Hush Hush & bad boys/rape culture (potentially triggering) (split from YA books to film)

Hapax Legomenon said:

Because a "bad boy" seems to be anything that society does not like. A "bad boy" is a boy with dangerous hobbies, a "bad boy" is a boy who likes to have sex with many different people, a "bad boy" is an activist for a cause that has not yet been vindicated by history, or a thousand other reasons why a boy may not be approved of by parents or peers. A "good boy" is a boy who colors within the lines, and let me tell you, even these days those lines are not all good for any woman who gets close to him.

Abuse requires certain feelings to be going on within a relationship and a "bad boy" is not necessarily an abuser, just as a "good boy" is not necessarily not an abuser or rapist. Like, why is Christian Grey a bad person? Not because he has childhood issues or because he doesn't want a "real" relationship and only wants BDSM sex (which is portrayed dangerously, but I fault more the author for that), but he's a bad person because he's coercing complete control over Ana. Now is that element really necessary to write a sexy book about someone's adventures in BDSM? Not really, no. Is that sort of behavior possible coming out of people who do not enjoy BDSM and indeed, have no "bad" parts of their persona? Yes, completely.

I don't know. This is just my opinion on it.

Click to expand...

This is also important to consider. Personally, about 50% of the relationships I often see friends and acquaintances engaging in are ones I would categorize as at least low-grade abuse or just general bad behavior.


Like, if you have to sit in your car for an hour everyday crying because of your boyfriend/girlfriend, chances are that is not a healthy relationship for you. Even if they aren't physically abusing you. Even if they don't verbally or emotionally abuse you. People seem to have this idea that if it isn't "abusive", then it can't be unhealthy.

And the of course we have the arguments over what qualifies as abuse. And then we have the idea that you can fix people. Etc. A lot of relationships and a lot of our beliefs/culture associated with relationships are based on a sort of turtles all the way down of bad information and flawed ideas.


I wish more YA (especially) would explore that with some real insight and subtlety. Instead, we're still at the point where characters like Patch and Edward are defended as acceptable representations of significant others.

Exactly. Like, maybe I have a different perspective because most of the romance novels I read are historical -- so it's like, "Take me now, you scallawag revolutionary! I don't care that you've been accused of witchcraft!" The thing that has given these boys a bad reputation in this case has been vindicated by history, so even though they might be dangerous to know in the story we still allow ourselves to root for them.

But this also makes you question other things, like what makes a boy "bad" in a modern novel may be vindicated by history in the future... (probably not all the paranormal romances, though) but controlling, abusive behavior? Probably not. At least I deeply hope not.

The other side of the coin is that the girl always wants to "tame" the bad boy. Which is silly. People should not go into relationships expecting to change the other, it's not healthy and fair to the other party. Like, if the girl falls for the millionaire playboy philanthropist and decides she's going to get him to settle down with her, well, she's delusional. If she wants a good time for a few months, more power to her, you know? It does seem like few heroines are written this way, though. It might be too far outside the romance formula.

Hapax Legomenon said:

Exactly. Like, maybe I have a different perspective because most of the romance novels I read are historical -- so it's like, "Take me now, you scallawag revolutionary! I don't care that you've been accused of witchcraft!" The thing that has given these boys a bad reputation in this case has been vindicated by history, so even though they might be dangerous to know in the story we still allow ourselves to root for them.

But this also makes you question other things, like what makes a boy "bad" in a modern novel may be vindicated by history in the future... (probably not all the paranormal romances, though) but controlling, abusive behavior? Probably not. At least I deeply hope not.

The other side of the coin is that the girl always wants to "tame" the bad boy. Which is silly. People should not go into relationships expecting to change the other, it's not healthy and fair to the other party. Like, if the girl falls for the millionaire playboy philanthropist and decides she's going to get him to settle down with her, well, she's delusional. If she wants a good time for a few months, more power to her, you know? It does seem like few heroines are written this way, though. It might be too far outside the romance formula.

Click to expand...

I've seen enough real-life relationships where one side wants to change the other to see it as realistic. What's not realistic is how often they succeed in fiction. Of course, that's because fiction is not reality. But when that sort of attitude is held up in the fiction as ideal or desirable, I do get frustrated.



