(no subject)

[ann_leckie]

Haven’t been blogging much lately, mostly because I’ve been busy with, you know, stuff. And things. Nothing really exciting. The last couple days I’ve been making things out of Roman Cookery: Ancient Recipes for Modern Kitchens and so far the results have been interesting and quite good. Though this morning’s serving of puls punica was entirely too much cheese at the beginning of the day and I am loathe to move much now if I can help it. Apparently the recipe comes from Cato the Elder, who fed it to his slaves, and actually it tasted quite good and no doubt all that cheese was good for calories and protein if you were doing Cato’s farmwork, but urgh.

I do highly recommend the mixtura cum caseo with lagana (the lagana weren’t hard to make, but just for reference, a box of wheat thins would make an entirely acceptable substitution). Fabulous lunch. Also ginormous amounts of cheese.

Once I’ve managed to digest the puls punica–I expect that will be some time next week–I’ll be trying the moretum and maybe even trying to make some garum. The “if you don’t have the patience to leave a jar of fish and salt in the sun for six months” version, I’ll just say that right up front.
And there’s still quite a few breads, porridges, and soups, as well as one or two things with, like, meat or fish in them!

Anyway. A conversation on Twitter reminded me of a writing peeve of mine, and I thought I’d rant on that a bit, because.

The peeve is, complaints about “passive” characters, when those characters are not, in fact, passive–when in fact small choices in constrained situations do indeed lead to change, sometimes on a large scale, sometimes not. I most often see this when the characters in question are very hedged about by circumstances. The movements available to them can be small and subtle.

Now, it’s true that small and subtle movement often can rule out big, wide, adventury stories with exploding planets–though it doesn’t always–and it definitely rules out naked power fantasies where the MC is a Chosen One with all kinds of power–physical, political, economic–at their disposal.

But “very few choices, few of which involve much physical violence or action” is not the same as “passive” and I think assuming it is is particularly unfortunate. In fact, historically, in various times and places, women have lived in constrained circumstances, with options limited by custom, and yet quite a few women, historically, in various times and places, have done some amazing things within those limits, up to and including ruling empires. And there’s a great deal of drama available in those stories, in the ways people can, and did, manipulate the limited choices available to them with pretty astonishing results. Looking back on those and saying, “Well, but she didn’t really do anything, she was just passive” is….let me politely call it an error.

It’s quite a coincidence, isn’t it, that those stories and their real life analogues are so often about women or members of other marginalized groups, and when you look at that, the prohibition on writing passive characters suddenly looks very different.

Plus, while yes, it’s very fun to read about emperors and generals and whatnot, I have a problem with the unstated assumption that everyday people, just ordinary folks, must therefore have lives that are not interesting enough to tell stories about.

Not to mention the fact that thinking only the planet-exploding, power fantasy stories are worth telling is so extremely limiting. I mean, I like planet exploding power fantasies as much as the next girl, but I’d be so, so bored if that were all there was to read.

Mirrored from Ann Leckie.

Comments

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

Yay rant! I have a similar rant :)

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

I love rants! I would be interested to see yours, if you are ever inclined to post it! And some things, I think the more people say them, the more people maybe start understanding and internalizing. This is my very optimistic theory, anyway.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Yep, the three key AMEN points, for me, in you rant are

(A)It’s quite a coincidence, isn’t it, that those stories and their real life analogues are so often about women or members of other marginalized groups

(B)I have a problem with the unstated assumption that everyday people, just ordinary folks, must ... have lives that are not interesting enough to tell stories about.

(C) thinking only the planet-exploding, power fantasy stories are worth telling is so extremely limiting.

YES, YES, and YES.

Re: C, it's like Bread and Jam for Frances. There's nothing wrong with bread and jam, but only bread and jam? Dude. You're missing out on what eating is all about.

.... And actually, relying The Biggest Explosions as a way of telegraphing drama, stakes, and conflict sometimes means you're not able to get readers to care through the power of your narrative. We care about what happens to people we know in real life even without Earth about to explode, their children being kidnapped, or them going into single combat against Tsarog the Destroyer. If a story's good enough, then, similarly, we'll care about the characters without the lurid events.

