Atypical Woman Writing a Female Lead

[Clair Dickson]

This has been stressing me a bit lately. I've gotten some comments about how my female lead wouldn't do/think/ etc what I've written because that's not how women are.

The comments pretty much always come from women. All the comments directed towards my character (by people who don't know me) are things that I do. And while I admit that some of the things I write may not be what other women do, I'm kind of at a loss for what, if anything, I should do about it in my writing. I fear that any attempts I make to write a more typical female lead could end up in the land of stereotypes.

While my character is not me, she does have some of the same traits as I do. Hubby suggested I try hanging out with more females... so this is what I came up with. What is your advice? (I'd love to hear from both male and female writers and readers.)

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)

Part of me figures I should just dismiss these comments and write the character I enjoy writing. But before I do so, I wanted to get some other opinions.

Thoughts? And thanks.

ETA: I write mysteries-- hardboiled and maybe a bit noir.

[alleycat]

Well (he said in a humorous way), I'm not sure I'd want to read a book about the typical, everyday, ordinary woman (unless something extraordinary happens to her and she become something of an atypical character). Many characters in fiction, whether male or female, are a bit different. That's one of the things that makes them interesting.

Think about the books by Barbara Kingsolver (the three where the woman is given a small child)--The Bean Trees, Animal Dreams, and Pigs in Heaven. That character is not the typical female character.

The only thing I'd caution you about is making the character the complete opposite of the stereotypical woman; sort of an anti-stereotypical woman, so to speak. That sort of character can get annoying quickly (I'm not saying yours would be, just pointing it out).

Considering other people's suggestions can be helpful, but it's your baby. Make it something special and people will forget they ever suggested changing it.

[C A Winters]

Sounds refreshing to me! Write on, girl.:Sun:

[nevada]

Wow, thanks for reiterating those lovely stereotypes. I don't carry a purse, although I do have a wallet, I never think about the calories of the things I eat, and I don't worry about going out at night alone. I guess I'm not a woman.

The thing is, you can write anything you want. Any characterizations will work if you write it convincingly enough. So instead of looking at the stereotypes that your character might not exhibit, look at the actual characterization. If she doesn't think about calories, make sure that at some point it's brought up, even if the thinks about it for a second, so that the reader can see her rationalization for it. If you can show the character's rationalization, without it becoming an info dump or a two page rumination of why she's different then the reader will go along. The trick is to get to the point where the reader will say, "A woman would never think that but I can totally see why this woman does. I understand her."

If your readers are saying a woman would never do that, then you haven't developed your character sufficiently for the reader to understand. Having said that, there are actual differences between men and woman that have been studied and documented. When working in teams, women discuss the task before they do it. Women will read the instructions all the way through before putting something together, ie IKEA furniture. Woman, when having a conversation, tend to look at the person they are having a conversation with. Women will set aside time to have an important conversation while men tend to have them while doing something else. ie "We need to talk" vs "let's play a game of b'ball" when wanting to discuss marriage.

These are documented, scientific facts. And even those can be changed if you create a character rich enough to explain the different. For example, if your female character grew up in a family with no mother and 6 brothers she may very well have picked up male traits, or a male raised by a mother who has 6 sister.

So instead of looking at female stereotypes (seriously, I havent carried a purse in ten years) look at how you've built your characters and dig a little deeper.

[Emily Winslow]

I *like* characters (and people!) that don't fit the mold your readers seem to be expecting. So, in general, I vote to carry on as you are.

What I would suggest considering is if there's something else in your writing that is creating these expectations. Is your book, for example, chick-lit (or whatever) in all but this one character? Maybe the plot and setting are creating an expectation that's confounded by a protag who seems out of place.

If this is somehow so, it still doesn't mean you should change your character. But maybe you need to adjust other elements of your story to better calibrate reader expectation.

And/or perhaps you need a wider pool of beta readers...


Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)

[MsK]

This has been stressing me a bit lately. I've gotten some comments about how my female lead wouldn't do/think/ etc what I've written because that's not how women are.

The comments pretty much always come from women. All the comments directed towards my character (by people who don't know me) are things that I do. And while I admit that some of the things I write may not be what other women do, I'm kind of at a loss for what, if anything, I should do about it in my writing. I fear that any attempts I make to write a more typical female lead could end up in the land of stereotypes.

While my character is not me, she does have some of the same traits as I do. Hubby suggested I try hanging out with more females... so this is what I came up with. What is your advice? (I'd love to hear from both male and female writers and readers.)

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)

Part of me figures I should just dismiss these comments and write the character I enjoy writing. But before I do so, I wanted to get some other opinions.

Thoughts? And thanks.

I think it depends on the type of story you're writing. I've read a romance/women's contemporary fiction story called Odd Mom Out that is an actual story of a non-typical woman/mom- that is the story. So, in that case, it makes sense that she stands out from the other mother's with her attire, her attitude, etc... and the author does paint the other women as more 'typical' women.
I would think you would be able to get away with more non-typical woman things in other genres such as mystery, fantasy, etc...
Regardless of the genre- while I don't think you need to make your character some stereotype, it may be a good idea to give her a few 'typical' woman characteristics if your crits have made this suggestion. Either that or make it an obvious character trait that she is not a 'typical' woman.
Just my two cents- Oh, and while I don't consider myself a 'typical' woman- I like all my body parts most of the time, I'm not afraid of being out alone at night, I can change a tire, handle most assemble-it-yourself projects (basketball hoops, entertainment centers, bikes), I stand up for myself with tremendous force and don't back down- I also carry a purse, worry about my diet, cry over sappy movies and I do have a tendency to focus on relationships.
So... if you'd like a to toss any questions my way about how to make your character a little closer to 'typical' but not a total wuss, just PM me and I'd be happy to help. :)
That being said, I doubt most women are 'typical'. We've come a long way, baby! :D

[Clair Dickson]

Good points-- I really like the rationalization idea to explain why she doesn't do what 'women do'. I'll have to work on that.

And the book is mystery (hardboiled, maybe noir.)

[Sunshine13]

I agree. And while I carry a purse now, I use to never. Didn't start until I had a kid. Gotta put spare diapers and underwear SOMEwhere.

I don't ever think about calories let alone know how much I should eat a day. If it weren't for my over protective husband, I'd not be afraid to be out at night by myself.

So like everyone else said before me, I think you're fine.

[Fillanzea]

Some of those things are true of me and some of them aren't. What would seem odd to me, I think, is that if a woman acted like your character but without any self-awareness or consciousness of being atypical. I think that most women who don't check off many of the "feminine" boxes realize that their femininity is being monitored, and come to some sort of accomodation with that - they might get defensive, they might get hostile towards girly girls, they might try harder to fit in, and even if life goes on just as before they will at least reflect occasionally on not fitting the stereotype.

Just for example, I used to be out on my own at night a couple times a week, in a series of extremely safe neighborhoods. That made me feel somewhat superior to women who didn't like going out by themselves at night; it made me feel brave; it made me feel like I was striking a blow against those who think the world is just too dangerous for women. Now, in a somewhat less safe neighborhood, I am still out on my own a couple times at week, with different emotions: I feel a bit nervous, and then I feel angry and defensive for being nervous, and I feel like being nervous is not at all going to affect whether I can go out at night. I also feel a bit silly when I'm reminded, over and over again, that just because I'm not in a middle-class neighborhood doesn't mean I'm actually in danger.

So - apologies for the length of this - I don't necessarily act like a stereotypical woman, but my actions and emotions are definitely reflected against my own awareness of what woman "should" think and feel and do, and a woman who doesn't have any such awareness might not feel real to me.

[escritora]

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)


Except for #3, the above points fit who I am. I've been accused, by both sexes, of being weird and not like other women.

I normally don't read the type of book you are writing, Clair. But when I read the character description on another thread, I knew I'd pick up the book. The character resonates with me. So maybe I'm your target audience...a wildly successful, beautiful (she says with no modesty whatsoever), independent women who can tell the difference between a f*ck and love making.

[CheshireCat]

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)

1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with

Probably true on some level, but the question is whether it's a trait your particular character thinks about. If a woman pulls on a pair of jeans and absently notes that they make her ass look too big but what the hell, they're comfortable, I'm going to buy that as a reader. If, on the other hand, she looks into every mirror she passes and obsesses over how she looks, I'm going to throw the book against the wall and note that author as someone to avoid in future.

It's all about balance.

2. Women focus on relationships

Again, it depends. I had a female character who was in the military and involved in a tense, dangerous situation; relationships just weren't a part of the story, so that isn't what she focused on. Staying alive was her driving motivation.

That said, women are probably more likely to have an emotional support system of friends and family, and more likely to talk about problems and how they feel about them.

3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves

Totally depends on the woman. A woman who is trained in self-defense and/or is very self-confident wouldn't necessarily be uncomfortable, though in a dangerous area or situation she'd naturally be cautious.

4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)

I know plenty of woman who don't do most of those things. However, most women have at least one "girly" habit or trait, and I'd advise you to give your character one. You want your female readers to be able to relate to her, and is she's too far outside "the norm" that'll be difficult.

Part of me figures I should just dismiss these comments and write the character I enjoy writing. But before I do so, I wanted to get some other opinions.

Write your character, but do be aware that your readers need to be able to relate to her or root for her, and if you make her too alien to their experiences, they'll have problems doing either.

[Oberon]

I would be careful not to try to show how your character is different from stereotypes. You don't have to deal with calories unless it's part of the story. If she doesn't carry a purse, does it have to be mentioned? Build her character as you see it, make her real and let readers think, if they must, hey, this woman is not average! When I took on the task to write about a woman who suffered abuse, I wanted her to have the strength and determination to overcome it and in her own way fight back. I didn't want a stereotype, I wanted a fighter. I think you do, too. We have the luxury of inventing people. All we have to do is make them believable.

[Pwca]

Perhaps you are just asking advice of the wrong people. Do the people that you are allowing to read your work invest in gender stereotypes, themselves? Trust in yourself. You don't have to write a typical character. Don't worry if friends and family don't understand the character- there will be people that will.

Here's a little affirmation:

-I am a woman.

-I am ok with my body

-I have quite a few "focuses" in my life, not just relationships, though the welfare of my friendships and family are paramount, just like most people, regardless of gender.

-While some places are scary for any human at night, I do go out, and I try to be aware of my surroundings. I don't let fear stop me from living my life.

-I do things women do, because I am, myself, a woman, however, I prefer not to carry a purse- I hate them. I do carry a small backpack when I don't have pockets.

-I loathe shopping and do so only when absolutely necessary.

-I try to eat healthy, but I would go insane if I had to count calories, and I say screw anyone who doesn't like it. I don't want to know people (men or women) like that, anyway.

So there. We don't have to fit the stereotype, and neither does your character. Just write. If there are any problems, you will be able to revise later. Your character does not have to fit into a box, and you are not writing her to please others, just yourself. Keep up the good work!

[Chris Grey]

Maybe you're not a typical woman, Clair. Which is obvious given the title of this thread, but still: you're writing a female lead who is similar to yourself. Your readers don't identify with her. Do your readers identify with you?

You, and your character, are female by sex. I mean, that's the hardware you got. No Y chromosomes involved, right? But it seems you are not female by gender. Society raises women to behave in certain ways, think certain things, prioritize certain things: carry purses, talk about boys, be insecure with your body image, marry a man who makes more than you do, dream about a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence and 2.5 children. Maybe your readers lack the imagination to be fundamentally different...

So how did your female lead get to be the way she is? Was she ever typical? If so, what changed her? If not, what was her life like to get to where she is now? Those details might be what it takes to make her more identifiable to typical women, methinks.

[Beach Bunny]

This has been stressing me a bit lately. I've gotten some comments about how my female lead wouldn't do/think/ etc what I've written because that's not how women are.

The comments pretty much always come from women. All the comments directed towards my character (by people who don't know me) are things that I do. And while I admit that some of the things I write may not be what other women do, I'm kind of at a loss for what, if anything, I should do about it in my writing. I fear that any attempts I make to write a more typical female lead could end up in the land of stereotypes.

While my character is not me, she does have some of the same traits as I do. Hubby suggested I try hanging out with more females... so this is what I came up with. What is your advice? (I'd love to hear from both male and female writers and readers.)

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)

Part of me figures I should just dismiss these comments and write the character I enjoy writing. But before I do so, I wanted to get some other opinions.

Thoughts? And thanks.

I think what your female readers are trying to say is that they are having trouble relating to and understanding your character and they are pointing to these superficial things to explain that. I haven't read your work so I'm only theorizing here. I've read many many books in the Romance genre where the female lead is not like me, but there is something about that character that makes me relate to her and understand her or something about her that makes me like her. I've also read boatloads of thrillers with male leads who are not like me, but there is something about them that I can identify with or that makes me like them. It only has to be one thing to make that hook or click. Very rarely, for me, is it about superficial physical stuff, it is usually something about their personality that clicks.

I haven't read your work so I can't say for sure, but maybe all your character needs is to have her personality developed a bit more. *shrug*

[gypsyscarlett]

This has been stressing me a bit lately. I've gotten some comments about how my female lead wouldn't do/think/ etc what I've written because that's not how women are.

The comments pretty much always come from women. All the comments directed towards my character (by people who don't know me) are things that I do. And while I admit that some of the things I write may not be what other women do, I'm kind of at a loss for what, if anything, I should do about it in my writing. I fear that any attempts I make to write a more typical female lead could end up in the land of stereotypes.

