Seanan McGuire (seanan_mcguire) wrote,
Seanan McGuire
seanan_mcguire

  • Mood:
  • Music:

Characters, criteria, and causation: where the problem lies.

Friday, The Zoe-Trope posted a really interesting piece titled "Real Girls, Fake Girls, Everybody Hates Girls," which I highly recommend that you go and read before you continue with this post. It's both the background material for some of these thoughts, and more importantly, it's a really solid, thoughtful article about the issues that we, communally, are having with female characters right now. She also coined the lovely term "Sarah Jane" as the opposite of "Mary Sue": an ordinary, flawed, perfectly reasonable character who doesn't warp the universe around her.

Meanwhile, the New Statesman has posted an article titled "I Hate Strong Female Characters," taking the position that male characters are allowed to be flawed, complex, and infinitely interesting, while female characters are expected to stop at "strong." Woo! That character is strong! Flawless feminist writing!

Groan.

I've talked before about the concept of "the Mary Sue," and why I think she is both unfairly maligned and non-existent. You can find that post here, which I think officially makes this the post with the most "required background reading" thus far this year. A lot of people have pointed this out recently—it is not an original thought—but I'm going to put it here anyway, because I think it's salient:

1. Mary Sue is the best she is at what she does.
2. Mary Sue has a mysterious and tortured past, and is probably an orphan.
3. Mary Sue is physically attractive.
4. Mary Sue is either rich or somehow never has a problem with money.
5. Mary Sue develops powers to suit the situation, because she always wins, unless she needs to lose for the sake of beautiful angst.
6. Mary Sue doesn't have to follow the rules of the story she's in. Ergo...
7. Batman and Wolverine are both Mary Sues.

(Pointing this out to people who are piously explaining how only female characters can be Mary Sues, because only female characters are ever that unrealistically written, is hysterical. And by "hysterical," I mean "a really good way to get yelled at by enraged nerds who don't want to admit, even a little bit, that their magical dick-lords could be just as much wish-fulfillment as all those violet-eyed sixteen-year-old ensigns flying starships.")

So. Let us begin.

October "Toby" Daye was in many ways my first "real" protagonist. She was complicated, she was sad, she was bruised and refusing to break, and she was not afraid to put her duty ahead of her desire to be liked. She bullied her way through the world she was created to inhabit, looking at every complication that stood in her way and saying "No, you move." After a lifetime spent moving dolls through stories, it was like I finally had a real person to follow and document. I started writing her adventures, and sending them out to people I trusted to read and review. Midway through either the second or the third book—I don't remember anymore—I got a note from one of my proofers saying "You can't have Toby do this, she's always been a little bitchy, but this makes her a total bitch. No one will like her if she does this."

I panicked. I couldn't write a series about an unlikeable character! I'd never get published, no one else would ever meet my imaginary friends, and everything I'd worked for my whole life would be over, all because Toby was unlikeable.

Then I took a deep breath, and wrote back to the proofer requesting that they do a find/replace on the .doc, and plug in the name "Harry Dresden" for every instance of "October Daye." They did, and lo and behold, what had been "bitchy" and "inappropriate" was suddenly "bold" and "assertive." A male character in the same situation, with the same background, taking the same actions, was completely in the right, justified, and draped with glory. He was a hero. Toby? Toby was an unlikeable bitch.

The proofer withdrew the compliant. I have never forgotten it.

Female characters are expected to be perfect without being perfect, a contradiction that is as nonsensical as it is impossible. There's a full list in the article I linked above ("I Hate Strong Female Characters"), but these are the ones that really frustrate me. Female characters have to be:

* Thin and conventionally pretty, but eat only junk food/eat constantly, and never, ever worry about gaining weight;
* Incredibly sexy but unaware of their own sexuality ("You don't know you're beautiful!").
* TOTALLY SURPRISED when a push-up bra or pair of leather pants changes the way people look at them.
* Convinced that every woman around them is a bitch, slut, or whore.

