![]() Before, in my early twenties I was considered worthless in a household I am confrontational and argumentative by nature, I talk a lot (apparently, this is a bad thing in a woman ), I do not like most things related to women (except heels, I love heels, but I did not wear them until my mid-twenties so.), I did better than all the guys at school (apparently that too is a bad thing) and whereas I am not ugly, it took me 25 years to figure out how to place my hair in a comely way Well, if it makes you feel better, I am a horrible catch I detest cleaning to the point where I'd rather go to the dentist than pick up the vacuum cleaner. (All of the "helpful tips" my parents gave me-"Put yourself out there! Don't be so shy! Hide your love of geeky things because guys find that weird!" didn't help, either.) Romance can be done well, but I love books where it's treated as a fun side plot, not as a requirement. I know everyone who told me that was trying to compliment me, but it just left me feeling like I must be doing something wrong because no guy seemed interested in dating me. I was one of those "good catch" girls-the one who enjoys cooking, doesn't like cleaning but does it anyway, isn't confrontational by nature, and is cute. being convinced of that trope in my youth caused me a lot of anguish that could have easily been avoided. Which also make me dislike all the tropes where you have to have a romantic interest in order to be happy. The way they talked about it, they gave mme the impression that marriage in their time was a social contract where the man was looking for an household servant (skill in domestic chores made the woman a good catch) and the woman for an advance in social status (cause social success for a woman wa achieved by being married to someone immportant). I hate that one too, because my parents have been triying to use that on me for years. You do not earn your partner, (In the sense that I am discussing) you mutually accept one another. It can go both ways.) This only contributes to the objectification of other human beings. I've observed a social expectation that if you're nice enough, you deserve to "get the girl". Sadly, that also means that the main chracters come with a good amount of anti-heroism, so only half a victory I am afraid, still far better than nothing. The protagonists family is even named Guile. On the top of my head I can think of one series with main character chessmasters both good and bad guys galore, Brent Weeks' Lightbringer series. The fun comes not in watching a hero with no plan to speak of defeat a villain who is always one step ahead, but from seeing the friction when these plans cross. Xavier wants to unite mutants and humans and has a plan for it Lensherr wants revenge on the Nazi who broke him and has a plan for it Shaw wants to cause WWIII and put mutants on top and has a plan for it. ![]() Chessmaster stories? I think that's part of what made X-Men: First Class such a breath of fresh air: Charles Xavier, Erik Lensherr, and Sebastian Shaw are all Chessmasters with different agendas. I don't know if flipping that dynamic is even possible-and if it is, I'm sure I don't have the skill for it yet-but why can't we have more Chessmaster vs. It's easier to generate tension when the villain is always one step ahead of the hero, and the best way to keep him one step ahead is to make him a Chessmaster. While the story usually means to impress us with the hero's ability to improvise and think on his feet, it just makes him look ridiculously lucky and undermines claims of the villain's intelligence.Īnd I understand why writers do it. What bugs me is when a work features a hero whose recklessness makes him dumb, while the villain is a veritable genius who is inexplicably brought down by the hero who should have died in his first skirmish because he didn't think to bring enough ammo. Like all other tropes, it has been done well Harry Potter and Reckoners come to mind as two works that didn't gloss over the consequences of having a reckless hero, and made their heroes likable regardless. ![]() That's another trope that bugs me-the Hero is always the reckless sort who jumps into action without considering the consequences, and the Villain is always a Chessmaster.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |