This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Harry Potter and the R63'd MalfoyDræcina Malfoid and Male Romantic Fantasies
I want to talk about the other major AI-driven development that burst onto the internet this week. RW Twitter has been having a tremendous time rewriting Harry Potter with a Rule63'd Tsundere Draco Malfoy, who eventually falls for Harry despite family upbringing, pureblood prejudice, etc. This intersects with the CW in several ways so I'm going to have to put it here, but despite that I think it's all been a tremendous amount of fun.
Some examples: Harry loses a bet and has to ask Malfoid to the Yule Ball, AI video version of various Malfoid images/writing.
I'm going to speculate on why I think this has caught fire now, but the thing I think most interesting is how pretty much all the Malfoid stuff I've seen is actually quite wholesome and earnest, and that it's a really interesting data point in the endless discussions around sex, dating, and love we have around here. The next few paragraphs are context for people who might've missed it; skim or skip them if you like.
This doesn't feel like it should be new. Harry Potter was one of the biggest fanfiction communities back in the day, and that community has already gone through and shipped pretty much everyone with everyone else, and I'm certain any given character in the books has been sex-swapped at least once. But this time we get a very right-wing chud take on the Wizarding World: 'our wholesome, blessed "Malfoid" vs. their godless, degenerate Fem!Draco' (as in that meme with the two kingdoms).
So why now? I didn't see the inciting event, but I think the ground has been fertile for something like this to crystallize out of the Harry Potter universe for a few reasons. Harry Potter seems like cultural ground ripe for squatting or recapture: through the 2010s and early 2020s it was so thoroughly associated with a certain type of NPR-liberal-quirk-chungus lefty, to the point that "READ ANOTHER BOOK" was a common RW dunk whenever political/cultural events were compared to Literally Wizard Hitler. Rowling herself was very much in lockstep with her progressive readership on pretty much every issue, but broke ranks with them on transgender issues, leaving the average progressive more than a bit unsure what to do with their fondly re-re-re-read collection of HP novels and their Gryffyndor scarves. The result, I think, is that it's something like an abandoned fort in the culture war - nominally held by the left but not strongly, because of the uncomfortable association with Rowling. On top of that, Harry Potter was one of the last big cultural forces that reached nearly everyone - the title reveal of one of the later books was a story worth printing in a newspaper on its own and bookshops had massive queues on release day. On top of that, the story and world don't hang together if you look at all closely, so it's a tempting target for fanfiction writers to reach into and change or fix. On top of that, there's the absurd casting for the new series featuring (to use the the most prominent example) Paapa Essiedu as a very urban-looking Professor Snape that makes it ripe for mockery from the right.
The result has been a lot of chaotic glee that Harry Potter is up for recapture and reinterpretation. Cedric Diggory becomes Chudrick Diggory, whose absurd musculature would require him to walk sideways through doors and transfigure his shirts on and off each day; Luna Lovegood seems like she'd cheerfully mention crime statistics without caring who was in earshot; and Snape seems to be either played straight in the Alan Rickman style or used as a vehicle to mock woke casting or urban norms and behavior. The chuds are rediscovering fanfiction from first principles, using it to poke sticks in eyes or roll back some of the idiocy of the past few years, and they're doing a lot of it with AI.
The online right's willingness to use AI to make media seems to me like it's going to become an increasingly valuable strategic asset that the left is not going to be as able to pick up (because anti-AI/anti-datacenter viewpoints are now part of the standard lefty package). Even before AI, memes have had very short lifecycles, and so having an AI-literate bunch of memers messing around means they are able to reinterpret and exploit memes much better while they're relevant. A competent right would be able to use these skills to improve general messaging and react better to moves in the wider zeitgeist - I think we saw a bit of this with the "Amelia" character in the UK, where a purple-haired radical in an anti-extremist "game" was discovered by the right repurposed into a waifu and used to drive some of the early Restore Britain messaging from outside the party.
