Gone with the Wind is not a romance novel. But it is often mistaken for one – it made the Top 100 Romances at AAR in 1998 and in 2000. (See also here. And here.) And Rhett Butler is often lauded as a romantic hero. In truth, he is a rake and scoundrel, a forerunner if you will to the many rakes and scoundrels that people the pages of historical romances. The original, totally hot bad boy – and in my humble opinion, a douchebag.
When Rhett first meets Scarlet she is 16 to his 33. She is acting like exactly what she is – a spoiled, willful child who isn’t getting her way and isn’t at all used to that sensation. Rhett, who eavesdropped on the scene between her and Ashley that instigated the tantrum, mocks her and laughs at her. This pretty much defines their relationship. Just my opinion but a man who ridicules you is, as Scarlet tells Rhett numerous times, “no gentleman”. That’s not a surprise. At the very start of the novel we are told: “He has the most terrible reputation. His name is Rhett Butler and he’s from Charleston and his folks are some of the nicest people there but they won’t speak to him. . He was expelled from West Point (for drunkenness and something involving women). . . . And then there was that business about the girl he didn’t marry.” Rhett has a long history of not rescuing the women he gets in trouble, which in his time would definitely qualify him as “no gentlemen”.
But Rhett falls far beneath not being a gentleman. It is not just that he treats Scarlet badly or that he goads her until he brings out the worst in her because he believes that “virtues are stupid.” No, the moment that I decided he was a complete douche is when he completely abandons her in her hour of need.
The scene: Atlanta is falling, Scarlet is taking a wagon (which Rhett procured for her) full of vulnerable people back to Tara. The journey will be a dangerous one and Rhett could easily escort them. He chooses not to:
“But Rhett – You- Aren’t you going to take us?”
“No. I’m leaving you here.”
She looked around wildly, at the livid sky behind them, at the dark trees on either hand hemming them in like a prison wall, at the frightened figures in the back of the wagon, – and finally at him. Had she gone crazy? Was she not hearing right?
He was grinning now. She could just see his white teeth in the faint light and the old mockery was back in his eyes.
“Leaving us? Where – where are you going?”
“I am going, dear girl, with the army.”
Let’s break this scene down a bit. The wagon is full of women (one seriously ill) and children. The road is filled with dangerous bandits and possibly enemy soldiers. Rhett has steadfastly refused to fight for the cause (he worked as a blockade runner because it was profitable) – until this very minute. Their continued conversation proves just how much of a jerk he truly is:
She grabbed his arm and felt her tears of fright splash down on her wrist. He raised her hand and kissed it.
“Selfish to the end, aren’t you my dear? Thinking only of your own precious hide and not of the gallant Confederacy. Think how our troops will be heartened by my eleventh hour appearance.” There was a malicious tenderness in his voice.
“Oh, Rhett,” she wailed, “how can you do this to me? Why are you leaving me?”
“Why?” he laughed jauntily. “Because, perhaps, of the betraying sentimentality that lurks in all of us Southerners. Perhaps – perhaps because I am ashamed. Who knows?”
“Ashamed? You should die of shame. To desert us here, alone, helpless -”
“Dear Scarlett! You aren’t helpless. Anyone as selfish and determined as you is never helpless. God help the Yankees if they should get you.”
First, a clarification. Scarlett is not just thinking of “her own precious hide”. If she were, she would abandon the wagon full of dependents, take the horse and ride off into the sunset. Instead, she has to take care of them on that long trek home.
Second, Rhett isn’t helping the cause by adding one soldier to a losing army and abandoning needy women and children. He is being himself and doing exactly what he accuses Scarlett of – thinking only of himself. He could make a real difference on the wagon ride to Tara. The battle he is joining? Already lost. Additionally, not too long before this scene unfolds we are told:
Against no one was feeling more bitter than against Rhett Butler. He had sold his boats when blockading grew too hazardous, and he was openly engaged in food speculation. The stories about him that came back to Atlanta from Richmond and Wilmington made those who received him in other days writhe with shame.
It is highly probable that Rhett is less moved by the cause and more trying to figure out how to do what he accuses Scarlet of “save his own hide”. He needs something to show to the people of the South that he is worthy of staying among them.
Third, not only does he desert her but he insults her on the way out.
