Blog PostsWriting Journal: Diversity vs. Tokenism

I reached a milestone the other day with one of my pieces of writing and finished the third draft of one of my novels in progress, or what I call the “I SUCK AND WHY DID I EVER THINK I COULD BE A WRITER?!” draft. I’m one step closer to being rejected by literary agents and publishers all over the United States.

In all seriousness, I feel pretty good about this milestone. I went back through the second draft and did a lot of careful editing, and I can confirm the wisdom in leaving a draft alone for a few weeks (or in my case, months) after you finish it. After writing the first draft, I wondered how I could possibly change anything about it. Then I left it alone for a little while, returned to it, and changed half of the plot, eliminating several story lines that I will probably save for the sequel. After writing the second draft, I sent it to a friend, read my friend’s very helpful comments, and left it alone for awhile. When I returned to it, I edited and rephrased lines on every single page to make my narrator’s voice more consistent.

In short, the editing process is both frustrating and comforting. It’s frustrating because it’s a reminder that I’m still not finished. It’s comforting because I know I can return to that paragraph I didn’t like and change it after getting a little distance from the story.

There is, however, one aspect of the story that I’m still unsure about and I don’t know if there’s an easy fix, or if it needs to be fixed at all. This has to do with characters and diversity.

The novel in question is about a group of high school friends who happen to be vampires (because the world needs another young adult vampire novel). These four students have recently transitioned and they are all in eleventh grade. The demographics of the group consist of a white half-Jewish boy, a white Jewish girl, an African-American boy, and a Puerto Rican-American girl. They all became vampires in different ways and have different philosophies about being vampires. And that’s all I will say about the plot because I’m afraid I’ve already said too much.

Anyway, this novel is written in first person and told through the point of view of the white half-Jewish boy, but the story doesn’t end there. I have plans to write a four-book series where each book is written from the perspective of a different character. The white boy is the first character who gets to narrate, but the other three characters will get their turns to speak in the subsequent stories.

The decision to make my cast of characters an ethnically diverse group was both a conscious and unconscious one. I was vaguely aware that I didn’t want to write another young adult vampire novel all about white people, but when brainstorming a list of characters, I didn’t have a checklist of which ethnic groups I wanted to represent in my story. I did some free-writing and eventually, the characters formed themselves, as cliched as that sounds. In fact, the narrator of the first book was originally written as a girl, but as I kept writing, the character’s voice seemed distinctly male, so I made the changes and the character became a boy.

I received confirmation that the character “sounded like a boy” when I showed excerpts of the story to my thirteen-year-old students last year. They enjoyed the excerpts for the most part and liked the characters, but when they started talking about the actors they would cast in the potential movie version of the book, they commented that the black male character “sounds really hot”…and came up with a list of good-looking white actors to play that character.

Confused, and feeling a little uneasy, I reminded them that this character was black. Their response: “Really? He doesn’t sound black.”

Those of you who are reading this post might be having unpleasant Hunger Games-related flashbacks and remembering those racist tweets from fans who were extremely upset to find out that Rue was black. But here’s the kicker: most of my students were themselves black, and they still didn’t know that this “really hot” character was supposed to be black.

Whose fault was that misunderstanding – theirs or mine?

Maybe it was my fault. I didn’t spend a lot of time describing the character’s physical attributes. I didn’t even directly state that he was African-American. I said he had “very dark skin.” Maybe those who accuse me of having too much white liberal guilt have a point, and I’ve become – gulp – politically correct.

Or maybe it was their fault. They thought the character “didn’t sound black” because he spoke more properly (for lack of a better term) than they did when talking to their friends. Maybe they had some of their own stereotypical assumptions about other black people.

Or maybe it’s – wait for it – society’s fault. The media is so dominated by representations of white people that maybe a lot of readers, even a lot of people of color, “default to white” in their minds.

I’m guessing it’s probably a combination of all three factors.

They didn’t, however, make the same mistake about the Puerto Rican-American character, probably because her first and last name are both so unmistakably Spanish that they could tell she was Latina even if they skimmed over the physical descriptions. Still, I don’t actually know if the name I chose for her character is common in Puerto Rico. I picked a name I liked, then decided she was Puerto Rican. For all I know, the name I picked for her is a lot more common in Honduras or El Salvador or another primarily Spanish-speaking country. If I do some research and find out that her name isn’t very Puerto Rican at all, what do I do – change the name I’m attached to, or switch nationalities for the character as though it’s as simple as changing her favorite food?

