Gender Trouble & the Power of Discourse in Young & New Adult Fae Romance Novels

Introduction

The Trope

In recent years, there has been an influx of a specific sub-genre/trope in the young adult (12-18 years of age) and new adult (18-25 years of age) fantasy/Fae-romance genre, with increasing popularity amongst those age groups. Fae romance novels[1] utilize popular tropes [2]or elements such as Enemies to Lovers, Soulmates/Mates, Alpha Male, tragic past, damaged lead finds happily ever after, morally grey characters, dark royalty, orphans, etc. (Claire Luana). It can also fall into the subgenres of paranormal romance[3], vampire romance, or high fantasy[4].

I have noticed, within this trope, prevalent components informed by societal discourses. One of the pinnacle components is a primary, female main character[5], young in age, who has endured some form of trauma. This female character is always the victim of some type of terrible trauma, be it emotional, mental, physical, or all of the above. She is mortal, or believes herself to be mortal, initially. She is a “Strong Female Character” which characteristics include, but are not limited to:

• Being physically capable, able to handle physical altercations

• Skilled in combat (hand-to-hand, various weapons (swords, bows, knives/daggers, etc.))

• Having her own opinions

• Being her own person

• Being independent

• Being assertive and decisive

She is often paired with the dark, daring, brooding male love interest, another primary component of these popular novels. He is usually older, often times significantly so (decades to hundreds to years), being of some magical race with an extended life (though this is not a universal component). Alongside the power and authority he enjoys from his magical ability, he may also have a rank/social standing of some authority within the fantasy realm (being of royal/noble birth, high standing in a form of military, etc.). He embodies all these traits which readers love in this character type. Traits which are, traditionally, masculine “ideals” according to historical, societal discourses:

• Physically strong

• Territorial/protective of female love interest

• Knowledge of war

• More sexually mature than female love interest

• Usually fills the role of father or father figure who has been lost to female or who has let her down in some way

• Has a “dark side” or dark aspect of his past, fulfilling the “bad boy” stereotype

This primary romantic couple embodies many of the trope aspects young readers of today flock to. They are the ‘enemies to lovers.’ The male embodies the idea of ‘I hate everyone but you.’ There is an undercurrent of violence in their love (not to be mistaken by the violence occurring around them). They would kill for each other, burn down the world for each other, etc.

Within this trope is also the presence of an overarching oppressive force which impacts the nation/kingdom/realm, the main female character (always), and the male character (sometimes). It is from this oppressive force, be it poverty, an evil overlord/monarch/government, or her own personal flaws and mental impediment/hindrance/barrier, which prevent this primary female character from reaching her highest potential. The primary male character often saves or aids the female in escaping this oppressive force. He is a catalyst for a big change in her life[6].

The Question

It is these things readers appear to love, but why? What ideas, carefully masked, are we being subtly primed with by reading these novels? What discourses in our own society make these types of tropes, characters, character relationships, etc. so appealing? These characters are presented in such a way that we not only enjoy them, but romanticize them, idolize them even.

How frequently in these books we so love do we find these aspects:

• A male significantly older than his female love interest[7].

• A Strong Female Character who is young, mortal or thought to be.

  • Both of the above items create a recipe for perpetuating pedophile culture.[8]

• A female character who is shown ‘a whole new world’ by the male love interest.

• The male love interest ‘helps’ her ‘break free’ of oppressive forces, saves her[9].

• The male love interest ‘helps’ her move past her trauma, invoking confession under the guise of her showing vulnerability.

• Their relationship is rimmed and underlined with violence.

• The male punishes her oppressors.

• The male steps into a father figure role[10].

  • A bit controversial, but I feel this creates undertones of an incestual relationship.[11]

What does this tell us, as readers, about our charcaters? How strong is the Strong Female Character really? How feminist is the text if the Strong Female Character relies so heavily on male figures? What discourses does this perpetuate? We may never notice it, but within this trope exists a variety of problems with how the characters are so completely and ‘traditionally’ gendered, including, but not limited to:

• Unequal power dynamics in romantic relationships

o Including the weakening of lead female characters who are meant to fulfill the “Strong Female Character” type

• Compulsory heterosexuality

o Including maintaining the Male Gaze despite the novel being written by and for women

• The maintaining of gender norms and roles

o Including masked sexism and gender stereotypes

o The Strong Female Character is actually reliant on the primary male love interest

• Pedophilic/incestual relationships in the primary romantic couple, as well as additional abusive/toxic aspects of these relationships which are romanticized and/or idealized, both within the novel through the writing, and by its readers

Most importantly, how is it that many readers never notice these aspects? How are these problems, these undertones, concealed from us so completely? If they are not concealed completely, how, and why are readers able to justify them and ultimately enjoy the book?

Within and underlying the aspects of the trope, problems, systems, etc. are the historical discourses which design them, both the discourses within the novel and within our own society. Foucault adopted the term “discourse” to describe “a historically contingent social system” (Adams) which produces truth, meaning, and knowledge in societies and in the world. These discourses directly and systematically produce and reinforce the existence of the objects of which they speak. Discourses are produced by the effects of power structures within the social order. These power structures determine sets of rules and categories which define acceptable criteria for “legitimating knowledge and truth within the discursive order” (Adams). Discourse is any type of “communication and representation (verbal or otherwise) that is conditioned and constrained by a set of explicit and implicit rules that enable any activity and at the same time limit it,” (Foucault's Concept of Discourse Explained, Critical Studies). Discourse creates, categorizes, prohibits, etc. existences of varying kinds through the rules accompanying it. These rules, categories, and criteria are thought to come before the discourse. “It is in this way that discourse masks its construction and capacity to produce knowledge and meaning,” (Adams). Discourse is always there, and it is always attempting to hide itself and the effects it produces in the world, in people.