I know that Scarlett is no prize. She is far from the perfect heroine. But that doesn’t change the fact that Rhett insults, belittles, and bullies her throughout the book. The only redeeming virtue he ever develops is that he’s nice to kids. There is no big change in how he treats his heroine. No grovel. In fact, he ends the book with what I feel was actually his attitude all along – he didn’t give a damn. When she stopped being an amusing plaything, he left. He was good at that.
So now it is time to ask the question to AAR Staffers: Is Rhett Butler a dreamboat or a douchebag?
Lee: Well obviously I haven’t seen the movie for a long time and I read the book many years ago. I don’t recall Rhett being the douchebag as you described him. But now, with your evidence, it appears he was indeed quite the scalawag. And of course with his signature line of “frankly I don’t give a damn,” that pretty much sums up his character.
Caz: It’s a long time since I read the book or saw the film, but I do remember those things you point out, especially the part where he leaves Scarlett to join the army. Perhaps the author intended for it to make him seem honourable somehow in that he finally decides it’s time to join up and do his bit, but I agree that modern sensibilities are unlikely to see it that way, and I pretty much agree with your take on it.
But in spite of that, I don’t remember disliking him intensely, and at times, felt that Scarlett got what she deserved at his hands. Although she definitely didn’t deserve desertion. Scarlett is the blueprint for many of the annoying, TSTL “feisty” heroines we still see in HR, yet Mitchell does show us how strong she is through all the things she does, like nursing the wounded, caring for Melanie – but she remains recognisably Scarlett because she’s still got those selfish impulses – she just doesn’t act on them, which is a sign of her growing up. We don’t get that with Rhett – I tend to think of him as an old-skool hero, one who very much takes a back seat to the heroine, and thus he’s not as well rounded.
Unlike some of the other heroes we’ve discussed, I can’t remember anything about him that pushes him into dreamboat territory. He may be a handsome charmer, but he lacks the inner qualities that are needed to make him a true romantic hero, IMO.
Haley: It’s been ages since I read the book but I think whatever pushed him into dreamboat territory was Clark Gable’s portrayal. Gable is swarthy and heave handed to Leigh’s Scarlett but he’s damn sexy doing it. I mean, who didn’t want to be carried up the stairs by Clark Gable?
Blythe: Well, as you know, I named my oldest daughter after Scarlett O’Hara, so obviously I am a fan. Not just of her, but of Rhett, and I’ll defend him as a dreamboat. It’s funny that their age difference never registered with me, since I read GWTW when I was fifteen and would have had zero interest in a thirty year old man at the time. What I did feel about Rhett was that he was educated and self-aware. Scarlett isn’t. She’s smart, but she’s not an intellectual; she’s smart about business like her dad. She’s also remarkably obtuse about men and her relationship with them. Rhett loves her anyway.
When Rhett leaves her to get to Tara by herself, he has his reasons. Most notably, he knows that Scarlett isn’t in love with him. She will be eventually, but it’s the tragedy of the book that it takes her too long to realize it. I always thought that eventually she’d get him back. And I think he’s a dreamboat worth getting back.
Shannon: I’ve read the book three times, but only saw the movie once. He’s definitely a douchbag.
Dabney: I can’t see Rhett in a vacuum. I judge him in the context of Scarlett. In that context, I think he is–if these are the choices–a dreamboat. He sees her for who she really is: A woman who values herself above almost anything, a woman who loves and seeks the finer things in life, a woman who uses her intelligence to make others do her bidding. She is his counterpart. This makes him the man for Scarlett. He’s the only guy we see who is capable of holding his own against her. Furthermore, he challenges her both to be kinder to others and to be honest about what she wants. He never agrees with her unless he genuinely thinks she’s right. He doesn’t use his intelligence against her in the way she uses hers against every man she meets. Furthermore, he’s the only guy who makes her pulse pound–he believes she’s capable of great passion and he gives her that in a time when sexual pleasure was considered a sin for women. Yes, he’s capable of great assholery but he’s also the guy who sees her toes tapping beneath her widow’s weeds and, though he knows it will shock all at the bazaar, he makes sure Scarlett can dance.
Heather: For me, as a binary function, Rhett is neither complete dreamboat nor total douchebag. But if we’re grading on a scale, he falls more toward the dreamboat end of the spectrum. He does, of course, have his moments of douchieness. It’s this complexity I believe that makes him attractive to me.
