Review: Tangled

I have now watched Tangled five or six times. The first time was in the cinema, and I enjoyed it, although was disappointed in it because the awesomeness of Rapunzel's Revenge set up expectations that Disney was never, ever going to meet. As for the multiple viewings, they were part of my research for my thesis. I will probably have to watch it a few more times before the year is out. This review was quite hard to write, because I have so many thoughts and things to say about the film, but they are going into my thesis, and condensing that into a short review is not easy. Instead I've tried to give a bit of an overview into some of the issues particular to the film.

The more I watch Tangled, the more frustrated I get and the more Disney annoys me. However, as far as the film goes, it could be worse.


Highlights:

• Like quite a few Disney movies, Tangled is reasonably enjoyable if you are not critically analysing it.
• There are aspects of the plot, and of Rapunzel's character, that are positive towards gender representations. 
• Rapunzel has a personality: hobbies, skills - some of which are outside of traditional gender binaries, and she has a dream she sets out to fulfil. 
• I don't know much about animation, but it was quite visually impressive, especially detailed shading and lighting on her 70 ft of hair.

Problems:

Having seen the film as many times as I have means there are a lot of little things that irritate me about it. From Max the horse behaving like a anthropomorphised dog, to the frying pans (it is still violence!), to the complete lack of reason behind Rapunzel's name. However, there are also some major ideological issues in the representations in the film:

• Every single character is white. There is absolutely no diversity in any way unless you count a few characters having different hair colour as diversity (I don't).
• There is very little diversity in female body shapes, they are all slender, with very fair skin and big eyes. There is much more diversity in male body shapes. 
• While there were shades of grey when it came to some characters' morality, it was not in a complex way -  the rogues and Flynn needed Rapunzel to inspire them to goodness, and then they became good. Gothel was completely bad.
• Gothel (the unnatural mother) wasn't kind or a good mother to Rapunzel. The King and Queen (the natural parents) loved Rapunzel, and as soon as they are reunited every thing is happy again. 
• While it wasn't love at first sight, Rapunzel and Flynn fall in love within the space of one day and there is an imbalance within the relationship. 

Overall:

Tangled is a reasonably fun movie, so I wouldn't say don't show your kids. But if I had kids watching it I'd want to be very careful talking to them about representations of women, and particularly female bodies and the way films (Disney often) tie beauty to worth. I'd also want to talk about the lack of diversity, which is very troubling, especially since there seem to be no signs Disney will be doing anything differently in the future. 

Thoughts: fictional friendships for men and women

I enjoy romance. When told well, the intense investment in the relationship between two fictional characters is one of the best thing about stories. One of the things I generally don't like about action films, is not so much the excess of action, but the lack of relationships. I used to think it was the lack of romance, but considering how irritating I find the token sexy love interest in many of these films I've decided it is more about relationships: romance, friendship, family, all of it.

Friendship is an incredible complex beautiful and diverse thing. My favourite stories are often about friendship. Thinking about my favourite stories, such as Harry Potter, a key aspect of my love for the books is the relationships between the characters. Especially Harry, Ron and Hermione. Something that frustrated me about the film versions, was that in the middle ones there was a strong hint that Hermione and Harry's relationship could be more than friendship.

It seems to me that friendships have been lost a bit in media representations of men and women. Whatever you watch, unless there is a blood relationship or significant age difference the chances of seeing two main characters of the opposite sex relate to each other entirely unromantically are near impossible. It's not that they necessarily have to actually have a relationship, but often the only way women relate to men is as a potential or past non-platonic relationship.

It is so pervasive that when there are platonic relationships such as Buffy and Giles' completely paternal relationship in BtVS or Donna and the Tenth Doctor, other characters are constantly implying their relationship is something more.

If the woman is "off-limits" because they are in a different relationship, there will still often be a implied (or explicit) relationship with the male character. Often this happens in the best guy friend who is actually in love with the girl kind of stories (one of my least favourite tropes).