That last one...yeah. See, there's this huge narrative of "I'm not like the other girls" that runs through a lot of these critiques, and it's not "I'm not like..." the way that, say, Harry Potter is not like the other wizards in his year group. No, it's "You Belong With Me"-level "she wears high heels, I wear sneakers" shit, totally denying that the other girls could have anything of value to bring to the conversation. It's like being a member of the Disney Princess collection. You can't let those other princesses steal your spotlight, no! Ignore them, shame them, refuse to make eye contact. Call a girl who wears the same thing you do a skank, it's okay. Call a girl who's had two boyfriends a slut, even as you dance at the center of your own love pentagon. It's all fine, because you're not like those other girls. By creating a single focal point of "not like" that it's okay to care about, you place the rest of the world's female humans in a box labeled "icky." Not-like girls are great. They're strong female characters, they kick ass and take names and eat cheeseburgers and don't give a damn what the world thinks of them. All other girls are gross.

The amount of slut-shaming, fat-shaming, you-name-it-shaming that I see coming from these "strong female characters" is horrifying, because it requires that othering aspect be front and center. Your character must be above reproach, and since everyone knows that women are disgusting, horrifying, alien skin lizards wearing pretty makeup and hair dye to deceive and entrap men, she can't be like them. She can never be like those other girls.

I flip out when I meet a female character who's allowed to have female friends, because it's so damn rare. The upcoming Disney film, Frozen, has sisters in it. Sisters. Who get to be the same age and talk and stuff. I am ecstatic, because even if the movie turns out to be a sack of problematic eels, we got sisters on the goddamn screen, and that's even rarer than friends.

Where does this come from? Well, in part, it comes from the things we surround ourselves with. Books and movies where the Smurfette Principle is in full effect, which means that one woman must stand in for all women, and thus can't have a personality beyond "the girl." Series where you have the one sensible, sympathetic female, and every other female character is there to cause trouble or gasp no oh no panic, steal her man. Series where the female characters are killed off to further male pain, or because the male characters are "easier to write" (a statement that often matches up to an all-male writer's room).

It needs to stop.

Female characters should be people. Flawed, glorious, interesting, enthralling people. Let them dye their hair and pierce their ears without going "wah wah wah I'm so bad at being a girl wait hey look suddenly I've gotten a makeover and I'm gorgeous." Let them have female friends. Let them fuck up. Let them have bad days, and swear, and be snotty, and be people. Stop shoving them into these boxes where anything less than perfect adherence to a set of ticky-boxes means failure. They are better than that. We are better than that.

It's time for everybody's standards to look the same.
Tags: contemplation, cranky blonde is cranky, writing
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 188 comments
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →
Well I can assure you that in one sense only, this isn't sexist: sitting in writing workshops I've seen the same damaged viewpoints about female characters come back to both male and female writers. In this, it doesn't matter what sex the writer is, it matters the sex of the character. (not much help huh?)

I did the same trick as you did: changing up character's sexes, and I saw the exact same effect. I used to do this a lot -- I had two readers who I routinely swapped the sexes around because I knew their mind bent. Recently I've decided that I've learned what I needed from the experience and I stopped bothering. I like female characters, and I like them strong and weak, resilient and fragile, extreme and practical, etc.

I would like to say how much I *HEART* you for creating the truly equal partnership of Georgia and Shaun. I really hate news, and I am so blah about zombies, but those two characters: their love, their weaknesses, their connection... all drew me in against myself. I loved those books, but more than anything I loved them. I really am bleh about urban fiction too but Toby's on my stack to read now too just because of reading your blog and wanting more of your characters. Thank you for writing the characters you love, instead of what someone else wants you to write.

This situation with lively women-hating expressions from "supporters" every day is really frustrating me. I am completely blown away by how many people who I thought to be clueful in nature are failing to understand the effect of what they say. How their expressions are demeaning, and their "advice" is to take away the choices of the women around them.

I can't understand. The only possible motivation I can understand in this: we are living in a time of changing context. Women are !!FINALLY!! being seen as "more equal" (sigh) and standing with us in all things. (YAY!) We (men) are perhaps afraid of being an ass, and trying to push down or control things for which we don't know quite properly how to respond. Without the emotional context to realize that every time we push these things away, we are exerting control over / diminishing the women in our lives. (which makes me want to shake the piss out of people, because yeah I'm subtle)

--obviously ignoring the men who are deliberately being an ass, for whom I'd be willing to create a Christian Hell for them to reside in.
The proofer who made that statement was a woman. I do think this is a misogyny thing, but sadly, most of the women I know, myself included, have internalized at least some misogyny, and it frequently results in the "not like those other girls" syndrome.

