Confessions of a Book Worm #3

Yesterday, I heard someone on a podcast (I'm not going to name names here, 'cause I don't think that's cool) talk about how they thought Hunger Games was a 'soft' dystopia, for those who didn't have the guts to read the 'real stuff', i.e. Battle Royale, etc. They went on to say how ridiculous it was that 40-year-olds were taking Hunger Games seriously.

Listening to that, I wanted to punch something. It reminded me of why I don't usually listen to podcasts, because stuff like this gets spewed out without real thought of what is being said. First of all, Hunger Games is dystopia, yes. Whether you think children being forced to kill each other brutally due to the government's power is 'soft' or not is, I suppose, up to you, so I'm going to hold judgment on that one. However, saying that it's ridiculous that people (even adults) take the story seriously is a whole new level of ridiculous in and of itself.
The world we live in is in chaos right now. Sure, the news channels are trying to downplay it to stop worldwide fear from coming through, but we have protests in Brazil, Greece, Texas, UK, Russia, Australia... We have people fighting for better education and welfare, and living in fear that their protests will result in a military dictatorship. We have women fighting for the right to own their bodies. It's a continuation of the fight for feminism, yes, but just as serious as the fight for the vote, or for equal rights, because guess what - we're still not equal. No one tells a rapist he needs to become an eunuch because he raped a girl and got her pregnant. And yet men want to tell women what to do with the result of the rape. We have have communities fighting for the right to love who they want to, without being called sinners, or being imprisoned for it.
This is a turning point in so many ways. And Hunger Games tells us all about a turning point that went south. We don't see too much of anti-feminism or anti-LGBT in Hunger Games, but the message about conforming to those in power comes through loud and clear. We see mothers being told what to with their children, wit no options. We see couples being broken up because of the government. We see unfair imprisonment. We see a young girl fighting with all she has for her life, her freedom, and her ability to marry who she wants, when she wants, and not be told she has to by the president.
Sound familiar?
So don't come and tell me that Hunger Games shouldn't be taken seriously. It should be taken very, very seriously. Not only because of the message the books sends about standing up for your individual rights as a human being, but also because what happens if this turning point we're at right now turns south too?
Don't even try telling me that no one would ever think of killing kids as coercion. It's been done before, thousands of times, throughout history, so what's to stop it from happening again? Because if this shit goes bad, it's going to be a free-for-all. Then, my friends, 'may the odds be ever in your favour'.

Confessions of a Book Worm #2

The problem with "that's misogynistic" in relation to books. Oh yeah. I'm going there.
See, I read somewhere quite some time ago that it was funny how, in the Victorian Era, when Jane Austen was writing, the girls in the books were portrayed as strong, independent women who knew what they wanted, and didn't let any man tell them what to do. Yes, they fell in love and married, but they didn't marry simply because it was what society expected them to do. And while it might be argued that really, Austen, the Bronte sisters and other women writers of the time were simply trying to out across the message that marriage wasn't all bad, we do have to recognise that very few women actually behaved like that at the time.
Even more ridiculous, this person thought, was the fact that, today, when women have, supposedly, gained equality to men (don't get me started on that supposedly. I could go on for days), the heroines in the books are Bella Swans, and Anna Steeles, who are only happy to let the man dictate their every move - the latter in a more... ahem, extreme way. This person believed that such books were a step back in the feminism fight, and were a disgrace to the world.
And this is where the problem lies. I'll be honest: I read Fifty Shades of Grey, Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed. Even more honestly: I liked them. The epitome of honesty: I would never, ever consent to a relationship like that. It's not for me. However, my main problem with Fifty critics is that they seem to be making a stink of the fact that the book is a Twilight fanfic, and must, therefore, be crap by default (since we're sharing, I'll admit to having been a Twilight fan. When I was 12. We grow up. When you're twelve, a perfect boy sounds... well, perfect. Today, if I met Edward, I'd likely kill him within the hour). Then they go on to call it "porn". I'm not very clear on what counts as porn in book terms. I only ever thought of porn in terms of movies before, so who the hell knows. Maybe it is. And guys buy those movies by the droves, don't deny it. So what's the problem about Fifty being porn, if that's what you want to call it? It might be because it became famous, and porn is usually considered something that should be kept hush-hush. But the main reason, as far as I can see, is that women are reading porn. God forbid! Women might be masturbating while reading Fifty Shades of Grey! The horror!
Yeah. Because, as a person who read all 3 books, I can safely say there are hot moments, even for a non-BDSM inclined person like myself. The thing is, there is also a solid character development, and interesting, if predictable, plot line. It's not just sex sex and more sex. So the comments about how Fifty is anti-feminist? Well. What exactly do people see in the book that is misogynistic? The fact that the man is the dom, and the woman is the sub? Just because a book about a dom woman and a sub man hasn't been written (or maybe it has - it's just not famous), doesn't mean it doesn't happen just as much as the situation presented in Fifty. In fact, if people had taken the time to read Fifty, they would know that in fact, there is such a relationship mentioned in the books. It's not in the forefront, but it is mentioned and acknowledged.
But if you hate Fifty on principle, let's look at other literary pieces. Richelle Mead's Dark Swan series have a really strong, independent and kick-ass heroine, Eugenie Markham. She kills the shit that gives you nightmares. She is badass. Feminist, right? Well. What if I told you she was in to bondage with her boyfriend? Does that instantly make her anti-feminist? NO. It makes her a well-rounded character, who likes things kinky in the boudoir. Nothing wrong with that. And there is no way in hell Mead can be called a misogynist.

