|
|
Post by Lady Ten on Aug 29, 2012 21:39:00 GMT -6
So it's been a while since I've really read through one of the books, but somewhere out in the fandomverse I remember coming across various complaints about not only the characterization of canon cats in general, but the treatment and character arcs of Clan queens, in particular their portrayal before and after the transition from warrior to queen.
Before, they were (I presume) more or less the same as any other character, whereas after, it was as though motherhood snapped them all into the same default "motherly" personality. Complaints regarding this change presented the product personality in a negative light, as I recall. I cannot assess whether this is due to negative associations within our own culture with motherhood and femininity being akin to weakness, or whether the Erins wrote in more behavior that we might code as "weak" in their own effort to make the queens seem, to them, more motherly.
My question is, has anyone noticed such a change? Do you have any observations on female warriors and queens?
|
|
drheiter
Apprentice
I'll explain this spectacular operation only once%\7\%
Posts: 50
|
Post by drheiter on Aug 29, 2012 21:53:06 GMT -6
Honestly, I'm not quite sure how to approach this. On one hand, becoming a queen does seem to trigger some sort of motherly personality, but on the other this could just be chalked up to the fact that a she-cat doesn't become a queen until she's old enough to have experienced the life of a warrior and is ready to "settle down" so to speak.
Both Squirrelflight and Sandstorm are good examples of this. As apprentices, they were fiery, sharp-tongued, and hotheaded (basically one of the roughly 3 personalities an Erin Hunter female character can have, a discussion that belongs somewhere else completely), however after the time-skip of them having kits, their personalities seem to have mellowed out and they appear more responsible and calm. I can see three reasons for this; the first would be the queen effect, having kits helped give them a more "motherly" personality as opposed to their "sassy" former personality. The second would be that they simply grew up; they thought better of being so argumentative and difficult and gained a calmer attitude that comes with age. The third is simply bad writing on the Erins' part; these characters lost their personality because they were done being main characters and were pushed into the background.
It would help my understanding of why this happens if we got to see the point of view of a queen; however, I'm fairly certain this has never happened outside of Bluestar's Prophecy, where Bluestar didn't happen to think that her kits were here life but rather obstacles to her life. After any character with a personality (I'm not counting cats like Ferncloud) had kits, we were treated to a timeskip and never being inside their minds again.
I suppose I'm not adding much to the discussion other than confusion. Still, this is a very interesting topic.
(Edit: Fixed a typo)
|
|
|
|
Post by mistytail on Aug 29, 2012 22:09:34 GMT -6
My answer to this is a definite yes. There is a very distinct way in how queens are treated after they become mates with a tom, let alone having kits. The first really noticeable occurrence of this is Sandstorm. She is initially described as spunky, tough, and even a bit hostile, as seen in most of her behavior in Into the Wild and Fire and Ice. However, after she becomes mates with Firestar, she mellows into a generic, bland "good mate, best mother" role. The Erins tried to recover what was left of her personality in Firestar's Quest, but really, it seemed to be to no avail. All of Sandstorm's actions, that I can remember, at least, were motivated by Firestar. If I recall correctly, which I may not and please feel free to point it out if I am wrong, she simply went along with him on the quest because he was going, she agreed with everything he did and presented no original ideas, and the one time she stormed off, it was because of jealousy issues that the reader could easily take as a petty emotional explosion towards Spottedleaf.
Then we have Squirrelflight, who was initially described as an obnoxious but eager cat. She invited herself on the quest to find a new home for the Clans, she stumbled upon (figuratively and literally) the new camp for ThunderClan, she was correct in her suspicion about Hawkfrost. While she was not always presented as the most likable character, she was important to the story and operated of her own free will. But, after becoming mates with Brambleclaw and "having his kits," she, like her mother, mellows into a bland mother role. It can be argued that she does in fact still play a role in the story (having to keep Leafpool's secret, protecting the Three from Ashfur, etc.), but her personality change is notable. While Squirrelflight, at least, may have this personality change associated with simple maturity, the time gap between The New Prophecy and Power of Three makes this a bit difficult to tell for certain.