I also don’t know how much Spanish I should use when I write her dialogue. Would it make sense to have her drop a few Spanish phrases here and there? Probably, but when? At what point do I cross the line between “authentically Spanish-speaking” and “HI I AM AN AUTHOR AND I LOOKED UP SPANISH PHRASES ONLINE”?

For that matter, who’s to say that I have the details for the Jewish characters correct? After all, I didn’t grow up Jewish. I also didn’t grow up male, yet I’m writing from the perspective of a male character. Yet I somehow feel more comfortable contacting a male and/or Jewish friend to ask, “Hey, does this detail sound right to you?” than I would contacting a black or Puerto Rican friend to ask the same question.

I’m probably overthinking this. The best thing I can do for ALL of my characters is to give them layers, realistic flaws, complex relationships, and understandable motivations. When looking through my draft, I think I have accomplished this goal for the most part. I don’t want race/religion/gender to be the defining aspect of any of those characters, but neither do I want race/religion/gender to be completely irrelevant to who they are as people. Whether I succeed in that goal, I suppose only time and audience reception will tell.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , , , | 9 Comments

ReviewsBtVS and Consent Issues: Episode 1.06 – “The Pack”

[Note: I’ve decided to begin a series about consent issues in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I will post a new entry in this series every other Tuesday – or perhaps on a weekly basis, if I have the time. In this series, I will look at an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that deals with rape, sexual assault, or consent issues as a main plot point or as a featured event of the episode. I will examine these episodes in chronological order. If, in my writing of this series, you feel that I have skipped an episode that should be a part of this series, feel free to submit a guest post, and I will consider publishing it.]

EPISODE: “The Pack”
INCIDENT: Attempted sexual assault
PERPETRATOR: Xander Harris
VICTIM: Buffy Summers

The specifics: Xander and four other Sunnydale High School students go to a blocked-off hyena exhibit at the local zoo on a school field trip and become possessed with the demonic hyena spirits. While the other four possessed students attack the school principal, Xander corners Buffy and attempts to sexually assault her, pinning her to a vending machine and kissing her neck. Off-screen, Buffy gets the upper hand and hits him with a desk, and in the next scene, she is shown dragging his unconscious body back to the school library.

The mind of the perpetrator: Obviously, Xander can’t be held accountable for his actions while he’s possessed by a demonic hyena. As much as early Buffy played upon the “high school is hell” metaphor, there’s no real-life equivalent of becoming suddenly possessed by a demon animal spirit. Xander had no idea what would happen to him when he sought out the hyena exhibit, so I can say without hesitation that his actions were beyond his control.

At the same time, I can’t ignore that some of what he says to Buffy when he’s under the hyena possession. He tells her:

“XANDER: We both know what you really want. You want danger, don’t you? You like your men dangerous. Dangerous and mean, like Angel, your mystery guy. Well, guess who just got mean.”

This isn’t the last time that Xander will allude to Buffy’s preference for dangerous men, and it isn’t the last time that he’ll judge her or be angry with her because of it.

At the end of the episode, Xander feigns amnesia about his entire hyena-possessed experience. Buffy and Willow believe him and let him off the hook, thinking he doesn’t remember attacking Buffy or saying hurtful things to Willow. Giles knows that Xander is lying about not remembering the experience, but promises to keep his secret. Xander replies, “Shoot me, stuff me, mount me,” and walks away hanging his head, looking completely embarrassed and defeated. He knows he’s made an ass of himself, and pretending not to remember is the only way he can hold onto a shred of dignity.

The victim’s perspective: Buffy’s not too shaken by the incident. When she drags Xander back to the library, she casually admits that she hit him with a desk, and then has this conversation with Willow:

“BUFFY: He tried his hand at felony sexual assault.

WILLOW: Oh, Buffy, the hyena in him didn’t…

BUFFY: No. No, but it’s safe to say that in his animal state his idea of wooing doesn’t involve a Yanni CD and a bottle of Chianti.”

This exchange is important, and not only because it shows that Buffy has terrible taste in music (though pretty decent taste in wine). She is aware of Xander’s attraction to her, and so is Willow. But they both know that Xander in his right state of mind would never have tried to assault Buffy. When Willow says, “The hyena in him didn’t…”, she’s referring to Xander’s attraction to Buffy, not to the attempted assault.

This is why, I think, Buffy is completely emotionally unaffected by Xander’s attempted assault of her, why she exchanges an amused look with Willow and tries to hide a smile when a newly freed Xander asks if he did anything else to embarrass himself while he was possessed. But I also think she wasn’t emotionally affected because she never perceived Xander, even a supernaturally-possessed and stronger Xander, as a physical threat to her. She didn’t need an apology because she was never afraid.

