|
Main Suetiful All Along Discussion
So, what do you do if you're writing about a different time period? If a character is supposed to be unfortunate or average looking, do you describe them as today's version of unattractive, even if this would have been considered gorgeous back in the day? Or do you try to make it historically accurate, even if it makes the character sound drop-dead gorgeous by today's standards?
Deleted the below example (and accompanying natter) because:
a)Anne's appearance is explicitly based on this photo of contemporary model Evelyn Nesbit
. Anne is not supposed to be plain, just not conventionally pretty for her time (in which, yes, carroty-red hair was considered a huge flaw. Throughout recorded Western history until the very, very recent advent of socially-acceptable dye jobs, golden blonde locks have been a perquisite for beauty). Introducing Anne for the first time, Montgomery makes the point both that Anne is attractive and that this is only visible to the truly discerning — and this does not change as Anne grows older.
b)Anne's temperament changes as she grows older simply because she matures — going from a talkative, accident-prone kid who has trouble controlling herself to a more thoughtful, sensitive woman. This is normal character progression, and at no point does it become Suetiful. That she becomes less interesting as the stories go on has much more to do with the fact that Montgomery shoehorns her into more traditional modes of behaviour at the same time (giving up her writing dreams for marriage/children, for example.)
__________________
. Anne is not supposed to be plain, just not conventionally pretty for her time (in which, yes, carroty-red hair was considered a huge flaw. Throughout recorded Western history until the very, very recent advent of socially-acceptable dye jobs, golden blonde locks have been a perquisite for beauty). Introducing Anne for the first time, Montgomery makes the point both that Anne is attractive and that this is only visible to the truly discerning — and this does not change as Anne grows older.
b)Anne's temperament changes as she grows older simply because she matures — going from a talkative, accident-prone kid who has trouble controlling herself to a more thoughtful, sensitive woman. This is normal character progression, and at no point does it become Suetiful. That she becomes less interesting as the stories go on has much more to do with the fact that Montgomery shoehorns her into more traditional modes of behaviour at the same time (giving up her writing dreams for marriage/children, for example.)
__________________
- The titular character of Anne of Green Gables is also accused of this. She is introduced as plain, skinny, and red-headed, but is described in such a way that it's hard not to picture an ethereal, soulful-eyed waif. And her initial flaws of a fiery temper, tendency to nurse a grudge and sheer klutziness fade or become irrelevant to the extent that by the end of the first book she's acknowledged as beautiful, and selfless, brilliant, is right about everything that matters and can fix almost anything with The Power Of Love.
- L.M. Montgomery appears to have recognized this, as books like Anne's House of Dreams and Rainbow Valley put more focus on the interesting side characters around Anne. Rilla of Ingleside completely shifts the focus from Anne to her flawed and compelling youngest daughter, Rilla. However, the two books written after Rilla - Anne of Ingleside and Anne of Windy Poplars - feature a heavily watered down Anne from the one most commonly known. Basically, if you just read Windy Poplars as a portrait of a quirky town with Anne as the Fixer Sue running around, you'll enjoy it much more.
- And since when is red hair an unattractive trait?
The laconic version doesn't explain that they must be presented as not being the 'Mary Sue'.