On the surface, the episode Dragon Quest has a fairly straightforward story and moral. Feeling out of sorts due to being considered undragonish by his friends, the young pony-raised-dragon Spike sets out to connect with his own kind (hopefully in a healthier way than his only other previous encounter, in which an adult dragon practically tried to eat him). What he finds is a bunch of teenage male dragons, a rough, crude lot led by a bully named Garble. Despite being mocked heavily for his youth, lack of strength and connections to ponies, he eventually mange to earn a modicum of respect and acceptance - which he then throws away when faced with the final test, a cruel egg raid. He rejects the draconic ways he sought out and comes home glad to "be a pony", and it would be many seasons before he would have any further contact with other dragons.

SO that's the story - but what does it tell the human audience watching? Obviously, that social acceptance is not worth engaging in reprehensible acts. But the same moral could be achieved using many of the show's characters. So why Spike? Well, perhaps because he has more reason to seek this particular social acceptance than most.

It's pretty hard to look at this plot without considering what makes Spike different from the rest of the show's cast. To be precise, two things - he's a dragon, and he's a boy. (There are other male characters, but none of them are protagonists at this stage of the show, and other dragons have only appeared as antagonists.) He stands out among his closest friends by gender and among his whole society by race. The latter is an explicit force in the episode, but the former is pretty close to the surface too - all the ponies and "pony things" in the episode are female-coded, all the dragons and "dragon things" male-coded.

So then, what does that mean for Spike's final moral realisation? Well, it's still clearly right of him to stand by his principles. But is he right to decide that doing so means rejecting dragonhood? (Note that we do see him possibly trying to rehabilitate the concept later, with his Noble Dragon Code.) Is the show right for giving him only such bad examples to base his judgement off? And what does it mean, when translated from the fantasy metaphor - is he rejecting his race? His gender?

Please feel free to address this interpretation of the episode and present your own. I would especially like to know how many of you also saw the parallels I did.

Man, I can say the same about insisting on putting symbols of your own accord. There's nothing in the episode that makes me put those preconceptions there. It is what it is.

Part of the reason I made this thread was to help figure out if I'm putting stuff there or you're missing it.

Hell, why not go a step further and say that Spike is obviously a stand-in for gays because he likes tea, thus he's a pussy-boy or something? Let's get dangerous!

I don't think that reading quite fits, although in a humanised, higher rated version Garble and co. might have laid that very accusation.

And the show's gender message has been... that it doesn't quite matter? Like, apart from the characters being female, there's never any indication that they are being capable because they're female or whatever. If anything, it takes down gender issues. You are who you are, not your gender.

The show's message was "there are lots of ways to be a girl". Having an all-female cast does not a gender-neutral show make, even if the reason is marketing.

And why can he not live by his own definition of a dragon, as he is seen trying to do in some later episodes?

Uh, that's exactly what he does at the end? He rejects THEIR definition of a dragon, saying he'd rather be THEIR definition of a pony, which to HIM becomes HIS definition of a dragon. Not being a pony, but being a dragon who does what he likes.

Now who's adding their own interpretation?

Now, if you don't back off, you'll see what us ponies do when confronted by a huge group of jerky dragons.

Spike: Aww. [chuckles] Hey, welcome to the family, Peewee! Stick with me. I've got plenty to teach you about being a pony.

Don't get me wrong - it would have been better of the episode went with your take. I'm mainly condemning it for not doing so.

Spike chooses to be his own person, not their definition of dragon or pony. He's a dragon so what he acts like becomes what dragons act like for him. That's why you then see him having a dragon code and all. He made it up because that's how he thinks he should act and so he does. His own definition.

Yes, this is a decent path. But it's not the given moral of Dragon Quest.

7087108

all the ponies and "pony things" in the episode are female-coded,

A point to be made is that the codifying in-show is made by the teenager dragons—and what they condemn as 'pony' isn't what they see as feminine, but what they see as 'soft'. Taking baths in anything other than lava, getting in fights, stealing and hurting, those are 'hard' things and therefore dragons. Pony things, 'soft' things, are comfort, being nice, etc, etc. I'm pretty sure that they would see farming as equally 'soft'.

Of course, this makes sense because before that, as you said, dragons had always been antagonists, and they had all been classical western dragons. Greedy, selfish, violent. Remember the dragon in the forest that would have killed a baby dragon for eating a very small part of his hoard? This is the first foray into dragon territory. The teenager dragons carry the values of those dragons. That's what I, personally, see there. Small, jerky dragons, who would grow up to be classic western dragons. Not... paragons or heralds of masculinity.

The show's message was "there are lots of ways to be a girl". Having an all-female cast does not a gender-neutral show make, even if the reason is marketing.

Did anyone in the show ever say or was there ever a moral about how to be a girl? Was this ever touched? It just shows capable individuals. At no point does gender enter into it save for the fact that as a show aimed for little girls it shows girls mostly.

Now, if you don't back off, you'll see what us ponies do when confronted by a huge group of jerky dragons.

