Wednesday, September 27, 2017

"Nobody is Special!"

In the past several days, there has been a not surprising up-tick in discussion about non-violent protests, about where and when the first amendment should be exercised, and whether or not the chief executive office of the United States pressuring private businesses to fire employees who engage in such protests violates the protester's constitutional rights. The antipathy towards the protest has been (in a way, refreshingly) multidimensional. 

Many people think it's simply unprofessional to engage in a political protest while "on the clock," but that seems to ignore the reality that: 

(1) It's up to their employer to decide what is and isn't professional.

(2) Why is "I don't want people to be murdered by cops" a "political" issue?

(3) Protesting while "off the clock" also seems to be unacceptable

Given, teachers have suffered under that gag-order for a long time, relying on others to advocate for them, but the list of who is not allowed to express their opinion seems to be rapidly expanding, and now includes not only teachers (who are brainwashing our children), but journalists (who should never interpret the facts they report), actors (who don't know how things really are), athletes (who should be grateful for what they have), and poor people and college students (who haven't earned the right to complain). Police officers, oddly, seem to have been granted more political freedom in recent years, but that has spurred conflict within the profession

An overwhelming number of detractors say that kneeling in front of the flag during the National Anthem disrespects those who fought for that flag. It's an odd sentiment considering: 

(1) Kneeling has always been considered a symbolic act of deference, not disrespect.

Just look at that disrespectful son of a *****.

(2) "Fighting for the flag" is a metaphorical phrase, people have not literally died for the flag

Not in the real world, anyway.
(3) Our national anthem is not dedicated to the military (each branch of the service has its own anthem to respect their struggles).

(4) Most of the actual military veterans I've seen post, comment, etc. call bull**** on the argument, which primarily seems to be bandied about by people who are related to people in the military, or who knew someone in the military at one point. Very few veterans actually seem to be offended by the protests.

I've also seen complaints that athletes protesting during the game are just doing it for attention, which seems to miss the point that drawing attention to a problem is the point of protesting it. 

And I've seen arguments that highly paid athletes shouldn't protest a problem that does not personally impact them, which might be the most depressing expression of "screw you, I've got mine!" possible, transcending simple selfishness to the point of punishing the expression of compassion, sympathy, and altruism by others.

The most recent argument I saw, however, is that the athletes shouldn't protest unfairness, because in America, "Nobody is special!"





Okay, first, the idea that military personnel and veterans have never protested their treatment is almost adorably ignorant of American history.

Anyone remember that time Douglas MacArthur attacked protesting veterans with cavalry and tanks?

They were small tanks, but still...

No one?

Okay, then, does anyone at least remember what "FTA ALL THE WAY" means?

Vietnam M1 Helmet, images posted by U.S. Militaria Forum user B.A.R.Gunner.

But, setting aside that naivete, the chief irony is that, "Nobody is special!" is essentially the premise which compels the groups whose protests the Facebook poster was objecting to.

Black men don't want to be treated BETTER than white men, they want to NOT be treated WORSE. In particular, they want police officers to NOT treat them as ESPECIALLY threatening because of the color of their skin and the shape of their faces, and they (and many more of us as well) want police officers to NOT be given SPECIAL consideration when investigated for murder.

This is the sort of "special" treatment black men receive in America.


The selection of people who want to be treated as "special" - given special privileges, special honors, special treatment, special consideration, falls mostly on the opposite side of that conversation.

They are the people who are personally offended by any complaint, protest, or dissension toward the system, because they feel everyone else should be ingratiated to them - implicitly, they believe that they are the system that other people are protesting.

They are the people who think everything is about them.

They are the people who say, "Yes, you have freedom of speech, but exercising that right disrespects everything I have done for you."

They are the people who say, "How dare you politicize the sport I paid to watch?" or "Protest at home, where I don't have to see it!"

They are the people who feel that they shouldn't be subject to the same laws, oversight, or due process as the rest of their countrymen.

They are the people who, on hearing someone say, "hey, my life matters too," flip their **** because the idea that someone else values their own life feels like it somehow devalues their's.

They are the people who  believe that the very concept of being courteous and considerate to others is beyond personally inconvenient, it is somehow an assault on their identity, and an attack on their country.

They are the people who, whenever someone says s/he is being treated unfairly, have to immediately interrupt him or her and talk about how they are being treated unfairly, more unfairly, and even brag about how they have endured it without complaint (except for right then, when they interrupted someone else's complaint because they needed to out-complain them), censuring anyone else for not suffering in obedient 'silence' as they have done.

So, please, before you jump in to complain about other people being 'disrespectful', 'ungrateful', 'shameful', 'whiners', remember this:

YOU AREN'T SPECIAL. 



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, September 20, 2017

No, Really, There Are Anti-Choice People Out There

Pro-choice vs. pro-life seems like a simple dichotomy that divides those who advocate for a woman's bodily autonomy from those who (for a variety of reasons) do not. Ostensibly pro-life advocates have named themselves thus because they believe in the sanctity of life - given the pro-life's collective inconsistency in supporting other human rights, many pro-choice people (including myself) have taken to referring to them as "pro-birth," as it seems that for many pro-life advocates, their desire to protect life ends at birth, and their advocacy often extends to opposing things which actually reduce abortion, like contraception and sex-education. Some pro-choice advocates go so far as to label their opponents as "anti-choice."