The Novel

In this essay, I will examine the various discourses overtly prevalent in From Blood and Ash by Jennifer L. Armentrout, published in 2020—which may be common of the fae romance sub-genre—in order to highlight the persistent, stereotypical gendering, grossly unequal power dynamics, and generally harmful discourses perpetuated within the genre/trope and thus internalized by readers.

From Blood and Ash follows the tale of 18-year-old Poppy living in the fantastical Kingdom of Solis, which is inhabited by the immortal, cold, cruel, and beautiful Ascended royalty and mortal common people. The Kingdom of Solis is shadowed in darkness by the terrifying, unintelligent creatures known as the Craven who work to slip through each city’s and town’s protective wall, called the Rise, and feast upon the innocent inhabitants.

Poppy, the novels protagonist, is “the Maiden,” the chosen one, a gift meant for the gods to usher in a new era of Ascended. As “the Maiden”, Poppy’s purpose is to remain pure and untouched in every sense of the words. She is to remain chaste, dressed only in modest clothing of purity-laden white, and veiled behind a curtain of woven gold. She is forbidden to interact with or speak to anyone aside from her two person guards, her companion, Tawny, and her dreaded, Ascended guardians, the Duke and Duchess Teerman. She is forbidden to read any books not of historical or educational nature, or to leave her castle home (within which she is often confined to her room). She is forbidden, alongside all other common women of Solis, to learn how to fight or use a weapon. She is not to speak of her magical gift.[12] She is not permitted to speak unless spoken to, to connect, to learn, or to love. She is the Maiden. She is the pretty bird in the gilded cage.

Poppy meets Hawke, the text’s dark, brooding, bad boy who would burn down the world for her. It is he who will save her, who will take her away from her life of constraints and show her a world of personal freedom and power. At least, that is how the text presents him, how most readers would view him, but is that really what’s happening in the text?

In many ways, Poppy attempts to, or desires to, subvert the many gendered rules heaped upon her. She reads scandalous novels her companion sneaks to her. She speaks out of turn, or to members of court she isn’t permitted to. She is secretly trained in combat. She sneaks out of the castle to offer aid to the common people, or to enjoy some time at a seedy gambling hall. Above all, Poppy loves. While it may have been the novel’s goal to subvert traditional gender roles and to create a Strong Female Character, and while Poppy, at first glance, appears to fulfill this character role, this goal was not realized, likely thwarted by existing and prevalent societal discourses which subconsciously impact our thoughts and actions. In a variety of ways, this novel reifies and perpetuates common and historical gender problems, which may be seen frequently in fae romance novels.

From Blood and Ash and novels like it have become highly popular. With a 4.3/5 rating on Goodreads, a 4.8/5 from Barnes and Noble, and the 2020 Goodreads Choice Award first place for romance, it is safe to say the novel is well-liked[13]. This essay is not an attempt to shame any reader for the books they enjoy or the novels they write. It is merely the posing of a question, a concern. Why do we write these novels? Why do we love them? What happens to us when we read them? What thing, what desire do they satisfy within us when we read them? What aspects of society, what discourses, do we rely on to sell the books we write? Why do we love a dark, brooding bad boy with undertones of violence, manipulation, and a type of power over us? Why do we relate to a young woman, riddled with trauma, being forced into vulnerability?

My Goal

I became aware of problems with this text relatively early on into my initial reading, but still, I fell victim to the mask the discourse carefully crafts. Into the second and third book, I began to like Poppy’s character. She became more of the character I was looking for. This allowed me to more easily brush off the problems in the text. This is also why, in better written novels, with better characters, I never even noticed these underlying problems and effects. My point is, it happens to all of us, and it isn’t our faults. It may be important, however, to remain aware of such things. Everything primes and influences us. As discourse masks itself, we easily believe and internalize it without ever considering what historical contingencies created it.

In beginning this task, I sought to find out what was wrong with this novel, why it didn’t fit into my ideas for its trope and genre. In my initial reading, there was a general sense that something was wrong, though I couldn’t pinpoint what. Once discovering the surface level problems[14], I sought to identify where these problems originated, where in the text’s discourse and our own society’s discourses were these items put into effect, and how, most importantly, did the text hide behind popular discourses in order to mask the true origins and effects of its own discourses. To accomplish this task, I will utilize theorists such as Michael Foucault, Judith Butler, Cordelia Fine, among others, to examine and dissect the discourses, silences, confessionals, and censorship within the text, all of which design and aid the prevalent discoursal problems.

The Theory

By producing categories to exist in and be defined by – creating meaning, knowledge, and understanding within one’s world – discourse designs society and thus reality, and ultimately, group and individual identity. It is in this way that society and its discourse(s) mold our minds. We are all of us, in essence, both the collective and individualized embodiment of the historical, prevalent, and prevailing discourses which surround us. As professor, psychologist and writer, Cordelia Fine, explains:

…there is no ‘bright line separating self from culture’, and the culture in which we develop and function enjoys a ‘deep reach’ into our minds. It’s for this reason that we can’t understand gender differences in female and male minds – the minds that are the source of our thoughts, feelings, abilities, motivations, and behaviour – without understanding how psychologically permeable is the skull that separates the mind from the sociocultural context in which it operates. When the environment makes gender salient, there is a ripple effect on the mind. We start to think of ourselves in terms of our gender, and stereotypes and social expectations become more prominent in the mind. This can change self-perception, alter interests, debilitate or enhance ability, and trigger unintentional discrimination. In other words, the social context influences who you are, how you think and what you do. And these thoughts, attitudes and behaviours of yours, in turn, become part of the social context [emphasis added], (Cordelia Fine. “Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference.” Introduction. Apple Books.)

