In response to a post by my brother Eugene about the humanities, I came up with the following comment which I decided to turn into a post (it's kind of long).
I postulate a degree will become completely unimportant within 30-50 years (hey, I believe in the slow-accumulating-changes version of history).
I can't actually answer for any other field but English, but based on English, I think it will change because businesses will begin to realize that the people they are hiring can't write. Whatever their transcripts say, they aren't any more capable than someone without a college degree.
Actually, this is already happening. Based on an article that I use to scare my students (by an educator, so take it for what it is worth), 80% of "surveyed corporations" assess writing during hiring; 40% of the companies require extra writing training for employees (I can actually verify this; they do it at Microsoft), and writing "deficiencies" cost businesses in America $3.3 billion a year. I'm assuming this includes all that training.
It troubles me that (many of) my students not only cannot write grammatically correct sentences, they also, bizarrely enough, can't format their documents. I thought high schools had computers now? And don't they use their computers all the time? A student who can't format a Word document to the right margins, right font, and automatic double-spacing is going to have a tough row to hoe. (As I can attest based on a woman I once had to train who had zero computer skills. I was teaching her how to find files by opening correct folders; yeah, she didn't last.)
I don't actually pass anyone who can't communicate semi-clearly, and my grading has gotten tougher over the past five years (more B's than A's), but I will admit that I have very mixed feelings about the whole grading side of the equation. I think it is important for people to earn their grades, and I use clearly defined (and basic) criteria to grade. But I also can't forget (what with my massive student loan) that they are paying for the course and part of me is very, very angry because I feel like the system let them down. "They shouldn't be here!" I keep thinking. "They already had 12 years of school!" Or, "I should be focusing on stuff other than grammar!"
On the other hand, the students who can write clean, professional-looking documents do deserve the better grades, and if I passed a student who couldn't get across an idea at all, I would be committing fraud. But if colleges held composition students to the same standards I had to reach as a legal secretary, very few of my students would get even B's. I don't know how the community colleges I work for would respond if I started giving only C's, but giving all your students C's makes some online colleges very uneasy. (Some majors require their students to get at least "B's" in writing, so students with "C's" can't progress, which means the students drop out of the programs, and the colleges lose money.)
The irony to all this--or maybe it isn't ironic, just sad--is that if businesses stopped hiring based on degrees, they would have to hire based on intrinsic ability. In other words, the whole idea of learning-to-be-better would vanish. My students who start out the semester with A's end the semester with A's, and they would be the people getting hired. Does this confirm a meritocracy or do away with it?
To be fair, 1/3 to 1/2 of my students do improve over the semester, but those who improve can't improve until they are willing to reject their diary-like, stream-of-consciousness thoughts, accept that good grammar matters, and know what they want to say. (And why should any company hire anyone who can't do these three things?)
Although, to be fair some more, a lot of so-called, white-collar professionals can't write either. (See "deficiencies" above.) This is why secretaries exist.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Reflections on the Welfare State as Understood by Romance Novels
In romance novels, the man-with-the-job reins supreme. This is, of course, entirely non-historical. Modern women tend to perceive men-without-jobs as spongers. Therefore, the historical hero, however wealthy and titled, MUST have some career, hobby, extracurricular activity other than being a dilettante and going to clubs.
A number of romance writers will give their heroes jobs in trade. For romances set in 19th century England, the heroes might be lowerclass barrow boys who make good or improverished lords who have to enter the stock market and invest in railroad building or tough American lads who have come over to England to buy up the railroad and marry improverished noble women. This is actually fairly smart since the 19th century was a time of enormous upheaval in regards to trade and aristocracy.
And, when done right, the information about trade can be downright enlightening. I've learned a remarkable amount about 19th century banking and gunpowder manufacturing from romance novels.
Other romance writers will give their heroes philanthropic hobbies: rich lords who set up group homes for ex-prostitutes and who save pickpockets from themselves.
And I just don't buy it.
Not that there weren't reform movements in England at the time. It's that the writers inevitably make it far too easy.
Let's set aside the 19th century mindset which states that poor people, however needy, are born with that mindset (and the reformers thought this, not just the crass, evil aristocracy). Money and war have much more universal moralities. Cheating people is wrong. Selling people bad gunpowder is too. But why people are poor . . . eh, pick a century.
The problem that most of these romance writers face is that group homes are not that easy to run. Anyone who has spent even three seconds dealing with a government-funded institution knows this. I worked for a counseling clininc in Washington State where a number of therapists dealt with disabled clients living in tax-funded group homes. There were problems with fights (involving feces), sex, drugs . . .
