Defining the Stale White WonderBread Boy Trope
Since publishing my essay “In Defence of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl” there have been some confusion about some aspects of the Stale White WonderBread Boy/Manic Pixie Dream Girl dynamic. I would recommend reading that essay first, but it’s not a necessity. I am going to divide this essay into the main sources of confusion. Firstly I will be defining gaze as I think much of the confusion stems from a lack of understanding of gaze as a theory which is the foundation of the theory of the SWWB/MPDG dynamic. Secondly I will be clarifying what the defining aspects of the Stale White WonderBread are, as there were quite a few comments that were confused as to what makes a character or a real life person fit this mold. And thirdly I will be addressing the question “can the reverse dynamic exist?” as in can there be a Stale White WonderBread Girl and a Manic Pixie Dream Boy.
Understanding Gaze
Before we dive into defining the Stale White WonderBread Boy, I think it is important to define what gaze means, where the terminology as reference to art and fiction stems from, and why we are applying it to the SWWB/MPDG dynamic. Male gaze, and gaze in general have been big buzz words online in recent years, oftentimes misused and with a lack of understanding. I’m just going to give you a quick rundown on the main theories of gaze so we are all on the same page.
The concept of "gaze" as we discuss it today was introduced by Jean Paul Sartre in his 1943 book Being and Nothingness wherein Sartre suggests that the act of gazing at another human being creates a subjective power difference, as the person being gazed at is perceived as an object, not as a human being. It's important to acknowledge and consider this inherent power imbalance when discussing tropes and gaze. Most popularized fiction is created by a very specific demographic of men for a very specific demographic of men, and this creates a disjointed phenomena when representing women (and other marginalized groups). Women’s voices have been suppressed throughout the history of popularized media in the Western post-colonial world, to the point that it was illegal for women to create art for many years in many parts of the world. And the cultures that did allow women’s voices to be heard and celebrated within art such as Indigenous cultures across the so-called America’s, during colonization these artistic practices and voices were often destroyed, erased, stolen, and suppressed.
English art critic John Berger expanded on Sartre’s original theories of gaze and applied them to the art world specifically, most importantly the way women are depicted by men within art. This was when the idea of the “male gaze” was coined. Film theorist Laura Mulvey later coined the term “male gaze” and expanded on Bergers findings in her essay Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema. Berger discussed the way in which due to the fact that most art was created by men for men, though the subject was often women, this was a reflection to the way in which women were viewed within greater society. And then as a result of these depictions influenced the way in which women viewed themselves, as they only saw themselves depicted through the lens of male interpretation of the female experience. Therefore skewing the women’s interpretations of ourselves, having only consumed male interpretations of our own experience.
Berger contends the idea that men have largely been placed into the role of the watcher, and women as the ones to be looked at. So, referencing Satre, this creates a power imbalance in which women have been socially allocated to object within society. This is important to remember as we discuss tropes within film, as the film industry is a very male dominated industry. With most major film projects being written and directed by men of a very specific demographic, for men of a specific demographic. Because of the inherent power dynamic that occurs within the idea of gaze, it has been questioned whether or not a “female gaze” can truly exist, as it would exist without the assisting long-held patriarchal power dynamic that exists when we discuss the male gaze. Additionally one must acknowledge the intersections of marginalization when discussing gaze. In her 1992 essay “The Oppositional Gaze: Black Female Spectatorship” author bell hooks coins the idea of the “oppositional gaze” of Black women. Written as a response to Laura Mulvey’s essay hooks critiques the prominence of white feminism that ignores the intersections of marginalization within feminist film theory. This essay can be found in the book Black Looks: Race and Representation by bell hooks, it is a phenomenal book, go read it.
One commenter noted on my previous essay, “But we all are individuals, and therefore we all have an individual gaze” and this is true of course. But one must acknowledge the way our race, gender, sexuality, class, community, etc influence our relation to gaze, thus influencing our relationship to creating and consuming media. The Stale White WonderBread Boy is not a blanket term used to define any teenage white boy, but rather a term given to discuss a specific gaze that exists within cinema that caters to a very specific demographic that allows the Manic Pixie Dream Girl to exist as a trope.
