osprey_archer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
osprey_archer) wrote2011-11-16 07:46 pm
osprey_archer) wrote2011-11-16 07:46 pm
Entry tags:
The Really Freaking Exasperating History of Frankie Landau-Banks
I just read E. Lockhart's The Disreputable History of Frankie Landau-Banks, and I have decided that the book needs to be retitled. The Slightly Pathetic History of Frankie Landau-Banks' Failure to Grapple Adequately with Her Entitlement Issues, maybe, or Frankie Landau-Banks: More Feminist Than Thou (At Least in Her Own Mind).
Which is to say, Frankie is feminist in a "But I want to be allowed in the boys' treehouse!" kind of way, which is fine as far as it goes. I can sympathize with her desire to join the all-male campus secret society. The problem is that she thinks that she deserves to be let in, because…
…because…
…because she's dating one of the members? Which means that Frankie feels her social status should be determined by her boyfriend's place in the hierarchy. She certainly doesn't appear to have any accomplishments of her own that would make the members tap her if the Loyal Order of the Basset Hounds were co-ed.
And because she thinks that her boyfriends all-male coterie is infinitely more interesting than her own friends - such as Frankie's friends are; she doesn't noticeably give a damn about them. For instance, Frankie's roommate Trish complains that Frankie is a terrible friend, because Frankie has been shutting Trish out for months - a complaint which parallels Frankie's anger at her boyfriend for shutting her out of parts of his life for months.
Frankie's anger at her boyfriend's caginess is the emotional locomotive of the book. Trish's absolutely justified anger with Frankie? Dealt with in half a page. The fact that Frankie is behaving in a way she professes to despise when other people do it? Apparently not a problem. Trish's feelings rate as nothing, despite the fact that she's moved mountains to help Frankie.
This weird attitude toward friendship is a recurring theme in Lockhart's books. Her heroines' true friends are the ones who will go to great lengths to do right by them, which is fair enough. But the heroines never reciprocate. Is it wrong of me to feel that the heroine should be at least as morally evolved as her friends?
But it's pretty clear that Frankie feels that girls' opinions - excuse me, other girls' opinions; hers are clearly vastly important - aren't worth a damn. Consider this passage. It's near the end, so you can take it as read that this is supposed to reflect Frankie's feminist enlightenment. Frankie's counselor wants her to join field hockey. Frankie reacts thus:
It was the girls' team.
Boys didn't even play field hockey.
Boys thought nothing of field hockey.
Frankie was not interested in playing a sport that was rated as nothing by the more powerful half of the population.
That's right, girls! If you like field hockey, knitting, reading Jane Austen - just know that things PERPETUATE THE KYRIARCHY. Because the more powerful half of the population rates them as nothing!
Doesn't letting the more powerful half of the population decide whether my hobbies are important perpetuate the kyriarchy more? you may ask. So you might think. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks. If you, like Frankie Landau-Banks, want to topple the patriarchy, you should twist your life up like a pretzel in order to please men by doing things they consider IMPORTANT.
This, in a book so ferociously feminist. Excuse me, I need to go beat my head against the wall.
Which is to say, Frankie is feminist in a "But I want to be allowed in the boys' treehouse!" kind of way, which is fine as far as it goes. I can sympathize with her desire to join the all-male campus secret society. The problem is that she thinks that she deserves to be let in, because…
…because…
…because she's dating one of the members? Which means that Frankie feels her social status should be determined by her boyfriend's place in the hierarchy. She certainly doesn't appear to have any accomplishments of her own that would make the members tap her if the Loyal Order of the Basset Hounds were co-ed.
And because she thinks that her boyfriends all-male coterie is infinitely more interesting than her own friends - such as Frankie's friends are; she doesn't noticeably give a damn about them. For instance, Frankie's roommate Trish complains that Frankie is a terrible friend, because Frankie has been shutting Trish out for months - a complaint which parallels Frankie's anger at her boyfriend for shutting her out of parts of his life for months.
Frankie's anger at her boyfriend's caginess is the emotional locomotive of the book. Trish's absolutely justified anger with Frankie? Dealt with in half a page. The fact that Frankie is behaving in a way she professes to despise when other people do it? Apparently not a problem. Trish's feelings rate as nothing, despite the fact that she's moved mountains to help Frankie.
This weird attitude toward friendship is a recurring theme in Lockhart's books. Her heroines' true friends are the ones who will go to great lengths to do right by them, which is fair enough. But the heroines never reciprocate. Is it wrong of me to feel that the heroine should be at least as morally evolved as her friends?
But it's pretty clear that Frankie feels that girls' opinions - excuse me, other girls' opinions; hers are clearly vastly important - aren't worth a damn. Consider this passage. It's near the end, so you can take it as read that this is supposed to reflect Frankie's feminist enlightenment. Frankie's counselor wants her to join field hockey. Frankie reacts thus:
It was the girls' team.
Boys didn't even play field hockey.
Boys thought nothing of field hockey.
Frankie was not interested in playing a sport that was rated as nothing by the more powerful half of the population.
That's right, girls! If you like field hockey, knitting, reading Jane Austen - just know that things PERPETUATE THE KYRIARCHY. Because the more powerful half of the population rates them as nothing!
Doesn't letting the more powerful half of the population decide whether my hobbies are important perpetuate the kyriarchy more? you may ask. So you might think. But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, folks. If you, like Frankie Landau-Banks, want to topple the patriarchy, you should twist your life up like a pretzel in order to please men by doing things they consider IMPORTANT.
This, in a book so ferociously feminist. Excuse me, I need to go beat my head against the wall.
no subject
Also, secret societies? And all-boys secret societies? And called basset hounds. Please. .... Actually, it would take a lot for me to sympathize with someone's desire to be part of an exclusivist secret society, so that might be a problem from the start, for me.
Oh and whoops--this was meant to be a general reply to the entry, not to your comment. Durr.
no subject
Also, I don't think Frankie cares about Trish enough to even bother justifying herself in terms of paltry self-sacrifice. She seems to judge people based entirely on whether their behavior is convenient to her - it wouldn't occur to her that she owes Trish anything.
Re: the secret society: I think it's a way of making it seem extra-unfair that Frankie is not a member of her boyfriend's friend group, and will lose even her provisional status if they break up. If it was just a regular group of friends, it would be too easy for readers to say "But why do you think you deserve to be a member, Frankie? These people have just met you and only put up with you because of your boyfriend."
But making it a secret society makes keeping her out extra evil and elitist. I guess.
And I find her desire to be a part of it irritating, too. What's wrong with your own friends, Frankie? They're geeks and a lot of them are girls, you say?