"Malfoid" is also an interesting name for the character. "Foid" seems to have lost a lot of the hateful connotations that the original incel use carried, and gets a bit of use as an ironic term of affection similar to some of the wifejak memes from a couple of years ago. But "Malfoid" is not that at all. The name is a funny pun whose time has come, but her character is proud, competent, well-bred, told to consider half-bloods like Harry beneath her, but unable to completely extinguish her growing feelings for Harry as he grows in courage, skill, and daring into the hero of the series. It is the re-emergence of a romantic fantasy for men that we haven't seen for a long time: a woman who falls for a man just the way he is, because he's grown so much that she can't help it.
So, with all that context aside, let's talk about male romantic fantasies. It is extremely interesting to me that there seems to be very little goonbait in the Malfoid stuff I've seen, but a lot of the writing has hit a nerve for romantically starved men in the current sexual climate.
@kenzietuffon X, in the credits for an AIgen animation of Harry and Malfoid dancing at the Yule Ball, gives special thanks "to all chuds with sensitive hearts who still believe in love, despite it all". There's a sincerity in the writing that's very endearing, and the almost complete absence of smut contrasts it to the femgooner booktok slop that's been doing the rounds online (we've discussed e.g. Morning Glory Milking Farm in these threads before).@TheBrandonMorseon X put it very well, so I'll just quote his tweet verbatim:Another X commenter (
@Kit_Shicker) also deserves to have insight recognized:This certainly resonated with me and reminded me of my lonely years trying to find someone to love. An old reddit post I revisit now and then sums it up thus: "A man wants to be loved for who he is, not for what he does in order to be loved. [...] When he can finally let go of the crank he continually turns day after day in order to earn love and, even if only for a moment, it turns by itself to nourish him in return, that is when he will know he is loved." Malfoid is exactly this, but without the unhealthy "someone should love me the way I am, so I should never have to change", because that last part is replaced by Harry's growth. His growth earns the love because it's not done to earn the love. I've always hated the "men only want one thing and it's disgusting" accusations and I think they actually wouldn't truly hit a large proportion of actual men, but the number of cads and lotharios who seduce and disappoint many women through their interactions skew those perceptions. Sure, male sexuality also involves getting one's own rocks off from time to time, but for a man like me there's a big spot in my heart for some good honest love, and it's really interesting and gratifying to see that spontaneously re-emerge in the online cauldron.
If you want MOAR:
Romantasy is a minor hobby of mine so I have a lot of thoughts about this. Romantasy is, essentially, the live literary genre in America today. Outwardly you get these viral romances every few years or so (Fifty Shades of Grey, Heated Rivalry, Fault in Our Stars, The Notebook, Twilight, etc.) More esoterically however these romances shape the literary world in invisible and hidden ways. (Everything is edited and audited by women now and I have good reason to suspect that a lot of female authors are male writers on a penname.)
I highly recommend everyone finding a romantasy they can stomach and giving it a go. They're fun because they're so simple and cliched that you can read what is nominally a several-hundred page book in a couple of hours. Get an airport book or pick up some schlock from a local free library on your next neighborhood walk. The more they make you groan and cringe the better. The point is that the genre is supposed to be extremely cliched, it's not supposed to be good, and that's what makes it work. The cliches reveal something deeper about how story and archetype work, like Jung. The more they try to be "good" the less they say because the writer is chafing out of embarrassment out of what is a natural form. I like McDonalds, I think a lot of fancier burgers are worse burgers, the burger is supposed to be casual, it's not supposed to take itself seriously.
This is a common complaint about Harry Potter and I think it misunderstands what makes Harry Potter good.
Generally a "story and world that hang together" are bad things. The desire for a world where everything makes sense is fundamentally a nerd's preoccupation. The real world itself usually doesn't have a story and rules that hang together. It's extremely realistic for a story to work this way, the apparent inconsistency means it's generally tapping into something deeper. Tying the lore together with more- and more-consistent rules actually makes everything worse because they were never needed, it's like plastering a beautiful country highway in billboards. All the extra signs that communicate more (more is better right?) detract from what was actually good in the first place (Harry Potter is whimsical and magical).
