Masculinities in Two Novelized YA "Cinderella" Adaptations:

Disrupting Hegemonic Power and Relationship

Linda T. Parsons

Marvels & Tales, Volume 36, Number 2, 2022, pp. 242-257 (Article)

Published by Wayne State University Press

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/mat.2022.0005

For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/881836

[ Access provided at 6 Jun 2023 11:18 GMT from National University of Singapore ]
 Linda T. Parsons

Masculinities in Two Novelized YA

“Cinderella” Adaptations
Disrupting Hegemonic Power and Relationship

The body of twenty-first-century young adult (YA) English-language

“Cinderella” adaptations comprises a small, but relationally important, seg-
ment of the fairy tale’s vast intertextual web (Bacchilega), and several of these
adaptations feature alternative gender dynamics. Donna Jo Napoli’s Bound—a
loose adaptation of the Chinese “Yeh-shen” wherein Xing Xing tends to her
stepsister, whose feet have been bound—explores the possibility of becoming
“unbound” from societal expectations. In Ash, Malinda Lo breaks the assump-
tion of heterosexuality by creating a Cinderella who falls in love, not with a
prince, but with a huntress. Jennifer Donnelly explores how much of oneself
must be “cut off” in order to find acceptance and love in Stepsister as she gives
voice to Cinderella’s stepsister who literally cut off her toes in an attempt to fit
her foot in the tiny slipper. The two novels I want to focus on also put a unique
spin on “Cinderella” and its gendered narrative. Betsy Cornwell’s Mechanica
incorporates elements of steampunk in a vague fairy-tale-past, where the pro-
tagonist Mechanica employs her skills as an inventor to escape her stepmoth-
er’s and stepsisters’ cruelty. Cinder, the first in Marissa Meyer’s four-book Lunar
Chronicles, is a post–World War IV dystopian, science-fiction adaptation set
in Earth’s Eastern Commonwealth. Cinder is a cyborg and a master mechanic
who, even as she plans her escape from her abusive stepmother and stepsis-
ters, becomes entangled in the Lunar Queen Levana’s plans to subjugate Earth.
Whereas Cornwell explores how females might find love and create family in
ways that do not replicate patriarchal structures, Meyer examines the tension
between personal desire and civic duty. All of these “Cinderella” adaptations

Marvels & Tales: Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies, Vol. 36, No. 2 (2022), pp. 242–257. Copyright © 2022 by
Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 48201.

242
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

feature a female focalizer and the “now expected feminist transformation of the
passive princess into the spunky girl” (Didicher 49). Mechanica and Cinder are
distinctive because they also feature a transformed prince.
What do we know about the prince who rescues the beautiful maiden
in classic trial-rescue-redemption fairy tales? For those of us whose child-
hoods were imbued with the tales of Charles Perrault and Jacob and Wilhelm
Grimm, and who were heavily influenced by the Disneyfication of these tales,
the answer is, “Very little.” The princes in these tales are not named, nor do
they exhibit distinct personalities.1 They are seemingly interchangeable and
trapped in the limiting and limited role of falling in love at first sight, claiming
the beautiful maiden, and returning to their father’s castle. In The Hard Facts
of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales, Maria Tatar writes, “The tale tells us nothing more
about [Cinderella’s prince] than that he is the son of a king. Lacking a history,
a story, and even a name, he is reduced to the function of prince-rescuer wait-
ing in the wings for his cue” (92). Although he is necessarily handsome, pow-
erful, and wealthy, the prince in tales popularized by Perrault, the Grimms,
and Disney is also vapid, shallow, and anonymous (Jorgensen 353). At the
same time, he enacts power as domination over other males (and certainly
over females) and in his unquestioned birthright to ascend the throne and
rule the kingdom (Kelley 35). Building on studies of masculinity in fairy tales
and YA fiction, I analyze how the princes in Cornwell’s Mechanica and Meyer’s
Cinder are fully realized, dynamic, named characters who fulfill roles beyond
that of prince-rescuer, and how their representations disrupt hegemonic forms
of power and relationships.

Masculinity in Fairy Tales and YA Fiction

While feminist analyses in the late twentieth century focused primarily on
portrayals of fairy-tale heroines to challenge the patriarchal gender binary,
the prince is of interest to contemporary scholars who underscore the impor-
tance of expanded expressions and performances of all gendered identities.
Children’s literature scholar Perry Nodelman highlights the importance of ana-
lyzing how texts “develop a dangerously repressive sense of what it means to
be desirably masculine” (2). In this same vein, other scholars focus on the
ways contemporary YA fiction and fairy tales present alternative masculinities
in opposition to the hegemonic form (for example, see Attebery; Bean and
Harper; Guanio-Uluru; Jorgensen; or Romøren and Stephens).
Tenets of feminist theory and masculinity studies that include challeng-
ing essentialist discourses in order to unmask monolithic or static ideations of
gender, disrupting the privileging of toxic forms of masculinity (and the use
and abuse of power associated with it) and dismantling patriarchal hierarchies