Another example, and one which makes me even more incensed than the Fifty debacle: Harry Potter. I have seen and heard countless people say "it's misogynist, because the women are always secondary characters". Let me just point out that the series might be called 'Harry Potter', and Potter might be the Chosen One, but he would have died at the age of eleven without ever even knowing that it was Quirrell if not for Hermione. Ginny Weasley is the most powerful wizard in the entire Weasley family. Minerva McGonagall almost single-handedly decides to stand up against Voldemort in Deathly Hallows, and gives instructions to all other teachers about what to do. Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix. And Bellatrix herself probably kills more people than even Voldemort does. Personally, I'd be more scared if I met Bellatrix in a dark alley than I would be if I met Voldemort. Luna Lovegood is eccentric, but uncannily clever. Umbridge nearly destroys Hogwarts. I could go on. On the flip side, Ron is clumsy, Harry is dependent on Hermione, Fudge was too scared to face Dumbledore, so he sent Umbridge, who wasn't scared. The one thing the Weasleys wanted more than anything was a girl daughter.
So why, exactly, is it so easy for us to just turn and say "it's misogynist"? If you want a real example of misogyny, you should read Euripirdes' Medea. Misogyny is telling women they can't read a book because they might get aroused reading it. Misogyny isn't writing a book whose main character is a guy; it's treating the female characters as if they were not important simply because they're female. Misogyny is making women believe that wanting what they want and liking what they like - be it bondage, BDSM, vanilla, or becoming a nun - is wrong because they have to conform to men's expectations because they are the "fragile sex". Misogyny is demeaning women because they don't have a penis.
Misogyny does still happen, yes, but not half as much, at least in literature, as most people would have us believe.

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

Confessions of a Book Worm #1

Well now, I know I've been slacking in the review department lately, but it's common for me to have a rant about one book or another, or even about a TV series, or... just anything, really, about monthly. So, I've decided to start up a new thing on Book Worm. It's the Confessions of a Book Worm rant, in which I talk fictional characters and all other cool stuff.


        I once saw this beautiful picture of all the most famous and loved contemporary books, and it said “I laughed with you, I believed in you, I followed you, I cried with you, I fought for you, I grew up with you, I was you, and all along you were never really there”. And while I started out reading this with a smile, the last sentence nearly made me cry. 
It’s something I’ve been thinking about lately. To quote Tessa Gray in Cassandra Clare’s Clockwork Prince, “If no one knows you, do you even truly exist?”. And I wonder. Because I have friends. So, so many friends. But 90% of them live in my head. 30% of those 90%, I invented myself. The other 60%, other authors have given me. And they know me. They know me better than I know myself. And I did laugh, believe, follow, cry, fight and grow up with them. I was them, each and every one of them, for a short period of time. 
But saying that they were never really there? Well, that’s akin to saying most of my life has been a lie.
What brought on the thinking I mentioned earlier was yet another quote. This one stated “Legitimately being unable to identify if a memory if yours or from a book character”. Now, at first glance, that sounds stupid. I mean, who could possibly confuse their own life with that of a fictional character, right? 
The thing about books is just that: the really good ones are the ones that mess with your emotions, your thoughts and beliefs.  And if they mess with those things, well, eventually, after countless of good books doing that to you, the emotions start to blur together. You remember what brought them on, and you remember the feeling - but that’s the thing. You never truly experienced what the character did, so those emotions can’t be yours, because you’ve never been through that. But you felt it. 
So as the feelings blur, when something triggers a memory of that emotion, you feel it as strongly as if whatever happened to the character happened to you. So, yes, to an extent, you are the character. You experienced a little of life with them, and now, that part of them will always be within you. But how do you tell the difference, after thirteen years of “false” emotions piling up, how can you possibly tell the difference between an emotion or experience lived by you in the physical world from an emotion or experience lived by you as a character in a fictional world? 
You can’t.
It is not possible.
Does that mean I’m going mad? Maybe.
Maybe not. But, as Lewis Carroll has said, “You know what? The best people are”.
So to those people who try to tell me that my friends aren’t real; that they aren’t there just because they’re fictional, well then, Dumbledore has something to say to you: “Of course it’s happening in your head... But why would that mean that it’s not real?”. And you’ll never convince me differently.