Considering the lack of complex female characters in the media, I feel like this is something that maybe should be challenged. It reduces female characters to their relation to men, they become the romantic interest, the ex, the girl-next-door. Often, the relationship that is constructed is not even necessary to the narrative.

We watched The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (for me the second time) the other night, and I was struck by the complete redundancy of Caspian and Susan's romance plot line. It does not add anything to the film. In fact, as a fan of the books, it significantly retracted from the film.

Some Thoughts on Culture and the Importance of Critical Thinking.

Most of the time I don't wish I'd been an aristocrat in 18th Century England*, and the main reason for this is the Internet (and also hygiene). While there are serious issues in the world today, being a young adult in 2013 is seriously great in many ways. I have friends in countries around the world, friends who love the same cultural texts that I do. A big part of this is America's domination of the global media market (another issue altogether). As part of a globalised culture**,  I can read an account of what I felt watching Star Trek: Into Darkness being expressed by a woman on the other side of the world. I can engage in discussions on race and hear perspectives and experiences I would otherwise never have known. I can talk about the politics of the Eurovision voting system, the problems with Steven Moffat's vision for Doctor Who and about the atrocities my own government is committing against people seeking asylum. Basically, the culture I engage in is much broader and more diverse and interesting and complex then it would be if I got to be married off to an Earl in 1815, and didn't get to shower every day.

Culture is a really, really broad term. One of the best definitions I found is from the OED (number 7):

"the distinctive ideas, customs, social behaviour, products, or way of life of a particular nation, society, people, or period."

Culture is not simply "high" literature or art galleries or french restaurants. Culture is what makes up society; it is how and what we think as a collective group of people. Culture is what is left behind to tell future generations about who we were. Culture is not monolithic, it is made up of millions of different pieces; some parts work to subvert and destabilise what other parts work to sustain and control. Thinking about culture: our culture, the culture of people around us, and how that effects us is one of the most important and valuable things you can do as a person (or group of people). This is why I've spent four years at university learning as much as I can about cultural analysis, despite constantly being told all I'll be qualified for is working at McDonald's.

I love engaging with culture: I love books. I love television. I love comics. I love movies. I like going to museums and art galleries and theatre and sports events. I love to read/watch the news. I like video games, though often I get motion sickness (I probably like the idea of video games more). I love fanfiction and blogs and really, really love tumblr***.

I'm going to say this in a bigger font, because it is really, really important and the foundation of pretty much everything I write:
It is because I love these cultural texts that I am critical of them. 

It is because I love engaging with culture that I try to be aware of the failings and problems of what I consume. I want to be constantly challenging my own conformity to cultural norms, and I think critical analysis is a beautiful part of being human.

One of the things about thinking this way is sometimes you get to the point where you no longer love something. For example, I enjoyed Tangled when I saw it in the cinema, but working on it for my thesis has changed that. However, I think what is more likely is that you get more out of the text you are engaging with. For example, I love Doctor Who, and the last few seasons have been quite frustrating for me. A good summary of why can be found here. However, I actively engaged with what was bothering me about the show, talked about it with friends (my best friend and I would text each other during the show each week to work out whether the episode passed the Bechdel test), read other fans' opinions online etc. I honestly think I would have just stopped watching if I hadn't done that, which would be sad, because I enjoy being a Doctor Who fan, and still love the show.

It really frustrates me when fans of a cultural text or form (i.e Doctor Who is a text or 'video games' are a form) refuse to critically engage with what they are consuming/engaging with. NOTHING IS PERFECT, and it pains me to say it, not even Harry Potter. There are always problematic aspects to cultural representations because our culture has problematic aspects, and people who create these representations are individuals who have various privileges, biases and opinions.