What does this episode say about misogyny and rape culture?

Xander isn’t accountable for what he said or did under the hyena possession. I think unintentional, accidental possession by demonic spirits is about an extenuating circumstance as you can get.

I also don’t fault him for pretending that he didn’t remember what happened. Considering that both Buffy and Willow were 100% angst-free after they realized Xander was possessed, and considering that both girls were treating it as a joke and laughing about the possession after it was over, a sincere, serious apology on his behalf would have been completely out of place.

Similarly, I also don’t fault Giles for keeping Xander’s secret, and I don’t see him winking at the attempted assault as a conspiratorial “boys will be boys” gesture as some other viewers do. Again – extenuating circumstances, and Xander is obviously so embarrassed and hang-dog about the whole incident that telling the girls would be the equivalent of kicking a guy when he’s down. It can be easy to forget that Xander was also a victim in this episode – not of sexual assault, but of involuntary demonic possession. Involuntary demonic possession that he experienced while trying to defend a nerdy kid from a gang of bullies, I might add.

I do, however, think that the attempted assault scene reveals something less than pleasant about Xander’s character. No, he would never attack Buffy when he was in his right mind, but he does believe that she’s attracted to dangerous men – that if he were dangerous and mean, she would be attracted to him. His accusation isn’t too different from what he says to her in “Prophecy Girl,” after he asks her to the dance:

“XANDER: I’m not him. I mean, I guess a guy’s gotta be undead to make time with you.”

He’s self-pitying and bitter, not confident and threatening, but the sentiment is the same. More importantly, he makes his “dangerous and mean” comment in the episode before they find out that Angel is a vampire. He’s leaping to conclusions about Buffy’s taste in men pretty early, especially since she spent “Never Kill a Boy on the First Date” pining after a sensitive, Emily Dickinson-reading poetry fan. In Xander’s mine, does “dangerous and mean” equal “any guy who isn’t me?” Future episodes show that he’s pretty quick and eager to paint any man Buffy’s interested in as “bad” – an urge that lessens and tapers off as he grows older, but is fairly present in the earliest part of their friendship.

As for Buffy, she seems quite chipper and matter-of-fact after her friend tried to assault her by a vending machine. Yes, part of this is because she knows Xander would never hurt her when he wasn’t possessed, but can you imagine her being this easygoing and chipper if, say, Angel, her brooding and attractive stranger, had been possessed and tried to attack her? Or worse, if Giles had been possessed and tried to attack her? She wouldn’t have been able to look Angel in the face for weeks, and Giles, maybe never again. It’s a purely academic question, of course, because Giles and Buffy have the father-daughter bond rather than a mutual or one-sided sexual attraction, but I think it’s telling that Buffy doesn’t even conceive of Xander being a threat to her.

Of course, this is partly because Buffy is the Slayer. She knows she could take him down without blinking, and she does. But in other episodes, she’s shown fear of other people she could take in a fight. No, to her, Xander is the ultimate nonthreatening male presence – nonthreatening because he’s not strong, and nonthreatening because she’s not attracted to him. He’s her funny, dorky, Xander-shaped friend, and those types don’t usually ping on the “potential rapist” radar.

“The Pack,” aside from being the first excellent episode the show produced, has a few interesting layers about consent, rape, and the assumptions we make about men and women, but I think one of the most important lessons about rape culture can be found in the fan reaction to the episode. Almost everyone I talk to about Buffy and “The Pack” agrees that hyena-possessed Xander is really damn foxy. Even a lot of people who don’t usually care for the funny, dorky, Xander-shaped friend think that he’s incredibly sexy when he develops the penetrating stare, the smirk, and the confident stance…and they think the scene with him and Buffy by the vending machine is strangely hot.

I read and write about consent issues and culture. I should know better. But I freely admit that I find Xander in “The Pack” damn sexy, and he gets even sexier the worse he behaves. That’s telling, and a little disturbing.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 9 Comments

ReviewsSketch Comedy Monday: “Broads Behind Bars”

I haven’t done one of these in awhile, but I was thinking about this sketch the other day, and lo and behold, it was actually on YouTube.This “Broads Behind Bars” sketch is a “hard-hitting melodrama brought to you by the Anti-Marijuana League of North America.” It’s a parody of 1950s anti-drug films from the comic geniuses behind SCTV, starring Catherine O’Hara, Andrea Martin, and John Candy.

