Even More Tropes I Hate
 |
| Image description: Is this a picture of Star Trek's Spock smashing things because he's under the influence of the Vulcan mating drive, pon farr, which is an example of a trope I hate? Or is it a good representation of me smashing things as a reaction to these tropes? The answer could easily be both. Join me today as I explore a few more of my least favorite tropes in media - as well as discuss how they could be done better (and potentially make me want to smash things a little less). |
In 2022, I did a post with the telling title “Miscellaneous Tropes I Hate.” In it, I explained that the tropes I’d be discussing were
tropes that might not specifically target asexual and/or aromantic people or other similar identities, or
that perhaps they didn’t have enough examples for an entire post. I also
acknowledged that it’s impossible to cover every trope, which is why it’s no
surprise that I needed to do a second post.
Although I call them “Tropes I Hate,” my issues with these
tropes go far beyond the notion of “I don’t like them” or something as
subjective as “they make me feel bad”; rather, it’s that these tropes have the
power to shape real world attitudes. Because many of these tropes are very
firmly entrenched in our media and our culture, it can be difficult to escape
them. And because it can be difficult to escape them, they absolutely can
affect people in the real world, whether or not those people are aspec.
They can also deeply influence our storytelling, which in
turn makes it harder for aspec people (or even just “aspec vibes”) to find
themselves portrayed in media. When these tropes devalue things like friendship,
or entrench sex/romance as essential, or make it seem like non-sexual and/or
non-romantic characters and plots aren’t to be taken seriously, that’s a problem.
So I think it’s important to point out these tropes when we can – and even to
offer examples of how they can become better in future. That is why I want to
explore even more tropes I hate and so, once again, let’s dive in.
-------------------------------------------------------
Love Triangles
The idea of a love triangle – in which one person is loved
by two people – is probably one of the oldest romantic tropes in existence.
However, it’s also one of the tropes I hate the most, especially since I’ve
seen too many love triangles get resolved by the spare character being
portrayed as a horrible person. But when it comes to aspec issues, I feel love
triangles also stand as a huge roadblock in storytelling to portraying actual
good examples of romance. In part, this is because love triangles often
dominate a story and have the potential to diminish characters and their story arcs.
The example I always use for these things is the character
of Gale in The Hunger Games series. Obviously, the dominant pairing of
the series is set up to be Katniss and Peeta, but to double down on that, the
series paints Gale as an impossible option for Katniss due to plot-related
reasons. As such – at least to me – it feels like he becomes a stock character,
just a spare individual who eventually gets tossed aside, even though he’s been
important to Katniss for years. Therefore, the story feels like it doesn’t have
enough room for Gale. He and Katniss never reconcile, and they never work through
the trauma of what has happened to them. Instead, he’s dismissed from the plot
and his relationship with her is ignored.
Of course, given what happens in the story, I can understand
this; moreover, it’s an unfortunate fact of life that many relationships, even
ones that were important to us, fade away and are never rekindled. But what
bothers me about Gale and how he functions in the love triangle is the fact that it feels like he’s reduced. Although his and Katniss’s parting is
portrayed as emotional, the story also makes it seem like his entire
relationship with her was predicated on him wanting romance from her and that,
now that this is impossible, he’s just set dressing. The idea that Katniss
thinks he’ll eventually forget her and just move on to kissing someone else
feels like not only a sad downgrade for the character, but an attitude borne
directly from his role as the spare piece of the love triangle.
The story does justify why Katniss and Gale wouldn’t be good
for each other even beyond just the horrors of the plot, and while I agree they
wouldn’t work out, the way he’s otherwise portrayed is unfortunate to me. Even
though he is an important part of the story and could even be seen as a
complex character, at the end of the day, he is still tarnished and treated as
less than in order to make it clear just how much he’s not a viable option. If
the story didn’t have this love triangle, or if it was done differently, I feel
that Gale could be a better character with a better arc.
 |
| Image description: Katniss and Gale, as portrayed in the film version of The Hunger Games |
To me, although this trope isn’t overtly aphobic, I think it can lead to a lot of story elements or portrayals that can eventually become so. As with Gale’s example, it feels like many love triangles take a sort of “all or nothing” approach – where if you’re not in a romantic relationship with this person, then all bets are off – which I think limits the other types of relationships that could develop out of this situation. A character’s romantic feelings for another character can cool and leave friendship behind, but love triangles and related tropes make that seem impossible; and worse, they can make it seem like even any starting friendship was never real and entirely predicated on those romantic feelings.
