The Bechdel Test, was made up by Allison Bechdel. Who was, yes, a
feminist author. Let us start off by saying however, that this is an editing tool.
Failing the Bechdel test is a sign of rushed or sloppy editing. Not a
sign of a bad writer. Furthermore, it is not a test of feminism. It is a
test of good characterization.
This is the Bechdel Test:
1) are there at least two women?
2) do they at any point talk to each other?
3) is their conversation about something other than a man?
It is not a test of feminism, because works that pass the test have been written which are definitely sexist. Not just one exception, but many exceptions. Let us take one of the most famous book series of the 20th century, The Chronicles of Narnia. Now, this is good writing. But it will not surprise the reader to learn that C.S. Lewis was famous for rushed editing: and that it shows. The books reflect the sexist attitudes of their day, particularly in the character of Susan Pevensie. In the books, Susan simply becomes a vapid, rude, airhead with no explanation save that she grew older. The book implies that had Lucy been allowed to reach Susan's age she too would have simply turned into essentially a fashion zombie. But Peter, who is older than Susan, is wiser now than before. Almost a father-figure to his sisters and brothers. But do these books fail the Bechdel test? no, in fact they all pass it with flying colors except for the non-sequitor The Horse and His Boy. This book can be discounted, as the events in it have almost nothing to do with the rest of the plot. The reason that the Chronicles of Narnia passes the Bechdel Test so easily is simple: these are books about children, for children. There's no romance, so talking about men is not something the characters do very much of.
That the fix for Susan's characterization would have been simple, makes it even more glaringly obvious that Lewis just didn't care. The movie version of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, did it. The fix? give Susan and Caspian a romantic subplot. This not only raises the stakes for Caspian's final decision, making his decision to lead his people back home personally painful: it also makes Susan's subsequent reaction entirely justified. She's heartbroken, but she can't talk to anyone about how she feels. She sees Peter as dismissive, Edmund and Lucy are too young to understand, and the rest of the world wouldn't believe her if she talked about Caspian and Narnia and Telmar. Her hedonistic actions make sense, since she has no real purpose for living. Aslan's words at the end are no longer a final dig at Susan, but simply an explanation. Narnia holds nothing for Susan anymore because the one thing she wants more than anything else is no longer there. The Chronicles of Narnia is not the only book that is sexist but passes the Bechdel Test, it is simply the case where this is most obvious.
Of course, it's also possible to write a feminist text and fail the Bechdel Test. Here we turn to the Turkish tv drama Magnificent Century. Feminist? yes, it exonerates a much maligned female historical figure, Roxelanna, and confronts head-on a system of slavery. The motif of caged birds appears throughout, a metaphor for the condition of the women in the show. Although the show revolves around the women: the only thing these women have in common is their husband. The show deftly uses their words to construct the figure of Suleiman Sultan, who casts such a huge shadow over the entire show despite appearing for all of a few minutes per season. The only thing the women talk about is Suleiman, and their male children: men. But this is a deliberate choice, it's not as if the author doesn't know how to have women talk about something else. Instead it's because these women have nothing else to talk about: everything else that defined a woman in their time and place is taken away from them. They are women without households, ripped from their extended families, and kept in slavery simply by the threat of being destitute should they escape. The only thing they share with the women outside the walls of the palace, is that they are mothers. Their lives are dictated by their husband and his servants, right down to the meals they get each day. And the camera is as trapped as they are. It cannot follow Suleiman outside the palace walls, giving us the perspective of the women and only of the women. In this way, it is feminist and it demonstrates a modern perspective. The way that the women obsessively talk about men and little else reinforces the confined nature of their existence.
So, how do you write a feminist narrative? well, give a woman's perspective. How do you do that? easy, ask yourself what your mother, or sister, or female friend would think. Or heck, you can even ask them. Or ask me, I'm a woman. We so rarely get asked for our opinions that we are generally eager to give them. Every one of you knows a woman: if you use them as models for your female characters, you cannot possibly go wrong. And seriously: "I'm writing a book, but I'm stuck. What do you think <insert female character's name> would say here?" is a great pickup line.