While my character is not me, she does have some of the same traits as I do. Hubby suggested I try hanging out with more females... so this is what I came up with. What is your advice? (I'd love to hear from both male and female writers and readers.)

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)

Part of me figures I should just dismiss these comments and write the character I enjoy writing. But before I do so, I wanted to get some other opinions.

Thoughts? And thanks.

Hi,

1. What? Women always have a body part they don't like? I don't have any body issues. Should I develop one?
2. this depends on the individual woman.
3. I'm pretty comfortable by myself alone at night. I wouldn't say, totally. I mean- it's always good to be alert and on your guard. But, that goes for during the daytime, too.
4. I don't diet. Diets are silly. I don't count calories. I eat balanced meals and exercise regularly. I do carry a purse. I shop when I'm in the mood. I'm not a shopaholic. I also don't gossip or chitchat on the phone.

Am I not a typical woman? Or is just that we have these stereotypes thrown at us?

I have a feeling I'd love your female character! Please don't change her to fit some preconceived notions.

[Clair Dickson]

Good points-- look likes the thing I really have to make sure I look at is characterization.

And I know one of the things working against me is that my character isn't the most likable-- she's very sharp and uses dry humor. So maybe that's contributing to the disconnect-- she's not easily likable and she's missing most of the socalled female traits.

[bpmann]

I think it was Uncle Jim who said to believe your beta readers when they tell you something is wrong, but don't believe them when they tell you *what* is wrong. Beach Bunny said the rest of what I was going to say. :)

[ishtar'sgate]

I like her already. I'm quite weary of the boring stereotypes you've noted here. Yawn. That said, you'll probably always get readers telling you women wouldn't do such and such. The MC in my medieval novel is a pretty gutsy woman who owns her own property and fights her own battles. That didn't sit well with some readers and they pointed out to me that women in that period had none of the freedoms I'd given her. I quoted from some nonfiction books on real medieval women who had all the freedom of my character, and more. Just because such women aren't the norm, doesn't mean they don't exist and are far more interesting than the rest IMO.
Linnea

[katiemac]

I'm not "typical," either. I read more books with male leads than I do female, probably because I tire easily of what is considered "normal" women stuff. I personally wouldn't worry about it, and I also wouldn't worry about trying to rationalize her behavior. Sometimes people just are.

ETA: What's your genre?

[IceCreamEmpress]

Clair, you are a "typical woman" and so is Venus Williams and so is Jane Goodall and so is Mae Jemison and so is Cheryl Haworth and so is Martha Stewart and so is Pamela Anderson and so is my 90-year-old next-door neighbor who teaches piano lessons and still rides her bicycle everywhere.

In other words, there is no "typical woman."

Now, you aren't a stereotypical woman, but then who is? Don't fall into the Laurell K. Hamilton trap of making your protagonist an OMG SO NOT TYPICAL WOMAN LOOK AT HOW UNTYPICAL SHE IS because that's just reinforcing stereotypes.

And as for people who criticize your writing because your protagonist isn't a "stereotypical woman," they're not giving very useful or insightful critiques. Your protagonist is a private eye, IIRC, which is not a profession that lends itself to stereotypes for any gender.

Nobody criticizes Raymond Chandler because Philip Marlowe isn't a "stereotypical man" who's worried about a mortgage and watching sports on TV and worrying about his bald spot and the spare tire that's encroaching on his middle, do they?

So stop worrying about people trying to encourage you to buy into outdated stereotypes. That never makes writing good.

[gypsyscarlett]

Clair, you are a "typical woman" and so is Venus Williams and so is Jane Goodall and so is Mae Jemison and so is Cheryl Haworth and so is Martha Stewart and so is Pamela Anderson and so is my 90-year-old next-door neighbor who teaches piano lessons and still rides her bicycle everywhere.

In other words, there is no "typical woman."

Now, you aren't a stereotypical woman, but then who is? Don't fall into the Laurell K. Hamilton trap of making your protagonist an OMG SO NOT TYPICAL WOMAN LOOK AT HOW UNTYPICAL SHE IS because that's just reinforcing stereotypes.

And as for people who criticize your writing because your protagonist isn't a "stereotypical woman," they're not giving very useful or insightful critiques. Your protagonist is a private eye, IIRC, which is not a profession that lends itself to stereotypes for any gender.

Nobody criticizes Raymond Chandler because Philip Marlowe isn't a "stereotypical man" who's worried about a mortgage and watching sports on TV and worrying about his bald spot and the spare tire that's encroaching on his middle, do they?

So stop worrying about people trying to encourage you to buy into outdated stereotypes. That never makes writing good.

Thank you for writing so eloquently what I was trying to convey in my own post. You hit everything dead on. Especially the difference between "typical" and "stereotypical". :Thumbs:

[katiemac]

Okay, now that I got my "stereotypes are silly" response out the way, perhaps the problem isn't that women can't relate to your character. Maybe no one can't relate to your character. I do not mean this to sound harsh, only trying to get your wheels turning.

If the response is, "women don't do that," then maybe you should substitute "women" with "people." People don't do that. It's possible you're not giving the readers enough reason to believe in your character, regardless of her sex. I'd be curious to know what kinds of points your readers have trouble with.

[maestrowork]

Know your characters and make sure they come across as natural and real. But as for "typical" women -- sheesh, there's your answer. The word "typical." We're not statistics. There are women who don't fit any of those descriptions, and they're no less female than others. Same with men and their "typical" traits.

Still, if your betas don't believe in your characters, you may have to think about why. The more atypical they are, the more you may have to explain ("she's a military officer and just ended a 5-year relationship, so love's just on her radar right now").

Also, it depends on your genre. Obviously if you're writing a chick lit or romance and you try to reach the "typical" romance readers, who are into relationships and love, you may have to think about what your protagonist should represent. Since you're writing a hardboiled mystery, you can certainly deviate from that "typicalness." Still, you need to draw a fully developed character with history and reasons so that your readers understand what makes her tick: Why she doesn't care about relationship issues or worry about if she's a bit out of shape, etc. etc.

I'll cite an example: Marion Ravenwood in Indiana Jones. There's nothing stereotypical about her, but she's all woman -- and hubba hubba do I have a crush on her. She can hang with and fight the best of men. She's not worried about how she looks. And she certainly doesn't carry a purse everywhere she goes. And she doesn't have relationship hanging on her lips all the time, although she does like Indie very much. Now why do we believe in her character? What makes her tick? We know enough about her background, her motivations, her logics and how she thinks to identify with her as a real person.

[Grrarrgh]

I just finished listening to one of Sue Grafton's novels, and her PI, Kinsey Millhone, sounds like she has a lot in common with your character. Kinsey does carry a "shoulder bag", as she constantly calls it, but that's the only difference based on your list. Whether you like her books or not, I don't think you can dispute that there are plenty of people who do, so clearly readers are able to relate to and enjoy a woman who doesn't act like a "typical woman", as your readers put it.

So I guess I'm saying - write what you enjoy, what's comfortable for you. Your readers will be able to tell if you're fighting with what you're writing.

[Shweta]

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)


GAH.
I am clearly not a woman. wtf?

Though, while I used to go out alone in the dark, I've gotten more sensible about that, and will only do so in relatively safe places these days.

[Clair Dickson]

If the response is, "women don't do that," then maybe you should substitute "women" with "people." People don't do that. It's possible your not giving the readers enough reason to believe in your character, regardless of her sex. I'd be curious to know what kinds of points your readers have trouble with.

This is an interesting point when my female character's sexuality comes up because if I insert "man" then everybody would be fine with it... In fact, with much of the things she does, if Bo was a male instead of a female, I think there would be less complaints about her not acting as she "should."

I wish I knew exactly what gave readers pause beyond the stereotypical female issue. I haven't gotten anything specific.

[Shweta]

I wish I knew exactly what gave readers pause beyond the stereotypical female issue. I haven't gotten anything specific.

Hm. I haven't read the whole thread, bad me, but here's a thought. Is there anyone in the story who expects women to act more stereotypically and is surprised by the MC?

Though I dunno, if she's hard-boiled then the "she" is hardly likely to like pink fluffy purses and that oughta be obvious to anyone around her.

[katiemac]

Aside from making sure your character is a relatable person (not necessarily a relatable woman), I don't think you have much to worry about.

The most obvious example of a woman in typical male roles are ones played by Angelina Jolie. In fact, Tom Cruise recently dropped out as the main character of an action film and who did they cast to fill his spot? Angelina Jolie. Ripley in the Alien films, as an other example, was originally written as a male. Then they cast Sigourney Weaver.

I can promise you not everyone expects women to carry purses, walk softly and be scared of the dark. It's possible your readers so far are just the wrong audience. Still, dig deeper to make sure it's not specifically a sex issue. Rule out the possibility it's not your character as a whole.

[Clair Dickson]

Hm. I haven't read the whole thread, bad me, but here's a thought. Is there anyone in the story who expects women to act more stereotypically and is surprised by the MC?

Though I dunno, if she's hard-boiled then the "she" is hardly likely to like pink fluffy purses and that oughta be obvious to anyone around her.

There are a couple times where it comes up, mainly because she's a private eye (aka not a 'woman's job'). And another time because she's very articulate and knowledgable about many subjects, and especially law and crime.

Should I have more? Maybe little things, like someone noticing that she doesn't have a purse?

[Stormhawk]

1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)
Ok, for me:
1) I'm fat. I'm very, very cuddly. However, that doesn't really effect my every day life, considering my fiancé thinks I'm pretty, and sexy.

2) Uhm. What? I'm focussed on editing one book, and writing another, finding a paid editor, thinking about my soon-to-be indie publisher, fine-tuning the publication schedule and (on top of that) my full-time job and my share of the chores/cooking.

3) Depends on what time of night, and where I am. I always carry a phone and I can scream really, really loud (and know where to kick).

4) Wow. I wasn't aware we were still in the 1950s...I carry a backpack. Shopping sure - grocery shopping (or book shopping!). Diet? I'm eating cream cheese and crackers at the moment...And who gives a fsck what men think?


And just for fun, here's my MC...

1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)
1) Does being uncomfortable with hideous, hideous scarring count?

2) She's an asexual virgin who goes to the happy place in her head every time someone starts talking about sex. She's a lot more focussed on her job.

3) Well, she doesn't like this whole "outside" thing, but time of day doesn't bother her.

4) She doesn't own a purse. Method of buying clothes: "These look to be the approximate size and colour *picks up six*". She lives on coffee, cookies and Chinese takeout. Caring what men think? Maybe what her boss thinks, but because he's her boss, not because he's a man.

[maestrowork]

I can promise you not everyone expects women to carry purses, walk softly and be scared of the dark. It's possible your readers so far are just the wrong audience. Still, dig deeper to make sure it's not specifically a sex issue. Rule out the possibility it's not your character as a whole.

I did find it amusing, though, that the readers of a "hardboiled mystery" expect the protagonist to be carrying purses, counting calories, worrying if her thighs are too big, or wondering if her man loves her. Perhaps they need to meet some real female agents or investigators.

That said, I wouldn't mind reading a mystery starring Legally Blonde or a Playboy playmate. Now that would be a heck of a story. LOL. Something different, I guess.

[Cathy C]

Okay, I'd like to state for the record that I'm not a typical woman. Oh, HOW I'm not a typical woman. Not only do I share the characteristics that your heroine does, but I add in a whole bunch that make other women stare at me with open mouths.

--I work on my own car.

--I LIKE knives. They're pretty. They're fun.

--I LIKE guns. They're pretty. They're fun.

--I find clothes shopping hideously boring.

--I find uncomfortable shoes (and most expensive shoes I see in stores) useless and a waste of my time. I refuse to pay more than $20 for any pair of shoes. Ever.

--I don't get my nails or hair done at a salon. Have never been in one, as a matter of fact. I can't wear my nails even at "office length" because I type for a living (on the tips, rather than on the pads).

--I consider 50 lbs. the minimum that any person should be able to lift for at least 50 feet.

--I like to fish. I like to shoot.

--My magazines are either scientific, hunting related or historical.

--I have never watched a drama or "chick" movie. I don't find weeping a form of entertainment. Blow things up or make me laugh. That's the movie for me! :)

--I am primarily Republican, but one of those annoying "moderates" that both sides seem to hate.

Etc., etc. You get the picture. But see---I understand where your betas are coming from because I am unable to impart more than two or three of my very own traits into a character and get anyone to publish it.

Why?

Because the character isn't "personable" enough. Apparently, my character traits don't make a "personable" person. :Shrug:

Marion Ravenwood in Indiana Jones. There's nothing stereotypical about her, but she's all woman -- and hubba hubba do I have a crush on her.

Yes, she's awesome. She's a perfect secondary character. But unfortunately, nobody would buy her as the lead---especially for a series. She's too grating from day to day. While everybody knows one, people seem to not want to read about them. I've heard everything from, "If I wanted a realistic character, I'd look out my bedroom window!" to "You left her depressed at the end of the book! How COULD you?" (Um...because real people don't have miraculous cures to depression in the space of two weeks?)

Just to show I know what you're going through, here's a list of the things that allowed my characters to become more "girly" so that people could relate to them. No, you don't have to make the woman do all the things you don't find realistic, but these will help take off the "edge")

1. Make her LOVE bubble baths or pedicures. People always give her frilly bath stuff which she adores.

2. Give her a weakness for animals. They seek her out and she's always taking home lost dogs or finding homes for kittens.

3. Allow her to have a favorite charity that she actually is involved in---whether it's breast cancer runs, or a soup kitchen or battered women's shelter.