That label seems as unreasonable as calling someone "anti-life." After all, "anti-choice" advocates would be those who don't really care about the morality of family planning, but simply want to strip women's bodily autonomy. That sort of malicious or arrogant will to see one sex dominated by the other seems like it must be present in a fairly small number of people in 2017. At least, one would wish that were the case; it's sadly easy to find things like this on the internet:



Though I'm sure patronizing things like this are overall more common:


I imagine most women are in no way shocked by either of those memes, and admittedly, I've long since past the point of being surprised by such things. The only reason I got started thinking on it today was because of an article that appeared in my Twitter feed today.


When I saw the headline I didn't get too riled. The wording, which shames people for rejecting romantic overtures, immediately jumped out as entitled bull, but content providers often brand articles with provocative titles to draw attention, even when doing so contradicts the content of the author's work.

The title, however, isn't far off from the author's intention. Rather than blame Trump supporters for electing Donald Trump, the article blames the reproductive choices of progressive baby-boomers and gen-x'ers for creating Trump voters (and somehow still lays the weight of that accusation on the shoulders of millennials dating in the present). Laber attributes the differences between modern progressives and conservatives to discriminatory mating practices based on intellect.
As cognitive ability became the most valued aspect of human capital––and the biggest predictive indicator for professional success––people began marrying others with similar intellect.
Laber and his source peg this as beginning with "a shift to a particular type of mating in the ‘60s" essentially when the baby-boomers started procreating.
Ivy League graduates marry other Ivy League graduates, and their kids do the same, and so on and so forth, causing severe economic stratification between what Murray calls the “New Upper Class” and “New Lower Class.”
It's strange to think that Laber blames two or three generations of such selection for our current situation. Neighborhoods and school districts in the United States remain racially segregated as a result of the centuries old racism that empowered slavery and discriminatory laws. Trump supporters scream for a wall to be built on a border that was formed by the ending of a war in 1849. Americans in southern states mourn the failure of a rebellion that ended in 1865, and gather with torches to protect statues commissioned in 1917. One of the most influential families in America dates back to the early 1900s, and our controversial president is a septuagenarian, himself born into a privileged family. Yet, despite all of this, Laber and Murray blame our socioeconomic stratification on 57 years of "assortative mating" based on education.

Despite all of these preceding factors, he contends that if it weren't for two generations of people seeking mates with "similar intellect," our country would not have descended into the political "tribalism" it has, and that people would be better equipped to fend off the demagoguery of individuals like Trump. The whole premise feels very similar to  the Social Darwinism that underpins Idiocracy.

Tied into all of this is Laber's implicit belief that the ideological differences between progressives and conservatives are trivial matters, and certainly not sufficient justification for refusing to engage with someone romantically, a stance he makes clear from the beginning.
...OkCupid announced Wednesday that it would make the online dating scene a little easier for progressives who can’t risk interacting with someone with whom they disagree (imagine the horror!)... 
While people don't necessarily choose a partner based on a single simple characteristic, we often eliminate potential partners from consideration based on certain characteristics - sex, age, religion, attraction, interests, etc. So how is it that Laber considers the moral differences entailed in the conflict between progressive and conservative values to be relatively trivial? If people can't 'screen' mates based on morality, on what premise can they be selective? Laber's stance becomes less surprising when you consider the specific issue he objects to screening for:
[OkCupid] announced a partnership with Planned Parenthood that allows site users to put a badge on their profile signifying support for the nation’s largest abortion provider...  
Laber's whole line of argument is based on criticizing Americans' collective reproductive choices, and is specifically slanted against liberals as the cause of our current situation. It shouldn't be surprising, then, that differences over attitudes towards abortion and contraception is what spurred him to write his article. Fundamentally, Laber is upset that people are refusing to consider having sexual relationships and potentially family relationships with people who differ from them in their basic beliefs about sexual relationships and family planning.

In other words, Laber blames social strife in modern America (partly) on liberals exercising their right to choose, not simply whether to have children, but with whom to have children. He faults progressives for rejecting potential romantic partners who advocate against women's bodily autonomy, and criticizes them for treating "an opposing viewpoint as an all-out assault on their personhood." God forbid that a woman reject a sexual relationship with a man who would oppose her seeking an abortion or even oppose her use of contraception.

Laber is, essentially, anti-choice, albeit more subtly so than the loud misogynists who would say that a woman's place is in the kitchen. He gives lip service to the contrary, hedging in his conclusion:
If a progressive doesn’t want to date a conservative and vice versa, that’s perfectly fine. Everyone has deal-breakers. 
But his final opinion is still that choosing partners based on moral principles has harmed our country:
...as a political protest, this form of virtue-signaling is counterproductive in the long run.
And in that last statement, Laber's disconnection from his fellow American's is most apparent. To him, support for Planned Parenthood and women's rights are purely 'political' issues, rather than deeply personal ones. To Laber, factoring that sort of thing into one's romantic decisions is an unreasonable form of "protest" - an attitude that is so absorbed in male privilege that you certainly don't have to be a woman to see it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Wild Justice Teaser for #TalkLikeAPirateDay

Seein' as it be Talk Like a Pirate Day I couldn't resist teasin' a piece o' the novel I've been tryin' to get published. 

Wild Justice is my second completed novel (95,809 words), and is an urban fantasy/historical fantasy story set in Boston in the fall of 1773. The central character is Anne McCormac, an immortal Banshee better known to history as the pirate Anne BonnyDecades after her disappearance from the history books, Anne returns to the Americas in search of her estranged son and discovers that British vampires are plotting to poison Anne's kind so that they can freely harvest the colonies' most valued resource: its people. Anne's allies intercept the poisoned goods at the docks, but when one shipment is left unaccounted for, Anne commandeers a ship, assembles a crew, and sets to sea once again.