I'm so glad you liked Georgia and Shaun. That was all I ever wanted.
On the topic of female relatives... When I watched Brave, I get that the kid was supposed to be the main character, but, honestly, I was rooting for the mom. (Had similar issues with Little Mermaid II; c'mon, let's see more MOM-focus here!)

This may reflect some bias on my part. >_>
The mother taught an important lesson: Stories are important! History is made of stories. I can totally go for that.

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

Saving this post as encouragement that I'm doing something right. I sometimes worry. Okay, I worry a lot.
Worrying is good; it keeps us honest.

But I believe that you can be amazing.
I very much thank you for linking that first piece. As it sums up so much of what I see in fandom that irritates the heck out of me. And while I do know I'm not alone, it's nice to see the thought spoken by others, so I really know I'm not alone. I would love it if people could read things like that and this post and have it change their minds even a little; although I am not holding out hope for that. I will take my solace in remembering that I am not alone.

Deleted comment

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

I do not disagree with what you are saying.
However, I very much disagree with how you are saying it.
First off, Mary Sue characters do exist. There is a reason the term has become a cliche'. Though I am generally loathe to cite Wikipedia for anything, it seems appropriate here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue
Second, I think the definition you present of a "Mary Sue" is so broad as to be meaningless; I mean, sure, it describes Bruce Wayne and Wolverine. It also describes nearly every superhero character in popular fiction.
This is not to say you are wrong. Far from it. However, I think your argument is flawed.
The difference between your definition and Seanan's is that you are working with the original definition, while Seanan is looking at the much looser one which is used primarily to dismiss characters with minimal effort.

Consider paragraph three in the Criticism section of the Wikipedia article. That's what "Mary Sue" has become. She's so threatening to authors that some people won't even try to write female characters. And that definition of Mary Sue has exactly the flaws that you're concerned about. This does not stop people from using it to criticize fiction.

If Seanan's argument is flawed, it is only because she is exposing the flaws in the definition created by idiots to justify their own statements.

mariadkins

3 years ago

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

coffeedaiv

3 years ago

dulcimeoww

August 20 2013, 06:15:05 UTC 3 years ago Edited:  August 20 2013, 06:36:32 UTC

The point about Batman is part of the panel my husband and I do, called "How to Write Tropes, Clichés, and Mary Sues... And Get Away With It."

Strangely, our audiences never fail to point out some of the best known male Mary Sues. Maybe it's the vibe.

Edit: Or I guess it could just be that the audiences at the panels are usually fans. One thing Poe actually does exceedingly well is write female characters who are genuine people, so maybe our panel audiences are already primed to appreciate that and think outside the mold. I think a lot of webcomic readers are, really.
Batman is brain candy.

He's the mental equivalent of Fritos. October Daye or Rachel Morgan or Odd Thomas, those are steak dinners.

drcpunk

3 years ago

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

I want to frame this. Thank you.
And thank you for Toby and May and the Luidaeg and Luna and....
This story about this Proofer really baffles me, there isn't even a second where I thought that Toby acted "bitchy", she is just...Toby? A Person? Who has to deal with a lot of shit? Who is awesome?

@ Sisters and Friends
A reason why I'm happy I stumbled over "Earth Girl". It's YA, it's SciFi and it has a female protagonist whose BFF is a girl. She wants to hate this other perfect girl because she is perfect, but she just can't and all the troupes I know from other books are pointed out and twisted into something great. No slut-shaming, no fat-shaming, no shaming at all and I'm so angry that this is so rare (especially with YA speculative fiction) that I'm acting like I found a treasuere chest. How sad is that?

mariadkins

August 20 2013, 21:54:50 UTC 3 years ago Edited:  August 20 2013, 21:57:27 UTC

it makes me wonder where this all goes back to, and it's something i think about a lot.

because it seems as girls/women, we learn at a very early age that the only way to make it through our lives is to cut other girls/women around us to absolute pieces. we don't support each other. we don't lift each other up. we grind each other into the mud and use those we've knocked over as stepping stones in the process of going on and not looking back.