This fits perfectly with what I was saying. Spike says he'd rather be what they see as pony or 'soft'. What he says here is that they'll show them what 'soft' people will do. Not that he IS a pony. He isn't dumb enough to think he suddenly transformed into what he isn't. This is about values, not roles.

Shame it was running.

Shame goes for what goes next. At no point does Spike deny being a dragon, he denies being a jerky dragon, and he prefers the values of ponies as juxtaposed in the episode. If all this had taken part with actual mature dragons, then it would be a different case, and we might have seen Spike not wanting to call himself a dragon. But again, this all has to do with what Garble and co define being a dragon or pony, not Spike. He never defines any of the two himself.

Yes, this is a decent path. But it's not the given moral of Dragon Quest.

Man, if you think it's "it's better to be female than be toxic masculinity," I have no idea what else to say.

7087108 I think Dragon Quest should be examined both as the beginning of a larger plotline (that is, the Dragon's integration, Spike's role within that integration, and to a larger extent, Spike's role within pony society) and the context of what Spike left to go to the dragon lands to do, which is to discover and learn.

Spike is the only dragon that really has any significant interraction with the main cast (other than belching smoke at them), and over a few episodes, we get glimpses into dragon society. They seem to be rather stereotypical big, angry monsters (Spike turns into a Big Boi, and the other two mostly just breathed fire and shit at people), but they're also mysterious, both to viewers and to Spike.

Spike begins the episode wanting to learn more about his heritage, which is fair enough. Throughout, as I recall, the episode there isn't actually that much conflict. Spike is pretty game to try new stuff and try to fit it, because he's curious about dragon society. We also get to learn how dragons act when they're together, since the only ones we see are isolated elements. Predictably, they're rough, coarse, and violent, which we can expect after having seen the few examples of dragonkind earlier. It reminds me of HTTYD designs.

The theme of the episode is pretty clearly laid out early on; Spike is curious about his heritage and feels he doesn't 100% fit in with ponies. Interestingly, it's Garble that introduces the conflict, since Garble is the one that is very hostile to the other aspect of Spike's heritage, that being ponykind. Unlike the ponies, Garble rejects that kind of 'pony thinking' as weakness. Whilst it could be used as a metaphor for toxic masculinity vs femininity, it's just as easily interpreted as two sides of a person's culture coming into conflict.

The main deciding factor at the end is that, when the final conflict arises, Garble associates ponies with weakness. This is a mistake, since it means dismissing pretty much all of Spike's initial life up until that point, and it should really come as no surprise that Spike would stand up for both his history and his friends.

In the wider conflict of the show, this sets up Spike finding a new path and helping other dragons, through Ember, to evolve beyond the brutes we initially see them as. They turn from brutish into competitive, and eventually live alongside ponies. This would not have been possible had Spike not a, gone to the dragonlands to investigate his heritage and b, not wanted to keep his own personal history. By rejecting the dragons narrow view of weakness and strength as well as not blindly following pony ways, he was able to progress both in a very big and impactful manner to the world as a whole.

The message to me is that progress occurs through learning and integration, not rejection. By rejecting ponies as weakness, Garble not only set himself up to lose the opportunity to smash some phoenix eggs, but also closed the door on any opportunity to learn and evolve. Unlike Spike, he hasn't experienced either world and remains pretty stuck in his ways until much later, Ember (who takes the first step towards a smarter dragonkind with Spike's help) helps lead him further.

7087128

Unlike Spike, he hasn't experienced either world and remains pretty stuck in his ways until much later, Ember (who takes the first step towards a smarter dragonkind with Spike's help) helps lead him further.

In some ways, if I were to interpret this as a whole, I think it would be more like a journey to adulthood rather than heritage, gender, values, and all that other jazz one might lay on it.. Might make more sense, since the common factor among all those dragons we see is that they are all young.

7087127

That's what I, personally, see there. Small, jerky dragons, who would grow up to be classic western dragons. Not... paragons or heralds of masculinity.

Pretty much all those traits, though, are part of toxic masculinity. You really think a "hard/soft" dichotomy isn't gendered? That toughness and endurance aren't the marks of a Real Man?

And if the show only shows dragons as a force of evil and destruction, then what of Spike? Is becoming a pony all he can dream of after all, like Pinocchio wishing to be a real boy?

Did anyone in the show ever say or was there ever a moral about how to be a girl? Was this ever touched? It just shows capable individuals. At no point does gender enter into it save for the fact that as a show aimed for little girls it shows girls mostly.

Faust said it. And showing an all-female set of capable individuals brings gender into it, just like showing an all-male one does.

But again, this all has to do with what Garble and co define being a dragon or pony, not Spike. He never defines any of the two himself.

Exactly - he lets them decide that his morals mean he can't be a dragon. Because he decides that there can be nothing good about being a dragon - that all his goodness comes from his pony upbringing, and dragons who lack one are just bad.

I don't blame him - he's a kid who's had two pretty negative experiences, three if you count the time his own dragonness turned against him. It's a perfectly understandable attitude. It's just a wrong one, and I blame the show for promoting it to minors on a moral education show.