4. Have her addicted to one of those "DIY" design shows on TV and constantly try out new color schemes and such---on a budget.

Just a few ideas to "soften" her. Even noir mystery women have to have some down time. These are a little better than crawling in a bottle at the end of the day. ;)

Good luck!

[Kryianna]

when I read a book, I want to identify with the main character. If she is focused on wearing a new pair of designer shoes to each one-night stand, I'll not like her much. It sounds like I'd enjoy and identify with your character very well.

That being said, what are your betas like? Are they stereotypical women, or atypical? If they (or their significant others) are exactly what they are criticizing your character for not being, that might just explain their criticism. I'd also want to ask the betas if they had come across the book in the mystery shelves, if they would have bought it from the description on the back of the book. If they would not because the character/plot didn't strike their fancy, then you need to take that into consideration in reading their comments.

[maestrowork]

My military officer friend who doesn't wear dresses or make-up, goes target shooting every week, and can knock down a 200-lb man in five seconds.... loves to shop for furniture and drink tea. She's not your typical girly girl, but she does have her "girly" moments.

[MsK]

Hmm... you know, I'm starting to think Bo Fexler may be a typical woman and maybe it's those crits that aren't so typical. ;)

[IceCreamEmpress]

I wish I knew exactly what gave readers pause beyond the stereotypical female issue. I haven't gotten anything specific.

Do these readers read hardboiled detective fiction at all? Because seriously, the complaints you've shared are kind of silly when considering a private eye protagonist. None of the bestselling female private eye protagonists, from Kinsey Millhone to Tess Monaghan to V.I. Warshawski to Stephanie Plum, are cookie-cutter female stereotypes.

I think you need different readers who are familiar with the genre in which you're writing.


Let's look at this famous list, shall we?


1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with

Certainly not true for Millhone, Monaghan, or Warshawski. I don't remember Stephanie Plum angsting about her body, but I suppose it's possible.

2. Women focus on relationships

Not true for any of the best-selling female PIs. The only female detectives I ever see thinking about relationships much are the chick-lit detectives and some of the older, married superintendents and chief inspectors in police procedurals (and those relationships are usually with their grown children or with their aging and ill husbands).

3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves

Again, if the female PIs in best-selling detective fiction wouldn't be comfortable out at night by themselves, all of those books would be about two pages long.


4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think)

I'm sure Bo Fexler goes shopping sometimes--groceries and toilet paper don't magically appear in her apartment, do they?

But, no, none of the best-selling female PIs spend a lot of time shopping or dieting (ha!) or worrying about what men think (except for their fathers and brothers and the perps).


I don't think your protagonist is as unusual as your readers think she is--I think that they're just unfamiliar with this genre.

[veinglory]

How do you know that is you inserted 'man' people would be fine with it. Did you try that?

If multiple readers are picking up a problem, the odds are there is some kind of problem even if it isn't the one identified. Like your heroine is in fact girly in some ways but not in others--hence the elements you mention seem off. Without reading the work itself it is hard to say but the readers are probably responding to something in the work rather than just exercising rampant hegemonic sexism.

[LeeFlower]

Some specific issues that were brought up: (Not MY concerns, but what others have said about my character.)
1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with
2. Women focus on relationships
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think.

Right, well, a few other people have already offered counterexamples, but I'm going to go ahead and throw my own in too.

1. The only feature I'm really self-conscious about is my brain. I'm always afraid I'm stupider than I think I am. But physically? Meh. I guess it would be nice to be a little stronger, so I could handle a bigger motorcycle.
2. If by 'relationships' we mean 'career,' than yes, that's me dead on.
3. I go out by myself every single night, and I do not live in a safe neighborhood or even a not-so-safe neighborhood. I live in the neighborhood where a store owner was shot in broad daylight a few weeks ago. Not long before that, I had to play a midnight game of hide-and-seek with an SUV driver who started trawling the neighborhood looking for me after I told him to leave me alone. You know what I did the very next night? Went out at oh-dark-thirty. I refuse to be intimidated out of living my life.
4. Well, of course I carry a bag. How am I supposed to fit my laptop, my notebook, a CPR mask, an umbrella, and a hardcover book in my pockets? I am also very careful about what I eat: I won't touch anything that says "reduced fat" or "sugar free" on it.

And you know what? There's nothing atypical about me. I've always hated the word "tomboy," because it's part of a social system that devalues girls and women. Even when people take it as a badge of honor, they're saying "boy behaviors are better than girl behaviors." Screw that noise. With the exception of giving birth, there's no such thing as a gendered behavior.

[Clair Dickson]

How do you know that is you inserted 'man' people would be fine with it. Did you try that?


Good point.

It just feels like it somedays. No one (that I've heard) criticizes Phillip Marlowe for being a loner who goes home to play chess and think over the case he's still working even though he's not getting paid. But I'm not Raymond Chandler and I get rejected based on the aforemented elements (or so certain editors have said when I get feedback on rejected shorts.)

No one expects to see Sam Spade worry about whether he should have the salad after loading up on carbs. Or see the guys fret over whether they should pursue the blonde with the legs or the sultry dark haired woman (heck, they usually go after both!)

But put a female into the role and I get questioned on whether the woman would really act as she does.

It doesn't help when I pick up a female lead book and find the same things in those characters... =P Like VI Warshawski fretting over calories or Julie Collins torn over the guy she's with and the "bad boy" that she wants because she can't have him or Jane Rizzoli hung up on how she has to prove herself to the guys...

I guess they're all just character types, and while a reader may not identify at least they should be able to enjoy, right? Even if it's an atypical woman.

I wish I could even find/ recall where the comments came about... lost in the shuffle of story rejections and life. I appreciate everyone who has taken the time to chime in.

[IceCreamEmpress]

Warshawski worries about calories? Really? I haven't read the most recent ones. Maybe now that she's over 50 it would make sense (many, many guys over 50 worry about calories, too).

Monaghan certainly doesn't worry about calories, though, and neither does Millhone.

I think you're taking critiques from people who don't read this genre too much to heart.

To be honest, I also think that you've got some of your own internalized sexism going on, considering how much energy you're putting into the idea that your protagonist (and you) are "not like other women."

I hope you understand that I'm not saying this just to be rude, but because I think it's an important thing for writers to move past those stereotypes. One of the biggest problems with Laurell Hamilton's recent Anita Blake books is the constant litany of how Anita is "more like a man" and "not like other women"...it's really, really off-putting and ridiculous.

[veinglory]

I just think you are assuming you are interpreting their criticism correctly and they are wrong. It's a dangerous assumption. If your charceter was fully authentic and convincing perhaps they wouldn't be trying to fit her actions into archetypal categories like gendered-roles. After all there are plenty of books out their with gender non-typical heros and I bet these readers have read many of them.

[joyofcooking]

Part of me figures I should just dismiss these comments and write the character I enjoy writing. But before I do so, I wanted to get some other opinions.

Thoughts? And thanks.

ETA: I write mysteries-- hardboiled and maybe a bit noir.

YES, please just dismiss these comments!!!! Geez, reading the comments other women were making made me picture the literary equivalent of a GIRDLE, an uncomfortable, binding, miserable GIRDLE from yesteryear! Out with the damn things - physically or literary-ally.

[Clair Dickson]

I understand what everyone is getting at. Sometimes, these comments bother me-- I admit that part of the problem may be that I, like my MC, am atypical in many ways. I read these female leads and I don't even think like them. Sometimes it bothers me, but then something of actual importance comes along and I work on that instead. I posted to get some opinions, not because I'm upset about it. Just stresses me a bit, usually right after the latest rejection comes in the email... ;-)

I'm not bothered enough that I'm going to make huge changes to my female character. I do enjoy her as a character. I may make some tweaks, bring some other elements to the forefront to make her more convincing as the character she is, typical or otherwise. Part of the problem is several of these critiques come from the succession of short stories I have, not the novel. So, in short stories, there's not time to explain all the quirks and such my character has. A defeciency in form, not character.

I am confident enough in the character and in my writing that I don't put a huge amount of weight on it. I figured that I was probably okay, with maybe some tweaks to make it better. And that's pretty well what I've gotten from the responses:

Tweak the characterization, look at any more sympathic traits to make her easier to relate to. Maybe a "typical woman" trait so she's not quite so atypical? Maybe she comes across as me trying to make her atypical-- I'll take a look at that too.

Please, understand that I'm not trying to make a big deal about the atypical nature of my character. I don't even think about it unless someone makes a comment about it being unusual. Just like I rarely think about myself being "different" until someone makes a comment that draws attention to it, one way or another. I was just looking for ways to address the niggly little problems, and I see what they are now. Characterization-- the what and how.

Thank you.

[Chris Grey]

I think the key lies in what your original readers said about your female MC not behaving like a real woman. It means you broke their suspension of disbelief somewhere.

Everyone, when they pick up a book or watch a movie or whatever, suspends their disbelief just a little bit. We all know wolves don't talk, but we don't interrupt your allegory about building materials. When your readers pick up your book, they're prepared to read about Sam Spade with boobs. This isn't the issue.

Readers can take a lot of things with a grain of salt. Talking wolves, spacemen, aliens, badass women, transforming robots, you name it. There are plenty of examples of these that nobody bats an eye at. George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire has two atypical female leads: Aria Stark (a tomboy) and Brienne of Tarth (bigger, stronger, and uglier than most men), and both would rather be knights than wives, and nobody has ever found them unbelievable.

Your female MC isn't behaving credibly. It's not the gun, the going out at night alone, or the lack of insecurity. It's something else. It's not that she doesn't make a believable woman: it's that she doesn't make a believable human.

That sounds really harsh, and this is just a guess, but step back and examine your MC and see what she's doing wrong, what about her wouldn't pass a Turing test. Fix that and her atypical femininity won't raise concerns anymore.

[maestrowork]

Perhaps it really comes back to what Cathy said: how much do your female readers relate to the character? It's not to say your character must have every 'girly" trait to be a woman, but when your character has all the non-girly traits and nothing on the "feminine" side, then your readers would start questioning if they're indeed reading a man with the name Susan. Even the most atypical female would at least show her softer side once in a while -- care for a puppy, perhaps? Have other female friends for support? Prefer tea with honey instead of black coffee? A little bit would round out her character some and make your "more typical" female readers relate to her better.

I think Veinglory had a good point. Replace "she" with "he" and see how it reads. Does your character come out a manly man?

[JeanneTGC]

I support what several of the other posters are saying -- if you're getting consistent "this is off" feedback, SOMETHING is wrong, and you need to figure out what it is. IMHO you should NOT ignore this -- agents are readers and many of them are women and if you're doing something that's making your female readers go "ugh" how is that NOT going to do the same for an agent?

Having read your descriptions of this character and story elsewhere, but NOT having read any of your work, like the others, I'm just guessing here, but I think several others have said it already -- somewhere along the line, you, the author, broke the suspension of disbelief, so now the betas see everything the character is doing as "off".

My recommendation would be to put the book aside for at least a month, and work on something else, something NOT related to this character or universe. Then, when you've worked on other things, go back and read the story from the start, doing your best to read it like you've never seen it before (hard, yes, but do-able). Be hyper-aware of your reactions to what you're reading -- if there's a point where you go, "eh" or "hmmm" or anything that seems off or not reading like you think it should, that could be the point where suspension of disbelief happens. And you may have many of those little "breaks" throughout.

Also, as others said, have you really written a male character with boobs? This character may be like you, but surely, somewhere in there, you have a feminine trait. Does the character? If there's no feminine trait at all, if, in fact, everything about her is counter to feminine, then the betas may also be rejecting her because she's not coming across as a real person.

[Carmy]

I wouldn't say I'm the typical female, otherwise why do the neighbours come out to watch when I have a saw, an electric drill, or a paintbrush in my hand? And I'm sure they counted every spadeful of earth when I dug over my garden. And when I built my greenhouse -- I think they went into shock.

However, I'm not dumb so I don't go out alone at night. I carry a hefty handbag and I'm lucky enough not to ever worry about my weight and dieting.

Because I'm not typical, I can become bored reading about a typical female. So go for it, Clair -- you know your character and her story. There are a lot of readers like me around.

[C.M. Daniels]

What, she's not Barbie?

She sounds more interesting than any of those dainty creatures you're comparing her to.

[ClaudiaGray]

You don't have to do any of the stereotypically girly things. After all, tons (most?) of real women don't live those stereotypes either.

I say follow your instincts, and at worst, maybe make a point of the fact that your heroine couldn't give a damn about what people think of her or her body. Or about handbags.

(I do like handbags, but that's about it for me and the stereotypically girly.)

[Polenth]

Hm. I haven't read the whole thread, bad me, but here's a thought. Is there anyone in the story who expects women to act more stereotypically and is surprised by the MC?

I'm rather androgynous and that does get comments as I go through life. Some people are curious. Others are hostile. A story set in the modern world is likely to have some of that. Difference causes comment.

Perhaps this is too obvious... but wouldn't the easiest solution be to ask some of the less feminine women in this thread to beta a few chapters? If they find the character unrealistic, it's a good sign it's a lack of human rather than a lack of feminine.

[mscelina]

Clair,

The best piece of advice i ever got as a writer came from Howard Stein, formerly of the Yale School of Drama and Columbia University, when he critiqued a play I'd written for his class.

"Write characters you know. Write characters you are comfortable with. But always, always, write characters that you can believe."

