Strong Female Characters*

[Kylara]

Mmm I can't play cricket any more Used to be deep fielder with a huge throw, now however my hand spasms and the ball falls pathetically in front of me, amusing though...another interesting side effect of ripped tendons is using a mouse - can't click with the tip of your finger for long, else your hand stops working, you have to use the length of it to click down...hand to buy a load of new mice to deal with that one! Ouch MstrTal unlucky! The most important digits too...and I thought I had it hard trying to find decent lefty guns...

 

[juelz4sure]

I'm working on my first true WIP and there are a few women in the book, two are the bad guys, one a beautiful nymph who uses her body to lure creatures into her lair and build her army. The other is a lying, keniving bi*ch. I chose to have those characters as women for a few reasons I like the idea of having strong women who uses what they have at their disposal. there are male bad guys as well but certain roles are best played by women. I don't know if that answered your question sorry.

 

[kshRox]

*kudos to anyone who gets the Kate Beaton reference.

I come with this article from io9.com: http://io9.com/5912366/why-i-write-strong-female-characters

Somewhat of a long read, but worthwhile. A male author talking about his characters, specifically, his Strong Female Characters, and how people often comment upon it. To quote: 'Why do [male authors] default to a shorthand, lazy equation, where strong equals b*tch?'

So my real question to you is: when you're writing your female characters, do you take special consideration of them because of their gender? Do you find it easier to write men or women, and is that because you identify more with your own gender? DO you avoid the damsel in distress trope, or do you embrace its value to the story?

And do you default to 'strong = b*tch', whether consciously or unconsciously?

I think it is gender bias to attribute this only to male authors. I believe a more correct phrasing would be 'why do many authors default to a shorthand, lazy equation, where strong equals b*tch?'

Otherwise I believe you engage in a form of mysandry.

I find in the workplace many women themselves are harder on other women than they are men under their supervision and often act as if they equate the worst characteristics of inappropriate type A male behavior as strong when a woman applies these same inappropriate behaviors.

 

[Gumboot]

Would it be possible for you to explain the details of this?

I'm not sure it's something I can easily put in words, but basically the way Hobb presents Fitz's thoughts - how he thinks, what his priorities are, how he comes to decision - just don't ring true.

As I've mentioned elsewhere on this thread, I largely worked in science and IT and I did not see differences between the genders for men and women from that background.

I think you may have misunderstood. What I'm referring to is the character's inner processes, not their exterior behaviour. Obviously you can't know how your coworkers are thinking and what is motivating their actions, only the results.

Like I said, this is something I only take into consideration when writing from a female POV, it's not something that concerns me when observing a female character from a male POV.

And to be clear, I am not trying to make any definitive claim that there is a significant difference, rather my experience with the Farseer books (and others since) suggests to me there might be a difference, and therefore it's something I want to try account for if I can.

 

[Gumboot]

It is of course obvious that there was a great deal terrible misogny from the church, and that the majority of witches killed were women, but it would be a mistake to think of witch finding/crazes as anti-female crusades. It was much more complicated than that.

Actually witch-hunting was mostly a secular activity.


My understanding from academic sources that at least 25% of witches killed were male and these men have tended to be airbrushed out by modern feminist interpretations of what happened.

It should also be noted that the church/(s) really reserved it's main hatred and invoked terrible violence and deaths on other groups of people: heretics & those of different faiths, of which gender played no part whatsoever and far more people were killed (many orders of magnitude, I'd guess). Just look at the 30 years war and what it did to the German states. Probably killed half the population.

The churches shift against women wasn't quite so obvious or dramatic, but it was incredibly pervasive and long-lasting. Women in the early 14th Century had a relatively good place in western society compared to historic cultures. With 200 years that had virtually reversed, and they remained severely repressed until the 19th Century.

It's not that women were victims of wanton slaughter, it's that they were fingered with perpetual guilt because of Eve's "original sin", the cause of all that was wrong in the world (and a LOT was wrong). For an entire society to allow that to happen to half their own population is pretty reprehensible.

 

[Grimbear]

I'm not sure it's something I can easily put in words, but basically the way Hobb presents Fitz's thoughts - how he thinks, what his priorities are, how he comes to decision - just don't ring true.

I agree with that. Difficult to pinpoint why exactly. It was the cumilative result for me at the end of reading all the books. Some things he thought, some things he did.... esp. at the end of the Fool series. But it was definitley cumilative and not one specific thing.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I used to write about young, vulnerable, inexperienced females slowly discovering their inner strength.

In my more recent books the female leads have been a little older, more confident in their abilities. I believe they are strong — I've been told they are strong. They are not girls, or tomboys; they are women. They have strength but they are compassionate. They have good intentions, but they have typical human faults, which can trip them up, but they take responsibility for their own actions. (Which may or may not stop them from making the same mistakes twice.)