Man, if you think it's "it's better to be female than be toxic masculinity," I have no idea what else to say.

That reading could hardly be more obvious if it tried. Meanwhile, in a great fit of irony, your interpretation seems to be based in you adding stuff that should have been in the ep, but wasn't, into your reading.

7087128

I think Dragon Quest should be examined both as the beginning of a larger plotline (that is, the Dragon's integration, Spike's role within that integration, and to a larger extent, Spike's role within pony society)

This might be a more sensible thing to do if the show returned to the topic in less than 3 seasons - seasons they had no way of knowing they would get. In any case, certainly at that point each episode was meant to be self-contained. So I won't consider a flawed moral fixed by it being corrected later - the credits have to roll on the right answer. And Dragon Quest's roll on the wrong one - Spike rejecting his heritage without any apparent intention to return to it.

(Even when they do, it's him teaching pony values to other dragons - but this ties into other issues the show has with race in the latter seasons, )

7087136

Pretty much all those traits, though, are part of toxic masculinity.

Yes, and they are also part of other stuff. Sharing a similarity or a trait doesn't make it another thing. A car is made of metal, is made for travel, and it has wheels, but that doesn't make it an airplane.

And if the show only shows dragons as a force of evil and destruction, then what of Spike? Is becoming a pony all he can dream of after all, like Pinocchio wishing to be a real boy?

The show showed them like this up to THAT point. It's a juxtaposition of classical embodiment vs Spike, and then we see other dragons, like Ember change. Which is the show's main thing, after all, changing through friendship and becoming better. Not man vs woman vs machine vs dragon or whatever.

And showing an all-female set of capable individuals brings gender into it, just like showing an all-male one does.

No, it doesn't. Gender is never called. That is on the viewer who decides that "HEY! THAT'S ONLY WOMEN-FOLK! THAT'S MISANDRIST, THAT IS!" The context here is that it shows all girls because it is targeted at girls. Not a gender issue that you might decide to bring in it.

As for Faust, like any creator, she was trying to cover a lot of things. You can easily show that it's fine to be a shy, social, or tomboyish girl, while at the same time showing that it doesn't matter what gender you are, if it even gets brought up. Again, the gender is NEVER called in question in the show. NEVER! That's the viewer who decides to do that.

I don't know about you, but I never cared for male/women ratio in anything. I simply never paid attention to it. It doesn't matter to me. I don't care if the protagonist of a game or series or film is male or female. I've played female and male Sheppard. But if you do pay attention to it, because it matters to you, then you will find some place to hang that symbol. That's not the show's fault or reasoning. That's yours.

Exactly - he lets them decide that his morals mean he can't be a dragon. Because he decides that there can be nothing good about being a dragon - that all his goodness comes from his pony upbringing, and dragons who lack one are just bad.

The fuck? How did you twist into that?

and I blame the show for promoting it to minors on a moral education show.

...The fuck? How is the show responsible for what you decide to make out of it?

Once back in Ponyville, Spike begins writing a letter to Princess Celestia. In this letter, he says that he has learned that "who I am is not the same as what I am". He says that although he was born a dragon, his pony friends have taught him how to be "kind, loyal and true", and that he is proud to call them his family.

Who I am not what I am, he says. Notice that? And the values he quotes are being kind, loyal, and true. Not feminine.

That reading could hardly be more obvious if it tried.

From what I see, you try a lot, trust me.

the credits have to roll on the right answer. And Dragon Quest's roll on the wrong one

*Points at moral lesson quoted above*

7087152

Yes, and they are also part of other stuff. Sharing a similarity or a trait doesn't make it another thing. A car is made of metal, is made for travel, and it has wheels, but that doesn't make it an airplane.

And ,magical ponies aren't humans, but if their life experiences weren't broadly cross-applicable there wouldn't be much point to the show.

The show showed them like this up to THAT point. It's a juxtaposition of classical embodiment vs Spike, and then we see other dragons, like Ember change.

But we don't see anything like that in Dragon Quest, or for a long time after.

The context here is that it shows all girls because it is targeted at girls. Not a gender issue that you might decide to bring in it.

This thing in italics? It's what you call a "gender issue", and it was not I who brought it.

I don't know about you, but I never cared for male/women ratio in anything. I simply never paid attention to it

Might I ask which, if either, you are?

The fuck? How did you twist into that?

By observing what he says and does in the episode.

Who I am not what I am, he says. Notice that? And the values he quotes are being kind, loyal, and true. Not feminine.

The letter matters, but the whole episode matters too. And right after that is the line about teaching Peewee how to be a pony.

Still, even if you set the gender message aside, all you're left with is an uncomfortable racial one.

7087128

I'd like to raise a point of order that Garble is A, a teenager, and B, a red, and thus shouldn't be held as an example of anything other than mindless idiocy. Other dragon breeds need careful planning if you're going to confront them, with a red all you need to do is stuff a random pig carcass with dragonsbane and leave it where he'll run across it.

