The Friday Discussion: Midnight Texas - TV series & Book Series

There are a lot of book to TV show adaptations - they’re popular in the same way reboots are: they give you a built in fanbase to carry over and a quick and easy plot. Naturally these vary a lot in terms of quality and faithfulness to the source material (Vampire Diaries barely resembles LJ Smith’s books, while the Dresden Files was moderately faith but poorly executed), sometimes those adaptations and changes deserve some more scrutiny

When Midnight Texas was announced as being adapted I was intrigued: I consider it to be one of Charlaine Harris’s better book series with better rounded characters and certainly better (if flawed) treatment of minorities and slightly less of a single, slightly Mary Sueish, focus. (If this sounds like damned with faint praise… it kind of is. We experienced the horror that was the Aurora Teagarden series).

When the show started I was happy to see it was pretty faithful to the book series - the first season parallels the original trilogy of books (so I have no idea where the story progresses from here) but there are some noteworthy changes that really need analysing

Firstly several characters have have their race changed for the adaptation Lemuel and Fiji were both white in the books. This is not uncommon in book to TV adaptations - look at Tara on True Blood and Bonnie in The Vampire Diaries both of whom were white in their original book series. There are several possible reasons for this but, cynically, I tend to think that in the visual medium of television it becomes much more glaringly obvious when your cast is whiter than a Republican camping trip in Maine. That, coupled with the wider consumption (and a desire to be consumed by POC as a marketable demographic which seems to be less of a concern in publishing), means I think we tend to be MARGINALLY less tolerant of a completely racially erased cast - though usually one or two tokens is enough to placate this minimal objection. In the third book, Fiji does remark on how rainbow and progressive her little town is… and it’s slightly embarrassing since it includes Madonna and Teacher who are vanishingly minor characters, an Asian woman who used to live there but hasn’t for a while and a Native American character who just moved into the area who was, probably wisely, not included in the TV series (she also forgets several latino characters)

In the books this character arrives to explain that Manfred has his powers because of distant Native American ancestry and demons. Which is just an AWFUL trope. In the TV series instead they went for Romany con-man/psychic heritage instead. Which is another awful trope. Honestly this is just pick your poison.

I, naturally, do not object to these characters becoming POC but it is interesting how this has caused the characters to change elsewhere. Like Lemuel - he’s an absolutely excellent character in both the books and on television but the most dramatic change is that in the books he was a cowboy when he was alive. On TV that has changed to him being a slave. Neither storyline is particularly bad, but I can’t help but think that too much of our media is incapable of seeing Black people in historic roles that don’t involve slavery. Especially since the mythos of the cowboy in the US has missed just how many of them were Black - and how many more were Latino for that matter. The TV storyline isn’t bad, but it speaks volumes of how historic Black characters are too often limited to this single narrative.

I have more issues with Fiji - and how she and Manfred’s roles have changed. In the books I would say it’s difficult to point to one character as protagonist - Manfred starts prominently in the first book, but by the final confrontation with Kolkonar Manfred is definitely a much more minor character - not insignificant but certainly not the protagonist or the main fighter against the demon. If anyone is central to this conflict, it’s Fiji. This is Fiji’s fight, not just as someone who needs rescuing. It is Fiji’s… ritual that defeats Kolkonar, not Manfred’s epic confrontation with dark spirits.

Quiet Portrayals of Minorities

We, along with many others, have said time and again how important it is for us to have marginalised people depicted. Erasure is extremely damaging, and tokenism is little better improvement.

Many authors and writers are catching on to that - either due to a genuine hope to make things better or because they’ve caught on that diversity may be a useful marketing ploy in some circles (yes, I tend to be that cynical - indeed anyone looking at the conquest of the Shondaverse should have realised there’s money in diversity).

One of the things that feeds my cynicism are the “Quiet Portrayals.”

