I don't see why there should be an onus on ANY character to display ANY given set of characteristics.I really don't see why there should be more onus on female characters to display touchy-feely characteristics than on male.
I don't see why there should be an onus on ANY character to display ANY given set of characteristics.I really don't see why there should be more onus on female characters to display touchy-feely characteristics than on male.
Rather than "strong" and "weak", I prefer to think in terms of "active" and "passive". I like characters (male and female) who are active, that is, they make things happen. Passive characters just react to things which happen to them.Does a strong character have to be a self starter, a positive person, a go getter, a great role model? I really don't think so. A strong character to me is simply a character who seems real and/or is full of personality even if, technically, they are larger than life. By 'strong' are we making a moral judgement on someone's worth rather than simply identifying characters who are well-written?
No offence meant, but I genuinely don't understand why anyone would have to question how to write a strong woman. We're not an exotic alien species. We're just people. Just write human.
Rather than "strong" and "weak", I prefer to think in terms of "active" and "passive". I like characters (male and female) who are active, that is, they make things happen. Passive characters just react to things which happen to them.
I'm gonna go read on the examples because they sound interesting. I definitely agree that there are certain things that are overdone, rape being one of them. Yes, it happens and is absolutely horrible, but it shouldn't be used as a convenient, easy way to give a character a tragic back story.
You just reminded me of a book I read once with a woman who was supposed to be this great, independent, strong person. She was a professional, I want to say she had a radio show, was doing great in her career. She was supposed to be a genius. Throughout the book we were constantly told how independent and smart and everything she was, and I'm sure the author was trying to make her into a liberated woman sort of character.
Which fell totally flat when at the end of the book, she's caught by the bad guy who puts her in a plastic garbage bag and she almost suffocates and is only saved when the love interest shows up to defeat the bad guy and rescue her. Zomg. I was so annoyed. I kept thinking "why not try to tear a whole in the bag? It's plastic. It should tear. At least try to tear it." The whole scene was one of those cases where the author had told us throughout the book what the character was, but when it came to show, she turned out to be a typical damsel in distress.
There's a difference between passive and reactive. A passive character effectively does nothing (a doormat). A reactive character does not initiate events but may respond to events with bursts of extreme activity.
Arguably, the entire superhero genre has active villains against reactive heroes.
Kaitie, I'm curious if this was written by a man or woman. The unexpected ending sounds mindful, like a point is being made. I could be wrong...
Would I be simplifying if I defined strength as having courage of your convictions, whatever your convictions, and for a male or a female?
Maybe, as a woman, your conviction is to lead a traditional life, be a mother, a wife, a homemaker, and be true to your innate values, which may include living to be a nurturer. Or maybe as a man, your conviction, your decided belief is to be passive and non violent, even in the face of a physical threat. Maybe the characters around you, even your nemesis, are so impressed and taken aback by your determination to turn the other cheek that they are disarmed and even somewhat converted, and in this way you save the day, while typical superheroes fall around you.
By a woman, actually, and a very famous mystery author at that. I never could stand her books because of the completely unrealistic, two-dimensional characters, but I guess she was pretty popular.
Personally, I think the courage of your convictions means a lot to me in a character, male or female. Even if your convictions aren't the same as mine, I admire someone who stands up for his/her beliefs and acts accordingly. I think that goes a lot with the active/passive, control things that we've mentioned before, too.
Nah I'm in the states now, just keep forgetting to change my location. I do have to go to work in a couple of hours, though.
I like your comment about finding our center. I think that's a great way to put it.
I just think that when we're dealing with cultural baggage (don't mean to minimize) whether it's gender/racial/religious inequities/oppression, there is a danger, a likelihood to over correct, in life and in what imitates life. We know why we do it. But in a way, we are still victims of that inequity as long as we are reacting to it. To me, this thread is about trying to find our center.
This right here, especially the bold, to me encapsulates everything that's problematic about the "strong female character" stereotype, that initial tendency to "over correct." You don't like damsels in distress? All right then, have an expert-in-all-martial-arts who Don't Need No Man. Too much? Fine, then have a Faux-Action Girl who wears ~pink~ body armor and doesn't actually get into fights on-page.
I think the challenge in writing believable female characters--any shade of strong, weak, smart, dumb, but most importantly believable--is to find a balance of all those things that make up a realistic human being. Leaning too hard in any one direction is what pushes a character from Individual to Stereotype.