When it comes to representations of women in media content, a key reason these representations continue occurring is because most media is made for male consumers and made by men. While all forms of media provide many instances of problematic representations of women, a lot of discussion goes into the representations found in comic books and video games. Both of these are vehemently defended by many fans, who refuse to look critically at any aspects of what they love, and often resort to agressive defensiveness. This defensiveness has more than once resulted in sexist and violent threats and behaviour towards women. One of the best (worst) examples of this is what happened to Anita Sarkeesian.

One of the things that bothers me most about this, and the reason that I started writing this post, is not so much the men who decided to threaten Anita Sarkeesian with rape (though abhorrent and deeply troubling), but the people who say they're not like those people. The video game fans who claim to be different, and to care about women and men being treated equally but still say that there is no problem. There is a problem. It is a fact and it bothers me that people can watch reasoned and logical arguments about the impact of these representations, such as this and this, and still say there is absolutely no problem.

I've watched a lot of Anita Sarkeesian's videos, from her Feminist Frequency channel, and do not always agree with everything she says. But she quite clearly outlines problems we have in our culture about women, and how these are represented in our cultural texts. Simply dismissing such arguments as crazy and completely wrong is reductive and by doing so people are actively participating in these negative cultural ideas.

Thinking critically about popular culture does not negate enjoyment of it, rather it gives a depth of cultural understanding that I believe is really important. The responses I have seen to these videos, and other critical cultural analysis reinforces for me by belief in the importance of tertiary level English (and/or cultural studies type subjects). Learning critical thinking and being an active consumer of texts and media is so important for our society. How else will change happen?

I want to be clear: I am not saying that you can not be an engaged, thoughtful and active participant in culture without a university humanities/social science education, or that everyone with such an education is going to engage critically with cultural text. I simply believe my education to have tremendously helped me to examine my own privilege and to engage with cultural texts I love (though the way my mum raised me helped a lot).

I think regardless of your theoretical or social movement perspectives, it is important to be critical of all culture you engage with, and especially when it is something you love. To say things are not problematic, when someone else is saying they are: for example, a man saying female representations are not problematic, is so disrespectful to those in minorities who are represented badly, and shows a lack of empathy for people of different experiences. You might say you're a nice person who cares about equality, but if you can't examine you're own position of privilege and the texts that support and reinforce that privileged I'd like to suggest perhaps you're not.

___
* I read a lot of Georgette Heyer
**Which is a problematic term given economic, technological, etc. disparities between the "rich" and "poor" countries, and even the rich and poor within countries.
***This is not a substantive list of all kinds of expressions of culture or cultural texts, simply the ones I like that first came to mind.

Review: The Princess and the Frog (Disney)

I was excited to finally watch this film a few weeks ago. Having spent a lot of time studying Disney at various stages of my degree, the lack of racial diversity and positive representations of people of colour is one of many aspects of Disney ideology that seriously bothered me. I am ever increasingly aware of my excess in privilege. As a white, middle class Australian, I do not have a strong understanding of the experiences of minorities in America except what I see through media. I do not feel adequately equipped to discuss at length the representations of race in this film, but will attempt to outline some of my concerns.

The final credits state the film was "inspired in part" by the novel by E. D Baker The Frog Princess. Pretty much the only thing taken from the novel is the idea of the girl become a frog instead of the frog returning to his Prince form when they kiss.

Highlights:

• The decision to have an African American princess is good. It is a good thing, but I do have some reservations about it (see Problems).
• Tiana is an interesting character, she has personality, aspirations not solely focused on marrying a Prince, and something she is passionate about.
• Tiana's future happiness is not entirely based on finding a husband.
• The relationship is not love at first sight, there is some kind of relationship development.
• The film shows that working hard for what you want is rewarding in and of itself.
• The idea of the princess turning into a frog is cool, and removes some of the more problematic aspects of the original fairy tale (creepy frog sleeping in the girl's bed, her father making her etc.)

Problems:

This is a pretty good post that shares many of my concerns about the film, but is also somewhat positive.

