Person A: You know… the thing Person B: The “thing”? Person A: Yeah, the thing with the little-! *mutters under their breath* Como es que se llama esa mierda… THE FISHING ROD
As someone with multiple bilingual friends where English is not the first language, may I present to you a list of actual incidents I have witnessed:
Forgot a word in Spanish, while speaking Spanish to me, but remembered it in English. Became weirdly quiet as they seemed to lose their entire sense of identity.
Used a literal translation of a Russian idiomatic expression while speaking English. He actually does this quite regularly, because he somehow genuinely forgets which idioms belong to which language. It usually takes a minute of everyone staring at him in confused silence before he says “….Ah….. that must be a Russian one then….”
Had to count backwards for something. Could not count backwards in English. Counted backwards in French under her breath until she got to the number she needed, and then translated it into English.
Meant to inform her (French) parents that bread in America is baked with a lot of preservatives. Her brain was still halfway in English Mode so she used the word “préservatifes.” Ended up shocking her parents with the knowledge that apparently, bread in America is full of condoms.
Defined a slang term for me……. with another slang term. In the same language. Which I do not speak.
Was talking to both me and his mother in English when his mother had to revert to Russian to ask him a question about a word. He said “I don’t know” and turned to me and asked “Is there an English equivalent for Нумизматический?” and it took him a solid minute to realize there was no way I would be able to answer that. Meanwhile his mom quietly chuckled behind his back.
Said an expression in English but with Spanish grammar, which turned “How stressful!” into “What stressing!”
Bilingual characters are great but if you’re going to use a linguistic blunder, you have to really understand what they actually blunder over. And it’s usually 10x funnier than “Ooops it’s hard to switch back.”
I’ve always had this tendency to apologize for everything—even things that aren’t my fault, things that actually hurt me or were wrongs against me.
It’s become automatic, a compulsion I am constantly fighting. Even more disturbingly, I’ve discovered in conversations with my female friends that I’m not alone in feeling this impulse to be pleasant, to apologize needlessly, to resist showing anger.
After all, if you’re a woman and you demonstrate anger, you’re a bitch, a harpy, a shrew. You’re told to smile more because you will look prettier; you’re told to calm down even when whatever anger or otherwise “unseemly” emotion you’re experiencing is perfectly justified.
If you don’t, no one will like you, and certainly no one will love you.
I’m not sure when this apologetic tendency of mine emerged. Maybe it began during childhood; maybe the influence of social gender expectations had already begun to affect me on a subconscious level. But if I had to guess, I would assume it emerged later, when I became aware through advertisements, media, and various unquantifiable social pressures of what a girl should be—how to act, how to dress, what to say, what emotions are okay and what emotions are not.
Essentially, I became aware of what I should do, as a girl, to be liked, and of how desperate I should be to achieve that state.
Being liked would be the pinnacle of my personal achievement. I could accomplish things, sure—make good grades, go to a good school, have a stellar career. But would I be liked during all of this? That was the important thing.
It angers me that I still struggle with this. It angers me that even though I’m an intelligent, accomplished adult woman, I still experience automatic pangs of inadequacy and shame when I perceive myself to have somehow disappointed these unfair expectations. I can’t always seem to get my emotions under control, and yet I must—because sometimes those emotions are angry or unpleasant or, God forbid, unattractive, and therefore will inconvenience someone or make someone uncomfortable.
Maybe that’s why, in my fiction—both the stories I read and the stories I write—I’ve always gravitated toward what some might call “unlikable” heroines.
It’s difficult to define “unlikability”; the term itself is nebulous. If you asked ten different people to define unlikability, you would probably receive ten different answers. In fact, I hesitated to write this piece simply because art is not a thing that should be quantified, or shoved into “likable” and “unlikable” components.
But then there are those pangs of mine, that urge to apologize for not being the right kind of woman. Insidious expectations lurk out there for our girls—both real and fictional—to be demure and pleasant, to wilt instead of rally, to smile and apologize and hide their anger so they don’t upset the social construct—even when such anger would be expected, excused, even applauded, in their male counterparts.
So for my purposes here, I’ll define a “likable heroine” as one who is unobjectionable. She doesn’t provoke us or challenge our expectations. She is flawed, but not offensively. She doesn’t make us question whether or not we should like her, or what it says about us that we do.