Rhett is basically a war profiteer. He runs blockades, partly I believe for sport, partly for the money, and is quite monetarily successful. I love that he is unabashed about being motivated by self-interest rather than the “grand cause” of the war the other Southerners in the story believe in. I love his self-awareness and that he recognizes in Scarlett a kindred spirit.
I think it’s this recognition that allows him to abandon Scarlett on the way out of Atlanta. He knows she’s a strong, capable woman and he knows that she will do whatever it takes to survive. In this respect, like attracts like. He challenges her and helps bring out the strength she has hidden.Plus, there’s something to be said for his courtly manners. Though I believe he would probably argue the point with me and inform me that he’s no gentleman. And when he says, “You should be kissed, and often, and by somebody who knows how?” I swoon every time.
Maggie: One of the difficulties with books like GWTW or Rebecca is that movie and book become almost interchangeable. That line, delivered by Clark Gable, is swoon worthy. (In fairness, he can make most lines swoon worthy :-) The book has a slightly different scene.
“Scarlet, you need kissing badly. That’s what’s wrong with you. All your beaux have respected you too much, though God knows why, or they have been too afraid of you to really do right by you. The result is you are unendurably uppity. You should be kissed and by somebody who knows how.”
Frankly, I’d have walked away with three points from that conversation.
1)I’m unendurably uppity?
2) That’s what’s wrong with me????
3) Can my beaux respect me too much – and what the heck do you mean, God knows why? Are you saying I don’t deserve respect???
Maybe I’ve grown too used to modern men :-)
Mary: I think he is both. He is not just nice to children, he is also nice, gentlemanly and generous to other women (Melanie and Belle Watling for example). Scarlett began as a brat and grew into a selfish woman. We finally see some introspection at the very end of the book, but other than her looks, there is not much to recommend as far as Scarlett goes. She is strong. She is resilient. But I never quite got what Rhett saw in her, other than a hope and a promise. While I agree that Rhett leaving Scarlett to fend for herself when Atlanta is burning was pretty bad, he was not just going to be a soldier…his blockade running was much more important than that in the grand scheme of the war since the South was so short on supplies. His actions benefited more than just being a soldier. I think he also saw it as a way to actually win some respect from Scarlett. She would not have really given him any for just being an escort. She would have just continued to rail at him and call him a coward for abandoning the “great cause.” I think his actions were to show Scarlett he did have some convictions even if they came too late to do any good. He could be callous and cruel, but I think in his mind he was trying to make Scarlett grow up and face reality. I don’t think at his core he was a cruel man, but he was like the guy who sticks the girl’s pigtail in the inkwell…being annoying to get attention.
Heather: I agree, Mary. One of the scenes that sticks in my mind is him giving Mammy the petticoat.
Mary: And Mammy loved him.
Caz: I still err on the side of his not qualifying as a dreamboat, but others have reminded me about something I forgot to say yesterday, which is that douchebag or not, one of the things Rhett does so well is to bring out the best – as well as some of the worst – in Scarlett. He sees through her and past her pretty face, which is not something other men do – and he deliberately provokes her because he knows she’s got more guts than a simpering miss and wants her to admit to it and use them, if that makes sense.
I agree with what Dabney says about him being the only man who could handle her!
Now it is your turn – what do you think of Rhett- dreamboat or douchebag?
Maggie AAR
I have to admit that I skimmed the book — it never was a favorite. Although I did watch the movie. Neither characters are favorites.
I liked Scarlett, mostly because I admired how she took care of her family in spite of the fact that she had no idea what she was doing. I think in modern times Scarlett would be a rising star in some corporation.
I never could like Rhett. A grown man chasing after a child? Ick.
Great points! I haven’t read the book in ages and forgot just how badly he treated Scarlet. Douchebag vote from me!
There were moments when he was so mean, it was disgusting. ;-)
I agree with Mary that he is both. There is a dreamboat quality in his pursuit of Scarlett but his behavior often crosses the line into douchebag.
I wonder if it is the Clark Gable affect that makes him both? I read somewhere that Gary Cooper was the studios first choice and turned the role down. Would Cooper have brought a dreamboat quality to the role like Gable did? Hard to tell.
I can’t see Cooper making this moment swoon worthy. It is the scene Heather talked about with the line “”You should be kissed and often and by someone who knows how!””
here
I’ve always thought Rhett was afraid of Scarlett. If she’d known how much he loved her, she would have walked all over him. So he was afraid to let it show and let his douchery try to keep the upper hand with her. She only wanted the challenge until she grew up. Then it was too late. But I choose to believe that it works out for them someday.