The underlying assumption (and romance writers aren't the only people to make this assumption) is that the system is broken, not the people. And truthfully, often the system isn't so hot. So it needs to be fixed. But that doesn't automatically mean that prostitutes will stop soliciting or that pickpockets will stop getting their wrists chopped off.
The underlying underlying assumption is that people would change if they could. When I was teaching my Working Women in America class, I did some research on prostitution. Back in the 19th century, some gung-ho researcher went into New York City's slums and did a survey of prostitutes. Basically, he asked them why they were prostitutes.
The overwhelming answer: Choice.
No kidding. In the 19th century.
Granted, it may have been "I had to choose between working in a factory, a laundry, or prostitution, and I decided prostitution was less boring." Nevertheless, the survey was a huge shock to the 19th century mindset which was sure that prostitutes were all innocents who had been deflowered by debauched letharios and then left on the streets to die.
I watch way too much Law & Order to be a fan of prostitution (health crisis, anyone?), but I find it bizarre (and rather endearing) how the myth of the innocent victim has continued in our society. Abused women never stay with their abusers because they actually get an emotional/financial pay-off! Thiefs never keep thieving because they like the thrill and ease of getting stuff that doesn't belong to them!
The point with virtue isn't that everyone secretly hates vice; the point with virtue is that it puts long-term personal and public goals before short-term gains. And it's less trashy. I do, in fact, think staying with an abusive spouse is stupid and harmful. But I also think that some women in these situations (and some men) are not just victims. And until that is recognized, how on earth can they be helped? Until you can say to a woman, "Look, I know you like the ease of having no choices and the buzz of your husband being SOOO sorry after he beats you, but you have to grow up and live without it," why should she listen?
And she might choose to make no-choice, not because she doesn't know any better but because she actually prefers the way she lives.
The problem, of course, is that there are people caught in bad situations who can/should be helped by compassion and a leg up and distinguishing exactly who those people are before the fact is impossible. Welfare programs, like Reform, are catch-alls: catch 1,000, throw 980 back.
This may be too cynical; believe me, as a religious/ethical/American/libertarian person, I believe in looking for the 20, but it is also why I believe far more in the reformed pickpocket who becomes his lord's valet than in the group home. People can make even broken systems work. But the solution isn't warm and fuzzy, and an alpha male showing up and charming everyone into virtuous behavior just doesn't make the grade.
A number of romance writers will give their heroes jobs in trade. For romances set in 19th century England, the heroes might be lowerclass barrow boys who make good or improverished lords who have to enter the stock market and invest in railroad building or tough American lads who have come over to England to buy up the railroad and marry improverished noble women. This is actually fairly smart since the 19th century was a time of enormous upheaval in regards to trade and aristocracy.
And, when done right, the information about trade can be downright enlightening. I've learned a remarkable amount about 19th century banking and gunpowder manufacturing from romance novels.
Other romance writers will give their heroes philanthropic hobbies: rich lords who set up group homes for ex-prostitutes and who save pickpockets from themselves.
And I just don't buy it.
Not that there weren't reform movements in England at the time. It's that the writers inevitably make it far too easy.
Let's set aside the 19th century mindset which states that poor people, however needy, are born with that mindset (and the reformers thought this, not just the crass, evil aristocracy). Money and war have much more universal moralities. Cheating people is wrong. Selling people bad gunpowder is too. But why people are poor . . . eh, pick a century.
The problem that most of these romance writers face is that group homes are not that easy to run. Anyone who has spent even three seconds dealing with a government-funded institution knows this. I worked for a counseling clininc in Washington State where a number of therapists dealt with disabled clients living in tax-funded group homes. There were problems with fights (involving feces), sex, drugs . . .
The underlying assumption (and romance writers aren't the only people to make this assumption) is that the system is broken, not the people. And truthfully, often the system isn't so hot. So it needs to be fixed. But that doesn't automatically mean that prostitutes will stop soliciting or that pickpockets will stop getting their wrists chopped off.
The underlying underlying assumption is that people would change if they could. When I was teaching my Working Women in America class, I did some research on prostitution. Back in the 19th century, some gung-ho researcher went into New York City's slums and did a survey of prostitutes. Basically, he asked them why they were prostitutes.
The overwhelming answer: Choice.
No kidding. In the 19th century.
Granted, it may have been "I had to choose between working in a factory, a laundry, or prostitution, and I decided prostitution was less boring." Nevertheless, the survey was a huge shock to the 19th century mindset which was sure that prostitutes were all innocents who had been deflowered by debauched letharios and then left on the streets to die.
I watch way too much Law & Order to be a fan of prostitution (health crisis, anyone?), but I find it bizarre (and rather endearing) how the myth of the innocent victim has continued in our society. Abused women never stay with their abusers because they actually get an emotional/financial pay-off! Thiefs never keep thieving because they like the thrill and ease of getting stuff that doesn't belong to them!
