scans_daily | Awesome New Female Character Week: Ramona Flowers

Current Mood: tired

Entry tags:

Awesome New Female Character Week: Ramona Flowers

My pick for Awesome New Female Character Week is Ramona Flowers, the mysterious Amazon.ca delivery girl from Bryan Lee O'Malley's Scott Pilgrim series. Ramona travels through the subspace dimension to deliver packages and is never seen without her subspace suitcase (storage capacity: unknown). Both are put to good use when Ramona's Fourth Evil Ex, Roxie Richter, shows up and wants to cut Ramona's boyfriend's head off. A fight ensues! On rollerskates.

7 pages from the fourth volume, Scott Pilgrim Gets It Together.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I couldn't disagree more. I really thought Ramona was utterly contemptible and totally unlikeable. What kind of person has seven evil exes? Does she ever take any responsibility for the catastrophic failure that is her entire romantic history? (She is, after all, the only common denominator in those relationships.) Oh, and how is it okay for her to have cheated on him with Roxie while Roxie was plotting to kill him? And why does she abandon Scott, without any explanation whatsoever, after he defeats ex 6? That, I thought, was totally unforgivable.

And where does she get off constantly belittling Scott? In a subsequent confrontation between Scott and Roxie, Ramona calls Scott a coward. Seriously? The man who is in the process of dueling to the death a series of seven killers on her behalf, while she barely lifts a finger to help him (this one scene here is pretty much the only time she helps him at all until the final fight with Gideon). And she repeatedly calls him stupid. At one point, she tells him that what she likes about him is that he is "simple-minded," and then she gets upset because he can't tell her what he likes about her.

I actually thought that scene was pretty telling, to be honest. Scott can't say anything he likes about her because there isn't anything to like about her. Yes, she's a teleporting ninja, and that is cool, but she's still a lousy human being.

I'm pretty sure Ramona indirectly addressed her role in creating 'The League of Evil Exes' a few times. It never went as far a series of apologies (which it probably should have for Matthew, Lucas, Roxie, Ken and Kyle), but she clearly wasn't proud of her behavior back then. Considering Scott's own less than stellar dating history I sort of figured the point was that both of them had screwed up pasts, and they had to accept that about themselves and each other before building a true relationship together.

Also, did she actually cheat with Roxie? I thought they were just kind of hanging out...

That said, I sort of agree. In a comic populated by generally unlikable people (Even fan favourite characters like Wallace and Kim can act rather unpleasant at times. In retrospect only Stephen Stills and, to a lesser extent, Knives, seemed like pleasant people. I suppose that's just the nature of the comic) Ramona never quite demonstrated any qualities that screamed 'a girl worth fighting for.'* That seemed to be a theme though, since Scott didn't really seem to deserve the attention he received either.

*Of course all women (and men) deserve to free from harassment from past romantic partners, even if it means epic battles, but you know what I mean...

That was the impression I got as well - I figured what he "saw" in Ramona was the same thing he saw in all those childhood "fights" that he remembered differently until he defeated Nega-Scott. the whole story could be summed up as "two people learn that they are kind of dicks and start to take responsibility for their actions as symbolised by starting a new, less douchey relationship"

Yeah, that sounds about right.

That's an excellent way of putting it, and something I hadn't been able to put together myself until I read through my whole lovely stack of Scott Pilgrims one after the other. I think one of O'Malley's messages is that "every body is a douchebag at some point in their lives - yup, even you, Mr. Happy-Go-Lucky-Scott-Pilgrim - and especially towards the people they date. Don't hate yourself for being a douche, and don't ignore the fact you've hurt people whether you meant to or not. Accept your Nega, and stop being a douche."

I ultimately loved the character of Ramona because she wasn't the perfect Girlfriend shining down on everyone from on high. She had to go through the same grueling personal trials Scott did. I don't think Scott deserves Knives, but I think both Scott and Ramona ended up earning their second chance with each other.

In conclusion: people are complicated! Stories that acknowledge that are awesome!

Yeahh, we at scans daily know how to celebrate a new character!

:/

Huh?

