He was my bear, a hulk, a mess of a man. Dark hair, sharp claws digging deep into my honey-hair. There was always a little part of me that was afraid of him, one swipe and my face would be slashed, my chest bruised, my arms aching. But he never hit me, not once. I had been with men like that, sneaking, small looking men. Men who had pinched and scratched my arms, men who hurt me with their sneering words. But my bear, gingerly balanced on his hind legs, his mouth opened in a snarl, never hurt me.
We would play, rolling through pine needles and mud. Sometimes it got a little rough, but he knew when to stop, he never took my ‘yes’ for granted. I was shorter than him, shorter than most people, so he was always careful. Yet, he did not treat me like a little piece of porcelain, easily broken and shattered. He knew a girl like me wasn’t like that. He could toy with me, make me get dirty knees and rough fingertips. I knew I was more beautiful now than I had ever been, leaves and grass caught in my hair, grime under my nails, clothes ripped and muscles lean and strong.
I did like our den, hidden away, south facing. A sweet scent of pine and the river, where he would go daily and get us fish, or hunt through the woods and bring back rabbit or deer. He always enjoyed his meat too rare, it was something I never grew to like. I would keep our cave clean, most days I had to change our bed; a pile of warm grass, lamb’s wool and herbs scattered amongst our bedding to keep the bugs out. Sometimes I’d decorate the cave with flowers, finding places for them in chipped mugs and glass jars. The bear wasn’t too keen on those, if he’d see them he’d just shrug his shoulders and grunt. I think secretly he liked my touches.
Then it was night, darkness creeping into the forest a lot quicker than in the town. The trees ink black spikes standing against a backdrop of navy blue night sky. There were so many stars here, I asked the bear to teach me their names. He only taught me two, Ursa Minor and Ursa Major.
“What about the rest?” I said.
“They’re just stars, what does it matter? They don’t do anything.”
“But some people say…”
“Some people say a lot of things, don’t think they’re right by any means.” he rolled onto his back, while I twisted my fingers in his hair.
“You’re stubborn.” I smiled.
He turned his head to look at me, “Well noted, my girl.”
I traced the curve of his ear, “I love you, my bear.”
He grunted and shut his eyes as though he would sleep, though his smile was honey sweet. I knew he would never say it. “Sleep girl.” he said.
“Goodnight, bear.”
He chuckled and buried his nose into my hair.
He got caught in the glen, an iron trap catching his leg and making him howl with pain. I heard him and dropped my basket; smears of red berries on my feet, where I stepped on the fallen fruit. I ran through the woods, my heart thumping painfully and my muscles burning. I crouched down when I saw them, the men with their guns and laughing smiles, the dogs barking and pouncing at my bear. One man walked forward, the low brim of his cap hiding his face,
“Where’s the girl?”
“I don’t know.”
I flinched when the man slammed his boot into my love’s face, the bones crunched underneath and my bear spat out blood.
“Where is she?” the man hissed.
“I don’t know.” growled my bear. He stared the man down, hands tightening into fists.
“Well,” the man smirked, “She won’t survive for long without you, will she?”
My bear didn’t look at him, “She’s a lot tougher than you think, dog.”
I did not feel very strong when his head whipped round at the force of the man’s punch, my poor bear’s lip was split, his nose broken and still he looked up at the man.
“We’ll go, the little fool can starve.”
I watched them leave. A crow cawed at the darkening sky and I felt the cold silence of the wood press down on my ears. I didn’t wait to hear my bear howl. I followed the twilight creeping along the paths in the forest. I bit my lip hard, till a dribble of blood ran down my chin. The first thing he taught me was to keep walking. I kept walking till I couldn’t hear or see or feel anything. The world was dead. So was my bear.
Something I'm really excited about for next year is a module on my English Literature course called Evil and Literature. Oh my lords, I am so... Indescribably excited. I absolutely love evil characters. Now there's nothing wrong with Mr (or Miss/Mrs/Ms). Mustache-twiling-cape-wearing-evil-doer, but one thing I'm growing to love in the modern age is our absolute need to understand and comprehend the enemies we face in literature (and to extent the world around us). We want to understand what it is to be evil, why a person turns evil, could we sympathise with evil and be evil ourselves, and is there anything we can do to prevent evil?