I think you make an excellent point about Rhett not letting Scarlett know he loves her because he is afraid of how she’ll treat him once he knows. I’ve always thought that Scarlett liked the thrill of the chase more than catching the men. She grew bored with Ashley the second the impediment between them was gone.
I think he is a douchebag! While he did have some moments of genuine kindness and did bring out the best in Scarlett – if you put him up against any other woman in the book as a potential hero – he would have failed. While it’s true that they might have deserved each other – their age difference actually highlights the fact that Scarlett could change as she grew older but Rhett was already an established adult who didn’t or wouldn’t change as the story progressed.
He treated other women besides Scarlett badly. In Charleston there was a young lady he left town with and their buggy broke down. It took them forever to get back to civilization and he refused to marry her even though he was the one who had dragged her alone out into the country in a faulty buggy. That’s what earned him his bad rep. He had also been kicked out of West Point for something to do with women though I don’t think we ever know the details. He also had asked Scarlett to be his mistress. Personally, I don’t think the big dance scene where pays for her to dance is that romantic. I think he was trying to move her beyond respectable society so that Scarlett would finally give in to a clandestine (for those times) relationship. It had to frustrate him no end that Scarlett turned her passion and lust for life not towards sexual activity but towards making money. Protecting her family and never being poor again are Scarlett’s priorities. Everything else is just icing.
You’re very hard on him, Maggie! While I also feel that Rhett is both a dreamboat and a douchebag (at times), I can’t blame him for the incident with the girl and the buggy. Though normally I love a gentleman to step in and offer marriage to save a reputation (I write regencies), Rhett was rebelling against a whole host of hypocrisies, including the ones that later nearly forced his mother and sister to starve rather than accept money from him. Here’s his description of the buggy incident:
“”So many things that one must do because they’ve always
been done. So many things, quite harmless, that one must not do for the same reason. So many things that annoyed me by their senselessness. Not marrying the young lady, of whom you have probably heard, was merely the last straw. Why should I marry a boring fool, simply because an accident prevented me from getting her home before dark? And why permit her wild-eyed brother to shoot and kill me, when I could shoot straighter? If I had been a gentleman, of course, I would have let him kill me and that would have wiped the blot from the Butler escutcheon. But–I like to live.””
For Rhett, not offering for a girl he didn’t love was a matter of principle, even if became the last straw that gave him his “”terrible reputation”” and caused his father to disown him.
What redeems Rhett for me (and I say this with the caveat that I have to close one eye to all the racism in the book, not just from Rhett but from all the characters) is that he’s the only character who always, always calls things as he sees them. Even Scarlett recognizes that “”he frequently told bald truths about himself when he spoke mockingly–mocking himself as well as others.”” In fact, I would argue that he’s one of the most consistently objective and honest characters in fiction. He likes puncturing people’s illusions and pretensions, but he’s usually right. For example, he’s the only person who stands up at the Wilkes’s barbecue and points out that the South doesn’t have the resources to win a fight with the North. And his humor is both intelligent and funny:
“”For instance when she decided to change the name of ‘Kennedy’s General Store’ to something more edifying, she asked him to think of a title that would include the word ’emporium.’ Rhett suggested ‘Caveat Emptorium,’ assuring her that it would be a title most in keeping with the type of goods sold in the store. She thought it had an imposing sound and even went so far as to have the sign painted, when Ashley Wilkes, embarrassed, translated the real meaning.””
So I like Rhett overall, because he’s funny and whip-smart, and he lives by a code, never tolerating hypocrisy in himself or others. When he’s interacting with people who aren’t hypocrites (Melanie and the children in the book being good examples), he can be just as kind and honorable as any other dreamboat. He just lives in a highly hypocritical setting.
Well, I definitely see your points but didn’t Rhett ultimately embrace hypocrisy for the sake of Bonnie?
Guess I always felt that Rhett did what was convenient for Rhett. When he believed the South couldn’t win at that party he didn’t run to the north but used the lack of supplies he warned the confederacy of to earn money, first as a blockade runner and later as a food profiteer. He flaunted tradition but later when he wanted Bonnie to fit in he threw Scarlett to the gossips (she was entertaining Yankees!) while he rode around with the kids in a carriage so they wouldn’t be exposed to the horrors of people who didn’t believe in slavery.
