Not Like Other Damsels: On Clever Heroines
Well sure she's clever, but has she ever considered joining a union?
Hello friends, this week I had many thoughts™ about clever heroines, or rather, what I’m calling the “Clever Heroine Narrative”.
There I was, just a girl on a comfy chair watching a movie called “Damsel” on Netflix when I was struck by something familiar: an empowering female narrative based on the concept of “cleverness”. It feels like I’ve been finding it in media more and more lately, and it got me thinking. (There will be spoilers for Damsel throughout this piece).
What made me most want to look at the Clever Heroine Narrative more closely is that I’ve been coming across it frequently, often in the same kind of shape, with similar intention, and to similar effect. It feels almost like a go-to characterization, perhaps a “default” or simple way of trying to make a female character seem strong, competent, and empowered—at least more so than she usually is in traditional stories and archetypal roles; Instead of being a quiet, passive damsel as has been historically demanded, female characters/women must now be “clever”.
Where once we delineated men and women (in quite a gender essentialist way) with labels, archetypes, and traits such as Traditional Hero, and Damsel or Spinster, are we now delineating them with a new trait?
Because it feels so common and is often executed in similar ways, it feels to me as though we’re perhaps creating a new archetype, therefore not really challenging and removing goal posts for women and female characters, but rather shifting them.
Problematizing the “Clever” Heroine
Today, I would like to take the time to collate my thoughts and problematise the “clever heroine” narrative. If you think “Problematize” is a scary word that means I’m going to tell you something is bad or morally wrong, that’s not the intent or purpose of the practice. When I say “problematize”, I am talking about looking at something and asking what assumptions, information, and biases went into its creation. I’m looking at those things and asking “why”. I want to examine the thing I’m consuming and engage with it more critically, to better understand its basis and structure, to question the assumptions, the implied and accepted truths, and ask if they’re truly what they say they are (good, bad, unproblematic, empowering, etc). I want to look more deeply and see what the thing is doing or saying, who is doing or saying it, and to whom.
Identifying the Clever Heroine Narrative (CHN)
The ‘Clever Heroine Narrative’, to me, is more than simply a heroine who is clever – and I’m using the word ‘narrative’ in the title because I want to call attention to something that I think may become clear throughout this think-piece, which is that what is shown and told to us as the consumer isn’t always in alignment.
The reason I felt the urge to look more deeply at it and problematise it is because of the consistent context and elements frequently surrounding it, which includes intent, purpose, discourse, and more. So in looking at these factors through a few different novels and movies, I’ve identified a list of context and elements which make up what I am calling the CHN.
It is intended to be, or marketed or promoted as an “empowering” story [for women].
The heroine is explicitly called “clever” or “smart” in some way (through dialogue, narration, text, etc.)
The story or the heroine’s role is subverting traditional female narratives and characterizations, but reinforcing them in other [quite sneaky] ways
The heroine can be considered a “strong female character” in the pejorative: female characters who operate well within patriarchal ideals, where their “strength” comes from traditionally masculine qualities, traits, and narratives (sword fighting, dominance, willingness to enact violence, etc).
The heroine’s cleverness is a key part of their characterization, and makes her exceptional.
The heroine’s cleverness is a key part of solving the main conflict of the story.
Netflix’s ‘Damsel’ fits most of these. We have: a movie openly embracing a “feminist” or “empowering” position and being promoted as such by consumers; has the heroine, Elodie, being called “clever” by another character; Elodie is an obvious and intentional subversion of the traditional ‘damsel’ character archetype; Elodie can be considered a “strong female character” in the sense that she is brave, wields a sword, and succeeds at immensely challenging physical tasks; and her cleverness both makes her ‘different’ and is a key part of her success in solving the main conflict of the story.
The logic of “Cleverness”
I can follow the logic of making a female character “clever” in order to empower them. If she cannot be a soldier or warrior, then it stands to reason, I suppose, that in order to maintain agency and active participation in the plot, she gets out of capital ‘S’ Situations by using her wits and cleverly making use of the things around her.
That being said, I feel that there are so many other traits heroines could have or embody, and so the frequent choice to make heroines “clever” stands out to me. They could be compassionate or persuasive, for example, and bring people together rather than have to think through and do things on her own—which often leads to her enacting some sort of violence. These narratives often still demand an individualist approach or outcome, one which still relies on dominance and which does not consider the value of collective action.
In this way, the Clever Heroine Narrative feels like it’s subverting some things, while also still operating within patriarchal values, just in a more insidious way because it’s being branded as and easily accepted as “empowering”.
How often does this “cleverness” really just mean she enacts the same masculine violence, just in different, even convoluted ways? In Damsel, Elodie may not inflict deadly or disabling injury on the dragon with her own hands, but she does work out how to get it to disable itself in quite a gruesome, painful way which almost kills it.
How often is t the Clever Heroine clever enough to end the violence without relying on violence herself? How often does she actually live up to the title of ‘clever’?