However, not all love triangles have to be portrayed in this
limiting way. This is something I’ve grown to love and appreciate about many
romantic Korean dramas I’ve watched, and I’m always impressed when these shows
manage to portray a love triangle well. Shows like Sisyphus, The
King: Eternal Monarch, and Alchemy of Souls all feature instances
where a female character is loved by two different male characters, and where
the guy who doesn’t get the girl is never portrayed as a bad person. In fact, all
three “spare” characters in these dramas are portrayed as kind-hearted, brave,
devoted, and loyal. Additionally, none of these guys are given the consolation
prize of another romance instead. They’ve loved, they’ve lost, and that’s
allowed to be sad without it having to be somehow corrected.
I love that these stories allow us to see these characters
as more than “the spare,” but instead encourage us to see them as amazing
characters who aren’t limited just to their love of the female character. That
could also be because even the main couples in many romantic K-Dramas are more
than just a romantic pairing and their story is more than just a romance. If I
hate love triangles because they reduce a story and its characters to just
combatants in some strange arbitrary competition, then one of the many reasons
why I love K-Dramas is because they let story and character development take
center stage while the romance is allowed to be just one part of the larger
whole.
“Mate Or Die”
Speaking of turning sex/romance into a strange and arbitrary
competition, the examples for this next trope have shades of that. “Mate or die”
(which sometimes goes by a more explicit name) usually shows up in media with
non-human characters such as sci-fi aliens or fantasy races – for instance, one
of the most notable instances of the trope can be found in Star Trek, thanks
to Vulcan pon farr. Because this trope is usually left to these
fantastical settings, it has the least real-world application, but that doesn’t
mean it doesn’t leave its mark.
In my opinion, the “mate or die” trope at its core is a
problem with consent, and that presents a whole host of issues. Additionally, it
also weirdly sets sex up as a biological necessity and, while that’s usually
explained away through things like alien physiology or magic or science, it’s
nevertheless a little strange. In the case of pon farr, for example, it seems
like there never has been nor will there ever be a non-sexual Vulcan individual
or a non-sexual Vulcan couple, which is admittedly a little disappointing.
There are a lot of strange elements related to the Vulcan
mating drive – so much so that I think the entire notion of it and its “mate or
die” tendencies need to be discussed in more depth in a separate post that I’ve
already put on my list for next year. Therefore, I won’t go too deep into the
problems I think are inherent in the ritual in this post, but I would like to
discuss one episode in particular: the Voyager episode “Blood Fever.”
In it, Vulcan crewmember Ensign Vorik begins experiencing
his first pon farr, which can be especially dangerous to a young Vulcan
who doesn’t know how to handle things. As such, the ship’s doctor goes to
Tuvok, another Vulcan crewmember, to enlist his help; but of course, because Vulcans
are very private about this element of their culture, Tuvok is likewise
reluctant to discuss it. This prompts the Doctor to remark that Vulcans have a
“remarkably Victorian attitude about sex.” Right away, this comment feels very
out of place in a supposedly enlightened and tolerant future.
But this episode is only just getting started when it comes
to not honoring people’s wishes, because Vorik unknowingly passes the pon farr onto
half-Klingon crewmember B’Elanna Torres due to the similarities between Vulcan
mating rituals and Klingon ones. I’ll talk about all the unpleasant elements of
how Vorik interacts with B’Elanna when I do that future post, but for now, I
want to focus on how the pon farr urge affects B’Elanna and what the
plot tries to do with that when she’s stranded on a planet with her crewmate,
Tom Paris.
Tom and B’Elanna are clearly attracted to one another. So, as
the urge begins to take hold of B’Elanna, she tries to initiate the mating
ritual with him, even encouraging him to go along with it because she suspects
he’s attracted to her and confirms that she’s attracted to him. However, it’s also clear
she’s under the influence of this “blood fever” and, to his great credit, Tom recognizes
this. He knows this isn’t how she’d normally act and as such knows that she’s
not giving him good consent, despite her insistence.
 |
| Image description: Tom Paris and B'Elanna Torres in "Blood Fever." Image obtained from Trekcore. |
Although not taking advantage of B’Elanna while she’s impaired is a basic tenet of consent and is a necessity, not a suggestion, it is pretty noteworthy given Star Trek’s sometimes tenuous relationship with consent, as well as the way Tom was previously portrayed. Additionally, for the time, this was a pretty good portrayal. Unfortunately, squicky consent comes back around when Tuvok overrides Tom’s decency and says he must mate with B’Elanna, or she’ll die. See why I hate this trope and think it’s the natural enemy of good consent?