In fact, in the case of Squirrelflight, it's not so much the canon portrayal of her after motherhood that bothers me - it's what the Erins have come out and said in author interviews. In an old Wands and Worlds chat, I believe this is where this was said, one of the Erins (probably Vicky but it's been years, so I don't remember as well as I should), came right out and said something to the effect of, "Brambleclaw tamed the wild fire within Squirrelflight." Now, that statement really bothers me. It's as though Squirrelflight's independent personality and not answering to a tom was a problem that needed to be fixed - or, worse, that a she-cat needs to have a mate and kits, or else they will never be a complete individual. Even Brightheart seemed to only gain merit as a warrior after Cloudtail expresses love and affection for her, and she has kits with him.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Certainly. Bluestar, in particular, is one of the few queens in the books that I have read that motherhood did not change and melt her into a bland, generic personality. On the contrary - she considers giving the kits to RiverClan not only to be the best option for her and her Clan, but for the kits as well. Furthermore, her love and affection for Mistystar and Stonefur never died - she remained a mother, albeit a distant one, while still caring for her Clan in ways beyond staying in the nursery. (Of course, having her kits notably absent from her everyday life may have had something to do with this.)
... I hope this is a good post to add to this discussion. It is very late and I am very tired, and I'm not sure if I actually answered your question or not anymore. I'm sorry. :C
EDIT: Well bust a nut and call me Sasquatch, I basically said everything the good doctor above said. Except in a much more long-winded, gassy airbag fashion. Dang nabbit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 30, 2012 1:52:19 GMT -6
I'm glad someone has brought this up. When I get the chance I think I'm going to write an article about the representation of gender in the original characters, because some of the trends that come with this in the fandom are frankly ridiculous.
For the time being, though, I'll just add my two cents here.
There's a definite change in characterisation with Sandstorm and Squirrelflight, but as was mentioned, Brightheart/Lostaface and a number of other she-cats are written similarly. The change is suspiciously convenient and simultaneous with their transition to motherhood. You guys have pretty much covered everything I'd want to point out about that, so I won't reiterate it.
My problem is this:
Yes, the canon characterisations are poorly written. That's not just a female thing either - the toms aren't much better. In general, Erin Hunter is not good at writing characters, and especially not trying to write such a large cast. As a result, the cats are fairly homogenous in personality. As someone mentioned, there are only a few distinctive personality 'types' in Warriors (I think I'll write an article on this as well, because it's of particular interest to me and I don't want to diverge too much from this discussion).
Whether or not you enjoy the books, it's important to note that there are certain trends in the story and characters and that these, naturally, effect what original characters people create. The most alarming 'types' of character are: the evil character (evil for the sake of it), the love struck medicine she-cat and, of most significance here, the saccharine queen.
The saccharine queen is gentle, beautiful, sweet-natured and great with kits, which is lucky as she has some of her own. She is kindly to everyone and would never hurt a fly, patient, often shy, and generally depicted as being physically feeble and fragile with a heart of gold. All this because she’s a mother.
This is, from my experience, the most common description of any original queen character in the fandom. It’s rare to see any deviation from this kind of description. They usually use the word ‘motherly’ even. Motherly is not an accurate description in this instance. To be motherly is to be protective and affectionate. The best example is to say: “Molly Weasley is motherly.” Molly Weasley is also described as a terrifying and highly capable woman. Take that as you will.
My theory is that this trend in original queen characterisation is a combination of two factors: societal connotations of femininity as being ‘insipid’ or ‘weaker’ than their male counterparts (and motherhood as the pinnacle of femininity), and Erin Hunter’s inability to differentiate between reality and stereotypes.
Essentially, this awful misconception of how to make an original character, which also happens to be a mother, is Erin Hunter’s fault. That’s not to say I blame her/them for inspiring characters. That’s silly. You don’t vilify Tolkien for someone’s horrible orc character or Rowling for someone’s terrible witch.
No, I blame Erin Hunter for writing those canon characters so badly and so inaccurately. At some point it must have slipped their collective mind that, although these cats are anthropomorphised, they are also still feral cats and are expected to act (at least in part) in a naturalistic way. To try to write the characters as wholly human in mentality seems foolish to me.