Let me be clear: There is nothing wrong with these “likable” heroines. I can think of plenty such literary heroines whom I adore:
Fire in Kristin Cashore’s Fire. Karou in Laini Taylor’s Daughter of Smoke and Bone series. Jo March in Little Women. Lizzie Bennet in Pride and Prejudice. The Penderwick sisters in Jeanne Birdsall’s delightful Penderwicks series. Arya (at least, in the early books) in A Song of Ice and Fire. Sarah from A Little Princess. Meg Murry from A Wrinkle in Time. Matilda in Roald Dahl’s classic book of the same name.
These heroines are easy to love and root for. They have our loyalty on the first page, and that never wavers. We expect to like them, for them to be pleasant, and they are. Even their occasional unpleasantness, as in the case of temperamental Jo March, is endearing.
What, then, about the “unlikable” heroines?
These are the “difficult” characters. They demand our love but they won’t make it easy. The unlikable heroine provokes us. She is murky and muddled. We don’t always understand her. She may not flaunt her flaws but she won’t deny them. She experiences moral dilemmas, and most of the time recognizes when she has done something wrong, but in the meantime she will let herself be angry, and it isn’t endearing, cute, or fleeting. It is mighty and it is terrifying. It puts her at odds with her surroundings, and it isn’t always easy for readers to swallow.
She isn’t always courageous. She may not be conventionally strong; her strength may be difficult to see. She doesn’t always stand up for herself, or for what is right. She is not always nice. She is a hellion, a harpy, a bitch, a shrew, a whiner, a crybaby, a coward. She lies even to herself.
In other words, she fails to walk the fine line we have drawn for our heroines, the narrow parameters in which a heroine must exist to achieve that elusive “likability”:
Nice, but not too nice.
Badass, but not too badass, because that’s threatening.
Strong, but ultimately pliable.
(And, I would add, these parameters seldom exist for heroes, who enjoy the limitless freedoms of full personhood, flaws and all, for which they are seldom deemed “unlikable” but rather lauded.)
Who is this “unlikable” heroine?
She is Amy March from Little Women. She is Briony from Ian McEwan’s Atonement. Katsa from Kristin Cashore’s Graceling. Jane Austen’s Emma Woodhouse. Sansa from A Song of Ice and Fire. Mary from The Secret Garden. She is Philip Pullman’s Lyra, and C. S. Lewis’s Susan, and Rowling’s first-year Hermione Granger. She is Katniss Everdeen. She is Scarlett O’Hara.
These characters fascinate me. They are arrogant and violent, reckless and selfish. They are liars and they are resentful and they are brash. They are shallow, not always kind. They may be aggressive, or not aggressive enough; the parameters in which a female character can acceptably display strength are broadening, but still dishearteningly narrow. I admire how the above characters embrace such “unbecoming” traits (traits, I must point out, that would not be noteworthy in a man; they would simply be accepted as part of who he is, no questions asked).
These characters learn from their mistakes, and they grow and change, but at the end of the day, they can look at themselves in the mirror and proclaim, “Here I am. This is me. You may not always like me—I may not always like me—but I will not be someone else because you say I should be. I will not lose myself to your expectations. I will not become someone else just to be liked.”
When I wrote my first novel, The Cavendish Home for Boys and Girls, I knew some readers would have a hard time stomaching the character of Victoria. She is selfish, arrogant, judgmental, rigid, and sometimes cruel. Even at the end of the novel, by which point she has evolved tremendously, she isn’t particularly likable, if we go with the above definition.
I had similar concerns about the heroine of my second novel, The Year of Shadows. Olivia Stellatella is a moody twelve-year-old who isolates herself from her peers at school, from her father, from everything that could hurt her. Her circumstances at the beginning of the novel are inarguably terrible: Her mother abandoned their family several months prior, with no explanation. Her father conducts the city orchestra, which is on the verge of bankruptcy. He neglects his daughter in favor of saving his livelihood. He sells their house and moves them into the symphony hall’s storage rooms, where Olivia sleeps on a cot and lives out of a suitcase. She calls him The Maestro, refusing to call him Dad. She hates him. She blames him for her mother leaving.
Olivia is angry and confused. She is sarcastic, disrespectful, and she tells her father exactly what she thinks of him. She lashes out at everyone, even the people who want to help her. Sometimes her anger blinds her, and she must learn how to recognize that.