Translation? The only way a reader will believe in the character is if you, as the creator, believed in that character first. Make her credible to you first and the rest will follow. :)

Hope that helps.

[bpmann]

Well, I just read "Spark" and "Missing, but not Missed". I liked them, and it seemed obvious to me just from her "voice" that she was female. She acted like I would think a female P.I. would act. Reminded me a lot of Robert B. Parker's style.

[Dawnstorm]

I've read the list. The solution is obvious. Have her be distracted in a crucial and embarrassing moment by a shopwindow full of gorgeous shoes. :tongue

Recently a man on a train told me that it's not often that women hold open the door for him. He was only slightly embarrassed to find out I'm a man. The explanation I got was that men don't hold open doors for other men. The explanation I gave was that I think it rude to drop a door in someone's face. So holding open doors is a gendered activity, that somehow implies cross-gender politenes with the male -> female lines being stronger than the female -> male lines, but there's a severage between male <-/-> male (but maybe not female <-/-> female)?

Seriously, it's easier to just stop worrying about such strangeness and do what yo do.

Finally, while it depends on how you handle it, having people "notice" that she's not wearing a purse would probably sound... awkward. More likely, they'd make fun of her while they think she's not listening. (She could overhear something like that and shoot them down with a caustic remark next time they meet, embarrassing them and enjoying it - if that's what she's like.)

The talking-about-people-behind-their-backs approach is pretty universal in my experience. Everybody does that, men and women, though they'll try to tell you women do that more.

[IdiotsRUs]

1. Women always have some part of their body they don't like/ are uncomfortable with - nope - I'm pretty happy with it all.
2. Women focus on relationships Nope, not especially. No more than my male mates, and women who drone on about them bore me to tears.
3. Women wouldn't be comfortable out at night, by themselves hahahaha - seriously. Before I was married I used to go out on my own all the time, day, night, drive two hundred miles to go to a bike rally on my own.....
4. My female lead doesn't do the things women do (carry a purse, go shopping, worry about calories/ diet, worry about what the men think) No handbag, never dieted, and I don't really care what anyone thinks about me ( except family possibly)

Sounds like a perfectly plausible person to me.

Of course I'm not exactly normal :)

[Spring Gem]

I recently came across Cheryl Corbin's blog and she has a workshop on Gender Differences (http://www.learntowritefiction.com/category/how-to-series/gender-differences-how-to-series/) in body language, speech, and thinking. It's also available as a free pdf download. Of course, these are general tendencies and individuals usually don't display all of the characteristics listed and often have some of the opposite gender's.

IMO, your character's actions should reflect whatever is natural for her, given her personality and life situation. If she wouldn't do or say something, then don't force it.

Lavern

[maestrowork]

Recently a man on a train told me that it's not often that women hold open the door for him. He was only slightly embarrassed to find out I'm a man. The explanation I got was that men don't hold open doors for other men. The explanation I gave was that I think it rude to drop a door in someone's face.

I think some people do have a set idea of how men and women behave, and if someone doesn't fit the description, they're astonished or dismayed or something. I mean, I hold doors for everyone -- men, women, children. It's just the polite thing to do. I can see where the "men don't hold doors for other men" comes from, though. Still, to be "surprised" that a woman or man would hold doors for another man is kind of odd... wonder where the guy grew up.
----

OK, a question to all you "atypical" women out there. So you don't obsess over your body image or what others think of you, and you don't focus on relationships and you don't carry handbags or purses, and you go out alone at night, and you can kick some serious butts... GREAT! (and can I have your numbers, please?) But I want to ask, what do you consider a "feminine" trait and do you possess certain feminine traits? If so, what are they? What makes you not a man with boobs?

The reason I ask is that of course there are non-girly women in the world, but in fiction, when you deal with a wide spectrum of readers, you may have to be careful about certain traits that may break the suspension of disbelief. One is that the character comes off as totally masculine and makes the readers think she's a man with boobs. Like Cathy said, they may make great secondary characters but maybe not the protagonist. Also, study the female PIs out there -- do they have at least one or two feminine traits? What makes them "read" female -- at least subconsciously -- and not men with boobs?

And someone mentions the voice -- which is important. I remember in class we read one excerpt from the POV of an FBI agent. Everyone assumed it was a man: the voice, the actions, the thoughts, the lust, the ruthlessness, the background, etc... and then at the end we found out that "he" was really a lesbian. OK, fine, so she was a lesbian, but somehow it still broke the spell. Something just felt off. Compounded with the fact that a man wrote it -- we just had a hard time suspending our disbelief. It's not to say there are no masculine lesbians, but as a protagonist, for some reason she didn't feel real, and a big part of it was the voice.

[goldenquince]

I think you should continue developing her in the direction that you started--without compromising. Some women aren't feminine in the most obvious ways. So she doesn't give a crap about clothes and if some guy isn't calling her every five minutes, doesn't really focus on her body. So she's in a traditionally male occupation, reacts to things the way maybe most would expect a man to act...is all business, no family. She can still be compassionate, empathetic, diplomatic, not to mention physically attractive.

Perhaps many women believe that in acting that way--antithetical to the quintessentially feminine--it reduces their chances of getting a man, a goal most women are taught to shoot for--reduces their chances in the sense that they're completely relinquishing that subordinate role, not letting the man take a stance of dominance. Sorry that this is getting way to analytical, sociologically speaking.

I can go on about this all day....I think you should write your character in the same vein as when you began. She sounds like an awesome character.

[IceCreamEmpress]

The reason I ask is that of course there are non-girly women in the world, but in fiction, when you deal with a wide spectrum of readers, you may have to be careful about certain traits that may break the suspension of disbelief.

The best-selling female PIs aren't "girly". So clearly readers don't need "girly" in a female PI.

Now, how do we know they're women?

One way is from the static they get from others about being women in a male-dominated profession. Another way, for some of them (I'm thinking of Laura Lippmann's Tess Monaghan) is from the energy they put into friendships with other women. Another way, for some of them (Monaghan and V.I. Warshawski) is the energy they put into their family relationships: there's an early Warshawski where she helps an aunt clear her name of embezzlement charges, for instance, and there's a lot in there that shows Warshawski spends time thinking about her complicated relationship to her family.

Now, there are lots of men who put energy into their friendships and family relationships. But those are qualities that our society associates with women more than men.

Here's the thing: Mike Shayne or Mike Hammer with boobs isn't a believable woman. But neither Mike Hammer or Mike Shayne was a believable man. And that worked fine, then. Today, readers expect more depth in characterization. And readers expect more depth in characterization of women protagonists, in general, than they do of male protagonists.


On edit: Clair, I read three of your stories--"Skeletons of Past Love", "Private Eyes and Ears", and "Old Adversaries". They're gritty and well-plotted. I enjoyed them. BUT I WANT MORE BO. I want to know more about what makes her tick. I want to know more about what she wants.

Perhaps people say they want more "femininity" as a way of groping toward saying that they want more humanity. As I said above, it was OK that Mike Shayne was a largely-opaque caricature--that was long ago, and readers expect different things from male and female protagonists.

Bo's speech impediment, for instance--you mention it in every story, but you don't really talk about how it affects her psychologically. I want to know more about that, and I want to hear some emotional texture, not just a checklist.

And I think one of the most off-putting things about her is the "I looked hot, I looked sexy, men were ogling my tight jeans" internal refrain. That makes her look shallow and manipulative, especially when she's preening herself about being ogled IN A NURSING HOME!

I think most people interpret constant "I looked sexy, people were ogling me, isn't that awesome!" internal (or external) monologues as a sign of narcissism or desperation or some kind of serious neurosis, not as sexy self-confidence.

I'd rather that you showed Bo's sexiness through other people's reactions, rather than telling it to us in her internal monologue. At best, it makes her look self-satisfied; at worst, it makes her look like a headcase.

I think Bo's an interesting character. I want more of her, though. More of her internal life. To me, the issue isn't that she isn't stereotypically feminine enough--it's that she isn't complex enough. Yet. I am sure you can do it--you're a talented writer!

[gypsyscarlett]

[quote=maestrowork;2683192]
OK, a question to all you "atypical" women out there. So you don't obsess over your body image or what others think of you, and you don't focus on relationships and you don't carry handbags or purses, and you go out alone at night, and you can kick some serious butts... GREAT! (and can I have your numbers, please?) But I want to ask, what do you consider a "feminine" trait and do you possess certain feminine traits? If so, what are they? What makes you not a man with boobs?

Actually, I've never thought of myself as a typical woman or non-typical woman. As Icecream Princess perfectly said, "there is no typical woman".

It's the stereotyping that always pisses me off.

Anyhow, I'm just me. I love sci fi and hard-boiled crime. I also love romance and Susan Hayward melodramas. I hate Chick Lit. I love to wear pretty dresses. I also love to wear jeans. I love lacey lingerie. I also like comfy sweats. I love to go to musuems. I also love to go hiking and camping in the woods. I love art. I love to watch sports. I can't play sports. I'm a klutz. I hate gossip. I'm direct in my speech.

I don't fit into some stupid, tidy little box. See?

And to add to something I said in an earlier post- just because I don't (luckily) have body issues- doesn't mean I don't care how my body looks. When I'm working out, I'm not thinking of my heart. I'm thinking of keeping my butt nice and perky. lol. But I don't obsess over such things. I'm confident about my body and comfortable in my own skin. Uh- thanks mom and dad!

I have two pieces of advice to the OP
1. Try to write a full-rounded character. Maybe the character is screaming I AM A TOUGH WOMAN!!!!!! so loud it seems fake? like she (or you) are trying too hard?

2. But, in the end, she is YOUR character. She is in YOUR story. You can never please everybody. Don't bother trying. As long as she isn't flat- I'd say you are fine.

Added: Think of those bad '80s family shows. Remember how there would be the SMART kid. The TOMBOY. The PRETTY ONE? That's exactly what you don't want to do.

Ask your readers do they dislike the character because they don't think she is womanly enough? (if that's the case, I'd seriously ignore them). Or is it because (as others have hinted) she is one-dimensional?

[kopperhead]

OK, a question to all you "atypical" women out there. So you don't obsess over your body image or what others think of you, and you don't focus on relationships and you don't carry handbags or purses, and you go out alone at night, and you can kick some serious butts... GREAT! (and can I have your numbers, please?) But I want to ask, what do you consider a "feminine" trait and do you possess certain feminine traits? If so, what are they? What makes you not a man with boobs?

From this thread, it appears to me that perhaps atypical is typical. But on to the question.

According to stereotype I feel atypical. I ride my own motorcycle and have ridden all over the US, including one 1200 mile trip alone. On that particular trip, I lost a hex nut and had to make a repair myself (using super glue, because no metric hex nut could be found at any of the truck stops or convenience stores along the way, and it was night). I am also a certified heavy equipment instructor, anything from small forklifts to my favorite, the Lull, a 9,000 pound capacity, four wheel drive all terrain with 42 foot reach big hunk of machine. I could drive one of those things just for fun. Does that sound feminine? Nope.

However, when I'm not wearing jeans and boots for those two things, I wear skirts and dresses all the time, with pretty shoes and manicured toenails. And I do carry a purse and have lots of them. I very seldom wear makup, and do not have long nails because I type so much. I can handle the basics of home construction including electrical (my husband taught me). I do not shop. I hate to go to the store. For anything. My husband goes, and he will even buy my clothes. He shops for all of our groceries and household items, including Yankee Candles should I want a few. And he is a manly man, but he can move from the home improvement store to the department store without hesitation. And he also holds doors open for anyone--I've just got used to waiting because he is always the last one through. And I hate to cook, plus I'm not very good at it. I like guns, and always carry a couple of pocketknives in my purse.

Also, I think my group of female friends is atypical. My husband and I hang with seven couples, and out of all of them, six of the females have the power jobs. Not that the men don't work, but they have more of a non-career type job and make less money than the females, and they're all good with that. I think we've all thought of ourselves as typical.

I think no matter what traits the character has, as long as she is believable for her situation, that is what matters.

OT: (sorry)
LeeFlower: 1. The only feature I'm really self-conscious about is my brain. I'm always afraid I'm stupider than I think I am. But physically? Meh. I guess it would be nice to be a little stronger, so I could handle a bigger motorcycle.

LeeFlower, if you don't have to have a Harley-Davidson, have you tried a Suzuki Intruder 1500? This bike's gas tank is located beneath the seat giving it a very low center of gravity. I am 5'3", 120 lbs, and this bike is easier to handle than either my previos 800 and 1200. My friends all ride Harley's, so I'm atypical within my group also.

[maestrowork]

Anyhow, I'm just me. I love sci fi and hard-boiled crime. I also love romance and Susan Hayward melodramas. I hate Chick Lit. I love to wear pretty dresses. I also love to wear jeans. I love lacey lingerie. I also like comfy sweats. I love to go to musuems. I also love to go hiking and camping in the woods. I love art. I love to watch sports. I can't play sports. I'm a klutz. I hate gossip. I'm direct in my speech.

But that's the thing. There are a lot of I-don'ts in the thread; a lot of "that's BS -- I don't do any of that!" But I'm curious about the I-dos, as women. Some mentioned the relationships with families, friends, etc. -- but then again, men do that, too. Could it be the women talk more about the emotion stuff (even the most hard-nosed woman), and men tend to avoid talking about emotions? Etc. etc.