Take Time-Turners. A consistent feature of Harry Potter discussion for twenty years has been that Time-Turners don't make sense. Time travel introduces all sorts of what-if scenarios (why didn't they use Time-Turners to prevent Voldemort's rise?). Time travel works inconsistently with the already-established magical lore of the series. It especially "doesn't make sense" to give time travel to a thirteen-year-old girl merely so that she can study more in school. It really doesn't make sense if you think about it for two minutes.
But really, it's all fine, it doesn't matter. Everything that "doesn't make sense" happens "off-screen". Within the story, nobody treats the existence of Time-Turners as invalidating the setting. Harry doesn't meditate on how he wishes they had Time-Turners to solve their problems, Dumbledore doesn't give a wink-and-a-nod remark to the reader about how you'd be foolish to consider using Time-Turners to solve all your problems. Those things would actually make Harry Potter worse, they would self-ironically acknowledge the problem. When, actually, Time-Turners only have these problems in your head, not in the actual world of the story. So you can just as easily invent other explanations in your head. Make up whatever you want. They're extremely dangerous and regulated technologies and nobody uses them because the consequences are unpredictable. They gave one to a teenager because they're basically safe in extremely limited applications like studying more classes. Maybe they've done it before, maybe they have a list somewhere of safe applications and they do this all the time. Maybe most people don't even know about them. Whatever. It doesn't happen on-screen so it doesn't matter, you can fill in the gaps however you want. Having a real explanation in the story itself would make it worse.
It's like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Famously, the characters don't see anything until the audience sees it, which is how you have scenes where they're visually stunned by the sudden emergence of a graveyard out of the landscape that realistically they would have seen on the horizon half an hour ago. That's the logic of how a story works. When Time-Turners are on-screen, they don't cause any of the problems that people imagine they must cause. So there must be some explanation, it happens off-screen, who cares. It's fun to watch Harry and Hermione go back in time.
It's all goonbait. Malfoid is inherently goonbait. The trend might not revolve around tentacles and bugged-out ahegao eyes or dirty sexual fantasies, but it is essentially all slop.
A common theme I keep hearing is that Malfoid "fixes" problems with the original Harry Potter. But who said that Harry Potter needs fixing?
For example, I've heard many say that the Malfoid romance fixes the original series' lack of dramatic romance. Who said the original series needs that? I've heard that Malfoid and Harry could unite in the finale and stop Voldemort together, or that Malfoid could be Harry's "reward," or that Malfoid allows the ending to have a dramatic climax of romantic love. Why does the finale need any of those things? Harry Potter is already about love, he dies in the embrace of his dead family, he sacrifices himself for his friends. If you add a romantic interest in, it completely changes the emotional valence, and therefore the symbolic logic, of the ending and thus the entire series. It's a matter of taste if you like it better that way I suppose. But it's not deeper or richer, it's actually simpler. It sacrifices the deeper kinds of love depicted for the cheap dopamine of Big Hero Romance. It's the big neon lights of plotting and style, supersize me, let's add explosions and Michael Bay. There's a deeper reason Malfoid fans draw from the well of anime -- anime is an explosive medium of emotions made simpler and larger. That's inherent to cartoons as compared to live human beings. Everything is flattened into the 2nd Dimension and made more expressive at the same time.
This shift is the emotional and stylistic analogue of goonbait. It doesn't matter if artistically everyone is wholesome and chaste. Emotionally, Malfoid is porn. It's cartoonified. It serves exactly the same function as a Romantasy novel to actual romance. You simplify real human complexities to romanticized archetypes to satisfy a human fantasy. It's porn.
As another example, I've heard many say that Malfoy lacks a redemption arc and so Malfoid adds something necessary. Well... Malfoy already has a redemption arc. Three times (by my count) he refuses to participate in the evil that's asked of him. (He refuses to kill Dumbledore; he abstains from identifying Harry in Malfoy Manor; he flees when Crabbe and Goyle confront the trio in the Room of Requirement over the Horcrux.) Additionally, his family also backs down from the ledge, at the final climactic moment, after Voldemort has "killed" Harry, in the scene with Draco's mother Narcissus. She examines Harry's "corpse," asks him if Draco is alive, and covers up that Harry is alive. The symbolic logic here is that the Malfoys have collectively long been over their head and regret, in some capacity, their evil deeds. For all this they are rewarded in the finale by happily reuniting, all alive, allowed to participate in the final festivities. This is in fact a kind of redemption, and it's very realistic to how someone who has done a lot of bad things might finally back away at the brink from true evil.