Excerpt from Chapter 21 - "Raise the Colors and Beat to Quarters"

Aboard the privateering vessel Wild Justice, Atlantic Ocean; Thursday, December 9, 1773

[...]

I give the order, "Bring all hands on deck and put us wind over starboard, two points on the quarter to pursue the William.” Turning even a bit into the wind will cost us some speed, but we need to bear south by southwest if we want to intercept our target rather than simply chase its rudder across this storm front.

“And our mystery ship?”

“We’ll have time to deal with her if we have to. Our target’s got big sails but she’s running low in the water; she’s got too much drag to outrun us. I know it looks close, but even with a delay we can chase down the William long before she makes port.” I try to sound more certain of that than I am.

“Aye captain,” Mr. Jacobs nods and gives the orders. The men immediately move into action. The resting crew runs up from below deck to lend their hands to the pulling of the ropes. The ship swings starboard, and we cruise along the storm front.

“Quartermaster,” I shout, “I think we should inform them of our intentions.”

“Aye captain; Mr. Winter!” he shouts, “Raise the colors!”

Winter retrieves the banner Jack had gifted to me before we left, and affixes it to the brig’s forward mast. With strength that belies his scrawny frame, he runs it quickly up the mast. It unfurls in the wind for the first time as it rises above us. The banner sports the nine vertical stripes of the Sons of Liberty, but the white bars have been replaced with black, and laid over the black and red stripes is a bone white, smiling skull and crossed cutlasses – the Jolly Roger I sailed under five decades ago.
The men cheer as the flag raises and snaps in the wind.

“If you ever wanted to sail under a black flag,” I shout, “You are now, lads!”

Though it would be nearly a century before pirates achieved the romance they have now, every one of these men played the part at some point in their boyhood, just like my own son. They holler and shout, and begin to sing.[i]

Come join hand in hand, brave American’s all,
And rouse your bold hearts at fair liberty’s call.
No tyrannous acts shall suppress your just claim,
Or stain with dishonor America’s name!
[i] End Note: This is “The Liberty song.” Its lyrics were penned by John Dickinson, and printed in Gill & Edes’ paper in 1768. The tune comes from “Here’s a Health to the Company,” an older Irish song. 

I realize at that moment that music has gotten decidedly more pretentious since I sailed the Caribbean, but what the hell – if it makes them happy.

The William evidently spots us, and Captain Loring seems inclined to run. The William turns port, putting wind over starboard, four points large, and picks up speed headed southeast. Our mystery ship, however, does the opposite, she puts herself wind over port on the beam. It slows her down, but it puts her on an aggressive angle to intercept our course towards the William. If we maintain speed, we’ll probably beat her interception and pass right ahead of her bow, but if we do that, we’ll get a full round from her cannons, emptied right into our stern.

The challenge has been made.

“Beat to quarters!” I shout, “Quartermaster, hard to starboard, put us wind on the beam! Master gunner, are our cannon ready?!”

“Ready to be manned and loaded, Captain!” the man shouts back. At the quartermaster’s behest, the crewmen re-rig the sails, bringing our course perpendicular to the wind. We’re now getting more wind from the side than the back, which slows us considerably. Fortunately, our opponent’s moving slow too, and it buys time for the crewmen rigging the sails to get to their gunning stations.   

“Broad gunners, load port cannon, double shot, and prepare to fire broadside! Pivot gunners, lay forward and prepare for axial fire!” the crewmen scramble to their posts and begin hammering shot and powder into the big bronze barrels. “Sharpshooters, take position!” I add. This is a little bit of unconventional warfare proposed by my men before we left port. Three of Cassie’s friends who volunteered were brothers from Pennsylvania with no naval experience, but who were claimed to be deadly with their handmade, long hunting rifles. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t see much use in small arms until we were at boarding distance, but Cassie claimed they could hit a moving target at three hundred yards. “Remember,” I shout to them, “we want to take the William with as few casualties as possible, but right now, we’re not fightin’ the William!” I shout, “If you see an officer, shoot to kill!

I’m skeptical that they’ll contribute much – they barely have their sea legs, and with the wind whipping in from the storm their bullets seem likely to miss the enemy ship altogether. I’ve been assured that I underestimate the virtues of a rifle over a musket, but I’ll believe it when I see it.

“And for God’s sakes,” I remind them as they take positon between the gunnery stations to aim across the railing, “Stand clear when the cannon fire!”

There’s a bright flash, and a loud crack and boom – for a moment I think someone must have set off a cannon prematurely, but I quickly realize it’s the storm behind us. Snowflakes are blowing in, far preferable to rain, certainly, but they’re bringing thunder and lightning with them. The captain of the William would have been wise to turn south even if we weren’t giving chase.

At last I see our mystery ship’s name emblazoned on its prow, “Mr. Winter! What does Pallas mean? With an s at the end?!”

Winter leaps up onto the rigging and hangs off the side of the ship to get a better look, “It’s a reference to Athena, the Greek goddess of War!” He shouts back, “Pallas was the name of a titan she killed, and took his name for her own!”

I’ll admit, I think it’s probably classier than Wild Justice, but it’s not as intimidating. As if reading my mind, the crew begins to chant the name of our ship again.  

Winter bounds over to where I’m standing, “Peut-être une coïncidence,” he says, “But Pallas is usually applied to sculptures of Athena cast from white marble.”