“Quiet Portrayals” can come in many forms: the Blink-and-you-miss-it-bisexual, the ambiguously-olive-skin-tone, the absent POC ancestor, the careful avoidance of labels and identities, relying on vague descriptors or relying on brief one off mentions in long series.

Ultimately, they are portrayals of marginalised characters - but kept as low key as possible. It very closely resembles the idea of having to Google The Minorities, but while there you can only tell that a character is marginalised by looking for extra-textual clues and statements by the author (the infamous Word of Gay which renders Dumbledore gay, honest), in this case you have to carefully study every book and every episode and pick out the one or two references that indicate that a character is a minority. The information is in the book, it’s definitely there - it is just very brief and easily missed to people who aren’t taking careful notes.

The marginalised person is portrayed as marginalised in the book or on the show - but

but carefully masked, subtly presented to not be too overt or too present or too offputting for the privileged mainstream. That’s not saying that the writers here are expressly thinking in those terms - in many cases I would say certainly not. However the pressures of “maketability”, the societal default and our overwhelming sense of what a protagonist should look like, as well as the ongoing insistence that a book with marginalised characters must be entirely about marginalised issues make the Quiet Portrayal a very easy trap to fall into.

For marginalised readers this may be a portrayal of themselves - but it comes with a subtext: yes you can be in these stories so long as you are quiet. So long as you aren’t TOO Black/gay/Asian/trans. So long as you don’t “flaunt” or “stuff it down people’s throats.” Again, this may not be the intended message of the author - and they may even have more overt marginalised characters (but who are probably not more prominent, not as major a character or not the protagonist), but it does carry this message. The main characters, the protagonist can be marginalised so long as they are sufficiently “low key” while marginalised characters who cannot hide, cannot pass or whose marginalisation is not easily overlooked are pushed to supporting roles.

There are many ways this Quiet Portrayal can be achieved. One of them is to make references to the character’s marginalised nature to be brief and one off in a more overarching story. Take Sanctuary, Dr. Helen Magnus, who despite being a co-protagonist and appearing in 58 episodes over 4 seasons there is one, one single episode, where her bisexuality was referenced. If you missed that episode, you would think this series completely lacked LGBT characters, it certainly didn’t help that this belated revelation only crept onto the scene in the second-to-last episode of the show. Doctor Who also lept on that trope with River Song giving us a last minute spoiler that she is bisexual. Witches of East End lasted only two seasons - but it was two seasons full of overwhelming amounts of graphic sexuality and sexual relationships between opposite sex couples; except two episodes. Two episodes in which it was revealed Joanna is bisexual and has had a female lover who we briefly meet. Her bisexuality is not mentioned before this and never mentioned again - in a show that is wall-to-wall naked skin and humping.

Where is the Penis?

With cable TV there is a lot of scope to show things which make the censors clutch at their pearls and stagger helplessly to their fainting couches. We can show mutilated bodies, horrific violence, even flayed bodies. We can show murder, torture, horrendously abused corpses from wall to wall and endless squishy, nasty rotting zombies.

And we can show naked bodies and sexy times. Something some shows have embraced with immense fervour - indeed it wouldn’t be a HBO show if we didn’t regularly see some breasts bouncing their merry way across the screen.

One thing we don’t show very much is a penis. Breasts jiggle from every angle, buttocks clench with regularity and even vaginas are a not uncommon sight to such an extent that such displays are barely worth mentioning- but penises? No those are still a very rare beast worthy of comment and shock when they actually appear on screen

We’ve commented on this unequal representation before and there have been numerous scenes (commented on by others as well) where this has been blatant. The naked, blood stained Lillith leaves nothing to the imagination, but the newly minted Billith gets shy and the camera is careful to keep it from the back or above the waist. Game of Thrones can show fully naked female prostitutes so commonly that they’ve virtually become wallpaper, but when Olyvar has sex with Loras or Oberyn the camera is careful to keep all crotches carefully hidden - and it wasn’t like there wasn’t enough space between the two men at all times to show everything!

