My library recently had its 6th annual Sci-fi/Fantasy Festival, and because of that thing that's ruining the world in 2020 (No, not that one. The virus.) we did it as a virtual con for the first time. As such I had the privilege of speaking on more panels than usual; Monty Python, cartoons, female comic book characters, and nerd-dom in general, just to name all of the few of them.
A couple of different times, the panels came back to the damsel in distress trope. We're all familiar with this. Most people's feelings on the matter range from irritation to indifference. I don't think anybody really defends it, at most we just kind of shrug it off as a lazy motivator. Because it is. I'm not sure when exactly rescuing the damsel crossed over from trope to cliche, but at this point we seem to respond to it with a collective eye roll.
Except we seem more tolerant of it in video games. Perhaps because game play is more important to us than legitimacy when it comes to platformers we're more comfortable accepting the 'get the grail' motive, and by proxy less willing to demand that the pretty princess be treated as more of a character than 'the grail'.
Again, because of that thing that's ruining the world right now, I'm unable to make my long awaited Nintendo Switch purchase that I finally have the funds for. So to get my gaming fill I'm stuck watching playthroughs online. I recently watched Luigi's Mansion 3, which involves a mass kidnapping of Mario, Peach, and a handful of Toads. Luigi to the reluctant rescue. He goes through rescuing the characters in succession; first the unimportant Toads, then his brother, and at last Peach.
It got me thinking.
If Luigi (and the player) had managed to rescue Peach first, would you have still been inclined to keep playing? Presumably we play games because we want to complete them, but if the game includes a rewards system does it disrupt the feeling of accomplishment if 'the grail' is obtained before the climax? There are some problematic implications when a setting as big as the Mario-verse continues to equate its most high-profile female character as the ongoing grail.
If you were to list Princess Peach Toadstool's characteristics, being kidnapped is invariably at the top of the list. And this trait tends to evoke some strong emotions among her detractors; gamers who believe the character sucks often cite this as their primary argument. To a point I follow the logic, but I feel the knee-jerk conclusion is unfair. I don't believe she sucks. I do believe she's the victim of a string of disservices to her character, starting with Nintendo itself. And I also believe there's a way to turn it around without fundamentally changing the core of her character.
So here we go.
What is Peach?
Looking at her through the eyes of feminism (which is actually a very good thing, in case you need a reminder) she's in an uncomfortable place in Western culture. In Japan, the role of the homemaker is thought of highly. A woman who maintains an aesthetic home and excels at entertaining her guests is viewed honorably, and Princess Peach reflects these ideals. In America, not so much. The fifties sitcom housewife is viewed with no small amount of disdain over here. The role has taken on an implied subjugation to a patriarchy, which doesn't sit well with anyone pro-career woman.
I've said this before, but it's worth repeating. The problem with the housewife was never about the housewife role itself, but with who was deciding it for whom. There's been an unfortunate backlash among the feminist circles towards women who genuinely want to be homemakers because of how much of an emotional button the concept is. It's easy to get stuck on this idea that 'homemaker' and 'feminist' are incompatible when this is simply not true. Peach naturally taps into this highly emotive debate.
Now in Super Mario 64, I think we all had a good time yelling "Eff you!" at the screen when after 90+ vertigo inducing stars Mario's reward is going to be a cake (by the way, what happened to the one she claims to have already baked that got him to the castle in the first place?). Most of us were hoping for a strip tease, but that's not who Peach is (at least not until Thousand Year Door).
From Peach's perspective, baking a cake is the kindest thing she can do. And Mario is less of an egotist than the people controlling him, so he's accepting of the sentiment in its purest form. Can you imagine if you ever rescued Kate Middleton and she rewarded you with a cake she baked herself? Do you think whine about the fact that it wasn't a Mercedes? No. You'd sit there and eat it and like it even if you choked on it.
And that's a character trait with Peach that usually gets lost. She's royalty (for some reason), she's not obligated to be kind. We'll get back to that in a minute, for now let's look at the lack of details surrounding her monarchy.
I don't know what Nintendo considers canon about the origin of the Mushroom Kingdom. I think Peach's father was mentioned one time back in nineties in one of the game manuals, so that may not matter. We're left with theories. Here's mine. The world in which the Mushroom Kingdom exists is closely related to a pagan setting; in conjunction with sprites and cognitive forces of nature. It's why so many rocks have eyes. The Toads are an evolved form of Mushroom in the same way that humans evolved from primates, although in a much tighter time frame. Peach could be any number of things. Perhaps she's a mushroom that's gone one step further in mutation to appear more human. Or perhaps her in tuned-ness with the natural world was an influence in why the Toads sprang up in the first place. For whatever reason, Peach never entered into a pre-existing monarchy, the political structure grew organically around her (a similar thing happened with Daisy in Sarasaland).
The plumbers incidentally are not mushrooms. I don't know if they came from New York or New Donk, but they represent immigrants who came to a better place with the intent of making an honest living.
Who is Peach?
It's telling about Peach's character that she would develop such a close friendship with a member of the working class. At the end of the day Mario's aspirations are pretty straightforward. He wants to do his job, go home, and relax. All of the heroic adventures are things he happens to fall into. He possesses a kind of 'It needs to be done, and I can do it' attitude that an empath like Peach would be drawn to. So why does she bake him a cake instead of build him a house? Probably because simple comforts would make him happier than luxuries would.
The relationship between Peach and Mario is one of the all time great aromantic romances. We, as the spectators, seem to spend as much time with them as they spend together, suggesting they more or less have separate lives. So in that regard I don't think they're technically an item, and neither seems to have any drive to push the relationship into something it isn't already. But they're fond of each other, and even platonically it makes sense why they would be the other's 'special one'.