I’m legitimately tired of that name, “Oh, fuck me.

“If we survive this, oui,” Winter winks.

“I’m going to hold you to that!” I shout as he picks up a musket and runs to the foredeck.
We’re now right upon them. The Pallas fires a pair of chase guns – stronger forward weapons by far than our pivot guns, but thanks to the bucking of the waves and a bit of over-caution on the part of the Pallas’s helmsman, her bow jukes at the last moment and the shots miss wide.

“Pivot gunners!” I shout, “Show them size doesn’t matter! Sharpshooters, make sure they remember it!”

The men laugh as the small pivot guns fire. They haven’t the power of proper chase guns, but they don’t miss. The golf ball-size iron shells whiz over the wood railings of the Pallas and strike a pair of her crewmen, basically splattering them across her deck, and leaving one of her top-deck guns momentarily under-manned.  The sharpshooters open fire. One I know misses, another one clips a man, but the third strikes a man straight in the side of his skull, interrupting his orders and sending someone else scurrying to take his place.

Even wind over beam, it feels like we’re rushing towards each other. We’re squared off for a proper broadside, which makes the outcome of the next few minutes a matter of timing and firepower. If we fire too soon we’ll miss them; too late, we may not fire at all. If we both fire on cue, whoever has the most guns will win. Only one deck of our brigantine is cannoned – she’s bigger and better armed than the Revenge was, but she’s still so under-powered that the British navy wouldn’t even rate it. So far, the lower hull hatches of the Pallas have also stayed shut, so I hope that they are – figuratively speaking – in the same boat. In calmer waters I’d do a hard starboard turn and fire all port guns into their bow, but even if the sudden shift against the wind wouldn’t put us on our beam ends and threaten to capsize us, it’d pitch us far enough forward that our cannons would fire into the water.

The pivot guns and the sharpshooters manage one more shot in the darkening chaos, but from there it’s a matter of waiting what seems like an eternity for our opening.

I pick up singing the men’s song where they left off. Any human voice would be lost in the gale, but I weave my words into the wind, to make sure not only my crew, but the men on the Pallas, can hear me.

Our worthy forefathers, let's give them a cheer,
To climates unknown did courageously steer;
Thro' oceans to deserts for Freedom they came,
And dying, bequeath'd us their freedom and fame.

Our bows pass one another, and then as our masts begin to pass, I give the order to fire. An instant later, cannons on both ships vomit fire and smoke with a bone rattling boom that puts even the thunder to shame. Red hot iron balls I can’t even touch when stored on a cold brass monkey fill the air.

I half expect a significant portion of our crew to be dead from that volley, but while most of our rounds batter their hull, most of theirs go high, ripping through our sails and rigging but missing our heads. Fortunately they fire no guns from their lower deck; they’re probably too afraid of the high waves to open their hatches.

Some of the rigging snaps, and the rear mast is grazed, unleashing a storm of wood splinters on a man who falls to the deck in pain. Someone drags the man out of the way as Quartermaster Jacobs shouts orders to secure the loose rigging and reload the cannons.

The Pennsylvania huntsmen take their own initiative and run to aft behind me, where they line up and start firing behind us at the Pallas. They get off only a handful of shots – the cold wind stiffens their fingers and tightens their rifle barrels, slowing their reloading, and soon the Pallas is out of range in the darkness.

I’m something of an adrenaline junkie, but I’m not a fool. We got lucky with that broadside, and I’m not keen for a second one. Those chase guns alone could do us some serious damage if we go head to head again, and the William is slipping away faster than I expected.

“Quartermaster!” I shout, “Turn us port for speed. Bring us wind over starboard, six points large.”

“Aye captain!” Mr. Jacobs relays the order, sending the men from their gunning stations back to the rigging. That would put us back on the William’s tail; the Pallas would have to make a full about turn before it could pursue and it would be wind over beam going into and out of that turn. She’d catch up, but it might take her a while.

“The Pallas has turned and is pursuing us!” One of the riflemen shouts over the aft wind, confirming my expectation.

“Master gunner! I shout, ready our port guns to fire again!” the man relays the order, and crewmen once again scramble to the gunnery stations to reload the weapons and ready them.

“The Pallas is wind over starboard, on the beam,” another sailor elaborates from behind me, “Looks like she’s re-rigging for speed… four, no… three points large.”

That takes me off guard. We’re bearing south-southeast on a bit of an arc; I expected the Pallas to go hard for southeast, and try to close the distance by making as straight a line as possible through the storm tossed waters. Instead, she’s headed east-southeast, putting her on our starboard side. I can’t imagine a maneuver that would bring her along our starboard side, but I order the master gunner to have our starboard cannons readied in case.

We continue sailing after the William, and finally come across its course. I’m ready to give the order to turn starboard and make this a proper chase, when our ship suddenly lags a little.

“The Pallas has turned!” one of the men shouts, “wind over starboard, six points large!” The Pallas is matching the Wild Justice’s course from upwind.

“What’s she doing?” Mr. Jacobs shouts to me.

“She’s trying to overbear us,” I shout back, “She intends to shadow us and steal our wind. We’ll slow and she’ll speed up. It doesn’t seem like much of a difference now, but it’ll be enough for our prize to outrun us.”

“Captain!” Winter shouts running back from the bow, “The William is changing course; she’s wind over starboard, on the beam.”

Just when the Pallas had given her the chance to escape, the William had decided to slow down. That was unexpected.

“The Pallas is gaining ground!” one of the men behind me shouts, “wind over starboard, three points large.”