Defining the Stale White WonderBread Boy
To be very clear, the Stale White WonderBread Boy is not a blanket term to be used to describe so called “average” or “boring” men/boys in fiction and especially not in real life. In the same way that the Manic Pixie Dream Girl should not be used as a blanket term to describe any girl with blue hair and a quirky personality. The Stale White WonderBread Boy is a term coined to give a name to the gaze that allows the Manic Pixie Dream Girl to exist. Nathan Rabin himself acknowledged this gaze when he coined the term Manic Pixie Dream Girl in 2007, but he named the product of the gaze, not the gaze itself. Nathan Rabin stated in 2007 “Dunst embodies a character type I like to call The Manic Pixie Dream Girl. [This character] exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures” this fevered imagination that Nathan Rabin mentions is the gaze that I am talking about, and have dubbed the Stale White WonderBread Boy.
I’ve had a few people comment asking for clarification when I suggested The Stale White Wonderbread Boy can exist in real life, though the Manic Pixie Dream Girl cannot so allow me to explain. Let's imagine that I walk around with a red flashlight. This red flashlight is my gaze. I have been taught since infancy to turn the red flashlight on when I see a woman I like. At this point it’s muscle memory, so I don’t even realize I am turning the flashlight on, it just happens. I shine a red coloured flashlight onto the women I meet and like, and therefore I perceive them as red. These women are not red, but I perceive them to be because of my red flashlight. When these women are around other people, they are not red because I am not shining the red flashlight onto them, and others don’t have a red flashlight. Therefore in reality, when removed from the context of my gaze, the women are not red. But my red flashlight still exists within reality as I continue to shine my red flashlight onto others. I then go on to write a story about a woman I like, and I depict her as red. But in reality she is not red, she is filled with much more colour than that, though I have only seen her as red due to my flashlight skewing my perception. In the same way The Manic Pixie Dream Girl is only real to the Stale White WonderBread Boy, and therefore does not exist within reality in the way she is depicted. Though the Stale White WonderBread Boy can because the gaze can be carried into reality through the mind of the man who the gaze inhabits within.
The Stale White WonderBread Boy is typically a form of self insert into a story. Their existence in reality is reflective of the fact that this gaze and perspective they are writing from is very real. Not only do they view their female characters from this lens but often real women as well, as referenced in my flashlight analogy. When I suggest that a Stale White WonderBread Boy can exist in real life, I am not suggesting that any awkward teenage boy with a crush is a Stale White WonderBread Boy that would be, once again, be as ridiculous as suggesting every girl with blue hair is a Manic Pixie Dream Girl. That is why I compared the trope to the Lolita/Humbert dynamic in my original essay. As stated in my previous essay, I am not suggesting that the MPDG trope holds the same level of perversity as the Lolita trope. The comparison I am making lies in the fact that Lolita is a product of Humbert’s imagination. In the context of the story Dolores Haze is a real little girl, though Lolita exists as a mirage through the gaze of Humbert and therefore cannot exist in real life as she only exists within the imagination of Humbert. However, Humbert can exist in real life. There are real men who view little girls in the same way Humbert views Lolita, that gaze transcends fiction and is the reason Vladimir Nabokov was inspired to write the novel in the first place, to comment on this gaze. Similarly Sam in Gardenstate for example is a real girl in the context of the story, though through the fictionalized gaze of Andrew he makes Sam into a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, devoid of nuance. The trope transcends fiction in the way that I mentioned in my previous essay by how many women have experienced this projection onto them in real life. It's not that a real life Stale White WonderBread Boy exists without nuance, it's that he subscribes to the same fictional fantasy and superficial gaze that the Stale White WonderBread Boy is defined by. As stated the Stale White WonderBread boy is not so much defined by the way he is perceived but the intention of his gaze. That is the first layer, and the first question you need to ask yourself when determining if a character is a Stale White WonderBread Boy, what is the intention of his gaze, and does he subscribe to the dehumanizing romanticized gaze that the Stale White WonderBread Boy does?