Luckily, due to plot reasons, that doesn’t become necessary;
but the fact that Tom and B’Elanna are put in a position where it seems like it
might be is very cringeworthy. It’s made the slightest bit better by the fact
that Tom and B’Elanna are in the early stages of a romance that eventually
becomes an important part of their characters and story arcs, and so they’re
already attracted to each other. But what if this had happened to two crewmates
who weren’t attracted to each other at all? What if one or both of them didn’t
feel this way and didn't want to consent to this? The episode – and, by extension, the trope – doesn't seem like it's concerned with these questions, and instead want to use this trope to
create artificial “will they or won’t they?” drama. To me, that is quite
possibly the most baffling element of it.
Furthermore, not only does this trope leave me scratching my
head from an aspec point of view, but I think it should do likewise for
allosexual people. Tropes like this throw choice out the window, and they seem
to throw romance out the window too. Even if we look at it as just sex with no
romance or feeling attached (and there’s nothing wrong with that, of course), it even
diminishes that by reducing the act down to “mating,” which just strikes me as
odd. Is it about reproduction? The “biological urge?” Does it include feeling
or doesn’t it? Overall, this trope just doesn’t strike me as the way anyone
should want to see sex portrayed, nor does it seem healthy, regardless of your
own identities or preferences.
The Friendzone
I have discussed my hatred of the term “friendzone” several
times before on the blog. The idea of why I hate this notion so much is probably
obvious, given I’m a huge supporter of well-portrayed platonic friendships in
media – especially male/female ones – and this trope flies in the face of that.
In fact, I feel the idea of the “friendzone” is the natural enemy of good
platonic relationships, making these things seem not only impossible, but also
a terrible consolation prize, a mark of failure, and an insult.
Now, there is nothing wrong with wanting a romance with
someone, and being disappointed if that romance never comes to be. There’s also
nothing wrong with knowing that a romance will satisfy you in a way a
friendship could not. But there is definitely a problem with shaming someone
for wanting a friendship instead of a romance, or holding them responsible for
that attitude. I think it’s become something of a cliché or a shorthand in
certain kinds of stories to assume that if someone (especially a woman) just
wants to be friends with someone who is interested in them (particularly a
man), this is somehow disrespectful and a commentary on the other person.
However, this isn’t just an issue that goes down gender
lines; rather, this can affect anyone of any gender and any sexuality. For instance,
my mind can’t help but wander to an example that, while not strictly speaking a
friendzone and more just a rejection, nevertheless encapsulates the problem
with this concept in society and media. In the video game Dragon Age II,
one of the potential romance options in the game – Anders – begins flirting
with you rather early in the plot. Anders can be romanced by either a male or
female player character and the scenes play out quite similarly for either
gender. At one point, while flirting with you, Anders will ask if you’re
bothered by his advances, and you have the option of saying you’d prefer he
doesn’t think about you in that manner. Even though he asked you this question,
ostensibly to get your permission, he gets extremely defensive and annoyed by
your answer.
 |
| Image description: Anders in the video game Dragon Age II |
A lot of this is due to Anders’ backstory and the way he sees the world, coupled with how the game dialogue frames your rejection – the player character specifically tells Anders that they don’t want him thinking that way, to which Anders claps back “everyone wants to control my thoughts.” While I can see why this phrasing might annoy him, I still find his immediate jump to defensiveness to be rather uncomfortable. This is especially pronounced due to the game mechanic which tracks how your companions feel about you – either a friend or a rival. While I admit I don’t entirely understand this mechanic, I find it extremely unpalatable that rejecting Anders in this scene causes his rivalry to go up by ten points. For that reason, it feels like his reaction amounts to something like “if you don’t actively want me, I’m going to hold it against you personally,” and I find that extremely cringeworthy.
Furthermore, if you do choose to romance someone, depending
on who you choose and the context behind it, Anders will confront you about
your choice – especially if it’s one of the characters he personally dislikes.
During this exchange, he will express surprise that you would want to be with
these characters and will ostensibly try to change your mind. This would be
unpleasant no matter what, but it becomes especially unpleasant to me when you
consider some of his frustration from being rejected earlier in the story is
because it seems like he’s being told what to think, and yet here he is,
seemingly trying to tell you what to think.
It's hard to say for sure whether Anders can really be an
example of being friendzoned. Because DA2 is a choice-based roleplay, it’s up
to the player to choose these options and then interpret them for how they want
to play their character; as such, you can choose to see your rejection of
Anders as wanting to just be friends or literally just telling him to leave you
alone, no friendship attached. Additionally, the way Anders is portrayed and his
eventual role in the plot means that it can be somewhat difficult to tell if Anders
is truly a friend or not. But whether or not his behavior is interpreted as
being friendzoned or simply rejected, I have a lot of problems with it.