There are reasons to include less-than-stellar relationships in fiction. And no writer is "responsible" for only creating "proper" role models. But I do wish more authors gave a bit more of the reality of the issue, especially in third person POVs.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

This is also important to consider. Personally, about 50% of the relationships I often see friends and acquaintances engaging in are ones I would categorize as at least low-grade abuse or just general bad behavior.


Like, if you have to sit in your car for an hour everyday crying because of your boyfriend/girlfriend, chances are that is not a healthy relationship for you. Even if they aren't physically abusing you. Even if they don't verbally or emotionally abuse you. People seem to have this idea that if it isn't "abusive", then it can't be unhealthy.

Click to expand...

And sometimes it's how that person is in the relationship - such as having unrealistic expectations or clingyness - and not necessarily the other person at all. There girls who can't handle a boyfriend having friends or hobbies or anything that doesn't involve them and that's a problem too.

Fuchsia Groan said:

But the book also has a nice guy with some of the danger and roughness of the bad boy (Hareton). And a toxic, manipulative, passive-aggressive "nice guy" (Linton). It's like a gallery of boys you (mostly) should not date.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. I find that one lacking in fiction as well and it's one I came across a lot more in real life when I was younger than the 'classic abuser' or bad boy.

Wilde_at_heart said:

And sometimes it's how that person is in the relationship - such as having unrealistic expectations or clingyness - and not necessarily the other person at all. There girls who can't handle a boyfriend having friends or hobbies or anything that doesn't involve them and that's a problem too.

Click to expand...

Yup. I would also classify that as an unhealthy relationship.

Mostly I think it comes down to the inability to understand the difference between someone you want to bang and someone you want to have a relationship with. If I had just understood that as a teenager, I think it would have made a huge difference...I would have had the proper place to put my intense attraction to men who I KNEW deep down were terrible news for me. I would have understood that I could have those feelings of attraction for all sorts of terrible men and that didn't mean I had to be "in love" with any of them or figure out how to redeem them into a potential relationship choice. It would have been even easier to not have sex with them because I would have understood "oh, this is just sex" and moved on. But no, I spent hours and hours trying to figure out how to make these people I wanted to sleep with into valid partners.

I think it's just hard to write that subtleties of reality. EVEN MORE SO when you're dealing with teenagers or young adults. And we enjoy the fantasy of books about those people who are bad partners in real life.

Why do people still think that cultural products (books, movies, tv etc) have nothing to do with reinforcing dominant ideologies in society? Lol

lemonhead said:

Mostly I think it comes down to the inability to understand the difference between someone you want to bang and someone you want to have a relationship with. If I had just understood that as a teenager, I think it would have made a huge difference...I would have had the proper place to put my intense attraction to men who I KNEW deep down were terrible news for me. I would have understood that I could have those feelings of attraction for all sorts of terrible men and that didn't mean I had to be "in love" with any of them or figure out how to redeem them into a potential relationship choice. It would have been even easier to not have sex with them because I would have understood "oh, this is just sex" and moved on. But no, I spent hours and hours trying to figure out how to make these people I wanted to sleep with into valid partners.

I think it's just hard to write that subtleties of reality. EVEN MORE SO when you're dealing with teenagers or young adults. And we enjoy the fantasy of books about those people who are bad partners in real life.

Click to expand...

I think even still sleeping with them but in a use 'em and lose 'em kind of way would be healthier than trying to force a good relationship.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I think even still sleeping with them but in a use 'em and lose 'em kind of way would be healthier than trying to force a good relationship.

Click to expand...

But where is the glamour? How can you have a story without the woman (girl) using her glamour on the most dangerous subject, the super-really-oh-my-god-how-dangerous-is-he bad boy?

Xelebes said:

But where is the glamour? How can you have a story without the woman (girl) using her glamour on the most dangerous subject, the super-really-oh-my-god-how-dangerous-is-he bad boy?

Click to expand...

If the girl can cast glamours, then she is therefore fey and guaranteed to be the most dangerous party in the relationship.

Roly said:

Why do people still think that cultural products (books, movies, tv etc) have nothing to do with reinforcing dominant ideologies in society? Lol

Click to expand...

I think it's not so much that they don't realize these things reinforce ideology so much as it is most people conflate "reinforce" with "are responsible for."