Yes. Yes. And yes.
And yes.
I always felt he was a hypocrite – always encouraging Scarlett to be “”scandalous”” and thumb her nose at society – then he married her and expected he to be a Melanie clone, threw her to the wolves when he decided that Bonnie MUST be a lady. Ugh. I hated him.
I completely agree!
I’m firmly in the douchebag camp.
I tried the book during my early teens and hated both the characters so much I couldn’t finish it.
It’s such a long book with such difficult characters — I don’t blame you!
Honestly, the only main character who was a genuinely good person through and through was Melanie Hamilton, but she was so naively kind and sweet that she could get annoyingly pathetic.
I just read Gone With the Wind with the mindset of “Rhett and Scarlett are despicable people who I’d never want to be involved with in real life, but their relationship and their lives are this trainwreck that I can’t look away from.”
I read that book as a young and impressionable 6th grader, so I was maybe 11 or 12? Anyway, it left me quite depressed. They are both such horrible people. I finally found Scarlett, and I choose to think of it as canonical, I couldn’t bear it otherwise.
To me the book doesn’t read well as a romance but does read well as epic history.
As a 49 year old woman raised in SC I have seen the movie more times than I can count. I have it on VHS somewhere and my mother has the original hardback. I have never looked upon that time period as one of the glorious south. Our family has one of the original land grants from the king. We still have that land in the family. We also had a property in Charleston but it was taken either by the yankees or who know. Our family became persona non grata when my great- grandfather several greats back did not marry his mistress but lived with her and their children. He never married (and could not marry his slave). He was the first to free his slaves and he also included his children in his will by giving them land which made him the first to give a “”slave”” land though these were his own children. We are still searching for info. but it is hard to find. His did tick off one brother by consorting with those beneath him that his brother changed his name. I knew when I watched the film the first time that we had been slave owners and life was not good. Our family was not wealthy by any means. I think my great grandfather tried to make sure his kids were landowners and the land could not be taken away from them.
I believe Scarlett did the best she could. So many women were left by their men and had to do what they could to get by. With Rhett and his reputation in Charleston he should not have gotten far in Atlanta. I do love the book and the movie. In Ya-Ya-Sisterhood book the details about going to Atlanta to see attend the premire are so great. I think Margaret Mitchell wanted Rhett to be a bad boy redeemed.
I agree that Scarlett did the best she could. She was in a tough situation with absolutely no training to help her handle it. It would have been so easy to turn her back on all her dependents, head north or west and use her charm to snare a rich husband to take care of her. Instead, she took care of everyone.
And none of them (except for Melanie) appreciated it!
That’s what gets me – they took her money, then trash-talked her for being unladylike. Well, they didn’t care where the ‘unladylike’ cash came from, did they?
In the interest of full disclosure, I have to preface my remarks by noting that I’m Alabama-born and -bred. ;-) I confess, I’ve always thought the most compelling storylines in the book were those that never made it into the movie: the “”second-best”” belle (behind Scarlett; I can’t remember her name) who was pretty much forced to marry her father’s overseer; the Tarleton mother & daughters who were left with no visible means of support after all five(?) of the sons were killed; the piteous question, “”Who’s going to marry Southern girls?””; and most of all, Will, who married Scarlett’s sister Sue Ellen. I can remember the first time I read the book, concocting “”marriage of convenience”” plots in my head for the first & last of these when their stories were not resolved to my satisfaction. I realize I’m in the minority here, but give me Will over Rhett any day!
I will join you in the minority position. :-)
Oh, good! Maybe we should form a club. ;-)
Oh, good observations! Rhett is a complex person.
I find it interesting that complex heroines are very admired but a complex hero is instantly judged, tried and condemned for that “”fault””.
Btw, I finally saw GWTW a decade ago and didn’t get the hype about it.
oh my post above is to Alyssa Everett’s comment!
I read both Scarlett and Rhett as iconoclasts that reject restrictive social codes of conduct. There are arguments to be made too that they are both anti-heroes, and at the very least, non-conformists. Both rebel in their own ways against 19th-century gender codes, as well as other norms of behavior. I was always intrigued, for instance, that Rhett had sharp ideas about warfare and the prevailing ideas about the Confederacy. I find both of them quite fascinating apart, and explosive together. There is certainly something of a romance here, but I do not read GWtW as a romance novel. I am probably in the minority in that I really don’t care if they end up together. They remain fascinating each whether they do or not.