So much about this sketch is perfect: the immediate changes in behavior shown by Eugene Levy and O’Hara when they get one small whiff of marijuana, the idea that “one small shtick of the shtuff” can lead to a crime spree, and the melodrama, especially surrounding Kitty’s cigarettes. “I want you to have these – I won’t be needin them where I came from!” I also think this is a great sign of O’Hara’s talent as a comic actress – it would be so easy to fade into the background and let Martin as the prison lesbian and Candy as the warden completely steal the show (and they are hilarious), but she holds her own and is quite funny showing her character’s slow corruption due to “one small shtick of the shtuff.”

Posted in Reviews | Tagged | Leave a comment

Blog Posts“We could start our own network called Bitch TV!…or the second idea that we think of.”

The 2011-2012 television season has shown a rise in the woman-centered comedy. Women-centric comedies that have premiered or will premiere in this season include 2 Broke Girls, GCB, Best Friends Forever, Girls, Suburgatory, New Girl, Veep, and Don’t Trust the B—- in Apartment 23. Some of these shows are even centered around two or more women.

I think this is good news. Some people disagree, such as the co-creator of Two and a Half Men, Lee Aronsohn. He thinks women-centric TV has peaked. He said, charmingly, “Enough ladies, I get it. You have periods…But we’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation.”

I know this seems like a gross, sexist comment, but I think he has a point. You might think that the current line-up of women-centered sitcoms is just evening the playing field a little, and not coming close to dominating television, but you probably haven’t been following Hollywood insider stories about upcoming sitcoms set for the 2012-2013 year. Once you read this insider information, I think you’ll agree that we have a few too many female-centric sitcoms on television.

Cunty the Manpire Slayer – Joss Whedon brings his long-awaited sequel to Buffy back to the small screen, bringing Sarah Michelle Gellar with him. Cunty continues to hunt vampires, but only male vampires, and instead of using a phallic symbol of a wooden stake, she uses her powerful vaginal muscles to rip their heads off.

Twin Peak Vaginas – In this fantasy-comedy, the warring mountain kingdoms (sorry – queendoms) of Fallopia and Ovaria battle for territory of the Sea of Endometrium.

Cervix Says – Cervix McNally, a female census taker, is thrown for a loop when she is assigned a partner, Joe Testicle. A romantic comedy about love in the statistics age.

One Labia to Live – A female ob-gyn is forced to share office space with a female plastic surgeon specializing in labia reduction in a workplace comedy. Starring Meryl Streep and Victoria Beckham.

Whores Line Up for It Anyway – A new short-form improv/competition reality show starring prostitutes from the biggest cities in the United States, with improv games centering on sex acts. The winner is promoted to madam of her very own bordello.

As you can see, this is getting out of hand. I hate to agree with the co-creator of Two and Half Men about anything, but I can’t deny that he has a point.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 2 Comments

ReviewsCity Hall Comedy: Have Envelope, Will Push

Imagine that you’re a member of a sketch comedy troupe, and one of your fellow performers drops out of the cast. Creative person that you are, drawing from life experiences to create stories, you want to dramatize this event and turn it into the subject for your next show.

But how do you approach this sensitive subject? Do you write a show bashing your former cast member, using this prime opportunity to indulge in some mean-spirited comedy? Do you ignore your initial instincts to write a show about this cast member and perform something else? Or do you turn the cast member’s departure into the subject of a 1930s-esque detective noir parody that suggests your sketch comedy troupe is part of a dark, evil conspiracy involved in massive cover-ups, arson, and even murder?

If you belong to the City Hall Comedy troupe in New York City, you go with choice “C.”

The City Hall Comedy troupe consists of performers Chris Booth, Julia Darden, Patrick Frankfort, Luis Nunez, and Josh Wolinsky. I’ve seen them perform on five different occasions, and almost all of their shows are based on a theme. Their Halloween show focused on “Horrors of the Real World” and featured, among other things, a sketch turning the “Summer Nights” song from Grease! to a song about date rape. (The most disturbing part of the sketch was how few lyrics they had to change.) They had a vaudeville show back in November that included a sketch about a manic-depressive ventriloquist and a dummy. Their show on March 29th and March 30th, however, was something I’ve never seen from them before – a full-length play called “City Hall: The Fifth Man,'” a detective noir parody about the sudden, untimely departure of a former cast member.