The point with virtue isn't that everyone secretly hates vice; the point with virtue is that it puts long-term personal and public goals before short-term gains. And it's less trashy. I do, in fact, think staying with an abusive spouse is stupid and harmful. But I also think that some women in these situations (and some men) are not just victims. And until that is recognized, how on earth can they be helped? Until you can say to a woman, "Look, I know you like the ease of having no choices and the buzz of your husband being SOOO sorry after he beats you, but you have to grow up and live without it," why should she listen?
And she might choose to make no-choice, not because she doesn't know any better but because she actually prefers the way she lives.
The problem, of course, is that there are people caught in bad situations who can/should be helped by compassion and a leg up and distinguishing exactly who those people are before the fact is impossible. Welfare programs, like Reform, are catch-alls: catch 1,000, throw 980 back.
This may be too cynical; believe me, as a religious/ethical/American/libertarian person, I believe in looking for the 20, but it is also why I believe far more in the reformed pickpocket who becomes his lord's valet than in the group home. People can make even broken systems work. But the solution isn't warm and fuzzy, and an alpha male showing up and charming everyone into virtuous behavior just doesn't make the grade.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Firefly Post Is Up on the Mike-Kate Video Club Blog
Join us for a discussion of whether women prefer fantasy or science-fiction--and to comment on the show as well!
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
What Makes a Good Hero?
This list was harder than the previous list: What makes a good heroine? There were several reasons it was harder.
First, my list for good heroines was informed by how I think women should actually behave. However, I can fancy a book or television hero without (always) making it personal. For instance, I can like a hero without having dated or wanting to date a similar personality. (I would never want to date someone like Booth, for example. Or Mr. Rochester.)
Second, many times my interest in a show is in the hero-heroine interaction. Without that interaction, the hero wouldn’t be enough to carry the show or to model behavior I would want to copy. Imagine Mulder without Scully—yikes! (“Scary Mulder” indeed).
Third, many of my favorite male characters aren’t necessarily the heroes. (Peter McNicol as Larry Fleinhardt is a good example.) On the other hand, the definition of "hero" is up for grabs! (Perhaps, I should say, "main protagonist.")
However, I have been able to come up with a list of favorite heroes (main protagonists) which I will use to create a list of good hero attributes:
1. The heroes are confident in a nonchalant way.
Jack O’Neill and John Shepherd take the prize here. I doubt there are two more nonchalant heroes on television. It is appropriate to pair them together since they are an extroverted and introverted versions of the same personality type.
The best example of their similar nonchalance comes from the pilot to Stargate: Atlantis where the following exchange takes place:
I return to this issue of confidence below--from a slightly different angle.
2. The heroes have a sense of humor.
The heroic aplomb is helped by the heroes having a sense of humor. Benton Fraser may seem an exception here, but I’ve always considered Fraser's “straight man” persona to be partly put on. He isn’t faking so much as he is deliberately being more himself.
Another aspect of hero humor is the ability of the hero to not get pissed at the heroine/react defensively to subtext. This may actually cross the fiction/reality line because it is an attribute I admire and wish I could emulate.
A great example comes from Booth in the first season. Bones makes a promise to a little boy which Booth then keeps.
3. The heroes respect women without putting them on pedestals.
Because, let’s face it, putting women on pedestals is just another form of condescension. (A woman on a pedestal can’t interfere or contribute. She’s just supposed to stay there.)
Some of the heroes (Benton, McKay) are a little uncertain around women and make up for this, in Benton's case, with excessive civility (McKay is just rude). But none of them are dismissive.
The Stargate heroes win the prize for heroes who, without taking women for granted manage to take them for granted. It's the difference between undervaluing or ignoring someone versus assuming someone has the right to exist/be there/contribute something. Booth, for instance, gets kudos for wanting Bones' opinion while not perceiving her as perfect. And Patrick Jane doesn't flare up when Lisbon takes a stand, like when she returns the lottery-won jewelry:
This raises a conundrum. The reason so many romance novels succeed is because the hero doesn't make his problems the heroine's problem. He takes care of things! Unfortunately, he also tends to be ultra-alpha and dominate, which becomes tiresome. Confidence and self-knowledge are not limited to ultra-alpha and dominate males.
Having said that, I will start with the most alpha of my listed heroes. One of Booth's most attractive qualities is that he DOESN'T kowtow to Bones. Regarding the dialog quoted above, one reason Booth doesn't get upset is because his ego isn't that fragile. This is very attractive.
However (note to women), it isn't just the male's responsibility to develop this quality! One reason I get tired of books like Twilight (and a number of mystery series) is because the heroine runs around wondering if she is good enough and having her ego massaged by the confident male. Geez, wouldn't he get tired of this?