243
 LINDA PARSONS

have informed this analysis (Bean and Harper 14; Gardiner 11). R. W. Connell
and James Messerschmidt identified hegemonic masculinity as society’s “most
honored way of being a man” (832), with idealized characteristics that include
physical prowess and athleticism, rugged individualism and self-discipline,
competitiveness and aggression, stoicism and self-sufficiency, and misogyny
and homophobia (Haywood and Mac an Ghaill 579; Swain 337; Romøren
and Stephens 217). Hegemonic masculinity stands in opposition to, and is
privileged over, other identities; male is not female, male is not effeminate, and
male is not homosexual (Attebery 332; Dutro 470). Furthermore, it is always
the dominant form when multiple masculinities are in play (Dutro 471; Swain
336). Betsy Cornwell and Marissa Meyer employ metonymic configuration
to “instantiate a schema for hegemonic masculinity” (Romøren and Stephens
218) through King Corsin and the stepsisters’ suitors in Mechanica and Queen
Levana in Cinder, who represent patriarchal hegemony in contrast to or in
conflict with each prince.2
To contrast the princes in Mechanica and Cinder to masculinity’s hege-
monic form, I have found the work of scholars Rolf Romøren, John Stephens,
and Jon Swain helpful and will therefore relate the concept of the Sensitive
New Man to that of personalized masculinities.3 Males who enact personalized
masculinities do not aspire to, nor do they challenge, hegemonic position-
ing. Rather, they exist separately as a self-contained group, and they are more
secure in their performances and positioning than those with hegemonic capi-
tal (Swain). The Sensitive New Man (SNM), as identified by Rolf Romøren and
John Stephens, exemplifies a personalized masculinity. SNM characteristics
include taking pleasure in female companionship; being respectful of others’
space and feelings; being “well-kempt, but unselfconscious about appearance”;
“serious” yet willing to be “playful”; “artistic” and “idealistic” (225). In another
analysis, John Stephens describes an SNM character as “other-regarding in
interpersonal relations; affectionate; calm; self-possessed, but approachable;
considerate and respectful of female companions” (xv). Characteristics of
the Sensitive New Man are evident in the ways the princes in Mechanica and
in Cinder disrupt hegemonic power and relationships to enact personalized
masculinities.
Romøren and Stephens also observe how female authors often seek to
influence their implied female readers to reject hegemonic males in favor
of those “who instantiate an SNM schema” (225).4 Similarly, in “Female
Focalizers and Masculine Ideals: Gender as Performance in Twilight and The
Hunger Games,” Lykke Guanio-Uluru notes that Stephanie Meyer and Suzanne
Collins, the female authors of these two YA novels respectively, advocate for
male performances of, and female preferences for, alternative masculinities;
these authors feature female focalizers who ultimately choose males who

244
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

exhibit SNM characteristics. The focus on gendered authorship, focalization,

and readership contributes to my understanding of what is at stake in the
representation of alternative masculinities in narrative and especially in YA
fairy-tale fiction.
In their YA fairy-tale novels, Cornwell and Meyer do not challenge the
patriarchal hierarchy with simplistic role reversals but present alternative and
transformed possibilities. These authors take an “activist stance” (Bacchilega
37) by offering enticing alternatives to the rigidity of the patriarchal gender
binary and toxic masculinity. Specifically, the Cinderella figures in these two
novels are attracted to princes who disrupt hegemonic power structures and
break with traditional gendered behaviors in their relationships. The princes
exhibit SNM characteristics as they eschew sovereignty as domination to envi-
sion it as service, and as they reject patriarchal gender relations to enact more
egalitarian relationships. The first-person narrator/focalizer in Mechanica and
the closely focalized third-person narration in Cinder have the potential to
influence young female readers to develop a preference for men who exhibit
SNM characteristics.
These two YA “Cinderella” adaptations, then, speak to contemporary
appeals for greater gender equality and social justice. English-language fairy-
tale adaptations often invite readers to “wander” by “taking us off socially
sanctioned paths” (Bacchilega 5) and into territory where we might consider
alternatives to Western patriarchy. Jack Zipes recognizes that authors who
invite readers down these alternative paths raise important “questions about
arbitrary authoritarianism, sexual domination, and social oppression” (179).
Although patriarchal cultural messages remain pervasive and powerful, gender
and social conventions are continually constructed, contested, transgressed,
and transformed. Through the characterization of princes who enact personal-
ized masculinities with characteristics of the Sensitive New Man, Mechanica
and Cinder offer compelling alternatives to hegemonic masculinity, explore
issues of social justice, and disrupt power as domination.

Disrupting Hegemonic Power

The portrayals of Cornwell’s Prince Christopher and Meyer’s Prince Kai dis-
rupt the concept of hegemonic power as domination and oppression to recon-
struct it as resistance to injustice and service to one’s people.5 While Charles
Perrault’s and the Grimm Brothers’ heroes used power to rule through domina-
tion, these princes seek social justice and promote gender and racial equality
(while still upholding the institution of royalty). They aspire to realize “those
wishes, dreams, and needs which have been denied by social structures and
institutions” (Zipes 190). Reflecting Jane Kelley’s analysis that questioning