i've seen boys cut each other down - and they've always usually been laughing and smiling the entire time; "it's okay bro, we're cool". but i've never seen them treat each other the way girls treat other girls. though i could be horribly wrong. but i have always had more male friends than female friends. (but in truth, i just won't allow myself around anyone, regardless of chromosomes, who treats other people that poorly, and most of the girls/women i've ever known have been downright cruel in many ways)

why and how did we ever start behaving like this?

linfer

3 years ago

mariadkins

3 years ago

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

drcpunk

August 20 2013, 12:31:25 UTC 3 years ago Edited:  August 20 2013, 13:44:17 UTC

I liked Sarah Jane better when I finally saw her in the Pertwee episodes, where she came across as a flawed adult, rather than a somewhat childish woman, and I loved her in "Class Reunion", which I wish had taken the Hugo, rather than "Girl in the Fireplace". (I also love Jo Grant.)

One thing I don't like about "One Small Boat" is the "not like" part. All the other girls are "empty", and clearly unworthy. Sigh.

I am also tired of a trope agrumer named when Star Trek: The Next Generation first ran: "She comes from the Planet of Strong Women Who Fall Apart at the First Sign of Pressure".

When I did my dissertation on modern Arthuriana, I was surprised at the hate for T. H. White's Guinevere, whom he explained was a Real Person, therefore hard to write about, not perfect, not consistent, and stuck in a role too small for her. But, apparently, she is proof for some that he couldn't write a good Guinevere.

I'm a fan of Leila Kalomi, who, after losing Spock, and is herself for the first time since we saw her, manages to make a joke through her tears. No, that doesn't "earn" her Spock (people are not "earned"!), but it does get my respect.


I miss Sarah Jane.

trialia

3 years ago

Harry Dresden is a moron. A noble, heroic wizard I'd gladly call when things go bump in the night but still...a moron much the same.

He's too in love with his own power to realize it has consequences past the next full moon.
And he keeps getting in deeper and deeper shit because of it. The author has been pretty good at enforcing the consequences of Harry's flaws.... I consider Jim Butcher one of my favorite storytellers, up there with Seanan, Louis L'Amour and ERB.

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

lots42

3 years ago

I don't feel as though I encounter the term "Mary-Sue" regarding original fiction all that much. I certainly notice some heroines in my Fantasy/Paranormal Romance books that don't seem to have much going for them *until* some dark and handsome stranger takes an interest in them. But I just take it as a plot device and move on. Strong female characters in books are wonderful and, just that. Characters.

Honestly, Anita Blake is the only character I've ever read that I will point to and vehemently yell, "Mary-Sue! Horrible, dreadful Mary-Sue!" and only because I loved her for *so long* and LKH goes out of her way to make every other female character in the books either a slut, bitch, or evil. Except the ones that kneel at Anita's feet. Those ones are cool to LKH.

Blech.
Yeah - I rather liked the first what was it 5 Anita Blake books?

mariadkins

3 years ago

drcpunk

3 years ago

themysteriousg

3 years ago

tibicina

3 years ago

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

Deleted comment

You are absolutely welcome to quote or use anything you like. :)

Deleted comment

"Female characters should be people. Flawed, glorious, interesting, enthralling people."

Hell yeah! They're much more interesting to write than these porcelain statues. This girl here is an engineer, drinks horrible stuff, works hard, gives good advice, doesn't take shit from anyone, enjoys herself, gets shot and nearly dies, has sex with loads of people (for points), prefers to sleep with her love, loses him (he's killed), takes a horrible revenge, regrets it, finds new love, and in the end gets married. Another one of my girls is the spoilt brat daughter of a nobleman, tries to run off with a soldier, gets sent of where she learns to hunt, learns to love, gets vomitously drunk the first night she's out from under the watchful eyes of her family, and ends up with a (luckily non-permanent) tattoo on her face. Another one is a permanent sugar-rush of a sword fighter, gets bullied at school, kicks the shit out of the bullies and gets beaten for it by the head master, fights with her brother, hates parsnips, loves her brother, would die for her little adopted sister, gets her heart broken and glued together again.

They are very far from perfect. They are incredibly fun to write. And it's not even that hard to write them. They get to do things decent folk never get to.
People are so much more fun to write than ideals.
And this...in a nutshell..is why you are on the move to top of reading pile at every release.