When someone points out that violence in entertainment is a contributing factor in real life, that quote will immediately be seized upon and repeated as "Violence in entertainment causes real life violence," which is a far different statement. The same holds true for presentation in literature. It can not only reinforce negative ideas, but if it's the sole source of exposure that person has to a new idea, culture, or group of people, then it forms their assumptions of the same.

Either Jim Hines or John Scalzi had a post a while back dealing with this. It was about ferociously carnivorous llamas.

The idea is that one writer writes about a group of ferociously carnivorous llamas. Then another one does the same. People like these things, so a movie comes out, and the llamas are ferocious and carnivorous. Eventually, even though the presentation is wrong, people expect all llamas to be framed in terms of this ferocity, and will decry a more realistic presentation as "totally wrong" or "poorly researched" because they "know" llamas are lethal man-eaters.

Roly said:

Why do people still think that cultural products (books, movies, tv etc) have nothing to do with reinforcing dominant ideologies in society? Lol

Click to expand...

(Cyia already covered this more eloquently than I will, but hey, that's not going to stop me and my half-baked thoughts. )

Isn't this a similar line of logic to "video games cause school shootings"? Fantasy violence does not cause real violence -- already vulnerable or unstable people cause real violence, and some of them use fiction to encourage and support their fantasies.

I'm uncomfortable with any argument that says fictional abusive relationships encourage real abusive relationships. In this particular conversation, I'm also aware that the majority of romance writers are women, and many women who write abuse and rape have experienced it. It's blaming victims for encouraging their abuse.

To be clear, I'm not trying to shut the conversation down with cries of 'IT'S VICTIM BLAMING' -- there's a lot of excellent food for thought here about whether abusive characters can still be love interests, whether we're focusing enough on their actions and the consequences or just using it as a tension device. But the above is why I personally find blaming writers for their character's actions distasteful.

I'm still firmly in the 'enjoy whatever you like in fiction, you're not hurting anybody' camp.

Over in the wilds of fandom, there's Startrek mpreg omegaverse slash (don't go googling all that at work), there's Sherlock dubcon AU slash with half-demons everywhere, there's all sorts of weird and creative relationships where an unhealthy power balance is only the start. Doesn't hurt anyone. People like what they like and they're still perfectly normal, nice folks.

EMaree said:

Startrek mpreg omegaverse slash (don't go googling all that at work)

Click to expand...

Just looked that up and I'm so confused about what I just read.

EMaree said:

(Cyia already covered this more eloquently than I will, but hey, that's not going to stop me and my half-baked thoughts. )

Isn't this a similar line of logic to "video games cause school shootings"? Fantasy violence does not cause real violence -- already vulnerable or unstable people cause real violence, and some of them use fiction to encourage and support their fantasies.

I'm uncomfortable with any argument that says fictional abusive relationships encourage real abusive relationships. In this particular conversation, I'm also aware that the majority of romance writers are women, and many women who write abuse and rape have experienced it. It's blaming victims for encouraging their abuse.

To be clear, I'm not trying to shut the conversation down with cries of 'IT'S VICTIM BLAMING' -- there's a lot of excellent food for thought here about whether abusive characters can still be love interests, whether we're focusing enough on their actions and the consequences or just using it as a tension device. But the above is why I personally find blaming writers for their character's actions distasteful.

I'm still firmly in the 'enjoy whatever you like in fiction, you're not hurting anybody' camp.

Over in the wilds of fandom, there's Startrek mpreg omegaverse slash (don't go googling all that at work), there's Sherlock dubcon AU slash with half-demons everywhere, there's all sorts of weird and creative relationships where an unhealthy power balance is only the start. Doesn't hurt anyone. People like what they like and they're still perfectly normal, nice folks.

Click to expand...

I think that's completely different from what started this conversation, though. We're not talking about women drawing from their own abuse to craft characters going through similar events. We're talking about books that show de facto abuse; where the intent wasn't to create an abusive relationship, but to portray a healthy one.

I fully support writers writing bad characters, and separating writers from those bad characters. People make bad choices all the time and it's important to show all sides of something. Characters don't choose what the writer would personally choose. It's when the character isn't supposed to be bad--when the writing isn't intentional--that I have a problem.

