In retrospect, I wanted to call this article "Savior Syndrome", but I was afraid this would draw too many parallels with just "White Saviors". However, White Savior Syndrome is very much related. Without further ado, here's the full article:
"You need to stop doing obviously evil things like being mean to orphans!"
This is what I imagine was said in an author's shower one day as they prepared to write a horribly offensive Harry Potter (of course) fanfiction, her shampoo bottle and soap applauding and gasping. Not a story horribly offensive in the typical way either. No. This person was preparing to YASSS QUEEN SLAYYYYY!
Now, I'm not going to call this some type of modern epidemic, created by Hollywood, because, the truth is, this type of writing has always existed. I'm sure if we dug up some of the early works of a teenage Homer, back when Minecraft was in Pre-Alpha, he was probably having Achilles tell off the Trojans for their bad manners.
This story type will also never cease to exist. But what is this YASS Queen SLAY writing anyway? And why do I capitalize different parts each time I write YASS queen SLAY?
Let's take a look back to our opening scenario, as I talk about a genuine story I have read on Deviantart. One that is a Harry Potter fanfiction, all about someone from the Magical World's equivalent of American child safety service, that goes on a trip to Britain, for some reason, to save Harry Potter.
Now, for those of you who never read "Harry Potter", you probably aren't aware of this, but Harry literally needs to visit his aunt's house at least once a year to activate the spell his mother placed on him as a baby that protects him from Voldemort. This is why Dumbledore kept sending him back, and also because he wasn't even aware about the state Harry Potter was kept in. So, already, this story goes against canon.
Ahem.
The whole plot of the story was for their OC from Magic Protective Services (again, a U.S. organization) to say that Harry's Aunt Petunia and Uncle Vernon are awful people and need to act better or she'll take away both of their kids. The whole point is the author going, "*snort snort* man I'm gonna be writing so good. So many people want these two characters to be scolded for being in the wrong *snort snort*, Britian probably has the exact same agency names as the U.S. *snort snort*."
Also, being more realistic (something we've clearly tossed and not just because this is about wizards), there is never once an adult I opened up to about home life. Or bullying. Because you learn very quickly there's only a few options:
-Things escalate. You tell someone you're getting bullied and suddenly things might not get better for you. (Snitch).
-"That's normal". Oh, well, lovely, glad to know this is going to be going on forever.
Harry Potter has never once reacted well to authority figures without any good causes, because if you have a bad childhood, you learn adults aren't good at all, ain't none of them good for you. Building that type of trust to be actually honest would require years. Or at least a few weeks. But instead, the author chose to get rid of any established characterization, just so this OC can look better. Also, Harry barely even speaks at all.
Now, I could talk more about this author because all of her stories are like this, but basically, this is YASSS Queen Slay writing.
What's actually wrong though with this cheap writing?
The point of this story is simple catharsis. This person wants to beat up the bullies, and instead of writing a deep or rich narrative, they would rather simply compose a thinly veiled rant.
This writing isn't just simplistic, but offensive. The personhood of Harry, for example, is objectified. These stories treat topics such as evil parents, abusive husbands, bratty teenagers, or racist grannies as easy obstacles to overcome, only for the aggrandizement of a character.
This type of writing wants to tackle mature topics without the actual adult viewpoint of life. Kinda like when a fourteen year-old adds a bunch of murder into her stories to make herself look "less like other girls".
Moving on from Harry Potter, Tumblr stories are also a great source for these. For instance, there's at one story where a mother orders takeout. In comes an Asian man with the delivery, and her little boy says loudly, "we should hide our cats."
The delivery man is ashamed and so the mother devises a type of punishment wherein she forces him to write a several-page essay on Chinese culture and sends him over to the Chinese restaurant to go and get the delivery man and tell him about his own culture(?) and apologize to him.
The Asian delivery man says to them, "Actually, I am Vietnamese."
Okay, that last part doesn't happen, but can you imagine that?
Regardless, there are plenty of comments, some literally going "yass queen slay". Regardless of the story's doubtful veracity, you have to imagine if off-screen the boss fired the delivery man for causing a scene he didn't cause.