This is all extremely important thematically and symbolically. Harry beats Voldemort in the end because the Elder Wand recognizes Harry as its master, because Harry beat Draco and Draco "beat" Dumbledore. The ending only happens because Draco backed away from true evil. Some people complain that this is a simple plot contrivance just so that Harry can win somehow in the end. But thematically it's very consistent with one of Rowling's big themes, which is that sympathy for evil doers is a path for their own redemption. It happens over and over again in Book 7. Harry acquires the locket by sympathizing with the neglected Kreacher. Harry's life is saved by Wormtail's moment of hesitation, which is symbolic repayment from when Harry once saved Wormtail. Harry resolves the final mysteries through finally sympathizing with Snape when he descends into Snape's memory. Dumbledore practically beats the reader over the head with this idea over and over again throughout the books, and it comes through in the finale which is only possible because of Harry's sympathy for Draco.
But the Malfoid fans want something more than this. They want a pornified heel-face turn where Malfoid gets to have a Big Damn Moment where she explicitly becomes good. They want Malfoid to stand up and renounce evil, or help Harry somehow in the finale, or declare her love and turn against Voldemort. And on paper that sounds better because it's more explicit and direct. But it basically changes the meaning of the entire story, it changes the symbolic logic of everything that preceded it, it emphasizes "Romantic Love" in the formula "Love Conquers All," which is essentially the same story every other story in the world is already telling.
Is it better, is it worse? That's a matter of taste. But Malfoid doesn't merely add, it changes the entire story, because it's goonbait, because it's porn. The whole thing is goonbait.
Which is to say: it's a fantasy! Malfoid is a male fantasy. It's a fantasy exactly because it reifies an idea of love that is very unrealistic and very attractive to men today. They want to believe that there is a woman out there who will transform herself into the man's mirror image. She loves you so much that she's willing to leave her family, her house, her friends, her ideology all for you. She loves you that much. She's a perfect vessel and receptacle for your personality, she's submissive and breedable. (Yes, I'm identifying a narcissistic element here.) This is an extremely old male fantasy.
But Rowling already gave Harry Potter a romantic interest that is (in classic feminine terms) much more realistic. Harry falls in love with Ginny. Ginny, who was there in the background all along, who comes from a family that gave Harry a lot of succor and support, who was always a natural fit for Harry even when he didn't see it that way. Ginny is, in fact, a recurrence to Harry's mother in the same way that Harry himself is a recurrence to his own father. Ginny is not a male power fantasy, so maybe that even makes it a bad romance -- many including apparently Rowling herself wish she had set Harry up with Hermione instead. But Harry's romantic interest in Ginny is at least realistic, and is not emotional pornschlock. This wasn't something people wanted twenty years ago, but it seems like a very common desire today, for reasons that are probably understood by anyone here who has tried and failed to date in the interim.
Besides that, I think Malfoid is cute enough and I'm enjoying some of the Potter resurgence. But I'll allow myself to be labeled a fanboy and declare that actually nobody is doing it better than JK Rowling did in the first place. Because she actually had an extremely dialed-in idea of what how to tell a story and what people want.
Ooh that’s interesting. Would you say there’s anything noticeably different about the content of the works of the suspected imposters? Do they write for an explicitly female audience and follow all the expected tropes and story beats, or is there something in their works that makes them seem more gender neutral / more from a male perspective?
When you read enough of them you start to notice clear patterns and differences between how men and women write stories. Broadly speaking: Men tend to subordinate emotional states to the plot; women tend to subordinate the plot to emotional states. Male plots have a beginning, middle, and end. Female plots are episodic.