I knew Olivia’s anger would be hard for some readers to understand, or that they would understand but still not like her.
This frightened me.
As a new author, the prospect of writing these heroines—these selfish, angry, difficult heroines—was a daunting one. What if no one liked them? What if, by extension, no one liked me?
But I’ve allowed the desire to be liked thwart me too many times. The fact that I nearly let my fear discourage me from telling the stories of these two “unlikable” girls showed me just how important it was to tell their stories.
I know my friends and I aren’t the only women who feel that constant urge to apologize, to demur, to rein in anger and mutate it into something more socially acceptable.
I know there are girls out there who, like me at age twelve—like Olivia, like Victoria—are angry or arrogant or confused, and don’t know how to handle it. They see likable girls everywhere—on the television, in movies, in books—and they accordingly paste on strained smiles and feel ashamed of their unladylike grumpiness and ambition, their unseemly aggression.
I want these girls to read about Victoria and Olivia—and Scarlett, Amy, Lyra, Briony—and realize there is more to being a girl than being liked. There is more to womanhood than smiling and apologizing and hiding those darker emotions.
I want them to sift through the vast sea of likable heroines in their libraries and find more heroines who are not always happy, not always pleasant, not always good. Heroines who make terrible decisions. Heroines who are hungry and ambitious, petty and vengeful, cowardly and callous and selfish and gullible and unabashedly sensual and hateful and cunning. Heroines who don’t always act particularly heroic, and don’t feel the need to, and still accept themselves at the end of the day regardless.
Maybe the more we write about heroines like this, the less susceptible our girl readers will be to the culture of apology that surrounds them.
Maybe they will grow up to be stronger than we are, more confident than we are. Maybe they will grow up in a world brimming with increasingly complex ideas about what it means to be a heroine, a woman, a person.
Maybe they will be “unlikable” and never even think of apologizing for it.
in regard of posts I’ve seen circulating lately, I just want to give some depths to the discussion around characters most used in fanfics. Bear in mind that this is not a way to take a stance in the debate, but merely a tool for people who think about the issue.
The question at hand it: Is the CP fandom racist because it prioritises white characters over characters of color?
The Main Character, which is Bitty. The story revolves around him, his coming of age, his doubts and fears and love, etc. His characteristics are: sweet, likes to bake, vlogs, used to be a figure skater, plays hockey, fears checking, etc.
The secondary character is Jack. Some plot points revolve after him, since he’s the antagonist in year 1, and the love interest in years 2 and 3. Jack is focused on hockey to the point of anxiety, and soft when he has control of said anxiety. Notice that he already has less depth than Bitty. Not because he’s a less rounded character, but because the story is not built around him. His life affects Bitty, that’s why we know about it.
The rest are, at the very least, third tier characters, they get 1 characteristic each, and will never divert from that description. Holster is a loud bro, Ransom is a smart bro, Lardo is an art bro, and when you get further away, the rest have less and less leeway in their personalities. Dex is grumpy, Nursey tries to be chill, Chowder is excitable. Then we almost know nothing of Tango and Whiskey, because they just need to fill spots, like Johnshon the metaphysical goalie needed to fill a spot before Chowder could get there. Notice I didn’t mention Shitty because I’m on the fence between putting him in second or third tier. His story arc doesn’t affect Bitty, I should place him on third tier, but he’s more nuanced than the others.
…Ok but Fearless Girl is literally a marketing ploy and the Charging Bull was meant to symbolize American perseverance ABC excellence without regard for gender. Like. He has a point.
I recommend this read to understand the full scope of the situation:
No really read it because what is being said has nothing do with gender but rather about the fact that the bull was created by an guerrilla artist who put it there with out permission and it stayed because the people loved it and the girl who was created as marketing ploy by a trillion dollar company.
Fearless Girl also changes the meaning of Charging Bull. Instead of being a symbol of “the strength and power of the American people” as Di Modica intended, it’s now seen as an aggressive threat to women and girls — a symbol of patriarchal oppression.