She’s out of our wind now but she’s in line with us. She would definitely catch up to us now, and with those chase guns on her that could be a problem.

Another update comes from the bow, “The William’s made a hard turn, she’s wind over port, on the beam!”

“She’s bearing straight down on us, Captain!” Jacobs shouts, “Is she making to ram us?”

The William is heavier than the Wild Justice, due to her cargo, but she is still small as transatlantic ships go, lacks a ram, and is now sailing back into an already violent storm. I hadn’t been told much about Captain Loring, but I certainly didn’t have the impression he was suicidal. It is a shocking (literal) change of direction for the American sailors who’d so eagerly fled the storm moments before. Evidently, there’s someone on that ship that frightens them more than the prospect of sinking in freezing waters.

“Quartermaster!” I shout, “Wind over starboard, on the beam!”

“Captain?”

“Make it so, quartermaster!”

“Aye captain!” the men re-rig the ship, bringing us at a right angle to the gale again. Gusts of wind and high waves rock the ship violently. If it gets any worse I’ll need to turn us away just to keep us from being drowned. The maneuver slows us down, and lines us up with the oncoming William for a game of naval chicken.

I look back to see the Pallas’s silhouette in a flash of lightning. It’s hard to gauge something’s speed like that, but she is coming on fast, and even with the shifting winds of the tempest around us, it’s evident we are slowing down.

“Master gunner, are the port cannon still ready to fire?” I ask for confirmation.

“Touchholes might be wet!” He shouts back.

“Get them clean and ready to fire. No more crew than you need to fire what’s already loaded. Mr. Clasky, Mr. Jordan!” I shout to the two nearest hands on the deck below me, “I need two barrels of powder, still sealed, on the aft deck, now.”

“Aye captain!” they shout and begin rushing about.

“Quartermaster, take the helm and get every idle hand to be ready for a hard course change!”

“Our heading, captain?!” Mr. Jacobs asks as he relieves the helmsman and sends him to the deck.

“Hard port, before the wind, and it needs to be the fastest rigging change in the history of the high seas.”

“Aye captain,” Mr. Jacobs barks the orders but he looks pale; he seems to have figured out where this is going. 

“Mr. Clasky, Mr. Jordan toss your kegs overboard! Riflemen, don’t let those powder kegs out of your sight, and get ready to make us proud!”

The Pennsylvania boys shout and stamp the stocks of their long guns on the deck.

“Mr. Winter, watch aft and call the range for me!”

Winter scrambles over to stand alongside the riflemen and watch the powder kegs bounce and toss in the violent waves. “One hundred yards between the Pallas and the kegs!” he estimates.

“Quartermaster, are we prepared to turn?”

“As we’ll ever be, Captain!” Mr. Jacobs shouts.

“90 yards!” Winter shouts.

“You’ll know when; don’t wait for my order!”

“Aye captain!”

“70 yards!”

“Are the port guns ready to fire?!” I shout.

“50 yards!”

“Aye captain,” the master gunner cries back, “on your command.”

“30 yards!” Winter continues.

“Brace for a hard turn!” I shout back, “The order will be yours to give master gunner!” I can’t afford the delay that would come from my own deliberation, hesitation, and command.

“20 yards”

“Riflemen, fire!” I shout as I rush to the stern railing. I’d banked this maneuver on the assumption that shooting a barrel of naval grade black powder with a rifle would set it off, either by impact or heat. Nowadays, if you fired a tracer round from a modern sniper rifle into a steel keg you’d get a hell of a boom, but back in the 18th century a lead ball is a couple hundred degrees too cool and not quite fast enough to set off a wooden barrel of powder. The lead balls pop off the barrels without effect.

“10 yards!” Winter shouts.

Okay, time for plan B. There was a trick I used to do in the taverns in London. If I hit the right pitch and intensity with my voice I could create bubbles and sparks in a bottle of beer. I even turned a bottle of gin into a shrapnel grenade once by accident. I met a physicist a few centuries later who explained it to me – apparently it’s called sonoluminescence; the sound creates bubbles of gas which compress into plasma at the center. With the right sound and the right liquid, you can create sparks as hot as 20,000 Kelvins – it’s literally lightning in a bottle. I didn’t know that at the time of course, but I did know that this… this would be in a whole different league from my usual barroom tricks.

I concentrate on one of the barrels as the Pallas runs upon it and I screech at the top of my lungs. I make it as shrill as possible, and use every bit of will I have to give it as much oomph as possible. The riflemen fall to the deck clutching their ears. Winter was evidently braced for what was coming, and even though I can tell the sound is probably tying his guts in knots, he’s got one hand on the railing and his other arm looped around my waist, to keep me on my feet as I wail.

The seawater behind us lights up with a thousand sparks, a wave that races back to the Pallas at the speed of sound and strikes the barrel I’m concentrating on. It explodes right under the Pallas’s bow, and the shockwave carried through the water sets off the second barrel. It’s like punching the Pallas hard in the nose, twice.

Jacobs hauls the wheel hard left and shouts for the rigging change. The bosun formally relays the order, but the men are already in action. The metal blocks groan and screech as the men throw every bit of strength they have into fighting the wind. The ship bears hard to port, and just as I feared, the wind and inertia cause the whole ship to lean hard starboard. If we hadn’t already been slowed down so much by the Pallas stealing our wind, we surely would have capsized. Gear slides hard starboard, and one man loses his grip and slides overboard into the freezing water. There’s no hope of rescuing the man – the cold will claim him in minutes, even if the crushing waves don’t pulverize him against our hull.

