Strong Female Characters*

[Anne Lyle]

Another of the stereotypes that annoys me is the warrior woman who is automatically terrible at anything "feminine" - including practical skills like cooking and sewing, which any soldier is likely to have at least a basic grasp of, even if it's only making a stew and mending his horse's bridle. Especially if the world is supposed to be fairly egalitarian and the author is using this skill deficit as shorthand for "not a girly girl", rather than the character herself avoiding such tasks because she fears being singled out as "a girl at heart".

It's one of the reasons I made my tomboy heroine a dresser/costumier at a theatre - she can use the sewing skills she learnt at her mother's knee, but in a professional role that's seen as man's work (i.e. tailoring).

 

[Toby Frost]

First up, I stand by my earlier comment that if someone tries hard enough, any character from any minority/oppressed/not-white-straight-and-male group can be demonstrated to be the product of appalling bigotry on the writer's part. However:

What do you mean by bitch? In a society where women have to wield power through others (almost all pre-modern societies), you end up with the power behind the throne figure (Circe Lannister is the most modern variant), which is a version of The Manipulating Woman, who is traditionally devious and twists honourable men with her wiles, etc. I can imagine this being done perfectly decently, though (Elizabeth 1 comes off as well as someone in those days could), so I don't think this sort of character has to be overtly nasty.

"Snappy" seems to be a standard trait for a woman who does her own thing (the trendy expression is "has agency"). Unfortunately, it tends to make characters look vicious and embittered, and hence weak-seeming. Likewise the female characters who have to have a condition - Aspergers and the like - to absolve them of needing female characteristics, whatever those may be. However, ruling out robots with boobs, there is a huge range of personality types available.

I've written two female characters who I think are pretty good, and two others who are caricatures, but not in the usual way, and work in themselves. I'm pleased to say that they're all quite even-tempered, although the one closest to the stereotype - an attempt to write the thief/assassin stereotype as something other than a male fantasy - had a rather broad depressive streak. None are cruel, although two are really quite bloody.

Of course, without looking into too many dark places, there's the sexual aspect. I do think that if you are going to write good characters you have to be absolutely clear about whether you are going to write a real person or some sort of pin-up, and the reason so many "empowered" female characters feel the need to become empowered via a leather wetsuit and a whip says a lot about the writers (and pretty much de facto makes them rubbish characters). As an aside, anyone who enters battle in either underpants or high heels has a swift, brutal death coming.

Personally, in order to keep away from the "bitch" label, I would avoid impractical outfits, overt bad temper, treating all men like infants (Eddings!), disliking other women and anything suggesting sexual oddity. Oh, and doing anything seductive to get one's way really makes a character look cheap. There was a thread a while back criticising the Wheel of Time for its females - it might be worth searching for "Wotism" on the forums.

EDIT:

and here it is: http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/11424-lets-coin-a-new-term-wotism.html

 

[Anne Lyle]

...the reason so many "empowered" female characters feel the need to become empowered via a leather wetsuit and a whip says a lot about the writers (and pretty much de facto makes them rubbish characters).

Which is exactly why so many women viewers had a problem with Irene Adler in the recent series of "Sherlock". The writers turned her from an opera singer into a dominatrix (who likes walking around her house naked) - ironic that the Victorian original was less of a sexist stereotype than her 21st century copy!

 

[allmywires]

Toby: I'd say that a 'bitch' is a woman who appears cold and unfeeling, is willing to do anything to further herself in the world, doesn't make friends easily, and the ones she does she's willing to sell out for her own means.

Anne: God, Irene was awful in that adaptation, and it only furthers my belief that Moffat and Gatiss have serious problems with writing female characters (Moffat in particular. Don't get me started on Dr Who).

It's really hard to find a good female-female friendship in literature. I was thinking about this earlier, and realised that my female characters count men as their closest friends and allies. I think I might try and remedy that later on in the series.

 

[Anne Lyle]

I was thinking about this earlier, and realised that my female characters count men as their closest friends and allies.

Same here - but that's my fault for "writing what I know"

 

[HoopyFrood]

When I was writing my film script, my housemate would corner me with the Bechdel test.

Which goes as follows: More than two females in a film? Do they talk to each other? And do they talk about something other than a man.

Unsurprisingly, there are a fair few Hollywood films that fail the test.

(Check out the link to see just how many)

Oh, and fortunately my film did pass. All three

 

[Ursa major]

True...but isn't the onus on us to turn those stereotypes around? I've always thought of SF/F as a medium for commenting on modern-day life, or government, or whatever, by taking that template and transporting it to an unfamiliar setting: without the trappings of familiarity, one is better places to pass rational judgement on the perceived wrongs of society. (Whoa, that was a bit deep...)