245
 LINDA PARSONS

oppression is a form of resistance, these princes’ articulations of their hopes

for themselves, their people, and their countries constitute resistance. Prince
Christopher aims to abandon his father’s authoritarian rule and admires popu-
list protest, while Prince Kai vows to continue the tradition of ruling as service.
In Cornwell’s Mechanica, the Fey are Others who, we are told, “do not
look or act like civilized men” (24). Estingers believe they are ordained by
their god to be benevolent caretakers of the Fey, who are to serve them in
return. However, the people begin to fear the Fey when rumors circulate that
the heir to Esting’s throne was killed by a Fey assassin. King Corsin’s response
reflects hegemonic masculinity. He institutes a “total quarantine and complete
lockdown of Faerie” (91), ends all trade, and increases Esting’s military pres-
ence. Fearing for his younger son’s life, the king sequesters Prince Christopher,
now heir apparent, in the palace for six years. In contrast, Prince Christopher’s
response embodies a commitment to social justice indicative of a Sensitive
New Man. He thinks the Fey should be treated equitably, and he favors a mili-
tary withdrawal with trade agreements and the exchange of ambassadors. His
approach to governing would replace his father’s draconian authority with a
commitment to all peoples. In reaction to King Corsin’s harsh policies, a Faerie
revolt is imminent at the novel’s end. Prince Christopher finds this looming
conflict unbearable, yet he does not yet have the power to stop it.
Prince Christopher’s commitment to social justice is also evident in his
admiration of the Forest Queen, Silviana. The tale of the Forest Queen por-
trays the historic Esting kings as tyrants, or buffoons, or outright villains,
and “that’s a dangerous story to tell” (164). As such, Silviana’s story is banned
in Esting; her name is never uttered by the nobility, although her story is a
favorite among the servants. Prince Christopher admires her attempts to right
the injustices of Esting’s monarchs, and he believes her active resistance was
not traitorous but a sign of true patriotism. This attitude seems to signal that
Prince Christopher will himself resist, dissent, and attempt to reverse the ineq-
uities resulting from his family’s autocratic rule. He will reign with respect and
concern for all of his people.
Another indication that Prince Christopher will dedicate himself to his
people is his reaction to Fey’s Croup and his stance on its cure. This is a fatal
disease associated with Faerie that can only be cured by lovesbane, a cure that
can itself be lethal. After the queen died as a result of being given too much
lovesbane, King Corsin outlawed the drug, driving it underground where it
became exorbitantly expensive. Prince Christopher rails against the injustice
of a curable disease that only those with connections and wealth can survive.
Caro is his lifelong friend and palace servant, and her mother is slowly dying
of Fey’s Croup. Embodying SNM characteristics, he is genuinely concerned
for her welfare and laments that her mother needs a better doctor, “but the

246
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

only good ones are kept for the royals” (132). In this telling statement, he not
only shows compassion for Caro and her mother but simultaneously critiques
health-care inequities in the kingdom. He insists that if he had any true power,
he would immediately make lovesbane legal again.
Whereas Prince Christopher in Mechanica hopes to break his father’s
authoritarian rule, Prince Kai in Cinder aspires to continue his father’s legacy
of service to the Commonwealth. This stance disrupts masculine power as
authority over others and reconstructs it as other-regarding. When the novel
opens, Emperor Rikan has contracted letumosis, and his father’s advisor insists
that Kai must prepare for his ascension. Kai muses that the true emperor lies
dying before him; he believes himself to be an “imposter” (107). Immediately
upon his father’s death, Kai reflects on his inadequacies and believes himself
to be “too young, too stupid, too optimistic, too naïve” (139) to rule wisely.
He questions his ability to rule rather than accepting the emperorship as his
natural birthright. In a moment of vulnerability (and in a private space with
Cinder), he admits that he thinks he will ruin everything when he becomes
emperor. For Kai, power is not a privilege of birthright but a responsibility he
feels unqualified to take up.
The contrast between Prince Kai and the Lunar Queen Levana critiques
the use and abuse of absolute power, evoking the hegemonic male schema
while upending the gender binary. Evolved from an old Earthen colony on the
moon, Lunars are “hated and despised by every culture in the galaxy” (292),
“and Queen Levana [is] the worst of all of them” (43). Earthens fear Lunars
because of their ability to glamour others to see what they want them to see
and think what they want them to think. Kai is appalled when Queen Levana
comes to Earth immediately after Emperor Rikan’s death with just enough
letumosis antidote to cure one adult male. He is not the only one who finds
her presence abhorrent, but when the citizens of New Beijing protest her pres-
ence on Earth, she glamours them into submission. Levana rules “through
fear rather than justice” (273). In contrast, Kai says that “when citizens are
unruly, there’s usually a reason for it” (207), and he believes in addressing
that reason.
The way Kai intends to rule is evident in his coronation attire, which is
designed to convey altruistic ideals: embroidered turtledoves symbolize peace
and love, silver stars on his cloak signify the peace and unity of the six Earthen
kingdoms, and twelve chrysanthemums portend the flourishing of the twelve
Commonwealth provinces. The tributes he receives from citizens are ribbons
or medallions symbolizing “long life, wisdom, goodness of heart, generosity,
patience, joy” (308). These small, symbolic gifts are quite different from the
extravagant tributes monarchs typically receive, and this difference epitomizes
a reconfiguration of power. Kai’s coronation vows further establish that ruling