To pick on Edward (because I've stayed far, far away from HH). His character seems to be intended to be the hot, dangerous, softy, full of feels and angst. There's no intentional abuse there by the author. It's all de facto. Creeping in Bella's window and watching her sleep without her knowledge or consent; knowing where she is at all times; putting her in dangerous situations; telling her she's his life and he can't stay away from her; dictating who she does and doesn't hang out with; violence out of jealousy. That's classic stalker behavior, and common behavior from abusers. Most abused women are followed, tracked, kept tabs on. They have no voice, they can't make their own decisions. Abuse is, at its core, about power and control. Edward has all the power and control in the relationship and Bella is just pulled along with him. (I should add that I worked in a Family Violence Clinic for several years representing abused women and helping them get Protection from Abuse Orders).

To me, there's a very big difference between an author writing an abusive relationship to showcase the abuse, and an author not realizing what they're doing.

It's important for me to note that I don't think authors (or anyone in entertainment) is responsible for what they put out in the world in a this-bad-thing-happened-because-of-your-book/game/movie-I'm-suing-you kind of way. I think the responsibility is a moral one. There's a difference in writing about your world and writing to reinforce a certain behavior. And let's face it, it's not typically the abusers reading this stuff. It's the people who are stuck in the unhealthy relationship whose ideas about what is and isn't healthy and normal are either being shattered or reinforced.

Tupac and Ice Cube wrote about killing cops because that was the reality of life on their streets, not to encourage people to go out and kill cops. Ozzy Osbourne wrote about suicide to deal with his own issues, not to encourage people to commit suicide. (I wrote a paper in law school on music and incitement to act, so this is kind of my specialty, haha. All of those musicians were sued for incitement to act. If they had intended to encourage those acts, they would've been found guilty). Plenty of authors (like Christa Desir, Laurie Halse Anderson, and Courtney Stevens), explore abuse and rape in their books That's not an issue for me. The issue is the books with dangerous, violent behavior that is categorized as normal. Imagine if Katy Perry sang about how hot it was a boy threatened her with a knife in "Teenage Dream." To a girl dating a guy who follows her everywhere and dictates who her friends are, reading about Edward and Bella reinforces the idea that the behavior is normal.

EMaree said:

Isn't this a similar line of logic to "video games cause school shootings"?

Click to expand...

Not picking with your picking, but the general thread of the conversation has more in common with Gamergate than with Jack Thompson.

Women creating unhealthy images for girls/young women leading them trying to use things that they don't have with the opposite sex which lands them in abusive relationships or isolation.

While the main cause of Gamergate is men creating unhealthy images for boys/young men, leading them to use things that they don't have with the opposite sex which lands them in abusive relationships or isolation.

The big push now is to get away from the monomanias that are taking control of the two popular mediums for adolescents by promoting the wide flora of men and women.

It's also entirely possible that, for a given author, writing an unhealthy relationship IS normal. It's possible that an author writes what she knows to the extent that she could be in an emotionally restrictive or draining relationship, always ends up in that kind of relationship (because sadly, it becomes cyclical) and truly has no other experience with how a relationship should or could be.

It's a bit like Plato's analogy of the cave. A man whose entire life is confined to the inside of a cave, with no way to escape it, has never seen the outside world. To him, captivity is normal. He may not even realize there's more to be had from life, assuming he's got his basic needs met. Maybe he's the fourth generation of his family chained to that wall. Maybe he grew up hearing of the fearsome beasts outside and believing a rabbit is ten feet wide because of its shadow. If he were to write a book, that book would warn people to avoid the shadow monsters. His relationships would be defined in terms of the cave and who he interacted with while inside it. If he was given a book written by someone outside the cave, someone with reference to frame the true appearance of animals and the colors or scents, he might find them "wrong" because it's not what he knows.

Cyia said:

It's also entirely possible that, for a given author, writing an unhealthy relationship IS normal. It's possible that an author writes what she knows to the extent that she could be in an emotionally restrictive or draining relationship, always ends up in that kind of relationship (because sadly, it becomes cyclical) and truly has no other experience with how a relationship should or could be.