To continue, good heroes are never so tunnel-visioned, they don't know who they are. Booth is proud of being a beer-and-skittles guy. He doesn't pretend to be anything else although, like Benton and Jack, he sometimes emphasizes certain personality traits deliberately (he isn't as uninformed as he sometimes acts). He is a good father who has "stepped it up" and sees that as a defining part of his personality.
Patrick Jane has accepted his past mistakes to the nth degree. In some ways, he is too hard on himself, but in some ways, he isn't. Setting aside the Red John stuff, defrauding people isn't terribly kind. And there are enough flashbacks in Season 1 to make it clear that Jane did deliberately defraud some people, even when what he did hurt them emotionally.
All the Stargate guys are totally honest with themselves. One of my favorite examples is McKay when he tells a bunch of bad guys, " I don't know if you noticed or not, but I'm an extremely arrogant man who tends to think all his plans will work."
And Benton, who is actually quite hard to read, is never dishonest. About anything. He is occasionally self-deluded when he thinks he can help someone he can't. In the first season, he tries to save a deceitful, dark-haired woman from herself. In the final episode of that season, he and his partner have this exchange:
To end this section, I agree with Eugene's comment that the hero should not be "fixed" by the heroine. If you can't accept him as he is, ladies, or he doesn't know who he is, stay away from him (you shouldn't need Dr. Laura to tell you that.)
5. The heroes are loyal/stick around.
Okay, guys, if you want to know how to attract/make a woman happy, this is it. Evolutionarily, biologically, genetically, culturally-speaking, the way to a woman's heart is loyalty.
Booth, of course, is way up the list. Actually, they all are, but Booth is the most blatant. One of my favorite quotes comes when Bones and Angela are discussing Bones' brother:
Of course, saying, "Trust me" isn't enough: actions speak louder than words. The Stargate guys, for example, always follow through. The creed, "We don't leave our people behind" may not always be good military policy, but it's good romance and heroic policy.
And Benton, naturally, is Mr. Reliable. His reliability isn't confined to women; he is always there for his partner, neighbors, small children, pets, and total strangers!
To end, I'm going to give Bones the last word:
First, my list for good heroines was informed by how I think women should actually behave. However, I can fancy a book or television hero without (always) making it personal. For instance, I can like a hero without having dated or wanting to date a similar personality. (I would never want to date someone like Booth, for example. Or Mr. Rochester.)
Second, many times my interest in a show is in the hero-heroine interaction. Without that interaction, the hero wouldn’t be enough to carry the show or to model behavior I would want to copy. Imagine Mulder without Scully—yikes! (“Scary Mulder” indeed).
Third, many of my favorite male characters aren’t necessarily the heroes. (Peter McNicol as Larry Fleinhardt is a good example.) On the other hand, the definition of "hero" is up for grabs! (Perhaps, I should say, "main protagonist.")
However, I have been able to come up with a list of favorite heroes (main protagonists) which I will use to create a list of good hero attributes:
- Booth from Bones as representative of the romantic hero.
- Patrick Jane from The Mentalist as representative of the troubled, semi-romantic hero.
- All the Stargate men—naturally (yes, I am including Dr. Rodney McKay).
- Benton Fraser from Due South as representative of the solitary hero.
1. The heroes are confident in a nonchalant way.
Jack O’Neill and John Shepherd take the prize here. I doubt there are two more nonchalant heroes on television. It is appropriate to pair them together since they are an extroverted and introverted versions of the same personality type.
The best example of their similar nonchalance comes from the pilot to Stargate: Atlantis where the following exchange takes place:
O’Neill: This isn't a long trip, so I'll be a succinct as possible.The remaining heroes are less nonchalant but still manage to confront danger and uncertainty with finesse. Okay, McKay gets a little wild and crazy and talks too fast, but in general, these heroes tend to meet problems with aplomb. (McKay is actually the most heroic of the bunch because he overcomes a normal amount of cowardice and courage to perform truly courageous and selfless acts.) Patrick Jane's willingness to call things as they are gives him a little bit of House confidence (without the brassness).
Sheppard: (After a long silence.) Well, that's pretty succinct.
O’Neill: Thank you.
I return to this issue of confidence below--from a slightly different angle.
2. The heroes have a sense of humor.
The heroic aplomb is helped by the heroes having a sense of humor. Benton Fraser may seem an exception here, but I’ve always considered Fraser's “straight man” persona to be partly put on. He isn’t faking so much as he is deliberately being more himself.