247
 LINDA PARSONS

New Beijing is an act of service. He promises to “further justice, to be merci-

ful, to honor the inherent rights of all peoples, to respect the peace between
nations, to rule with kindness and patience, and to seek the wisdom and coun-
cil of [his] peers and brethren” (309). He ends with a personal promise to his
people “not to rule, but to serve” (310). In his coronation speech, he enumer-
ates the ways letumosis has ravaged Earth for over a decade. He mentions the
death toll, reduced trade and commerce, the economic downturn, deteriorat-
ing living conditions, and inadequate food and energy supplies, and he vows
to do everything possible to end the plague and keep his people safe. Kai’s
pledge is sincere, yet he dreads what he may be compelled to do to fulfill it. In
much the same way the prince in a classic fairy tale cannot alter his life trajec-
tory, it seems the only way for Prince Kai to avoid war and obtain the cure for
letumosis is to marry Queen Levana.6
Both novels show how a ruler’s masculinity affects his people, especially
those who suffer discrimination in the kingdoms, and these representations
through the novels’ focalizers encourage the active involvement of readers.
The Othering of minorities in these novels naturalizes these fairy-tale worlds
through a dialogic relationship with contemporary discourses and increases
the likelihood of the expansion of readers’ selves as they consider the princes’
responses. In the United States, those positioned as Other are often feared, dis-
trusted, or subjected to outright violence. Long-standing institutional policies
have discriminated against and oppressed Black Americans who have been
and continue to be targets of racist physical brutality (Sensoy and DiAngelo).
Hate crimes toward Muslim Americans increased after 9/11 (Agrawal et al.
28), violence against Asian Americans spiked during the 2020 pandemic (Yam
n. pag.), and Mexican and Latin Americans attempting to enter the United
States face open hostility (Kahn and Morgan n. pag.). Similar hostility toward
minoritized people is evident in Mechanica. Esting’s history books present
the Fey as “not truly people” (24); the Brethren preach that Fey magic is an
abomination, and the king imposes harsh sanctions against them. Against
this backdrop, Prince Christopher attempts to disrupt prejudice and treat the
Fey as equals. In Cinder, the people of New Beijing view cyborgs, who are
human/cybernetic hybrids, as less than human and deny them civil rights. In
Technology and Identity in Young Adult Fiction: The Posthuman Subject, Victoria
Flanagan writes about “the cultural angst that is typically generated in the
face of human bodies that transgress established categories of being” (116).
Although Prince Kai aspires to protect all of his people, this does not include
cyborgs. That they are “volunteered” as letumosis research subjects echoes the
unethical studies involving African Americans conducted in the United States
(Scharff et al. 879). Despite Prince Kai’s many SNM characteristics, his preju-
dice against cyborgs is a reminder of how insidious cultural conditioning can

248
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

be. It complicates his identity, and it is all the more egregious since readers
experience it from Cinder’s perspective.
The pandemics that ravage both fairy-tale worlds also create a dialogic
link to today’s reality, and in this light too the princes’ responses, and thereby
each prince himself, is relatable and desirable. The COVID-19 pandemic has,
at the time of this writing, killed 598,787 Americans and 3,927,222 people
worldwide (“WHO” n. pag.). In Mechanica, Fey’s Croup is curable if one has
the financial means and the connections to procure lovesbane. The inequi-
table health care in Esting parallels the current health disparities in the United
States, as racial and ethnic minorities are not only at greater risk for contracting
COVID-19 but also have less access to vaccines (Centers for Disease Control
n. pag.). Prince Christopher aspires to make quality health care and lovesbane
available to all Estingers. In Cinder, contracting letumosis results in certain
death, and it is a form of biological warfare that is part of Queen Levana’s plan
to conquer Earth. Prince Kai’s quest to find a cure continues throughout the
series. It is unclear whether or not each prince will be successful in his attempt
to stop the disease that ravages his country. However, their sincere commit-
ment to the welfare of others is a characteristic of the SNM embodiment of
masculinity, and the female focalizers admire them for it.

Disrupting Hegemonic Relationships

Although the relationships between Prince Christopher and Mechanica, on the
one hand, and between Prince Kai and Cinder, on the other, do nothing to
challenge heteronormative romance as the default category (Didicher 50), they
do disrupt hegemonic masculinity and position the princes in personalized
masculinities that include SNM characteristics. The reconfiguration of their
relationships is evident in three ways. Unlike the prince in “Cinderella” tales by
Perrault and the Grimms who is handsome, yet flat and colorless, the princes
in these novelized adaptations are fully realized as they become the object of
the female gaze. Additionally, in contrast to the prince’s public persona, which
is the only one afforded him in the tales of the Perrault-Grimms-Disney triad,
these princes reveal their hopes, dreams, and insecurities in private spaces
respectively with Mechanica and Cinder. Finally, the very nature of their rela-
tionships disrupts hegemonic males’ domination of women to present these
princes as other-regarding as they position themselves alongside, rather than
above, the heroines.
Tales by Perrault and the Grimms do not elaborate on the prince’s physi-
cal appearance, although “Charming” is Disney’s eponymous moniker for him.
Unlike the heroine, who is empowered by (and rescued because of) her beauty,
it is his birthright that empowers the “handsome prince.” Contemporary