It's a bit like Plato's analogy of the cave. A man whose entire life is confined to the inside of a cave, with no way to escape it, has never seen the outside world. To him, captivity is normal. He may not even realize there's more to be had from life, assuming he's got his basic needs met. Maybe he's the fourth generation of his family chained to that wall. Maybe he grew up hearing of the fearsome beasts outside and believing a rabbit is ten feet wide because of its shadow. If he were to write a book, that book would warn people to avoid the shadow monsters. His relationships would be defined in terms of the cave and who he interacted with while inside it. If he was given a book written by someone outside the cave, someone with reference to frame the true appearance of animals and the colors or scents, he might find them "wrong" because it's not what he knows.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting, and really sad, way of looking at it. I feel like it also stresses the need for more positive relationship in books and movies because that might be the only way some people get to see what healthy looks like.

I think Hush, Hush is less about portraying an idealized relationship than about romance-as-fantasy, and the idea that “healthy”, in that context, is another way of saying boring and unromantic, like fiber. It’s the danger that makes the romance exciting, and Hush, Hush is meant to be a thriller of sorts as well.


It reminds me of the Mary Stewart gothic books I read as a teen, where there’s always some suspicion thrown on the LI and you (and the heroine) are never quite sure he isn’t the killer until the end. I always thought, “you know, if there’s even the tiniest hint of doubt in your mind, there’s something wrong with this relationship.” But the twist in Hush, Hush is that he really is trying to kill her. To me, it’s a case of the author turning a trope up to 11 and perhaps not seeing the implications.


I’m not sure how the dangerous LI trope got a foothold in YA – it seems to me that the fantasy of a non-boring relationship is more oriented toward settled adults, where for teens most relationships, healthy or not, are new and exciting.


Also:

Cyia said:

Maybe he grew up hearing of the fearsome beasts outside and believing a rabbit is ten feet wide because of its shadow.

Click to expand...

Death awaits you all with nasty, big, pointy teeth!

(sorry, couldn't resist)

EMaree said:

I'm uncomfortable with any argument that says fictional abusive relationships encourage real abusive relationships. In this particular conversation, I'm also aware that the majority of romance writers are women, and many women who write abuse and rape have experienced it. It's blaming victims for encouraging their abuse.

To be clear, I'm not trying to shut the conversation down with cries of 'IT'S VICTIM BLAMING' -- there's a lot of excellent food for thought here about whether abusive characters can still be love interests, whether we're focusing enough on their actions and the consequences or just using it as a tension device. But the above is why I personally find blaming writers for their character's actions distasteful.

I'm still firmly in the 'enjoy whatever you like in fiction, you're not hurting anybody' camp.

Click to expand...

I'm not comfortable agreeing with this. In my personal, lived experience, a preponderance of unhealthy relationships in fiction, especially for many people, male or female, does create an atmosphere where abusive behavior is seen as normal.

I'm not sure everyone here has been blaming writers for writing. Most people seem to have been saying they find a lot of unhealthy relationships in YA fiction, [here's why they see them as unhealthy], and that they think they might have some negative effects for readers. I don't think that's the same as saying the writers (who may have suffered similar circumstances) are directly responsible.



As far as the cave analogy goes: Let's accept that analogy. Then what exactly is the problem with saying "You're portraying this as an acceptable relationship and it isn't"? Is there an implication that some posters have said the writers are purposefully glorifying abusive relationships when they know they are wrong?


I know there's a bit of a the chicken or the egg thing here, as far as the video game violence comparison. But I think at least the issue of calling out abusive relationships portrayed as acceptable or idealized without in-book context is a reasonable action.

eparadysz said:

I’m not sure how the dangerous LI trope got a foothold in YA – it seems to me that the fantasy of a non-boring relationship is more oriented toward settled adults, where for teens most relationships, healthy or not, are new and exciting.

Click to expand...

Because it's a safe way (I mean this only in the physical sense) to experience a bad but exciting life decision without having to actually do it.

Xelebes said:

Not picking with your picking, but the general thread of the conversation has more in common with Gamergate than with Jack Thompson.

Women creating unhealthy images for girls/young women leading them trying to use things that they don't have with the opposite sex which lands them in abusive relationships or isolation.

While the main cause of Gamergate is men creating unhealthy images for boys/young men, leading them to use things that they don't have with the opposite sex which lands them in abusive relationships or isolation.