I think it's helpful to think of symbolic logic like a vanishing or focal point point. In artistic imagery, many parts of the image converge on one point over the horizon, the vanishing point. This focal point might be occupied by an object or view being emphasized. A vanishing point might also be empty space. But, fundamentally, there is a "center" that allows us to understand the center, the periphery, convergences and divergences. Literature works the same way. In literature, the meaning of a work converges on some idea or ideas. The symbolic logic of a story might even point toward some conclusion that is unstated in the text itself.
Look at Michelangelo's "Creation of Adam". Everything converges on one point, the image of God reaching his outstretched hand to Adam's slackened hand. We could write forever about every possible interpretation of every element in the composition: God is clothed and Adam is naked; Adam and God are both reclining in the same direction, down to Adam toes mirroring God's; God's celestial chariot is in the shape of the human brain; etc. etc. etc. But obviously the center is about the connection between God and Adam, the hand outstretched and the hand slack, everything is oriented toward one point. If you want to "understand" The Creation of Adam, you have to interpret everything in reference to that one point.
(Well, you don't have to, you can do whatever you want. But my contention is that this is essential to cognition, it's what "meaning" means at all. The Creation of Adam is understandable as more than a collection of random colors and atoms in space, it has a shape, it has a form. These are not just culturally arbitrary constructs, they can be as objective as 2 + 2 = 4. Maybe a future culture won't understand long flowing gray hair to be an obvious sign that this is God. But the symbolic logic is inherent in the painting independent of the culture that observes it.)
Look at Rothko. Rothko's painting tends to be extremely abstract, I won't pretend to draw deeply specific forms out of it. Rothko unlike Michelangelo could be described as "random colors and atoms in space". But they aren't random, at least, that's not how cognition works. There's still a sense that putting everything together draws out a form that has some kind of meaning. I'll use "Multiform No. 9," since it's on Wikipedia and I can quote directly:
You can stand in front of Rothko and feel something, abstract colors and shapes converge on something. Maybe you feel boredom, maybe your interpretation of feeling and sense is vastly different from mine. But the process of how to interpret something are still a one-to-one match for cognition itself. It would be coherent to argue, for instance, that Multiform No. 9 is a portrait, because the lone black shape in the center is starkly different from every other shape, and that this individuation is essentially personhood as such. Whatever else we want to say about Multiform No. 9 can be put aside as flimsy and therefore unimportant here, but this is basically how interpretation works, which is how thinking works.
(A similar idea is that any piece with a sharp horizontal division between upper and lower halves is essentially showing the horizon or the sky. Consider Rothko's "Orange and Yellow". That's the basic shape the sky make when you try to reduce it to a kind of essence, the contrast between the ground and the sky. It's such a strong pattern that anything shaped in two pieces starts to become "the sky," even if there's no literal reason why this should be so, even if you make the colors so unlike the actual sky. Similarly I seem to remember a photo going around after the war in Ukraine broke out that deliberately saturated a field of wheat against the sky until it was yellow and blue like the flag -- because that's what those shapes mean, it's as inherent as Bouba and Kiki.)
Look at Catcher in the Rye. This is even more complicated and it becomes hard to say anything serious about a few hundred pages in just a few sentences. But Catcher in the Rye is a pretty easy case for exposing some of the machinery of how symbolic logic works. The central image of the book, so central that it becomes the title, is the "Catcher in the Rye". Holden Caulfield imagines himself catching children running through a field of rye before they fall off a cliff. It's hard not to interpret this as concerning innocence and protecting the innocence of children. And so it forms part of the evidence for the interpretation that Holden Caulfield might have been sexually abused -- even though there's nothing in the text that explicitly says any of this. It's a kind of vanishing point that converges out of frame.
I have detoured far away, forgive me, but now I can get back to stereotyping men and women.
Male logic tends to converge on one symbolic point. Female logic tends to converge on several different points (which is the same as saying it might not converge at all).
