Disney Defense: Cinderella

Hello! Sorry again for the late post; I've been traveling and spending time with my family, and for me, that takes priority.

But I'm about to get back to a regular schedule, so that's good. I thought that today I'd try to defend one of Disney's most blasted films: Cinderella.

Why? Because I feel like Disney's old movies are misinterpreted after so much time. Nowadays, the push is so strong to present what is typically considered a "strong female protagonist" and I think that too often the movies actually become less feminist, offering a semblance of it but perhaps not the real thing. Cinderella is, surprisingly, far more feminist in nature than remembered.

But wait! Isn't this the movie about a passive, helpless girl waiting for her prince to save her? Isn't that this story?

Actually, no. Not at all. If you watch the movie again, you may notice that the Prince does one thing that moves the plot forward: he goes looking for the girl he met at the ball. Even that could be considered a reactive move, acting only because of the actions of others.

Cinderella, on the other hand, the so-called passive princess, is anything but.

This girl gets up at the crack of dawn to get to work, seemingly running the household on her own. Sure, she sings about dreams coming true, but that's not where she leaves it. She acts on what she dreams, working hard day after day. She doesn't leave the oppressive situation she's in (and perhaps she can't), but neither does she succumb to it.

On watching the film again, I was surprised by how sarcastic and sassy this "passive" character can be. She was going to beat that cat with a broom!

So, the ball comes around. I'm no scholar in medieval politics and social events, but I'm guessing that a royal ball to which every eligible maiden in the kingdom is invited is not something that happens every Friday. This is likely a once-in-a-lifetime event, much like a total solar eclipse, and for once, Cinderella is invited. She can go, by royal decree.

Lady Tremaine, Cinderella's stepmother, can't disobey a royal decree. So she, intelligent, conniving villain that she is, does what she can to stop Cinderella from going to the ball: she sets terms she knows Cinderella can't meet. In order to go, Cinderella must finish all her chores and have a suitable dress. She then, with the stepsisters, load Cinderella with more chores than she can manage.

Two notes, here: One - evil as Lady Tremaine is, she's certainly a strong character. Strong characters don't have to always be good.

And two - The Prince is not mentioned by Cinderella at all to this point, not really. She's not hoping to meet him and marry him. She doesn't expect him to save her. She just wants to go to this ball.

Cinderella does everything she can to meet the terms. She works hard and she pulls out a dress to alter. These are not the actions of a passive, "oh, well," character. She needs help to succeed, but I'd like to mention that these mice and birds that help her do so because she showed them kindness first, saving them from traps and feeding them. This is tit-for-tat, payment in kind. Kindness is not passivity, here or anywhere.

And she succeeds! Her hard work pays off and she has a dress to wear and chores are finished. And then....

The stepfamily ruins everything.

Here, Cinderella has done everything she can. She worked hard, she did everything that was in her limited power, and nothing came of it. A ball, a big party, seems so silly a desire, but for this girl who lost her parents and must now slave at the mercy of an unkind stepmother and stepsisters, one night out on the town must have seemed like a reprieve well-deserved.

Here, she receives help again, from a powerful female character: the Fairy Godmother. This character is kind and very powerful, able to give Cinderella everything she needs to go to the ball. She doesn't set Cinderella there, though, and I find it interesting that she uses the fruits of Cinderella's labors to send her there: the pumpkin you know Lady Tremaine didn't grow, the rags of the dress Cinderella was planning to wear, and the mice, dog, and horse that she cared for.

Cinderella goes to the ball, aided, but of her own desires. She meets the prince and falls in love, but then leaves when she must. After that, we see no proof that she's sitting, waiting for him to find her. She goes back to work, keeping that memory in her heart.

Then, when she learns he's coming, she stops working. Lady Tremaine realizes who that mysterious girl from the ball is, and locks her in the tower. But does Cinderella wait and wish?

In the remake, sure, but in the old cartoon, never!

She gets help. She makes a plan to use Bruno, the dog, to scare off Lucifer, the cat. And then, when the slipper is broken and all hope seems lost, she pulls out the other slipper.

In this film, Cinderella is proactive, strong, and kind, and the passive waiter is nowhere to be found. The most I can do to call her weak is comment on her needing help, and I think the day we believe that it's weak to need help after you've done your best is the day that we've lost all compassion as a society.

I realize these Disney Defenses may not change anyone's mind about how they view these movies, but I think there's much more good to be found in these films than usually believed, and that if children like and want to watch them, it's important to see the good messages about working hard, being kind, and taking action to teach them, instead of letting the media preach only "be pretty." These old Disney movies are a lot deeper than we give them credit for, and the "Disney stereotype" of passive princesses is more fantasy than reality in many cases.

Here's hoping all your dreams come true!