The big push now is to get away from the monomanias that are taking control of the two popular mediums for adolescents by promoting the wide flora of men and women.

Click to expand...

This is *such* a good response and a really way of looking at it, thanks Xelebes.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

I'm not sure everyone here has been blaming writers for writing. Most people seem to have been saying they find a lot of unhealthy relationships in YA fiction, [here's why they see them as unhealthy], and that they think they might have some negative effects for readers. I don't think that's the same as saying the writers (who may have suffered similar circumstances) are directly responsible..

Click to expand...

Very good points, well put.

What's sticking in my mind is that if you believe unhealthy relationships cause negative effects, the only 'right' way to go from there is not to write them. In a situation where fictional abuse directly linked to real life abuse, YA writers would have a duty of care not to write it. None of them would want that to happen to their readers.

In reality, the opposite is true: YA writers are creating unhealthy relationships because it creates tension and excitement in their readers. They're seeking to a positive result.

This whole discussion is such a tricky one for me because both sides of the argument are such nice people with good intentions. Readers and writers who don't want to support unhealthy relationships on one 'side', and readers and writers who enjoy the dynamics of an unhealthy relationship on the other. With a lot of overlap.

I'm easily drained by this sort of discussion, and I'm already running out of steam and wavering in my opinions, so I'm going to drop out*. However, it's been a really fascinating discussion with brilliant points being put across on both sides. Love you, AW ladies and gents. <3 Thanks for taking a tricky topic to read and giving it great depth and reason.

*Okay, I might still lurk a little because this is really interesting.

I would like more stories with bad girls to be honest...

Niiicola said:

That's interesting. I haven't really considered the responsibility aspect. Would you mind sharing examples of books like this? (I ask because I have a somewhat related plot bunny that I'm not allowed to play with for a couple of months but enjoy petting every so often.)

Click to expand...

The book that started it all (okay, maybe it didn't, but it has had a cult following)--The F0RBIDDEN GAME trilogy.
SHAD0W AND B0NE is the same.
SPLINTERED shows signs of going there, though I'm not sure yet, because it certainly does like to play with the dark side.
SHATTER ME looked like that until it pulled a twist ace out of its sleeve which is awesome if you ask me *loves twists*.
*not YA but the pattern is the same, the Fever series
the Need series, at least the first books, I haven't read the rest
the P0is0n Princess series, though also with a twist

Basically the story goes like this: the villain is a gorgeous young (though maybe just on the surface, since he's usually magical) guy who has an obsessive interest in female MC. Female MC claims she wants nothing to do with him though she is actually attracted to him.
Now we could have 3 scenarios
- she admits her attraction, decides not to act on it
- she admits her attraction and decides to act on it, whether to enjoy the guy or to use him to further her goals
- she does not admit her attraction and does not act on it (complete denial)

Instead, she doesn't admit her attraction but partially acts on it. Since he has a special interest in her, she receives certain things to progress her development, for example, her powers are upgraded, he suddenly saves her, he openly favors her. Any way, it traditionally leads her to become more powerful and she likes it. She often ends up using his attraction to her against him, thus emerging a victor in their final battle. She enjoys their sexual tension too without admitting it to either him or herself. If the story takes a darker path, he usually turns out to be unredeemable and she has to kill him/disempower him. If the story is more romantic/lighter, he often sacrifices himself for her, realizing his feelings for her as love. His attraction to her is often his downfall in both cases.

All in all, MC ends up with the 'good guy' without ever having to admit or acknowledge that she basically had a (usually left unconsummated in the sexual way) fling with the villain, got off on it and used it to her profit. She is painted as someone who accidentally stumbled into this (which might be true, at the very start of the story) and then had nothing to do with anything.

And I have a vague impression that it is also a reflection of the power issue. Remember the traditional juxtaposition of an innocent princess heroine vs an evil ruling queen? The innocent princess wants to marry the guy she loves and live happily ever after. The evil queen wants power and sex with her consorts. That's the purposefully tainted image of a powerful woman who enjoys her position. Notice how it's also linked to sexuality. The princess wants her beloved to take her hand in marriage. I.e. to belong to him. The evil queen wants to have any man she wants, i.e. to own him.

That's why I'm super curious to see where SPL1NTERED will go--because the author seems to be more than aware of the dynamics.