Ray: This is what's wrong with you, Fraser. You see a problem, and you gotta fix it. You can't even go to the men's room without stopping and telling some simple stupid charmingly witty Inuit story that inspires people to take on the world's social ills!The remaining heroes are given to excessive irony (Jack and John), rampant sarcasm (McKay), and quick repartee (Booth). I also have to add Patrick Jane's unbelievably mischievous and charming smile. All by itself, it makes you happy!
Fraser: Well, I'm sorry, Ray, but I fail to see how a small group of people banding together to form a neighborhood watch constitutes a form of political anarchy.
Another aspect of hero humor is the ability of the hero to not get pissed at the heroine/react defensively to subtext. This may actually cross the fiction/reality line because it is an attribute I admire and wish I could emulate.
A great example comes from Booth in the first season. Bones makes a promise to a little boy which Booth then keeps.
Brennan: I knew you'd back me up. I knew you wouldn't make me a liar.Here's the kicker (or "kickster," as Bones would say): Booth just smiles. Brennan's assumptions don't bug him; he doesn't feel used or manipulated or out-of-control. (I will refer back to this particular dialog later.)
Booth: How did you know?
Brennan: Because you want to go to heaven
Booth: But you don't believe in heaven.
Brennan: But you do . . .
3. The heroes respect women without putting them on pedestals.
Because, let’s face it, putting women on pedestals is just another form of condescension. (A woman on a pedestal can’t interfere or contribute. She’s just supposed to stay there.)
Some of the heroes (Benton, McKay) are a little uncertain around women and make up for this, in Benton's case, with excessive civility (McKay is just rude). But none of them are dismissive.
The Stargate heroes win the prize for heroes who, without taking women for granted manage to take them for granted. It's the difference between undervaluing or ignoring someone versus assuming someone has the right to exist/be there/contribute something. Booth, for instance, gets kudos for wanting Bones' opinion while not perceiving her as perfect. And Patrick Jane doesn't flare up when Lisbon takes a stand, like when she returns the lottery-won jewelry:
Teresa: All right, guys. It's been fun playing dress-up, but playtime is over.4. The heroes know themselves.
Cho: I'm sorry, boss, what do you mean?
Teresa: This. (She gestures at the necklace Patrick gave her.) It's kind of a waste, don't you think?
Patrick: I would have bought world peace if I could. They didn't have it in the casino gift store. Very limited range of items for sale.
Teresa: You know what I mean.
Patrick: I know those emeralds look lovely with your eyes.
Teresa: Thank you. It's beautiful, but I can't keep it.
Patrick: I understand.
This raises a conundrum. The reason so many romance novels succeed is because the hero doesn't make his problems the heroine's problem. He takes care of things! Unfortunately, he also tends to be ultra-alpha and dominate, which becomes tiresome. Confidence and self-knowledge are not limited to ultra-alpha and dominate males.
Having said that, I will start with the most alpha of my listed heroes. One of Booth's most attractive qualities is that he DOESN'T kowtow to Bones. Regarding the dialog quoted above, one reason Booth doesn't get upset is because his ego isn't that fragile. This is very attractive.
However (note to women), it isn't just the male's responsibility to develop this quality! One reason I get tired of books like Twilight (and a number of mystery series) is because the heroine runs around wondering if she is good enough and having her ego massaged by the confident male. Geez, wouldn't he get tired of this?
To continue, good heroes are never so tunnel-visioned, they don't know who they are. Booth is proud of being a beer-and-skittles guy. He doesn't pretend to be anything else although, like Benton and Jack, he sometimes emphasizes certain personality traits deliberately (he isn't as uninformed as he sometimes acts). He is a good father who has "stepped it up" and sees that as a defining part of his personality.
Patrick Jane has accepted his past mistakes to the nth degree. In some ways, he is too hard on himself, but in some ways, he isn't. Setting aside the Red John stuff, defrauding people isn't terribly kind. And there are enough flashbacks in Season 1 to make it clear that Jane did deliberately defraud some people, even when what he did hurt them emotionally.
All the Stargate guys are totally honest with themselves. One of my favorite examples is McKay when he tells a bunch of bad guys, " I don't know if you noticed or not, but I'm an extremely arrogant man who tends to think all his plans will work."
And Benton, who is actually quite hard to read, is never dishonest. About anything. He is occasionally self-deluded when he thinks he can help someone he can't. In the first season, he tries to save a deceitful, dark-haired woman from herself. In the final episode of that season, he and his partner have this exchange:
Ray Vecchio: Benny, not every woman with long dark hair tries to kill her lover.Ultimately, Benton always acknowledges what must be done.
Benton Fraser: Oh.
To end this section, I agree with Eugene's comment that the hero should not be "fixed" by the heroine. If you can't accept him as he is, ladies, or he doesn't know who he is, stay away from him (you shouldn't need Dr. Laura to tell you that.)