To summarize, discourses within society influence our behaviors, our thoughts, attitudes, beliefs, feelings, the way we think about ourselves and others. It creates our identity. In turn, we repeat, regurgitate, and perpetuate the discourses impressed upon us. Thus, creating an endless cycle of discourse creating subjects and subjects reiterating discourse.

The existence of discourse, the way it operates and designs, the ‘truth’ of the effects which underlie and are produced by various discourses, is always masked, concealed from us. “…power is tolerable only on condition that it mask a substantial part of itself. Its success is proportional to its ability to hide its own mechanisms,” (Foucault). For if we knew, how would we accept it? If we knew of the problems and structures hidden within the novels we read, would we still read them? Would we still love them?

Gender

In this way does discourse create, to name one category, gender. As philosopher and gender theorist, Judith Butler, explains in “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory,” gender is in no way a stable identity or inherent to an individual. Nor does gender precede the discourses which create it. Gender is instead constructed through the historical discourses which precede it and the “stylized repetition of acts,” the performance of gender by the individual body, as directed by the rules, the criteria, discourse has laid out. Gender is a “performative accomplishment compelled by social sanction and taboo” which the audience and the performer come to believe as true (Butler).

…to be a woman is to have become a woman, to compel the body to conform to an historical idea of 'woman,' to induce the body to become a cultural sign, to materialize oneself in obedience to an historically delimited possibility, and to do this as a sustained and repeated corporeal project, (Butler).

This performance, these acts, the enactment of the discourses one has internalized and interpreted, creates the idea of gender, creates one’s individual gender. If you can do this with gender, an element of identity so ingrained within us and held to such import, it stands to reason that discourse also creates every other aspect of identity, of self.

The various attributes we link to respective genders do not express what gender is, but rather they are part of the performance of what we believe gender should be as dictated by pre-existing, historical gender discourses. What came first, the chicken or the egg? We think the criteria comes before the discourse, but this is not so. The discourse first designs the criteria. Gender does not dictate acts of a body. Instead, discourses create the acts, create the criteria, which then imposes gender upon a body. In this way as well is the whole of one’s identity created.

The term ‘project’ at the end of Butler’s above excerpt is most interesting to me, because not only is gender a historically constituted idea, but it is also “a set of possibilities to be continually realized,” (Butler). That is, gender is subject to change as the discourses around it change. To assume that one takes on a single gender in the gender binary and all the stereotypical characteristics of said gender as informed by historical discourses, and then never changes, alters, or shifts those things, would be silly, ignorant, and contradictory to everything we have laid out prior on this topic. Nothing is original or individual, yes, but nothing is stable or stagnant either.

As Cordelia Fine explains in Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference (2010), self-perception is malleable and subject to change as implicit and explicit, imperceivable and intangible stimuli effect their influence within any given environment. This means that, depending on where we are and who we are with, we will ‘tune’ and shift our self-perception to fit that environment and the lines the discourse within it draws. Fine notes a particular study:

University psychologist Stacey Sinclair and her colleagues have shown in a string of experiments that people socially ‘tune’ their self-evaluations to blend with the opinion of the self held by others. With a particular person in mind, or in anticipation of interacting with them, self-conception adjusts to create a shared reality. This means that when their perception of you is stereotypical, your own mind follows suit, (Fine).

These shifts in self-concept do not only change how one views themselves but can also bring about behavioral changes. That is, a change in our “stylized acts,” in the discourse we enact, perpetuate, and put out into the world to be reified.

Poppy: The Human Palimpsest

This is what happens to Poppy in the text. Her identity is altered and shaped constantly by the discourses, environment, and people around her. Her identity, her self-perception, is a ‘project’ she never truly completes (none of us really do). Poppy is presented in reviews, summaries of the text, the text’s discourse, and her own discourse itself as a “Strong Female Character,” a character type common within fae romance genre, which many authors have leveraged in their own books, and which fans of the genre are particularly partial to. Poppy, however, is not a Strong Female Character. Through the various power structures within the text and carefully masked historical discourses of our own society, Poppy is weakened as a character, to the point where it can be said that she never fulfills this character type.

It is through discourse that power structures are both perpetuated and propped up, but also exposed. What happens when one is raised without the ability to understand their surrounding and prevalent discourses? If it is through discourse that we form identity, how would we form one without that knowledge? How do we understand the very world we live in and, most importantly, how do we see through its veil of discourse, without the knowledge to understand and analyze the effects of discourse? The answer, I would pose, lies in Poppy’s character.

As a result of Poppy’s censored and sheltered upbringing, she has little understanding of discourse. This flaw is a pinnacle aspect of the novel, of her weakness as a character, and of the other character’s abilities to fill Poppy with discourses of their own as a means of shaping her identity, thoughts, behaviors, etc. Poppy’s inability to understand and analyze discourse makes her weak, unintelligent, unable to process discourse and its resulting effects on her own, dependent on others, and is generally a passive and submissive character. When we use discourse to divine meaning from the world, not being able to do so renders one ignorant and even dull-witted. Poppy has been kept at an immature status, reduced to one who is naive, inexperienced, infantilized, etc. by the power structures of her fictional society. This weakness, this flaw in Poppy’s character, also enables the text to attach whatever traits it wishes to Poppy in order to present her as a Strong Female Character, when in practice, she rarely fulfills that aim. As a result, we have a novel which perpetuates gender roles and romanticizes toxic relationships, disguised behind the popular trope and presented as feminist.

A primary power structure in the novel, perhaps the most obvious, is Poppy’s oppressed status under her title of the Maiden. She has spent her life having one discourse after another thrown at her, all aimed at telling her who and what she is. She is the Maiden, she is exalted, she is important, but she is also denied basic privileges, forced into silence, into the background. She is strong, she is powerful, but she is also never allowed to display her strength or speak of or use her power. Without the ability to understand discourse, Poppy cannot truly analyze these discourses and apply them to herself. It is because of this that Poppy lacks her own identity.

