After reading the article "Strong, or strong for a Girl?" by Meg Roy, being a fan of the Suzanne's Collins' The Hunger Games and a supporter of the model Katniss sets for young women, I naturally had a negative reaction to her argument. I struggled to find where she connected a lot of her points. "Katniss's sexuality is the central focus of the audience watching at home... Katniss's beauty is what instantly earns her praise and adoration." There is not contextual evidence to support this argument, in fact, Collins specifies several times that it was her sacrifice in order to protect her sister that initially captured the capital viewers. "Her team doesn't even try to present her as a strong, capable contender," this is completely false, as Cinna, Katnisses' stylist, chooses not to dress her in a light, feminine costume, rather he puts her in a flaming suit to help her, "Make an impression." The article then goes on to comment about how the forced romance between Katniss and Peeta makes Katniss more feminine and weak, this point also confuses me. When I read and viewed the relationship between Katniss and Peeta, it only furthered the position of Katniss as a strong leader for me. Reversing the stereotypical roles by having Katniss be the stronger protector of the duo, I struggle to see how their relationship weakens Katniss. The writer of the article at one point refers to the time when Katniss is caring for the injured Peeta as a "cliched 'wounded-soldier-delicate-nurse' sequence," I'm not sure how this is relevant, as in no way is Katniss delicate and though she may heal Peeta, she does this by going off to the cornucopia to fight to get the medicine. This article was very confusing for me, and though she made a lot of bold statements, I would have liked to see her back up those arguments with evidence.
I had never thought about the impact "The Fault is Our Stars" would hold had it been told through the perspective of another character. When asked whose perspective he would have chosen, second to Hazel's, the author of the novel, John Green, picked, of all characters, Isaac. This intrigued me, as, though Isaac is an essential character to the novel, besides just providing an introduction of Hazel to Augustus, he gives the novel more depth, I could not see the novel being told from his perspective. There are so many intense circumstances that Isaac experiences, such as the ending of his relationship followed by his loss of eye sight, that I can't imagine his perspective of the situation would hold the same impact as Hazel's. Green's choice to tell the story from Hazel's point-of-view was perfect for the narration that occurs in the novel and I wouldn't have recommended he do it any other way. Though, if I had to chose a different character to hear the story from, I think I would choose Hazel's mother. Present when most of the events happen, her mother would have an entire different outlook on the situation, and I think the contrast of their perspectives would be really interesting.
Uncertainty surrounds us. One of the questions imposed in the novel "The Fault in Our Stars" is the idea of whether or not our efforts are worth it. When the reader is first introduced to the protagonist we learn quickly that she has accepted her routine life of oblivion, she doesn't often venture to leave her home unless it is to go to her weekly support group, and even then she doesn't make great attempts to connect to the other members. When met with the more optimistic Augustus, Hazel struggles to maintain her grasp of independence. The contrast of an individual who fears oblivion and wishes nothing more than to make an impact in the world to that of a girl who has a lost hope in the beauty of life and has spent the last few years avoiding it, amplifies the contrasting mindsets that exist in our culture today. The closer she becomes to people, the more likely she will eventually hurt them, and nothing scares her more. This anxiety is commonly expressed in all aspects of human existence, especially for individuals who don't believe in an after life: "Why try? We're all going to die anyway." In the beginning of the novel Hazel appears to be in this mindset, she knows she has an incurable disease and will eventually die, so why break people's hearts in the process? That is when the beauty of Augustus shines, knowing the likely hood of heart break that could occur from involvement with Hazel, Augustus treats the situation with a positive outlook and cherishes the time he has with her rather than the negative effects that could occur from it. Which I believe is one of the messages the author John Green is attempting to offer to his readers, no matter how bleak the future may appear, a life worth living is not one lived in fear. (SPOILER) As the novel progresses, Green is able to produce a role reversal, and rather than Hazel being the "grenade" that explodes and harms those around her, it is Augustus who loses his life to cancer. After his death, what's interesting is Hazel doesn't regret the time she shared with Augustus. She is upset and heartbroken, but not once does she portray any sign of regret. Proving that, rather than give up on the wonderful aspects of life because it may lead to sadness in the future, it's important to appreciate new experiences and to not fear life, because it is worth it. All of the references I will be making in this post are from an essay by Brittany Hale, titled "New Myths: Twilight and the Myths of Post-Feminism
I chose to show and further excerpts of Hale's essay because I really enjoyed her opinion and believe it gives a lot of insight into out discussion of the different ways post-feminism is expressed in twilight. In this essay, the writer is arguing against the idea of Twilight being a positive representation of post-feminism with her thesis statement appearing to be, "The Twilight series pretends to reverse another myth, that of patriarchy and the hysterical, weak woman. Bella Swan is presented as an intelligent,independent, and thoroughly modern young woman who would make early feminists proud, at least at a glance. However, by relying on modern, essentialist stereotypes for Edward Cullen,Jacob Black, and Bella Swan,Twilight actually perpetuates the post-feminist myth, which is simply a disguise for the old monsters of patriarchy and sexism" The definition of post-feminism, as seen through the eyes of Hale is, "Applied to young women, who are thought to benefit from the women’s movement through expanded access to employment and education and new family arrangements but at the same time do not push for further political change" (Aronson 904) Her thesis makes a strong claim against Twilight, claiming that, though Bella is supposedly this strong and independent woman, as the novel continues she reverts back to a stereotypical male-reliant woman. Being defined as a klutz, there are countless examples throughout the novel where Bella relies on Edward rather than being self-dependent. "The woman is at fault for her own weaknesses, and she necessitates the male protector; therefore the men (non-vegetarian vampires) cannot be blamed for desiring to consume and kill her." In fact, rather than pursing her own education and further self-improvement, Bella remains home, where she can rely on Edward. An instance where post-feminism actually does appear in Twilight is not in the protagonist Bella, but instead in her love interest, Edward. The term "post-feminist male" is used in Hale's essay referring to Edward. What defines him as this appears to be his chivalry and desire to hold true to his morality by wanting to wait until marriage to partake in sexual relations with Bella. His astute desire to control and protect Bella from all dangers, although the may be chivalrous, I believe counteracts this notion of him being a model of post-feminism as he is only emphasizing the opinion that men are supposed to be protectors of less capable women. The more likely recipient of the term post-feminism would be Edward's competition, Jacob. The aim of Jacob appears to be more directed towards the freedom and individuality of Bella, encouraging her to break away from the overbearing nature of Edward so that she may have fun, thus allowing her to choose her own destiny without the same dominance that Edward held. The novel appears to almost mock and condescend this idea by making Bella all the more reliant on Edward. As Hale states, "The condescending manner in which the novels treat Jacob’s regard for Bella reflects the condescending view of feminism from the post-feminist stance, as if it is sweet the feminists want women to have independence, but naïve to think they are strong enough." |