Some people really think their writing is a form of activism. They think they are writing "Where the Caged Bird Sings", and then after this, they go and say, "at least my writing isn't like modern Disney" or whatever basic, low punching bag they go for.
They believe that saving a damsel is entirely fine so long as that damsel is some type of minority group. After all, they're really preserving Cinderella's dignity by having someone else save her, right?
But to be honest here, there's a male equivalent: A woman gets raped or threatened with rape simply so the man can avenge her.
"Well rape is disgusting and rapists should be slaughtered".
Yeah, no Sher Shitlock, but let's be better writers.
Astor Rhymemaster has a great article about this in EPIC: The Musical. For those to lazy to watch or who have access blocked, basically:
-The creator of EPIC removes the sexual assaults committed against Odysseus but then inserts those same threats against Penelope, so he can look badass as he fights against the suitors in the final act.
-The whole point of this story is supposed to be about Odysseus growing slowly more and more into a monster, yet ironically, he keeps being more and more justified in his encounter with the suitors, the final act.
-As she says "Inserting gang rape, even planned, into the adaptation of a story that didn't have any just to ensure your precious protagonist looks like the hero is worse than bad storytelling . . . This isn't something you add to a story to make you seem like a grown-up, because this won't do that . . . You see sexual violence as little more than the 'worst thing': An easy way to add an extreme emotional reaction in a story . . . wildly immature."
-Also why in the world are they teaming together when the whole point is the Suitors want to individually marry Penelope and get power, and why even assault her?
You might say, "Okay, but these seem like two unrelated topics. One is the 'oh look how good a person I am on my soapbox', and the next one is someone carrying out a power-revenge fantasy'". And I would agree with that, in fact, I didn't even think these were related either.
Until, I really thought about some people I knew. These are both just two sides of the same coin.
Men tend to use this whole "Save the damsel from the gang rape", because they want to say "look how good I am because I oppose rape or hate rapists". That's not my speculation: I've actually had people tell me that's why they put that into their story. Like they need to prove they're anti-rape. Anyway, these are people who objectify women the most and usually draw them only with large boobs and fannies. Freud's theories actually make a lot more sense when you realize instead of well-adjusted people in his chairs, he was basing his observations on people like these probably.
Meanwhile, with women, even though their variation isn't the same as stopping the gang rape, this is still the same source: A fantasy where they defeat the super racist-homophobe while everyone applauds them.
In different words, these are power fantasies for the need of approval. By blitzing through some caricatures, they can make their protagonist look awesome without the trouble of having to write thoughtfully about the actual struggles of legally protecting family members or stopping racism.
A great comparison is how an action movie starts off with the main squad disposing a bunch of gangbangers, only to lose most of their fights the rest of the movie, because the opening sequence was just to make them look cool. Or how dialogue will be horrible in a scene just so the "wiseass character" can deliver a comeback. One thing, that's really obnoxious, is the "mic drop", wherein, the character says something that shuts the person up for good. Bluntly put, mic drops are just an unrealistic form of writing and a cheap way to show a character has "won".
However, while those examples are annoying , "Yass"ing is worse, because if you've ever gone through these experiences or known people who have, you get slightly more annoyed.
As I said to a friend:
I call these "yass queen slay" because they aren't of substance, they're purely meant to draw a specific emotion of "yeah, that would be great".
There are some things I don't call "Yass queen slay" though. Someone wanted me to talk about "Avatar" and the White Savior allegations against that movie, and I don't personally agree.
For one, James Cameron (or whatever his name is), actually learned the Navi's culture, and had a story arc about turning back against the settlers WITH the Navi. A character having basic empathy is NOT "yass queen slay". Same with the main cast of "Honkai: Star Rail" teaming with Belobogians to save Belobog. Especially since in either of those examples, the victims aren't relegated to side characters of their own struggles but get respect.
Another example is "Like Water For Chocolate", wherein a mother defends her daughter from being raped in the Mexican Revolutionary War. That doesn't count because literally any mother who isn't on Dateline will save their daughter from being raped, and also the mother suffers injuries from this, or realistic results.
In the Harry Potter fanfiction, there was no pushback from the actual agency saying, "You can't just take away peoples kids unless there is a SERIOUS threat". This was a Girlboss (tm) to be admired.