Race:

• For some time now Disney has been "diversifying" their Disney Princesses. I use inverted commas because I do not believe that this is much more than a token gesture by the corporation, and Tiana does not seem like an exception.
• The fact it took Disney until 2009 to create an African American princess is ridiculous. 
• Disney ideology is a pervasive and incredibly powerful cultural force and has been for some time. It has significantly contributed to racists discourses. The fact there was no attempt in this film to address any kind of discussion on the racist history of America (despite being set in the 20's) undermines the attempt to represent non-white experiences.
• A particularly good critical analysis of the way race is depicted in this film can be found here.

Gender:

• The plot primarily revolves around Tiana and Prince Naveen's developing romance, and while it's not love at first sight it still happens pretty quickly, and despite Naveen's clearly depicted character flaws.
• It perpetuates the myth of "fixing" someone through a relationship, which is never healthy.
• While Tiana's character is much more rounded than some of the other Disney Princesses, the other female characters are pretty stereotypical and one dimensional.
• There were significantly more male characters than female. 
• Ray's weird "relationship" with Evangeline, like a woman doesn't even need to be real for you to have a relationship, all you have to do is talk at her. (This is mostly an irritation in the context of broader cultural representations of women than the specifics of the film).

Class:

• One of the strongest aspects of Disney Ideology is the Americanism of hard work = success. Therefore is you are unsuccessful you didn't work hard enough, and it's your own fault. This movie fully embraces this ideology.
• Poverty is not that simple, the world is complex and it is set up to help certain kinds of privileged people succeed. 
• Class has really strong correlations to both race and gender and the film really glossed over all the kinds of obstacles and difficulties a character like Tiana would actually have faced in this period (and quite possibly still today)
• The representations of the fireflies made me very uncomfortable. They were extreme and unkind stereotypes.

Overall:

While I can be very critical of Disney, and particularly their films, I do actually really enjoy most of their content (perhaps nostalgia has something to do with it). However, I did not enjoy most of this film. Through out the film I had a growing sense of unease, as it became clear the film lacked of any meaningful engagement with racial, gender or class issues. I didn't really connect with the story, in part this may be because of how much I liked E.D Baker's novel. The novel is a really great adaptation of the original fairy tale and her protagonist Emma is fabulous, flawed, strong, compassionate and relational. Most of what made the adaptation so great was lost in the film.

I think what I disliked most, and why I wouldn't bother watching it again, is that there was a real opportunity for positive representations and it fails significantly to live up to the expectations I had.

Some Thoughts (and a small experiment) on Book Covers

One of the most interesting people I follow on Twitter is YA author Maureen Johnson. She spends a lot of time generating discussion on various aspects of the book industry. Recently, she came up with the idea of #coverflip, in which she encouraged people to imagine what a book cover would look like if the author's gender was flipped. A good summary of the ensuing discussions is on her tumblr, which I recommend reading.

Book covers are very important, they can be essential in a person's decision to read or not read a book. I was inspired by the discussion around the idea of #coverflip to look at my own book buying decisions.

Reasons I buy a book:

• Pre-read: If I really like a book someone lends me, or I borrow from the library, or our family had when I was growing up I will most likely buy it. Depending on the book, I might actively go and look for it, or perhaps just buy it because I've come across it when browsing a store. Often, but not always, I'll actively look in second hand bookstores, but I still often buy new books.
• First Time Read: If I buy a book I haven't read before it is either because: 
• It is by an author I love. I think the primary motivation behind my book purchases is the author.
• It was recommended to a point I got excited about it. Mostly I look for recommended books in the library, but sometimes the library doesn't have the book I want so I buy it.
• I found it on the shelf and circumstances were favourable to an impulse buy (e.g. money in my wallet).