To be fair, our first duty is not to write stereotypical characters. (Easier said than done. )

As for turning those stereotypes around (or on their heads**), the danger will be that the stereotype is still there (albeit reversed) and so is unlikely to describe someone who should be real to the readers. I'd rather read about characters that are meant to be real than cardboard cutouts resulting from:

1. laziness and/or lack of insight (for the off-the shelf stereotypes);
2. a wish on the part of the author to educate me about how one sort of stereotype is bad but another is, by implication, not so (for the "improved" stereotypes).

All of which boils down to: each of our characters should be an individual and not simply the embodiment and/or representative of this or that group.



** - If they're from Down Under.

 

[alchemist]

Now I'm getting worried. Can't I just write a female character with characteristics like intelligent/stupid, confident/anxious, leader/follower (or somewhere in the middle on all three) without having to consider whether I'm conforming to the original malewriter damsel in distress stereotype or the counter (bitch) stereotype? Just like I write men.

Are modern portrayals of females really all that bad? Surely there are many portrayals of women by men that don't seem to fall into a stereotype. Or maybe I need to read some GRRM to see what people are talking about.

BTW Mouse, if you need readers for that story, you know where I am.

 

[MstrTal]

Now I'm getting worried. Can't I just write a female character with characteristics like intelligent/stupid, confident/anxious, leader/follower (or somewhere in the middle on all three) without having to consider whether I'm conforming to the original malewriter damsel in distress stereotype or the counter (bitch) stereotype? Just like I write men.

Are modern portrayals of females really all that bad? Surely there are many portrayals of women by men that don't seem to fall into a stereotype.

Having just taken "Modern History of European Women" this last term I can give you a quick and dirty awnser to these queries. Depending on the level of Feminist who reads your questions. . .

Yes,
No,
Don't you Dare Submit to the Enslavement of the Male Oppressors!


I my self have been struggling with the question of using a Female Protagonist as my main in my current WIP. I just do not feel confidant that I can pull it off without falling into stereotype or caricature. Having had a rather interesting and unique upbringing my personal perspective regarding women is a little um skewed so I am not sure I can pull off vulnerable/strong and driven/lost paradigm without making her a nutcase.

 

[Mouse]

It's really hard to find a good female-female friendship in literature. I was thinking about this earlier, and realised that my female characters count men as their closest friends and allies. I think I might try and remedy that later on in the series.

God, you know, I'd never thought of that! It's true and I don't have them in any of my stories either! In my YA stuff, my main girly's best friend was a guy. In my current WiP the two best mates are guys.

Oh Oh! Just remembered... in my abandoned-for-now-because-all-the-POV-characters-were-women-and-it-bored-me novel, I did have two girls who were best mates.

BTW Mouse, if you need readers for that story, you know where I am.

Ha!

--

I was thinking about this earlier at work, when I say 'strong' female character I'm not talking about physical strength. I think that's where quite a few people go wrong, they think strong means that she can handle herself. For me, a strong character, male or female, is just one with a personality - something which a lot of female characters seem to lack.

In one of my short stories the main character is a ditzy, vapid woman who totters around in high heels and happily sleeps with a guy who used to be a frog, just because she wants to be a princess. She's not 'kick-ass,' she's not a warrior woman, she's not a science babe - she's an idiot. But she has personality.

edited to add: A bitch, to me, is someone cold hearted and cruel.

 

[Anne Lyle]

Are modern portrayals of females really all that bad? Surely there are many portrayals of women by men that don't seem to fall into a stereotype. Or maybe I need to read some GRRM to see what people are talking about.

As has been mentioned earlier, if you want to read awesome female characters written by a man, read Terry Pratchett. Not a single stereotype to be seen (except in the first couple of books where he's sending up a lot of classic fantasies like Conan and the Pern novels). I'd recommend:

* Wyrd Sisters
* Witches Abroad
* Lords and Ladies
* Monstrous Regiment

for starters.

GRRM is better than most epic fantasy authors, but falls way behind Pratchett in this respect.

 

[allmywires]

For me, a strong character, male or female, is just one with a personality - something which a lot of female characters seem to lack.

I think that's right. Women often aren't written with the dearth of emotional problems/repressed feelings/societal pressures that men are. And often if they are, their personality comes from the struggle of simply being a woman, which I don't really like. Yeah, I get it, you're a woman. Life is hard. Can't they have other burdens?

As has been mentioned earlier, if you want to read awesome female characters written by a man, read Terry Pratchett.