I do wish though that the word “”douchebag”” could be retired and a classier word used for these analyses! Love the conversations, hate the ghetto slang.
I love “”douchebag.”” But then again, I love slang. Many of the words we now use every day had their origins as slang. Bamboozle was a “”Gypsy”” word in the 1500s that made it into English as slang. The world dude first appeared as slang in the US in the 1870s. The list is endless.
Douchebag is a hideous and vulgar slang word, not remotely cute or funny. I am admittedly not a fan of slang in general, but some words are far less offensive. Again, the conversations are great but the profanity is unattractive, I think :(
I love slang too! Have you ever read a slang dictionary? So much fun just to browse. I’m very amused by the permutations… asshole became assclown or asshat, now douchebag has become douchenozzle and douchecanoe… goodness –or the slang dictionary — only knows why!
I have. I also routinely giggle over the entries in the Urban Dictionary.
But, a douchebag is not a classy person and that is kind of the point. He is the opposite of a classy person and a more “refined” word would not convey this as well as the more crass version, IMO. From my brief research into the etymology of “douchebag,” I could find no sources that state it originated in “the ghetto” (and maybe it is just me, but I find the term “ghetto slang” more offensive as it has some serious and negative racial overtones). Douchebag can actually be seen as an arrow sling at the patriarchy IMO. Men invented douches (I believe in the 19th century) so women would smell better. So it is a hit at a male created product aimed at making women more palatable for men and not sexist as some would proclaim IMO. However, this term has been in common usage for over 50 years and has passed into the common usage lexicon just as “cool” and “peeps” have (which DID originate in the “ghetto”).
P.S. If this gets posted more than once, I am getting an error message, so pardon me in advance.
Rhett was a non-conformist until he married Scarlett, expected her to become Melanie, and decided that he had to turn Bonnie into a Southern Maiden by trashing her mother.
Even though I’ve never read the book, I have watched the film at least two dozen times. I loved this discussion. It truly made me sit back and think about one of my favorite characters. Personally, I’ve been in love with Rhett since I was 11, but that’s just me. I agree with Mary though. I think Rhett was both. Just like all men, he has his moments of being a douchebag, but he also was able to pull of the gentleman if need be.
I never understood why in the heck he would join an army that he ridiculed in the beginning of the story. That decision always felt “”off”” to me, almost as if the author didn’t want to keep them together and needed a reason to tear a rift between them for conflict. *shrugs*
Scarlett might have been strong and a survivor, but she was selfish and rude most of the time. Rhett and Scarlett played off of each other. Their temperaments were were volatile when matched, and I honestly think that if they’d have stayed together, they wouldn’t have been happy…ever.
I think Rhett saw Scarlett as a challenge. Part of his strategy to win her over had to be playing the part of the gentleman interlaced with moments of being the douchebag.
I still love Rhett. What can I say? I like a challenge too. ;)
Kirsten, my take on why Rhett would join an army that he ridiculed in the beginning of the story is that the point of the fight has changed dramatically. In the beginning, Rhett sees the war as an enormous folly, with the men around him saying things like, “”‘Why, we could lick them in a month! Gentlemen always fight better than rabble. A month–why, one battle–‘”” In response to Stuart Tarleton, the character who says that, Rhett quotes Napoleon’s “”‘God is on the side of the strongest battalion.'”” He doesn’t want to be part of something he can see is a huge mistake motivated by empty ideals. He’s certainly not going to join just to show everyone how courageous he is, because he (frankly) doesn’t give a damn what other people think.
But by the time Rhett joins the army, all of the posturing and bluster has gone out of the war. It’s after Gettysburg, and Atlanta is burning. Now the fight isn’t about abstract concepts like states’ rights, or about showing the “”rabble”” that gentlemen can fight better, or teaching the Yankees a lesson. Years of war have winnowed out all the “”stupid fools who were enticed into losing their lives by a roll of drums and brave words from orators–fools who killed themselves that wise men might make money.”” Now the South is free of illusions and fighting desperately for survival. Rhett is all about survival; one of his most admirable qualities is that he’s perceptive enough and determined enough to land on his feet, no matter what. Even he realizes he’s breaking his own code, joining the war effort. He tells Scarlett, “”I shall never understand or forgive myself for this idiocy. I am annoyed at myself to find that so much quixoticism still lingers in me.”” But now that his warnings about the war have proven true, he’s “”ashamed”” to be on the outside looking in. If the fight is an honest one instead of a delusional quest for bragging rights and glory, and if he’s defending something he truly cares about, he’s not afraid to fight.