Not necessarily just because of complex female characters, but complex characters overall!

Thank you.

<3

Deleted comment

I love it but it also makes me cringe, because that attitude is so prevalent.
No time to read in full (classes start next Monday OMG), but am loving it (been saying for years that Kirk and Wesley Crusher were both totes Gary Stus)--and thank you for the link to Zoe-Trope as well!--it's incredible. And new books to read.

(Am LOVING LOVING LOVING LOVING your INDEXING btw).
Yay books!
"Female characters should be people."

Bingo. Sometimes they are strong, sometimes not. Sometimes smart, sometimes not. We are all individuals. And we are ALL flawed. And we are all amazing.
Yes.

Yes, we are.
Yes, please. Stop coming up with excuses to hate on characters. If the writing is bad, fine -- but far too often, these things become a way to justify our internalized sexism (or other types of -ism).
YES.
The proofer withdrew the compliant. I have never forgotten it

And likely never will. I had one reader, who writes horror, who absolutely abhored my Sami to the point he couldn't finish the story. He read maybe a third of it. Sami is seriously flawed. She grew up abused, had the abusive boyfriend, soul-deep psychological and physical scars, etc, etc. She whines too much. She cries too much. She fucks up a lot because, really, she doesn't know much of anything else. Well, yeah, she also had to learn how to get over herself and her pain and her past and find her place in the world - and in her own skin. yada yada yada. Keep reading, and all that unfolds.

But yes, this reader told me this about ten years ago, and I still can't get it out of my head. One person. I suppose that's all it takes.

Your character must be above reproach

Okay, that made me literally laugh out loud.

It needs to stop
It's time for everybody's standards to look the same.

Yup. :D
She whines too much. She cries too much. She fucks up a lot because, really, she doesn't know much of anything else.

I had a bit of an epiphany last week while trying to explain the evolution of the Sailor V and Sailor Moon stories to someone who was only somewhat familiar with them. I said something along the lines of, "Sailor Moon is a clumsy crybaby but she's more interesting because she's learning to be a hero in spite of her natural (in many ways sensible!) inclination to run away and have nothing whatsoever to do with monsters and mayhem. I can see why her story endured while her predecessor, Sailor V The Nominally More Traditional Action Hero, was moved into a supporting role."

(I'm still on my full-series rewatch... partway through the Doom Tree episodes... I'll get there eventually...)

drcpunk

3 years ago

mariadkins

3 years ago

mariadkins

3 years ago

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

mariadkins

3 years ago

User meret referenced to your post from Characters, criteria, and causation: where the problem lies. saying: [...] Originally posted by at Characters, criteria, and causation: where the problem lies. [...]
Ah, Gary Stu. Yes, he does exist too. LOL

The one thing I would dearly love to see in a young adult fantasy (as it only really seems to come up in those books, though I think it probably does happen in more "adult" fantasies and such as well), is a girl protagonist who absolutely does not hate embroidery. What the heck is wrong with liking to sew? I ride horses and I love to cross stitch. My mum works outside all day and comes in and does lace work with a tiny crochet needle. You don't have to hate needlework to be a "tomboy" and it always makes me sigh that yet again another girl "hates embroidery." It should be called emo-broidery at this rate.

I'm not a girly girl by a long shot, and I like to do it. Let's be a little realistic here, please, and not dismiss all "female" pursuits out of hand because it makes you "weak" and "feminine." Stab that SOB that tries to kidnap you with a pair of sewing scissors for goodness' sake. Feminine pursuits do not make you weak, and it doesn't meant you cant' still go out and kick ass afterward.
Have you read Tamora Pierce's Circle of Magic books? If not, you should absolutely go get them right now.

thedragonweaver

3 years ago

Yeah, boy howdy. Sexism: It's an actual thing. Who knew! (Besides all of us, anyway.)