Though, I love bread and jam on occasion as much as the next person.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

And actually, relying The Biggest Explosions as a way of telegraphing drama, stakes, and conflict sometimes means you're not able to get readers to care through the power of your narrative. We care about what happens to people we know in real life even without Earth about to explode, their children being kidnapped, or them going into single combat against Tsarog the Destroyer. If a story's good enough, then, similarly, we'll care about the characters without the lurid events.

This is such an important point. Granted, it's harder to make the reader care about your characters as individuals just because than it is to kidnap their children and aim Tsarog the Destroyer at their homeworld. Much harder. But on the surface it looks like the Planetary Implosion Ray is the carrier of all that suspense (see also, misapprehension that suspense=not knowing what's going to happen) and I think a lot of newbie writers aim there, and also at least as spec fic writers we're often admonished to make sure there's action and lots of high stakes. The fact that actually, you don't yawn when Tsarog demands the MC choose between the destruction of their family or that of their planet, maniacal laugh, MANIACAL LAUGH because we actually care about the MC and have been brought by the writer to (at least temporarily) "believe" in their existence and invest, for just the moment, in the fact that they care what happens to either one.

Doing that is tricky, and hard to explain. It's ever so much easier to talk about upping stakes and suspense and not that. Then, of course, that gets reinforcement from the whole political background of "no passive characters."

IMO, as always.

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Your O and my O coincide on this.

[helivoy.livejournal.com]

Lagana bread is still eaten in Greece during Lent.

As for the "passive" nonsense, the philistinism gets exhausting after a while. I increasingly think I chose to like the wrong genre.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

re: lagana--that makes perfect sense! I should look up modern versions of it. It's interesting how much continuity there is, with things like cooking. I mean, some of the ingredients are different--"polenta" in this book doesn't mean cornmeal, but the cooking and the way it's eaten are very much the same. Even before opening this book, even with only cursory knowledge of Roman food, I've known that pesto was a very typical Roman sauce, and the mixtura and the moretum have only confirmed that for me. Thousands of years, and give or take a few tomatoes here and potatoes there, things are obviously connected. Pretty cool.

I increasingly think I chose to like the wrong genre.

Eh, those folks are everywhere. SF also gives scope to do some really amazing things. It does get tiring sometimes, though.

Looking forward to being able to get myself a copy of The Other Half of the Sky, by the way!!!!

[helivoy.livejournal.com]

T-11 and counting!!

[themachinestops.livejournal.com]

I agree with this so. very. much. Nothing to add, just wanted you to know that.

[mercwriter.livejournal.com]

*nods*

It gets generalized often into a few telling brushstokes ("your character is only ACTIVE if they are blowing things up and smashing/killing things and being male--oops, that slipped out?") and "active" being assumed to be "physical prowess of some sort", and that irritates me.

Okay, lots of things irritate me. *grin* So yes, I agree with your rant.

(I'd like to read more stories about "ordinary people" and what they do--I just finished the novel, THE LADY AND THE UNICORN by Tracy Chevalier, and what I liked was that there were viewpoints from all sorts of people, not JUST the nobles. My favorite sections were when we were with the weavers. I enjoyed the novel.)

[asakiyume.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I liked the sections with the weavers too.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

I'm going to have to check "The Lady and the Unicorn" out, thanks! :)

"your character is only ACTIVE if they are blowing things up and smashing/killing things and being male--oops, that slipped out?"

I LOLed.

[helivoy.livejournal.com]

Tracy Chevalier's The Girl with a Pearl Earring is another case of women constrained in their roles who nevertheless are potent protagonists and plot engines. So is Sarah Dunant's The Birth of Venus... I could name dozens.

[marycatelli]

Passive female characters. Yeesh.

The worst offenders are those who use "social acceptable" as a synonym. Which is to say, the evil queen who poisons the prince is active, but the beautiful princess who rescues him -- no matter how much she must do to do it -- is passive, because saving a man's life is socially acceptable.

Then they complain that only the evil characters are active; all the good ones are passive -- as if it were surprising that evil behavior like poisoning is socially unacceptable, and good, like saving a life, is acceptable.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

This is a very interesting point, and I will ponder this!

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

I think passive good characters transcends this issue, since in lots of stories the hero is basically sitting around minding his or her own business until the villain upsets the status quo.

[marycatelli]

Why on earth should he not mind his own business? Is the only worthy life found in explosions and trying to take over the world?

