Strong Female Characters*

[Hex]

I think it's because we expect men and women to behave differently, and I'd guess -- though I might be wrong -- that male characters can get away with more aggression because we see that as a more masculine trait.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

That's very interesting, @Hex, and got me thinking about my characters. I thought my two MCs were fairly evenly matched, but if I gender-flipped them, I think the female would seem much more flawed than the male.

Is that because we see real women as being less flawed than men? Or fictional ones? Or for some other reason?

Early on @bowler suggested to me that the main character in Abendau should be Karia, not Kare. I'll hit into spoilers for a moment.

Spoiler

A lot of people think that I used a male character because of the torture and wouldn't do the same for a female. I'm not sure, actually - but it would have made a difficult section even more difficult. But the reason I didn't was that I wanted a quintessential chosen one - and they are traditionally male - to shine a light onto that trope. But, also, for the reasons above - Karia being the surviving twin changed everything. Her outlook, her approach to matters. It would have changed even more once the Roamers came into play - as it's made very clear she is closely aligned to them, more than Kare ever was.

So, not just for the gender-led reasons, for me, but character-led. And not much of that was led by what gender they were than their differing personalities and skills.

 

[HareBrain]

I think it's because we expect men and women to behave differently, and I'd guess -- though I might be wrong -- that male characters can get away with more aggression because we see that as a more masculine trait.

I'm not sure it's aggression, though -- in my case, I think Cass is at least as aggressive (though neither is particularly so). But if she took on Orc's flaws, the jealousy and obsession and not listening to good advice would stand out more, I think.

 

[Nick B]

Luckily, Liberator was mostly written before I encountered these types of discussion. Why luckily? Because then I'd have felt we were adding characters to score points or break molds. We weren't, we were writing characters that were true to the story and world we had built. Flawed women? Yep, got those. Strong women? Hell yes. Diverse ethnicities and sexualities? Check. And the same for the men. Strong, weak, broken, fixed, flawed, totaly average, mental and emotional health issues? Yes. Liberator has all of it. And there was never a point when we thought 'hmm, we'd better represent XX people.' What happened, happened, there was never any aim to tick boxes.
I think if we had read much of these discussions earlier, we probably may have avoided certain issues for worry that people would think they where there just to score points.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Jo, I think Kare's role in the first book was very well done. Deliciously grim.

Ahem, don't mean to bang my own drum but this guest blog (by me) literally came out today, about female characters and some inspirations behind a few of mine (mostly historical): Guest Blog: Feminine Muse – Historical Inspirations for Female Characters by Thaddeus White author of Kingdom Asunder

 

[Dan Jones]

Personally, I dislike the term "strong women," for the same reason I dislike the term, "strong men." Much better to have believable men, and believable women. A "strong" character just seems like a code word for "flawless", which is just another way of saying "one-dimensional" to me.

For me, character flaws and strengths are opposite sides of the same coin, and it's what drives conflict. Somebody's "good" points might also lead to fundamental flaws, or perhaps their good points mask their flaws, or compensate for them. For example, in MOW, the character of Nita, the Head of R&D at a robotics company, wants to help improve the plight of women in certain countries by regulating the sex industry and introducing robotic workers to that effect.

However, in her zeal to do this - and she fundamentally believes that she's doing this for the greater good - she is willing to overreach and do things that are, shall we say, not exactly above board. "Ends justifying the means" is a classic case of misplaced character strengths. The fact that she's female herself is neither here nor there, though it might make her arguably more inclined to help other women. She's certainly not a bitch-queen, whatever that is. Conversely, and I hope I'm not being too spoilery here, but once her character flaws (judgment clouded by noble aspiration & ambition) have gotten her into a bad situation, she uses other strengths she has to help resolve the situation.

The other main female POV, Tilda, is much tougher on the outside than Nita, but shows this tough exterior to cover up a soft kernel of vulnerability. Once the soft vulnerability is exposed, she has to draw on other character traits to deal with that. Again, it's character driving plot, which in turn drives and changes character. So is she a strong character? I don't know. She's good at her job, is highly driven (owing to her backstory), and doesn't suffer fools gladly. But it's her desire to get a very particular job done that exposes her to that kernel of vulnerability, which is traumatic for her. So it's her "strengths" that drive her to the situation that causes her character to unravel, and she has to deal with that. IN which case, you could argue that her strengths are her flaws.