This is the Bechdel Test:
1) are there at least two women?
2) do they at any point talk to each other?
3) is their conversation about something other than a man?
It is not a test of feminism, because works that pass the test have been written which are definitely sexist. Not just one exception, but many exceptions. Let us take one of the most famous book series of the 20th century, The Chronicles of Narnia. Now, this is good writing. But it will not surprise the reader to learn that C.S. Lewis was famous for rushed editing: and that it shows. The books reflect the sexist attitudes of their day, particularly in the character of Susan Pevensie. In the books, Susan simply becomes a vapid, rude, airhead with no explanation save that she grew older. The book implies that had Lucy been allowed to reach Susan's age she too would have simply turned into essentially a fashion zombie. But Peter, who is older than Susan, is wiser now than before. Almost a father-figure to his sisters and brothers. But do these books fail the Bechdel test? no, in fact they all pass it with flying colors except for the non-sequitor The Horse and His Boy. This book can be discounted, as the events in it have almost nothing to do with the rest of the plot. The reason that the Chronicles of Narnia passes the Bechdel Test so easily is simple: these are books about children, for children. There's no romance, so talking about men is not something the characters do very much of.
That the fix for Susan's characterization would have been simple, makes it even more glaringly obvious that Lewis just didn't care. The movie version of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, did it. The fix? give Susan and Caspian a romantic subplot. This not only raises the stakes for Caspian's final decision, making his decision to lead his people back home personally painful: it also makes Susan's subsequent reaction entirely justified. She's heartbroken, but she can't talk to anyone about how she feels. She sees Peter as dismissive, Edmund and Lucy are too young to understand, and the rest of the world wouldn't believe her if she talked about Caspian and Narnia and Telmar. Her hedonistic actions make sense, since she has no real purpose for living. Aslan's words at the end are no longer a final dig at Susan, but simply an explanation. Narnia holds nothing for Susan anymore because the one thing she wants more than anything else is no longer there. The Chronicles of Narnia is not the only book that is sexist but passes the Bechdel Test, it is simply the case where this is most obvious.
Of course, it's also possible to write a feminist text and fail the Bechdel Test. Here we turn to the Turkish tv drama Magnificent Century. Feminist? yes, it exonerates a much maligned female historical figure, Roxelanna, and confronts head-on a system of slavery. The motif of caged birds appears throughout, a metaphor for the condition of the women in the show. Although the show revolves around the women: the only thing these women have in common is their husband. The show deftly uses their words to construct the figure of Suleiman Sultan, who casts such a huge shadow over the entire show despite appearing for all of a few minutes per season. The only thing the women talk about is Suleiman, and their male children: men. But this is a deliberate choice, it's not as if the author doesn't know how to have women talk about something else. Instead it's because these women have nothing else to talk about: everything else that defined a woman in their time and place is taken away from them. They are women without households, ripped from their extended families, and kept in slavery simply by the threat of being destitute should they escape. The only thing they share with the women outside the walls of the palace, is that they are mothers. Their lives are dictated by their husband and his servants, right down to the meals they get each day. And the camera is as trapped as they are. It cannot follow Suleiman outside the palace walls, giving us the perspective of the women and only of the women. In this way, it is feminist and it demonstrates a modern perspective. The way that the women obsessively talk about men and little else reinforces the confined nature of their existence.
So, how do you write a feminist narrative? well, give a woman's perspective. How do you do that? easy, ask yourself what your mother, or sister, or female friend would think. Or heck, you can even ask them. Or ask me, I'm a woman. We so rarely get asked for our opinions that we are generally eager to give them. Every one of you knows a woman: if you use them as models for your female characters, you cannot possibly go wrong. And seriously: "I'm writing a book, but I'm stuck. What do you think <insert female character's name> would say here?" is a great pickup line.
No comments:
Post a Comment