As I write this essay, I keep thinking about ‘Mean Girl Feminism’ by Kim Hong Nguyen, in which she examines the way white women enact certain behaviours and take on particular roles that appear to be and are promoted as being feminist, but upon taking a closer look, these behaviours and roles do little but further her status as an individual while failing to address systemic issues affecting her community as a whole. Not to mention, not all women can afford to be ‘mean’. Anger and aggression is racialised and used to dismiss, discredit, and dehumanise women of colour, so how are they meant to fight oppression by being ‘mean’?
Both Mean Girl Feminism and this Clever Heroine Narrative give us stories in which an individual woman ends up succeeding, ends up on top, ends up with what she wants, without helping and uplifting any other women find success too. And this is where the idea of “trickle down empowerment” comes in.
Trickle-down Empowerment
Obviously not all stories/narratives will fit everyone, but it's worth looking at how and why the Clever Heroine Narrative is becoming such a common narrative. I wonder to what extent it’s creating or perpetuating a cultural belief that if only one can be clever enough they can win the day—afterall, Mean Girl Feminism works in similar ways: If you can be loud, ‘bitchy’, aggressive, and dominant, you can win that promotion, and a win for one woman is a win for all, right? But not everyone has the tools or ability to do so, and the idea that one-woman-band feminism will ‘trickle down’ and benefit all women is not only unrealistic, but it excludes so many women, like those who are disabled or of lower socioeconomic status, those who want to be stay-at-home mothers, those who don’t want to or cannot be “exceptional”. One persons’ success, on its own, does not effectively reduce systemic oppression.
“Trickle-down feminism,” a notion that rights and privileges enjoyed by an elite group of women will trickle down and benefit the majority of women, is wholly ineffective in promoting positive social change. It should be replaced by the principles of equalism, a belief in the value and responsibility of all people.” — A Case of Trickle-Down Feminism (Kari Cameron)
I want to consider the implications of this “clever heroine” identity in the context of our wider western individualistic culture, because that is where I and this narrative come from. It’s undeniably good, in some ways, to create a female character that achieves success due to personal traits and virtues, but these narratives ignore and sometimes even dismiss the why of these heroines needing to ‘pull themselves up by their bootstraps’, as it were, and this often (to me) creates a story that feels like it doesn’t understand the foundations of the issues it’s building an empowering narrative on top of. It lacks the understanding that one person's failure within the sexist oppressive system is not because of their own actions, and constantly creating narratives in which they as individuals must empower themselves dismisses the value and necessity of collective action. That as a community, we need to prioritise working together for the betterment and equity of all, rather than alone for the benefit of the individual (and maybe their loved ones).
Labels & Lenses
I have noticed that when I am reading or watching a piece of media and I am told, explicitly, that a character is “clever”, if not my active expectations then my subconscious expectations shift. It’s like handing me a pair of those blue and red 3D glasses and telling me “it’s a 3D movie”, after which I’m naturally going to seek out what parts of the movie are made cooler by the use of 3D technology and effects.
Additionally, I think sometimes I have an issue with “informed traits”, that is, traits we are informed of by the narrative instead of seeing them and coming to that conclusion, because it doesn’t always allow characters to exist and be clever: it puts them in a labelled box which creates expectations. Once a character is called “clever” we now know to expect cleverness, and bristle when they do something unclever. When they do something obvious and this is what earns them recognition for being clever, it can feel like what is being implied is that she’s clever by virtue of everyone before her being less-than-adequate to begin with.
And in the case of the Clever Heroine, it is used as a key and defining trait, something that makes her “not like other girls”, and which can feel somewhat limiting. Elodie is not like the other princesses because she is clever and does clever things, things which the movie tells us no princess had done before (and which no other woman in the film does). Empowering female characters through cleverness placates audiences who might bristle at passive, helpless female characters, but oftentimes I find it to be a bit of an empty gesture devoid of any meaningful understanding of how empowerment under oppression works, of how we can actually and truly achieve social change and equity for all women. Because that is, as I’ve mentioned, often the intent behind it — to position the story as empowering for women. Not one, but all.
But taking a ‘damsel’ and simply making her ‘clever’ doesn’t take away towers, it just means she can get herself out of her tower, leaving scores of unlucky ladies to continue to be locked away.
Who Remains In The Tower
I believe that saying, for example, “this character must be smart/clever in order to get out of xyz premise” isn’t inherently harmful or problematic. I don’t think character explicitly calling a heroine “clever” is inherently harmful or problematic. Cleverness is not an inherently bad or evil concept, nor is it a bad tool to use in storytelling.
However (gasp), I am side-eyeing the inclination to make so many empowerment stories take the shape of the Clever Heroine Narrative. I think there are plenty of intersectional issues around this idea of cleverness leading to empowerment that feels worth questioning, to me.
“Intelligence” is an evaluative term, and it’s determined socially, not empirically. It’s also an ableist concept. Being human should be enough to deserve rights and respect; one needn’t be clever, smart, hard working, or anything else to earn that.