Even when, again as another said very well, the coyness of the camera even damages the impact of the storytelling, we still are careful to keep those penises hidden. We see this also with True Blood when a naked and embarrassed Sam always has the full impact of his nudity lessened by careful camera angles - and naked male prisoners kept by the Vampire Authority are generally allowed the dignity of filming above the waist. In scenes meant to emphasise their vulnerability, the camera angle allows some dignity and reservation

Roles Only Cis, Straight, White Men Can Get Away With

© 2010 State Library of New South Wales, Flickr | PD | via Wylio

Because of the prevalence of straight cisgender White men in this genre, it’s actually quite easy to pick up on the repeated tropes. Cisgender White men do get to play multiple roles in fiction; however, these roles all come with rigid rules which help define  exactly what White straight cisgender masculinity is. It’s all one nasty performance of gender which both imbues the body with power, even as it disciplines it into conformity.

While we’re very used to seeing a lot of cisgender white male character templates, what is noteworthy with some of them is that, in some ways, the normal opponents of diversity are right: these are not roles that can be played by someone who isn’t a cisgender white man. Not because a marginalised person is less capable or appropriate - but because our perception of marginalised people is so much harsher, so laden with stereotypes and so unsympathetic that we would never support or accept them in this role

Take one of the most common troped protagonists out there, especially when detectives appear, the Antisocial Genius Arsehole. If there’s one troped protagonist I would happily bury not just with a shovel but with industrial mining equipment, it’s this one. He’s brilliant, he’s super insightful, he has flashes of amazing insight that stun lesser mortals around him, leaving them in awe of his genius

And he usually has the social skills of a chilli in the eye. Maybe he’s merely socially inept and awkward, but quite often he’s actively unpleasant, abrasive, belittling and lacking in even the most basic of social graces. Time and again, this man with the social skills of a wolverine is given a pass because of his brilliance. We see this a lot in crime dramas - but it creeps on in paranormal shows as well as we see with Forever and Helix.

These unpleasant geniuses are overwhelmingly cis, straight white men - because, frankly, it’s unlikely anyone would put up with that arseholery from anyone else. Sexist, homophobic, racist, transphobic et al tropes that would fall on any minority acting like this and pretty much ensure that very few writers would be willing to put them in this role - and very few fandoms would tolerate them there anyway

An anti-social genius woman may get away with it if she’s cute, manic and oblivious in an adorably-helpless kittenish kind of way. But aggressive, abrasive behaviour is going to catch all kinds of sexist crap (the word “Bitch” would echo through the net). With POC, anger is always seen as disproportionately more threatening and less acceptable than it actually is -  and if she were a WOC the labels “dragon lady” and “Sapphire” would definitely arise: at the very least she’d be expected to be comic.

An LGBT person could work it, if they were advising the ACTUAL protagonist and, again “bitchy” and “bitter” and “catty” would arise. Just think of Felix in Orphan Black who demands that his life be taken seriously, so that he can run off and serve yet another straight, cisgender, White woman. Oh Felix is catty, but he always knows his place - servant and comic relief. His snark isn’t there to be taken seriously - it’s supposed to be comedy.

In general, the sheer lesser rate of sympathy afforded marginalised characters would ensure that a character that is personally objectionable is going to be a hard sell to audiences in ways a cis, straight, white guy isn’t. We are programmed, as a society, to expect marginalised people to apologise and walk small for existing - or to be grateful for being tolerated. It is seen as a breach of  tolerance if they are not on their “best behaviour”. Anything less is not just seen as rude, it’s seen as ungrateful, as spitting on the “gift” of their presence being tolerated.

