![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
anghraineAn anon on Tumblr asked:
I don't understand, what are your feelings on the problem of Susan? I take it most people are angry, or at least disappointed, about the implications of her ultimate fate. You don't think it was problematic?
Of course it is. It comes out of virtually nowhere and is very, very gendered. What I dislike is the constant, uncritical parroting of things like this, which is virtually the only thing I ever see about her:
“There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because she found sex. I have a big problem with that.” (JK Rowling)
1) As much as I dislike the entire construction of Susan’s apostasy, “lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick” is painfully simplistic and reductionist. What is actually stated is that Susan doesn’t care about anything except lipstick/nylons/parties/etc and has largely forgotten Narnia, and the years she spent as queen regnant, altogether. There is a vast difference between “because she becomes interested in lipstick” and “because she has no interest in anything else.”
2) I also think the instant equation between ‘interested in dressing up and going to parties’ and ‘sex’ is kind of gross, tbh. She probably did find sex? (Again. We all know Rabadash’s appeal wasn’t his personality.) But drawing a straight line from ‘absorbed in looking good and having fun’ to ‘sex’ without any justification (e.g., if the list had been ‘lipstick and nylons and boys’) is itself pretty sketchy? It relies, I think, on the assumption that women’s “primping” is inherently about making themselves sexually appealing (implicitly to men). She’s preoccupied with beauty and enjoying herself socially? Oh it must be about men. Bleh.
In context, I think it’s far more likely that Susan has become absorbed in Susan. Her exclusive interest in lipstick-nylons-parties is a marker of vanity, and a specifically feminine-coded superficiality.
Which, ugh. But it’s more complex than the kneejerk ‘Susan is condemned for finding sex!’ And I dislike the insistence that Susan’s fate must be some kind of empowerment—not as an interpretation, but as the only one. It’s one way to read the text, but it’s become oddly dogmatic and, well, preachy, without (IMO) a whole lot of support. I particularly dislike it when accompanied by the implication that Susan is the only one who really grew up, esp that Lucy is immature and unenlightened.
I don't understand, what are your feelings on the problem of Susan? I take it most people are angry, or at least disappointed, about the implications of her ultimate fate. You don't think it was problematic?
Of course it is. It comes out of virtually nowhere and is very, very gendered. What I dislike is the constant, uncritical parroting of things like this, which is virtually the only thing I ever see about her:
“There comes a point where Susan, who was the older girl, is lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick. She’s become irreligious basically because she found sex. I have a big problem with that.” (JK Rowling)
1) As much as I dislike the entire construction of Susan’s apostasy, “lost to Narnia because she becomes interested in lipstick” is painfully simplistic and reductionist. What is actually stated is that Susan doesn’t care about anything except lipstick/nylons/parties/etc and has largely forgotten Narnia, and the years she spent as queen regnant, altogether. There is a vast difference between “because she becomes interested in lipstick” and “because she has no interest in anything else.”
2) I also think the instant equation between ‘interested in dressing up and going to parties’ and ‘sex’ is kind of gross, tbh. She probably did find sex? (Again. We all know Rabadash’s appeal wasn’t his personality.) But drawing a straight line from ‘absorbed in looking good and having fun’ to ‘sex’ without any justification (e.g., if the list had been ‘lipstick and nylons and boys’) is itself pretty sketchy? It relies, I think, on the assumption that women’s “primping” is inherently about making themselves sexually appealing (implicitly to men). She’s preoccupied with beauty and enjoying herself socially? Oh it must be about men. Bleh.
In context, I think it’s far more likely that Susan has become absorbed in Susan. Her exclusive interest in lipstick-nylons-parties is a marker of vanity, and a specifically feminine-coded superficiality.
Which, ugh. But it’s more complex than the kneejerk ‘Susan is condemned for finding sex!’ And I dislike the insistence that Susan’s fate must be some kind of empowerment—not as an interpretation, but as the only one. It’s one way to read the text, but it’s become oddly dogmatic and, well, preachy, without (IMO) a whole lot of support. I particularly dislike it when accompanied by the implication that Susan is the only one who really grew up, esp that Lucy is immature and unenlightened.
no subject
on 2018-12-13 08:33 pm (UTC)It is extremely tedious,, though. I mean, it's not like there's any lack of things to criticize in Narnia!