I've never met a red capable of concepts beyond kill/smash/burn/eat/hoard/sleep.

7087155

But we don't see anything like that in Dragon Quest

...That's all we see, and all we've seen before as far as dragons are concerned.

This thing in italics? It's what you call a "gender issue",

No, that's called target audience. It targets mostly an audience of a specific age range and gender, but it's not an issue. It's a gender issue as much as it's an ageist issue.

By observing what he says and does in the episode.

One of us continuously speaks about gender issues the show. One doesn't. I wonder who might be less biased and has a more objective POV that doesn't get colored by preconceptions?

Might I ask which, if either, you are?

I identify as an attack helicopter.

I like to hover over something, and attack. It fits me greatly.

Still, even if you set the gender message aside, all you're left with is an uncomfortable racial one.

...You made me facepalm in real life. what who they what no but they! DRAGON RACISM???

7087139 Well, no, in this instance I don't think the time spent before elaborating on how the dragons gradually adapted and evolved really changes how this episode works. This episode sets the groundwork for Spike's status-quo; learning about dragon society and, after appreciating both things he enjoyed about it (he did appear to be having fun if I recall) and things he didn't, the main driving force that prevented him from, for example, staying in the dragonlands was how they viewed the culture he had been raised by as well as his friends as weak.

It highlighted how Spike operated on a level that frankly was a cut above dragons like Garble, who could only see the merit in their way of doing things and simply weren't prepared to acknowledge worth in anything that didn't adhere to their system. Despite having praise heaped on him after being king of the hoard, and enjoying a lava bath (which he'd never get in Ponyville), Spike sees merit in his own past and is more comfortable returning to it (and its flaws) by seeing the flaws that (at the time) dragon culture also has, despite how he actually seemed to be doing fairly well for himself there.

The whole 'toxic masculinity vs femininity' is an interpretation, but I'd argue it's a wholly optional one, especially since smashing innocent creatures (which is the item Spike stands his ground for) for lolz is not something I'd associate with either female or male gender roles, and is something I'd associate more readily with bullies.

7087169
Sorry, I should have quoted less. What we don't see is any sign of dragons changing.

No, that's called target audience. It targets mostly an audience of a specific age range and gender, but it's not an issue. It's a gender issue as much as it's an ageist issue.

Societies splitting shows, toys and other things by which they think girls will like and others boys will is one of the preeminent gender issues in society. Of course, MLP and the brony phenomenon are tightly tied into this as a whole.

One of us continuously speaks about gender issues the show. One doesn't. I wonder who might be less biased and has a more objective POV that doesn't get colored by preconceptions?

A person with colour vision isn't the impaired one because they can see patterns a colour-blind person can't.

I identify as an attack helicopter.

Well, I can't say much about representation of them, Representation of women, on the other hand, has often been quite poor in media despite them making up half of the population.

...You made me facepalm in real life. what who they what no but they! DRAGON RACISM???

The message is applicable to any case of interracial adoption. I believe that's why it pissed off one comics writer off enough to make Dragon Town.

7087200
Bullying by force (as opposed to the social or online sort) is masculine-coded as well, I believe. It's the difference between Garble and Diamond Tiara. (GIlda leans closer too it, but she's both butch as hell and a non-pony predator.)

And I really don't see Spike portrayed as a figure of reconciliation here - he flirts with the other side, but in the end he makes his choice, and it's treated as a pretty black-and-white one.

7087272 Like I said, it's a possible interpretation. Another is globalisation versus conservatism. I'd argue this is an optional interpretation since it is primarily the cultures of both sides that are conflicting and the intolerance and ignorance of both and how this affects Spike's interpretation of his own identity.

Spike isn't portrayed as a figure of reconciliation until much later; but here he definitely is portrayed as curious and dissatisfied with both sides at various points and ends the episode with a more complete view of both cultures. This complete view is what allows his character to rather seamlessly and impressively springboard into diplomacy many seasons later.

7087323
To me, it seems that any dissatisfaction with the pony side on his part is born from a perception that he's inadequate as a dragon - once he gives up on dragonishness as a goal, he's perfectly content there. But I suppose it's a matter of interpretation.

(And as I said, I refuse to look at this as a setup for much-later arcs.)

7087342

And as I said, I refuse to look at this as a setup for much-later arcs.

Your loss. It's good set-up and makes a lot of sense. I'd be surprised if, when deciding to make Spike a link between various races, they didn't go back and examine this kind of episode.

Interestingly, one aspect of the ep I find interesting is that despite the praise lavished upon Spike for completing the King of the Hoard, it's pretty much by not fighting and by being clever that he won in the first place. He performs the same trick later to get the dragon scepter thing (I found that to be a very fun parallel! It was even performed, again, on Garble). By rejecting 'weaker' ways, Garble pretty much undercut any praise or camaraderie he had with Spike.

Garble really did play himself, here... By refusing to think he not only lost to Spike in the game, but then made a fool of himself and lost the phoenix eggs as well. Meanwhile, Spike was able to both beat the game by being sneaky as well as stand up against Garble courageously like a dragon...