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

I think in real life, heroes don't just sit around. They march in political rallies, they go to soup kitchens, they become a lawyer for the ACLU, they become an investigative journalist, and in general make a fuss, because in real life, the villains are often already in charge of the status quo.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

Notice that you've classed everyone who doesn't "make a fuss" as not a hero--but the fact of the matter is, many, many people can't afford to make a fuss, or are in a situation where making a fuss is just not an option. And yet, change is possible, action is possible, but those actions, those changes, aren't going to be what most people consider change or action, and many, many people will work from the assumption that the only really heroic story available involves marching in political rallies or becoming a lawyer or investigative journalist and facing down the villains in the government or whatever.

Not that I don't like that plot, but first off, those real life heroes sometimes come from places you wouldn't expect, and sometimes are minding their own business when something happens to electrify them, or whatever. They didn't start as lawyers or investigative journalists, something happened to make them interested in this pressing thing, at this time.

And second off, this is exactly the definition of "hero" that I'm arguing with. It's too narrow, it misses all sorts of people and excludes them from stories, because they're "passive" when they're not--they're just not rich, just not educated enough, just not free enough of social constraints to do anything but hold down the fort, get the kids fed and keep them safe, get the rent together somehow. There are situations--lots of them--where doing those things is no small accomplishment, and managing to mind your own business isn't apathy, it's survival.

Notice how close your construction of what "real life heroes" are like matches a certain set of narratives, by the way. This is not because the narratives are photographic representatives of reality, but because narratives are so, so powerful in the way they convince us to organize our assumptions about the world.

And funny, when you use that narrative to define "hero" and then look to see who might maybe sort of match it in real life, how many of those lawyers and marchers and investigative journalists are white guys.

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

While I concede many of your points, I would point out in my defense that my inclusion of political rallies was inended to include the Civil Rights and feminist movements.

[marycatelli]

They raise food on their farms thus nourishing the nation -- without which all those activities you list would be moot.

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

I think if you define "hero" too broadly, it loses its meaning. You've included 9 out of 10 people who have ever lived in history.

[marycatelli]

You're certainly defining it extremely narrowly. Anyway, I was describing useful things a hero can do when not actively facing the villain. There is no reason why he can't be doing useful and essential things that are not actively heroing.

[paulliver.livejournal.com]

I was flashing back to how SF fans let "Firefly" down in favor of "Star Trek" and "Star Wars" reruns.

[qian.livejournal.com]

I've never really understood the complaint about passive characters, TBH, because of what you say about lots of people living in constrained circumstances. But perhaps I shouldn't say, because I've attracted the criticism before!

Anyhow, I think there can be a lot of drama in not doing things. I'm reading Villette and its poor, obscure, lonely teacher protagonist is constantly at war with herself to restrain herself from doing things -- from seeking the attention of friends who have forgotten her, from lamenting her situation, from showing her reaction to external events. She is very conscious of the constraints upon her ... but perhaps when people complain about passive characters they don't mean that kind of active restraint?

[marycatelli]

Yes, they do. I have repeatedly seen sneers at characters as passive when they are withstanding enormous temptations with patience and fortitude.

[anarra.livejournal.com]

I've also cooked from Roman Cookery: Ancient Recipes for Modern Kitchens. I tried the globi using both Greek yoghurt and with goat cheese. I liked the yoghurt version better.

Having also read your entry on Debt, I will note that a distressing number of recipes in that book are made with cheddar cheese. Which didn't exist even in Cheddar during Roman times. Or, if you read the original recipe and compare it with the redaction in the book, he's added ingredients that weren't in the original (eggs spring to mind). It made me wary of the rest of the recipes and I went back to a translation of Cato to finalize the globi recipe.

I did have fun reading the book, though.

[ann-leckie.livejournal.com]

Yes, agreed, I was dissatisfied with the use of cheddar. Though he does claim in the intro that he'd made his own and the result wasn't far off. I could buy that--sort of. And I agree, some of his additions don't seem quite right, do they.

I'll have to try Greek yogurt! That sounds like a good idea.

[anarra.livejournal.com]

I did a bit of research (Roman is not my period of interest so it was only a bit of research) into Roman 'cheese' and evidently the word could be used for a range of dairy products from yoghurt to hard aged cheeses.

The recipe in Cato seems to call for kneading the dough so I tried goat cheese to start. It was good. I then tried with yoghurt to get a slightly less stiff dough. I could still knead it and it fried up easier and tasted better.