Which brings us neatly to another role which screams for a cis, straight, white guy - the anti-hero. He’s the protagonist, he’s the hero of this piece… but he’s also something of an arsehole. Sometimes he’s just a good guy facing harsh circumstances and having to make hard decisions (Constantine and Supernatural are classic examples) but sometimes he isn’t even that. He’s left a trail of bodies behind him several hundred deep and no-one could even remotely justify even a tenth of what he’s done - but we’re still backing him. Klaus on The Originals is still our tragic hero despite the oceans of blood on his hands, Damon and Stefan on The Vampire Diaries are both our beautiful, sexy love interests despite all that unfortunate killing. And how many would gleefully support Killian on Once Upon a Time or even Gold, the devious Dark One himself? And everyone is positively eager to bare their necks to the sexy and vicious Eric on True Blood

American Horror Story Coven: Madonna, Whore and Aging Jezebel

Sex sells. It’s a guaranteed ratings booster because of the titillation and few stop to question what and whom is being sold. American Horror Story Coven didn’t sell sex explicitly as we have seen in other shows but sex was at the forefront for large majority of the season. The problem is that though we saw women being sexual it was complicated by common tropes meant to specifically to “other” or slutshame. Women were divided easily into the predictable roles of: The Madonna (Zoe’s man killing vagina), The Whore (Madison who refused to be chaste) and, of course, The Aging Jezebel (Fiona who despite all of her magical power resorted to using her sexuality as a weapon). None of these representations can be said to be the least bit affirming and though they were wrapped in horror they swerved far too closely to the misogynistic roles women have historically been slotted in.

Madison is the Bad Girl of the group. Of the 5 student witches at the Academy, she is coded as the bad one. She is the meanest, she is the cruellest, she is the one who lashes out at Queenie, Zoe, Nan and Misty, often completely unprovoked. She is the quintessential Mean Girl stereotype, a girl who views all other girls as competition who need to be torn down and mocked; and more - she actively tries to kill Misty and refuses to resurrect Zoe. She takes the Mean Girl to the extreme - she is willing to kill in cold blood.

She is, as is often the case with the Mean Girl stereotype, the most conventionally attractive and, of course, the most sexually active. It’s a trope as old as the hills - if you want to code a woman as evil, you make her sexually active. A promiscuous woman, the jezebel, the slut, the whore is one of the most tired characterisations of villainhood. Good girls don’t have sex. Good girls don’t seek sex. Good girls don’t want sex.

Madison is not a good girl - and just as Queenie is constantly attacked for her weight, whenever someone lashes out at Madison, it is through her sexuality. Not just from her fellow students, but even Myrtle mocks her as a “bobble head in crotchless panties.” By making her sexuality the way others attack Madison (in defending themselves against her attacks) it further cements Madison’s sexuality as part of her Mean Girl persona.

These attacks on Madison reach the most extreme level; Madison is gratuitously gang raped almost as soon as she’s introduced (and for no story reason at all), an experience she rapidly recovers from (can’t have the Whore be too traumatised by rape). And Madison is finally killed off at the hands of the man whose affections she was competing for.

Madison is the epitome of the much derided Whore persona: the evil sexual woman who is then punished and ultimately meets her end because of her unrestrained sexuality.

The flip side of the Whore is, of course, the Madonna. Zoe - Zoe who quite literally cannot have sex without killing her partner - something that has deeply saddened her. Zoe is magically required to be chaste and of the five students, she is the good one. She saves Kyle’s life and tries to cure him, she plays peacemaker among the group even as Queenie and Madison attack each other, she even tries to stop Nan killing Luke’s murderous mother.

Zoe is also Madison’s direct competition - represented in their general conversation, reinforced with their mutual competition for Kyle’s affections (Madison is far more willing to share than Zoe - but of course Zoe and Kyle share true pure love which doesn’t involve the sexual Madison. Madonna Zoe’s affections are pure and loving - her very idea of hell is breaking up with Kyle and Kyle not loving her) and epitomised in the final competition to see who would become Supreme. The whole season has had this constant battle between the Madonna and Whore raging from the very first episode and inevitably ends with the victorious Madonna and her true, pure love - and the dead Whore, reviled and dead at the hands of the man she tried to seduce.

