I made a man out of you: On gender swapped characters · 7:21am Sep 1st, 2018
Mare Who Once Lived on the Moon has been (basically) finished as a rewrite into an original fiction novel, and just requires being sent around to agents. Huge deal, I’m panicked as hell, not looking forward to the rejection letters on two years worth of work.
Anyway.
What this one’s about is gender. Namely, the characters were all written as female in the first iteration because they were female in the source material. You know, I don’t usually feel weird thinking that my gaslight fantasy drama was originally based on My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, but having to explain it like this... anyway, in the human rewrite, Rainbow Dash, Pinkie Pie and Rarity’s characters were changed to male. I thought they’d be more interesting that way.
The result surprised me in just how different they are.
All the dialogue is functionally unchanged. There are some tweaks and some polish, that's inherent to any rewrite, but it's been a clean-up and not a change-up.
If gender weren’t a meaningful concept, or at least our perceptions of it, there’d be no reason for such a difference. They’re the same character, written in the same way, and only their gender was changed at the very end. It turns out that changing the gender of the characters also changed the context of the character. A lot.
Take the transition from Rainbow Dash to Rowen Oake. Rainbow Dash as a female character is contrasted with her femininity. That is to say, she tries to display masculine themed traits — athleticism, machismo, brashness, aggression — and while she still enjoys more feminine characteristics and activities, she’s far more vulnerable about admitting to that.
On a female character, that’s taken as an unusual level of confidence, and assertion, and boldness. Sure, we might see a lot of self-esteem problems throughout when her ego is questioned—but overall it makes her seem… well, confident. A female character having female traits is only interesting in that she’s trying to deny them at all. It’s the masculine traits that are subversive.
On a male character, however, the conflict takes an entirely different meaning. Now the character’s “masculine” traits are simply what’s expected of Rowen Oake. Displaying more feminine-coded behaviour becomes far more significant.
When the character is female, those moments of vulnerability are ultimately a compliment and contrast to the masculine traits. But when the character is male, now the moments aren’t a compliment. They’re something that undermines the masculinity of a traditionally masculine archetype.
As a result, Rowen’s insecurities are more pronounced. His confidence feels more like an affectation, a rehearsed behaviour, rather than a natural state of being. That subtle change emphasizing his vulnerabilities suits the role he serves in the story a lot more. The character’s arc of trying to live up to the ideal persona they were in their head is a lot more significant when the character’s confidence feels more affected, and their vulnerabilities are more pronounced. I didn’t have to change the character to do that, just the context of the same characteristics.
I like how the Rowen feels a lot more for it.
Pinkie Pie changed, too, but in a different way. Her male counterpart is named Nicholas, or ‘Nickie’.
Pinkie Pie is almost androgynous in the source work, albeit with very slight feminine mannerisms that she has now and then. Even then, it feels like it’s mostly as a dynamic with an all-female cast. Gendered characteristics make a character feel more adult, and she's supposed to feel innocent and childlike. As a result, she's probably the most gender-neutral of the main six.
But, on a male character that slight feminine accentuation -- openly emotional, extremely huggy, cutesy -- doesn’t make them seem more effeminate. It makes them seem more child like.
Again, a change I find beneficial to the character. The original intention of them was to seem childlike, after all, so the change emphasizes that.
I find it really interesting to see how the context changes that. These characteristics on a female character are assumed, to the point where I described them as barely relevant, and most readers would agree with me. But the same characteristics, displayed by a male character, are a sign of immaturity. Something that you grow out of.
These aren’t feminine traits on a male character, then. They’re emasculating traits. That’s why, when Pinkie is the one carrying them, they’re invisible: they lack a sense of masculinity to contradict. Pinkie simply has a lack of adult characteristics, but on Nickie they’re actively undermining.
It’s no coincidence that to tell someone to “Be a man!” means both ‘act more masculine’ and ‘act more mature’ at the same time.
Finally, there’s Rarity who has been adapted into Lucien Roué.