“Then what should I call you? A name, perhaps?”

“I’m…I’m no one,” I told him.

“No One? What a strange name.” (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Chapter 1. Apple Books.)

Juggling the numerous and conflicting discourse, it is as though Poppy is trying on different pieces of a dozen different costumes, but none of them fit right. These costumes represent different discourses or aspects of them; aspects of Poppy’s identity. They are ill-fitting, slipping off in places, some are worn incorrectly. Most importantly, they are all capable of being removed, shifted, swapped out, overlayed, etc.

Poppy is a human palimpsest[15], all the traces of her past discourses, all of the things people wanted her to be, still exist within her, layered on top of one and other. Thus, Poppy’s identity becomes fluid and liable to shift and change at a moment’s notice. These changes are a product of her environment and whatever discourses are directly in front of her. As a result, Poppy doesn’t really have a clear identity, nor the ability to create one. If Poppy is “No One” then she can be anyone ‘they’ want her to, and without the ability to understand the true purpose and effects of their discourse, or to manipulate or reject it, she will absorb them all as more pieces of her performative costume.

Due to her ever shifting identity, Poppy is an unstable and unpredictable character, unable to fit into the desired character type of Strong Female Character. Her thoughts do not result in aligned actions, her internal monologue frequently contradicts her verbal dialogue. It is, in part, through Poppy’s internal monologue that the text works to mask the discourses which are truly shaping and affecting her. She thinks she is the Strong Female Character; she thinks she is subverting the systems and power structures surrounding her (and so do we, the readers).

I was forbidden to do anything but ignore. To never speak of the gift bestowed upon me by the gods and to never, ever go beyond sensing to actually doing something about it.

Not that I always did what I was supposed to do.

Obviously. (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Chapter 1. Apple Books.)

But in fact, Poppy does do what she’s supposed to do. She does not speak of her gift, not even to her companion and closet friend. She constantly attempts to fulfill her role as the Maiden but can never quite accomplish it. It is this aspect which aids in weakening her ability to fulfill this character type. Try as the text might to present her as strong and subversive, Poppy is as a leaf in the wind, blown whichever way outside forces decide, unable to influence the direction.

She has the thoughts, a vague sense that something in her life, in her society, in her title as Maiden is wrong, but she is unable to understand these discourses, and thus unable to properly analyze them and their effect. She has the desire for a different life, but she does not act on it, does not enact these thoughts into discourse. There is, however, a shift in the novel, when Poppy moves from thinking to doing, from internal monologue to producing discourse. The catalyst for this event? Hawke, her guard-turned-love-interest. The catch is that Poppy isn’t really producing her own discourse, coming up with her thoughts, she is merely reflecting Hawke’s discourse back to him. Impacted by her environment, wildly impressionable, unable to hold on to a single discourse or aspect of identity, Poppy adopts Hawke’s discourse, wearing it like another costume. Poppy is, in this fictional world, an empty vessel to be filled by the discourses within the text, a palimpsest doomed to wear layered discourses, a stand-in figure for this fictional society’s ideas of her, for other character’s ideas of her, but also for our own society’s ideas of femininity and gender.

[Enter]: Dark, Brooding, Morally Grey, Male Love Interest

Poppy comes to be “filled”, as it were, by the discourses impressed upon her by Hawke/Casteel. He wields his mastery of discourse (which Poppy lacks) to imbue her with discourse of his own, shaping her thoughts, creating her reality, her identity. To (hopefully) simplify my point, what Hawke/Casteel says, Poppy fulfills, believes, does, agrees with, becomes, etc. “I opened my mouth, but I didn’t know what to say. He’d pointed out all that I didn’t have, and made it so painfully clear. I looked away,” (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Chapter 20. Apple Books). Here, in Poppy’s subsequent silence, she allows Hawke’s words to become her truth, to become the thing which she believes so completely, it becomes a part of her very identity.

What Hawke has said is not untrue, but it is merely one of many examples in which his discourse directly shapes Poppy’s thoughts. In her subsequent silence, Poppy internalizes his discourse, believing it a type of ‘truth’ she is unable to express verbally herself. This is all a part of the great power Hawke/Casteel wields over Poppy in various ways, shaping who she is, who she becomes. The novel does this under the guise of Hawke ‘freeing’ Poppy from the oppressive forces in her life, whether that force is the Solis government, the Duke and Duchess, her title as the Maiden, or her own repressive, constricting thoughts.

Discourse and power always mask themselves and their intentions. Hawke breaking down her preconceived ideas is presented as him lifting a veil, most literally, from her eyes, freeing her of the lies she’s been told. All the thingshe tells her is portrayed as him building her confidence, helping her see beyond the discourse of her oppressors. In truth, he is using the power her holds over her to deconstruct her in order to reconstruct her.

This begins with Hawke’s rejection of the overarching discourses surrounding Poppy and her identity; her being the Maiden, chosen, meant to be untouched, meant to be a gift for the gods. Hawke begins unraveling everything Poppy believes herself to be and, in its absence, she is filled with what he desires her to be. For example, Hawke tells her:

“It seems to me that this honor that has been bestowed upon you comes with very few benefits. You’re not allowed to show your face or travel anywhere outside the castle grounds. You didn’t even seem all that surprised when the Priestess moved to strike you. That leads me to believe it’s something fairly common,” he said, his brows dark slashes above his eyes. “You are not allowed to speak to most, and you are not to be spoken to. You’re caged in your room most of the day, your freedom restricted. All the rights others have are privileges for you, rewards that seem impossible for you to earn [emphasis added].”

I opened my mouth, but I didn’t know what to say. He’d pointed out all that I didn’t have, and made it so painfully clear. I looked away, (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Chapter 20. Apple Books.)