So, obviously I don't think a female character has to be a b*tch to be strong.

 

[MstrTal]

I read a lot of contemporary/urban fantasy which has been flooded with women writers over the last few years and now crosses over quite often into paranormal fantasy. With obvious exceptions such as Jim Butcher and the Dresden Files it has really become a female dominated genre with many of the top sellers all being women authors. That said generally speaking the bulk of the protagonists in the field have becomes females. Harrison has Rachel who is an Earth Witch Runner who is also the only non-were member of a werewolf pack and Ivy who is a living vampire. Both strong characters who not b*tches. Both strong characters that bring their own issues to the table from their own inner strength to their own frailties. Patricia Briggs has Mercedes who is a coyote shapeshifter and an auto mechanic that owns her own garage that she purchased off one of the few iron working fae. Again strong willed, not a bitch and yet she has her own issues and inner demons.

In fact if you can get past these and other writers in the genres trend to drool over the male characters abs and buttocks of late you can find a ton of inspiration. In fact if I had one complaint about the recent trend in urban/contemporary fantasy it would be the underlying focus of late on the protagonists love life, lack there of or how sexy the male populous around the female mains tend to be.

 

[Grimbear]

I can't read anything where the main focus is romance. I have no issue with there being a sub-plot of a relationship, but I've seen the books you mention MstrTal and if I were trapped in some desert with nothing but a stack them for entertainment I still wouldn't open one.

sad but true

 

[MstrTal]

Oh the main plot isn't intended to be romance. I guess it is just that my bias is showing and that of late it seems that the urban/contemporary fantasy genre is being more and more often cross pollinated with paranormal romance. Either because the genres are so closely aligned as to crossover or because lazy publishers just shoehorn them together. Of course there is also the sad tendency of a sub-plot overtaking and becoming the main plot in a longer running series.

Take Harrison's Hollows series which I love. yes a sub-plots involving Rachel's relationships but you can easily gloss over the occasional line about another characters rear end due to the fact that ultimately these interactions progress the main plot. Further the series is not centered around these relationships and just use them for plot development. Now Brigg's on the other hand tends to center her Mercedes Thompson books around an initial choice between two male characters as a major sub-plot and when this sub-plot is finally resolved it tends to change the main characters personality. All of the sudden their is more of the stuff you could gloss over before and the books become about the sub-plot and less about the action and while Mercedes is still the title character of the series more time is spent mooning over the male protagonist in her life.

In my opinion, and from kindle as well as nook readers reviews, at least the series took a nose dive and the protagonist went from a strong female character to something rather pathetic who spends to much time worrying about her strong man. Either way I stopped reading the series as it got way to teeny booper paranormal romance for me.

 

[Toby Frost]

I see the point. I remember trying to read one of the True Blood books and being put off by the endless references to the hero's muscles and big hands (seriously). It doesn't sound like much, but it reminds you pretty relentlessly that you're not the intended readership. It also feels slightly porny, as if every time the hero's girlfriend appears the reader is reminded that she has enormous breasts.

As an aside, I also find it odd when everyone in a novel has some sort of special power: is a witch, can change shape etc and yet the setting is at least nominally our world. I always feel sorry for the poor normal people, especially if they don't appear except as "bigoted angry mob". There's no reason why a novel like this can't be good, but finding the good ones probably isn't easy (as with much fantasy of all sorts).

 

[The Big Peat]

I've been musing on this sort of thing and found this thread by accident so here's a few thoughts.

I think one of the problems with representing compelling multi-faceted women in SFF is that very often they'll be the only woman on stage. As such, they frequently end up representations of the entire gender and are too caught up in that to be actual people. The other side of that coin is that if you have the three great warlords of kickasstopia on stage, you have to give them different personalities to make them interesting. The only woman isn't quite so urgent. If there's three women out there of similar age, status and skill, they have to be different. Yes, even in the Wheel of Time.

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.

As for the initial question... strong women are often seen as bitches in the real world. Given that in the real world, most strong people go around proving the point by bullying the less strong, perhaps there is a reason. Perhaps the real question is why strong men (I'm using strong as socially dominant here) aren't seen as peenarses. Yes, there is a shorthand for using excessive responses to demonstrate strength in women in fiction. But I think to a certain extent the problem is that strength is perceived as being antisocial more in women than in men. Although, again, it doesn't help there's probably a bunch of strong men and only a few strong women...

I think what I'm saying is a lot of the thing with strong/'strong' female characters would go if people were writing 6-7 major female characters a book. If nothing else, you'd need to invent a few stereotypes to do so. I also wonder if people would find writing female characters so hard if they were writing so many and were forced to flesh them out properly. Although I say that as someone who's never quite sure what makes a character female and what makes them a guy with female genitalia.