The William is headed straight toward our starboard hull as we right ourselves like a cork. Our deck levels, and the master gunner gives the order to fire the port guns as our sails catch the wind. The cannons fire in almost perfect unison an instant before the Wild Justice launches forward with the full force of the storm pushing her.

[... And if you want to find out what happens next, help me get this book published by sharing this post anywhere publishers, editors, or agents are likely to see it. Thanks mates!]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Romanticizing Villains Isn't (Always) About Romance

I saw an old Facebook post yesterday that intrigued me:


The ensuing argument dwelt chiefly on distinguishing mass murdering villains from super-powered thieves; basically the contention was that not all super villains are really evil, and those that are, don't get much affection except in the love-to-hate category. The argument could also have gone a number of other directions. It could have been pointed out that comic books and television shows alike have many, many instances of villains becoming heroes (or at least trying to be), so the desire to write about redemption is clearly not a proclivity exclusive to women or to fans. It could also have been pointed out that people have romanticized villains for a very, very long time, to the point that people imagine Wagnerian tropes and Errol Flynn more readily than they can call forth actual historical knowledge about vikings and pirates.

Redeeming something and romanticizing it aren't exactly the same thing, of course, but they do tend to go hand-in-hand. Redemption entails furthering the character's story as is, while romanticizing entails retelling or revising it (a frequent indulgence of fan fiction); revisions in the form of retcons or plot-twists may be used to soften the the villain so that his/her atonement will seem more believable or reasonable.

The basic question though, was:
"Why do fangirls insist on romanticizing villains?" 
Long ago, I thought it had to do with a culturally instilled idea that the 'fixer upper' was desirable. There's this antiquated idea that if a woman wants a man who'll make her happy, she needs to find a really messed up one, and give him a massive makeover. (This also applies to houses.) That doesn't really map to the spirit of the thing, though. I'm sure there are people who have Mary Sue fantasies about taking some sexy villain and rebuilding him into a heroic love interest. It's basically a power-and-control fantasy akin to Taming of the Shrew, and I have no doubt there are women who enjoy that, but I seriously doubt that typifies the phenomenon in question.

And I should note, I don't know if the implicit assumption is accurate - without an in depth qualitative analysis of fan-generated content and its consumers, it's impossible to say whether 'fangirls' romanticize villains any more than 'fanboys' do. Anecdotally, the "Starscream fangirl" has been a generally accepted archetype within the Transformers fandom for so long that there is an actual Transformers character based on the cliche. So, to me it feels true, but the nature of stereotypes is that they "feel true."

Still, it was an interesting question to ponder, so for the sake of argument, let's assume for the moment that there really are a disproportionate number of female fans (versus male fans) who are more engaged by stories which make a villain the protagonist than by the default, mainstream, the-hero-is-the-hero story. Let's assume that characters like Draco Malfoy, Captain Cold, and Loki really do appeal more to women than to men, and that women are particularly fascinated by reading and generating stories which show that, 'they really aren't that bad.'

Mythological Roots

Much of western story-telling has its roots in classical mythology. The tall tales and folklore of ancient Greece and Rome established many of the archetypal hero/villain dichotomies that we take for granted now. Essentially, all modern western fiction exists within a cultural context built on classical mythology. An important quality of classical mythology is that it is extremely sexist in the sense that it does treat male and female characters very differently.

By my general perception, women in mythology are usually limited to three roles:

1. Aiding a Male Hero

Male heroes often owe their success to the intervention of a sympathetic female character, but that character is still unquestionably a supporting character rather than the main protagonist. By default, these women tend to be bland and two-dimensional, even compared to the simplistic male heroes they are presented next to. The story does not start with them, and often doesn't end with them. They are inspired to act heroically not for the sake of their own motivations, but for the male hero's needs. They are, as characters, "lame."

Furthermore, these women often suffer tragically for their part in the male hero's story. Ariadne and Medea's roles necessitate betraying their families, which in itself is rather tragic, yet it is downplayed, minimized, or dismissed; the moral conflict that their actions should entail is generally disregarded, as if to say 'well of course she betrayed them, she's a woman'. Furthermore, both were ultimately spurned by the men they sacrificed everything to help, driving home the idea that they are nothing more than Bond-girl plot-devices.

Notably, their endings are so tragic that Medea ends up being driven totally bat-crap crazy, murdering multiple people and flying off in a chariot drawn by dragons.

One assumes Medea also stopped to invent the microphone, just so she could drop it on her way out.

2. Hindering a Male Hero 

While Medea's murder spree and mustache-twirling dragon exit are a rather extreme example, women are often antagonists in classical mythology. It should be noted, though, that there is a pretty low bar here: 'female antagonist' encompasses almost any female character which does not immediately give the male hero what he wants. Hippolyta, for example, was clearly not a villain, but for the purposes of Heracles' story, she was the source of conflict, an obstacle to him achieving his 'heroic' mission to steal her clothing (and in some versions, ends up dead despite giving it to him as a gift).

Knupfer's classic, The Panty Raid of Hercules.

And that brings up another point - classical heroes don't necessarily have the noble aspirations of their modern counterparts. Sometimes they act compassionately (e.g., Theseus volunteering to face the Minotaur), but their quests are usually built around seeking some reward, whether it's glory, treasure, a beautiful woman, or a favored spot in the afterlife. Even the punitive Labors of Heracles are more about clearing his record than about a moral journey towards redemption or resolving his grief over the family he killed. The respectability of the male hero's agenda in mythology is often dubious by modern standards, and is sometimes overtly selfish, yet the male characters are considered 'heroic' because they fight for what they want and persist in the face of adversity.