Now I may have got this wrong, (in which case, I need to read the module handbook again), but I read we can do our own exploration in literature and look at a book of our own choosing. So one of the books I would love to look at is Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. If you've only heard of the musical, get your fine derriere down to a bookshop or go on amazon and buy it! It's a fantastic book, really well crafted, with many political, social and psychological allusions. It questions society's ability to deliberately misunderstand someone's intentions, particularly if that person wants to change the society they're in. It looks at political activism, as well as apathy, social conformity and individuality. Don't get me wrong, the musical is fantastic, but in a way it saddens me that the book has kind of received less attention due to the musical being so popular. As with any book and a transferal to stage or screen, the musical misses out on a lot of these crucial ideas or skims over them. Understandable, because it would probably be a very boring musical if they tried to look at them in more depth. But I highly recommend the book.
It is an odd thing in the Wizard of Oz (which I still absolutely adore and used to watch every time I went over to my Granny's), I loved Dorothy (admittedly because I look a little bit like her and really wanted to play that role if I ever got the chance). But I also loved the Wicked Witch of the West. I was never entirely sure why, it wasn't that she was evil. More that she didn't give a damn. I think I like villains who really couldn't give a damn whether you thought they were evil or not. And maybe I have a thing for Witches too.
The White Witch of the Narnian Chronicles and The Grand Witch from The Witches, have always been amongst my favourite female villains. Though both terrified me. The White Witch with her ice cold beauty, fearsome temper and her willingness to sacrifice a young boy. The Grand Witch with her ruthless plan, the way she treated other Witches and just the way she looked was horrifying. We are taught to instinctively fear these women, especially when they consider the murder of children or young people, because it goes so against a perceived feminine nature. But there is something innately fascinating about these female characters and I think that's the reason why when I wrote my Jack the Ripper script, There is Only Hell, I chose a female anti-hero to be my Jack. Cathie is an abortionist and a midwife, both the devil and an angel in the Victorian London streets. When her lover is killed and she seeks revenge, her actions are both understandable and extreme.
Tilda Swinton...You are amazing!
Holy Hell! I forgot how scary this film was!
This would probably be illegal nowadays!
Male villains never bothered me that much. Maybe because there's a leaning in society that suggests due to women's volatile and passionate natures, you don't have to explain so much about the why, the what and the how. That in the role of the Wicked Witch and the Dangerous Seductress, we don't have to bother explaining about what makes a woman evil. Though most people would probably consider that lazy story telling. But I have noticed with male villains there's a tendency to go into great detail about what makes them evil.
We looked at Witches, so let's look at a Wizard. The greatest, evil Wizard of our time. I probably don't even have to say his name. It's You Know Who. The Witches above don't really represent the tragic villain, they just are evil. But Voldemort took a path which ultimately made him evil. His desire to replicate a similar feeling of love and being wanted, lead him to his desire to become a ruler over and of Death. In a way Harry and Voldemort create a reflection of one another. We can see how they represent the polar opposites, yet the similarities of one another are undeniable. Harry's popularity and then growing isolation, reflect Voldemort's isolation and then popularity amongst his peers. Their desire to find a place where they both belong are symbolised in Hogwarts, but Harry's emotional belonging is due to his friends and the love he feels for those who are close to him; Voldemort's is constantly represented in materialistic items, first Hogwarts, then the Horcruxes.
It was this materality that I wanted to represent in my own fanfiction of A Simple Rose, which depicts Voldemort's ancestor Salazar Slytherin. In one scene, he and Helga are discussing a wild rose plant.
My fingers curled round several unopened, green buds and I couldn’t hide my childish smile on seeing the small, sharp pink-red thorns. I was hoping for a pale white blossom. A long fingered, elegant hand rested near mine and I looked up to Salazar examining the plant.
“I do not recognise this. It is no magical plant or herb, I take it?”
I grinned, “Nay, this is a simple wild rose. Found all over this isle.”
He frowned further, “Then what is its use?”
I carefully inspected the leaves for blight or insects, but was content with what I saw, “Alas, it has none. It is but a flower to look fair and smell sweetly. Though there are some who say it relieves aches, especially those of the stomach, yet mint and wormwood work better.”
“Then why grow it at all?” his dark eyes near glared into mine, and I almost took a step back as though I feared him, yet what I felt was not fear in its entirety.
It begins the discussion of purpose ('oh not that again!' some people cry who have read my previous blogpost - don't worry, it won't be as in depth as last time). Helga admits that her joy is 'childish', but her joy is profound and she shows a respect for life from the beginning. It doesn't matter whether she considers the life is without purpose or reason, to her it is still beautiful. Salazar, on the other hand, wants its purpose and if it has none, then he considers you shouldn't grow it at all. It is this desire that leads to him desiring control above everything else, controlling the people around him and thus controlling the muggle-born population in Hogwarts.