And that brings us to the royal beast (not Daisy unfortunately). Bowser and Peach both wear crowns but their approaches to ruling couldn't be more different. Peach motivates her subjects by empowering them, while King Koopa threatens his into obedience. It's unfair to label the dichotomy as good vs. evil; more accurately it's love vs. fear.
Bowser is the delegated bad guy, but let's look at his story from his perspective. Whereas the Mushroom Kingdom is in touch with the innocence of nature, Bowser is rooted in the animalistic side. He's king because he's the biggest and strongest, things that the wilds value. In his mind Peach should be his, by virtue of the fact that he wants her, and the natural order dictates that the king should get what he wants.
Mario should be nothing more than a nuisance, and a lot of the games do a wonderful job at presenting this incorrect viewpoint from the big guy. Bowser projects his own views onto Mario, presuming Mario wants Peach the same way he does; at least once straight up accusing Mario of also wanting to kidnap Peach.
And here's where it gets tricky. Bowser views Peach as the grail. Mario does not. Oddly enough, the players tend to come away from the games playing as Mario, but viewing Peach in a manner similar to the way Bowser does. Now this would be nothing more than a curiosity if we weren't seeing real life examples of how this mentality can manifest itself in legitimately horrifying ways. A few words I can throw out there; incels and gamer gate.
Now I'm not suggesting a cause and effect relationship between Mario games and the #metoo movement. But I am sharing how taken aback I was when I first found out that, within this community I hold so dear, there continues to exist an underbelly of hatred towards women. I don't even understand it. My life's experience has coincided with the birth of nerd culture, and I can confidentially say, "Guys! This is what you've ALWAYS wanted. A chance to talk to girls without leaving your comfort zone. So what in the hell is the problem?"
It's a question I can't satisfactorily answer, and I don't think the wisdom lies in the Mushroom Kingdom. But what I can say is that Bowser, being an animal who kidnaps Peach and tries to kill Mario, still comes off as less of an asshole than how I've seen a lot of guys behave online.
Why is Peach?
It's difficult to determine where continuity begins and ends for a video game character with a thirty-five year history across multiple genres. How much of Peach's sass and aggression in the Strikers series is hidden fury versus situational showboating? Can her infamous "I'm your mama?" to Bowser Jr. be attributed to a translation issue or raise a serious concern about reproduction? And then there's the 'baby' versions of all the VIPs that even the X-Men timeline can't untangle. All of this is to say that if Super Smash Brothers has ANY legitimacy, Peach should technically be able to break herself out of any dungeon using only her hips.
The idea that Peach purposefully allows herself to be kidnapped is not a new one, but people all too quickly jump to the "sort of into that kind of thing" explanation. I would argue that there's a more plausible, and interesting, reason that doesn't shoehorn a kinky side into a character who really has never demonstrated one (Sorry, deviantartists). Not to worry though; I'm sure Daisy's first solo adventure is right around the corner, and you know she's got stock in Nintendo's old hotel chain.
Here's what I think is going on. You've got Peach's Kingdom (Princessdom?) in close proximity with Bowser's. From a monarch's perspective, Bowser has a certain usefulness, as there's a whole world out there of pokeys, boos, blarggs, and a freaking sun that doesn't even know what it's on about. Bowser brings a certain level of organization to all of these creatures. If he weren't so ineffective as a king that might create a bigger problem the chaos of the wilds, but as it stands Bowser is providing an unintentional service to the Mushroom Kingdom. They don't attack until he says to, which creates a predictability around the assaults.
Now that by itself is smart politics. There are other threats in the world(s) and Bowser's minions offer a line of protection from outside sources. When you factor in that Bowser feels...something for Peach that he may never fully wrap his horned head around, she herself is not in any real danger. Her reliance on Mario comes when Bowser gets overzealous but her status quo is never to crush Bowser entirely, only to keep returning him to a useful arm's length.
That may sound manipulative; and it is, it's politics, and Peach is a responsible ruler. But where she really shines is how she sneaks her rule-by-love approach into Bowser's rule-by-fear. Out of the four elements of alchemy, love is always represented by water. And with good reason, it's the most powerful. Displace it, evaporate it, it will always come back, adapting to whatever container it needs to fill. Meanwhile, given enough time and patience, a single trickle can reshape a mountain. And that's what Peach is doing to Bowser. As I said, Bowser is a brute. You can't teach him a lesson directly because he'll ignore it. If you want to see him change, it has to be so gradual that he doesn't realize it's happening.
How many times has Bowser shown up at the Mushroom Kingdom with a tennis racquet? How many towns full of goombas and koopas have sprung up in walking distance that look to Peach for inspiration instead of Bowser? This is why Peach allows herself to be kidnapped, because she cares enough to keep the process going. She may never see Bowser become selfless, but she's carefully nurturing a decency in him that he's unaware of. If Mario has to take on the role of her paladin from time to time, he's fine with it. But beneath the cheerful obliviousness and the hair flips, Peach has a genuine wisdom and empathy.
Did you ever play Bowser's Inside Story for the DS? The quick version: Bowser accidentally becomes a hero without ever realizing he's doing anything other than moving obstacles out of his own way. In the end, he's not entirely sure what the hell just happened, but he knows his actions wound up keeping Peach safe. And she thanks him by baking him a cake. You remember the "Eff you" we all yelled at the N64 when the game ended on that note? This time it brought a tear to my eye.