However, there's a distinct double standard here. The motivations and qualities associated with male heroism in storytelling often lead to villainy for female characters. A vengeful lover murders her children, an ambitious queen commits treason, etc. Motivations which would drive a male character towards greatness do the opposite for women in these stories, and as a result, a woman who pursues her own drives, wants, or needs, is almost inevitably made into the villain by the story-teller - and this applies to fiction and non-fiction stories alike.

However, up to the 20th century, female villains were by far more interesting than their 'good girl' counterparts. Nimue, Morgan le Fay, Lady MacBeth, Milady de Winter, are all more intriguing and exciting than their contemporary female non-villains. They aren't interesting because they're villains, they are interesting because they have their own motivations. As a result, if you want to find a cool female hero dated from before the 1900s, you almost have to adapt her from a villain. And it works well; the villains have compelling and relatable origin stories which provide excellent raw materials for reinterpretation as misunderstood heroes. That being the case, it shouldn't be too surprising if women are used to reinventing villains as protagonists.

3. Being a Victim

Besides antagonists and supporting characters, mythology and folklore obviously abound with damsels-in-distress. Most of them exist to be rescued and married (usually in that order) by the male hero. That's not always the case, though. I would argue that the closest thing to a modern heroine in classical mythology is the self-rescuing victim of sexual assault. Preserving her own 'virtue' is generally the only personal motivation a woman can have in classical mythology that makes her the hero of the story, and it's less often about defending her right to bodily autonomy and freedom from coercion, and more often about protecting her sacred virginity.

But the respect female characters are given in this regard is pretty inconsistent. The sexual predator is still often the main character of the story; for example, Pan pursues and ultimately murders the nymph Syrinx in one of his stories. Sometimes the offender is depicted as the protagonist of the story; Zeus is the hero in Io's story only in the sense that being transformed into a heifer and raped is relatively preferable to being murdered (and that's debatable depending on how one feels about cows). On the occasion that the woman overcomes the man, either by her own cunning or by invoking the favor of the gods through her piety, there can be dire consequences, as if the storyteller is suggesting she should have just 'let it happen'. Athena escapes assault by Hephaestus, but a dangerous monster is created as a result of her resistance, and when Poseidon rapes one of Athena's priestesses, the goddess ensures it will never happen to the woman again by transforming said priestess into one of the most well known antagonists of all time.

The First Super Villain

Athena's priestess, Medusa becomes a horrific monster with fantastic powers which protect her from any man who would attack her. She is eventually beheaded by Perseus, who heroically avenges the scores of men who she killed... in self-defense. It's glazed over in the myth, but Medusa hadn't razed villages or kidnapped some innocent maiden, she was simply a recluse, attempting to hide herself from a violent world, but she gains infamy for killing the scores of men who attacked her. It's no surprise that Medusa eventually became a cult hero among feminists.

And it's perhaps Medusa in whom the connection to modern fiction should be most readily evident. Her snake-haired, petrifying visage has imperiled countless modern heroes (and heroines) who've overcome her either by decapitating her or turning her deadly gaze back upon her.

Awesome artwork by Drew Johnson and Sean Phillips,
but a depressing scenario in the context of this blog post.
 
Other classical monsters like the Minotaur or the Lernaen Hydra are also ubiquitous in modern fiction, but Medusa has some things that they don't: a tragic backstory, a horrific transformation, and a tortured existence. Medusa belongs in a comic book. She could easily sympathize with the likes of Mr. Freeze or Morbius the Living Vampire. Like the Hulk in his early, monstrous appearances, she just wants to be left alone, yet is persistently harassed by people who seek out confrontation with her.

Unlike her comic book counterparts, however, Medusa doesn't endure some karmic punishment for developing a deadly gamma bomb or experimenting on her own DNA. She's punished - not only in the context of the story, but in her remembrance by storytellers - for being a woman. She's not even a bold woman who challenges societal norms or cultural traditions; she plays by the rules of the culture she's immersed in, and still ends up being made into the bad guy.

That more-or-less embodies the treatment of women throughout western history - damned if you do, damned if you don't - women have been treated like crap, and when they have stepped up to do something about it, they have been treated worse. Suffragettes were obviously not treated well in their time, and those who didn't fully abandon their cause during World War I are still remembered as "radicals", branded as extremists because they believed their basic rights as citizens didn't magically become irrelevant when they were called upon to support the male heroes of the story. And if that doesn't strike a familiar cord, read any given internet conversation about women's reproductive rights in 2017 - women advocating for their own bodily autonomy are 'whores', 'murderers', or even perpetrators of 'genocide' as far as the probirth camp is concerned.

Implications for Fandom

If 'fangirls' really do have an inclination to retell the stories of modern villains to make them over into protagonists, anti-heroes, or even outright heroes, then I would suggest this as the reason:
In a long history of retelling stories, imagining different perspectives to voice different experiences and points of view, the 'redeemed villain' fan-fiction expresses the feelings and historical perspective associated with the creators' identity.
In classical mythology, the male heroes don't buck the system. Zeus is by most accounts an asshole, but the other gods, goddesses, demigods, and mortal heroes, practically fall all over themselves serving him, and when they don't, they're consistently the 'bad guys' in the story. In the world of comic book super-villains, though, things are very different. In the dichotomy between the domineering father and the obedient-turned-rebellious son, the son is often the hero who stands up to 'the man.' Even though it's often a male character, the moral journey is allegorical for the feminist struggle against patriarchy.