Let's now look at an absent villain, or a more symbolic one. In Tolkien's Lord of the Rings the power of Sauron is never directly represented in a fully formed villain (except for in the Silmarillion and the Appendixes, etc). We never see him. We see his henchmen and hear their voices. Saruman is the unknown Wizard in the forest, the Hierophant, a person who can claim all spiritual and earthly knowledge, a power we cannot know or question. The Orcs represent what we may become if we lose all dignity, respect and humanity; Tolkien's depiction of Orcs being produced from tortured Elves, represents the two opposite spheres of knowledge, grace and beauty, contrasting with ignorance, malice and ugliness. Both represent ideas of what we could become. The Ringwraiths again represent this, but on a more human level, showing mankind's ability to fall when tempted by power. In looking at this interpretation, we could argue that Eowyn's defeat of the WitchKing was even more symbolic than the book suggests. It is a woman that defeats male fear, obsession and temptation.
The Lord of the Rings film trilogy gives the audience the opening introduction, narrated by Galadriel. We see Sauron, whereas in the books we don't; but in films this becomes a necessity in a way. Absent villains work better in books, where the reader uses their imagination to create the villain in their mind and Sauron is more of an ideological villain, than a real one. But on the screen this can only go so far, films are a visual medium and so we visually need to see the villains. It's quite tricky to work out what is scary about a tower and a ring. Hence why there are so many supporting villains, ranging from small ones like Grima Wormtongue and Denethor, to larger villains like the Uruk hai and the Ringwraiths. But when there are scenes that focus on the ring and the tower, all of our senses have to be used in the best way possible. The Ringwraiths look and sound scary, you probably could get away with not having any sound and they would still look scary, or hear that blood-curdling cry and not see them, and they'd still be terrifying. Without any sound for the Ring...it would look like a very non-frightening ring.
In this scene, Frodo is about to destroy the ring. The music is building, we're all getting very excited, because this is the moment the entire trilogy has been building up to. Sam is getting more and more desperate, Frodo is going a bit nuts, etc. When the camera has a close shot of the ring, the music cuts out, we get this high pitched noise (almost like the ringwraiths' scream), a whispering and the flashes of light. The swaying backwards and forwards, not only reminds us of Frodo's decision, but almost makes the ring look alive. It is through this visual and auditory format that the villain is represented, the villain of the ring and of Frodo's mindset. But even in this ending, we get another two visual stand-ins. We have Gollum fighting Frodo and then we cut back to Aragorn fighting the troll (I think it's a troll). What's interesting was how, originally, they were going to have Aragorn fighting Sauron. But ended up cutting this out as the ending is not really about Aragorn defeating evil, but Frodo. The unlikely underdog destroying the epitome of all evil, rather than the rightful King claiming his inheritance and defeating the bad guy as would normally happen in most stories.
So this is something I certainly can't wait to study in more depth and I am looking forward to my third, and final, year at University.
So today I was lying on my bed, being ill, and thinking to myself 'What's the most dangerous title I can use on the internet...?'
I'm joking! And the title is only partly true. Why does nobody care about fanfiction? Being a Lit and Creative Writing student, in all honesty, I'm surprised people don't notice it more. It's a powder keg of imagination and amazing ideas...and most people are just like 'Fanfiction...girly fantasies...probably with a Mary Sue or two and some smut." Now, I'll admit it, some fanfictions are like that and I may have read one fanfiction that was like that...or two...The point is, while there is some truly god damn awful stuff that makes me want to cry and tear out my eyeballs; there is also some really exceptional literature on there. And a lot of that work deserves a mainstream audience and deserves to be published. Now I don't often say to people their work deserves to be published, because I'm a critical bitch like that (seriously, I used to relish reading my friends' essays and getting out my red pen...it's like a nerd high). But for those of you who did get the 'This should be published' comment, that's the highest Hannah accolade you can achieve! So well done to you guys for achieving that if you have done.