In “The Fifth Man,” Booth and Wolinsky play Detectives Kip Manscent and Leslie McGahee, two private investigators approached by “Julia” (Darden playing herself, sort of), who wants to find out what happened to their former cast member. The detectives interrogate club owner Gaylord Shady (Nunez) as Julia receives help from a homeless man and a newspaper seller named Dickspit (both played by Frankfort). In the midst of trying to find out what happened to Zak (the former cast member), Julia is torn between her need to solve the mystery and her desire to become the Fifth Man of City Hall, and the two detectives wrestle with problems of their own – McGahee yearning for his long-lost brother, and Manscent yearning for his missing keys.

Meanwhile, all members of the City Hall troupe play “themselves,” or at least characters who have their names and who are also members of City Hall. This double-casting and triple-casting leads to very quick costume changes – a scene with Booth as Manscent and Wolisnky as “Josh” is immediately followed by a scene with Booth as “Chris” and Wolinsky as McGahee. Later in the play, Gaylord Shady is revealed to be having a torrid love affair with “Luis” – and considering that both parts are played by Nunez, you can imagine the disturbing, comic effect of that mental image.

In-jokes and meta humor run rampant in this show as the City Hall characters make constant references to their own work. Dickspit refers to City Hall as “that rape joke comedy group,” and there’s another scene where another character calls City Hall “that comedy group that makes Nazi fart jokes.” (This description is shortly followed by a scene where “Chris” and “Josh” rehearse their “Heil Shitler” sketch.) Some of those jokes are probably only funny to the audience members who have seen City Hall’s previous shows.

But by and large, the comedy of “The Fifth Man” is hilarious and accessible for first-time audience members. Anyone who is the slightest bit familiar with detective stories or noir will love the running gags of cast members stepping into a spotlight to deliver a monologue, only to have something go wrong with the lighting as they’re trying to give a heartfelt speech. The noir-style dialogue is written with knowledge of the genre and delivered with impeccable timing. (My personal favorite was, “This red herring’s been cooked.” I belly-laughed for a full thirty seconds.) Or you might see an exchange like this:

DICKSPIT: Hey there, Dollface!
JULIA: Are you talking to me?
DICKSPIT: Do you see any other Dollface here?
WOLINSKY [as a street vendor selling faces of dolls]: Doll faces! Get your doll faces!

The cast, as usual, is on their game. Frankfort plays three characters, showing an irrepressible manic energy as the homeless man and as Dickspit the newspaper seller, but is mellow and a little sinister when he plays “Patrick” (based on himself). Nunez is equally funny as a shady (pun intended) club owner and as the slowly cracking, put-upon “Luis.” Booth is perfect as the world-weary, cynical detective who’s haunted by the loss of his keys and really believes that his missing keys are more important and tragic than McGahee’s missing brother. Wolinsky as McGahee plays off of Booth extremely well as the junior detective who’s not quite as cynical. (He also, at one point, gives the longest, funniest exasperated sigh I have ever heard.) And Darden holds the story together as the innocent, naive “Julia,” wide-eyed, hopeful, earnest, and the only sympathetic one in the bunch.

As a feminist, I’m particularly interested in Darden’s role in the group. In “The Fifth Man,” she fulfills the role of straight man and punching bag. Because she is a woman, but also because she has a very innocent-looking face, she is the member of the group that they all dismiss or make fun of. If this were South Park, she’d be the Butters. They don’t let her participate in the theme song (and physically shove her out of the way if she tries to introduce herself to the audience), they make fun of her smell, and they can’t even remember her name. (When Shady has to describe different members of the City Hall group, he says, among other things, “There’s Josh, the bearded Jew-boy, and the girl, named…Girl?”) The characters treat her as one of the guys, except when they make fun of her or exclude her for being a girl. This seems an intentional commentary on the “boys’ club” nature of sketch comedy – or if not, at least another way to illustrate the corrupt, sinister nature of the City Hall troupe as characterized in the show. I find it amusing, but I also hope that, in their next show, Darden gets to play a second character so she can be as evil as the boys. With her sweet face and high voice, the comic potential of casting her as a villain is too rich to ignore.

My favorite thing about City Hall is their willingness to take their comedy to truly dark places. Comedy that’s shocking for the sake of being shocking will bore me senseless. But they’ve thought long and hard (that’s what she said) about the psychology of comedy, and every moment is crafted as a way to explore the dark side of human nature – and some of what they find in this exploration would make even Trey Parker and Matt Stone blush.