Five chapters later, Poppy tells Vikter:

“This whole stupid thing is the point. The fact that I can’t do anything is the point. That I can’t have one night to do something normal and fun and enjoyable. That I can’t experience anything without being warned to remember what I am. That every privilege you have, and Tawny has, and everyone else has, I don’t have [emphasis added].” My voice cracked as the back of my throat started to burn. “I have nothing.”

…

“No.” I took a step back, his features blurring. “You don’t understand. I can’t celebrate my birthdays because that’s ungodly. I’m not allowed to go to picnics at the Grove or to supper with others because I’m the Maiden. I’m not allowed to defend myself because that would be unseemly. I don’t even know how to ride a horse. Nearly every book is forbidden to me. I can’t socialize or make friends because my sole purpose is to serve the kingdom by going to the gods—something no one will even explain. What does that actually mean?” (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Chapter 25. Apple Books.)

…

“Everything has been taken from me—my free will, my choice, my future—and I still have to suffer through the Duke’s lessons,” I spat out, shuddering. “I still have to stand there and let him hit me. Let him look at me and touch me! Do whatever he or the Lord wants—” Sucking in a fiery, painful breath, I lifted my hands, grabbing fistfuls of my hair, pulling them back as Vikter closed his eyes. “I have to stand there and take it. I can’t even scream or cry. I can do nothing. So I’m sorry that choosing something that I want for myself is such a disappointment to you, the kingdom, everyone else, and the gods. Where is the honor in being the Maiden? What exactly should I be proud of? Who would want this? Point me in their direction, and I’ll gladly switch places with them. It should be no shock that I want to be found unworthy.”

The moment those words left my mouth, I smacked my hands over my lips. Vikter’s eyes snapped open, and for a long moment, we stared at one another, the truth a double-edged sword between us, (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Chapter 25. Apple Books.).

…

“…curling my fingers against my mouth. It wasn’t fine. It wasn’t going to be all right. I’d said it. The truth [emphasis added]. Out loud. Heart thumping and stomach churning, I turned and started walking toward the castle. I thought I might be sick, (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Chapter 25. Apple Books.).

Maybe it is the ‘truth’, but Poppy didn’t know, didn’t think it was the truth, and certainly never said it out loud and began acting on it, until Hawke came along and prodded her forward, so to speak. It is presented as Hawke ‘freeing’ Poppy, but does he really? Or does he merely become the new power structure which produces the discourses which design and thus constrain her? The novel works to hide it behind moments of Stockholm Syndrome-induced intimacies, but it cannot be ignored that there is a power dynamic in their relationship, and Poppy is not at the top. So, what is the result, the threat of this power wielded over someone?

Hawke’s Power

Hawke’s power over Poppy falls into many categories. He is more physically capable than her, older and more experienced, thus intimidating. He uses his age and excess experience to condescend and infantilize her. He has a stronger political status as prince of a nation, with many followers and subjects who support him, and hate her. Hawke uses his position as her guard to justify constraining and imprisoning her. He uses this particular power, quite often, to justify touching her non-consensually, to take her personal power away, and to lord power over her. She is attracted to him, and we can clearly see how he it wields this like a blade. Hawke uses this power he holds over Poppy to manipulate their relationship, to engineer situations and encounters between them, specifically sexual ones.

Due to Poppy’s censored status, she is wildly inexperienced in many things, particularly romance, relationships, and sexual encounters. It is because of this that Hawke/Casteel is able to manipulate her into a variety of sexual encounters, for which she is not prepared, experienced, or even mentally mature enough to handle. Their sexual relationship is disguised as Poppy having sexual freedom, when really, she is just being pushed into situations she’s not ready for and doesn’t actually want. The novel masks this the same way perpetrators of rape culture do. They, and Hawke, may find this shocking, but an orgasm does not, in fact, equal consent.

“I bet I can get you relaxed enough that you sleep like you’re on a cloud, basking in the sun.”

…

“I…I don’t think this should happen.”

“What is this?” [author’s emphasis].

…

“What are you doing?”

“Relaxing you,” he said, and all I could tell was that his head was dipped.

“How is this relaxing me?”

“Wait, and I’ll show you.”

…

I couldn’t get any words out [emphasis added].

“I know you’re not going to admit it,” Hawke said, voice low and thick. “But you and I both will always know that I was right.”

My lips curved into a faint, sleepy smile.

He was right [emphasis added].

Again (From Blood and Ash).

In this scene, Hawke is manipulating Poppy into a sexual encounter which she repeatedly, verbally expressed being uncomfortable with. These words were ignored[16]. This is rape. This is coercion. This is not consensual. This is wrong, but Poppy doesn’t have the discourse to understand and analyze that. She does not know what this is. Hawke reassures her, in his own way, telling her to “wait” and he’ll show her. Essentially, he is saying she will like it eventually as her body responds naturally to a sexual encounter with one she is attracted to. In the end, Poppy, with little experience with desire or lust or proper, healthy, consensual sexual experiences, fulfills Hawke’s discourses and decides she likes/d the experience. She decides that Hawke “was right.” This is an age-old method for coercing consent and justifying rape. It would appear that ‘dark, brooding bad boy’ might just be a toxic, manipulative asshole. The reader, however, might not notice this, because the text portrays Poppy as having enjoyed the experience, despite her initial discomfort and hesitation. In the aftermath of grey-area sexual assault[17], how often do we justify a nonconsensual experience, just in order to move on? How thoroughly this scene, and the text as a whole, perpetuates that technique.