7087108

Feeling out of sorts due to being considered undragonish by his friends,

Perhaps more accurately: Their remarks made him realize he didn't actually know what it means to be a dragon.

SO that's the story - but what does it tell the human audience watching? Obviously, that social acceptance is not worth engaging in reprehensible acts.

Basically, it's a pretty standard moral about peer pressure and falling into a bad crowd.

But the same moral could be achieved using many of the show's characters. So why Spike?

Well, I would argue that this is basically Spike's main role in the series: His purpose is to star in coming-of-age type episodes that deal with growing up. The CMC are employed in a similar way but would have been somewhat less suited for this particular moral since they are a group of friends able to support each other and have less reason to feel insecure about their cultural identities.

Plus, it gave the writers a chance to feature the Dragon Lands and introduce more dragon characters to the canon. Before that episode we barely knew anything about the dragons at all.

So then, what does that mean for Spike's final moral realisation? Well, it's still clearly right of him to stand by his principles. But is he right to decide that doing so means rejecting dragonhood? (Note that we do see him possibly trying to rehabilitate the concept later, with his Noble Dragon Code.) Is the show right for giving him only such bad examples to base his judgement off? And what does it mean, when translated from the fantasy metaphor - is he rejecting his race? His gender?

I sure hope it was not supposed to be a rejection of his gender, because that seems to carry some uncomfortable implications about what it means to be male. As in, putting it like that sorta makes it sound like acting like an overly-aggressive, emotionally repressed jerk is what masculinity is supposed to be. Though, I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you didn't mean to word it that way. More like Spike rejects the notion that such behavior is what makes you manly, yes?

Still, I'm not sure that's the right way to look at it.

Really, by most sensible standards, Spike is a pretty typical boy: He values heroism and bravery, wants to be viewed as reliable and capable, the reads superhero comics and likes sports and tabletop roleplaying, etc. If he can be said to have "feminine" traits, it basically comes down to a healthy degree of sensitivity and politeness, which is probably mostly due to having had a good upbringing with decent role models. (And, again, if anyone interprets those traits as "unmanly", I would be sorta concerned about their views on gender roles.)

You may be on to something about the coding here - mainly because coding doesn't have to be intentional - but at least I don't think it was the message they were going for. The episode was probably more about Spike feeling insecure about his identity in a more general cultural sense, which is a long-running theme with him. If one observes his characterization and reads between the lines, it really seems that he's quite worried about not fitting in or ending up without a place to belong: His greatest fear was, apparently, to be rejected by Twilight due to her not needing him anymore, which is why he goes to extreme lengths to be as useful as possible. He also displays this attitude towards other ponies, albeit usually to a lesser degree. We've seen that when left to his own devices with nopony to assist, he barely knows what to do with himself and starts going a bit neurotic. I mean, he gets better, but it was very obvious for most of the series.

That sorta implies that deep down, Spike was always worried about losing his place in pony society - being rejected as an outsider with no purpose. He's clearly very aware that he's a dragon, and he does take some pride in that, but he was also effectively raised as a pony. So, it's really no wonder he's concerned with fitting in, or that he isn't a good enough dragon. Dragon Quest was simply his attempt to find his roots and thus gain a better idea of who he's supposed to be.

I don't think the moral was him rejecting his nature as a dragon, or rejecting much of anything except the unhealthy attitudes of Garble and his gang. It was more a matter of self-actualization: Spike accepted that he is a dragon with pony values, and that's fine. He doesn't need to be like Garble in order to be a good dragon, what matters is what being a good dragon means to him.

We see this character development portrayed (unusually well for this show) in Gauntlet of Fire: Here he returns to the Dragon Lands but clearly no longer gives a damn about proving himself to the other dragons. He's very flippant of Garble's taunting since he's way more secure about his identity at this point - what Garble considers to be proper dragon behavior no longer matters to him. He considered his presence to be a formality and showed no interest in dragon affairs, only joining the competition to become Dragon Lord out of a desire to protect Equestria - his actual home.

I just think that the issue of gender seems sorta incidental to all of this. More like the conflict of Dragon Quest is a rather, ah, "traditionally male" type situation, and maybe the writers simply didn't stop to think about that or consider it especially important. I don't think they actually meant it as a commentary on male gender roles, is what I'm saying.

7087598

I just think that the issue of gender seems sorta incidental to all of this.

Well, I think you just saved me a lot of typing with this.

This one never struck me as male-vs-female, and while I can see how someone could get there, it seems like a very shallow reading of the situation that focuses too much one one element that happens to be present while ignoring the broader aspects of the conflict itself.

7087406
Oh, they may well have. But at the time, there don't seem to have been any plans to do more with dragons - this episode exists to close that door, not open it. Good points on how they do end up synergising somewhat, though.

7087598

Perhaps more accurately: Their remarks made him realize he didn't actually know what it means to be a dragon.

He knows how Equestrians think of dragons - big fearsome beasts only concerned with treasure. He'd even experienced that for himself, from both ends.