5. The heroes are loyal/stick around.
Okay, guys, if you want to know how to attract/make a woman happy, this is it. Evolutionarily, biologically, genetically, culturally-speaking, the way to a woman's heart is loyalty.
Booth, of course, is way up the list. Actually, they all are, but Booth is the most blatant. One of my favorite quotes comes when Bones and Angela are discussing Bones' brother:
Bones: I worshiped him. You know? God, he was so cool. Everyone knew I was Russ Brennan's little sister. I wasn't cool or pretty, so being his sister . . . You know that game, Marco Polo? I'd be sitting in class, and I'd hear out the window, "Marco!" It'd be Russ, checking in on me, letting everyone know that I was his little sister.Patrick Jane demonstrates that, whatever his behavior in the past, he did adore his wife and child. He also states that he will always have Lisbon's back. When she complains that she can't trust him because he's always doing crazy stuff, he responds, "Lisbon, I want you to know that you can trust me. No matter what happens, I will be there for you. I will. I need you to know that. Now, can I catch you?" (They are doing a trust exercise, and he does catch her.)
Angela: Did you "Polo"?
Brennan: Yeah, sometimes it'd be the only word I said all day. "Polo." And then Mom and Dad disappeared, and Russ took off. Suddenly, no one cared where I was. I miss that. Someone caring where I am all the time. (My emphasis.)
At this point, you hear Booth call, "Bones. Bones. Where are you? Let's go!" off-screen. It is immeasurably touching.
Of course, saying, "Trust me" isn't enough: actions speak louder than words. The Stargate guys, for example, always follow through. The creed, "We don't leave our people behind" may not always be good military policy, but it's good romance and heroic policy.
And Benton, naturally, is Mr. Reliable. His reliability isn't confined to women; he is always there for his partner, neighbors, small children, pets, and total strangers!
To end, I'm going to give Bones the last word:
Booth: Mr. Decker, you and Donovan, you have a code word? Something to let him know that you sent me?
Decker: Paladin. Tell Donovan "Paladin."
(Decker leaves the room.)
Cullen: (stands) Paladin. Defender of the faith. Protector. Suits you, Booth.
(Cullen walks out.)
Bones: You know what? You tough guys are all very sentimental.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
What Makes a Good Heroine?
I'm a big fan of the classic romance. Chivalry is not dead! However, I do demand that the heroine of the equation meet certain criteria (I likely have a similar list for heroes, but it is far more subconscious and visceral; however, I'll think about it and come up with a list for heroes at some later date). I consider heroines that don't meet this criteria to be very dull.
My list follows with examples from four television shows.
1. The heroine needs to have a job, interest, or hobby.
Boring heroines don't do anything.
For example, Bones (from Bones) is an anthropologist, crime fighter, and writer.
Scully (from X-Files) is a doctor and FBI agent.
Major Carter (from Stargate) is a physicist and engineer.*
Lois (from Lois & Clark) is a reporter.
2. The heroine takes positions on issues without getting defensive.
In other words, the heroine assumes that she has the right to state her mind. It isn't about telling off the big, bad, patriarchal man. Boring heroines either react or spend all their time marking their territory.
Bones has opinions about people, religion, and events even when she admits to a lack of expert knowledge. She has supreme confidence in her expert knowledge.
Scully has definite rational opinions about Mulder's theories. She also trusts her own experiences/senses and backs her own judgment.
Major Carter takes judicious stances on all issues.*
Lois has passionate and personally felt opinions about EVERYTHING.
3. The heroine takes action when there is a conflict and often saves the hero's life.
Boring heroines waffle, question themselves, and wait around for some action to be taken to which they can react. They rarely save anyone's life except sometimes small children and pets.
Bones shoots people. She also convinces Booth to take certain actions (such as going into the hospital).
Scully shoots people and often takes actions that put her in conflict with either Mulder or the bureau. She will step out of line to help Mulder, such as when she tracks him down on the ghost ship.
Major Carter shoots people. She also comes up with ingenuous scientific solutions that end up saving people's lives.*
Lois follows up dangerous leads and helps Superman, such as when he is blind (she rarely shoots people).
4. The heroine does not wait around to be rescued (no matter how often that happens).
The boring heroine is always being protected/rushed after. The boring heroine also needs constant reassurance from friends/family/the narrator that nothing is her fault (she is protected from emotional as well as physical ramifications).
Bones always fights back and struggles. For example, she blows up the car she is trapped in, alerting Booth to her presence. She often admits to being wrong about people and takes Booth's suggestions.