I bring up Parker and Stone because the City Hall Comedy has a dark sense of humor reminiscent of South Park, minus the tiresome political rantings from the worse episodes. In fact, anyone who is attracted to the style of comedy from The Book of Mormon, but doesn’t want to trade a first born child or vital organ to get tickets, should consider making a trip to The Tank theater on 46th Street and paying 15 dollars, for a night of quality comedy and an open bar. Their next show is a sequel to “The Fifth Man,” and I can’t wait to see what happens next.

Posted in Reviews | Tagged , | 1 Comment

Blog PostsXander and Ron and Dorky, Funny, Average Girls

Most people who love fiction are attracted to certain types of character. We find ourselves drawn to particular archetypes with specific personality traits. Maybe we’re attracted to these characters because we relate to them, or maybe we’re attracted to these archetypes because they possess traits we would like to have. In any case, one of my favorite character archetypes is the Dorky, Funny, Average Guy, best represented by Xander Harris in Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Ron Weasley in the Harry Potter series.

I once read a book of academic essays about Buffy the Vampire Slayer, because I am a huge huge nerd, and one chapter compared the pilot episode of Buffy, “Welcome to the Hellmouth,” to Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. The setups for both stories are remarkably similar: Buffy/Harry enter a new world where they are immediately introduced to two outcasts in Xander/Ron and Willow/Hermione, and Buffy/Harry choose the friendship of the two outcasts and reject the shallow advances from the wealthier, more socially popular Cordelia/Draco. (The big difference, of course, is that Harry just found out he is a wizard and learns about the wizarding world through his new companions, and Buffy is the one introducing the supernatural world to her friends.) The Buffy characters are not exactly the same as the Harry Potter characters, but they fall into the same archetypes – the Chosen One, the Dorky Funny Average Guy, the Academic Whiz Kid Girl, and the Rich Bitch.

For the record, I prefer Hermione to Willow, I MUCH prefer Cordelia to Draco, and I ever so slightly prefer Buffy to Harry even though I’m immensely fond of both of them (and I reserve my right to change my mind at any time depending on which text I’m currently re-obsessed with). But don’t you dare make me choose between Xander and Ron, because I’ll throw myself in front of them and cry, “Take me instead!”

I love Xander and Ron so much. I recognize and respect feminist criticisms of their characters, and I think there’s some merit to the “Nice Guy” description for both of them (especially Xander), but that doesn’t stop me from loving them. They’re both the average guys of their groups. Xander doesn’t have Buffy’s supernatural strengths, Willow’s computer hacker or witch skills, or Giles’ academic and historical knowledge. Ron is a wizard like Harry and Hermione, but lacks Harry’s Chosen One status and Hermione’s academic strengths. Xander barely passes his classes and Ron is an average student. They are not special – except they are, because if there’s trouble afoot and Buffy or Harry have to fight the good fight, they will not hesitate to jump in and help.

Some of my favorite moments from Buffy and Harry Potter come from Xander and Ron – Xander bringing Buffy back to life in “Prophecy Girl,” Ron standing on his broken leg and yelling that “if you want to kill Harry, you’ll have to kill all three of us!” Those are two prime examples of their bravery. Xander and Ron are both considered average in the worlds they inhabit, but they are remarkably brave, because they always step up to the plate when their friends need help.

They’re also wickedly funny, able to turn a phrase in a way that makes me envious:

“XANDER: That’s Rodney Munson. He’s God’s gift to the bell curve. What he lacks in smarts he makes up for in lack of smarts.”

“RON: Percy wouldn’t recognize a joke if it danced naked in front of him wearing Dobby’s tea cozy.”

“CORDELIA: I have a paper to write for English and you’re English, so I thought … I study best in a good restaurant, around eightish? Think it over?

XANDER: And on the day the words ‘flimsy excuse’ were redefined, we stood in awe and watched.”

” ‘I’ve got two Neptunes here,’ said Harry after a while, frowning down on his parchment, ‘that can’t be right, can it?’
‘Aaaah,’ said Ron, imitating Professor Trelawney’s mysical whisper, ‘when two Neptunes appear in the sky, it is a sure sign that a midget in glasses is being born, Harry…’ “

Dorky, funny, average guys who are super loyal to their best friends and will do anything to help fight the good fight? Sign me up on the Favorite Character Express!

There’s no question as to why I gravitate towards Xander and Ron. When I was in school, I was an academically gifted girl (like Willow and Hermione), and I asked a lot of questions and wanted to learn things (like Willow and Hermione). But more than anything, I wanted people to think I was funny. If I was told I was pretty, I would react with skepticism and disbelief. If I was told I was smart, I would smile and accept the compliment and secretly think, “Thanks, but I know.” If someone told me I was funny, it took all my self-control to not blurt out, “Really? Am I? What was the BEST joke you heard from me this week?”