(I’m extremely proud of the name. It’s an homage to Voltaire, whose birth name was François Arouet. One of the reasons for his pseudonym was that roué was French for ‘a degenerate.’ — specifically for debauchery. God, I love Voltaire.)
Both Rarity and Lucien were always meant to be transgressive. This is a character who flirts aggressively, enough to make people uncomfortable. Even—especially—when the people they’re flirting with are flattered or interested. They’re meant to be someone who puts so much effort into looking good that it looks effortless.
You would think, then, that the female version of the character doing the flirting would feel more transgressive. When a character is doing the pursuing like this, they’re squarely put into the ‘seducer/seductress’ role. And, well, the pursuit is traditionally seen as a masculine role.
This is, by the way, the reason why Rarity was the character I debated flipping the hardest.
What I found made the biggest difference here, now that Rarity is Lucien, was how that pursuit is perceived. Because, sure, for the characters it’s unusual to be pursued by a female. But here’s the thing: when a female seductress appears, the archetype is painted as desirable. The character recognizes that others want her and the audience immediately understands that the seductress is appealing.
But a male seducer? That’s different. It feels more active and aggressive.The inherent vanity of the message all seducers send (basically, “you want me”) feels more egocentric.
We expect female characters to care about their appearance. That’s what pretty women do. But men who put effort into how they look, that’s different. That’s them willingly classifying themselves as beautiful. Nobody put that expectation on them. Male characters don’t need to be beautiful. The fact that they chose to be, anyway, makes it more of a conscious decision.
As a result, the same actions and mannerisms, when adopted by Lucien instead of Rarity, take on a more confident, self-assured, and narcissistic tone. Their pursuits are more aggressive, and their successes and achievements feel more hard-won.
For many men, to be seduced by Rarity all she’d have to do is show up. But Lucien? Lucien has to work for that.
The pursuit is a masculine thing, remember?
A big part of their themes also comes from the fact that the character is bisexual. And, absolutely, on the one hand, I accept that it can be seen as a harmful stereotype to the bisexual community that bisexuality is associated with sexual hedonism and transgressions. On the other hand, well, I am a living example of that stereotype. You can’t really criticize this as coming from a place of ignorance. I don’t write archetypes, I write what I know, and I am one sexy, beautiful man myself. So shoot me.
Here’s the thing: bisexual females aren’t quite as transgressive as bisexual men. Lesbians are fetishized far more than they’re generally stigmatized right now. Again, that’s not to say that there isn’t still a lot of homophobia directed at them, because there absolutely is— I’m talking in very broad strokes about how they’re represented in artistic mediums.
It’s something I’ve talked about before: men who are into men, but aren’t explicitly queer-coded, are far less accepted than explicitly gay men. An explicitly gay man is ‘safe’. They’re coded as “something else”, something “far away” from the traditional masculine roles.
A lady killer who just happens to also make other guys a little weak in the knees? A guy that could talk otherwise straight men into bed? That feels more transgressive. That, I think, is more transgressive. That attacks traditional ideas and expectations about the gender, and for the relationships they’re allowed to have.
There are still some very under-examined stereotypes and expectations for relationships and genders in general. As Roosh phrased it: “A key that fits every lock is a good key; a lock that opens to every key is a bad lock.”
So Lucien is seen as a more desirable archetype for a man as a seductress—not a seducer; notice my wording—than Rarity. Because he is nota woman. However, that’s twisted when Lucien then explicitly uses that to court and seduce men and it works.
It’s a fantastic exercise. A confident female character can be an insecure male; seducers are more assertive than seductresses, but less desirable; what is invisible in a female character is immaturity in a male. It adds a layer both to how you read characters, and how you plan writing them .
One of the first decisions you make when planning a story is the gender of your main character. Sometimes there’s a definite reason they should be one way or the other, but I’ve seen people flip a coin to see if they would write a man or a woman this time. It doesn’t seem like it should be this significant.