The structure of all romance plots is fundamentally the same: Will they or won't they? Two people meet, they encounter obstacles and fall in love, then they get together.* That's the story. Once they are happily together the story is over, there's nothing left to tell. A lot of romances might add some B plot so there can be a bit more to flesh out (Romeo and Juliet therapy-talk confront their parents ). But fundamentally the story is the shape of the relationship, because it has to be.
Look at The Notebook. Boy meets girl, they fall in love. Then they overcome some obstacles (they break up, they lose touch during the War, girl becomes a woman and is engaged to someone else, they reconnect, she runs away, etc.). But fundamentally the story ends when they have overcome all obstacles to truly consummating their relationship. In fact, the story is really contained within a framing device where they're both old and she has dementia and he is trying to remind her who he is. But symbolically it's the same thing: their love in the past resolves symbolically at the same time their love in the present resolves.
Look at "Red, White, and Royal Blue". This was gay romantasy schlock that got a big-budget Netflix adaptation (Umma Thurman was in it). Essentially, the son of the President of the United States and a prince of England fall in love after being forced into diplomatic work together. Enemies-to-lovers, classic schlock. Naturally it has to be kept secret. They break up, they get back together, they overcome obstacles, etc. etc. Emotionally, the romantic arc ends when they are discovered by the public, they confront the prince's homophobic Queen Mother (grandmother), and they truly, finally, come together. Happily Ever After!
Well, no, the story continues. The movie adaptation leaves off there but the book does not. The book is full of a continuing B-plot concerning the upcoming 2016 Presidential election. The president, the protagonist son's mother, is the first female President, a Democrat, and she runs against this brash political Republican outsider who is not even pretending to not be an expy of Donald Trump. Throughout the book the protagonist works on his mother's re-election campaign and is convinced, against all odds, despite what everyone else tells him, that Texas could finally flip blue. So the end of the novel comes not at the end of the Will-They-Or-Won't-They, it comes at the end of the election when the protagonist's mother wins re-election after Texas flips blue. This codicil has virtually nothing to do with the core romantic plot of the novel, which is ostensibly the whole purpose of the story being told. But I'm sure it's very emotionally satisfying and cathartic to the probable readers of "Red, White, and Royal Blue," who probably near-unanimously want their American politics-themed romance to include an emotional victory for not-Hillary Clinton.
If it wasn't obvious from my characterization, The Notebook was written by a man, and Red, White, and Royal Blue was written by a woman.
I find this pattern to be fairly consistent: Male stories converge on one symbolic point. Female stories converge on multiple symbolic points, which is the same as saying they only converge emotionally.
As a final example, consider The Lord of the Rings. Famously, it is a story full of many twists and turns, stories-within-stories, poetry, odd-ends, etc. etc. The ending of The Lord of the Rings isn't even when the Ring itself is destroyed, as the plot continues for a good while longer up until the Scouring of the Shire: The four hobbits return home and find home overrun with evil, which they then purge. It might be said, isn't this a separate story, isn't this just like the end of Red, White, and Royal Blue? But I would argue that it's not, the arc of The Scouring of the Shite recapitulates the arc of the rest of The Lord of the Rings as a whole: men saving a fallen world. The symbolic logic of The Lord of the Rings, in fact, is consumed with the world more than the characters within it. Because the world is a vehicle for God, the world is vast in service to emphasizing the will of God. It's the story's vanishing point: God is basically never discussed at all, and yet the story doesn't make sense without Him. All the sub-stories and tangents, which otherwise don't have a purpose, in fact reflect exactly what Tolkein wanted to say -- the world is mysterious and vast because there's a higher order in it.
So I'm not just saying that women are more emotional or that their stories have tangents or that girls are yucky and gross and they have cooties. I'm saying that their stories converge as emotional experiences, not as logical stories.
For some other examples of this: Saltburn, Tales of Genji, Greta Gerwig's Barbie movie, Anne Carson's poetry, Willa Cather, Triumph of the Will, To Kill a Mockingbird, Twilight. Even Harry Potter, which is a very well-plotted story with a great deal of symbolic coherence, has that damned epilogue so we all know how to feel after all.
Somebody else could probably adduce examples of very male plots that don't appeal to women at all because they don't cohere emotionally in a way women find satisfying. Master and Commander?
