, kinda for the reasons you explained (we spend little time with her character, so I had very little emotional investment in her death and thus didnt impact me as a reader at all). I do think intent is important too. but author intent is something that gets wildly misinterpreted all the time, so I don't even bother trying to guess that most of the time, lol. I tend to analyzes books from a technical writing perspective rather than for their social commentary value, so that also probably influences how I interpret "fridging" accusations. I'm usually more concerned with what makes stories tick from a pure functionality standpoint (e.g. my thoughts on supporting characters existing for the benefit of protagonists). So I'm often asking questions like "How does this writing choice propel the plot? Does it do that efficiently and sensibly? What is the plot consequence of this device?" rather than examining whether those choices reflect some sort of deeper bias/prejudice. Part of it (in my experience) is that except for very obvious cases, after awhile that sort of analysis becomes a game of confirmation bias and projecting personal interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Jan 4, 2022 14:18:15 GMT -5
I'd argue Spottedleaf is practically textbook fridging.
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Jan 4, 2022 16:34:29 GMT -5
I'd argue Spottedleaf is practically textbook fridging. Why’s that? And what do you consider “textbook”? As I mentioned, it seems to me that there’s no clearly defined understanding of “fridging”, so I’m curious as to what you think.
|
|
|
Post by ᏞᎪᎠᎽ Ꮎf fᎪᏁᎠᎾms ミ☆ on Jan 4, 2022 16:49:45 GMT -5
I'd argue Spottedleaf is practically textbook fridging. Why’s that? And what do you consider “textbook”? As I mentioned, it seems to me that there’s no clearly defined understanding of “fridging”, so I’m curious as to what you think. i looked it up and the bare bones definition is a male character's love interest being killed for the sake of motivation. the bare bones definition could apply to firepaw when spottedleaf is killed, but i dont really remember if firepaw actively sought out revenge for spottedleaf specifically...?
|
|
|
Post by Spooky Alice on Jan 4, 2022 16:55:53 GMT -5
I don't think there's really anything for "interpretation" with what fridging is? Like at its most basic it's when a woman is killed solely for the progression of a man's character development or his general story arc. It's harkening to a pattern within storytelling, and contextualizing one work in the greater scheme of things is vital for storytellers*. A woman getting killed off for a man's motivation (usually in the shape of a wife or girlfriend) is fine in a vacuum, but stories aren't made in a vacuum.
*ive been in publishing spheres long enough to be familiar with these conversations
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Jan 4, 2022 18:09:27 GMT -5
I'd argue Spottedleaf is practically textbook fridging. Why’s that? And what do you consider “textbook”? As I mentioned, it seems to me that there’s no clearly defined understanding of “fridging”, so I’m curious as to what you think. Spottedleaf has very little characterization besides pretty she-cat who Firepaw fawns over (despite barely interacting with her). She is in a sense practically only a romantic interest by virtue of being pretty and female, and her entire character can be reduced to that. Combined with the fact that she is killed off without a single hint of her real personality showing through and the book's only focus is on how much this sucks for Firestar, and it's clearly fridging. Fridging can be subject to interpretation, but Spottedleaf is so far into it that it's no longer a gray area. She is a plot device who serves purely for her beauty and then to be killed to give Firepaw extra motivation.
|
|