And you answered some of my questions -- what do you do that makes you not just a cardboard person or a man with boobs. So you don't have many of the stereotypical traits or behaviors, but at the same time, you also have some. You hate chick lit, but you do read romance. You wear jeans but you also love lacey lingerie. That makes you a more rounded character and you certainly still possess some feminine traits. The stuff about being a klutz or hating gossips or loving sports is just characteristics -- they're neither male or female (certainly a man could love gossips and hate sports). But if a man says "I like wearing lacey lingerie and pretty dresses" -- we can say it's not a typical thing for a man to do -- but certainly something a typical woman would!

Back to the OP: perhaps the trick is to introduce some of these things, without completely turning your character into a girly girl, which she clearly isn't. Focus on some of the dos. Give her a dress, even if she hates wearing it.

[gypsyscarlett]

But that's the thing. There are a lot of I-don'ts in the thread; a lot of "that's BS -- I don't do any of that!" But I'm curious about the I-dos, as women. Some mentioned the relationships with families, friends, etc. -- but then again, men do that, too. Could it be the women talk more about the emotion stuff (even the most hard-nosed woman), and men tend to avoid talking about emotions? Etc. etc.

And you answered some of my questions -- what do you do that makes you not just a cardboard person or a man with boobs. So you don't have many of the stereotypical traits or behaviors, but at the same time, you also have some. You hate chick lit, but you do read romance. You wear jeans but you also love lacey lingerie. That makes you a more rounded character and you certainly still possess some feminine traits. The stuff about being a klutz or hating gossips or loving sports is just characteristics -- they're neither male or female (certainly a man could love gossips and hate sports). But if a man says "I like wearing lacey lingerie and pretty dresses" -- we can say it's not a typical thing for a man to do -- but certainly something a typical woman would!

Back to the OP: perhaps the trick is to introduce some of these things, without completely turning your character into a girly girl, which she clearly isn't. Focus on some of the dos. Give her a dress, even if she hates wearing it.

Hi Maestro,

That really was what I was trying to convey in my post. That we women are rounded beings.

Between feminine and tomboy- I'd say I'm in the middle. But even a woman strongly on one side will have a couple of traits on the other.

I think the reason why so many women here (including myself) jump out and defensively say, "hey! that's not me! I don't do that!" - is because we're sick and tired of the stereotypes; and the media trying to tie us up into neat little packages with bows. We want it understood we're more than that.


I mean, look how silly that list was. The OP was made to believe her female character wasn't believable because she didn't carry a purse? Because she doesn't worry that she's fat? If the character isn't believable it's because she's flat. Not because of those simple little things! Some days I use a purse. Others, I take my shoulder pack. I don't feel less womanly with the shoulder pack. It takes a lot more than that to define a woman.

I'm sure if I was a guy I'd hate the stereotypes thrown at you. Like in romantic comedies. It seems one guy is always the ambitious jerk. The other guy the lovable loser. I will defend men and say I think you're much more complex and interesting than that! :)

Added- I just read Kopperhead's post and she wrote what I meant about us being rounded human beings. She rides motorcyles. She doesn't like to cook. But she wears dresses and skirts and likes to get her nails done. In a typically badly written novel- she'd be some tough chick who never thinks about getting a manicure. And dress? heavens-no!

[IdiotsRUs]

So you don't obsess over your body image or what others think of you, and you don't focus on relationships and you don't carry handbags or purses, and you go out alone at night, and you can kick some serious butts... GREAT! (and can I have your numbers, please?) But I want to ask, what do you consider a "feminine" trait and do you possess certain feminine traits? If so, what are they? What makes you not a man with boobs?

01293...

Good question. Um, I've really gotta think, because I may actually be a man with boobs. I paint my nails. I've been known to wear make up. I loathe clothes shopping but I like to look good. I have frilly pink knickers, because, well because I do. Even if no one else is about, I'll try and look my best. My last motorbike had a winnie the pooh on it. I don't think it's funny to fart real loud and I have no fascination with bowel movements. I don't think comic book superheroes are inherently cool. I'm empathic towards other's feelings ( when I pay attention lol) I'm more sensitive to body language and emotional unsaid undercurrents. I'm more tolerant of others being different to me ( Sweeping generalisation, I've noticed this with a lot of guys - the 'I'm great so everyone who is not like me is crap or at least a bit pants' attitude. Note to guys - this is very unattractive). Little kids make me go all gooey. I like looking after people. Sport is only good for ogling bodies. Oh, and of course, watching men grapple each other covered in not much other than muscles, sweat and baby oil is a socially acceptable pastime for me :D

The Old Man says he can't quanityfy it exactly, I just am female. *shrug*

Of course the plus side is I get taken out on 'boys nights out' ( much to girlfriend's annoyance) because I talk about a lot of the same stuff as the guys. Motorbikes, online games, wrestling, and the importance of being. Well ok, not so much of the last one, but when we've had a few we get all deep and whatnot.

[mscelina]

Just out of curiosity, why should any woman justify what makes her NOT a 'man with boobs?'

Do all women need girly traits to be identified as women? Or, for that matter, are those of us with few girly traits some other sub-species of human, stuck in unlooked for androgyny? Why should women be qualified in order to be admitted into their own gender.

This is totally not directed at you, Ray, just so you know. I've actually thought about this quite a bit since I last posted, because i think your question is a legitimate one that deserves some thought.

See, if you walk down the street or sit in a public place for a long time looking for character studies (which I do a lot) you start to notice that there are few discernible differences between men and women in their everyday traits. Take out dress, hair, makeup and--yes--boobs. Look at the way they walk in comparable shoes. Do women mince any more? No. Look at the way they hold themselves. Do women take on submissive body language as a measure of public comfort? No. Do women cling to their identities as females in lieu of their identities as individuals?

Not any more.

Women have been empowered over the last four decades. Girls have been brought up to believe that they can be just as feminine in dirty jeans playing softball with the guys as they can in their prom dresses. The...defeminization of women, for lack of a better term, is now a naturally occurring consequence of our gender's expanding world. As a result, our contemporary female characters have to catch up. They, just like we, can be girly or not as they choose.

I don't think writers should get that hung up on proper gender behavior in their characters. As long as a character's actions reflects them, their lifestyle, their ideals, their personalities then their portrayal can't help but be true in the end. It's those details that I just mentioned that are the real key to their behavior. If you're writing a character who flouts gender rules as a conscious choice, a decision she's made as a result of those details, then she can't help but come to life on the page.

[IceCreamEmpress]

What mscelina said.

What makes me a woman? I identify as a woman. (And I also have XX chromosomes, but that's about my biological sex, not my gender.)

But what makes me IceCreamEmpress are a lot of complex traits--I'm afraid of heights, but I'm always challenging myself to climb high things; I love chocolate, caviar, and anything pickled; I'm cranky and argumentative; I love gardening, but never get the time; I like stupid jokes, the more ridiculous the better; I love to read; I'm very shy but try to mask that by being outgoing--oh, lots of stuff.

Some of them (loving chocolate) are traits many people associate more with women; some of them (liking stupid jokes) are traits many people associate more with men.

I think if Clair told readers more about what Bo Fexler is like as a person, they wouldn't feel like she needed to conform to feminine stereotypes. I can tell that Bo is a complex, real person in Clair's imagination--I'd like to see more of that on the page.

[MsK]

In the book I mentioned, Odd Mom Out- a story of a woman/mom who is different than the other stereotypical moms, the MC (The atypical woman) never pointed out that she was different than the others, but the other women noticed- and her daughter noticed.
Being that Odd Mom Out is a story about her differences, the author had to have the differences noticed and the daughter served this purpose for the most part- the young daughter was embarassed that her mom wasn't like the other mothers.
Maybe Bo wouldn't notice how different she is from the sterotypical female, but perhaps others would notice. Maybe another detective would notice and make some sort of stupid comment/comments. In reponse, I'm guessing Bo would probably not spend any time musing over it, she'd probably roll her eyes (if she was aware she wasn't stereotypical) or just brush it off and move forward.
Like I mentioned earlier, I'm probably 50/50- sterotypical/atypical female and I would notice the difference in myself and a very atypical female. (not as a negative, merely as a difference)
That being said, I'd definitely notice the differences in myself and the more stereotypical female- and these differences, I might see in a more negative light.

ETA: I thought I'd add a little and tell you what I would do with a friend who is a true atypical female. I'd probably joke with her and do things like, buy her frilly pink things for her birthday, buy her a subscription to a magazine like True Romance. I'd have fun with it as that's my sense of humor. And again, that would be a good friend who would get my humor and not see it as insulting.

[maestrowork]

Women have been empowered over the last four decades. Girls have been brought up to believe that they can be just as feminine in dirty jeans playing softball with the guys as they can in their prom dresses.

The...defeminization of women, for lack of a better term, is now a naturally occurring consequence of our gender's expanding world. As a result, our contemporary female characters have to catch up. They, just like we, can be girly or not as they choose.


I don't want this to turn into a gender role discussion (even though I often find it fascinating), but still...

I find it interesting that on one hand we're not exactly saying we value the "defeminization" of women, but on the other hand, a woman may think she's empowered because she doesn't do anything of the girly stuff -- that, in essence, she's more like a "traditional" man: riding motorbikes, wearing dirty jeans, playing rough sports, hanging with the boys, etc. There's certainly a tilt to masculinity. Perhaps it's a byproduct of a "male dominant world" where we believe you're "empowered" because you don't subscribe to the traditional female stereotypes. That you can survive the men's world... But are these "female traits" really bad to begin with? What if someone really likes to shop, wear dresses, paint their nails, and is glued to the Bachelor or Project Runway? Because stereotypes are bad?

I just find it interesting to note all that "No way, it's not me!" protests when we start to list the female stereotypes, as if they're totally undesirable if you want to be a modern woman. Can you imagine we listing all the masculine traits and some guy jumps up and down proclaiming: "No way, it's not me! I don't like to wear pants and I hate sports. I'd rather decorate the house and take long bubble baths!" Would it be considered male empowerment?

So what about men? Obviously, the metrosexuals and the "nurture your feminine side" movement is happening in the male culture, and yet there's also a general fear for boys and young men to feel like they're not masculine enough if they don't like sports or they like to watch Project Runway or romantic comedies. There's a certain sneer at the metrosexuals for being emasculated. And no man (outside of certain circles) would admit to wearing dresses and putting on make-up.

To me, there's a thing about "coming to the middle" when, like you said, take away the clothes and the anatomy, there may not be a lot of differences between how men and women behave. Still, the scale seems to tip toward "masculinity" and not the other way around. It's fine if a woman shows no "girly" traits at all but for a guy who shows no "manly" traits, he's usually either labeled a weird nerd or homosexual.

[mscelina]

Like I mentioned earlier, I'm probably 50/50- sterotypical/atypical female

That would make you normal, Krystal. ;)

[mscelina]

To me, there's a thing about "coming to the middle" when, like you said, take away the clothes and the anatomy, there may not be a lot of differences between how men and women behave. Still, the scale seems to tip toward "masculinity" and not the other way around. It's fine if a woman shows no "girly" traits at all but for a guy who shows no "manly" traits, he's usually either labeled a weird nerd or homosexual.

Well, but see that would necessitate starting off with the stereotypical male behavioral patterns as what is considered the norm or desirable--for both genders. in other words, what I--we--are seeing as empowerment because we are shedding the old-school proscribed roles, you see as acting more like a man. Similarly, the same for a young male who doesn't exhibit the prescribed manly traits--he's automatically weaker, a nerd or gay, because he has empowered himself to move beyond his fated behaviors and ideologies. I'm afraid that in the end, it does become a gender role discussion.

Those who are breaking out of the molds are considered wrong somehow, as if they're trying to become something they're inherently not, when in fact their independence from being labelled at all is what causes them to do so in the first place.

[maestrowork]

But what makes me IceCreamEmpress are a lot of complex traits--I'm afraid of heights, but I'm always challenging myself to climb high things; I love chocolate, caviar, and anything pickled; I'm cranky and argumentative; I love gardening, but never get the time; I like stupid jokes, the more ridiculous the better; I love to read; I'm very shy but try to mask that by being outgoing--oh, lots of stuff.

I think that's the key to a believable character, male or female -- the roundness and complexity. If a character is either too "male" or too "female," we start to wonder if the person is real. Perhaps part of the problem with the OP is that the protagonist shows absolutely no trait of a woman (whatever it means), that if you substitute "she" with "he" it would read just fine. The fact is, stereotypes are boring. A totally "manly man" hero or a "girly girl" heroine may work in a romance but not really believe in a drama.

Perhaps the critiques are not whether a woman "should" or "must" carry a purse, but whether there's simply nothing to suggest the character has a soft side. Such a "hard" woman character may be difficult for the readers to identify. Without reading the writing, it's not easy for me to tell. Just throwing that out for thoughts, however...

E.g. my heroine in the WIP is not a "typical" female either, even though she grew up in the thirties and forties in Asia where tradition female roles were valued. Still, when she's with other women, they talk about girl stuff. When the hero shows interest in her, she gets flustered. She's not easily afraid and she's going to learn how to fire guns soon. Still, her has a strong emotional bond with her friends. One thing for sure, she's still subjected to how her world sees and treat women, and her struggles may be even more prominent because she doesn't fit into that gender role. I think one thing to keep in mind is how the world and people around the protagonist treats her and how she navigates as someone who's a bit "different."

[IdiotsRUs]

where we believe you're "empowered" because you don't subscribe to the traditional female stereotypes.

I don't believ I'm 'empowered' because of how I am. I do, however, believe I'm me.