249
 LINDA PARSONS

hegemonic conventions prize the strength and athleticism of the male phy-
sique, but the female focalizers in Cornwell’s Mechanica and Meyer’s Cinder
admire their prince, primarily, from the shoulders up. In Fashion in the Fairy
Tale Tradition: What Cinderella Wore, Rebecca-Anne Do Rozario notes that there
is “a profound emphasis on the gaze and its direction” (67) in Cinderella’s
world, and this gaze involves women watching other women and the prince
watching Cinderella. Positioning the prince as the object of Cinderella’s gaze in
the two novels reflects changing power dynamics that disrupt hegemonic mas-
culinity and the hierarchical gender binary in contemporary society (Gardiner
9; Nodelman 7). As Jeana Jorgensen observes, “the pleasure and power inher-
ent in being the gazer rather than the gazed-upon” (352) positions the one
who gazes as a subject with agency. The gaze of female focalizers serves to
enhance young females’ self-concept and restructure their relationships with
males (Romøren and Stephens 225). The gaze of Cornwell’s and Meyer’s female
focalizers, constructed for their intended female audience, subverts the sexual
nature of the male gaze as Cinder and Mechanica each closely scrutinize the
prince’s face for his emotional reactions and seek sartorial clues to his identity.
Chastity, the meanest stepsister in Cornwell’s Mechanica, perpetuates the
traditional conceptualization of the patriarchal prince as “always handsome,
and charming, and brave, and romantic” (89). In contrast, when Mechanica
first meets Prince Christopher incognito as Fin, he is undoubtedly the object
of her gaze, but she observes his ease and sensitivity rather than his masculine
physique. She notices his “liquid-dark brown eyes, crinkled at the corners”
and his “sable curls” (105), and she observes his “fluid and self-assured grace”
(154), which she compares to the bombastic comportment of her stepsisters’
suitors. Fin’s ease is undoubtedly related to the fact that he is actually Prince
Christopher, but the suitors’ affected grandiosity evokes the contrasting hege-
monic schema that dooms men to “continual and humiliating fear of failure to
live up to the masculinity mark” (Gardiner 6). Fin’s demeanor positions him
outside this angst as he embodies a personalized masculinity that Mechanica
finds attractive.
Mechanica uses Fin’s attire as a clue to his identity. She notes the sartorial
elegance of his “white shirt, . . . a gray wool buttoned vest and black win-
ter coat and breeches, all tailored to his broad frame, and black, new-looking
leather boots” (155). His clothing and his gesture of spreading his overcoat for
them to sit on lead Mechanica to think his parents might be high-level servants
at the palace. At the ball, however, Fin’s attire immediately signifies that he is
Prince Christopher: “the medals on his black dress uniform, the thin plati-
num circlet on his head, and especially the Heir’s crest near his heart” (248).
Although this transformation echoes the trope of Cinderella’s “reinvention by
dress” (Guanio-Uluru 212), Prince Christopher’s worth is not dependent on,

250
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

nor is it changed by, his clothing (Do Rozario 4). In this case, it is not the
clothes that make the man. After learning of Prince Christopher/Fin’s dual
identity, Mechanica observes that “the mischievous quirk in his eyebrows and
the open kindness of his face were just the same as they had always been”
(249).
Cinder never mentions Kai’s strength, or his physique, but does com-
ment on his eyes, hair, and facial expressions. During their first encounter,
his “startled copper-brown eyes and black hair,” and his “lips that every girl
in the country had admired a thousand times” (Meyer 6) do not escape her
gaze. On other occasions, his grin is “charming and unexpected” (126), and
he shrugs in response to a question, “seemingly uncomfortable, which was an
oddly charming look on him” (297).7 When the truth is revealed that Cinder is
Lunar and cyborg, Kai is no stoic; he is appalled, and vulnerable, and human.
Cinder watches him as he manifests an “ever-changing mix of disbelief and
confusion and regret” (367) before asking if she glamoured his attraction to
her. His feelings of betrayal are palpable, and in Kai’s range of emotions, we see
the construction of a masculinity that exceeds the limited emotions afforded
to hegemonic males.
Prince Christopher and Prince Kai inhabit spaces with Mechanica and
Cinder wherein they reveal their beliefs, feelings, and insecurities. They go
incognito among the people, affording them the opportunity to escape their
formal, public personas as heirs apparent and assume authentic, personal-
ized identities. Both Mechanica and Cinder first meet the disguised princes
in a marketplace, rather than at a ball, and the market stalls provide a private
space amid the bustling shoppers where their friendships develop. In private
spaces, masculinity is “constructed outside normative publicly sanctioned
ways of being male in the world” (Bean and Harper 27), and the lines blur
between masculine and feminine roles to disrupt hegemonic performances of
masculinity. Christopher and Kai are vulnerable—a traditionally feminine trait
(Attebery 332; Dutro 493). That they reveal their vulnerability only in such
private spaces perpetuates the hegemonic bifurcation of men’s public and pri-
vate selves, yet the fact that we see the distress of these princes reveals their
range of emotions and sensitivity. Importantly, the female focalizers are drawn
to these princes, in part because of their expressed emotions, presenting this
as a desirable male trait.
Fin repeatedly visits Mechanica in a shed she uses as a workshop within
the Forest Queen’s ruins, and this provides a private space where he can be
vulnerable and at ease. It is within this space that he tells her how much he
admires the Forest Queen as a patriot, a sentiment he would not dare voice
in public. They talk about Fey’s Croup and how unfair it is that its cure is
illegal. They share their love of horses and talk about how painful it is to lose