Da Vinci's Demons and the Horror of "Gratuitous" Bisexuality

Da Vinci’s Demons is due to return for season 2 in April and in preparation for that, David S Goyer is doubling down on the homophobia that so made this show a hot mess. We’ve already spoken about the gross homophobia of the straight washing on this show - well season 2 isn’t going to be any better with Goyer stepping back from even the highly dubious minor suggestion of Leonardo’s bisexuality because it would be “gratuitous”.

“Gratuitous” - now that’s a loaded word right there and it has several unpleasant connotations in this context.

First of all it suggests that having a bisexual protagonist is unnecessary for the story, therefore shouldn’t be there and is excessive/done for nefarious purpose

This is a text book example of assuming a straight default for characters. We’ve touched on this before, but there is an assumption that any character must be cis, straight, able bodied, white and male UNLESS there is a reason not to do so. In other words, unless your storyline expressly REQUIRES a character to be GBLT, they will be cis and straight - because that is considered the “default” state of being, your basic template for humanity and anything not fitting it is a deviate - the Other.

Marginalised people are too often defined as nothing more than avatars of their minority. A story about a gay or bisexual protagonist simply must, by this logic, be about sexuality. It cannot be a story that just happens to have a gay or bisexual protagonist, it cannot be a story about any topic unrelated to their sexuality because if it were the author would have used a straight person - the default, the “real” people, the “normal” people.

This privileged default is pervasive: any depictions of marginalised people in a major role - certainly the protagonist - will always be viewed as having an ulterior motive. It’s to play politics, or being PC, or win liberal street cred or fulfil some kind of agenda because marginalised people are not allowed to simply exist, and our existence is regarded as a political or even a subversive act. Marginalised people are not allowed to be characters - they can only be walking representations of their marginalisation.

That’s not to say that there isn’t a problem with TV shows and books including marginalised characters for the inclusion cookies, the street cred - because that’s what gives rise to Tokenism. But even this Tokenism is itself a product of the cis, straight, white, able bodied male default. Because that privileged lens is considered the default, he needs an actual character - a plot, history, motivations, personality etc - to make him notable and not a blank sheet. Minorities do not need an actual character because they come with a template already prepared: they don’t need to be complex or have different motivations or background to define them - they’re already defined as The Gay. The Black. The Female.

Dystopians: The Leadership of Cis, Straight, White, Able-Bodied Men.

Dystopian worlds have become very popular lately. Whether it is Revolution, Falling Skies, The Walking Dead or Defiance, the one thing they all have in common is straight, cisgender, able bodied White male leadership. This suggests that at the end of the day, no matter the circumstance White masculinity represents authority, logic, safety, and intelligence. People of colour and women are often relegated to side characters who week after week submit to this authority and often times appear to be grateful for it.  It is no accident that the White male is so revered in dystopians. It plays upon the idea that White straight masculinity is a declining power because of resistance by women, people of colour and of course GLBT people. It suggests that there will come a time when nature will correct itself and once again White men will rule the world, as though that is not the current situation and further; the world will be grateful for it.

Sometimes the writers make the effort to explain why these men are in charge - in The Walking Dead Rick is a cop who people look to for stability; rather more dubiously, Nolan is the only person in Defiance able to step into the Lawkeeper’s shoes (apparently). But often leadership just happens - in Terra Nova Jim rises to become second in command in all but name after smuggling himself to the colony and despite there being more experienced people (Alicia Washington, a woman of colour). In Falling Skies Tom is a history professor who has risen to a leadership role in the military before the show even starts and manages to become a major player in all the leadership councils. There’s no real reason for their leadership - leadership just settles upon them.

Even in situations where the great White leader is in a secondary role like for example Joshua Nolan’s position relative to mayor Amanda Rosewater in Defiance, the man still takes a leadership role, rarely coming close to respecting her position. As the mayor she is supposed to run the town, yet Nolan frequently makes decisions on his own, flouts her authority and has all of the delicacy of a bull in a china shop interacting with the various citizens of Defiance. Nolan hadn’t even been in town for a New York minute before Amanda was placing a badge on his chest.  It was Nolan who led and planned the defence of Defiance when it was attacked and though Amanda participated, clearly Nolan was in charge.