Plus, it gave the writers a chance to feature the Dragon Lands and introduce more dragon characters to the canon. Before that episode we barely knew anything about the dragons at all.

Yes - which is why how dragons are presented here is important.

I sure hope it was not supposed to be a rejection of his gender, because that seems to carry some uncomfortable implications about what it means to be male. As in, putting it like that sorta makes it sound like acting like an overly-aggressive, emotionally repressed jerk is what masculinity is supposed to be. Though, I will give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you didn't mean to word it that way. More like Spike rejects the notion that such behavior is what makes you manly, yes?

I did indeed mean to word it that way, because I think the episode is basically saying that and find it as uncomfortable an idea as you do. Spike allows the other side to define dragonishnss/masculinity and throws it away based on that definition, choosing ponyness/femininity instead.

As for what was intentional and what was accidental, we can't be sure (though I might have a look at the leaks) - but both the gender reading and a racial one are very easy to take away from it, which makes it highly dubious to be showing to kids.

7087683
Is there any part of dragoness that isn't aligned with stereotypical masculine traits in this episode, or of pony nature that isn't shown as feminine? It's' a bit questionable having the only male in the main cast be an entirely different species to start with, but this takes that to disturbing extremes.

7087108 The problem with "Dragon Quest" is specifically how Spike is originally shamed for wearing a pink apron, something "Feminie". Yet when he starts hanging around dragons, teenage dragons, and does "Masculine" activites, they are treated as bad influences on him. And in the absence of other dragons to refute the actions of Garble and the others, it ends up seeming like Spike is shamed for wanting to be "Masculine". Plus the line about not being like other dragons and why he would want to is unfortunately sexist in its implications (among other things).

The intended moral is great: Who you are isn't the same as what you are. Where you come from doesn't have to define who you are as an individual (as "Surf and/or Turf" would put it: "You're more than where you come from."). But it's undercut when we see that Spike has been left out of various group activites with his "Friends" who are supposed to be role models for him to be more like.

7088289

The problem with "Dragon Quest" is specifically how Spike is originally shamed for wearing a pink apron, something "Feminie". Yet when he starts hanging around dragons, teenage dragons, and does "Masculine" activites, they are treated as bad influences on him. And in the absence of other dragons to refute the actions of Garble and the others, it ends up seeming like Spike is shamed for wanting to be "Masculine". Plus the line about not being like other dragons and why he would want to is unfortunately sexist in its implications (among other things).

Well someone gets it.

7088147

Is there any part of dragoness that isn't aligned with stereotypical masculine traits in this episode, or of pony nature that isn't shown as feminine? It's' a bit questionable having the only male in the main cast be an entirely different species to start with, but this takes that to disturbing extremes.

Guess I was wrong about Fervidor's post saving me a lot of typing.

Like I said, I think this is a very shallow reading of it that focuses far too much on a single element that happens to be present, rather than the overall picture. Dragon Quest doesn't exist in a vacuum, after all. But you don't even need to go to the other Spike-deals-with-dragons episodes. The context of the episodes up to around Dragon Quest is sufficient. And the context of the show is that we've repeatedly seen episodes dealing with peer pressure and outright bullying. We'd seen peer pressure and bullying from multiple female characters in the first two seasons, such as Diamond Tiara and Gilda. Diamond Tiara in particular did so in very "female-coded" ways (Ways that are then soundly rejected by other characters), but I doubt you would allow the same arguments to claim the show uses those episodes to say that being female or feminine is bad.

Further, it ignores the greater context of what the show as a whole was doing. Many of the episodes, particularly early in the show's run, were explicitly to deliver moral lessons to the audience, which was primarily younger girls. The show wasn't trying to tell kids that they shouldn't be dragons, after all. It was telling them that, even if their peer group or family do bad things, that doesn't mean they have to do those bad things. That they can be who they want to be, and not just what these other people think they should be. The show has a history of pointing out such bad behavior from any source, whether it's stereotypically masculine, feminine, or neither. In fact, I'd say it does a good job of avoiding the usual casting of traits as strictly male or female (Such was, after all, one of the design goals behind the show). That's how we got an all-female primary cast where only one of them shows any serious interest in fashion or romance, and many fans would put two of the main cast as more on the masculine side. It's never been about whether a behavior is masculine or feminine, but whether it's good or bad, and I think the show has done a very good job of handling that. Sure, ponies tend to be much nicer and more peaceful than average, but we've seen plenty of "male-coded" behavior from ponies that is depicted as good, too.

I mean, we don't even need to go outside that episode to see that. Going on a long quest to some distant land is a more stereotypically "masculine" behavior. Confronting a potentially dangerous foe and being ready to throw down to protect a friend is absolutely "male-coded" behavior, especially coupled with a very clear threat of the grievous bodily harm you're going to inflict on that foe if they try it. And this was coming from one of the most feminine of the main cast, too. (And sure, they ran away instead of fighting--Spike's call, I'll note--but masculine or feminine, it was still two ponies against several dragons)

In short, saying "these particular behaviors, which people typically code as masculine, are bad" is not the same as saying "being male or masculine is bad" (or similar problematic statements), any more than the show presenting us with bad behavior that is typically coded as feminine is somehow saying that being feminine is bad. That's why I said the reading of this being a criticism of masculinity is shallow. It's not about masculinity or femininity. It's about peer pressure and choosing who you want to be.