Motivations behind my book choices:

• Recommendation: This is the most common reason I read a book. I have hundreds, if not thousands, of books on my 'To Read' lists based entirely on a recommendation. 
• Personal: Most often a book recommendation comes from my sisters or mother, we all enjoy the same sorts of stories. I also rely on recommendations from friends I know have good taste, and sometimes from teachers.
• From Industry: I often read books recommended by other authors I like. This is particularly easy when following authors on Twitter. I also follow a few literary agents who represent authors I like, and make good recommendations. 
• Familiar Author: If I like an author I will read, and probably buy, all of their books.
• Necessary for Study: Currently the most common reason for buying a book.
• Library: If at the library I will often get out and read books simply because they are in a section I like (e.g. YA), and often if I really like a book from the library I will go and buy it. 

A bit of Content Analysis (my experiment):

Impulse Buys:

I went through my bookcases, and pulled down all the books I bought just because I thought they looked interesting: books and authors I had never heard. The majority of these books (but not all) were bought between the age of 15-17 because that's when I had the most disposable income (I bought a lot of books in this period). Overall, there were 18 books I bought entirely on impulse.
When considering these books in relation to my entire collection of owned books, and the kinds of books I read, I think that my impulse buys are not indicative of my overall taste in reading, but do suggest some interesting things.

Results:

The main things I considered were:

• If I'd borrowed this book from the library would I still have bought it?
• Is the cover misleading?
• Does the cover do a good job of suggesting the kind of book it is?

General Findings:

• All were book new, so clearly I buy familiar books when I go to the second hand bookshop. 
• Only one of them is by a male author, and only two have a male protagonist (Exchange and The Merlin Conspiracy). So clearly, when I impulse buy I'm drawn to female authors/characters.
• All of them are within the very broad category of Young Adult fiction: about a third contemporary, half fantasy (if fantasy includes paranormal) and a few others. 
• At least half these impulse buys resulted in future purchases from that author, and five of my, now, all time favourite authors are on this list.

On Covers:

• Half the covers had people on them. I do not like covers that have people on them
• Most covers seem not to be misleading, but I feel there is a lot of room for improvement.
• Most covers seem pretty generic (boring).
• There are certain covers that absolutely grabbed me, and that I think are beautiful in their own right even unconnected to the book. 
• Every cover that featured a person, that person was a skinny, white girl (this is a really important issue).

Here they are:

Ones with artistic-y covers

Heretic by Sarah Singleton: I probably wouldn't have bought it if I'd borrowed it, but I did enjoy reading it so don't regret buying it. The cover isn't misleading, but is not especially revealing. It looks kind of spooky, so it fits with the gothic aspect of the novel.

Our Little Secret by Allyson Webster: I didn't like this book. Something about it just didn't click, it tried to deal with serious (and important) issues, but I felt like it didn't quite work. I definitely wouldn't have bought it if I'd borrowed it. The cover is fairly generic, but I think the black and white suggests a serious topic. 

Exchange by Paul Magrs: I love this cover more that I loved the book. It is the reason I bought, I just through it looked beautiful. I enjoyed the book, but the ending fell a little flat, and I probably wouldn't have bought it if I'd borrowed it. The cover is quite relevant, the story is all about books, so the letters work quite well.

How I Live Now by Meg Rosoff: I love Meg Rosoff, and am so glad I found this book, I've bought all her subsequent books, bar one I haven't found in a bookstore yet (but read in the library). She is a phenomenal writer, her stories are beautifully crafted, poignant and thought provoking. So much love! The cover is really pretty, probably motivated me to buy the book, it is the sort of cover I'm attracted to. It doesn't really connect strongly to the book, but I think evokes a suggestion of the atmosphere. 

Covers with White Girls

Saving Francesca by Melina Marchetta: I would definitely buy this. When I did buy it, I had actually read Looking for Alibrandi, but didn't realise it was the same author (despite the fact it actually says so on the cover). I love Melina Marchetta's books, having bought nearly all of them. She's a fantastic writer. The cover seems to fit reasonably well, but isn't especially appealing to me. I bought it based of the blurb and the fact it won a Children's Book Council: Book of the Year award. If I remember correctly, the bookstore had a recommendation on it.