Humor was important to me as a defense mechanism, a weapon, a way to connect with people, and the best way to get my point across. No wonder I loved Xander and Ron so much.

Which leads me to the question of the evening – where are the female Xanders and Rons?

Maybe I haven’t found the right book or television show yet, but I can’t think of a series I know that had a dorky, funny, average girl as a central character. A girl who was clumsy without being “adorkable” and falling over while wearing high heels, a girl who wasn’t an academic genius or at all supernatural, but who was brave and loyal and had a wicked sense of humor.

Where are the female Xanders and Rons?

Don’t misunderstand me – I appreciate Willow and Hermione, and I love that Joss Whedon and J.K. Rowling gave millions of viewers and readers some incredibly smart, academically driven young women who devour books by the bucketful. Thank you for giving us those wonderful characters. In a world where women are still treated as second-class citizens in many, many states and countries, we need more and more examples of strong, independent, smart women who can think their way through any problem with their brains.

But someday, I hope we can have a fantasy series with a trio of best friends where the dorky, funny, average character is a girl. I hope we get to a point where female characters don’t have to be exceptional in order to be special.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged | 15 Comments

Reviews‘Tis a Pity She’s a Whore Theatre Review

Every so often, I like to share other reviews that I find particularly interesting or related to feminism. Today I’d like to share this theater review for Cheek by Jowl’s production of ‘Tis a Pity She’s a Whore. The production is now over, but read it anyway – you’ll notice a strong connection between the themes of the play and current events in the United States, emphasizing the strong connection between art and life.

This review of ‘Tis a Pity She’s a Whore was originally posted at The Theatre Source.Re-posted with permission.

‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore

Review By: Carey Purcell
CareyPurcell@TheTheatreSource.com

Does Cheek by Jowl have a crystal ball? The timeliness of this London-based theatre company’s latest play is positively uncanny. Their production of ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore, currently in performances at the Brooklyn Academy of Music’s Harvey Theater, is so frighteningly relevant to today’s headlines that one wonders if the company knew what was in store for the United States’ current events and planned their production calendar around it.

John Ford’s play, famed for being one of the most controversial works in English literature, was first published in 1633 (the date of its first production is uncertain). The script has been revised and re-imaged for its current production, streamlining the story by eliminating a few subplots and decreasing the number of deaths. This production, directed by Declan Donnellan, clocks in at a brisk, intermissionless two hours and is a graphic, unsettling and eerily applicable drama for the 21st century.

A sort of reverse Romeo and Juliet, ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore introduces the audience to Giovanni and Annabella, two passionate young lovers who also happen to be brother and sister. Instead of belonging to warring families who condemn their relationship, they belong to the same family. After promising to never wed another and consummating the relationship, Annabella discovers she is pregnant and quickly marries Soranzo, one of the many gentlemen vying for her hand. This marriage infuriates Hippolita (Suzanne Burden, excellent), a “lusty widow” who longs to have Soranzo to herself. She begins plotting revenge with the two-timing, Igao-like servant Vasques (Laurence Spellman) which turns out to have a a bloody outcome. Giovanni, beside himself with jealousy and rage, also plans revenge and a violent, gruesome conclusion is brought upon this incestuous family.

Although originally written in the 1600s, ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore possesses an uncanny timeliness that is not only credited to the modern staging that Cheek by Jowl gave this production. All of the action takes place in Annabella’s bedroom, which is decorated solely in shades of red. The entire cast’s costumes are black and white, except for their lingerie, which is also red. Photographs and posters of iconic women adorn the walls, including Holly Golightly, Scarlett O’Hara and numerous cast members from the hit television shows True Blood and The Vampire Diaries. And much of the action onstage takes place in Annabella’s bed, which beckons from the center of the stage. The show also features several choreographed scenes from movement director Jane Gibson that enhance the underlying emotion of a scene.

One of the most controversial and debated aspects of ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore is Ford’s failure to condemn his protagonist. Annabella and Giovanni’s relationship is incestuous and thus condemned by the church. However, the supposedly Godly men onstage screaming at Annabella for “yielding to lust” do little to exemplify Christian love. Annabella (played by the gamine Lydia Wilson) and Giovanni (Jack Gordon in an intense performance) are depicted as the most innocent people in this violently sexual story. Annabella’s inquiring maid Putana (amusingly and tragically played by Lizzie Hopley) knows of the relationship but supports rather than condemns it. Jack Hawkins gives Soranzo depth and sympathy (except during one scene, immediately following his wedding).