In effect, Fearless Girl has appropriated the strength and power of Charging Bull. Of course Di Modica is outraged by that. A global investment firm has used a global advertising firm to create a faux work of guerrilla art to subvert and change the meaning of his actual work of guerrilla art. That would piss off any artist.
has anyone else noticed there’s a very specific way women interrupt each other in conversation that’s quite distinct from the way men interrupt women in conversation? like, women seem to interject a lot more– not as a silencing tactic, but to show their enthusiasm or agreement, cause they perceive a conversation as kind of collaborative, organic exercise. but i feel like men get really annoyed if you excitedly interject when they’re saying something (most specifically in a debate/discussion context) because they perceive conversation as something combative or competitive and see an interjection as a threat or a challenge. i’ve also noticed men dismiss women’s way of talking as being sort of incomprehensible and nonsensical because of this habit we have of seeming to butt in or finish each others sentences excitably.
I’m breaking my rule about posting Ngozi’s tweets on tumblr just this once because these Jan 26, 2015 tweets were the ones originally cited as sources on the wiki, but appear to no longer be readable.
I’ve been so fixated on why the wiki says Holster has 3 sisters when the source tweets (Jan 26/15) only list two potential names. And FINALLY I found confirmation from the earlier October 5, 2014 that he indeed only has TWO sisters.
So, apologies to Ngozi for screen-capping your tweets. I only intended to use them for fic references but this one issue has been irritating me for absolutely no real reason and I really wanted to show some proof. I promise I won’t do it again.
(also, we know that Chowder at least has one sister, so I’m guessing the “no one else has siblings” was excluding the frogs at this point)
and dex has at least one brother
CORRECTION: I unearthed a tweet last night about the frogs that rocked my entire world. Frog siblings!!!!! (It was a reply to someone that only came up when I searched “Nursey”) Behold!!!
Chowder – 1 sister Dex – 1 older brother (and that seems to be it!!) Nursey – 1 older sister
I’m assuming from context that Chowder’s sister is younger, since Ngozi purposely states Dex and Nursey’s siblings are older. Also, we know Chowder was born while his parents were still studying at Samwell, and I think them both getting doctorates while raising two kids might be a little too much.
I always accepted that Dex has a lot of siblings… Where do I go from here? (I’m super psyched that Nursey has a sister tho. Wha~!?)
The only mystery remaining are whether Parson or Duan siblings exist…
I might need to make a separate post that condenses everything I’ve learned from Twitter. Seriously. Amazing. I live for family details.
i got asked why i say naruto has borderline personality disorder, and i decided to just go ahead and make a Big Post about it because i think it’s really important to talk about how this much-loved protagonist hero shows the signs of a disorder that is usually highly stigmatized
(if you’re uneducated about what bpd is, here’s a basic overview – be careful of where you look for info on bpd; there are a lot of sites that provide inaccurate info that stigmatizes the disorder)
(if you’re going to yell at me about how naruto isn’t real and this post is pointless, save your efforts, because i really don’t care)
i say naruto has bpd for these main reasons:
he has a fear of abandonment and a deep need for acknowledgment
has what is often called a ‘favorite person’ and much of what he does is grounded in that fact. he desires acknowledgement from this person more than all others and fears their abandonment more than anyone else’s
he is very emotional, and his emotions are intense and subject to quick changes
he is very self-critical
he is high-empathy
i’ll now go through these now in a bit more detail, and try to provide examples.
Bodhi also has a great poncho but i couldn’t find a good pic.
excuse you, Lando Calrissian is not a member of the aristocracy
He bought his spot, and the “real” aristocracy doesn’t respect him, even when he sells out his old friends out of misplaced loyalty to his new class. He turns against the Empire by instigating his wotkers to rise up. Notice he’s not wearing it in RotJ.
In fact, notice that Leia starts out wearing a hooded cape which she has taken from her. And Bail is wearing a poncho-cape hybrid in R1.
This theory has legs!
yes! i’d been thinking about this because Lando and Leia both kind of transition between the two sides.
Lando wears a cape when he’s governor of Cloud City, but changes into Han’s clothes after he officially joins the Rebellion.
Leia wears ~princess clothes at first, but wears more practical costumes in the later movies, including a camouflage poncho on Endor.
the traditional Jedi robes have sleeves, so technically they don’t fall into either category. but they look more like cloaks/capes due to their voluminous hoods and aura of Drama, symbolizing the Jedi’s subtle resemblance to the “aristocracy” side of the Star Wars costume divide. ie, the Jedi meant to be neutral, but actually wield a tremendous amount of cultural and political power.