It’s interesting to realize how much it filters what we see, like looking at an old magic eye puzzle with the glasses that had a different colour for each eye. The same mannerisms, the same words—completely different meanings and messages, depending on whether you’re looking through the blue or the pink filter.
I wonder what would happen if, for example, you took the Harry Potter books and gender-swapped Harry and Hermione. I’m aware Stephenie Meyer did something like this, but I would love it someone who actually knows how to write gave it a try.
This is an official ad for my Patreon. Subscribers get an extra article a week where I try to talk about more personal stuff, but if you're not a subscriber you don't know if you want what you're missing. So here's a sample of this week's bonus article.
dw.com/image/19006260_303.jpg
Good luck with publication!
And thanks for the interesting article.
I must say that this is most interesting! First, I greatly enjoyed the original pony fic, so this is really great news. I would love to read the finished product if I get the chance, but I assume we live a bit from each other.
However, the topic is highly relevant to me, as I and some friends are working on a genderswapped version of Macbeth. Well, semi-genderswapped. Malcolm, Rosse and Lady Macbeth kept their genders. And in at least one scene a similar situation showed up, the scene where Lady Macbeth scolds her husband for being a coward for not wanting to Kill King Duncan. In the original she calls him "half a man" amongst other things but I changed that to "human" to contrast with the discussion of being a "beast". That leaves Lady MacbethS argument as "it is in human nature to be greedy and take what you want without regret or hesitation. " A rather sad statement but I can't really say it's untrue...
This is a really good blog! Plus I hope you get published so I can read (and buy :D) your "non-pony fic". At the very least you learned something cool out of it.
Wait... Lucien? I have a character named Lucian who is kind of a playboy. Coincidence?
Neat to read, though I haven't read the original story yet. I think gender dynamics are often at this point somewhat underrated - at cons, for example, I've been to panels on writing characters of different genders than yourself, and the main advice is "just write them as people, like you would yourself". And while I think "write them as people" is good... the dynamic is a lot more complicated than that and I like seeing how you tease that apart here, looking at the stereotypes they play to, the societal archetypes and associations we have. I don't think enough people tend to do that and so it's refreshing to see this sort of deeper analysis.
Ohhh. One more on the list, then. Good luck with the publishers.
Fascinating. Best of luck with the shopping around.
I’m curious to have a read of it! Send a link if it gets published so I can have a copy!
My own experience with this sort of thing was lesser but still interesting. I wrote a short story that was a gender flipped version of an Arthurian myth. Was a rewrite so it wasn't 1:1 but I did find it interesting to see how I moved things around to try and capture the original feel with the main character being a different gender. I look forward to reading the non-pony version of moonfic. Assuming I can get through it, since I failed at the other pony with serial numbers filed at story I've read. It'll be fun to see how much of what you see in it comes through in the text to a reader (aka me).
Glad you finally have finished it off! Depending on your personal motivations for publishing it I'd recommend not sending it out to agents, but that's a different conversation. I have spent (probably too much) time reading up on the US publishing industry and how various people recommend to get published and would be happy to chat with you, though no clue how much of it would be applicable to the crazy upsidedown land you live in.
Make sure you let us know when some smart publisher snaps up this work! I'd love to read it in print!
I've been in both genders, and this is a neat set of observations.
Although the gender changing is interesting, I'm specially curious on how did you change the inherently pony mystical aspects of the story. Please do warn us when it's finished and published, I'd love to buy it and give it a read once again
I will say that the gender changes to Rainbow and Pinkie made sense. I always saw Rainbows masculinity as more of a mask, something she had to work for and I think it fits the story swimmingly. Pinkie also works with it for all the reasons you stated. The only one I am conflicted about it Rarity, as her femininity was quite crucial to her character and I felt it both fitted with and explained her actions. She was almost a femme fatale as well as a seductress, so I am of two minds about this change.
If anyone can pull it off though, its you and i can't wait to see what you've made of it.