[maestrowork]

Those who are breaking out of the molds are considered wrong somehow, as if they're trying to become something they're inherently not, when in fact their independence from being labelled at all is what causes them to do so in the first place.

And I think, as I said in my previous post, the reaction from "that world" would be a very interesting element to add to the story, to support the characterization of a character that is "atypical." A woman with no "girly" traits or a man with no "manly" traits... how the rest of the world treats them? To me, that would certainly add to the realism of the story.

[Quossum]

I just find it interesting to note all that "No way, it's not me!" protests when we start to list the female stereotypes, as if they're totally undesirable if you want to be a modern woman. Can you imagine we listing all the masculine traits and some guy jumps up and down proclaiming: "No way, it's not me! I don't like to wear pants and I hate sports. I'd rather decorate the house and take long bubble baths!" Would it be considered male empowerment? ...

To me, there's a thing about "coming to the middle" when, like you said, take away the clothes and the anatomy, there may not be a lot of differences between how men and women behave. Still, the scale seems to tip toward "masculinity" and not the other way around. It's fine if a woman shows no "girly" traits at all but for a guy who shows no "manly" traits, he's usually either labeled a weird nerd or homosexual.

I'm so glad someone else said this, too, as I was really feeling it during this whole thread.

There was a similar discussion a while back about boys' toys being "cooler" and "more fun" than girls' toys, and I was surprised at the number of females who jumped in with comments about how boring "typical" girl toys were and how proud they were that they enjoyed playing with "boy stuff." There weren't any men writing in and saying, "Oh, but I loved those My Little Ponies--the pinker, the better!" in that discussion.

I commented on that thread that it seemed like tomboys are cool, while there doesn't even seem to be a non-insulting word for boys who like "typical" girl stuff.

I wish people could just be people. I think there probably are some biologically based gender traits beyond (and created / caused by?) the obvious physical, often encouraged by the culture and society, but those exist in various proportions in real people and in real-seeming characters in books.

As far as the OP, I have to echo a few PP's and say that if the betas are complaining, there's something off with the character. Not necessarily her masculine vs. feminine qualities, but something non-relatable about her that they're possibly having trouble putting their finger on and so are hitting on the "a woman wouldn't do that" thing.

--Q

[IceCreamEmpress]

In the book I mentioned, Odd Mom Out- a story of a woman/mom who is different than the other stereotypical moms, the MC (The atypical woman) never pointed out that she was different than the others, but the other women noticed- and her daughter noticed.
Being that Odd Mom Out is a story about her differences, the author had to have the differences noticed and the daughter served this purpose for the most part- the young daughter was embarassed that her mom wasn't like the other mothers.

I read Jane Porter's Odd Mom Out (and Mrs. Perfect, the author's next book set in the same set of characters), and it wasn't so much that Marta Zinsser didn't conform to feminine stereotypes in general, it was that she didn't conform to the particular set of feminine stereotypes that were embraced by the women in her affluent Seattle suburb.

Both Marta and the "perfect moms" of her daughter's classmates would seem equally "unfeminine" to, say, the characters in Tamar Myers's Amish mysteries: the differences between worrying or not worrying about calories, or wearing designer sportswear or cargo pants, would be irrelevant to what Myers's characters think of as the core elements of being womanly.

[bpmann]

Maybe Bo wouldn't notice how different she is from the sterotypical female, but perhaps others would notice.

Wouldn't be much of a detective, then, would she? :tongue

[Shara]

Clair

Your main character sounds very interesting and I think, as has already been said, perhaps your beta readers were not the right ones for your genre.

I do have some sympathy because I based my main character on me and came up for some similar criticism from beta readers - more to do with her being annoying and lacking empathy than not being 'girly' enough (though it was mentioned that as she's an actress she should show more interest in clothes!).

Like others have said, the character needs to be real. I don't think not being 'girly' should be a problem - this thread (and it is very interesting) has proved that there are a lot of women out there who don't conform to the traditional 'girly' stereotypes. And as it seems that most of us read crime, you are appealing to your target audience. I could get on the soap box and bang on at length about the inaccuracies of gender stereotypes, particularly those relating to women, but I won't - it's already been discussed here and I don't want to hijack the thread for my own personal politics!

But your readers do have to have some empathy with your character, and it's already been mentioned that maybe this needs to be addressed. Real people are full of inconsistencies - which has also been proved on this thread. Perhaps you just need to give your character some 'real' foibles. She kicks ass and has no particular interest in clothes, make up or beauty treatments, but maybe she likes to relax a bubble bath for for hours, with a glass of wine and a magazine (if it was a magazine about cars or motorbikes, that would be a nice touch!).

A character who doesn't care about anybody is difficult for a reader to care about, so the suggestion that she champions a cause is a good one - if not an animal charity, perhaps she feels some sympathy for the homeless or the downtrodden members of society and wants to do something to help improve their lot. If you feel that's a tired idea, then perhaps a lesser known charitable cause might appeal to your character.

But on the whole I don't think it's a good idea to stereotype the way that your beta readers seem to be doing. Criticism of a female character who doesn't carry a purse, or angst about relationships, or have a body part she hates, is not worth worrying about. I love books about strong independent minded women, and your character sounds right up my alley.

Shara

[Clair Dickson]

First-- thanks for all the replies.

Second-- I'm blown away at those who've gone and read my short stories. (thanks!) One of the things noted was that the shorts have a problem with how Bo presents herself. Part of that is the writer (hi!) and part of that is the space. I think/hope the novel doesn't do those things and instead uses the extra words the longer format provides to do better showing than telling who Bo is.

I'm coming out of this discussion thinking that the character is probably okay, it's more in how she's presented that may be causing the difficulties. (I'll have a talk with the appropriate people about that... ;-)

As for the feminine traits I have? That's a very hard question for me to answer, honestly. The first one I can come up with is I hate getting my hands dirty, if I can help it. But that doesn't stop me from doing much of anything. Then there's cooking and baking-- which I don't love, but since I have so many food allergies, I was forced from being Microwave Goddess to being a cook. The end product is tasty though. And there's something enjoyable when a hunt at the local stores is actually successful for procuring items in my size that even fit. (But I'm still exceptionally pragmatic and still have only half the closet space.)

Interesting things-- definetly much to think about and I've really been enjoying reading the responses! Gender roles are always interesting-- and I'll definetly have to think about how Bo is the way she is (aside from the fact that it's hard to seperate her from me at times, because, well, it's easiest to write characters I understand, and I understand me more than I understand best. ;-)

[Pagey's_Girl]

Chiming in late, but I'd rather read about a character like Bo. We need more kick-butt "atypical" women in literature!

[Disa]

Chiming in late, but I'd rather read about a character like Bo. We need more kick-butt "atypical" women in literature!


I couldn't have said this better myself :) Write on...

[a_sharp]

What a great thread!

I'm reminded of Stephanie Plum, the heroine in Janet Evanovich's hilariously popular series. In contrast, Stephanie is ALL the girly things, but Evanovich has twisted them in inventive ways to fit her humorous mystery genre and make her extremely popular. I think what makes Plum work as a character is her vulnerability and her energy.

Of course Stephanie Plum requires suspension of disbelief. Of course she's not to be taken seriously, and thus avoids categorization.

My point, if there is one, is that we're talking about a work of fiction here, not reality as we know it. There is a difference and anyone who doesn't get it is in for a rough ride as a writer. What grabs readers of books is not "real life" but the invention of the writer twisting reality to create characters who transcend it. The fact that several readers complained about the MC is a flag that deserves attention, but probably not for the reasons they offered.

I have read remarks by successful agents who have difficulty articulating what's wrong with a story. I'm talking big names, people with lots of experience, but they're groping for the right words. It's tough to put notions and feelings and other abstract responses into concrete terms, and yet everyone in this thread is grappling with that shortcoming presented in the original post.

Probably the best advice is to keep this marvelous character as she is but build her character with some compelling flaws and inconsistent behavioral quirks. Several good ones have already been suggested. That's where the effort should go, not in debating what's feminine and what's not. We could go down that path endlessly.

I can't impose my personal opinion about gender on a fictional character I haven't even read. But, there are certain maxims in published fiction that work (become popular) because they are what most readers expect, even if they exaggerate experience. If we breach those maxims we risk rejection. I believe this is what Clair has experienced.

This character needs work, but I would ignore the OP list because I interpret it as a failed attempt by the readers to describe what they wanted and failed to get. If she were my character, I'd be excited for the opportunity to flesh her out and make her truly unforgettable.

[Dawnstorm]

I mean, I hold doors for everyone -- men, women, children. It's just the polite thing to do. I can see where the "men don't hold doors for other men" comes from, though. Still, to be "surprised" that a woman or man would hold doors for another man is kind of odd... wonder where the guy grew up.

It's re-assuring to hear that. I tend to be a bit awkward, socially. The situation wasn't unpleasant, and I'm used to being mistaken for a girl. Usually it's when I wear my hair long, though, which isn't currently the case - so there must be more to it.

It's always interesting to see what assumptions people make, such as in this case. (It's, of course, easier to be gender-mistaken online. Especially, if you're name could be read as Dawn_Storm. ;) )

***

I've now read three Bo Fexler flashs, and I can't tell what the fuzz is about. Plenty of implied gender issues (e.g. when she fakes a relationship for a job she thinks about a hypothetically real one ["Cupid's Bullet"]; she views giggling as degrading ["Cat Nip"]...). Gender issues (or what could be constured as a gender issue) are certainly not ignored. That's not the problem, I think.

[ideagirl]

If your readers are saying a woman would never do that, then you haven't developed your character sufficiently for the reader to understand.

That's a possibility, but it's always possible that the people making the comments are just ignorant or biased by their own opinions.

Having said that, there are actual differences between men and woman that have been studied and documented. When working in teams, women discuss the task before they do it. Women will read the instructions all the way through before putting something together, ie IKEA furniture.

I absolutely never read instructions. What I typically do is start putting something together the way it looks like it's supposed to go, screw it up, and then get mad, at which point my husband reads the directions from beginning to end, follows them, and the thing works. If he had it his way, we would skip step one (the "me refusing to follow instructions and then getting mad" part) and just start with him reading the instructions, but I haven't quite accepted that approach yet... :-)

My point here is that the "actual differences" revealed by studies are general rules that do not apply to every individual man or woman--like you point out, a woman who grew up with six brothers or vice-versa might have picked up opposite-gender traits; and there are plenty of other reasons a person might pick up traits not typically associated with their gender. So it's totally absurd for a reader to go, "Oh, your character does X, but that's not realistic because women don't do X."

[maestrowork]

Readers do apply their own perceptions and prejudice and stereotypes, though. So the thing for the writer to do is to create a fully developed, 3D character so that the readers understand and feel these people are real. But if you present a guy who likes fashion shows and listens to Britney Spears and carries a "man purse" and hates everything sports-related, readers are going to make some assumptions until you break those assumptions. And people are a product of their genetics, upbringing, cultures, and familial influences. It doesn't mean you need to outline their history for the readers, but the more they know, the more they understand how this person comes to be that way.

In real life, we have mannerisms and body language to observe. A "tomboy" could still smile and brush a strand of hair from her face that makes a man swoon: "That's a woman." But in text, how does a character come across as female when she has no typical "female" traits? I think that's a challenge, not just for the writers, but for the readers as well.

[Matera the Mad]

Jeez, Clair, I just don't know why some people don't like characters like us.

[Clair Dickson]

Jeez, Clair, I just don't know why some people don't like characters like us.
:ROFL:

I think it's usually it's my sharp tongue and the fact that I'd rather work that stand around and gab[complain] about my husband that get me the most ostracized. But they come back when they have a computer question...

I was thinking about my own approach to my femaleness (per this thread) and noticed that not only do I not make mention of it, I don't say anything about it. For example, at my retail job I was exiled to unloading trucks-- a dirty, difficult job. Includes lifting furniture and boxes holding 4 to 6 gallons of various liquids. I've never had any problems lifting these items, but some of the guys will go for the boxes instead ('let me get that for you') I'm not stupid-- I feel not need to prove to these guys that I'm big and strong and tough-- I'll let them take the boxes from time to time unless it's inconvenient. But they only do that for me, not towards each other, or even the gray-haired guy. I *know* I can lift those boxes-- I've done it often enough, and in fact, I've done it often enough *around* these guys (I've been unloading the trucks for about a year now). But some how, there's still this chivalry? that goes on towards the one lady down there.

Thinking about this further, I notice that my thoughts don't usually go towards gender as the explanation. It's about strength. My answer (either outloud or not) is always "I got it/ I can get it." I don't think about the fact that I'm female having anything to do with my ability to lift/ carry. Now, the fact taht I'm not buff and toned, yeah, I can see that. But, as was brought up here-- what do the guys think? Are they seeing the girl... girls can't carry much? I wonder. I'll have to find someone I can ask... Hubby's too biased. ;-)

[maestrowork]

Speaking from experience, I don't think it's that girls can't carry much -- heck, all my ex girlfriends were stronger than I was. I think it's just a thing we men do -- it's a courtesy, and it's chivalry. At least that's how I see it... call me old-fashioned. But if you really want to carry those heavy boxes, be my guest. :)

[C.bronco]

A typical character is boring. Write her the way she was meant to be. :)

[angeliz2k]

I'm going to make a point that I hope hasn't been made. You can have stereotypical characteristics and not be typical.