251
 LINDA PARSONS

one. They also sit quietly side by side; Fin does not dominate this quiet space
with speech but is comfortable sharing the silence. Reflecting qualities of the
Sensitive New Man, Fin openly shares his private thoughts and feelings, is at
ease in Mechanica’s company, and is respectful of the space they share.
In the private space of an elevator, Kai reveals his confusion and vulner-
ability. After learning that Levana glamoured the protesting citizenry and that
someone installed a Lunar communication chip in his personal android, Kai
abandons royal protocol and confides that he hates Levana. He asks Cinder
what she would do if she knew a cure for letumosis existed, but she would
have to ruin her life to obtain it. He finishes with “it seems my life is about to
be ruined” (230). Kai is desperate to obtain the antidote Queen Levana pos-
sesses, and the only viable option seems to be a marriage alliance with her. Kai
is willing to make that sacrifice in order to ease the suffering of all Earthens,
even as he is desperate not to do so.
Overall, it is obvious that Princes Christopher and Kai genuinely take plea-
sure in Mechanica’s and Cinder’s companionship. Theirs is not the courtship
of a prince seeking a beautiful maiden to wed; Christopher admires Mechanica
and Kai admires Cinder for their skill, intelligence, and determination, and the
attraction between the prince and the heroine grows out of initial friendship.
The princes do not dominate the relationships but are solicitous, attentive,
considerate, and respectful of Mechanica’s and Cinder’s feelings and seem to
truly enjoy being with them. They enact personalized masculinities that align
with SNM characteristics and stand apart from the toxicity of hegemony.
Within minutes of meeting Fin and Caro in the marketplace, Mechanica
feels as if they have “been standing together [their] whole lives” (Cornwell
110), and they begin a complicated three-way friendship. Fin consistently
treats Mechanica with warmth and affection, holding her hand, laughing with
her, and even giving her contraband Fey rhodopsis berries as a sign of trust.
She indulges in a heterosexual fantasy, and it is she who first kisses Fin, but he
immediately pulls away and escapes into the darkness after kissing her back.
Unlike the hegemonic male who is in control of his romantic relationships, or
at least presents himself as such, Fin seems overwhelmed by his complex emo-
tions as he fluctuates between confusion and self-assurance. His vulnerability
does not cancel out his masculinity but positions him in a personalized form
of masculinity.
Fin invites Mechanica to the ball, where she immediately comes face-to-
face with him as Prince Christopher. He is to choose a bride, and rumors spread
that he has chosen Mechanica. In his proposal to her, ill-conceived as it is, it is
evident that Prince Christopher cares deeply about his country. His proposal
is driven by a desire to inspire the people of Esting, particularly as they stand
on the brink of war with Faerie. He believes he and Mechanica would provide

252
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

Estingers with “a happily-ever-after people will tell each other for generations”
(289). Yet the prince loves Caro, not Mechanica. When pressed, he admits
that he and Caro have been friends since they were very young children; he
cannot remember a time when he did not love her. In an act that breaks with
toxic, hegemonic masculinity and demonstrates his sensitivity to her feelings,
he recognizes and admits how “incredibly cruel” (287) it was not to be hon-
est with Mechanica. Prince Christopher is not Tatar’s “prince-rescuer waiting
in the wings for his cue” (Hard Facts 92) but a man who is in the process of
becoming. Caro thinks he can “be so dramatic” and “a bit moony sometimes”
(Cornwell 298) and that he will always make her a better friend than a lover.
Rather than acting out of toxic male pride when Mechanica refuses his pro-
posal, and Caro refuses his love, he becomes part of their chosen family. Caro
articulates their complex relationship: “We’re friends, aren’t we? Fin and I, you
and me, you and Fin, all the pairs that can be made of us, and the three of us
together, too” (301). In these three characters, readers see the creation and
appeal of a relationship outside of heteronormativity, with Prince Christopher
as one within and among, rather than the dominant figure, in this triad.
Similarly, Prince Kai is often humble and beseeching rather than demand-
ing in his relationship with Cinder, and he admits that he seeks her out
because she is easy to talk to. When he asks Cinder to call him Kai rather than
Your Highness, she objects that it would be improper to do so. His reply is
self-deprecating as he tells her not to make him turn his request in to a “royal
command” (Meyer 159). He repeatedly asks Cinder to attend the Coronation
Ball as his personal guest, and she persistently refuses. After Cinder ignores
his attempts to contact her, he returns to her mechanic stall to invite her to
the ball one final time. He accepts her rejection, exhibiting supportive atten-
tiveness, consideration of her feelings, and respect for the space she needs
when he mistakenly believes she will not attend the ball because one of her
stepsisters died of letumosis. This is not the hegemonic masculine behavior of
someone who expects his wishes to be fulfilled by a woman; rather, it is the
behavior of a man who is attuned to, and respectful of, others.
Observing that female authors of YA texts often feature young men who
embody the Sensitive New Man in an effort to disrupt hegemonic masculinity,
Romøren and Stephens propose that the textual objective here is to open pos-
sibilities for young men and to encourage young women to value expanded
ways of expressing masculinity. As I have shown, Cornwell and Meyer have
such a textual objective: the princes in their novels disrupt hegemonic mascu-
linity, and the female focalizers are attracted to them. While Nodelman stresses
that patriarchal tales, such as those by Charles Perrault and Jacob and Wilhelm
Grimm and perpetuated by Walt Disney, limit and constrain individual expres-
sion and difference in favor of conformity, authors such as Cornwell and

253
 LINDA PARSONS

Meyer open up possibilities and disrupt hegemonic views of gender. Prince

Christopher is sensitive, forgiving, and in the process of maturing. Prince Kai
is full of doubt, solicitous in his relationship with Cinder, and rules from a
position of service rather than domination. They do not exhibit fixed identi-
ties but struggle with imperfection and uncertainty regarding themselves, their
relationships, and their power. Mechanica and Cinder are attracted to these
princes who embrace qualities of the Sensitive New Man and offer alluring
expressions of personalized masculinities.

