Deficit Models
Mar. 2nd, 2010 10:24 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerI've been reading a whole lot of turn of the century girls literature recently, and some of the criticism thereof, and am quite annoyed at the efforts of some critics to shove that literature model vis a vis boys literature of the time.
The two main problems (for "problem" read "way in which girls literature differs from boys literature"), it seems, are that (a) turn of the century girls literature often ends with the heroine growing up, and (b) its heroines generally don't have sword fights.
(a) is bad because it means these books are really part of the grand patriarchal scheme to make sure that women grow up to be Happy Housewives types, whereas boys literature is part of the grand scheme to... make sure boys want to remain ten forever? I realize that white guys at the turn of the century were beyond privileged, but I was unaware that even the rules of time bowed to their wills.
That may be a cheap shot. Perhaps more to the point, these books generally don't end with the heroine drifting into a life of Happy Housewifery; almost always, they end with a heroine who is looking toward the massive potentialities of the future, calmly certain that her brains, bravery, and beauty will get her through.
(I suspect the reason heroines so often grow up is that Louisa May Alcott wrote about her heroines growing up, and she bestrode the field of girls literature much as Tolkien bestrode that of fantasy.)
(b) is bad because sword fights are the highest form of literature ever invented, and any book that doesn't involve it is inferior. Thus, the basest pulp novels are better than Anne of Green Gables.
Right, that's a cheap shot again. However, there seems to be a...distaste...for the loosely plotted meandering of many of these books and their general lack of sword fights and blood and pirates, as if there's something intrinsically wrong with quiet books - and not just wrong in terms of quality, but wrong in a "girls hate quiet books and want nothing more than sword fights" sort of way. Because... girls read the quiet books only because the iron hand of the patriarchy will smack them down if they don't. Or something.
And if girls don't hate quiet books and want nothing more than sword fights, it's because their brains have been Coopted by the Patriarchy. (Surely one could make just as strong a case that liking only books about sword fights is a sign of Cooptation - because those are the books the Patriarchy values.) Or maybe - here's a thought - girls like different books because they're different people, and many of them enjoy sword fight books and quiet books.
Because - and here's the thing - so many of these turn of the century books are beloved. Anne of Green Gables, A Little Princess, The Secret Garden, all those Louisa May Alcott books - they still have piles of fans who adore them and have since childhood. Which boys books have survived so long, or are loved so well? - So why is it the turn of the century girls literature that is considered lacking?
The two main problems (for "problem" read "way in which girls literature differs from boys literature"), it seems, are that (a) turn of the century girls literature often ends with the heroine growing up, and (b) its heroines generally don't have sword fights.
(a) is bad because it means these books are really part of the grand patriarchal scheme to make sure that women grow up to be Happy Housewives types, whereas boys literature is part of the grand scheme to... make sure boys want to remain ten forever? I realize that white guys at the turn of the century were beyond privileged, but I was unaware that even the rules of time bowed to their wills.
That may be a cheap shot. Perhaps more to the point, these books generally don't end with the heroine drifting into a life of Happy Housewifery; almost always, they end with a heroine who is looking toward the massive potentialities of the future, calmly certain that her brains, bravery, and beauty will get her through.
(I suspect the reason heroines so often grow up is that Louisa May Alcott wrote about her heroines growing up, and she bestrode the field of girls literature much as Tolkien bestrode that of fantasy.)
(b) is bad because sword fights are the highest form of literature ever invented, and any book that doesn't involve it is inferior. Thus, the basest pulp novels are better than Anne of Green Gables.
Right, that's a cheap shot again. However, there seems to be a...distaste...for the loosely plotted meandering of many of these books and their general lack of sword fights and blood and pirates, as if there's something intrinsically wrong with quiet books - and not just wrong in terms of quality, but wrong in a "girls hate quiet books and want nothing more than sword fights" sort of way. Because... girls read the quiet books only because the iron hand of the patriarchy will smack them down if they don't. Or something.
And if girls don't hate quiet books and want nothing more than sword fights, it's because their brains have been Coopted by the Patriarchy. (Surely one could make just as strong a case that liking only books about sword fights is a sign of Cooptation - because those are the books the Patriarchy values.) Or maybe - here's a thought - girls like different books because they're different people, and many of them enjoy sword fight books and quiet books.
Because - and here's the thing - so many of these turn of the century books are beloved. Anne of Green Gables, A Little Princess, The Secret Garden, all those Louisa May Alcott books - they still have piles of fans who adore them and have since childhood. Which boys books have survived so long, or are loved so well? - So why is it the turn of the century girls literature that is considered lacking?