It saddens me that a good deal of the fanfiction universe is dismissed as delusional. Having written a lot of fanfiction, I often feel that I can't bring it up amongst my family or friends (even those who are writers and love the fictional universes created in the books they are reading). It's seen as a waste of time, not only by family and friends, but by critics and authors as well. Which is ironic, seeing as how popular sequels and prequels are in mainstream publishing, even if they're not written by the original author. I still feel ashamed of writing any of my fanfiction, because I've been told it's not worth anything. I can't show it to a publisher, I can't show it to a teacher or even my parents. I can only share it amongst people who are just as passionate about a fictional universe as I am, some of them I've never even met in the flesh before. Fanfiction should be a compliment to an author (unless you're doing some truly whacky stuff with the characters). It means an author's story didn't just linger in that person's mind, they pursued it and explored multitudes of different stories, characters, beginnings and endings. We all to easily lament children's unwillingness to read or write, yet when they are inspired by a book, film, tv show and want to write because of that, we then treat their efforts as futile and a waste of time because it isn't completely original. Let's face it, not even Shakespeare was original, some of his best work was 'borrowed' from another writer! Romeo and Juliet, Othello, etc. And his work was often better than the original writer. Romeo and Juliet stopped being a morality tale of 'This is what happens when you disobey your parents, you die' story to 'The greatest romantic tragedy ever told.'
Yet fanfiction is one of the most amazing steps in internet communication and uniting people within a fandom. Unlike mainstream publishing and media communications, fanfiction tends to be solely written and read by women. It often creates a supportive and helpful environment, assisting new writers with their growing talent and creating a place where information and news can be shared. I shared my excitement with my regular reviewers of being published in an online magazine, I know one girl who often talks about her upcoming book deal and the wonderful thing is there are people who are excited about this and eager to help in anyway they can. That girl has a strong supportive background from all her regular readers, who will then be willing to purchase her new book. It's networking and proof of talent at its finest.
Why on earth would anyone be dismissive of a growing literary community like this? Encouraging young writers and extolling those who are going onto proper publication? Fanfic writers don't make any money or really gain much acknowledgement, certainly not from literary circles. The only reason they write is because they have to. With any story told there are dozens of other stories that come from that, and I for one believe strongly, someone like Tolkien would have been more than happy with this effort. He might not like the style of the story, who we ship the characters with or where the story ends up, but he was a man who loved mythology and the idea of stories stemming off from stories. He wanted a new mythology to be created and it truly was, and continues to be so. I think the idea of a pure form of literature is ridiculous, because we all interpret stories in different ways. I read Lord of the Rings with previous mythology and religion in mind, while someone else may read it with World War One/Two in mind and how this changed Tolkien's views of the world he lived in. Writers themselves do not just have one original story that they write from beginning to end and then publish. They edit it and change plots and subplots, add or get rid of characters. I know in one of my fanfictions I decided to delete something like ten chapters I had written, to take the story in a completely different direction, because the original story was no longer working.
So put down that 50 Shades of Shit...not even going to lie, it's awful. I got to the first page and it already disobeyed writing lesson 101 - Thou shalt not have a character sit in front of a mirror and describe their appearance. I won't even mention about what happened when I skipped to the first sex scene *shudders*. Below are some truly amazing fanfiction, mostly rated T-M (if you don't know what that means, you soon will do!) and please give them a try. It's not all about the fluff and smut, it's not about putting together two unlikely characters and expecting them to miraculously full in love. These writers know what they're doing and they do it well. The stories are incredible, the characters are fully formed and certainly worth the hours put into writing these tales.
This is an issue that makes me grit my teeth with annoyance, whenever an author uses a historical basis for a novel or sets it during a particular period, they are often accused of sexism because of the way women are represented. It seems all too easy for people to forget that the women, although they can be identifiable and sympathetic characters, that they are part of a time where women do not have the same rights as we do.
Truthfully, I'm sometimes amazed by how much authors can get away with making their characters more modern and independent than they probably were during the times. Philippa Gregory's infamous The Other Boleyn Girl, showed a balance between two different women; Mary Boleyn, who obeyed her male family members and did her duty, but was able to escape and find love. And Anne Boleyn, who uses her wiles and intelligence to gain power, although it leads to her downfall. People could argue this is sexist, that a woman using her charms and sexual power is anti-feminist, but during Tudor times this was basically all a woman had to gain power.
Yet even with novels that take inspiration from historical periods, rather than basing their story within one, often lead to criticism of female characters. Possibly more so when the book is not written by a woman. George R R Martin's series of novels, A Song of Ice and Fire (made notably famous by HBO's adaptation Game of Thrones) has received such criticism for the portrayal of women and sexual relationship within it. It would be impossible to deny the relationship between ASoIaF and the Cousin's War (or the War of the Roses - fought between the houses of York and Lancaster during 1455 to 1487). I came across many people who said about any and all female characters, 'Why did she obey her father when she didn't want to? Why doesn't she just leave? Why can't she make her own decisions?' Likewise, with Philippa Gregory's The White Queen, The Red Queen and The Kingmaker's Daughter, people keep forgetting these women don't have the luxury of choice. They have to maneuver themselves into the best position possible, all the while thinking about their family, their ties with friends and those in power. Many people dismiss Sansa in ASoIaF as weak and idiotic (the book portrays her better, giving us more insight into her thoughts and feelings); but even in the TV show she attempts to use her skills of manipulation to get what she wants.