I've written a lot here now (far more than I intended to), but hopefully this answers the question. I find this difference between men and women to be very consistent, even when it's hard to put into words, even when specific examples can be found going both ways. But men and women write very different stories, I think it's been very easy for me to train this sense by reading romance novels. And when you have a strong-enough sense of it you can look at airport romance novels written under pseudonymous pennames and you can say, if it walks like a man, and quacks like a man...
*(The small percentage of romance stories that don't end happily are usually born of the author's need to feel that they are writing something "serious," that romance is somehow beneath them.)
This was amusingly illustrated by a pasta that’s decades old now. It even features alpha widowhood and political cuckholdry from quokka’d do-gooders:
Below is the result of a writing assignment given by an English professor from the University of Colorado. A “tandem story” was to be written by two students, one male, one female.
The story was to be compiled in alternating paragraphs via email, with CC’s to the professor. There was to be no communication between the writers aside from each successive email. The story would end when both participants agreed a successful conclusion had been achieved.
Rebecca (PINK) Gerry (BLUE).
THE STORY:
(first paragraph by Rebecca) At first, Laurie couldn't decide which kind of tea she wanted. The chamomile, which used to be her favorite for lazy evenings at home, now reminded her too much of Carl, who once said, in happier times, that he liked chamomile. But she felt she must now, at all costs, keep her mind off Carl. His possessiveness was suffocating, and if she thought about him too much her asthma started acting up again. So chamomile was out of the question.
(second paragraph by Gerry) Meanwhile, Advance Sergeant Carl Harris, leader of the attack squadron now in orbit over Skylon 4, had more important things to think about than the neuroses of an air-headed asthmatic, tea-drenched bimbo named Laurie with whom he had spent one sweaty night over a year ago. "A.S. Harris to GeoStation 17," he said into his transgalactic communicator. "Polar orbit established. No sign of resistance so far..." But before he could sign off a bluish particle beam flashed out of nowhere and blasted a hole through his ship's cargo bay. The jolt from the direct hit sent him flying out of his seat and across the cockpit.
(Rebecca) He died almost immediately. But not before he felt one last pang of regret for psychically brutalizing the one woman who ever had feelings for him. Soon afterward, Earth stopped pointless hostilities toward the peaceful farmers of Skylon 4. "Congress Passes Law Permanently Abolishing War and Space Travel," Laurie read online one morning. The news simultaneously excited and bored her. She stared out the window, dreaming of her youth, when the days had passed unhurriedly and carefree, with no cell phones, no Internet to distract her from her sense of innocent wonder at the beauty around her. "Why must one lose one's innocence to become a woman?" she pondered wistfully.
(Gerry) Little did she know she had less than 10 seconds to live. The wimpy peaceniks who’d pushed the Unilateral Aerospace Disarmament Treaty through Congress had left Earth a defenseless target for hostile empires determined to destroy the human race. Just hours after the passage of the treaty, alien ships were on course for Earth with enough firepower to pulverize the entire planet. Their lithium fusion missiles entered the atmosphere unimpeded. The President, in his top-secret mobile submarine headquarters on the ocean floor off the coast of Guam, was rocked by the inconceivably massive explosion which vaporized poor, stupid Laurie.
(Rebecca) This is absurd. I refuse to continue this mockery of literature. My writing partner is a violent, chauvinistic, semi-literate adolescent geek.
(Gerry) Yeah? Well, my writing partner is a self-centered tedious neurotic whose attempts at writing are the literary equivalent of Valium. "Oh, shall I have chamomile tea? Or shall I have some other FUKING TEA??? Oh no, what am I to do? I'm an air headed bimbo who reads too many romance novels!"
(Rebecca) Asshole.
(Gerry) Bitch!
(Rebecca) FUCK YOU - YOU NEANDERTHAL!!
(Gerry) In your dreams, ‘Ho. Go drink some more fucking tea.
(Rebecca) I hate you. Don’t ever talk to me again.
(TEACHER) A+ I really liked this one."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link