Rosencrantz2
2d ago
Well, what if "going through something tough" had simply been that her (Cinderella's) sisters got nice clothes and such while she had to wear hand-me-downs; the sisters got to go to fancy events while she didn't, etc. In that case, she's not particularly doing any chores. It seems to me that with that change, the story would not be fundamentally different.
It's an interesting thought experiment. There have been uncountable versions of Cinderella around the world, probably some of which have originated independently. It really is a foundational story type. Perhaps there are versions like the one you suggest where Cinderella is mistreated but doesn't distinguish herself in how she reacts to that. And sure the story would still work as there'd be satisfaction in seeing someone who's been treated unfairly winning the lottery, husband and wealth wise. But it's gonna work best if we think she's a good person who bears her misfortune with patience and is kind to small animals. And if we think she's a bad person, who joins her ugly sisters in mistreating others and would happily join their ranks, the story is hardly going to work at all.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
I agree it's not how the story is framed (it's not a meta story), but it's how the story works. We wouldn't accept her being rewarded if she didn't demonstrate her character by having gone through something tough first. Granted, the Miller's Boy and Cat is not exactly the same in that the princess chooses Foolish Hans, then tests him with the seven years of labour before actually rewarding him. But it's made explicit that he is neither talented nor clever, just someone who gets on with drudgework in an unquestioning manner, so the message is similar in its appeal: that if you're lucky, you may find yourself catapulted from your long suffering peasant life to fabulous riches without having to do anything particularly out of the ordinary.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
No, she isn't proving her worthiness to the prince with these actions. She's proved her worthiness to us the audience through her previous years of suffering with dignity though. The prince etc is her reward for that from our point of view, even though he probably doesn't know anything about her other than her beauty. You'll see this sometimes the other way round where an action hero gets the girl at the end despite her having only a very vague idea of what he's just done. E.g. he runs out of a burning building and they kiss, all she knows is that he's survived. Narratively her love is the reward for what we the audience know makes him worthy. (In such stories there's usually also an A plot in which he saves the world or such.)
I could believe that in-story characters rewarding a protagonist just for being beautiful and themselves is more common with female characters. I think they still have to manifest their character in action for us the audience to see they deserve to be selected by the Prince though.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
It's true, but what the boy has to do to prove to the cat he is worthy is pretty easy – just stick around and do the chores he is told to do. And it's worth noting that even in Cinderella, she is not literally taken from rags to riches with no agency. She has to 'do' a few things like blend in at a high society event, disguising her real identity; sprint out of the ball before midnight to avoid humiliation; and escape being locked in a room by her stepmother so that she can try on the slipper and prove she is the woman the prince danced with.
Rosencrantz2
2d ago
The Poor Miller's Boy and the Cat is pretty much exactly Cinderella but with a boy. Basically the king's daughter, in the form of a cat picks a poor and mistreated but hardworking boy to live with her in a golden palace. https://www.grimmstories.com/en/grimm_fairy-tales/the_poor_millers_boy_and_the_cat
I guess it's not as famous because it's a bit less plausible a fantasy for a boy to be picked out of obscurity by a princess than for a girl to be picked by a prince.
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
I've only watched the first season of the Diplomat, but there is loads of stuff of her hating to dress up for functions, mentioning she needs the toilet or her chair squeaking at undiplomatic moments, and such. It struck me as a character flaw that was not really a flaw, because she is played by Keri Russell and basically looks perfect and is perfectly charming throughout and even when stumbling over her words. Like you I actually quite liked her character and the show, and only meant my crowd-pleasing comment to apply to that aspect of her characterisation, in contrast to a show where the heroine's flaws make her genuinely offputting to a big slice of the audience.
Re Fleabag, I think her flaws in ep1 are genuinely offputting (they did put you off, and me, in that I watched the pilot and didn't return to it for a couple of years) and in that sense the show is not a people pleaser. It may be in others, sure, though I think the winking naughtiness turns out later to be well-rooted in character (and actually in character pain).
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
It's kind of the MO for prestigey shows to have a reverse save-the-cat moment or several early on to make you dislike the main character, then get you to sympathise with them regardless as you get to know them over the course of the series. For this reason it may not be a bad thing for a creator if their audience dislikes the character at first – certainly I didn't much like Fleabag (the character) in the pilot ep, though I came to like her more. Any online man who's apt to hate her initially is therefore actually positioned to have an especially powerful viewing experience – though only if they actually persevere with the show.
Rosencrantz2
4d ago
As a small public service here are a few excellent shows with extremely flawed female lead characters: Nighty Night, Enlightened, Six Feet Under, Pluribus, Killing Eve, Fleabag. Many more, but these spring to mind.
The more crowd pleasing you go the less flawed they get, so you get The Diplomat on Netflix where the main character is basically a bit disorganised and supposedly not good at manners and fashion. Or Homeland where our character is paranoid but her mental illness feels kind of separate to her (she is fundamentally good but has to deal with her own mania and paranoia).
But dig deeper and there is plenty of entertainment out there that features flawed women by creators with a deeper understanding of character than the person in the above video, and they aren't actually offensive to feminists or feminism at all as far as I can tell.
A truly competent lazy person would not say that, they would find the quickest way to get an okay mark without being hassled by the teacher. Or they would simply cheat and do just fine.
More options
Context Copy link