Combine this with Poppy’s childlike level of understanding and experience, and with the fact that Hawke/Casteel is 200+ years old, and you have the perfect recipe for rape culture and pedophile culture, plated and served up in mainstream media, to be perpetuated and romanticized again and again by the young people consuming this type of literature. The novel attempts to mask these aspects, presenting Hawke as one who ‘frees’ Poppy from her oppressors, who is showing her a ‘whole new world’ of being herself, of having the acts and abilities which were previously denied to her. However, what is ‘truly’ created is an unequal and toxic relationship in which Hawke manipulates Poppy’s inexperience and inadequacies with discourse for his own gain and the gain of the discourses and power structures within the novel.

Hawke’s power, it would seem, comes first and foremost from his biological sex. It is gendered, according to our own societal discourse. He is prince, he is guard, his is protector, he is soldier, he is strong, he is sexually experienced, he is assertive. All of these terms carry a masculine connotation due to our historical discourse. All of these terms and titles have a type of power attached to them. In the end, they are reiterating a common patriarchal discourse: that to be male is to have power. What impact does this aspect, this type of character (dark, brooding male) have on a text which presents itself as feminist? How does it, ultimately, thwart those feminist goals and Poppy’s potential as a Strong Female Character?

‘A Whole New World’

Poppy escapes the oppressive power structure the text overtly highlights, but does she ever become the Strong Female Character? Does she ever achieve freedom, independence, an identity entirely her own? (Spoiler alert: Nope. Not even close.) Poppy transitions from one title to another, all of them conveniently gendered (Maiden, Princess, Queen, Goddess). Unfortunately, this doll dressed up as a Strong Female Character is really just an embodiment for femininity. (What did we expect, honestly, of a Virgin Mary whose superpower is empathy[18].)

Poppy escapes the dreaded Ascended and enters a group of people working to overthrow the Ascended and that system, an environment that the text presents as a place in which she can express herself, presented as the opposite of everything she’s known and suffered under. This group is presented as they who free, they who will treat Poppy with respect, a place in which Poppy can become the Strong Female Character readers are looking for. Still, Poppy remains silent and helpless as the discourses of others to define and create her. Still, she is constrained, censored, and silenced, only different tactics are used.

Hawke/Casteel and his cohort of ‘revolutionaries’ dress Poppy up in their discourse, just as the Ascended had. Poppy goes from being the mortal Maiden for the Ascended, to then being Atlantian, to a princess of Atlantia, to someone powerful, to a queen, to a descendent of the gods, to a child of a god, to a goddess. Not once does Poppy make her own determinations on this.

“…bow…before the last descendant of the most ancient ones. She who carries the blood of the King of Gods within her. Bow before your new Queen.”

The blood of the King of Gods? Your new Queen? None of that made sense. Not her words or when she had removed her crown[19], (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “The Crown of Gilded Bones.” Chapter 1. Apple Books.)

Now, through the declaration of a few words, Poppy is queen, and beholden to all of its discourse, expectations, responsibilities, and constraints. How is this different than the Ascended making her the Maiden?

“You are a descendant of the gods, Poppy. You run from no one and nothing.”

….But I wasn’t afraid.

Because they were right.

I was brave.

I was fearless.

And I ran from no one and nothing—and that included a crown. (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “The Crown of Gilded Bones.” Chapter 35. Apple Books.)

And now Poppy is a descendent of the gods.

“…you are a god….”

“…That is why your bloodline is so potent. You are a god, not a deity.”

…

“She was right.”

Vonetta looked over at me. “Who?”

“The Queen. I am a god,” I stated, (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “The Crown of Gilded Bones.” Chapter 47. Apple Books.)

And now, Poppy is a god. She is whatever best suits their discourse. This particular discourse is well-masked, presenting itself as inherent, as it so often does. Poppy is Queen of Atlantia because she just is, as defined by their discourse, their traditions[20].

Regardless of how it is painted, ‘Princess’ and ‘Queen’ and ‘goddess’ are titles which function the same as ‘the Maiden’. They place her on a pedestal, constrain her with ideals and expectations defined by the discourse of the respective society. One is merely coded as being freer, having more power. It is bordering on ironic how clearly Poppy demonstrates the role that discourse has in the construction of identity.

“Vulnerability”

One of the few ways Poppy is able to understand and thus utilize discourse is through the Silence of Protection[21]. In a world in which talking out of turn often led to punishment, Poppy is able to withhold discourse, wielding silence as a shield, as a means of preventing these punishments and, in some cases, of gaining the upper hand in certain situations. It is obvious through the text that Poppy remains silent to protect herself, but what is not obvious are the origins of such an idea. Consider this idea alongside Foucault’s thoughts on confession:

…the agency of domination does not reside in the one who speaks (for it is he who is constrained), but in the one who listens and says nothing; not in the one who knows and answers, but in the one who questions and is not supposed to know. And this discourse of truth finally takes effect, not in the one who receives it, but in the one from whom it is wrested…On the other hand, we belong to a society which has ordered…difficult knowledge, not according to the transmission of secrets, but around the slow surfacing of confidential statements (Foucault, Michel. “The History of Sexuality: An Introduction: 1.” Apple Books.).

The one who holds the secret and remains silent has the power, until that secret, that ‘truth,’ is forced from them. In this way, it is the one who asks the question, who holds the power. When Poppy produces discourse (the thing she is so inept at), when she confesses her inner thoughts as she is so often compelled to, to Hawke, she loses power.

Here, we can see again the startlingly unequal power dynamic between Poppy and Hawke/Casteel. For Hawke makes it his mission, it would seem, to make Poppy divulge truth, secrets, hidden things she has long remained silent about. Poppy knows, if only just, that silence equals power and protection. Hawke relieves her of this single bit of safety and security.

It may often appear, in an initial, surface-level reading of the text, that Hawke provides a space for Poppy to talk about things she’s never been able to talk about before. Perhaps this is true, perhaps it is a good thing, but it does not erase the inherent traits of this text, the way discourse compels uncomfortable confession, and the way those confessions are used to weaken and control the impressionable Poppy. The act of confession gives whoever asks the question the power. In this way is Poppy made to hand over her power again and again to Hawke/Casteel.