Guitar Girl by Sara Manning: I enjoyed reading this and if I'd borrowed it from the library I probably would have bought it at 15, but now maybe not. It's a contemporary YA novel, reasonably well written, but not really notable. It covers some interesting issues. It's a neat enough cover, and does depict a girl with a guitar, which as suggested by the title, is the protagonist of the story. Possibly off putting to certain readership through the 'pink' factor. 

Jessica's Guide to Dating on the Dark Side by Beth Fantaskey: This is quite a funny book, it subtly pokes fun at the paranormal YA romance genre, while still participating actively within its parameters. While the cover is very generic, it kind of suits given the self-aware nature of the book. I'd possibly still buy it if I'd borrowed it. 

Golden by Jennifer Lynn Barnes: I really like Jennifer Lynn Barnes, she's fascinating to follow on twitter, as she is a psychology professor at a US university and studies the psychology of popular culture, particularly about books. Anyway, I've bought a few more of her books, so I'd probably have bought Golden if I'd borrowed it. The cover is a über generic YA cover: the torso shot. BORING. I like the glowy-ness though, it fits pretty well. 

Pretties

Rosemary For Rememberance by Felicity Pulman: I really enjoyed this when I read it, and bought the rest of the series, but got bored with it within the next few books. So given that hindsight, perhaps wouldn't have bought it if I'd borrowed it, but I did really like it the first time around. The cover is quite cool, I like the borders, they fit really well with the period the story is set it (Mediaeval - early-ish after Norman invasion).

Maddigan's Fantasia by Margaret Mahy: Margarent Mahy is a really great author, who has publish in a range of age groups. I'd definitely buy this again, it's really a well crafted, complex fantasy. The cover is reasonably suitable, I like the normalcy of the girl's appearance, but I've seen nicer covers of this book.

Hush by Donna Jo Napoli: I bought this book because it looked intriguing, and despite my dislike of people on book covers, I think this had a lot to do with the cover. It does reflect the feeling of the story, and (maybe a stretch) considering the importance of water and ocean in the story the blue gives that atmosphere. I like Napoli's writing, and possibly would have bought it if I'd borrowed it.

The Secret Countess by Eva Ibbotson: I LOVE Eva Ibbotson, and The Secret Countess is my favourite of all her books. I am so so glad I picked up this book, and decided to buy it. I like the gold print on the cover, I feel like it kind of reflects the Russian nobility emigre situation, maybe. Subtly. I do like Ibbotson's other covers better, the ones without faces. I definitely would have bought this.

Pink!

The Prophecy of the Gems by Flavia Bujor: I reread this a few times as a teenager. I enjoyed reading it, I chose it because the blurb intrigued me, and I was at an age where I was very into fantasy. I think the cover is fairly reflective of the story, but I feel like the excessive pastels and pink were a bit unnecessary, it would have worked in a bolder colour scheme. I might still buy it, but probably wouldn't have been on the look out for it.

The Girl Who Could Fly by Victoria Forester: This is a really cute book. I enjoyed it a lot. Probably would buy it second hand rather than new though. I like the cover, but what made me pick it up was the title.

The Frog Princess by E.D. Baker: I picked up this book, and the next two in the series (there are seven and I now own all of them) in one go. I love fairy tales, so that was my primary motivation. Out of the whole series this is my lease favourite cover. The whole series is really great, so I'd definitely have bought it if I'd borrowed it.

Mirror, Mirror by Nancy Butcher: Once again, motivation for buying this book was the fact it is a fairy tale adaptation (Snow White). It's a good story, enjoyable, and I'd probably buy it, but not definitely. Given the fact the story challenges the sorts of cultural assumptions that make 'girl books' pink, it seems an inappropriate cover choice, but I think you could argue both for and against this cover.

The first of some favourites

The Goose Girl by Shannon Hale: Another fairy tale adaptation. I cannot express how glad I am I picked up this book. The cover is beautiful, the story is beautiful, I love Shannon Hale, and own so many of her fantastic books (one is even part of my thesis). I think this cover really captures the quiet beauty of the book.