The Stale White WonderBread Boy is a term for a very specific gaze, not necessarily a physical type of person. Likewise the Manic Pixie Dream Girl is defined by being a product of this gaze, not so much by external attributes. Though there are attributes that are commonly associated with both of these tropes, such as being more plain and “normal” for the Stale White WonderBread Boy, or being eccentric and “strange” in the case of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. These attributes are important, though secondary to the dehumanizing gaze of the Stale White WonderBread Boy. If the gaze is nuanced, and allows the Manic Pixie Dream Girl to exist beyond a shallow shell, then they do not fit the criteria of the SWWB/MPDG dynamic regardless of if they meet the physical characteristic of the trope.
This can be seen through Joel's character in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, who on a service level would seemingly fit this mold of the Stale White WonderBread Boy, but does not as he sees the humanity of Clementine. As I said in my previous essay, Joel is a reformed Stale White WonderBread Boy. He admitted that he believed Clementine would save his life and he initially subscribed to the superficial fantasy that Clementine complained about in film. Though throughout the film we watch as Joel continuously humanizes Clementine. He no longer believes she will save him, he sees her for not only the romanticized idea of her, but for the flaws and humanity that she possesses. Due to this nuanced perspective, Joel does not meet the criteria for the Stale White WonderBread Boy and Clementine does not meet the criteria for the Manic Pixie Dream Girl as the Manic Pixie Dream Girl can only exist as the product of this dehumanizing gaze. I received quite a few comments regarding my inclusion of Charlie from The Perks of Being a Wallflower in the visuals when discussing Stale White WonderBread Boys. Many came to his defense, claiming that Charlie possesses a greater deal of nuance. It is important to note that contrary to the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, a Stale White WonderBread Boy’s story can actually be nuanced, the defining characteristic is his relationship with the love interest, and is that nuanced? Is his gaze nuanced? Is the way he perceives the potential Manic Pixie Dream Girl, Sam in this case, nuanced? Does Charlie allow Sam to exist as a person or merely as a fantasy? I haven’t seen The Perks of Being a Wallflower in far too many years to definitively state if Charlie is a SWWB or not, it’s likely he isn’t, but I wanted to bring up these comments as I think they’re raising an important question.
Though the external elements of the Stale White WonderBread Boy bear some importance, in the same way that the external elements of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl bear some importance it is not the primary characterizing factor of the trope and is secondary to the specific gaze/subject relationship. The reason why the external representation of the Stale White WonderBread Boy bears some importance, which I will elaborate on in the next section, is because the Stale White WonderBread Boy does not appeal to any stereotypical elements of female desire. I know some people are going to take this the wrong way so I want to clarify that this is not a bad thing. I am also not suggesting that these characters are unappealing to every girl, just that they are not embodying what we would traditionally see in feminine fantasies. It is okay that the Stale White WonderBread Boy doesn’t inhabit qualities of stereotypical male heroes, and I am not suggesting that he should, as that is not his purpose as a character. Though it is a defining characteristic of the trope, and is important to remember as we move forward.
Does the Manic Pixie Dream Boy Exist?
Since my last video many commenters have asked “Does the reverse exist?” as in, does a Manic Pixie Dream Boy and Stale White Wonderbread Girl exist. I pondered whilst writing my initial essay if the reverse can truly exist, as it is absent of the potent power dynamic that the initial dynamic is enforced by. After some consideration I would say it does… sort of. I still go a bit back and forth on this because a very similar trope can be found within media though I believe it is more rare, and holds a different weight as it is not supported by historical significance of the male gaze within art as we explored when discussing the theories of John Berger.
The term Manic Pixie Dream Boy is not a new term, it has been thrown around online for almost as long as Manic Pixie Dream Girl has. Though like the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, the term Manic Pixie Dream Boy is likewise often misdiagnosed and misunderstood.