If you write a book (or a few dozen series of books, whatever suits) about cats, it does not make logical sense to write them as though they were human. They are supposed to be cats; surely you chose that for a reason? You are in the unique position of thinking outside the societal norm and saying to yourself, “How would this appear from another perspective? How would a cat (with an emphasised intelligence) react to this?” You can have great fun with that. For an example of this done right, I suggest reading ‘Watership Down’, by Sir Richard Adams. It’s about rabbits rather than cats, and honestly, I found it to be excellent.
But I am diverging from the topic and this is already getting much longer than I had intended. A brief recap for those without the time to dawdle along with my writing.
1. Erin Hunter has written a bad example of femininity and motherhood, for reasons best known to herself*.
2. These examples have become the norm in original characters, which perpetuates this silly stereotype even further through the fandom.
3. Erin Hunter, again for reasons unfathomable, made the pedestrian decision to omit actual feline behaviour, thought patterns and, in some cases, actual biology from her characters in favour of inaccurate and frankly insulting stereotypes of humanity.
4. Why do I say this?
Erin Hunter does not research. This is unconfirmed by the authors but is evident in their writing and world-building. Their actual knowledge on the subject of cats is as questionable as their ethical choices when it comes to being a role model for impressionable children.
When it comes to female cats and their kittens, they are so contradictory to reality that I am led to believe none of them have even been around kitting mothers, and certainly not feral ones. I have, both with my own Siamese cat’s litters and with certain mothers that live in a colony of feral cats nearby.
Mother cats are brutal. That is the truth of it. They are driven primarily by instinct – and instinct is a very powerful thing. They will do almost anything to protect their kittens.
I have seen a small queen attack a tom about twice her size for approaching her litter, and a serious fight ensued.
I have also seen a queen drag her litter of five kittens through a storm to high ground, as the place she kitted must have been going underwater. She had the good sense to move them all from that place first before trailing them one by one through the mud to a shed. One of the kittens was malformed – it was a really hideous thing. She abandoned it.
Another mother, who had multiple litters over her time around the colony, would violently chase away any of her older kittens from her new ones. She effectively ditched her previous litters as soon as the newest one was born, and the abandoned kittens had to learn to live on their own.
It really bothers me to then see Erin Hunter’s mothers. They’re so incredibly watered down – they could be a satire, only I doubt Erin Hunter would get the joke. I’m not trying to say that it’s wrong the have the cats in Warriors anthropomorphised. That’s completely understandable and I’m totally fine with that. It’s necessary and without it, there wouldn’t even be a story. Often the most effective characters are relatable for the audience.
The problem is that they are so ridiculously anthropomorphised that they no longer resemble cats, or even real people. They’re the stereotypical (and outdated) ideal of a docile housewife, wholly dependent on others and without any kind of personality to speak of, with the added bonus of saintly Victorian-esque purity thrown in. Basically – and they really are basic – they’re bland and empty of character, and while that makes for terrible writing and unpleasant reading, it’s got me more worried about the effect.
If a good character is a subconscious role model and should be relatable, does Erin Hunter think this is an actual ideal for young girls? Is this choice of characterisation actually intended to be the goal or is it just lazy writing, yet again?
Regardless of authorial intention, it’s still a serious issue. Preteens and teenager girls are reading a book series that encapsulates femininity as 1. Having an attractive (debatable) mate, 2. Having a litter of kittens, 3. Fawning over them, losing any kind of personality or ambition you had, and 4. Being physically attractive yourself (as The Lostface Debate clearly illustrates that your worth as a person is proportionate to your physical beauty).
That’s disgusting, Erin Hunter. As an ethical person and a writer, I am so disappointed in you.
*I tend to use Erin Hunter both singularly (female) or plural, and switch between the two. Yes, I am aware they are a collaboration of authors, but I tend to prefer whatever is more grammatically correct for the situation. I hope this doesn’t confuse anyone.
|
|
leah
Young Warrior
Awesomesauce%\1\%
Posts: 209
|
Post by leah on Aug 30, 2012 15:26:47 GMT -6
Hey, speaking of changed personalities when becoming a queen, does anybody remember Lizardstripe?