Scully uses her best judgment to save herself. For example, she decides to leave cancer treatment for her own reasons, not due to Mulder's paranoia. She struggles with personal issues on her own. (Admittedly, this may not always be the best approach, but it sure beats having people create a cozy, consequence-free zone around the heroine.)
Major Carter rarely needs to be rescued. In fact, she saves the spaceship and crew trapped in the gas nebula thingy (despite suffering from a concussion). She goes through totally ordinary ups and downs. She always fixes her mistakes.*
Lois is always being rescued. But she picks herself up and re-enters the fray again! She will admit, reluctantly, when she is wrong. She opens herself to Clark, radically changing her life. She faces up to whatever comes next.
5. The heroine defends the hero's right to be a hero.
This may seem like an odd attribute, but I think it explains the success of many romance novels. So he's an alpha male? So, what?! Get over it!! Too many modern romances create a struggle in which the heroine either beats the poor male into submission or, without making any real choice, collapses beneath the literal and metaphorical weight of his alpha-ness.
Bones consistently defends Booth's status as an alpha male. She tells off Sweets when he tries to cast Booth in the "strong but silent/can't talk about his feelings" mold.
Major Carter does not need to defend Colonel O'Neill. She supports him by being on his team and following orders like a good military officer.*
Lois defends Superman's role in society and later Clark's right to fulfill that role.
6. Last but not least, heroines have a sense of humor.
Boring heroines care about their figures, their attractiveness, their clothing, their relationships, and not much else. They never see the humor in the wackiness of life (which ages people, changes trends, and creates absurd, often silly human beings). They liked to be teased affectionately, and they will be delighted by children's antics. They do not make jokes, especially not about the serious, overwhelming world around them.
Bones plays the straight man to Booth's antics, but she goes into fits of laughter over obscure medical issues. Bones and Booth together create great patter.
So, there they are: the six criteria that make for a good heroine. *Major Carter receives an asterisk because in many ways, she falls into her own category of awesomeness. She never has to prove anything. She just is smart and amazing, and that's enough.
But then again, Stargate really doesn't focus so much on romance.
Note to producers and writers: If you are making a romance, make sure the heroine is somebody worth rooting for!
The Mike-Kate Video Club began last Friday. Since the first video under discussion is Buffy, I thought I would mention here that Buffy meets all of the above criteria. She has a job (she slays vampires); she takes positions on issues (even if that position is having a politically incorrect Thanksgiving dinner); she takes action and saves all kinds of people's lives (Jonathan: "We're proud to say that the class of '99 has the lowest mortality rate of any graduating class in Sunnydale history, and we know at least part of that is because of you."); she doesn't wait around to be rescued, and she's doesn't get all dopey until that horrible season, yes, you know which one I mean; she defends Angel but also kills him: ain't love grand! and she has a sense of humor.
Join us for a discussion of the Buffy pilot and more!
My list follows with examples from four television shows.
1. The heroine needs to have a job, interest, or hobby.
Boring heroines don't do anything.
For example, Bones (from Bones) is an anthropologist, crime fighter, and writer.
Scully (from X-Files) is a doctor and FBI agent.
Major Carter (from Stargate) is a physicist and engineer.*
Lois (from Lois & Clark) is a reporter.
2. The heroine takes positions on issues without getting defensive.
In other words, the heroine assumes that she has the right to state her mind. It isn't about telling off the big, bad, patriarchal man. Boring heroines either react or spend all their time marking their territory.
Bones has opinions about people, religion, and events even when she admits to a lack of expert knowledge. She has supreme confidence in her expert knowledge.
Scully has definite rational opinions about Mulder's theories. She also trusts her own experiences/senses and backs her own judgment.
Major Carter takes judicious stances on all issues.*
Lois has passionate and personally felt opinions about EVERYTHING.
3. The heroine takes action when there is a conflict and often saves the hero's life.
Boring heroines waffle, question themselves, and wait around for some action to be taken to which they can react. They rarely save anyone's life except sometimes small children and pets.
Bones shoots people. She also convinces Booth to take certain actions (such as going into the hospital).
Scully shoots people and often takes actions that put her in conflict with either Mulder or the bureau. She will step out of line to help Mulder, such as when she tracks him down on the ghost ship.
Major Carter shoots people. She also comes up with ingenuous scientific solutions that end up saving people's lives.*
Lois follows up dangerous leads and helps Superman, such as when he is blind (she rarely shoots people).
4. The heroine does not wait around to be rescued (no matter how often that happens).
The boring heroine is always being protected/rushed after. The boring heroine also needs constant reassurance from friends/family/the narrator that nothing is her fault (she is protected from emotional as well as physical ramifications).
Bones always fights back and struggles. For example, she blows up the car she is trapped in, alerting Booth to her presence. She often admits to being wrong about people and takes Booth's suggestions.