Here are this week's debuts:

Middle Grade:
Jonathan Rosen - Night of the Living Cuddle Bunnies (8/29)

Young Adult:
Rebecca Barrow - You Don't Know Me But I Know You (8/29)
Maggie Ann Martin - The Big F (8/29)
Gregory Katsoulis - All Rights Reserved (8/29)

Strong Characters: Acting and Not Acted Upon

Hello, all!

I hope you're having a good week. First things first, I want to remind you that my Goodreads giveaway for Under Locker and Key is running one more week, so if you haven't entered and want to, then you still can. You should! Who doesn't like free stuff? Use the widget below to enter.

Goodreads Book Giveaway

Under Locker and Key

by Allison K. Hymas

Giveaway ends May 21, 2017.
See the giveaway details at Goodreads.

Enter Giveaway

Anyway, on to the blog post! I decided to revisit an idea I've batted around before: what defines a character as "strong"? As "weak"?

I think this is important for writers and readers to determine, since we all want our heroes to be strong (unless otherwise desired, which can make for an interesting book), or at the very least, we don't want people calling our characters weak when we didn't want them to be.

Personally, I think it's important so we can see through cheap gimmicks that make a character seem strong without actually doing it, much like how a logical fallacy can make an argument seem valid when it doesn't actually do anything of the kind.

Now, a logical fallacy doesn't mean the argument itself isn't strong; it just means that it can take a weak argument and make it seem strong. Same with gimmicks, like the following:

- The character is good at fighting and using weapons.
- The character is a surly loner.
- The character is stubborn as all get out.

These things can be part of a strong character's make-up, but weak characters can be like this, too. We as society seem to think that someone who resembles Katniss from The Hunger Games is automatically a strong character.

If Katniss is a strong character, it's not because she can use a bow, doesn't get along with anyone, and doesn't give up on what she wants.

No, I'd say she's strong because she acts and isn't acted upon.

In The Hunger Games (the first book), Katniss makes her own choices. Yes, she's pushed around a bit by the society she lives in, but her choice to volunteer is hers and hers alone. She doesn't succumb to what others want but chooses and acts in her own way.

In later books, I think she starts to weaken as a character, leaving other characters to define her and her story (Catching Fire, anyone?). But at first, I think the draw to her isn't that she's good with weapons but because she acts and is not acted upon.

One thing that bugs me more than anything is when a character is presented to me as "strong" because he/she (more and more "she," lately) fits some kind of societal value, but is still acted upon instead of acting. Take Elsa from Frozen, for example.

Can you tell me one thing she does that isn't a passive reaction?

Elsa lives in hiding all her life because her parents wanted her to. She conceals her power and her feelings, even from her sister. Then, at her coronation party, she accidentally reveals her power. This is not done on purpose; it's a reaction to her sister taking her glove and yelling at her.

When the people around her are frightened by her powers, instead of dealing with the situation like a queen should, she runs away. She reacts and is acted upon. Even later, when Anna tells her that she's set off an eternal winter, Elsa doesn't do anything to fix it. She lashes out at Anna, again accidentally, and continues to hide. The only reason she goes back to Arendelle is because she is literally carried back there by someone else.

Elsa doesn't act for herself. She reacts. She's acted upon through the whole movie. Anna is the one who acts for herself, choosing to go out and find her sister. She acts by deciding to marry a man she just met. It's a terrible idea, but she at least takes action and makes her own decisions. Elsa doesn't.

I'm not saying Elsa is a bad character or that Frozen is a bad movie. There's room for strong and weak characters in fiction because that's realistic. A character rules by fear and reacting to everything is interesting in the context of the story.

But I disagree with Elsa being considered strong because she sings a song about liberation (when she's running away from all her problems and responsibilities) and looks like this:

And Cinderella is considered weak because she does housework and is kind. Cinderella does everything she can to go to the ball. She does her work and makes her dress. She doesn't run away from her problems but faces them head-on. She doesn't wait for her prince, but goes and finds him. Her only help comes when she has already done all she can for herself.

Seriously. Look who's the one who saves the day at the end in Cinderella, when the slipper is broken and all hope seems lost. It sure as heck wasn't the prince.


The more I read and watch movies, the more I realize that a strong character is someone who takes charge of their own life to the best extent that they can. They may not always succeed, but they at least try. A weak character lets others run their lives and/or only react, never act. I used female characters for this list, but you can apply it to others, for sure.

Draco Malfoy, for example. A weak character. Dobby, on the other hand, definitely takes the initiative.

If you have any thoughts about my theory that how a character acts or is acted upon decides if they're strong or weak, let me know in the comments. This is a complex writerly issue and I keep trying to get to the heart of it and explore other dimensions of character development.

Here are this week's debuts:

Young Adult:
Cale Dietrich - The Love Interest (5/16)
Melanie J. Fishbane - Maud: A Novel Inspired by the Life of L.M. Montgomery (5/16)
Kate Watson - Seeking Mansfield (5/16)