7088404

Like I said, I think this is a very shallow reading of it that focuses far too much on a single element that happens to be present, rather than the overall picture. Dragon Quest doesn't exist in a vacuum, after all.

In regards to it delivering a proper moral, nothing outside the episode should be required. They were made to be watched in isolation and out of order, after all.

We'd seen peer pressure and bullying from multiple female characters in the first two seasons, such as Diamond Tiara and Gilda. Diamond Tiara in particular did so in very "female-coded" ways (Ways that are then soundly rejected by other characters), but I doubt you would allow the same arguments to claim the show uses those episodes to say that being female or feminine is bad.

The show presents a much broader spectrum of femininity. You can get away with a lot of isolated examples if they are few among many.

It's never been about whether a behaviour is masculine or feminine, but whether it's good or bad, and I think the show has done a very good job of handling that.

Yes, the show is good at this for the most part. That's what makes the strong othering of male traits here stand out. Sure, the ponies get to look strong and heroic, but that's a lot less genderbound than it used to be, and in the end as you say, they end up not fighting after all.

In short, saying "these particular behaviors, which people typically code as masculine, are bad" is not the same as saying "being male or masculine is bad" (or similar problematic statements), any more than the show presenting us with bad behavior that is typically coded as feminine is somehow saying that being feminine is bad. That's why I said the reading of this being a criticism of masculinity is shallow. It's not about masculinity or femininity. It's about peer pressure and choosing who you want to be.

it can be about more than one thing. and it is, in fact, about both. Is it really shallower to see more than one layer?

The pressure is all masculine, exerted on a young boy who feels out-of-place among girls by a bunch of rowdy teenage boys. What he chooses is to reject all that in favour of the feminine-coded pony culture. Sure, some later episodes have him take a more redemptive approach, but not this one.

7088483

The pressure is all masculine, exerted on a young boy who feels out-of-place among girls by a bunch of rowdy teenage boys. What he chooses is to reject all that in favour of the feminine-coded pony culture.

This has gotten absolutely ridiculous. I'm out of it since you're determined, no matter what, to assign your own interpretation despite what the episode says, shows, and does, and reject everything that doesn't fit your narrative. Despite every single point, your answer has always been "this is masculine/this is feminine." If there's a gender bias, it's obvious which is the only source here.

There is no point in continuing this.

7088289

the line about not being like other dragons and why he would want to
[...]
Who you are isn't the same as what you are. Where you come from doesn't have to define who you are as an individual

If you take a close look again, they are both saying the same. The only difference is that the first one names something. You could replace this with anything. Pony, griffin, boy, girl, astronaut, eldritch horror, whatever. The only sin done is that the viewer decides to weigh what the episode put it with extra baggage when they decide to use dragons as a substitute for masculinity.

It is surprising that then we don't claim that almost all stories, series, and movies, are not criticized for making their villains stand-ins for masculinity. Unfavorly actions can all too often be categorized as masculine if one cares to. Use of force? Masculine! Threats? Masculine! Dressing in an intimidating manner? Masculine! Being bodily powerful? Masculine! Shame on George Lucas for making Darth Vader, a character that villainizes men! Shame! Shame! Shame!

7088495
Not if you refuse to acknowledge the clear parallels, no. It would be like me trying to argue over grammatical points in Greek with you while using English grammar rules.

when they decide to use dragons as a substitute for masculinity.

It was not I. It's right there.

7088498
The fact that you can make a parallel doesn't make the parallel true.

It was not I. It's right there.

Darth Vader is a male, with masculine traits, who tries to stop a rebellion lead by an actual princess. Why haven't I heard of that parallel being condemnded for being so obviously a gender issue?

7088502
And the fact that you can't see an obvious metaphor doesn't mean it's not there.

And probably because most of the good guys in the film are male too? If you want to ask a real question, why no big-screen Sith Lady after all these years?

7088504

And the fact that you can't see an obvious metaphor doesn't mean it's not there.

You can make metaphors out of anything. Their existence is based on the eye of the beholder, and the episode doesn't carry the weight for what you choose to see it as. If I make a case for metaphors that make an episode be about drugs, let's say the dragon greed episode, does that make the episode being about drugs?

And probably because most of the good guys in the film are male too?

So Star Wars is about how toxic masculinity can only be stopped by masculinity while the female model is being useless? That's its message?

7088505
Well if you can make it fit, it might be an applicable metaphor. i really doubt it was intended though, and most of the audience likely won't see it. still, it does have some addiction-like elements - but if you read it that way, the easy ending becomes a problem.

And Leia is hardly useless - but yes, her being a figure who mainly exists in that film to be rescued is a manifestation of old-fashioned gender roles. (Her more aggressive, "spunky" personality is a subversion of such.)