I carry a purse. I count calories. I'm not fond of my short little body. And I definitely am wary of going out alone at night. But then I'm 4'11" and 105 pounds and look much younger than I am (plus I live in a very bad area), I carry a big ass purse that never matches what I'm wearing but holds everything I need (lunch, my notepad for work, a waterbottle, my phone, pen, pencil, you name it), I want to stay healthy, and I do NOT consider myself typical at all.

I also like shooting the beebee gun when I'm at home (almost got a tomcat the other day), I spend most of my time drawing, writing, or reading, I HATE chick-flicks, and though I like looking at clothes (what can I say, I have an artistic temperment), I almost never buy anything. Shirts over $15 are too expensive, shoes over $20 are too expensive . . . I love to bake, too, but then again I love the cookies, brownies, and candies that result from the effort.

Basically, make the character real. Stereotypical/typical be damned. Just make sure that it makes sense that they are the way they are--whether "the way they are" is typical or not.

[gypsyscarlett]

I'm going to make a point that I hope hasn't been made. You can have stereotypical characteristics and not be typical.

I carry a purse. I count calories. I'm not fond of my short little body. And I definitely am wary of going out alone at night. But then I'm 4'11" and 105 pounds and look much younger than I am (plus I live in a very bad area), I carry a big ass purse that never matches what I'm wearing but holds everything I need (lunch, my notepad for work, a waterbottle, my phone, pen, pencil, you name it), I want to stay healthy, and I do NOT consider myself typical at all.

I also like shooting the beebee gun when I'm at home (almost got a tomcat the other day), I spend most of my time drawing, writing, or reading, I HATE chick-flicks, and though I like looking at clothes (what can I say, I have an artistic temperment), I almost never buy anything. Shirts over $15 are too expensive, shoes over $20 are too expensive . . . I love to bake, too, but then again I love the cookies, brownies, and candies that result from the effort.

Basically, make the character real. Stereotypical/typical be damned. Just make sure that it makes sense that they are the way they are--whether "the way they are" is typical or not.

Hi Angeliz,

No one here was trying to say no woman carries purses, or worries about her weight, or about being alone at night.

The beef was that the OP was told her character was unbelievable simply because SHE, an individual, didn't.

The point is we gals come in all types and personalites and varities.
From what you just described of yourself- you and I sound different- yet we're both women with rounded, distinct personalities.

You said yourself you do not think of yourself as being typical. That's why stereotypes are so darn annoying. It's the tired, and false stereotypes that lead people to believe a female character is not believable unless she does A B C...

You're dead on correct when you said to make the "character real". And that's done by fleshing her out. Giving her likes and dislikes, strong suits and flaws. A female character can surely carry purses, never leave the house without makeup, be a shopaholic, shoeaholic, and love Sex in the City. Just like a female character can like some of those things and dislike others. And another female character can hate all those things. Just like women in real life. :)

[Clair Dickson]

Musing: is being a 'typical' woman a bad thing? Being a 'typical' man doesn't seem to bother most guys. But I'm wondering how many women are repusled by the idea that they might be a 'typical' woman?

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, just musing the idea. None on this thread has jumped in and declared that they are completely typical and happy for it.

Are there characters that do this? Maybe in chick-lit (which I don't read-- I admit, I have an irrational aversion towards it without proper knowledge of the genre.) Do men have to explain why they don't fit the stereotype? I'd even argue that geeky guys get more of a break in fiction than strong women. Geeky guys are sensitive, strong women are... men with boobs? Lesbians? At the very least, strong women always seem like they have to prove something in fiction-- or have some achilles heel they brood over.

Hm. Is that the difference between fiction and real-life? In real life, a strong woman will just live her life and not worry so much about what people think. (Speaking for myself, it rarely enters my mind that I'm not like 'other' women-- unless some mentions something about "Women" as a group.) But in fiction, readers expect that the strong woman explain why she's not like other women, why she doesn't love clothes, or study her relection for flaws, or cook or whatever stereotype that reader identifies with. They expect to see reasons to explain the character-- is this the same when a woman does exhibit the stereotypes? If she swoons over a new pair of shoes, do readers accept that more readily than the character who is gluing the sole back on the old, trusty shoes?

Using the above example of gluing shoes back together-- I did that the other day. My reason: because I could. The shoes are still pretty good. Eventually, it occurred to me, that hey, that saves money! Which is perpetually in short supply in this place. But if I was a fiction character, would I have to have had the rational thought earlier? What I have to explain myself beyong 'because i can'? Would I have had to rationalize why I DIDN'T use the opportunity to go out and buy new shoes (because who doesn't love buying new shoes?!?)

And thanks to all who have been offereing thoughts in the thread.

ETA: Disregard use of the word "strong" and just go with "atypical" as has been used all thread. I don't have a better one... and strong was really bad. =)

[Tasmin21]

*is wearing glued shoes at this very moment*

I'm late to the thread, but I find it interesting that (at least via the responses in this thread) "atypical" women seem to be more prevalent than "typical" women. Makes you wonder how we got to the definition of typical in the first place.

[maestrowork]

Musing: is being a 'typical' woman a bad thing? Being a 'typical' man doesn't seem to bother most guys. But I'm wondering how many women are repusled by the idea that they might be a 'typical' woman?

Great question! I'd say if you tell a guy he's very "typical" (unless you mean "slob, piggish, arrogant, sexist, jerk... when you say "typical" :-P ), I don't think any man would really object to that. But if you say a woman is typical, it seems like you'd hear a lot of protests. "I'm not like that!"

And I don't think it's true about men in fiction. I would say most "heroes" in fiction are more typical than atypical. Geeks and nerds or effeminate men make for great secondary characters, but a protagonist? I'd say fiction still favor a strong, manly hero, especially in genres such as mystery, suspense or thrillers. And in romance -- do you expect a nerd or effeminate man in the lead? I hardly think so.

But I see a lot of "strong" and "atypical" women in fiction. And like I said before, it seems like the traits tilt toward masculinity. Take mystery, suspense or thrillers, and you'll find that the male protagonist are strong and manly, and the female protagonists are ALSO strong and resourceful and perhaps a bit "manly" according to stereotypes. It may just be that these genres favor strong characters, but who is to say a sensitive man or woman is NOT strong and relatable?

[IceCreamEmpress]

In real life, a strong woman will just live her life and not worry so much about what people think.

You seem to be implying that women (or people in general) who worry about what other people think are not "strong".

And all of the men I know would be pissed off beyond imagining if anyone called them a "typical man" because, just like "typical woman," that phrase is fraught with silly and/or hurtful stereotypes.

If someone said "Oh, he's not a typical man" they would, in my experience, mean "Oh, he's not like the caricatures of masculinity one sees in crappy entertainment media."

Gender stereotypes suck for everyone.

[maestrowork]

What exactly are the "typical" man stereotypes?

I have a feeling that we're associating "typical" with negative traits. But is that really true?

[kuwisdelu]

As a man, I'd hate it if someone told me I'm typical.

For me it means being jock-ish, loving sports, wearing sneakers, liking parties, burping, enjoying large amounts of beer (I'm a scotch guy, thank you), not reading anything, watching pointless action flicks (it needs a point, guys), slobbery (yeah, I freak about lack of coasters), etc. And I'm none of those.

[IceCreamEmpress]

What exactly are the "typical" man stereotypes?

Childish and self-centered; can't keep his pants zipped; doesn't have close friends; "only thinks about one thing"; "just a little boy at heart"; easily manipulated by women; filthy slob; incompetent with household chores; obsessed with televised sports...

What exactly are the "typical" man stereotypes?

I have a feeling that we're associating "typical" with negative traits. But is that really true?

Yes, stereotypes are generally of negative traits.

And "typical" usually means "stereotypical", not "average".

I don't think anyone wants to be called a "typical" anything. I don't want to be called a "typical" white person or a "typical" writer or a "typical" Bostonian or a "typical" Christian or a "typical" Ivy League grad--it's not just about gender stereotypes, it's about all stereotypes.

[maestrowork]

Childish and self-centered; can't keep his pants zipped; doesn't have close friends; "only thinks about one thing"; "just a little boy at heart"; easily manipulated by women; filthy slob; incompetent with household chores; obsessed with televised sports...

Yes, stereotypes are generally of negative traits.

And "typical" usually means "stereotypical", not "average".


I actually disagree on both counts. It seems like by "typical" you're thinking about the prejudice people have against the other sex.

Couldn't a "typical" man be:

A loyal family man who loves his wife and devotes his time providing for his family. Hardworking. A best buddy. A responsible, if a bit serious, father. Sure, he may like to watch sports and would rather work in the yard than washing dishes, but he's truly devoted to his family. Humorous and supportive. Caring but not too mushy. Likes his beer cold and his pizza warm. Loves to unwind in front of the TV, but would love to help his children with their homework or take them to the little league games. Loves to putz around the house, fixing things, working on his car in the garage, etc.

To me, that's more a more "typical" male stereotype than the "slobbish, self-centered jerk who thinks with his penis other than his brain" stereotype, because I do believe that there are more family men in this world than then slobbish barflies. To me, that's not simply stereotypes, but prejudice. It's like saying a "typical" woman is either a whiny, needy Daddy's girl who can't fend for herself and needs a man to rescue her, or that she's a man-eating bitch.

I hardly think of a "typical" women in that light, and I'm surprised to hear that people think of a "typical" man as a slobbish pig.


To me, at least, that's what "typical" means and not that men are pigs and slobs and childish and obsessed with boobs and sports.

[eveningstar]

As a man, I'd hate it if someone told me I'm typical.


As a person, I'd hate it if someone told me I'm typical.

It implies conformity and lack of individuality.

[timewaster]

This has been stressing me a bit lately. I've gotten some comments about how my female lead wouldn't do/think/ etc what I've written because that's not how women are.

The comments pretty much always come from women.

These people need to get out more. Where/when do they live?

[kuwisdelu]

As a person, I'd hate it if someone told me I'm typical.

It implies conformity and lack of individuality.

That too.

[Clair Dickson]

That's the impression I've been getting, too. Typical is 'bad' and includes all the negative traits that we decide about that particular classification.

Here something else-- does an "typical" action need to be justified the same way as an "atypical" one. Does a woman character need to explain why she *does* carry a purse? The indication I've gotten is that for an atypical female character in order for readers to understand why she *doesn't* carry a purse, there should be some explanation. Do some behaviors need to be explained-- or are they easier to accept because they are "typical"? Or not?

[gypsyscarlett]

Musing: is being a 'typical' woman a bad thing? Being a 'typical' man doesn't seem to bother most guys. But I'm wondering how many women are repusled by the idea that they might be a 'typical' woman?

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, just musing the idea. None on this thread has jumped in and declared that they are completely typical and happy for it.

Are there characters that do this? Maybe in chick-lit (which I don't read-- I admit, I have an irrational aversion towards it without proper knowledge of the genre.) Do men have to explain why they don't fit the stereotype? I'd even argue that geeky guys get more of a break in fiction than strong women. Geeky guys are sensitive, strong women are... men with boobs? Lesbians? At the very least, strong women always seem like they have to prove something in fiction-- or have some achilles heel they brood over.

Hm. Is that the difference between fiction and real-life? In real life, a strong woman will just live her life and not worry so much about what people think. (Speaking for myself, it rarely enters my mind that I'm not like 'other' women-- unless some mentions something about "Women" as a group.) But in fiction, readers expect that the strong woman explain why she's not like other women, why she doesn't love clothes, or study her relection for flaws, or cook or whatever stereotype that reader identifies with. They expect to see reasons to explain the character-- is this the same when a woman does exhibit the stereotypes? If she swoons over a new pair of shoes, do readers accept that more readily than the character who is gluing the sole back on the old, trusty shoes?


Hi Clair,
First- I think the reason no woman jumped up and happily declared herself a "typical" woman- is because we've seen there is no such thing as a "typical" woman. Uh-haven't we? :)

All of the descriptions women on this thread have given of ourselves have been different. We're all women. We're all distinct human beings.
In my stories (and I've written from erotica to gothic to mystery to fantasy) none of my female characters have worried about their weight or been shopaholics. I don't rationalize it. It's just not part of the story. It's simply not mentioned in any way.

In real life, I have never wondered why I carry a purse and other women don't. Why I enjoy shopping when the mood strikes whereas other women are total shopaholics. Or why I like to wear skirts and some women hate them. I just figure we all have different likes and dislikes!

Neither do I ever worry about such things when I am reading fiction. I don't care if the character swoons over a new pair of shoes or if she glues old soles together.. All I care about while I am reading is that the character (male or female) is interesting. I think Jane Eyre is interesting. Catherine Earnshaw, Miss Marple, George R R Martin's female characters, Kelly Armstrong's Women of the Otherworld, Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child's Margo Green and Nora Kelly... All very different women from different genres and times. All interesting to me.

Bo sounds very interesting to me.
I think the thing is- Bo isn't a likeable person.
Unlikeable characters are tricky. There are some readers who prefer always reading about likeable people. I think that is why your original readers suggested you soften Bo up.
So you have a choice.
You can soften her up to appeal to the masses.
Or, you can hold true to your vision of her. You can remember that some of the most memorable characters in fiction are not likeable. You can remember that she is your character in your story.

[gypsyscarlett]

That's the impression I've been getting, too. Typical is 'bad' and includes all the negative traits that we decide about that particular classification.

Here something else-- does an "typical" action need to be justified the same way as an "atypical" one. Does a woman character need to explain why she *does* carry a purse? The indication I've gotten is that for an atypical female character in order for readers to understand why she *doesn't* carry a purse, there should be some explanation. Do some behaviors need to be explained-- or are they easier to accept because they are "typical"? Or not?