Anyway, yesterday I was in Animal Science, and we were discussing the names used for cats. Queen is for adult female cats, so why are they called she-cats? They use the correct word for males, which is Toms. Why can't they just call mother cats... oh, I don't know, Mothers?
Going back to the actual subject, I've noticed, yes. I understand sudden moodswings or such common changes that occur during pregnancy, but why do mothers automatically act like that? I noticed that with Ferncloud and Sorreltail, and many other cats as well... it's not like if a she-cat has kits then they automatically want to be a mother and everything. It's like, in an instant, they don't care about being a Warrior anymore, and I don't understand it. It also brings up that herb Leafpool took to stop the milk, and I'm pretty sure Yellowfang did too, is that the only instance that a she-cat uses it? To /pretend/ she isn't the mother? Or are there actually she-cats who don't want to raise their kits?
|
|
vbfdoee
Young Warrior
%\1\%
Posts: 158
|
Post by vbfdoee on Aug 30, 2012 16:09:11 GMT -6
As I understand it, if a queen has a litter of kits and they die while still nursing, then she takes it (parsley, if i'm not mistaken) to stop milk flow. But yes, pretending not to be a mother is its primary canonical use.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ten on Aug 30, 2012 18:43:26 GMT -6
Both Squirrelflight and Sandstorm are good examples of this. As apprentices, they were fiery, sharp-tongued, and hotheaded (basically one of the roughly 3 personalities an Erin Hunter female character can have, a discussion that belongs somewhere else completely), As someone mentioned, there are only a few distinctive personality 'types' in Warriors (I think I'll write an article on this as well, because it's of particular interest to me and I don't want to diverge too much from this discussion). Looking forward to this thread getting made. I know Harry Potter has its flaws too, but as I was reading that series I remember being so impressed with the diversity of the cast. Point of contrast there. But let's not get into how different these two series are. Then we have Squirrelflight, who was initially described as an obnoxious but eager cat. She invited herself on the quest to find a new home for the Clans, she stumbled upon (figuratively and literally) the new camp for ThunderClan, she was correct in her suspicion about Hawkfrost. While she was not always presented as the most likable character, she was important to the story and operated of her own free will. But, after becoming mates with Brambleclaw and "having his kits," she, like her mother, mellows into a bland mother role. It can be argued that she does in fact still play a role in the story (having to keep Leafpool's secret, protecting the Three from Ashfur, etc.), but her personality change is notable. While Squirrelflight, at least, may have this personality change associated with simple maturity, the time gap between The New Prophecy and Power of Three makes this a bit difficult to tell for certain. That's interesting. I hadn't noticed any of the "mother" personality in Squirrelflight (I've only read one book of the third series, though, so there wasn't enough time for me to notice a change, as it were). I recall the Erins going a more biologically-determined direction with this one -- one of the titular three apprentices mentions a memory of Squirrelflight not spending much time in the nursery, whereas Leafpool's behavior toward Jaypaw is more overly-"maternal". No quotes on hand, sorry. But do you think the queen effect pertains more to who actually bore the kits, or who nursed/raised them? Wow, that is obnoxious. Let me see if I can find that. Okay, here's a W&W interview database. I was searching through it and came across this gem. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA okay moving on now. * Here's another quote of interest. Authorial intent doesn't invalidate what any of us are saying, but I find it interesting that apparently they were trying. Anyway, didn't end up finding that particular quote myself, but I've got to say I hate that whole "taming" sentiment. (Of course, having her kits notably absent from her everyday life may have had something to do with this.) Also, another factor might be that the Erins wrote Bluestar as a leader first, then developed her brief motherhood story afterward, establishing beforehand what her personality would be post-kitting. I don't know about Heiter, but I really like it when someone independently professes agreement with me and presents all their own original thoughts on the topic rather that waiting for someone else to post first and then nodding along. It's really cool when that happens, you know? It suggests that