7088506

but if you read it that way, the easy ending becomes a problem.

Strange then that the ending is not an issue for you on Dragon Quest since you take what you think it shows as more important.

And Leia is hardly useless - but yes, her being a figure who mainly exists in that film to be rescued is a manifestation of old-fashioned gender roles.

But while the ponies are shown to be strong, heroic, and all that (entering Dragon territory to make sure that another dragon would be fine is no small feat of courage), that doesn't register in Dragon Quest, right? Because it's not Star Wars, and in Star Wars you don't want or never bothered to make the metaphor. Thus Star Wars doesn't carry a 'flawed message.'

7088507
Er, the ending is my big problem with it. As a whole, it's a pretty good ep.

And yes, the ponies are heroic, but there are other aspects there too - like adults intervening to protect a child from teens.

7088506 7088507 I think what's pretty important to address when looking at various interpretations of something is whether something works with or without the interpretation, or works better. This is what separates a 'good' interpretation from a 'bad', or 'shallow' one.

The reason I describe the masculinity-v-femininity interpretation as 'optional' is because whilst the episode makes sense (to me) when considering it (although this is dependant on one's own view of both gender roles), it also makes sense without the interpretation. It's not like the episode stops working when imagining that gender and stereotyping is or isn't present as a major theme, as I feel myself and others have described. (EDIT: )Additionally, I feel it only seems to fit in with the episode as an addition to the existing plotline of Spike learning about his heritage, which is until that point pretty much a big mystery.

This is in contrast to other instances where interpretation does matter. Interpreting Rainbow Dash as being overconfident fails to stand up to scrutiny, for example, because a lot of what she does simply stops making sense when we run with that interpretation. It's why I reject it. Here, it frankly doesn't seem to me like the episode stops making sense either way. I think there's more depth to the interpretation that the lesson Spike learns is one relating to learning about different aspects of both himself and his cultures, since the various aspects of Spike are pretty deeply tied to his character (he is a hero to the Crystal Empire, a diplomat to the changelings and dragons, an assistant to Twilight, and is at times torn between selfishness and altruism... a rather interesting mix when looked at closely), which is why I choose to champion that interpretation, whereas the matter of him being feminine or masculine is not really a major feature to my recollection to Spike as a whole, but yeah. Whatever.

Neither crumbles in the face of scrutiny as far as I can tell...

7088483

In regards to it delivering a proper moral, nothing outside the episode should be required. They were made to be watched in isolation and out of order, after all.

What's the moral we're supposed to get from The Return of Harmony, Part 1 when viewed in isolation? That you can't count on your friends because they'll be swayed by a bad person, and no matter how hard you try you're going to lose?

You can view the moral of an episode without considering any of the rest of the show, but you're very likely to get it wrong without the additional context of knowing these characters and setting. It also only applies to the rare case of a person who has only seen this one episode and never sees any other. As much as you might want to view this without the context of the other episodes, it's going to be rather rare for a viewer to actually be devoid of that information. Your insistence on viewing it without the context of any other episode doesn't match up to how most people will view the episode.

You can get away with a lot of isolated examples if they are few among many.

Sure, the ponies get to look strong and heroic, but that's a lot less genderbound than it used to be

Putting these two together, because I think they both highlight a big problem I have with your argument. You highlight incidents of bad male-coded behavior as problematic, but then casually dismiss incidents of both bad female-coded behavior and positive male-coded behavior. I don't think that's a fair reading.

Is it really shallower to see more than one layer?

I think it's shallow to focus on a superficial layer as a way of dismissing any deeper layer, and that it's particularly shallow to do so while ignoring the broader context that makes it even more clear just how superficial that layer is.

I get why you see it the way you do. I just think your reasoning for it is flawed.

7089035

What's the moral we're supposed to get from The Return of Harmony, Part 1 when viewed in isolation? That you can't count on your friends because they'll be swayed by a bad person, and no matter how hard you try you're going to lose?

OK, I know you're better than that kind of trick, so I'm not going to dignify it with an answer.

You can view the moral of an episode without considering any of the rest of the show, but you're very likely to get it wrong without the additional context of knowing these characters and setting.

Knowing the premises and characters is one thing. looking at a characters development over multiple episodes as a whole is another. This was Season 2, remember - everything was still loose and disconnected, with little in the way of continuity.

You highlight incidents of bad male-coded behavior as problematic, but then casually dismiss incidents of both bad female-coded behavior and positive male-coded behavior.

I don't actually have a problem with the dragons showing negative male-coded behaviour. I have a problem with Spike responding by disindentifying with said coding, rather than asserting his own alternative reading. The answer to toxic masculinity isn't for guys to give up on the idea of being a man.

I think it's shallow to focus on a superficial layer as a way of dismissing any deeper layer, and that it's particularly shallow to do so while ignoring the broader context that makes it even more clear just how superficial that layer is.

i'm not so sure a layer is more important just because it's buried further down. After all, it's the ones closer to the surface that more viewers will "get".