I absolutely love Pratchett's women. Lady Sybil, Angua, and Granny Weatherwax particular favourites of mine!

 

[Sho Pi]

Actually when I write, my female characters will generally be strong without being a bitch and able to respect those men that deserve her respect. My problem is much more in keeping these women feminine. I'm a guy and I'm probably missing subtleties here and there. Maybe, I've watched too much Xena Warrior princess when I was young.

 

[Boneman]

Paul Muad'Dib's mother Jessica? Not a stereotype, and not a bitch, either... Of course if you really want to see stereotypical bitches, you should read the Sword of Truth series... there you find stereotypical writing as well...

 

[Anne Lyle]

It does seem to be a particular problem of epic fantasy, perhaps because of the high percentage of male writers (and the greater odds, therefore, of failure). Even there, the female characters range from dreadful (Robert Jordan) to really not too bad (Joe Abercrombie) to mostly pretty good (GRRM).

I have to say that I prefer books with few women in to ones with badly written women - writers like Joe Abercrombie, Douglas Hulick and Richard Morgan have only one or two significant female characters per book, but they make them count.

 

[Mouse]

Ok, I've finally read the article in AMW's first post - admittedly, not all of it. Me + lots of words on a screen = no.

And... it kinda sounds like he's writing the same character in everything. He even sort of says it himself when he's describing the type of woman he writes. I've not read anything by him, so can't judge, but from what he says it doesn't sound overly impressive to me.

I do agree with a lot of what he says, but like I said earlier, 'strong female' obviously doesn't mean the same to me as it does to matey.

Also, why aren't there things like this about men? How not to write a stereotypical man? (What is that, by the way? Drinks beer, watches football, scratches arse? Or Conan the Barbarian, I suppose, for fantasy? No idea).

 

[HoopyFrood]

I can't comment on his novels, but he's been much needed in comics.

Last year a woman dressed as Batgirl stood up and asked DC panellists about the lack of female characters and creators in their company (and in the industry in general). She received dismissive, mocking answers and was booed by the crowd because of it. The reboot of the DC Universe in September has done a little bit of good in addressing different groups, but in the wider picture they still have a hell of a way to go with women.

And I think out of all the media, comics are up there as massive wish fulfilment, people longing to be the heroes they see and read about on those pages. Yeah, girls can want to be Batman or the Flash or Green Lantern, but there's been limited female characters to look up to. So if Rucka does tend to write a similar type of woman, it's a type that's precious to female readers as we finally have women who aren't at the sidelines, aren't introduced to later be put into refrigerators, aren't merely objects to be looked at. They can even lead their own titles!

And I think it's more of a basis then an out-and-out type that he reuses every time. I haven't delved into all of the characters he's had chance to write, but as I say, he helped shape one of my all time favourite women, Batwoman, making her into the awesome, military-trained, lesbian, not-afraid-to-be-sexual (and so much more) character that I, and many other female comic readers, adore (which I personally know, from the passionate followers I have on the blog I run about her ). And J.H Williams III and W. Haden Blackman are doing a damn fine job of keeping her that way.

Yeah, I'm heavily into comics. And in the comic blogosphere at the moment, there are a lot of vocal women readers who are fighting for improvement in their representation in the industry.

 

[Mouse]

Women have to be kick-ass in comics though, otherwise they uber-suck.

 

[HoopyFrood]

Yup, we'd just like it with a bit more depth and less boob and butt poses.

 

[Toby Frost]

I was thinking about this, and it occurred to me that often, as has been said, strong woman character = physical hardcase. Of course this doesn't have to be so, since we're talking about credible people, not amazons. However, even within the tough-guy (gal) field, characters seem to move towards the same basic type: tall, hard-talking, skilled particularly in hand-to-hand fighting, and of course both sexually voracious and of non-standard tastes. This seems to me nothing more than a sexual fantasy made into a character. I'd have thought Private Vasquez or Rosie the Riveter would be rather more realistic. Sometimes, perhaps almost always, you can't have sexy and feasible. After all, how would most pirates look after a few years on the high seas? Like Johnny Depp? I think not.

Compare the old, high-class film noir with a modern imitation such as Sin City. From just one author you get Linda Loring, the Little Sister, Velma and other quality characters, all of whom are tough as nails. From the other, a bunch of tedious pinups.

If people are going to write wish-fulfillment figures and Mary Sues into their writing, they ought to be good enough to realise when they're doing it and to acknowledge that not everyone might share their tastes. I've written characters I'd fancy if they were real, but I know that and don't give them a long list of (allegedly) sexy things to do - for one thing, it wouldn't be funny enough.