Do keep us updated, I personally cannot wait to hold a copy of my favorite fic of all time so really hoping everything goes well!
Really great to hear it’s done! Be sure to let us know when it’s published, I’ll definitely buy it.
How much has changed rewriting it to be about humans? I’d definitely be curious to see.
Really interesting discussion. How do you think things would have changed if other characters had been made male? The one the jumps out at me most is Fluttershy, because she’s in a very feminine protective nurturing role but the fact she’s willing to throw punches to protect her kids becomes even more striking in contrast since you don’t expect a male character who acts that way to be even potentially violent. She also might come across as a more corrupting influence, having her kids steal things to get by, even though she’s doing exactly the same thing.
Interesting blog!
Elephant shoes.
Because I'm That Asshole:
"Complement." Not "compliment."
That's awesome to think about. Yet another way a narrative brings to light and highlights aspects of the world that go otherwise unnoticed
I think this feeds into something I have long complained about, and even something that, at least used to be, a problem on this site. It a sad fact of pop culture that 9 times out of 10, if a show or movie advertises an LGBT character, it will either be a lesbian or a flaming gay man. This is, I think, because Hollywood, for all its pomp and circumstance and talk of equality, operates on the frat boy mentality: "Lesbians are okay, because lesbians are hot, but gay guys are gross."
Think about it. When was the last time you saw an "undetectable" gay man in pop fiction? Will, maybe? But even he had his flaming moments. Because again, like you said, flaming gays aren't a threat to a frat boy's sexual worldview. By the by, I use "frat boy" not as a condemnation of all fraternities, but more as the pop culture stereotype. One of my best friends is a frat boy, but not a "frat boy," if that makes any sense.
Using gender tropes to create aesthetic tension? I like it. I also like what you've written: it's incisive, concise, amusing and useful.
Long before I learned about aesthetic tension I realized that the best fictional characters were made up out of contradictions, because that's the way real people are. Without contradictions, a fictional character is flat and lifeless, like a cardboard cutout.
Some time later I realized that the best fictional societies were also made up out of contradictions, because that's the way real societies are as well. Without contradictions, a fictional society is flat and lifeless, like a Potemkin village.
(Utopias and dystopias are fictional societies without contradictions. Like the original Potemkin village, they are raised with the intent to deceive for political reasons).
I like what you've done with your characters: they accord well with historical types. Nickie, to me, is Edward Lear--I mean the private self of his personal letters and, oddly enough, his published writings. His public self was a respected wildlife- and landscape-painter, friend of the Tennysons and drawing-instructor to Queen Victoria. His secret self was gay. Does Nickie have a tendency to blurt out not-quite-nonsensical limericks?
I especially like what you've done with Rarity. You've taken her from something out of Toulouse-Lautrec's paintings to something out of Oscar Wilde's life. Not quite Bosie, but halfway between what Bosie thought he was and what Wilde thought he was.
Pretty boys, witty boys, yearning for
Permanent adulation;
Haughty boys, naughty boys, ev'ry pore
Bursting with self-inflation...
Anyway--most heartwarming, sir!
You... say you didn't change the dialogue very much, asides from some tweaks, so I'm really curious how this all comes together. I feel, as a writer, like changing a character's gender would necessitate a massive dialogue change from that character in order to make that character read in a way that makes sense. If you just changed around some pronouns and did "clean up", especially with Rarity and her dialogue being switched to Lucien, I'm uncertain as to how you would make that character work without rewriting a lot of the context and the word choice. So, either your "clean up" was more aggressive than you're making out, or you've just left it "functionally unchanged"... for some other reason?
My question is... why? Why potentially hamstring your own dialogue by keeping it functionally the same, when you could have reworked these re-imagined characters dialogue in new ways? You've already gone and changed things, why not lean into it? Is it because of some allegiance to the original version's dialogue? Are you afraid to change something because of its success on this small platform? I'm genuinely curious as to why you decided to keep your dialogue "functionally unchanged".