But, a douchebag is not a classy person and that is kind of the point. He is the opposite of a classy person and a more “”refined”” word would not convey this as well as the more crass version, IMO. From my brief research into the etymology of “”douchebag,”” I could find no sources that state it originated in “”the ghetto”” (and maybe it is just me, but I find the term “”ghetto slang”” more offensive as it has some serious and negative racial overtones). Douchebag can actually be seen as an arrow sling at the patriarchy IMO. Men invented douches (I believe in the 19th century) so women would smell better. So it is a hit at a male created product aimed at making women more palatable for men and not sexist as some would proclaim IMO. However, this term has been in common usage for over 50 years and has passed into the common usage lexicon just as “”cool”” and “”peeps”” have (which DID originate in the “”ghetto””).
I actually view the word as a misogynist term aimed at women and female bodily functions. Not surprising that a man created the douche for women. I understand completely that Rhett is not a “”gentleman”” though, and therefore we are debating whether his lack of gentlemanly traits is in question. Note though that AAR has used douchebag rather liberally in the context of Darcy and Rochester too, so this is not a term that is strictly applied just to one character. It seems gimmicky and reaching to the lowest denominator to strike a fun literary conversation. Every time I see the word I cringe and wish we could strike a bit of a higher tone here, as this website usually does, even if we are assessing undesirable character traits. We don’t have to become that which we critique, after all, do we?
And I view it the opposite way as women taking ownership of something originally used in a misogynistic way against women and our natural bodily functions and turning it on those who treat women poorly. Obviously your mileage and mine vary. If I limited my reading experiences to only those books which refrain from using “”crass”” words, then I would be missing out on some very good books. Sometimes words that may be less than genteel when used for emphasis are necessary to convey the strong emotions that more mild words cannot. So maybe we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. :0)
No, I think you’ve misunderstood. I read plenty of books with crass language and I engage regularly (daily, in fact) in literary critiques of anti-heroes and degenerative characters of all kinds. World literature is hugely populated with all sorts of characters! To critique them, however, we do not need to resort to offensive language but can use our imaginations and select more fitting and sharply targeted wording. Douchebag to me is not only an offensive and misogynist term, but it completely lacks intellectual imagination. We could all sling around a huge array of gross swear words here to explain our dislike or frustration with any character, but that would just reveal our lack of imagination and not reflect on any literary text.
As far as women recuperating negative words to empower themselves, I see this often with women referring to other women as “”bitches”” and, of course, the very controversial use of the “”n”” word in communities of people of color. It’s an interesting issue but I have never found it particularly persuasive and I have no interest in calling any woman a bitch or any man a douchebag. Isn’t there a more intellectually engaging way to discuss fiction? I hope so!!
I actually have in terms of the word “”bitch.”” It is a word designed to shut down discussion or argument when used by a male especially, but not confined to the male gender. Somewhere in my late teens or early twenties, I began to say “”thank you”” when someone called me a bitch. It meant they wanted to stop me from speaking and I demonstrated by embracing it that it meant I had won the argument. Many words come into usage in any language because there is a need to express something in a different way. I find linguistics and etymology fascinating and love to research into the origins of language. When it comes to language I am in favor of expansion rather than restriction.
There are so many ways to expand one’s vocabulary pointedly and effectively though without resorting to foul language, and so here is where I do disagree with AAR reviewers. I notice that reviews of books largely refrain from foul and offensive words, and I do appreciate that. Referring to another woman as a bitch serves mostly as a reminder that we’ve imbibed hateful and sexist language, and it’s quite a stretch to use it in an empowering sense. Furthermore, it keeps our vocabulary at its basest and most lowest form. I have to say too as a college English professor, I am daily dealing with this issue from students who more and more struggle to understand differences among slang, text language and more appropriate professional language. I do, of course, recognize that AAR is not a “”professional”” or “”academic”” site for reviewing books, but I also do still wish there were adherence to social decorum when it comes to using the foulest of terms. I might be in the minority in this, but that’s what I would have to say on this issue. Thanks!