This straight, White, male leadership is also typified by dictatorship. On Falling Skies we have military leadership that eventually reaches ‘democracy’ but only in the sense that the supreme dictator is elected - I saw no legislative body or organs of government. Terra Nova is completely under Taylor’s dictatorial control without a pretence of anything else. The Walking Dead is famous for its Rickocracy - and in the comics, Rick’s refusal to even keep Michonne and Andrea informed of his plans is inexcusable considering what they’ve been through together. Even Nolan, subject  to Amanda’s authority, has to be talked into agreeing with her as much as anything and frequently ignores her.

On the rare occasion when leadership passes  on to someone who isn’t a cis, straight, White man then that leadership will be flawed - either the outright enemy on Terra Nova or such incredible ineptness on The Falling Skies that Marina is suspected of being a mole for the aliens.

One of the most glaring elements of this firm placement of cis straight White men as leaders is how impossible it is to actually depose him from his throne! I am actually genuinely curious as to exactly these men have to do for everyone around them to decide that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn’t be the one calling the shots or the one they shelter behind.

The Death of Marginalised Characters

We talk a lot about how marginalised characters are depicted in our shows and books. How they live their lives, what stereotypes they conform to and, most often of all, how many times they’re completely erased. But one of the most prevalent problems that dogs all marginalised people is not how their characters live - but how they die.

Who dies?

Firstly, they die a lot. Death is something that hits marginalsied characters disproportionately - and that’s especially true in genres where character death is common or expected, like dystopias. We see this time and again on the shows we watch, on Supernatural there’s an enormous number of fridged women, a string of dead POC and half of the very few GBLT people the show has included have died. Warehouse 13 has killed off a Black woman Lena and killed (and resurrected) a gay man, Jinks. Falling Skies, especially in the first season, had an astonishing number of dead POC and do we even have to mention how many POC have died on The Walking Dead? The Vampire Diaries has a host of Black witches who serve the vampires - before dying, and so many random Black people have been devoured that it has become a running joke. I don’t believe American Horror Story ever had POC except to kill them - and while it was a show with a huge death count, the POC didn’t last more than an episode or 2. The violence and death on American Horror Story also disproportionately targets gay people and women.

These are just a few examples - but in most shows where there are character deaths - especially a number of character deaths - it is the marginalised people who are disproportionately on the slab.

Who Survives?

So you minority character has kicked the bucket and joined the choir invisible; the survivors pick up the pieces and start to move on to their next adventure and... what do you know, all the living people are straight, white folks! How shocking is that!?

This is the next problematic element we see so often. Too often in shows with a high death count, it is not just the minorities who disproportionately fill the graveyards, but they start with smaller numbers in the first place.

See, this is where tokenism can be a problem. When you have a nearly entirely majority cast, even one or two deaths among your minority characters can halve their numbers - or wipe out your minorities entirely and, as the death toll mounts, so too does the diversity plummet. When I first started watching the first season of The Walking Dead I was impressed by the number of POC - who then started dying, splitting off from the group and otherwise disappearing until we end up with an increasingly White cast. In the Falling Skies we see the same issue - we started with several POC who were whittled down through the season, even new POC joining the cast killed off until we ended with a far far far Whiter cast.

In extreme cases this can make the enemies seem very targeted in their killing. Increasingly surrounded by dominant characters, the marginalised are still unerringly picked off. And there’s no greater example than shows that simply don’t have more than one or two tokens at all and even they die - wiping out everyone or nearly everyone of their marginalisation - as we saw on Warehouse 13 and Haven.

