The sociopathy wasn't an accident. She was written that way intentionally.

She based the basic background information (Irish) and age on her grandmother. The personality was her own creation.

It's a nuanced and difficult contradiction to handle. I tend to say that the book itself is not feminist, but Scarlett is a feminist character.

There's a terrific biography of her called "Southern Daughter" that gets into some great detail around the conception and writing of the novel. Mitchell did insane amounts of research and reading before she started writing, and one of the things she was researching was psychopathy and mental illness.

…there's significant evidence that Mitchell wrote Scarlett AS a sociopath, not as a traditional heroine. In fact, Scarlett isn't a traditional heroine in any definition of the word- hence the author's point that she's entirely original, and we haven't seen a character like her since.

She was absolutely not writing a romance novel. Not in any way.

Mitchell was an extremely complicated person with a lot of conflicting traits and experiences. A lot of that is reflected in the book, and part of what make GWTW so tough to either dismiss or praise.

I think there's an argument to be made that the great love story in the book is between Melanie and Scarlett.

There was a strong campaign against this book when it was first published, and calling it a "romance novel" or "women's fiction" was just one of the ways that many male critics tried to denigrate it. Mitchell was trying, like many of her contemporaries, to write the "great American novel." That she did so as a…

I've seen her multiple times in person and if she's as funny and versatile on tv as she is live, she's going to be tough competition. As Rosie Perez once said "[she] gives good mouth."

I realize from later comments that I was not understanding his point. I have a much better idea of what he's saying- and I don't entirely disagree with your comment either. My initial impression of the comment was that he was using it as an excuse, which I now realize was not the case.

Right- I'm pretty sure that if I ask 100 people what Han Solo's role in the Star Wars trilogy was, not ONE of them will say "to be a love interest for Leia." It just doesn't work like that.

This is not the defense that you think it is.

It's not a slippery slope. I'm not removing context from the equation. There are certainly circumstances in which all-male films are appropriate, but one titled "Amelia Earhart" would not be.

And getting BOTH is impossible.

Yes. Because women make up 51% of the population and Amelia Earhart likely spoke to at least one other woman during her lifetime.

Ok, it was phrased badly. I understand. I think it's still kind of a bullshit argument. Period pieces don't HAVE to be mostly male dominated.

If the one female character has 99% of the lines, she's still only one female character. That's still worthy of criticism, whether the movie is made or not.

Isn't it possible that the reason why women's contributions to history have been marginalized is the same reason we need a Bechdel test in the first place? Because men were writing the history books and the accounts of what happened?

It's always fun to watch people come into these articles and tie themselves into knots explaining how we can't POSSIBLY have more women in movies, because that's just UNREASONABLE, and the weirdo reasons they give for that. This one takes the cake, I think.