Notes

I am grateful to the reviewers and editors of this journal, particularly Cristina

Bacchilega, for recognizing potential in the original manuscript, for sage advice
regarding changes, and for the time and effort they dedicated to supporting me
through the revision process.

1. Maria Tatar, distinguished fairy-tale scholar and translator, identifies Cinderella’s

rescuer in Perrault’s “Cendrillon” first as “the son of the king” (“Classic Fairy
Tales” 31) and thereafter as “the prince” (36). In her English translations of the
Grimm Brothers’ tales, it is “the son of the king” (93) or “the prince” (93) who
comes upon Snow White’s coffin, and it is again “the prince” (102) whose kiss
awakens Briar Rose in “Sleeping Beauty.” While it has been, and continues to be,
customary to identify members of royal families by hereditary titles, they are
known by their specific title along with their given name (e.g., Prince Phillip, His
Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh). In the fairy tales of the Perrault-Grimms-
Disney triad, the combination of a generic title and a formulaic role effectively
negates any sense of the prince as a unique individual with agency.
2. Although it may seem strange to identify the female Queen Levana as the model
of hegemonic masculinity in Cinder, I believe her characterization supports this.
The secondary male characters, Kai’s advisor Torin and Dr. Erland, enact person-
alized masculinities that complement Prince Kai’s. Queen Levana, instead, is
highly competitive and aggressive (she had anyone with a claim to the Lunar
throne killed), authoritarian (she cruelly and summarily punishes anyone she
perceives to have crossed her), and self-disciplined and self-sufficient. It is she
who exhibits characteristics of toxic masculinity in contrast to Prince Kai’s SNM
embodiment.
3. Jon Swain developed the concept of personalized masculinities during his ethno-
graphic study of the ways the ten- and eleven-year-old boys with whom he
worked enacted masculinities that were different from, but not subordinate to,
the privileged form.
4. Michael Slater and his colleagues proposed that authors’ literary representations
might influence a reader’s personal preferences when the boundaries of the self
expand to accommodate the assumptions and possibilities presented in stories.
This expansion has the potential to foster new insights and engender personal
growth (443). Drawing on the work of Antonio Damasio, Karen Krasny proposes

254
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

a similar explanation for narrative’s potential to influence personal identity and

actions. She asserts that both embodied and lived-through experiences, gained
while reading narratives, shape the development of the self and become part of
the reader’s “autobiographical memory” (431). Authors influence readers’ self-
hood, decisions, and actions by presenting certain ways of being as both desirable
and possible.
5. Readers first meet Prince Christopher incognito as Fin. I refer to him as Fin when
he acts in his disguised identity, but I refer to him as Prince Christopher when he
functions as such.
6. At the end of Cinder, Prince Kai tells Levana that he will not marry her. Although
Kai knows the Commonwealth must avoid war with Luna and must obtain an
antidote for letumosis, it cannot come at the cost of freedom. Kai seeks to obtain
a cure without a marriage alliance with Queen Levana throughout the remaining
books in the series.
7. It is impossible to read the references to Kai being charming without interpreting
them as allusions to Disney’s Prince Charming. As Jack Zipes notes, our familiar-
ity with the traditional fairy tales allows us to look at them with new eyes when
the author “depicts the familiar in an estranging fashion” (180). The use of the
adjective “charming” seems to be a purposeful touchstone that positions readers
to compare and critique the ways the princes are constructed in the Disney ver-
sion and in this adaptation.

Works Cited

Agrawal, Priyanka, et al. “Interpersonal Stranger Violence and American Muslims: An

Exploratory Study of Lived Experiences and Coping Strategies.” Global Bioethics,
vol. 30, no. 1, 2019, pp. 28–42. Taylor and Francis, DOI: 10.1080/11287462.20
19.1683934.
Attebery, Brian. “Reinventing Masculinity in Fairy Tales by Men.” Marvels & Tales:
Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, 2018, pp. 314–37. JSTOR, www.jstor.
org/stable/10.13110/marvelstales.32.2.0314.
Bacchilega, Cristina. Fairy Tales Transformed? Twenty-First-Century Adaptations and the
Politics of Wonder. Wayne State UP, 2013.
Bean, Thomas W., and Helen Harper. “Reading Men Differently: Alternative Portrayals
of Masculinity in Contemporary Young Adult Fiction.” Reading Psychology, vol. 28,
no. 1, 2007, pp. 11–30. Routledge, DOI: 10.1080/02702710601115406.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Health Equity Considerations and Racial
and Ethnic Minorities.” www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-
equity/race-ethnicity.html. Accessed April 26, 2021.
Connell, R. W., and James W. Messerschmidt. “Hegemonic Masculinity: Rethinking the
Concept.” Gender and Society, vol. 19, no. 6, 2005, pp. 829–59. JSTOR, www.jstor.
org/stable/27640853. Accessed December 20, 2020.
Cornwell, Betsy. Mechanica. Clarion, 2015.
Didicher, Nicky. “Losing Your Footing: The Transformation of Gender Roles and Gender
Ideology in Marissa Meyer’s Cinder.” Retelling Cinderella: Cultural and Creative
Transformation, edited by Nicola Darwood and Alexis Weedon, Cambridge
Scholars P, 2020, pp. 49–66.