Oftentimes media that has been dubbed an example of the Manic Pixie Dream Boy and Stale White Wonderbread Girl, in my opinion doesn’t fit the trope, as sure the man may act as some sort of saviour but one of the key elements of the MPDG/SWWB dynamic is that the SWWB lacks traits that are traditionally appealing to the female gaze, the dynamic is only there to cater to a male fantasy. In media that has been dubbed an example of the reverse, the woman is often still very far from an “average” woman, and is still written to be appealing to the male fantasy. I’ve seen it suggested that Jack and Rose from Titanic are an example of the reverse, though I’m not sure if I agree. Bare with me, as it’s been absolutely years since I have Titanic though as far as I am aware Rose possesses a great deal of qualities that make her appealing, primarily it is her wealth and beauty that separate her from being “average”. Even in her personality Rose possesses an equal amount of whimsy and charm as does Jack. It has also been suggested that the MPDG/SWWB dynamic is almost like a modern gender-bent version of the fairytale maiden and Prince Charming dynamic. One commenter left the follow opinion on my previous essay “It's crazy because you're saying that the boy is the problem but in reality it's the boys view of the pixie girl that makes her such a lovable character so it's only because of the boys feelings towards the pixie woman that she becomes this magical person and without him seeing her that way she's like a background character. I understand that you'd like to see more of the pixie dream girl but she's a boys dream and that's why she's magical, this is no different than a white knight Saving and princess from a dragon and riding off with her on horse back into the sunset to live happily ever after. What makes the white knight so magical is that he is a woman's dream but you don't hear us guys making videos of how the white knight needs his own story apart from the princess he saves now do you??” Firstly, the lovability of female characters is not dependent on being filtered through a male gaze… that should be obvious. The imagination of men is not what makes the stories and lives of women interesting. Secondly, men don’t need to make essays about how the knight needs his own story apart from the princess he saves because they exist. In abundance actually. Probably more so than the princess stories where the knight saves her. It’s called the hero's journey, and that format makes up the vast majority of stories told in popularized media.
Whilst I understand the comparison of the SWWB/MPDG dynamic to the hero and damsel dynamic as they both enforce a saviour dynamic, I don’t agree that they are parallel to one another. The women in fairytales are typically not average girls. Even when they are represented as peasant girls in the case of Belle for example, they possess a striking and unattainable beauty. Usually that is the first thing that is described after Once Upon a Time… “Once Upon a Time… there was a beautiful young girl”. And in fact, these characters already have archetypes they fall into, the maidens within fairytales are emblematic of the ingenue archetype. The ingenue archetype is characterized by attributes that make a good wife in accordance with traditional male values within puritanical culture. The ingenue is characterized by youth, innocence, beauty, and chastity. In these fairytales the male love interest and female love interest typically both possess attributes that are appealing to traditional standards of masculinity and femininity. And even when these stories are shifted to be a hero's journey, and told from the perspective of the hero, the maiden stays the same in her qualities. Whereas if you were to take a Manic Pixie Dream Girl and write a story from her perspective it is unlikely that her fantasy would entail someone with similar attributes as the Stale White WonderBread Boy. This is because many fairytales are written by men and projects another male fantasy in the depiction of women. If you watch any alpha male bro podcast they will list the characteristics of the Ingenue as the characteristics in which they seek out in a wife, qualities such as chastity, youth, purity, and innocence, which is no coincidence.
Additionally in films where it is an “average” girl crushing on a guy seemingly out of her league, she is often forced to undergo a transformation of sorts in order to appeal to him. Movies such as Cinderella, She’s All That, Pretty Woman, or the most dreaded Allison in The Breakfast Club, all feature women who were incredibly stunning to begin with, undergo a transformation to make them even more appealing to the male gaze. Whereas with the Stale White WonderBread Boy he gets to exist as he is.
Though as I said, I do believe the reverse exists in some capacity. I believe that one of the best examples of the reverse is Twilight. Bella sees Edward as a saviour, and she is a so-called “average” girl. When one looks at the story, it doesn’t really make sense why this 100 year old vampire fell in love with a 16 year old girl. But I think one of the main differences is that Twilight is no stranger to criticism. In fact Twilight got absolutely ripped to shreds for many reasons but one of them being its unrealistic depictions of romance, more so than any SWWB/MPDG story ever has.