And while we're on the subject, I think that applies to all characters across the gender spectrum. "Strong male characters," when you define "strong" as "physical ability to throw punches and fire many bullets," suffer from cardboard-cut-out syndrome the same as females. The only reason they get away with it is, because maleness is a "default" character trait, they don't have that stamp of tokenism that their female counterparts have to deal with on top of everything else.
There definitely shouldn't be. As a woman who's cold and detached in real life, I've always been greatly annoyed by the social expectations for women to be in touch with their feelings more so than men. Very irritating and not feminist in the least.
I've almost made a game out of undermining that particular stereotype in my books because it just annoys me that much.
Oh, I definitely agree. One of the strongest characters I've ever written is extremely emotional and passionate. How in touch he is with his instincts and emotions is what gives him magic and a large part of his particular type of strength. I just think unemotional and detached women are badly under-represented in fiction.I don't think strong character necessarily equals 'stoic' either. 'Strong' for me is when the author doesn't lean on tropes and stereotypes and presents characters who are multi-faceted.
Oh, I definitely agree. One of the strongest characters I've ever written is extremely emotional and passionate. How in touch he is with his instincts and emotions is what gives him magic and a large part of his particular type of strength. I just think unemotional and detached women are badly under-represented in fiction.
That's what makes talking about strength so difficult, though. There are a thousand different kinds of strength. One of my side-projects is an erotic BDSM romance and that goes into the idea of how much strength it takes to submit and turn over control. I actually think the sub MC is one of my stronger characters.
Maybe strength can be simplified into "perseverance in the face of adversity". Whatever form the perseverance and adversity may take.
I will add that I *don't* think standing by their ideals necessarily makes a character strong. Clinging stubbornly to ideals can easily be a sign of fearing change and closed-mindedness. A strong character knows when to compromise and is willing to re-evaluate their beliefs in the face of new facts and circumstances.
Speaking of Strong Female Protagonists; a web comic.
I'm gonna go read on the examples because they sound interesting. I definitely agree that there are certain things that are overdone, rape being one of them. Yes, it happens and is absolutely horrible, but it shouldn't be used as a convenient, easy way to give a character a tragic back story.
You just reminded me of a book I read once with a woman who was supposed to be this great, independent, strong person. She was a professional, I want to say she had a radio show, was doing great in her career. She was supposed to be a genius. Throughout the book we were constantly told how independent and smart and everything she was, and I'm sure the author was trying to make her into a liberated woman sort of character.
Which fell totally flat when at the end of the book, she's caught by the bad guy who puts her in a plastic garbage bag and she almost suffocates and is only saved when the love interest shows up to defeat the bad guy and rescue her. Zomg. I was so annoyed. I kept thinking "why not try to tear a whole in the bag? It's plastic. It should tear. At least try to tear it." The whole scene was one of those cases where the author had told us throughout the book what the character was, but when it came to show, she turned out to be a typical damsel in distress.
Oh, I definitely agree. One of the strongest characters I've ever written is extremely emotional and passionate. How in touch he is with his instincts and emotions is what gives him magic and a large part of his particular type of strength. I just think unemotional and detached women are badly under-represented in fiction.
That's what makes talking about strength so difficult, though. There are a thousand different kinds of strength. One of my side-projects is an erotic BDSM romance and that goes into the idea of how much strength it takes to submit and turn over control. I actually think the sub MC is one of my stronger characters.
Maybe strength can be simplified into "perseverance in the face of adversity". Whatever form the perseverance and adversity may take.
I will add that I *don't* think standing by their ideals necessarily makes a character strong. Clinging stubbornly to ideals can easily be a sign of fearing change and closed-mindedness. A strong character knows when to compromise and is willing to re-evaluate their beliefs in the face of new facts and circumstances.
But shouldn't an author do this anyway? Even my minor characters come with back stories. I might not know their entire lives, but I know their appearance, their personalities, etc. Minor, named characters I know much more about. I could tell you all kinds of details about them, male and female.
I think it's good to ask yourself if your characters are developed or not, but it also seems like something that should be done in general. I do think, though, that it's a good idea to look at every character and see if they're just a cliche, but making all of the characters real is advice I'd give to anyone.
I feel that essentially, a "strong" female character is someone who sticks up for her best interest. I grew up with Lara Croft and Buffy, but while it's fun to cheer them on and watch them kick butt, it's difficult for viewers to project themselves. Don't get me wrong, they both definitely qualify as strong, but they shouldn't be the baseline. There are a million-and-five different ways to be strong, whether it's shooting a monster in the face or ending a 20-year marriage with an abusive man. So basically, the set of questions in the OP's post hit the feminist nail on the head.