To me, asking myself: "is my female (or male, or whatever) character strong enough?" is not as interesting as asking, "why is this character the way s/he is?"

 

[Toby Frost]

I also think we might have a problem where the bad stereotypes about one note female characters have become so derided that there's almost nothing a woman can do in a book without drawing brickbats. Damsels in distress = bad. But kung-fu princesses getting on nearly as badly. And nobody likes vamps. I know there's plenty of reasons to frown at stereotypes but the grumping at male stereotypes doesn't seem to be anything like as much. Of course, its easier to be sanguine about male stereotypes when there's lots in a book. Not so much when there's two or three female stereotypes in the average fantasy.

Good points, I think. Criticising an individual book is very different to criticising the tropes of a genre. Almost everyone can be squashed into some kind of category and some reviewers see it as a kind of sport to put every character into a box. And, let's be honest about this, if someone tries really hard to get you on diversity, they will. It's the nature of the game.

Also, people talk about women (real or fictional) in writing as if it's one single issue. What a single writer creates, what gets published, and who is allowed to participate in publishing, are three different issues. Perhaps related, but different.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think if we had read much of these discussions earlier, we probably may have avoided certain issues for worry that people would think they where there just to score points.

That's interesting, because I'm the reverse - all my main characters were originally written to be male. I even wrote an essay justifying the decision.

However, I was struggling to develop some of those characters to a point where I was happy with them. Eventually, after reading so many discussions on women characters, I decided to flip the gender of the ones I was struggling with.

And suddenly, they came to life and I was able to get far more interesting emotional arcs than I'd planned - not because they were women, but simply because they were simply far more developed.

IMO the issue of "strong" is irrelevant - my focus is whether the characters come across as believably real and interesting.

What's more, if I had originally written those characters as women, I think I would almost certainly have fallen for a string of gender stereotypes and cliches. By writing them as male beforehand I managed to avoid major pitfalls.

2c.

 

[Nick B]

I don't think we have fallen fowl of gender stereotypes or cliches, and most of ndur reviews and feedback talked of well developed, well written characters. Probably easier in an sf world where augmentations, evolution and genetic tampering have very much levelled the gender differences i guess. The characters came about naturaly and evolved as needed.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Oh, I was only speaking for myself - not accusing anyone else of doing so.

 

[Nick B]

I didnt mean to imply you were, sorry. Just expanding on the whole thing. It was totally unplanned on that score.

 

[allmywires]

Blast from the past to see my old thread out here again!

I agree that 'strong female character' is too much of a cliche now - and like said above, it becomes even more obvious when the SFC is one of the very, very few females in the cast anyway. One of my projects lately has been to triple-think every time I introduce a minor character, and if I automatically make them male, to question why I have done that - and whether they can be female instead. The most important part of course is to write female characters like people, not objects - and I very much doubt anyone here is guilty of that anyway, but always worth mentioning, considering some of the (published!!) drivel I have read in the past.

Now my personal challenge is around female friendship - a female friendship in any novel, let alone SFF, is very rare indeed, so I'm focussing on that (aside - anyone seen the Norwegian teen drama Skam? that's the kind of friendship level I'm aiming for!). And a friendship that passes the Bechdel test, of course

 

[The Big Peat]

On the subject of gender swaps - in my very first edit of my very first book, the editor objected to a female character who was very youthful looking and trying to act all authoritative and failing utterly. I believe she may have even used the term "You wouldn't write a male like this would you". In any case, that's exactly what I did. I made the character male. I've no idea what she'd make of it as I never went back to her (bad grammar edits) but I do wonder what she'd have said if I'd done things that way to begin with. I know I intended to put in a lot of people who were not exactly doing their job in a great and professional way - she only ever mentioned the female ones. Not sure what to take away from that. But it does definitely seem there's behaviours that rub people up

Incidentally, the over the top vicious kick-ass female character who couldn't do any part of her job that wasn't fighting went completely uncommented on. Again, not sure why.

Personally, I dislike the term "strong women," for the same reason I dislike the term, "strong men." Much better to have believable men, and believable women. A "strong" character just seems like a code word for "flawless", which is just another way of saying "one-dimensional" to me.