The cast of ‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore includes numerous men, both religious and patriarchal and an extremely inventive aspect of Donnellan’s staging features the men in the cast to be onstage at all times. When not interacting with other characters, they stand or sit, staring at Annabella’s bed, watching what takes place there. This staging felt all too applicable to this critic, given the recent political dialogue about birth control and reproductive rights. The now iconic photo of the all-male birth control panel frequently came to mind while watching this play, as did the currently controversial Arizona bill about birth control. It is Annabella’s life that is being affected by her sexual activities but it is the men onstage who discuss, debate and merely watch with rapt attention. This staging, which is unsettling, uncomfortable and flat-out frightening, gave the play a much more modern edge than the current clothing, furniture and cultural references.

‘Tis Pity She’s a Whore, which is described by one of the characters as a “wretched, woeful woman’s tragedy”, does indeed have a violent and tragic outcome. Let’s hope that the events unfolding in Washington conclude differently.

 

Posted in Reviews | Tagged | Leave a comment

Blog PostsFormative Performances: A Wrap-Up

Women’s History Month is over and I had a great time chronicling some of my favorite female performances from film history. Thanks to abovethetitle for her guest posts and covering some of the great ones that I missed.

Thanks also to commenter Gareth for emailing me and sharing one of his formative performances by an actress. Email re-posted with permission:

In Mrs. Miniver, Teresa Wright played the daughter in law of the main character. Her scene in which she meets the man she will go on to marry has stuck with me, more so than most of not all other female performances.

I don’t know what you know of the film so I’ll elaborate. In this scene the young Mr. Miniver berates her for her social status, going as far as to belittle the charitable work she does on the grounds that she spends the majority of her life in a manor. It is her response that has stuck with me.

She doesn’t raise her voice, she doesn’t become angry or rude, she merely asks what he does to help people. He starts to stutter and apologise, realising he has made a fool of himself and throughout the whole conversation she keeps control. She smiles, she accepts his apology and says it is quite alright, letting him dig his own hole.

I think what I love about it (besides shutting up her future husband, who had made me stop watching first time round with his first scene when we meet the character) is the grace and intelligence she uses to control the situation. I imagine when people talk about behaving with class that this is what they mean.

She won an Oscar for this performance and while I don’t know who else was up for best supporting actress that year I can see why.”

Now I’d like to invite the rest of my readers to share some of their formative performances. Which film performances by actresses left an impression on you and why? Share in the comments!

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Blog PostsWhat Screwball Comedies Say About Love

Do not fear, gentle readers – I have not forgotten about The Rom-Com Project. I have decided, however, to save my posts about romantic comedies for the end of each month, and I will be writing about the romantic comedies in one monthly post instead of writing about each individual movie. If a particular film inspires a lot of thought, I’ll write an individual post, but otherwise, I’ll be writing monthly wrap-ups. I mean, face it, there was no reason to devote entire posts to Love Actually, He’s Just Not That Into You, and Valentine’s Day.

Anyway, March was Screwball Comedy Month for The Rom-Com Project. The screwball comedy is a specific subgenre of the romantic comedy genre, in which two characters are swept up into a series of increasingly improbable events and the movie gets wackier and wackier. These comedies were popular during the Great Depression and World War II. In March, I watched It Happened One Night, Bringing Up Baby, The Philadelphia Story, and His Girl Friday. All of these movies would have us believe that the ideal romance occurs when two people are thrown together in extreme comic circumstances, where the situation gets zanier and wackier with time. Are they successful? Well, let’s see. Continue reading

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | 3 Comments

Blog PostsFormative Performances: Vivien Leigh in “A Streetcar Named Desire”

Since I began Women’s History Month and my series on formative performances with Vivien Leigh, it seems only fitting that I finish my series with her as well.

Vivien Leigh earned her second Academy Award with her performance in A Streetcar Named Desire. She plays Blanche DuBois. Like Scarlett O’Hara, Blanche is female and Southern – and the similarities end there. Where Scarlett is fierce and unyielding, Blanche is fragile and withdrawn. She’s on the verge of breaking before she ever sets foot in town. In the scene below, she conveys that nearly-broken spirit as well as a sneaking interest in her brother-in-law Stanley. (Watch it twice – the first time, you might be too overwhelmed by Brando’s charisma to pay as much attention to Leigh.)

She’s amazing.

Posted in Blog Posts | Tagged , | Leave a comment