I think likely due to the success of Twilight much of YA fiction that was popularized in the 2010s fit into the reverse dynamic. It’s been so long since I’ve consumed a lot of this media so I am definitely willing to stand corrected. But I would say that examples of media that come closest to fitting the reverse dynamic are Triss and Four from Divergent, Hazel and Augustus from The Fault in Our Stars, Clary and Jace from The Mortal Instruments, and Sophie and Howl from Howl's Moving Castle. As I reflect I was often frustrated with the reverse dynamic as well. I remember as a young teen growing so bored with the oversaturation of media for young women where the protagonist would describe themselves as “just an average girl” that I would in some cases close the book and refuse to finish it. I recall going on lengthy rants to my mother in the kitchen about how I don’t want to read about another girl who describes themself as “average” on page 2. In a similar fashion to the media that depicted a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, in these books that had the reverse dynamic I feel as though I likewise gravitated towards women who were not the protagonist. When watching Twilight as a child my favourite character was not Bella but Rosalie, and when I read Shadowhunters my favourite character was not Clary but Isabelle. It's not that there's anything wrong with characters that are so-called “average”, that is not the criticism here, it's just that in so much of this media “average” translated into being flat and under-written. And this was only further accentuated when the characters surrounding the flat protagonist are so colourful. Which was often likewise the case for the Stale White WonderBread Boy.
I additionally think one of the main differences that separates the MPDG/SWWB dynamic to its genderbent parallel is that I feel as though the men are less impacted by portrayals of the Manic Pixie Dream Boy. Men, correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure if men have felt the same pressure to be like Edward Cullen for example in order to make themselves palatable to women. I think the closest thing to this would be the way Twilight and its portrayal of Jacob Black impacted Indigenous men specifically, but that has more to do with the overall fetishization of Indigenous peoples across media less than it has to do with the general depiction of men in a fantastical way.
Additionally it’s interesting that most of the time whilst the MPDG is typically a normal girl that possesses quirks and eccentricities, the male equivalent is often a literal mythical being such as a vampire, werewolf, wizard, or elf. And perhaps this creates a greater degree of separation from reality and fiction. Obviously as a kid I romanticized Edward Cullen and dreamed of having a boyfriend like him but I also knew that wasn’t possible as he was a vampire. Whereas when it comes to characters like Ramona Flowers it is easier to project that fantasy onto real women, as she is closer to reality. I think men are less influenced by these romantic depictions due to the fact that men have far more stories to choose from within media that depicts a vampire, or an elf, or a wizard as not just the love interests but the protagonists of their own story. And so if men want to see men depicted in these mythical roles they are not reliant on consuming the underwritten love interest in order to get this fix. In fact, men often don't engage with this media at all because they don’t need to. My older brother for example loved vampire media, but opted out of watching Twlight because he didn’t need to watch media that was “for girls” in order to consume a vampire story. This is contrary to the experience women have when consuming media that depicts the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. As I stated in my previous essay, many young women and fems gravitated towards the Manic Pixie Dream Girl because it was some of the only representation we had of eccentric, alternative, neurodivergent-coded, women. And so, we didn’t really have the choice of just opting to consume media where this character was the protagonist because it didn’t often exist. I also think men don’t generally care about the so-called “female gaze” and likewise perform for a male gaze, but that's an entirely different essay.
The Manic Pixie Dream Girl x Stale White WonderBread Boy dynamic is, at its root, a criticism of poor writing. Though, this does not mean that every story that features this dynamic is inherently bad. It merely means that it falls into a particular pattern of a particular gaze, that could use some work. In the same way, every film that fails the Bechdel test is not automatically an awful film. I adore many of the films that fall into these tropes. There is so much nuance when discussing gaze, cinema, and tropes though I hope I helped clarify some of the questions raised in my last essay. I hope to see media that depicts Manic-Pixie-Dream-Girl-Esque characters in a way in which she can be the lead, and she can explore her own quirks and neurodivergence without being allocated to a supporting role as a Stale White WonderBread Boy’s fantasy.