I'd agree its much better to have believable people, but the term is out there and the stereotype forms part of how readers view characters. I don't think people should write to fit these stereotypes - or even completely avoid them - or to do anything other than create interesting characters. But I do think its wise to be aware of the stereotypes to begin with. That goes for all characters really.

I'd love to believe just writing the most interesting characters we can is the answer to the problem and to a certain extent I do - but what were the authors who collectively came up with these stereotypes doing? (Other than working for Hollywood in some cases).

*Revives horse, which had merely lain down for a nap*

No, it was a good point. But what did you want, the Legion d'Honneur?

A conversation mainly I don't know, it seemed to be the right point to make to that post even if I don't like making the same point again and again.

 

[HareBrain]

Now my personal challenge is around female friendship - a female friendship in any novel, let alone SFF, is very rare indeed, so I'm focussing on that (aside - anyone seen the Norwegian teen drama Skam? that's the kind of friendship level I'm aiming for!). And a friendship that passes the Bechdel test, of course

I managed this in TGP (though maybe not in teen drama style) and was pathetically proud of myself for doing so. It was also one of my favourite aspects of the story. Of course I then had to go and ruin it in book 2 ...

 

[Nick B]

The basis for the Liberators getting back together is actualy brought about by an extremely deep, lifelong, female friendship due to one of them being kidnapped. And no, no talk of men.

I had to look up the bechdel test...

 

[Hex]

I'm not sure it's aggression, though -- in my case, I think Cass is at least as aggressive (though neither is particularly so). But if she took on Orc's flaws, the jealousy and obsession and not listening to good advice would stand out more, I think.

I was thinking about that. I sometimes think Cass would be a very sympathetic male character -- all her rough edges would be smoothed away by her being a man. Orc wouldn't work at all as a female character, though.

It seems to me that "writing people" is a great thing to aim for but sometimes male people and female people have different acceptable qualities. Sam in LotR, for example -- would he be a sympathetic female character? and I have the feeling that Anne in Persuasion would be unforgivably passive if she were male.

I suppose we all write within the boundaries of male and female identities, and that includes stereotypes. I find it interesting to wonder how a good male character differs from a good female character, and whether you can just change the personal pronouns and have a character who feels the same to you (and your readers).

 

[The Big Peat]

I suppose we all write within the boundaries of male and female identities, and that includes stereotypes. I find it interesting to wonder how a good male character differs from a good female character, and whether you can just change the personal pronouns and have a character who feels the same to you (and your readers).

Amen to that.

 

[HareBrain]

Orc wouldn't work at all as a female character, though.

That's interesting. Could you say why? I ask because, as the less rational member of the pair, he fills what might be seen as the stereotypically feminine role.

Sam in LotR, for example -- would he be a sympathetic female character?

I feel the answer you're expecting there is "no" (though I might be wrong), but I think he would, as a quietly self-confident and self-reliant female adventurer type (i.e. not one who feels she has to prove herself all the time). He feels quite neutral in terms of gender.

Incidentally, have there been any couples in SFF in positions similar to Frodo and Sam who have been husband and wife (or long-term partners?)

 

[Hex]

For me, Orc feels like he has a lot of negative female traits -- his lack of rationality being one -- and they work in a man because they're unexpected; in a woman, I suspect, they would be too feminine and (s)he would be easier to disregard because she wouldn't have the underlying importance of being a man. Perhaps it's the context -- the book is so clever and the characters so well considered and complex that a stereotype would fall completely flat.

I have a feeling I would find Sam unbearably subservient as a woman, completely focused on Frodo's well-being. I wonder if it would feel the same if they were both female -- I think it might work then.

(Note: I don't think men are more important than women, but I think they tend to have more fictional weight, which is perhaps part of what the thread is about)

 

[The Big Peat]

Maybe Sam would make a good female character, but Frodo and Sam wouldn't make a good male and female pairing of characters?

Incidentally, have there been any couples in SFF in positions similar to Frodo and Sam who have been husband and wife (or long-term partners?)

Some in Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books. You could argue that Rand and Egwene right at the beginning of the Wheel of Time are this. I'm struggling to think of too many though.