Sigh. (But god yes, and thank you, and let us please be gentle with ourselves as we all of us uproot internalized sexism. Damn slow process.)
It takes time.
Back when I was in college, I wrote a short story for a fiction writing workshop about a woman whose marriage is falling apart. She meets a man on a bus and thinks about running away with him. She just *thinks* about it; she doesn't even *do* anything. Several of the readers--male readers in particular--commented on what a terrible, horrible character she was, because how dare she consider cheating on her husband! I got a lot of ire and indignation from the men (all college-aged males) in the workshop. And I kept thinking that this kind of thing happens all the time in real life, that real people struggle with failing marriages and the possibility of "what if," and why is it so problematic to write about it?

Fast forward to the present. I'm writing a novel in which the protagonist actually *does* cheat on her husband. Now, there's a lot of other things going on: he's a mad scientist who continually chooses his work over her, she didn't marry him for love in the first place, and she ends up falling in love with one of his "creations." (It's a very weird story.) But as I've been writing, I keep worrying that people will dislike her because she cheats on her husband. The husband kills people for use in his experiments, but I'm worried people will dislike *her?* And even if they do, why should I be obligated to make everyone like my protagonist?
People will dislike her.

Fuck those people.
I had my issues with the New Statesman piece because--like, a huge paragraph on how Hayley Atwell's character in Captain America is kind of terrible just made me sad to read, specially as she is the only lady with a big part in the whole movie (which of course, is one of the problems, as indeed the NS piece pointed out).

I'd rather have seen more of 'If they'd added this and this and this, she would've been better and richer--plus if we'd had Tony Stark's Brilliant Scientist Mom instead of Dad, or fleshed out the Random Hottie--who was played by NATALIE DORMER, so would have made any material she was given awesome, her character would not be put under this microscope.' Because, like, Steve's character doesn't have to be dissected this way--if you don't like him there's Bucky or Stark or Scientist Dude. (I mean, I also know it's historical military, but it's not like there're many more women in the modern movies.

It's tricky because I feel like I so often see useful criticism taken an extra step that leads to a dark place--e.g. all YA is terrible (and it is flawed, but also it seems there's a sometimes-unconscious attitude that it's girly stuff, so double contemptible, while boy books or adult books with even more flaws get a pass or at least just benignly ignored since there's so much of it--much like all the dude characters of Captain America), or the attitude of 'I'd like female characters but not THAT female character or oddly almost any of them...but for feminist reasons.'

It's tricky, because I want to see discussion of flaws that DO SUPER EXIST and should be discussed, but I do not want it to lead to a place of people being like 'welp, having no ladies actually seems easier/better/might actually be more feminist!'

More and varied ladies, is the ultimate conclusion we both reach, of course. Seems so simple! And yet, wherefore is it?

ontogenesis

August 22 2013, 06:37:58 UTC 3 years ago Edited:  August 22 2013, 06:40:00 UTC

Hi Sarah!! You may also note how terrified the studio execs are acting lately when anyone asks them about a superhero movie starring WONDER WOMAN -- they're completely cool with movies starring second-string male heroes like Green Lantern, some crazy raccoon with guns (kid you not), and Ant Man, but take one of the world's most iconic, recognizable FEMALE heroes, and suddenly they have no appetite for "risk." Because you know, Cat Woman (with Halle Berry) failed, not because the movie was terribly written, sexist, and had little understanding of the real Cat Woman... but because it starred a woman.

Seanan: interesting timing, you mentioning the Harry Dresden bit. I just reread one of the novels last night, and while it's good for what it is (fun, action-packed, page-turner with a nice dose of "let's whump the hell out of poor Harry"), Harry is a TOTAL "Gary Stu." I seriously doubt "Harriet Dresden" would be allowed to make such poor life decisions, live in a messy apartment, misunderstand / distrust all her male friends and withhold information to "protect them", respond with violence in 90% of situations, size up every male character sexually, and still manage to come out on top in the end. Harriet would be criticized.

I note that I have no problem with "Harry Dresden" and the author (OK, I do find the female sexualization a bit skivvy, but YMMV). My only issue in the context of this discussion is that -- as Seanan pointed out -- Harry gets a pass, Harriet doesn't.

sarahtales

3 years ago

seanan_mcguire

3 years ago

User agentclaudia referenced to your post from Some Thoughts on Wish Fulfillment and Mary Sues saying: [...] and Seanan McGuire [...]
As an aspiring writer, thank you for this.
You are very welcome.
Previous
← Ctrl ← Alt
Next
Ctrl → Alt →