We might see their relationship as something lovely, two broken people trying to ‘fix’ each other, a boy trying to get a girl to let down her walls so that she can heal, trying to remove from her the constraints and bonds of power structures she has lived in her entire life, telling her she is strong and brave and smart. But in doing so, Hawke builds Poppy back up into the girl he wants. Poppy, who cannot grasp discourse, who cannot define herself, who has spent a lifetime absorbing the discourses of others in order to be what they want her to be, has little choice but to become whatever Hawke/Casteel desires, what we, the readers, desire. Is she actually strong and smart and brave, or does he just tell her she is, and she in turn tells herself, and we in turn tell ourselves? Producing an endless cycle, as it always does, of perpetuating, reiterating, and reifying discourse until it can only be ‘true.’

Conclusion

In reading this novel, examining its flaws, exposing as much as I am able, I have found a wealth of problems which may be seen in other comparable and popular fae romance novels of a similar trope and sub-genre. I sought answers, and while I found some, more and more questions developed. Often, do these trope-reliant novels begin with the oppressed girl under the weight of some power structure. Then she meets a morally grey boy. After meeting said boy does she realize or gain her power, or somehow find herself pulled from the shadows of this oppressive force. It is then this boy, the ‘bad boy’ rimmed in violence, who thrusts her into a realm of ‘healing’ and ‘vulnerability.’ It is he who is destined to ‘fix’ her. She tells him her deepest secrets, her last source of safety and protection, under the guise of trust and love.

A woman living in an oppressive patriarchy, giving away her last shred of power to, and letting herself be completely at the mercy of, a man, and being so happy and fulfilled for it. What does this tell readers about love and relationships? What does it tell them about a strong woman? Must we hand over whatever small amount of power we hold in a world determined to control and constrain us (specifically as women) in order to have a relationship, to be happy and fulfilled?

The problems are there, but we may never see it. We may remain, as Poppy does, blind and deaf to the effects of discourse, internalizing and perpetuating, trapped in the cycles of power. So carefully do historical discourses conceal themselves within words on a page, within the monologue and dialogue of the characters we are told we love. So, what is the effect? What happens to us when we read this same story again and again, when everyone tells us how good it is, how much they loved it, how much they desire that life and want to be the traumatized girl in the dark alley, how much they want to be saved by the dark, violent, 500-year-old man?

I picked up this text after seeing it recommended again and again on social media, after seeing women of a range of ages rave about it, its ‘spicy’ romance, its ‘enemies to lovers’ couple with a bad ass, Strong Female Character and a dark prince who would burn down the world for her, who would slaughter her enemies. I found, in its pages, a startling rendition of my high school relationship. I didn’t notice, as a teenager, consuming book after book, exactly what those books were saying. In turn, I didn’t notice what they might be doing to me, what effects are produced by their discourses.

The ‘problem’ with a text whose entire structure is informed and propped up by ultimately harmful, historical discourse is the bodies it leaves in its wake. Discourses are all made up, but that does not mean they’re not real, that does not mean they do not have a real impact on real people. We internalize it all, without ever knowing. We love this trope, these characters; we relate to them, we live through them. This is made easy to do in From Blood and Ash. Poppy is the empty vessel. Poppy is the palimpsest. Poppy is the mirror. But if I see my reflection in her, what does that mean? We aspire to the titles of ‘princess’ and ‘queen’ and ‘goddess,’ which are ultimately constrained by historical, societal, and gendered discourse. We desire the love of a controlling, dominant, and powerful man, a ‘bad boy’ who will make us lay down our weapons, bare our souls, and then push us into uncomfortable situations, and we will justify it all in our heads. We will decide that “he was right.” We will tell ourselves we didn’t mind, enjoyed it, even. We will tell ourselves we are happy. Discourse produces knowledge and meaning. So, we tell ourselves we are strong. We tell ourselves we are subverting the system. We tell ourselves we are free. We tell ourselves we know the ‘truth.’ Are we right? Was Poppy?

After reading Foucault, Fine, Butler, and a slew of other scholars and theorists, I came to the difficult understanding that we are all the culmination of discourses. That everything impacts, everything controls and constrains, everything categorizes, everything names us, everything shapes us. We are unique in our specific ordering of discourses, of costume, but we are all still dressed up, actors on the stage, fulfilling a role we never agreed to play. I read Jennifer Armentrout’s From Blood and Ash and waited patiently for Poppy to escape her role, only to realize she never did. And now I sit wondering, did I? Have any of us?

Sources

Armentrout, Jennifer L. From Blood and Ash: A Blood and Ash Novel #1. Blue Box Press, 2020.

Armentrout, Jennifer L. The Crown of Gilded Bones: A Blood and Ash Novel # 3. Blue Box Press, an Imprint of Evil Eye Concepts, 2021.

Butler, Judith. “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory.” Theatre Journal, vol. 40, no. 4, Dec. 1988, pp. 519–531., https://doi.org/10.2307/3207893.

Fine, Cordelia. Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. W.W. Norton & Company, 2011.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Penguin Classics, 2020.

“High Fantasy.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 10 Dec. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fantasy.

“New Adult Books.” Goodreads, Goodreads, https://www.goodreads.com/genres/new-adult.

“Paranormal Romance.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 1 Nov. 2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_romance.

