Next up Jane Bond or In-Diana Jones...
Why...
The fuss about gender change in the creative process? So Dr. Who is now a woman. Who-hoo! But the Doctor is not a human anyway? Time Lord, Time Lady... all a bit vague so I think it's a great idea, as did Dr. Who co-creator Sydney Neumann back in the 1980s who suggested it to the BBC (They rejected it)! But now there are calls for Jane Bond, Jolanda Bourne, even In-Diana Jones. No no no no no! These characters are as male as much as Lisabeth Salander (Dragon Tattoo) Katniss Everdeen (Hunger Games) and Celie (Colour Purple) are female. The lunatic who thinks altering the author's original vision is their prerogative is at best wholly presumptive and at worst insulting to the creative process. As always the cries for these changes are emitted by mental pipsqueaks with all the creative talent of a mollusk. If they are so keen to see changes, go create something; don't stand at the sidelines picking at other people's work. I already blogged about the lunacy of PC titles for books (http://www.andanotherthing.com/when-did-you-last-read-the-dark-nag) but changing the sex, colour, nationality, religion or race of a lead literary character to suit the mood of the day is so short sighted as to make Mr. Magoo have the vision of an eagle. Creative work needs to be seen in the context of when it was written as well as the time it was written about. Should we remove slavery from Gone with the Wind or short people from Gulliver's Travels and Snow White? Does Mr. McGregor threatening to put Peter Rabbit in a pie upset the Vegans? In Jack and The Beanstalk, "Fee, fye, foo, fum I smell the aftershave on an Englishman" just does not cut if for me. I know… let's remake Guess who's coming to Dinner… yup, with a Transgender.