When faced with this problem, too many shows will introduce a new token. This doesn’t fix the problematic death so much as it underscores it - T-Dog’s death wasn’t made more worthy by Oscar’s introduction, it just emphasised how little T-Dog mattered, how much he was reduced to being just a token inclusion. After the decimation of POC in the first season of Falling Skies, we had a brief introduction of Jamil and Diego before they were both shuffled off.

Steampunk and the Nostalgic Blinkers of Victorian London

One of the genres we are always quick to jump to read is Steampunk. It’s an excellent and relatively recent addition to the popular speculative fiction genres and it’s a lot of fun. The aesthetic of it is amazing, with it’s brass and cogs, steam and corsets, pageantry and frock coats. It has a cadence of language to it that is musical and open to a great deal of amazing humour, with the elaborate, formal speech and the careful protocols of etiquette. And it’s a time that is, in is many ways, so different from our own that it adds a level of the alien fantasy to the setting that goes far beyond simple Urban Fantasy, while still being grounded in our world, preventing it from being too alien.

Yet we often seem to forget that the Victorian Era was a real time, and Victorian England (where most of these stories are set) was a real place. And it wasn’t pretty. While the rich could indulge in their protocol, elaborate ritual, scientific progress and social tapdancing of high society; the poor lived in abject squalor. Disease was rife, exploitation by the rich - including child prostitution (indeed, it was during the Victorian period the age of consent in the UK was raised from 13 to 16 and only then after a reporter exposed how easy it was for a man of means to buy a child virgin - much in demand because of the high rates of STDs),. The poor lived in the most crammed slums imaginable, often working horrendously long hours in obscenely dangerous factories for little pay, again, including the children. It was bleak, it was harsh, it was horrific and far too many of those with wealth and power considered the poor to be fully deserving of their fates: desperate, starving thieves, even children (indeed the urchins of the streets were not considered children to be pitied by many, but a menace or pest to be removed) could and did face long prison sentences and even transportation.

The wealth of the time was, of course, based on Britain’s sprawling empire. An empire based on severe exploitation and oppression of colonialism, with POC across the globe being persecuted and controlled to further enrich the coffers. Slavery was only banned across the empire a scant 4 years before Victoria’s reign began.

In terms of sexuality, being gay remained a capital offence until 1861 (and one that was enforced in the 19th century - and men were hanged for it), after which it was replaced by “mere” imprisonment and hard labour.

Steampunk romanticises this genre in that it creates an alternate world simply through ignoring historical fact. Most writers seem willing to deal with suffrage but this is probably because many of the protagonist themselves are women. Beyond equality for women, however, few seem to want to acknowledge that despite the gadgets and the pageantry, Victorian England was not necessarily a pleasant time for many people. Part of the impetus for this erasure is based in the fact that privileged people have the ability of nostalgia that marginalised people will simply do not. Those who are gay, of colour, disabled or poor certainly have no reason to celebrate this time period.

Of course the easiest way to do this is to put on the blinkers and simply pretend it never happened.

Most of the protagonists in Steampunk are at the very least middle class. They almost all have servants and have been educated and, for many, the poor simply do not make a meaningful appearance in the books: A Conspiracy of Alchemists, Pilgrim of the Sky, Infernal Devices (Tessa is almost instantly taken in by the wealthy Clave)

When the poor do appear, they seem to exist solely to be saved from the wretchedness of their poor lives through the charity of the rich. An example of this is Steam & Sorcery by Cindy Spencer Pape, Sir Merrick Hadrian ends up adopting several homeless children and then covering up their backgrounds. His title and long history of wealth certainly play a role in the continued impoverishment of the lower classes but the reader is not expected to acknowledge this in order to focus on his act of generosity. Or Shelly Adina’s massively fun Lady of Devices Series which, again, sees a select group of the poor benefit from the generous instruction of their social betters (which is rather exacerbated by the ease with which she overcomes the bonds of poverty). Or we get the poor who don’t need to be saved, like Ivy Tunstill from the Parasol Protectorate series who aren’t really that suffering the privations of real poverty, they simply aren’t as well off as the rich characters.