[1] This subgenre is also aptly named, on various popular social media apps and by its frequent patrons, “Faerie Porn”. The term has increased in use and popularity across many apps and on various, reputable sites (https://www.goodreads.com/shelf/show/faerie-porn). [2] Additional tropes: https://goteenwriters.com/2015/12/16/145-romance-tropes/ [3] Paranormal romance is a subgenre of both romantic fiction and speculative fiction. Paranormal romance focuses on romantic love and includes elements beyond the range of scientific explanation, blending themes from the speculative fiction genres of fantasy, science fiction, and horror. Paranormal romance may range from traditional category romances, such as those published by Harlequin Mills & Boon, with a paranormal setting to stories where the main emphasis is on a science fiction or fantasy-based plot with a romantic subplot included. Common hallmarks are romantic relationships between humans and vampires, shapeshifters, ghosts, and other entities of a fantastic or otherworldly nature. Beyond the more prevalent themes involving vampires, shapeshifters, ghosts, or time travel, paranormal romances can also include books featuring characters with psychic abilities, like telekinesis or telepathy. Paranormal romance has its roots in gothic fiction. Its most recent revival has been spurred by turn of the 21st century technology, e.g. the internet and electronic publishing. Paranormal romances are one of the fastest-growing trends in the romance genre (Wikipedia, Paranormal Romance). [4] High fantasy, or epic fantasy, is a subgenre of fantasy defined by the epic nature of its setting or by the epic stature of its characters, themes, or plot. The term "high fantasy" was coined by Lloyd Alexander in a 1971 essay, "High Fantasy and Heroic Romance", (Wikipedia, Paranormal Romance). [5] Many high fantasy stories are told from the viewpoint of one main hero. Often, much of the plot revolves around their heritage or mysterious nature. In many novels the hero is an orphan or unusual sibling, and frequently portrayed with an extraordinary talent for magic or combat. They begin the story young, if not as an actual child. In other works the hero is a completely developed individual with a unique character and spirit. The hero often begins as a childlike figure, but matures rapidly, experiencing a considerable gain in fighting/problem-solving abilities along the way. The hero's fight against the evil forces is often depicted as a "coming of age" story (Wikipedia, High Fantasy). [6] On occasion, the male character replaces this oppressive force and begins to oppress the primary female character in some way. This, of course, is masked well enough that we never notice this key aspect. Examples: From Blood and Ash A Court of Thorns and Roses [7] Throne of Glass A Court of Thorns and Roses series From Blood and Ash (Literally all of them) [8] To learn more on pedophile culture: https://aninjusticemag.com/youve-heard-of-rape-culture-but-have-you-heard-of-pedophilic-culture-8ecd67f2c696 https://www.newuniversity.org/2020/11/16/pedophilia-is-overlooked-in-popular-culture/ https://bombshellbybleu.com/getting-candid-on-pedophile-culture/ https://www.themudmag.com/post/let-s-unpack-the-root-of-beauty-standards-for-women-pedophile-culture [9] Throne of Glass – Chaol and Dorian free Celeana from the prison, help her defeat the King, Rowan saves her from herself. A Court of Thorns and Roses – Tamlin saves Feyre from poverty, he becomes the oppressive force in her life, Rysland saves Feyre from Tamlin. [10] From Blood and Ash – Hawke replaces Vikter (Poppy’s self-proclaimed father figure), as her guard, as her protector, as confidant. She often compares the two. She often thinks of Vikter when having romantic/sexual experiences which Hawke/Casteel. Throne of Glass – Rowen and Arobynn are contrasting figures, Rowen ‘saves’ and protects Aelin from Arobynn. A Court of Thorns and Roses – Tamlin ‘saves’ Feyre from poverty, providing for her and her family in the way her father couldn’t. [11] I have many examples for this for From Blood and Ash. It can also be seen in many other popular novels. From Blood and Ash in-text example: “His other arm came around my waist. A gasp left me as he hauled me to his chest. This was nothing like the brief embraces I’d received from Vikter. I’d never been held by a man like this,” (Jennifer L. Armentrout. “From Blood and Ash.” Apple Books.) [12] Her gift is the ability to feel other people’s emotions. Also known as empathy, a trait routinely said to be superior in women while also being used to claim they are too unreliable and emotional to handle much responsibility in society, aside from rearing children, of course. [13] Though, others have noticed its glaringly obvious flaws, so there is hope. [14] Surface level problems include, but are not limited to: Poppy not fulfilling the role of ‘Strong Female Character,’ Poppy barely even having a personality, Hawke/Casteel being manipulative, their relationship being based on manipulation and coercion, unequal power dynamics between the two primary characters, the maintaining of gender roles and stereotypes, and the presence of compulsory heterosexuality, subtle notes of pedophilia and incest; all carefully concealed [15] pal·imp·sest /ˈpaləm(p)ˌsest/ noun noun: palimpsest; plural noun: palimpsests 1. a manuscript or piece of writing material on which the original writing has been effaced to make room for later writing but of which traces remain. o something reused or altered but still bearing visible traces of its earlier form. [16] What does it mean for a person who has never produced their own discourse, to do so and have it ignored? Though it should also be noted it isn’t really her discourse, it is the Ascendeds’, the discourse of the Maiden. [17] This term is of my own creation to describe a kind of nonconsensual experience in which the victim (and many others) isn’t ‘quite sure’ if it was rape, but didn’t really want to go through with the act. They may have protested, but ‘not enough’ for it to be considered sexual assault in the eyes of society. As a result, they stay silent, they move on, they tell themselves it wasn’t ‘that bad.’ The strategy for rejecting that rape was, in fact, rape has changed in many ways over time, but the intention, the result, is the same. [18] Empathy has been used as a stereotypical, inherent, and advanced characteristic of women as a means of justifying them being too emotional for things like voting or math or politics or managerial positions (because those are the same somehow). [19] This further exemplifies her lack of ability in processing discourse. [20] Tradition is frequently used as a mask for historical discourse. [21] This is a term of my own making. I have defined it thus: Silence of Protection – in which one remains silent in order to protect themselves from the reactions their words may produce, punishments they may illicit. In this way, silence becomes a shield, exerting a type of power, whether or not it is always effective.