So, while “cleverness” and “intelligence” may be different, I feel like they're still connected and related in such a way as to be critiqued in this manner. In pushing “clever” heroines so frequently as an answer or pushback on against patriarchal narratives of women, it feels like implying a woman must be something—in this case, clever—in order to earn her place in these narratives, earn her place as a protagonist, or earn her place in the metaphorical feminism hall of fame.
Remember the goalposts I mentioned? This is that. What about heroines who are not “clever”, ones who have intellectual disabilities, ones who have not been given the opportunity to become “clever”?
When it comes to disabled characters specifically, I think this poses some particular issues, because it can feel as though the heroine’s cleverness is a trait given to them to “make up for '' their shortcomings, more so than it does for able-bodied heroines. (Once, being female was actually considered a disability, but I’m not going to get into that here).
Even acknowledging that this is more often than not, not an active intent on the writer’s part, this rings especially true for me because in real life, as a disabled woman, I am often made to work twice as hard as my able-bodied peers in order to get my feet in certain doors, to be trusted, to be respected enough to earn safe and equal access to public spaces. Everyone has different feelings and opinions, but, “She’s weak because of her disability, but she’s clever!” is not the [only] empowering message I want or need to hear, especially when it relies on said disabled heroine finding “clever” ways to do everything able-bodied people do, with the same or even more demanding physicality, or is indeed accomodating herself but still upholding ableist values. It doesn’t motivate me to try harder—I am always, always trying harder by necessity!—it just tells me that I need to be something, to be clever, be ultra-skilled, be anything that will look valuable to others, in order to achieve access, success, and equality.
A Climactic End
As I said, not all narratives will fit all women. But the existence of the Clever Heroine Narrative is not, on its own, problematic or harmful. It’s the expectations it’s setting, the ideology it’s born from, and the rhetoric it often perpetuates that deserves examination.
I found myself thinking about the movie Bug’s Life as I wrote this, and how the narrative climax, the oppression of the ants, is solved through collective action. Flik argues the idea that Hopper (the evil grasshopper leader) actually fears the ant colony because he has always known what they are capable of, and this is absolutely the case when we remember the scene in which Hopper demonstrates the destructive quality of a thousand seeds falling on someone: “If we let one ant stand up to us, then they might all stand up to us,” he says. Flik asserting this idea for everyone to hear then inspires the ants and the Circus Bugs to fight back together, driving all of the grasshoppers away and effectively ending their collective oppression (at least, for now).
Oppression and inequality is best fought through collective action. So why is it that the most common narratives fed to us are ones that tell us to act alone, or which uphold individual empowerment as an Ultimate Success story?
In the Clever Heroine Narrative, the heroine is often not like the other female characters she’s surrounded by; She is exceptional. She’s often the only clever one, or the only one whose cleverness is recognised, and the only one whose cleverness wins the day. In Damsel, Elodie is the only woman whose cleverness is actively recognised.
It’s a narrative that I’ve come across several times in the last year alone throughout different books and movies, all in similar shapes and with similar intentions: to empower and inspire. But many of these narratives fall back on binaries that they could subvert and destroy and which would strengthen the feminist position they claims: In Damsel, Elodie takes the place of the traditionally masculine hero. She wields a sword, she achieves feats of great physical and painful endurance, she pushes through her pain and injuries, and she is brave. Elodie wins the battle against the dragon in a great act of violence. None of these things of course “belong” to men—we don’t want to be gender essentialist—but they are traditionally ascribed to men, especially in the fairytale space. Damsel subverts the ‘damsel’ archetype through this vessel, positing traditionally masculine traits and values as the answer. The movie also then reinforces the damsel-hero binary by having her sister, Floria, kidnapped and written to be effectively passive and absent (even though she’s in close proximity) throughout the climax.
You could argue that many of these clever heroines are not just clever, they are also strong, cunning, and skilled (with sword or bow, for example). And you’d be right. But that is also something worth thinking about—how these women are again individually empowered through things that Patriarchy values, yet they are not collectively empowered. This is not to say that no female character can ever/should ever be written this way, or that there is no value in these stories, only that it’s certainly worth questioning why this is the most common way female empowerment is presented. How often does cleverness mean they are able to find ways to resolve conflict without violence and domination? How often does their cleverness lower the ladder for other women to climb up the social hierarchy with them?
While I do get a lot of enjoyment out of seeing female characters be clever, I have (as evidenced here) a lot of thoughts about it. I don’t know that it’s actually empowering to continually tell stories which demand excellence and exceptionalism of women in quite rigid ways, because an individual’s exceptionalism and success isn’t the answer to defeating the systems of oppression they live under, and I wonder what other stories we might tell with the same intention: to uplift, inspire, and empower women.
What do you think?
Have you subscribed to this substack yet? If you’re interested in thought pieces on random storytelling, media, and creative topics, this one might be for you!