When Quicksilver stands up to Magneto he's doing something very difficult at a personal level, and although it likely speaks to male readers, I think it may carry more symbolic weight with women.

When Quicksilver gets cut off at the knees for his defiance in Ultimate X-Men,
many women can probably metaphorically sympathize with that as well.
 

When Draco Malfoy's villainy is revealed to be the product of childhood abuse and indoctrination by his father, he likewise proxies for the woman whose upbringing has pressured her to betray her own morals or beliefs in obedience to the system. A fan fiction author whose story focuses on Draco breaking from that programming and becoming the hero of the story may represent a desire for women to not only do the same, but to have their heroism brought out into the light and acknowledged.

And acknowledgement matters. In classical mythology, the heroes are recognized and praised for their abilities. They're encouraged to succeed, praised for their achievements, and admired for their victories; a Greek hero can receive accolades for cleaning a stable. In the context of a culture which has generally tended to dismiss women's abilities and permitted men to steal credit for their work, I doubt that women have ever found it easy to relate to superstars like Hercules. In the world of comic books, however, we have many heroic characters who act anonymously. These individuals are often actively persecuted by the government or the news media, and some even deliberately accept the mantle of villainy in order to help people. At the extreme, the character's intentions are sometimes uncertain even to the reader, only revealed at the end of the story.

Marvel's interpretation of Loki might be the ultimate embodiment of that idea. When Loki ran in the 2016 U.S. presidential election (no, really, I'm not making this up), it's ultimately revealed that his antics served primarily to make amends for harm he'd accidentally visited upon a woman decades earlier. Loki invests extraordinary time and effort in this particular mischief, and ultimately humiliates himself in front of the world, to help one woman (it also places "Don" in his debt when he concedes early, but I don't think he can be blamed for using the opportunity for a little extortion). Playing his game at an even higher level than a 'mere' presidential election, in the Earth X series he effectively saves the world, but until his efforts pay-off, his actions appear nefarious.

To be fair, I think his apparent trustworthiness was undermined by his choice to abandon his nose.

So when a 'fangirl' outlines a childhood in Asgard where the gender-fluid god was consistently eclipsed by his hyper-masculine brother, and then explains how Loki's actions, while appearing outwardly sinister, were really heroic all along, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to speculate that their story doesn't express 'Ooh, Tom Hiddleston is dreamy,' so much as it expresses the desire to have one's apparent 'villainy' finally recognized as misunderstood heroism.

Unlike classic heroes in the vein of Perseus, Theseus, and Jason, the modern antihero reflects women's experiences as well as men's (if not better) and the desire to revise a charismatic or fun villain into a sympathetic protagonist likely reflects that resonance. If 'fangirls' do indeed tend toward "romanticizing" the bad boys, it's likely not because of some lust for a dangerous liaison, but because they've been inspired by their own experiences as 'villains' within a society that glorifies male power and achievement.

That said, I'll leave you with this relatively recent moment in Marvel comics, and remind you that, yes, Squirrel Girl is canon:

Loki: Asgardian God of Cat Memes


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

James N. McDonald is a "liberal academic" born and raised in Missouri and residing in Tennessee. He holds one degree in history, two degrees in psychology, but loves writing fiction. His first, completed novel, The Rise of Azraea, Book I, is a high fantasy story with elements of comic fantasy and satire targeting present day, real world issues such as economic inequity, and sexual and racial discrimination. It is currently available on Amazon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Script

Many people who read this are probably wondering at the idea of male characters representing emotional outlets for oppressed women. It seems depressing to think that our society is so lacking in female heroes that even feminist ideals have to be expressed with male characters. However, there are a LOT of female heroes, so if female fans do prefer writing and reading about male characters over female characters, then it seems likely that there's something absent from the female heroes, such that they miss some beat that characters like Loki hit.

Women fighting patriarchy in a very literal, punch-it-til-it-breaks sort of way have been a part of comics since Wonder Woman started beating up fascists in December of 1941. It may be that the direct approach of a demigoddess tossing tanks through the air doesn't really capture the emotional experience associated with being a woman. Since Wonder Woman can, and has, beaten the snot out of Superman, she hasn't exactly been marginalized or underestimated in the Justice League. Perhaps that lack of conflict invites less adoption, adaptation, and reinterpretation. 

On the other hand, heroic women who started out rebelling from their roles as villainous servants of patriarchal forces have been a common theme in cartoons, comics, TV shows, movies, etc. for a long time - Scarlet Witch, Black Widow, She-Ra, Talia Al Ghul, Black Arachnia, Harley Quinn, Angelina Jolie's Maleficent, Regina Mills, and even Smurfette all spring to mind immediately. Maybe it's such a ubiquitous cliche that the transition sometimes seems trite? In the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Black Widow is shown to be as adept at deception and manipulation as Loki, but she's so readily accepted as a hero that almost no one on screen or even in the theater seems to question her motives. 

On the other hand, Harley Quinn obviously struggles with towing the hero line, with doubt perpetually sewn as to which way she'll fall at any given moment. Harley also bucks a major trope of the reformed bad-girl; ordinarily the villainess who turns good does so because she falls in love with a male hero. Harley, quite unusually, has to overcome her love for a man in order to become good - a far more compelling and interesting development for the character. Perhaps Harley's success is directly attributable to her moral conflict being relatively rare in female characters.