The Merlin Conspiracy by Diana Wynne Jones: I really like this cover, the bright colours, and intricate details are very appealing (and reflective of the awesomeness of the books). Diana Wynne Jones is one of my favourite authors, I trawl through bookshops (new and second hand) searching for books of hers I don't yet own. 

Some Concluding Thoughts:

Genre (in all it's inadequacy) seems important to my impulse book purchases. While certain covers are much more appealing, a cover I dislike is not necessarily going to stop me from buying the book. Having people on the cover of a book is not only entirely unnecessary, but is almost as bad as having a movie cover. I seem to avoid pink covers, unless there are other motivating factors. Out of these books, I think my favourite cover is either The Goose Girl or How I Live Now. I'd like to see more covers like these.

Given that I am an absolute bookworm, and consider the purchasing of books to be as important as items such as clothing, perhaps these reflections are not indicative of other book buyers. If covers have some, but not complete, influence over my book choices, perhaps they are more influential to people who might not explore bookstore the way I do.

All in all impulse buys are a very small percentage of my overall book buying.

Perhaps next time I'm in Fullers, I'll have a longer look at sections outside of YA. Perhaps, I'll have a closer look at some of the bright pink covers, or stock standard torso photo covers. After all, despite not being misleading, most covers don't really tell you much at all about the fantastic story that could be waiting inside.

Review: Brave

Last weekend we watched the Disney Pixar animation Brave, a film I've been wanting to see for a while. Here are my thoughts on it:

Highlights:

• The Plot: It was an interesting story, enough in there to remain exciting, but not too much. It wasn't overwhelmingly complicated and it really complimented the characterisation. Also, overall the plot was about a mother/daughter relationship which is fantastic.
• The Characters: I loved the characters. They were interesting, they grew and changed, but still maintained a sense of clear personality. I liked that a lot of the minor characters had distinctive aspects to them. The characters love each other, and have to learn to work hard at understanding each other.
• The Animation:  I don't know a lot about animation but it was really beautiful. It was visually lovely to watch.  I especially liked Merida's hair (not blonde!) and the scenery. I think it was really well put together, and I loved the music.
• I love the fact they all had Scottish accents, not being Scottish I can't say whether they were real or not but considering until recently all Disney animations were in American voices regardless of the setting (think Aladdin or Mulan) it was refreshing.

A Few Problems:

I don't think that these were significant enough to not watch the film, overall it's pretty positive in its gender representations but it is important to be aware of the areas it was lacking:

• Women: Merida is the heroine and loves nothing more that riding through the forest, shooting arrows. She hates being a princess, the constraints and expectations, especially the idea she will have to get married. Contrasted to Merida is the Queen, who is portrayed as uptight and proper, who has to learn to let go. She's bossy, and frequently nagging her husband. It's a pretty binary representation of what women can be like. (There is a bit of flexibility towards the end)
• Men: The majority of the male characters are the members of the Scottish clans, all of whom are rough and ready, love fighting and need a strong (uptight, bossy) woman to get them in line. The main male character is Merida's father, who, while he is portrayed as a man who loves his wife and children, is also reasonable incompetent outside of a battle, or hunt. 

The reason these are problematic representations is that there is a lack of complexity, in order to show a strong woman (what does that even mean anyway?), the male characters must be belittled. In order to show Merida as a strong-willed independent girl, the mother must be the opposite. 

Overall:

I really enjoyed Brave, it was a beautiful, exciting, and quite often very sweet, film. I got totally caught up in the plot, even jumped a few times.

I think it is a fantastic film, certainly good for parents and children (probably a bit scary for younger children). I think it is the sort of film you can simply enjoy but also could spark some really important and great discussions (respect, love understanding etc).