255
 LINDA PARSONS

Donnelly, Jennifer. Stepsister. Scholastic, 2020.

Do Rozario, Rebecca-Anne. Fashion in the Fairy Tale Tradition: What Cinderella Wore.
Palgrave Macmillan, 2018.
Dutro, Elizabeth. “‘Us Boys Like to Read Football and Boy Stuff’: Reading Masculinities,
Performing Boyhood.” Journal of Literacy Research, vol. 34, no. 4, 2002, pp.
465–500. Sage, DOI: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3404_4.
Flanagan, Victoria. Technology and Identity in Young Adult Fiction: The Posthuman Subject.
Palgrave Macmillan, 2014.
Gardiner, Judith Kegan. “Introduction.” Masculinity Studies and Feminist Theory: New
Directions, edited by Judith Kegan Gardiner, Columbia UP, 2002, pp. 1–29.
Guanio-Uluru, Lykke. “Female Focalizers and Masculine Ideals: Gender as Performance
in Twilight and The Hunger Games.” Children’s Literature in Education, vol. 47, no. 3,
2016, pp. 209–24. Springer, DOI: 10.1007/s10583-015-9263-1.
Haywood, Chris, and Máirtín Mac an Ghaill. “’What’s Next for Masculinity?’ Reflexive
Directions for Theory and Research on Masculinity and Education.” Gender and
Education, vol. 24, no. 6, 2012, pp. 577–92. Routledge, DOI: 10.1080/0954
0253.2012.685701.
Jorgensen, Jeana. “Masculinity and Men’s Bodies in Fairy Tales: Youth, Violence, and
Transformation.” Marvels & Tales: Journal of Fairy-Tale Studies, vol. 32, no. 2, 2018,
pp. 338–61. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.13110/marvelstales.32.2.0338.
Kahn, Chris, and David Morgan. “Republican’s Hostility Grows toward Illegal
Immigrants as Party Attacks Biden on Border.” Reuters, March 17, 2021, www.reu
ters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-republicans/republicans-hostility-grows-tow
ard-illegal-immigrants-as-party-attacks-biden-on-border-idUSKBN2B919J.
Accessed April 25, 2021.
Kelley, Jane E. “Power Relationships in Rumpelstiltskin: A Textual Comparison of a
Traditional and a Reconstructed Fairy Tale.” Children’s Literature in Education, vol.
39, no. 1, 2008, pp. 31–41. Springer, DOI: 10.1007/s10583-006-9039-8.
Krasny, Karen A. “Seeking the Affective and the Imaginative in the Act of Reading:
Embodied Consciousness and the Evolution of the Moral Self.” Philosophy of
Education Yearbook, 2006, pp. 429–37.
Lo, Malinda. Ash. Little, Brown, 2009.
Meyer, Marissa. Cinder. Feiwel and Friends, 2012.
Napoli, Donna Jo. Bound. San Val, 2006.
Nodelman, Perry. “Making Boys Appear: The Masculinity of Children’s Literature.”
Ways of Being Male: Representing Masculinities in Children’s Literature, edited by John
Stephens, Routledge, 2002, pp. 1–14.
Romøren, Rolf, and John Stephens. “Representing Masculinities in Norwegian and
Australian Young Adult Fiction: A Comparative Study.” Ways of Being Male:
Representing Masculinities in Children’s Literature, edited by John Stephens,
Routledge, 2002, pp. 216–33.
Scharff, Darcell P., et al.“More Than Tuskegee: Understanding Mistrust about Research
Participation.” Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, vol. 21, no. 3,
2010, pp. 879–97. Project Muse, DOI: 10.1353/hpu.0.0323.
Sensoy, Özlem, and Robin DiAngelo. Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key
Concepts in Social Justice Education. Teachers College P, 2017.
Slater, Michael D., et al.“Temporarily Expanding the Boundaries of the Self: Motivations
for Entering the Story World and Implications for Narrative Effects.” Journal of

256
 DISRUPTING HEGEMONIC POWER AND RELATIONSHIP

Communication, vol. 64, no. 3, 2014, pp. 439–55. Oxford Academic, DOI: 10.111
1/jcom.12100.
Stephens, John. “Editor’s Introduction: Always Facing the Issues—Preoccupations in
Australian Children’s Literature.” The Lion and the Unicorn, vol. 27, no. 2, 2003,
pp. v–xvii. Project MUSE, DOI: 10.1353/uni.2003.0026.
Swain, Jon. “Reflections on Patterns of Masculinity in School Settings.” Men and
Masculinities, vol. 8, no. 3, 2006, pp. 331–49. Sage, DOI: 10.1177/1097184X052
82203.
Tatar, Maria. The Annotated Classic Fairy Tales. Norton, 2002.
———. The Hard Facts of the Grimms’ Fairy Tales, Princeton UP, 1987.
“WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard.” World Health Organization, April 29,
2021, covid19.who.int. Accessed June 29, 2021.
Yam, Kimmy. “Anti-Asian Hate Crimes Increased by Nearly 150% in 2020, Mostly in
N.Y. and L.A., New Report Says.” NBC News, March 9, 2021, www.nbcnews.com
/news/asian-america/anti-asian-hate-crimes-increased-nearly-150-2020-mostly-n-
n1260264. Accessed April 25, 2021.
Zipes, Jack. Fairy Tales and the Art of Subversion: The Classical Genre for Children and the
Process of Civilization. Routledge, 1991.

257