the person actually thought about it themselves and still reached the same conclusions, as opposed to just going along with what others are saying. Erin Hunter does not research. This is unconfirmed by the authors but it evident in their writing and world-building. Their actual knowledge on the subject of cats is as questionable as their ethical choices when it comes to being a role model for impressionable children. When it comes to female cats and their kittens, they are so contradictory to reality that I am led to believe none of them have even been around kitting mothers, and certainly not feral ones. I have, both with my own Siamese cat’s litters and with certain mothers that live in a colony of feral cats nearby. Mother cats are brutal. That is the truth of it. They are driven primarily by instinct – and instinct is a very powerful thing. They will do almost anything to protect their kittens. It's interesting that you say this, Grey, because despite its failure to deliver, the narration suggests an understanding of this concept. Not just making conjecture here -- this is canon. Now, I still don't have the books on hand to get an exact quote, but here's what I can piece together from Firestar's leadership ceremony in The Darkest Hour based on this source and this source (which appears very sketchy, but the wording is familiar and captures the scene I remember happening). Based on this, it would seem the Erins recognize the ferocity of motherhood. But it when it comes to portraying actual mothers in action, somehow their efforts fall flat. Why do you think that is? I noticed that with Ferncloud and Sorreltail, and many other cats as well... I admit I'm not providing many myself, but do you have any quotes for these? Those are characters I'm unfamiliar with. * If you see an appropriate/on-topic thread to bring in this quote, please do. It's pure gold. |
|
leah
Young Warrior
Awesomesauce%\1\%
Posts: 209
|
Post by leah on Aug 30, 2012 19:31:42 GMT -6
They were Sorrelkit and Fernpaw in the first series.
Hehe, I'm too lazy to find quotes from those two. But trust me, it happened to them.
I think, though, the worst example is Daisy.
|
|
leah
Young Warrior
Awesomesauce%\1\%
Posts: 209
|
Post by leah on Aug 30, 2012 19:37:35 GMT -6
Ten, are you talking about the life Brindletail gave him?
Warriors: The Darkest Hour, Page 50
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ten on Aug 30, 2012 20:57:03 GMT -6
Nope.
Yep, that's the one. For future reference, there's a "modify" option at the top of each of your posts, so that you can edit instead of double-posting.
|
|
|
|
Post by mistytail on Aug 30, 2012 21:24:24 GMT -6
(Psst, her name is Brindleface. It's ok though, there are so many characters it's hard to keep track.)
Ferncloud is a special case in terms of the queen effect, in that it seems that the good majority of her development seems geared solely to being Dustpelt's mate and having his kits. Don't forget, whike Dustpelt was mentor to Ashfur, he had a special interest in Ferncloud since she was an apprentice. (Which is totally normal for cats, since, from my research, they reach sexual maturity at six moons, but it strikes some people as a little creepy, since apprentices are still characterized as children.) Also, I'm sorry I can't provide an exact quote for this (I spent the past half-hour looking), and I can't remember if Darkstripe was exiled or left ThunderClan of his own will, but because Darkatripe was mentor to Fernpaw, Dustpelt says to Fireheart/star that he wouldn't have a problem looking after Fernpaw as well as Ashpaw, and if I remember correctly, it says something cheesy like his eyes glittered looking at her. Something like that. It is very late where I am, I will edit this post with a proper quote tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Aug 31, 2012 3:47:41 GMT -6
(I haven't yet worked out how to be clever like the rest of you, so I am current unable to do the cool quote thing. My apologies. I hope you can forgive me, ehehehe.)
“That's too easy! I'm much more interested in the shades of gray, the potential for good AND evil that we all contain within us.” - Vicky Holmes.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Okay, Vicky. I'd nod and say, "Whatever you say," but I don't think you know what you're saying.
Snark aside.
"Based on this, it would seem the Erins recognize the ferocity of motherhood. But it when it comes to portraying actual mothers in action, somehow their efforts fall flat. Why do you think that is?" - Ten.
I was just discussing this with some of my fellow classmates today. The professor said that he thought the most accurate description of bad writing is “a work that does not achieve the intended effect”. That makes perfect sense to me.