Choosing Books for Children

Disclaimer: I do not have children, and I do not have a teaching degree. My observations are based of personal experiences: memories of my own childhood, and time spent with families I am friends with. I am an English Honours student, and my thesis is focused on fairy tales and adaptations of fairytales, subsequently, I have been thinking a lot about the purpose of stories for children. I love books, I have always loved books. I love children, I have a lot of friends with children. I love recommending books. This is something I think about a lot.

I read a lot. During semester my piles of books tend to be more academic or fiction I will spend weeks closely analysing. While this is in many ways fun, it's not 'reading for fun'. When I have time to read for fun the variety of books is considerable. Despite being almost twenty-three, I still enjoy reading children's books.

In addition to this, I read a lot of blogs, some by authors, others by readers and something that is frequently discussed is the idea of ‘girl’ vs ‘boy’ books. This affects books in every area from children’s stories to popular fiction to the literary canon[i]. It is an issue of what men/boys read, rather than what women read.

This is something I believe can be rectified by the way we approach children’s books. In general it is acceptable for girls to read and enjoy books with male characters or that fit a traditionally male genre, such as adventure books. However, it seems to me that the idea that a boy cannot read and enjoy a book with a female protagonist or by a female author is pervasive[ii].

Most people seem to accept that girls read and enjoy books with adventure, a male protagonist, and/or author. But the idea that a boy cannont read and enjoy a book with a female protagonist, or even female author is pervasive, and I think problematic for several reasons.

Through out my pre-tertiary education we rarely studied texts as a class that had female protagonists[iii]. What does this say to children? That books about boys are the ones worth studying. That boy books are serious and legitimate, and girl books are trivial[iv].

If children are told that girl books are only for girls, this contributes to a cultural understanding that is already in place[v] that devalues the feminine. Children can learn that boys who like so called girl things are girly and that is a bad thing.

How can we possibly think it is okay to allow young boys to see anything associated with femininity as negative, as 'other' and as inferior? 

Books have immense power, they are a fantastic way to experience lives outside of ourselves, to learn to empathise and respect people who are different from us. If it is perfectly acceptable for girls to learn to empathise with and respect boys, why is it not the same for boys?

I do not think gender is an appropriate way to categorise books. Sure, maybe a lot boys prefer adventure fiction, and maybe a lot of girls prefer domestic stories focused on relationships[vi], but the idea that the gender of either a main character or the author should influence the decision to read a story is absurd. 

When deciding what books are appropriate for a child I think the biggest things to consider are:

•                Have you read the book yourself? Obviously this is ideal and really not possible all the time. If you can't read the book yourself, you should still talk to your child about what they are discovering as they read.

•                Is it an appropriate level for your child's reading/listening and concentration skills?

•                Are the themes appropriate to your child's maturity? (don't underestimate them!) 

•                Is it the kind of genre (also an imperfect way of categorising stories) your child enjoys?

•                Is it a good book? Children, unexplainably, often love books that are poorly written, or completely boring to adults. This is okay.  However, I think it is good to encourage reading books that are beautiful[vii] and develop an appreciation of the different ways books can be good (good writing, good characterisation or good plot etc).

Most importantly, talking about books and reading with your children is a fantastic way to develop their critical thinking skills.

I plan to write some reviews of children’s books I love to help parents in making these decisions, but it depends on my university work load. Would people be interested?

N.B Shannon Hale wrote a post a while ago with recommendations of books boys will love with female characters.

---

[i] How many men are encouraged to read Jane Austen?

[ii] J.K Rowling’s initials were used in printing Harry Potter so as to not be off putting to potential male readers.

[iii] My memory is not perfect, but I am reasonably sure that men wrote the majority of texts I studied in English, or the texts had male protagonists.

[iv] An interesting point on this playing out in adulthood is current discussion about Wikipedia categories.

[v] But thankfully, now often challenged

[vi] I’m not convinced this is actually true, I always liked both kinds.

[vii] This is an inadequate way of describing how I feel about a good book, but I am struggling to find a better one.