Scully uses her best judgment to save herself. For example, she decides to leave cancer treatment for her own reasons, not due to Mulder's paranoia. She struggles with personal issues on her own. (Admittedly, this may not always be the best approach, but it sure beats having people create a cozy, consequence-free zone around the heroine.)
Major Carter rarely needs to be rescued. In fact, she saves the spaceship and crew trapped in the gas nebula thingy (despite suffering from a concussion). She goes through totally ordinary ups and downs. She always fixes her mistakes.*
Lois is always being rescued. But she picks herself up and re-enters the fray again! She will admit, reluctantly, when she is wrong. She opens herself to Clark, radically changing her life. She faces up to whatever comes next.
5. The heroine defends the hero's right to be a hero.
This may seem like an odd attribute, but I think it explains the success of many romance novels. So he's an alpha male? So, what?! Get over it!! Too many modern romances create a struggle in which the heroine either beats the poor male into submission or, without making any real choice, collapses beneath the literal and metaphorical weight of his alpha-ness.
Bones consistently defends Booth's status as an alpha male. She tells off Sweets when he tries to cast Booth in the "strong but silent/can't talk about his feelings" mold.
SWEETS: Must be a challenge for you to access those feelings.Rather than undermining Mulder (as the evil minions hoped), Scully's support takes him out of crackpot status and gives his idealism a certain credibility.
BRENNAN: Okay, stop. You don't know Booth. You don't know me; you have a limited view of us based on superficial data you've accumulated on a standardized questionnaire, and a subjective analysis from talking to us that is not at all scientific, so BACK OFF.
SWEETS: Just trying to help.
BRENNAN: By questioning his humanity?
Major Carter does not need to defend Colonel O'Neill. She supports him by being on his team and following orders like a good military officer.*
Lois defends Superman's role in society and later Clark's right to fulfill that role.
6. Last but not least, heroines have a sense of humor.
Boring heroines care about their figures, their attractiveness, their clothing, their relationships, and not much else. They never see the humor in the wackiness of life (which ages people, changes trends, and creates absurd, often silly human beings). They liked to be teased affectionately, and they will be delighted by children's antics. They do not make jokes, especially not about the serious, overwhelming world around them.
Bones plays the straight man to Booth's antics, but she goes into fits of laughter over obscure medical issues. Bones and Booth together create great patter.
BOOTH: Um, maybe he was rolled up in a carpet.Scully also plays straight "woman" to Mulder's antics, and she is absolutely fabulous at rolling her eyes.
BONES: Where's the carpet?
BOOTH: Well, it rotted away with, you know, the meaty parts.
(Bones bends over, laughing hysterically.)
MISS JULIAN: Dr. Brennan is suspended from all crime-related duties.
BOOTH: What?
BRENNAN: For laughing at Booth?
BOOTH: That really doesn't bother me.
MULDER: He just wants some dating advice.Major Carter isn't particular jokey, but she finds Jack amusing.
SCULLY: From whom?
MULDER: Yours truly.
SCULLY: [Long silence while she stares blankly into space.]
MULDER: Hello? Scully?
SCULLY: Mulder, when was the last time you went on a date?
MULDER: I will talk to you later. [Hangs up.]
SCULLY: The blind leading the blind.
SAMANTHA CARTER: Normally neutrinos pass right through ordinary matter, no matter how dense. I mean, something like five hundred million billion just passed through you.And Lois IS the person with all the antics. Although I usually get bugged by female heroines who talk incessantly about their personal problems, Lois is so funny and charming and self-aware, she doesn't bug me.
JACK: No matter how dense.
(Carter smiles to herself and shakes her head.)
So, there they are: the six criteria that make for a good heroine. *Major Carter receives an asterisk because in many ways, she falls into her own category of awesomeness. She never has to prove anything. She just is smart and amazing, and that's enough.
But then again, Stargate really doesn't focus so much on romance.
Note to producers and writers: If you are making a romance, make sure the heroine is somebody worth rooting for!
The Mike-Kate Video Club began last Friday. Since the first video under discussion is Buffy, I thought I would mention here that Buffy meets all of the above criteria. She has a job (she slays vampires); she takes positions on issues (even if that position is having a politically incorrect Thanksgiving dinner); she takes action and saves all kinds of people's lives (Jonathan: "We're proud to say that the class of '99 has the lowest mortality rate of any graduating class in Sunnydale history, and we know at least part of that is because of you."); she doesn't wait around to be rescued, and she's doesn't get all dopey until that horrible season, yes, you know which one I mean; she defends Angel but also kills him: ain't love grand! and she has a sense of humor.
Join us for a discussion of the Buffy pilot and more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)