Well, you know, "Awesome New Female Character Week yaaay" =/= "this is why i disagree and think that this character is actually rubbish"

...That's not how theme weeks work. Unless it's secretly "If You Ever Disagree It Means That You Are Wrong" Week, too?

A celebratory theme week isn't exactly the place for someone to mock and vent about everything they hate about the character spotlighted, especially though victim-blaming and slut-shaming. I mean, disagreements are always welcome, but that doesn't open things to making someone feel bad for liking something you don't.

Well yeah, victim-blaming and slut-shaming obviously aren't okay no matter what week it is. But what

greenmask said was more general and made no sense.

I'm not seeing where you get "making someone feel bad" out of venting-about or mocking a fictional character, either, honestly.

"I'm not seeing where you get "making someone feel bad" out of venting-about or mocking a fictional character, either, honestly."

Uh, the whole point of this theme week is for members to make posts saying "Hey, look at this! Isn't this awesome?" So, I'm not seeing how you could miss the potential negative effects of responding with "No, this sucks actually. I hate everything about this."

Then that same reasoning would apply no matter what week it is, and so any snarky or hyperbolic criticism in a comment to a non-critical post would be bad and wrong. Which is ridiculous.

What kind of person has seven evil exes? Does she ever take any responsibility for the catastrophic failure that is her entire romantic history?

You are seriously entering slut-shaming territory. Remember that this is a women-friendly community. If you need to please reacquaint yourself with the community's rules and ethos.

I read the comment less on her sexual history with her exes and more how she treated them as partners. Or is that the same thing? Because I've known men who have tons of exes who want to put the blame on the girls all the time, when the only common factor is the men themselves. So I read that experience into the above comment.

That's how I interpreted it too, though in retrospect I can also see how it can be read as slut shaming, and I do apologize for contributing to that line of thought.

That's what I thought as well. What she did to the twins and Roxie wasn't slutty, but extremely assholish and manipulative. It wouldn't have been any more acceptable had the sexes been switched.

Well, that particular part is really more victim-blaming, though there are things in the comment that border on slut-shaming. But the especially skeevy thing is the implication that because she dated seven people who turned out to be evil, that she "deserves what's coming to her" or that it's all her fault.

I mean, it's worth mentioning that "What kind of person has seven evil exes?" and "She is, after all, the only common denominator in those relationships." are the kind of arguments the main villain used to justify his vendetta. It completely removes the responsibility of his actions and puts them on her, the person those actions are being done against. That's victim-blaming and it's completely unacceptable here (or anywhere, for that matter).

Personally, I read it as, "seven evil exes."

As in, "Jeez, girl, you... really know how to pick 'em, don't you?" More commentary on *who* she chooses to date than how many she had.

And maybe it's just me, but I didn't see any commentary on her *sexual* history, just that she's had a lousy track record in weeding out the non-evil/non-psychotic ones *before* dating them. Y'know, poor judgement, not any comment on how "easy" she is.

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the series yet, so I don't know how Ramona has treated her S.O.'s. As far as I knew up to this point, Roxy was the *only* one where there was a confirmed tryst...)

And, as I said above, that's victim-blaming. Many times someone will not know how evil or abusive a partner will be going in, and that is not their fault.

Agreed with Rocky, especially since if you had read the series, you'd know Ramona commented on how most of them weren't like that when she was with them- especially since the first few were a HIGH SCHOOL romances.

Right, understood on that one. All I really know about the franchise is the video game (and all the YouTube videos of Katara saying she's bi-furious).

I didn't mean it as victim-blaming; I think just about everyone has an evil ex or two, usually from the early parts of their romantic life. But I'm not going to try and explain the way I was thinking of it, because I don't think I can really explain my take on AK's comment without just digging myself into a deeper hole. (DAMN my being lousy at talking about these sort of things!)

With the seven evil exes, I read it as being Ramona herself was evil before she left Gideon, what with beating up the rest of her school as a child alongside Patel, and actively cheating on the Katayanagi twins with each other. And since Ramona herself was evil, all her romantic relationships were with evil people.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Awesome New Female Character Week: Ramona Flowers

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

You're doing it wrong

Re: You're doing it wrong

Re: You're doing it wrong

Re: You're doing it wrong

Re: You're doing it wrong

Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

Re: Mod Note

no subject