If you try to write something with a specific intention and meaning in mind (in this case, motherhood as a fierce and powerful thing), and it doesn’t come through in your writing (due to exclusion, unsuccessful delivery, misrepresentation or a combination of these), your writing is not effective.
Erin Hunter may have superb knowledge of cats and may believe that motherhood is not a reason to become suddenly insipid and is actually worthy of much respect, but she does not write as though this is the case. Brindleface inspired motherly feelings in Fireheart* but for the most part these are not sentiments exemplified by other characters. If I recall correctly, queens over the course of the first arc became distinctly agitated when potential threats to their kittens were apparent, such as Frostfur’s wariness of Yellowfang. She later changes her mind when Yellowfang’s loyalty is proven.
That doesn’t negate the portrayal of most other mothers during the multiple series. Even Fireheart is “shocked” by the overwhelming feeling of mother’s protective instinct, despite living in the clan for a few seasons already.
If this (implied) inherent sense of motherhood exists in all canon queens – as I assume it does, unless Brindleface is the ‘special one’ that feels that way and the rest of them are apathetic – then why is it a surprise to a character who spends every day with them? If Fireheart needs to think the equivalent of, “Wow, I totally see it now, queens are actually so hardcore even though they don’t ever act like it in these books” for Erin Hunter’s message of ‘queens are cool’ to actually get to readers in the first place, she’s still doing a downright awful job of characterisation.
Authorial intention is only as relevant as the evidence for it. An author can say what they like about their work and its meaning but until I have some form of in-text evidence, I’m not going to believe them. The work should speak for itself.
I don’t know why Erin Hunter is unable to successfully portray their intentions. It’s probable that, as they are writing for a young audience, they are under the (false) impression that they can write whatever they want and it doesn’t matter. I also think that the collaboration process would be quite inhibiting when it comes to actual writing – they discuss plots, I think, not technique or effect. They probably don’t have many second opinions or other perspectives when it comes to critical analysis of their work, and their editor seems to be lackadaisical.
Of course, I’m just guessing about that.
*Fireheart is Fireheart/Firestar, whichever is most appropriate at that point in time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Ten on Aug 31, 2012 11:11:39 GMT -6
(I haven't yet worked out how to be clever like the rest of you, so I am current unable to do the cool quote thing. My apologies. I hope you can forgive me, ehehehe.) Here, I'll show you. Speaking of which, this is something that should go in the FAQ once we make one. <begin tutorial>[quote]This will make a quote box! Write the text you're quoting here.[/quote]You can also quote a particular person's post by clicking "quote" up at the top right corner (just be careful, as a mod, that you don't click delete or modify instead). This will create a more fancy quote code (especially useful if you're taking a quote to use on a different thread, since it makes a link back to the original post) that quotes the entire post, which you can then edit down to the relevant parts. It's a preferential thing how you want to use it, really. Then you can use the preview option before you post, to make sure it's working right. </end tutorial>Truth. Now, onto interpreting what she wrote rather than what she meant to write. Aha. Good point. I should remind you, though, that Fireheart is really stupid, and given my rereading of Into the Wild and his empty non-reaction to watching Rosetail die before his eyes, it seems as though he does not have a normal capacity for understanding or relating to others. Setting that aside, the reader here is probably supposed to be surprised as well, coming from our culture and all -- but that's of no matter, since what the reader is "supposed" to feel has little bearing on what ends up happening. Anyway, does anyone have any quotes of canon queens actually behaving with the ferocity matching this scene from the leadership ceremony? How many instances are there, and to what degree, are queens actually portrayed this way? Vicky. Vicky Holmes is their editor, and she does a terrible job. Name mistakes, inconsistencies, contradictory descriptions, zombie cats in the allegiances... someone should make a thread for this. |
|
drheiter
Apprentice
I'll explain this spectacular operation only once%\7\%
Posts: 50
|
Post by drheiter on Aug 31, 2012 14:11:19 GMT -6
Not to interrupt here, but
You and I and some others discussed this once on the Neoboards and I thought it was a really interesting topic. A thread on here about that might be enjoyable.
(Sorry, this didn't really add to the conversation, just wanted to point that out c:)
|
|