Joffrey (after having Sansa kiss his sword - not a metaphor): You'll kiss it again when I return and taste my Uncle's blood.
Sansa: Will you slay him yourself?
Joffrey: If Stannis is fool enough to come near me.
Sansa: So you'll be outside the gates fighting in the vanguard...?
Joffrey: A King doesn't discuss battle plans with stupid girls.
Sansa: I'm sorry, your Grace, you're right, I'm stupid. Of course, you'll be in the vanguard. They say my brother Robb always goes where the fighting is thickest...and he's only a pretender.
Strangely, most people seem to ignore this attempt. Perhaps because it is almost too obvious. But what she does is clever, pushing Joffrey to endanger his life by comparing him with her brother, triggering his sense of masculine pride and urging him to fight where it is most dangerous. Sansa is not like Arya, her sister, nor ever will be. It is futile to compare the two as both are very different. But she's learning within the world of the court, what it is to use people's expectations of her against them. Her strength isn't through physical force, she doesn't have Daenerys' dragons, Arya's skill with a sword or Ygritte's with a bow, but she learns to use her beauty, facade of innocence and her skill with words to slowly begin to gain what she needs.
But let's not forget the ultimate of woman empowerment within the historically inspired genre. Eowyn from Lord of the Rings, written by J R R Tolkien. Eowyn does not even try to manipulate others to gain what she wants. She's frank and honest, surviving in a time of increasing difficulty: her Uncle's loss of power, her cousin's death and her brother's banishment. All the while desiring to fight and defend her country. To not be considered weak, because she is a woman.
“What do you fear, lady?" (Aragorn) asked.
"A cage," (Éowyn) said. "To stay behind bars, until use and old age accept them, and all chance of doing great deeds is gone beyond recall or desire.”
Some have argued that Eowyn is representative of the women who took up male roles within the working environment; I, however, dispute this as simplistic and undermining Tolkien's great use of European myths and legends. Had she remained at home as her brother and Uncle so often remind her, for that is her duty and task, the initial war between Gondor and the forces of Mordor would have never been won. It is a woman who is the first to challenge the chief servant of Sauron, due to her desire to protect her family.
“Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!" (the Witch-king of Angmar).
Then Merry heard in all sounds of the hour the strangest. It seemed that Dernhelm laughed, and the clear voice was like the ring of steel."But no living man am I! You are looking upon a woman. Eowyn am I, Eomund's daughter. You stand between me and my lord and kin. Begone, if you be not deathless! For living or dark undead, I will smite you, if you touch him."
The winged creature screamed at her, but then the Ringwraith was silent, as if in sudden doubt. Very amazement for a moment conquered Merry's fear. He opened his eyes and the blackness was lifted from them. There some paces from him sat the great beast, and all seemed dark about it, and above it loomed the Nazgul Lord like a shadow of despair. A little to the left facing them stood whom he had called Dernhelm. But the helm of her secrecy had fallen from her, and and her bright hair, released from its bonds, gleamed with pale gold upon her shoulders. Her eyes grey as the sea were hard and fell, and yet tears gleamed in them. A sword was in her hand, and she raised her shield against the horror of her enemy's eyes.”
So in the end, I would argue that all these women have as much power as reasonably gained. The authors themselves aren't sexist; they are merely applying the rules, morals and politics of the time or of their created time on these characters. Abandoning realism to suit a desire to craft modern women in a historical period, simply reduces a story and the depth of characterisation. It does not make a story better. Readers like to see unlikely and downtrodden characters do well, and having a range of different women means young girls can find something inspiring and personal for them; even if the characters like dresses, lemon cake, roses, swords, get married, have children or remain single. Our ability to like a character should not be based on their gender, but how well written the story and characters are.
References: HBO's Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers (J R R Tolkien), Lord of the Rings - Return of the King (J R R Tolkien). The Other Boleyn Girl, The White Queen, The Red Queen and the Kingmaker's Daughter (Philippa Gregory).
.jpg)