Anyway, to answer the long ago original questions

Yes, I pay extra consideration to women because my experience is that feedback is more likely to negative on my female characters. I don't know whether that's on me or on society giving people weird expectations. Probably both. But if I write a passage where I have characters of both genders generally being unprofessional and immature, I expect to hear about the women but not the men.

Judging from above, I find men easier to write, but they feel equally easy to write at the time.

As for damsel in distress - it would be a shame if no one ever wrote a man rescuing a woman ever again. Slightly odd too. But I think it is one that requires some careful handling. In any case, in all of my numerous projects, I think I only have 4 cases of damsel in distress written or planned. Considering there's about thirty scattered around, that seems reasonable.

Finally, strong = bitch... I don't think I'm best placed to answer that. But I do have a few projects overbrimming with utter jerks, so at times at least, yeah. But does it count if everyone's a jerk?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It's a toughy. I know, in Abendau, Sonly drew more flak than either of the leading men - and I struggle to see where she is any worse than them, other than that some of her actions go against the convention of what we expect for women.

Have I written a damsel in distress? Not really - but Amy in Waters and the Wild draws people into her distress and fear. Have I written an out and out bitch. Well one hissy Empress springs to mind

 

[Phyrebrat]

One of my touchstones for characters of all types is the reboot of Battlestar Galactica. Each one has a strict personality that is different not only from the others but also the way they interact with each other is different. Even walk-ons have a fleshed out backstory which sometimes is brought out in episodes season's later.

TBH, although I tire of comparisons of books with movies and TV (one of the reasons why I'm no fan of Save the Cat), I should confess that I think all of BSG should be compulsory viewing from start to finish for any writer of any genre.

Laura Roslin is a wonderfully drawn, strong female who has no bitchy or snarky side. Starbuck's self-destructive female is so rich with depth and then you have Cylon Caprica 6 who is a character all to herself. Kat's struggle for recognition, Boomer's personal identity struggle, Cally's choice, Tori's Aide, all these female characters have diverse motivations and are wonderfully drawn.

(Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead have some great characterisations, too but they fall within a strict archetypal influence and are so influenced by external events that they are not as nuanced as those of BSG.)

pH

 

[Null_Zone]

I try to avoid Strong Female Characters, it seems a shorthand for dull. Kick-ass all-rounder who can put down a man with just a raised eyebrow and no real flaws.

Writers don't give Strong Female Characters worthwhile flaws, they don't want weakness because of a worry it will attract attention so over compensate. After all look at the difference between generic female detective and cookie cutter male detective. The male will be borderline alcoholic, string of failed marriages, a closer relationship with the local pizza place than his barely fathererd children. The female detective will struggle to fit in child care worries. Not looking at Bones here honest, where Bones was given a male agent to look after her and spent the first series randonmly assaulting people and wining fights to prove she didn't need him.

I much prefer to come up with a list of character flaws and then "trim" them to fit.

 

[The Big Peat]

I think you're onto something there with people wishing to avoid flawed female characters because they're worried about the negative attention. Which of course attracts negative attention. But maybe less negative attention than they've had got the other way.

Of course, its a lot easier to defend flawed female characters when they're one of a number of female characters, instead of one of two... *beating the dead horse*

 

[HareBrain]

Of course, its a lot easier to defend flawed female characters when they're one of a number of female characters, instead of one of two... *beating the dead horse*

*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?

 

[thaddeus6th]

Flaws are an interesting point. Not just for female characters, of course. With one exception* I try to give all major characters weaknesses that fit, otherwise they seem a bit 2-D. It's also useful to sometimes over-egg a cake, so what's mostly a strength (being very pragmatic and decisive) becomes a flaw (being so ruthless someone, for argument's sake, burns people alive and alienates potential supporters).

*With Sir Edric, I created a laundry list of flaws and then scrabbled to find genuine virtues (for those wondering, he is kind to horses).

 

[Hex]

I can't remember if I've said this before but I had an interesting (I thought) experience when I was inserting a character into a story of mine. It was quite a difficult character -- long imprisoned, angry with its fate, sort of a joker/ trickster to drive the mc crazy.

I started off writing the new character as male, and he was angry with his imprisonment and a bit disrespectful towards the main character because of it. I decided halfway through that actually, this new character needed to be female and I thought I'd just need to go back and change the name/ description. I couldn't -- what in a male character (I thought) came over as reasonably angry at oppression, came over as super bitchy awfulness when the character was female. As a she, the character was much more sinister and aggressive-seeming than as a man.

It might be that it was just my reading of it, of course, but I was quite shocked by the change. It was necessary to re-write the whole character to make her even remotely sympathetic, but if I'd kept the character as a man, I think he would have been very sympathetic saying and doing exactly the same things.

 

[HareBrain]

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?