Probably Not About You

[rinue]

Something that's solidified for me lately is that almost all of the things I hate are products of intellectual laziness. Postmodern critiques that say there is no empirical truth mean you don't have to decide what is true, or make a clear, logically sound argument to defend it. ("I don't know," is still valid. Choosing not to do something is also valid as long as you are specifically choosing not to, rather than just not doing a thing.) Fighting the same "hippies versus straights" culture war in your 60s that you fought in your teens means you don't have to observe the world as it is. Fuzzy spiritualism and doing what feels right means you don't have to have a considered philosophy of right and wrong.

Giving up hope means you don't have to do anything at all, because it's pointless anyway.

Lazy. Laziness that lets you feel righteous and noble and smug, but laziness.

The other thing I've been thinking is that the traditional plot structure - the Frietag triangle - is patriarchal. This is not an observation unique to me; Ciro, for instance, has talked about it extensively in my presence, and probably more extensively out of my presence. However, it's just now clicked for me that, yes, it is patriarchal - or at the very least is patriarchal when imposed as an ideal model for all stories (and, pointedly, scripts). The definition of plot wherein a story is the narrative of a protagonist actively confronting a conflict and winning or losing it - a protagonist who protags, as the saying goes - biases strongly toward stories about empowered people either defending their own power or taking a stab at more power. In order for a character to choose to protag, that character must be able to believably see himself as someone able to change things through his actions.

That requires both a particular cultural mindset and a certain amount of privilege within that culture. It basically says that stories about white guys in Western cultures are inherently more interesting and valid narratives - that a burly man fighting for his survival in the arctic (why?) means more than two people having a conversation that does not lead to action. I am going to stop asking myself whether a scene moves the plot forward. Instead, I am going to ask these questions:

1. Is it entertaining?
2. Does it illuminate the human condition?
3. Does it present a compelling idea or behavioral model?

If it doesn't meet one, or ideally all, of those conditions, it's out. In terms of whether anything happens in the scene, or whether it's "visual," I don't care. Am I entertained? Are they acting like real, and ideally admirable, people? Good.

Comments

Sing it, sister!

[bluezybunny.livejournal.com]

We have plenty of plot structures involving womens' conversations. They're called chick flicks and romance novels. I think it might be more fair to say that patriarchal plots aren't so much traditional as they are popular (which is to imply that chick flicks and romance novels are not popular). Although, even if patriarchal plots were the only plots, I wouldn't even say this was due to tradition as much as demand. However, if the implication is that even the plots of chick flicks and romance novels are patriarchal, in the sense that women, wishing to foster a family, will often seek to obtain a new man, or maintain the interest of the man they already possess, then the real complaint isn't that the plots are patriarchal (or else matriarchal women are equally patriarchal).

Admittedly, I wish more people would apply your list to their own plots. I don't quite understand how plot-copy jobs (like Avatar, to take a recent example) can be as well-received as they are.

A side anecdote - Ciro and I once went to a theatre to see a Julia Roberts movie (I forget the name; possibly 'Pretty Woman'?), for little more reason than because it looked funny, and were chastised by the ticket taker for wanting to watch a 'girly movie'. Perhaps there's an answer to both our questions - the lay-audience isn't as interested in plot as appearances.

-Quip

Re: Sing it, sister!

[rinue.livejournal.com]

1. Most romantic comedies are written and directed by men, and still follow a traditional "overcome this obstacle" structure. They and Romance novels are strongly male-focused and present the woman as a person whose most significant (or in some cases only) decision is what man she should bind herself to.

2. There is an enormous market for female-targeted movies and books, which have brought in significant revenue over the last few years. You may have had an isolated experience to the contrary, but the larger market data suggests something else. However, the question is not whether they make money, which they do, as this is not relevant to whether they use masculine storytelling structures or enforce patriarchy. If the only food I can buy is junk food, I am going to buy that rather than starve. It's neither a reflection of my preferences nor what is more nutritious of me.

3. Look through the chick flicks and romance novels, and see how many of them include a conversation between two women, and how many of those few conversations aren't about a guy.

4. This is taught FROM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ONWARD as societally acceptable plot structure. A significant group of people are told, almost as soon as they can read, that their experience of the world is not as valid as that of a traditional masculine protagonist, and that if they write in another way, they are doing it wrong and no one will want to read what they write. And, no, giving that traditionally masculine protagonist tits doesn't change things. Further, although I am talking about it from the perspective of a woman, it also tends to cut out children, the elderly, non-whites, and non-Westerners.

5. Because you are an American white guy from the middle class, you are able to externalize your personal experience and assume it applies to what other people like, or what the mainstream is. You might think of yourself as an outsider or eccentric, but you've always been surrounded by media which suggests you're a hero. I'm surrounded by media which suggests I'm the hero's girlfriend (or very occasionally his mother, in which case I'm sometimes allowed to do something tough instead of having to be rescued). That is the only reason you could comfortably say something like this was due to demand without bothering to qualify or support your assertion.

6. This is not about what characters are in the plot or which audiences are viewing the plot but about the plot structure itself, which reinforces a masculine-centered view of the world even if there are no men in the story or the audience.

7. Black children continue to prefer to play with white dolls and think they're prettier. They have internalized the lessons of the white patriarchy. Apply as appropriate.

Re: Sing it, sister!

[rinue.livejournal.com]

Also, please don't presume to discuss patriarchy when you don't know what the word means, as evidenced by your contrasting use of matriarchy, and the suggestion that it exists as a counter example. I don't want to hear from you again on this issue until you've actually studied it, and will delete further ignorant comments.

Re: Sing it, sister!

[liquidmorpheme.livejournal.com]

The typical model of a female mode of storytelling is circular instead of the masculine linear, where stories are not about a series of conflict leading to climax, but a series of connections and disconnections between characters that explore a theme, and end when the theme has been fully explored. Examples of this might include something like Steal Magnolias (which was written by a man), but a better example might be the short story "A Jury of Her Peers" by Glaspell.

It would also be nonsense to think that traditionally masculine stories contain no element of the feminine structure (unless they are truly hideous, which sadly does happen), or that feminine stories contain no element of the masculine. You could argue that feminine structures eschew action because the writers and actors of the stories are traditionally oppressed and therefore are more familiar with inactive kinds of stories and characters, and that they have only adopted this structure as a result. Regardless, the point is not about which structure is inherently better, but that the masculine structure is overwhelmingly favored, and that the disdain of the feminine structure is enculturated, rather than inherent.

And before you go thinking that the feminine structure need only deal with "feminine" issues (as I guessed by your mention of romantic comedies, which are absolutely and almost without exception masculine in structure), remember that Octavia Butler and Urusula K Leguin (major powerhouse writers of award-winning and revolutionary science fiction) both make heavy use of feminine structures. The point is we need to stop teaching a "one right way" to tell a story, and let people figure out how they want to tell it, and let readers and audiences figure out what they want to read and watch.