Language by its very nature evolves. We certainly do not speak English now as they did in Elizabethan times or the language of Chaucer. Texting language has evolved to fit a need in a very technologically changing society. I do not see this as a bad thing and part of the educational experience is to show students the differences between formal and informal language when writing. I seriously doubt that the English language will not evolve significantly in the next 500-1000 years to the point that people in future times will not look back on how we use language with both humor as well as a lack of knowledge on our linguistics. Spellings and word usage may change to adapt to fit the needs of that society. A language that does not change is a language that eventually dies.
My daughter wrote me today to tell me that she had slipped and fallen on the street and that got her to thinking about colloquialisms describing falling and we started a list. I just emailed her back to tell her I remembered another one: “”ass over tea kettle.”” Some would take umbrage at hearing that saying, but I think it perfectly describes a fall where a flip is involved.
Yes, certainly language changes to accommodate history and culture, and history and culture changes to accommodate language. And yes, students and all need to know differences between formality and informality. In the trenches of the classroom, it is a daily battle! Informality is appropriate in all sort of places. Again, I may be in the minority but here in a discussion about fiction, foul language seems inappropriate and that’s just my honest response as a reader of fiction blogs. I differentiate between foul language and other forms of slang though, and it’s really some words that need to be rethought. I do not believe necessarily that douchebag will become common parlance, any more than I believe that other foul words will, but time will tell, I suppose. It’s note right now a word that I hear bandied about without a cringe factor.
I personally never use the word “”douchebag.”” If I were using what I say in common parlance, it would be “”dickhead.”” Foul language is in the eye of the beholder. ;0)
I ditto what Mary said about the foulness of a word being in the eye of the beholder. While I don’t find douchebag to be a “”pretty”” word, I’ve never considered it foul. I personally find it to be a contemporary word used to describe a very particular type of person – in fact a particular type of man. In the context of the blog, I find that it fits very well. And as far as I know, I don’t think douchebag is technically considered to be profanity. It certainly is used on network television enough to convince me that it isn’t considered profanity by the general public. I certainly prefer the term douchebag over some of the other misogynistic terms I’ve heard used that I can’t even type here.
Maybe that’s why it seems shocking to me, as I just don’t encounter it among friends and colleagues and can’t imagine uttering it casually in conversation. The meaning itself is gross and so it seems shocking to see it in writing and so casually used. I have watched _How I Met Your Mother_ with my niece, as it is her favorite show, and it is used frequently there. Once colloquial words become too common, they tend to lose shock value and so many people uttering the word may also be using it devoid of much meaning to them.
Is the AAR site common parlance though, or does it strive to be somewhat more than that when discussing fiction? Also, I would not assume that my disgruntlement with foul language would necessarily influence AAR reviewers, but since this is an open forum, presumably it’s fine for readers to post alternative views of what one considers inappropriate language. I personally would not refer to literary characters as dickheads, bitches, or douchebags and try to aim for more intellectual and appropriate word choices, but perhaps I’m in the minority on this site?
Think about the title “”Kafir Boy”” (which means nigger in English). Mark Mathabane’s autobiography used this foul word for emphasis. It was powerful. I am sure there were many people who objected to his title because the word is a pejorative. The only language we can really control is our own. By asking someone else to change their language to fit our own sensibilities, it robs them of their own agency to use language as they see fit. It is an attempt to shut down their right to expression as far as I am concerned. I may personally not like certain language usage, but I will defend the right of others to use language that may be offensive to me. I fully agree with you that you have the right to see the word as foul and be upset. I do not agree that you have the right to ask the originator of that blog to change it. What if it were changed and another poster decides he/she does not like the alternative?
But I did not ask someone to change their word, nor did I demand it, which would be pointless as I am merely a reader here. I did express my wish that AAR could adopt less offensive slang words. It’s a bit like hearing an offensive joke and expected to stay silent or laugh along with everyone else. Sometimes it is helpful to speak up and state why certain words are rude and offensive. As I said though, I do not expect AAR reviewers to change their language simply because I wish it were otherwise. Just perhaps a different perspective here to consider, especially since so many people seem happy to bandy about foul words.
I have used the word “”fuck”” in my reviews here when I think it appropriate. I don’t see this an an unintellectual choice–it’s a good old Anglo Saxon word that sometime gets across exactly what I want it to. I tend to see the freedom to use words, any words, as one of the greatest gifts the free world offers. It takes a lot for me to agree a word should not be used.