Regardless of my questions around your decision regarding the dialogue, I'm really looking forward to seeing this come to fruition, and I hope you have great success with finding a publisher!
4929715
Precisely what the blog is about is how, by changing the gender and only the gender, a lot of the context changed by itself. Like, that's how the character works -- the blog literally tells you that, yo. Now Lucien feels more vain than Rarity, but also more transgressive. Likewise, Nickie feels way more childish than Pinkie, and Rowen feels much more self-conscious about the way the world sees him than Rainbow.
4929746
Yed, I understand that, but my question revolves less around how it did change through that switch and more around why the dialogue was left unchanged. Which... hasn't been answered. Because it was said that the dialogue was "functionally unchanged". And that is... strange! And surprising! Because lots of other things were changed, it seems, so why was the dialogue left unchanged? Especially in light of how much changed about the characters through their gender swap.
4930044
...What?
I, uh. I honestly, legitimately, don't understand what you're saying. The entire blog talks about how having the characters acting the exact same changes the context. That implies leaving the dialogue as-is.
That said, like -- what do you mean 'lots of other things were changed'? Numbers didn't say that in the blog. He made them human, he gender-flipped some to make it more balanced a cast. Why would you change the dialogue? This is a written story. Dialogue is how you perceive the characters. It literally affects the plot. You're seeing someone change clothes and you're asking them why didn't they build an entirely new house to match with their outfit.
Also like, no, for real. Why would he change the dialogue. The entire point of the rewrite is to have the same story he's satisfied with as original fiction, because the fic was pretty much original fiction already, just with pony shit slapped on it because that was the inspiration. I have no idea what the hell is your point here, and I don't say this accusingly, I just literally don't get your confusion. He's rewriting the story to change the setting, but he wants the plot and the characters to be the same. How is that difficult to understand?
4930044
Functionally, what Aragon said. It was only de-ponification and gender tags that was majorly edited. This blog is entirely about how that still feels significant when nothing else about the character is changed, just the gender-context through which those dialogue and actions are perceived.
4930056
4930053
I'm obviously having difficulty explaining myself. Perhaps I'm just overtired, coming off a ten hour shift and up most of the night after. I apologize for wasting your time. I tried re-writing this several times, never could find a way to make my question/concern clear, so I'm just going to move along. I really don't want to argue when I can't properly articulate myself or my feelings on the subject, especially when I wasn't meaning to be argumentative in the first place. I've got a bad case of "should have gone to sleep eight hours ago."
I'm just going to say, again, that I hope your search for a publisher goes well. I can't wait to hear that this is going to print! Exciting times ahead.
I once wrote a story about a man who was in love with his ex-wife even though she was cruel to him. I learned that readers interpret it as tragedy when a women loves an abusive man, but comedy when a man loves an abusive woman.
Good luck on getting your book published! It was a lovely read as a fanfic, and will be a lovely read as an original novel.
I was all set to be frothing if you flipped Luna or Twi, but these are pretty okay.
Just to make absolutely sure everyone gets the Tesla reference, eh?
(I'd expect the Rarity swap to be the weirdest. The outrageously flirty "femme fatale" behavior just seems like it'd morph into "creep" - especially since AJ is still female, and didn't respond that well to the advances in the original either.)
4931797
Yep. That's how it was originally meant to be interpreted is what's interesting to me.
I'm super excited to see that you're trying to get this published! The Mare Who Once Lived On The Moon is one of my favorite fics and actually one of my favorite of any steampunk stories, and with how well you write it definitely deserves to be widespread. Good luck!
Also a very interesting analysis. I think I'm most intrigued to see how Lucien's character turns out for the reasons that you mentioned.
I’m interested to see how my non-brony friends react to it.
An interesting analysis - especially regarding Pinkie, who I hadn't quite been able to pin down the key to flipping. Although even as a pony, she comes off as a big kid a lot of the time...
Do you have ani insight as to how the other half of the Mane 6 would have differed, if you'd flipped them as well or instead?