As I was getting around in my last post: NO. NO. NO.

Why in the world would a woman have to justify that she carries a purse? Or she doesn't carry one???

Does anyone in real life really worry about such things? When you walk down the street do you think: "OMG! That woman has a purse!" or "OMG! That woman doesn't have a purse!"

Please stop worrying yourself over this. :)

[IceCreamEmpress]

I actually disagree on both counts. It seems like by "typical" you're thinking about the prejudice people have against the other sex.

I think you interpret "typical" as meaning "average" or "usual". I think when people say "typical" they mean "stereotypical" most of the time.

I wouldn't mind being called "an average woman" or "an average white person" but being called "a typical woman" or "a typical white person" would annoy me.


That's the impression I've been getting, too. Typical is 'bad' and includes all the negative traits that we decide about that particular classification.

That's because most people mean STEREOTYPICAL when they say "typical".

You may not. Ray may not. But it's what most people mean.


Okay, so if you Google "typical man" the first result you get is to the Cartoonstock.com collection of cartoons filed under "Typical Man". I can't guarantee that they're all safe for work, but you can see them here. (http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/t/typical_man.asp)

I think there are pretty few men on Earth who would want to be described as like the guys in those cartoons.

[Clair Dickson]

Gypsy, I'm not *that* worried about it. At this point, I'm just talking it over with different people on the thread-- getting ideas on what other readers/writers think.

One of the possibilities that was brought up was that perhaps my female MC was suffering from a little to little characterization-- that perhaps by explaining why she was the way she was would help quell the criticisms (few that I've gotten) that she wasn't acting like a "woman" would act. So I'm asking this most recent question to see what others think--
Do typical behaviors require explanation any more or less than atypical one? I just used the purse example as just an easy example, I could have pulled something else from my hat-- maybe the example of Bo getting into two fist-fights in one day?

Just discourse. I like to talk things to death-- debate, analyse, go over, muse-- ask poor hubby. =) Oh, I have NO plans of changing Bo-- but perhaps how she's presented. Perhaps. Just a bit. Thanks you for your concern and your input, too.

[Clair Dickson]

Empress-- that's the joy ("joy") of language, isn't it? Some people mean it well, like Ray, and others use typical as a synonym for the dreaded "stereotypical." (I'm not sure how I mean it... ;-)

[IceCreamEmpress]

One of the possibilities that was brought up was that perhaps my female MC was suffering from a little to little characterization--

Yes.

that perhaps by explaining why she was the way she was would help quell the criticisms (few that I've gotten) that she wasn't acting like a "woman" would act.

No.

She doesn't have to explain anything. Other people might expect her to have a purse, but she knows why she doesn't carry one.

Similarly, other people might be surprised that she's in so many fistfights, but she isn't.

Bo doesn't have to define herself by others' stereotypes. However, others might be surprised or react in some way when she doesn't meet their stereotypes.

Think about it. Her male adversaries aren't going to expect a woman to engage them in fistfighting. This offers her an advantage in many situations, I'll bet.


Empress-- that's the joy ("joy") of language, isn't it? Some people mean it well, like Ray, and others use typical as a synonym for the dreaded "stereotypical." (I'm not sure how I mean it... ;-)

I think that explains a lot of the confusion on this thread. Some people use it as a synonym for "average" or "frequently encountered" and some (more, I'll argue) use it as a synonym for "stereotypical".

I don't think anyone wants to be considered a stereotypical anything.



Bo is an unusual woman. But there are lots of successful novel series out there with protagonists who are equally unusual. So the feedback you're getting about making her less unusual may be identifying an issue but suggesting the wrong solution.

[gypsyscarlett]

Gypsy, I'm not *that* worried about it. At this point, I'm just talking it over with different people on the thread-- getting ideas on what other readers/writers think.

One of the possibilities that was brought up was that perhaps my female MC was suffering from a little to little characterization-- that perhaps by explaining why she was the way she was would help quell the criticisms (few that I've gotten) that she wasn't acting like a "woman" would act. So I'm asking this most recent question to see what others think--
Do typical behaviors require explanation any more or less than atypical one? I just used the purse example as just an easy example, I could have pulled something else from my hat-- maybe the example of Bo getting into two fist-fights in one day?

Just discourse. I like to talk things to death-- debate, analyse, go over, muse-- ask poor hubby. =) Oh, I have NO plans of changing Bo-- but perhaps how she's presented. Perhaps. Just a bit. Thanks you for your concern and your input, too.

Hi Clair,

Okay- glad you're not stressing. Musing is good. I just didn't want you tearing your hair out over purses. :)

I know what you mean about wanting to flesh Bo out more.

Why don't we look at her as a person.

Why did she choose her particular career? Does she love danger, excitement? Living on the edge? Or perhaps she has many fears- but she hates the fact she has so many so she purposely tries to face them...

Why did she get into two fistfights in one day? Could be several reasons: She simply has a very quick temper. Or she was attacked once and now is always too quick to react. Or it's just part of her job. She doesn't think twice about it. ...

What kind of movies does she like? Books? Does she like tea or coffee? Is she a beer drinker? Wine? Pets? Hobbies?

A lot of times what makes a character interesting is when you give them an interest that one wouldn't expect. Maybe tough as nails Bo loves listening to Elvis, or watches tearjerkers. Maybe after a tough day at work she likes to get into comfy pjs and watch reruns of I Love Lucy. (ex. I have a female assassin who loves the The Marx Brothers)

[Polenth]

Not aiming this at anyone in particular, just musing the idea. None on this thread has jumped in and declared that they are completely typical and happy for it.

If you ask about masculine women, it encourages masculine women to respond. But if you go to the 'girly girl' thread in Office Party, there are many women happy with being feminine.


But in fiction, readers expect that the strong woman explain why she's not like other women, why she doesn't love clothes, or study her relection for flaws, or cook or whatever stereotype that reader identifies with. They expect to see reasons to explain the character-- is this the same when a woman does exhibit the stereotypes? If she swoons over a new pair of shoes, do readers accept that more readily than the character who is gluing the sole back on the old, trusty shoes? I looked at some stories. I didn't get the feel for the character at all. Very little detail is offered about her. You've offered more in this thread, but it's not there in the stories. I can see why it would throw people.

The word usage threw me. To me, glamorous does not mean natural beauty. It's one gained through make-up, hair and clothes. This image doesn't fit with everything else you've said about Bo. If she does dress up, despite hating clothes, that's an insight into the character which would be useful to the reader. The reasons behind it would say a lot about her.

[maestrowork]

Empress-- that's the joy ("joy") of language, isn't it? Some people mean it well, like Ray, and others use typical as a synonym for the dreaded "stereotypical." (I'm not sure how I mean it... ;-)

Yup. I really don't equate "typical" with "stereotypical." More like average or "nothing too special": Barack Obama is an extraordinary man, but on a typical Sunday, he's quite the typical man at the grill.


I think there is a bad connotation of the word: "Oh, he's so typical!" But again, personally I think "typical" and "stereotypical" are two different things.

I mean, otherwise, are we saying that since Clair is not "typical" because she doesn't carry a purse, think about relationships, and is not afraid to go out at night by herself.... that those women who do carry a purse, think about relationships and are afraid are "stereotypical" and that they're possessing bad traits? I think if that's the case, then a lot of women would be really pissed by that assertion, don't you think?


But in fiction, readers expect that the strong woman explain why she's not like other women, why she doesn't love clothes, or study her relection for flaws, or cook or whatever stereotype that reader identifies with.

To me, this is a wrong expectation. Why can't a woman who love clothes or likes to cook be strong? I mean it's rather absurd to me, when on one hand we're saying "women don't have to love clothes or cooking to be women" and then turn around and say, "but if you love cooking and clothes you can't be a strong woman..." At least that's my impression when reading the above.

To me, a great characterization of a "strong" woman doesn't lie in the fact that whether she's like or unlike other women in things like "clothes" or "cooking/garden/knitting/etc." but in her attitude and her resolution when faced with danger, uncertainty, or hardship. To me, for example, my mother is an exceptionally strong woman. But she does carry a purse and she does like to clean house. She's very "traditional" when it comes to certain things, but by no means is she weak and subservient.

Anyway... no, the character doesn't really have to explain why she doesn't like clothes, etc. My point was that if you deviate from some kind of expectations of how women think and behave (e.g. "she's not afraid to go out at night and get into a fistfight in a bar"), your readers are going to make assumptions based on what they know, and if you don't explain anything, some readers would say: "Wait a minute, so why is she so tough? Did she grow up in a military base or something?"

So there's nothing wrong with being atypical. But in fiction, you need to develop your character fully and that may include revealing some of their backgrounds, so that the readers may get a fully picture of what what makes that the way they are.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I mean, otherwise, are we saying that since Clair is not "typical" because she doesn't carry a purse, think about relationships, and is not afraid to go out at night by herself.... that those women who do carry a purse, think about relationships and are afraid are "stereotypical" and that they're possessing bad traits? I think if that's the case, then a lot of women would be really pissed by that assertion, don't you think?

Clair is the only person who said that she was not "typical".

Most of the other women on the thread have said "there's no such thing as a 'typical' woman--women are richly varied human beings."

Nobody is criticizing carrying a purse or thinking about relationships of being afraid to go out at night. What they are doing is saying that those things are each person's personal choice, and neither doing them or not doing them makes you "more of a woman" or "less of a woman".

[maestrowork]

Nobody is criticizing carrying a purse or thinking about relationships of being afraid to go out at night. What they are doing is saying that those things are each person's personal choice, and neither doing them or not doing them makes you "more of a woman" or "less of a woman".

I agree. I'm just saying that Clair did use the word typical and atypical (it's right in the title), and we're discussing traits and behaviors such as "carrying purses." That to me is strong enough reason to assume and assert that the word "typical" doesn't mean "stereotypical" in that it should not carry a bad connotation. At least not in the context of this thread. Agree?

[IdiotsRUs]

Yup. I really don't equate "typical" with "stereotypical."

Except when done in that voice and accompanied by a rolling of the eyes. Typical man! *eyebrows flounce*

Which in my house means somone is taking the mick out of the other one.

eta: oh yes, I meanto add that I agreed iwth Ray. Typicla ( unless in sarcastic voice) means avergae

stereotypical means assuming negative traits due to *X* ( x -= because you're a woman / black white / green blah blah)


I dye my hair blonde to look good / cover up the grey . - possible typical female statement. ( also possible male staement, but I doubt I'd catch my hubby sying it)


that girl is blonde - descriptive staement

She is blonde so she must be stupid - stereotyping

[Clair Dickson]

I want to apologize for my gaff in replacing "atypical" with "strong." I don't know what neuron misfired there... I know I was trying to get away from "atypical" as my descriptor because that didn't seem to fit, but qhat I came up with real quick was much worse! Heh.

Sorry. Moving on.

[Matera the Mad]

Wottever. "Non-brainwashed" works for me. You and Bo want to come over for coffee and something? ;)

[Maine2]

I think you should continure writing as you are and maybe just make reference in her description at the begining that she is atypical or tomboy or just unlike many women. there are many women out there that fit the description of the typical woman. However, nowday with single parents there are many more women who just aren't into the purses, calories, and relationships. So, in other words write on and write the character that you have a passion for.

[gypsyscarlett]

Hi Claire,

Just wanted to let you know I finally had a chance to run over to your site and I read one of Bo's stories. "Missing- but Not Missed". You know what? I think it rocked. Good voice, dialogue, flow. Your love of Chandler, Hammett, Cain etc... definitely comes through.

I did find Bo interesting. In fact I want to read more about her. I think if people don't like Bo - they probably simply don't like the genre you are writing. How many nice, sweet people are in Hardboiled or Noir? To try to get an author to sweeten up their kick-ass female in the above genre would be like suggesting to a chick lit writer to make her character less comical or romantic.

Obviously, a novel is a different form than short story. But if your writing expertise in the short stories is any indication- you have nothing to worry about.

My one last suggestion is you find readers of Hardboiled and Noir and get their opinions on how you handled Bo in the novel. If they don't think she's fleshed out enough- then try adding some personal details which have been tossed around here. Dig deeper to discover her hopes/fears likes/dislikes etc. However, it makes little sense to listen to people who don't read/like the genre.

Good luck with Bo and the novel! :)

[Clair Dickson]

Thanks gypsy (even if you did put that damn 'e' on the end of my name ;-) and others.

One of the odd things that comes up with my shorts is that they're published in "mystery" zines, not just hardboiled/noir places, so some of my readers may not be fans of my kind of mystery writing.

But I'm feeling pretty good about Bo. Now, if I can just get some good word back from one of the agents... =)

THanks all! This has been a fun discussion. (Maybe I should start a thread on what are the female stereotypes... ;-)

[Matera the Mad]

Don't get me started. :eek:

[gypsyscarlett]

Thanks gypsy (even if you did put that damn 'e' on the end of my name ;-) and others.

One of the odd things that comes up with my shorts is that they're published in "mystery" zines, not just hardboiled/noir places, so some of my readers may not be fans of my kind of mystery writing.

But I'm feeling pretty good about Bo. Now, if I can just get some good word back from one of the agents... =)

THanks all! This has been a fun discussion. (Maybe I should start a thread on what are the female stereotypes... ;-)

HAH! First of all- in my other posts you are quite, merrily "E-less".
Second of all- I never want to hear anything regarding purses EVER again. I don't even want to look at my own. So don't even joke about it...:tongue:D