In most friendzone relationships, being someone’s friend is
seen as disappointing; Anders takes it a step further and interprets just being
in a professional relationship with someone as frustrating and insulting, then
goes on to question the players choices if you do choose to romance someone
else. Keep in mind that the first part of this happens when Anders barely knows
you, meaning he’s clearly making a lot of assumptions about you (he even admits as much). It’s one thing
to flirt with someone and find out they’re not interested, but it’s another
thing entirely to find out they’re not interested and get angry with them,
which is exactly what Anders does.
Moreover, I’m legitimately not sure if the game wants us to
view this behavior as a red flag. Are we supposed to find this behavior
suspicious as an early indicator that maybe Anders isn’t completely trustworthy?
Or did the writers legitimately not realize how creepy this behavior can be? We
may never know the answer to that, but I think this type of behavior in media is
a problem because it shows the struggle of ever saying no – whether you’re an
allosexual person or an aspec one. When even a polite rejection is taken as an
insult, how can we safely navigate relationships? From an aspec perspective, the
idea that rejection is an insult is even more pronounced because in some cases,
an aspec person may be rejecting an allosexual person because of their own
personal identity, and that makes the situation even more awkward if the person
they’re rejecting decides to take it personally.
Ironically, even when this trope is subverted, there are
problems (see what I said in my introduction about tropes being difficult to
escape). One of the best examples of the exact opposite of a friendzone is
another example I’ve discussed on the blog before – that of Zagreus and Dusa in
the video game Hades, an especially relevant example because Dusa seems
to be AroAce. However, for as wonderfully as this is handled by the game, it is
less well handled by some of the fandom.
 |
| Image description: These are some comments from this video of Dusa's "romance." Notice that many of the things I discuss above play out here - people accusing Dusa of friendzoning Zag, people blaming Dusa and diminishing her, comments that make her seem unworthy or like she shouldn't be the one rejecting him, many players taking her rejection personally, and so on. These comments strike me as rather baffling and completely incongruous with how the romance is portrayed. Notice too how, when some people try to claim Dusa as an AroAce character, they are immediately met with resistance. All of this makes it clear to me how difficult it can be to escape from the effects of tropes like this. |
In the game, if Zagreus (controlled by the player) tries to romance Dusa, she will eventually confess to him that she’s not looking for that type of relationship, but that she values her friendship with Zag so much that she doesn’t want anything to come between them. Even before this, he makes it clear that he would gladly be in a romantic relationship with her, but that if she wants to remain friends, he’s happy for that as well.
To Zagreus, there’s nothing wrong with being Dusa’s friend.
In fact, being Dusa’s friend is one of the best things he can think of, and so,
when that’s what their relationship remains as, it’s the opposite of a problem.
In fact, he’s actually pleased that they can still be friends without romance interfering,
and they gladly cement their relationship as besties. But when the comments of
fans express disappointment that they don’t get to romance Dusa or feel as if
she’s friendzoned Zag, this is a clear example to me of why this trope is so
problematic because, even in a situation where the media in question casts the
trope aside, it’s still entrenched enough that some players are defaulting to
it.
This attitude feels disrespectful to Dusa, instead making it
all about Zagreus and his feelings – which is especially frustrating when you
consider that Zagreus himself didn’t take the rejection like that and did not
make it all about himself. Zagreus in these scenes is a terrific ally and a terrific
friend, and his reward is that his meaningful platonic bond with Dusa deepens,
which is a wonderful prize. Therefore, despite the reactions of some people to
this plotline, I hope this game’s tactic can become more the norm than what we
see in DA2. I’d love it if we could have more characters – and people – who are
more like Zagreus and less like Anders. In fact, that’s just good advice in
general, tropes notwithstanding (if you’re familiar with DA2, you know what I’m
talking about. Don’t be Anders. Ever.)
 |
| Image description: A scene of Dusa in the game Hades |
Although these tropes are difficult to get out from
underneath, I don’t think it’s impossible, and some of these positive examples
prove that. I think these examples should be celebrated, and maybe someday these
more positive portrayals can become as entrenched at the negative ones. That’s
the beauty of tropes – they don’t have to be problematic, because at their
core, they’re just storytelling conventions, and those can evolve just like
characters and stories can. So, while there are always going to be tropes I
hate, maybe someday some of the tropes I currently hate can actually become
opportunities to build better stories that I – and all kinds of people – can come
to love.
Comments
Post a Comment