So, to distill this into elements:
"Yass Queen Slay" is when-in,
The author walks in with the goal to Aggrandize a character,
For easy catharsis,
in spite of any realistic pushback,
while denying or objectifying the personhoods of the characters they're attempting to save,
and simplifies the actual struggles and psychology.
The flaws of this are that:
The author comes across as looking massively immature and doesn't look very smart,
and treats complex topics and feelings as stepping stones or plot threads,
and treats the audience as idiots.
Sometimes this also creates questions such as: "If this person is such a good momma, how come their son is such a racist little brat anyway?"
So, how do we avoid this?
I could say, you should tackle a topic respectfully, but the thing is, you probably already "know" that. I doubt anyone I listed here believed they were going over these mature topics in an inherently disrespectful manner, unless they're secretly psychopaths. I also doubt you walk in going, "Fufufufu, I'm going to make everyone in Harry Potter one-dimensional caricatures to serve my story, fufufufu. I'm a good writer and I don't suck eggs that much fufufufu."
To be honest, most people who are going to do this, probably lack the self-awareness to actually see this in their writing.
The reason people do this, is again, because they need to be lionized or applauded. They want to do activism without actually doing activism. They want to recycle without having to reduce or reuse. They want to protest without doing a sit-in or get picket signs.
Most people who are preaching don't realize they are. A lot of times, I think these authors think most people are like them, otherwise, they wouldn't have to spread their beliefs. They're probably in thought that they're trying to give out reasonable character development.
Your writing should be holistic, or with the understanding each element should be a part of the plot. The audience is not part of the story. And even if they were, giving them immediate closure or catharsis by having a racist-rapist immediately slain, isn't going to do much for you. This is unsustainable writing that, while in the short term, will get people cheering, will ultimately be forgotten after a week mercifully. If you want your writing to get SUBSTANTIALLY better, you'll stop caring about how your audience perceives your "Girlboss" and care more about her role in a story in manner with a theme and plotline(s).
However, while the Harry Potter story would probably still be annoying and cheesy if Harry himself ranted against Vernon and Petunia, this would at least cause less indigestion than having to have your Mary-Sue agency character come in to stand up "for him". At least give the victim some way to claim back their power. If that means their struggle to survive many countless nights with a kidnapper until the police arrive, that works.
This is also not to say that you shouldn't address mature topics. Approaching these in an earnest way, even if they ultimately fall flat, is a respectable endeavor. There's nothing wrong with lacking the necessary maturity or world view, because the truth is, even if you studied this for 80 years you'll never know all the nuance about abuse.
I don't generally like saying you shouldn't write topic "you have no business writing none about?"
However, acknowledge that while stories can carry messages, their point is to give LIFE to that message overall.
Saying, "You shouldn't be sexist because being sexist is wrong, and being wrong is for women", through a mouthpiece isn't good narrative, even if you are morally right, because this isn't very entertaining or subtle or, honestly, persuasive. However, here's two examples about people living in tribes where men are the only warriors and not women.
A (Island of the Blue Dolphin): Ends up alone on an island after her people are slain by colonizers. Afraid to defend herself initially because of beliefs that if women create weapons, she'll get swallowed by the seas (sorry that might be from the movie, I've read/watched both) and has to create weapons to survive against her peoples' native beliefs.
B (Avatar: The Last Airbender), Sokka goes out into the wider world and meets female warriors, and afterwards, soon falls in love with a woman from a similar tribe who has no choice in her life and must marry some dirtbag while his own sister isn't allowed to learn to fight even though she's perfectly capable. So now he must go against the very system he once upheld.
These two stories actually establish why these things are wrong, not just because they're evidently false, but also by adding actual traits to theoretical people and how they affect their respective storylines.
Closing:
To be honest, I know this article rambles a lot and isn't very focused. If there's any section you want me to expand upon, I'd be glad to. Also, since I feel like someone is going to read literally two paragraphs before ranting, here's what this article isn't about: Wokeism, republicans, liberals, "don't write rape in your story" when I literally justified that in this very post but criticized poor handling thereof, Harry Potter fans in general.
Signing off.
