Concerning female characters

[balladbird]

Is the key to good female characters simply good characters?

this reminds me of the interview with George R.R. Martin where he was asked how he was able to write so many compelling, and memorable female characters. His answer was something like "well, I've always considered women to be people."

In a way, it's good that you're thinking about it, because as has been said, Gender influences who we are, and simply writing characters and then giving them genders after the fact will always come across as a tad mechanical as a result.

That said, have a bit more faith in your sense of empathy. It's true that you've never been a woman, but Tolkien was never a hobbit, nor was Stephen King ever Tim Curry in clown rouge. If you'd feel more comfortable writing a fantasy creature, or a male character from a different era, than you would a female character, then odds are you're worrying too much about gender.

The human experience is fairly universal. We all laugh, cry, want, what-have-you. With all the big things in common, just trust your own experiences with other people to fill in the little things!

That's my opinion, anyway.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I can't help but think of this classic scene featuring Jack Nicholson and Julie Benz(Buffy/Angel/Dexter). http://youtu.be/pBz0BTb83H8

Is the key to good female characters simply good characters?

The short answer is "Yes!" Just be more concern about writing a quality character that is true to itself. You simply can not please all the critics. Especially the ones complaining about how women are portrayed. Just to throw out an example. If you write that a woman is in a relationship or looking to be in a relationship. You will have people complain, "Why can't she be an independent woman without a man?" If you write the same character as a single woman with no interest in a relationship. You have people complaining, "It would not make her less of a woman if you put her in a relationship." If you ever read or seen any fiction that is marketed to women, then you will know that overwhelming amount of it is really bad writing full of absurd contradictions. Ignore them, and be the best writer you can be.

 

[Vegosiux]

this reminds me of the interview with George R.R. Martin where he was asked how he was able to write so many compelling, and memorable female characters. His answer was something like "well, I've always considered women to be people."

Which I find incredibly pretentious and condescending.

Not everyone who tries their hand in writing is going to write best-sellers, and many will fall victim to all the stereotypical traps, yet that doesn't mean "they don't consider women to be people", so I consider that particular quote to be a botched attempt at modesty at best. At worst, he just called whoever fails to write up a good story "sexist bigots". I see a problem with that.

(Not that I like ASOIAF at all...I simply don't get what's so great in it, but no accounting for taste I guess)

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

i agree with you-by "believable caharacters," i mean those that are NOT stereotypes. the world is a lot stranger than all that.

You're not suggesting that stereotypical characters don't exist in real life are you? How would we otherwise define them as stereotypes?

i find fictional characters unbelievable when the author, given the huge range of the human imagination, writes another stoic male protagonist and his damsel-in-distress female love interest as "compelling."

How many of them are really defining them as "compelling" though?

It's an interesting thought considering how we define certain characters as compelling or not. Random example; Zeus and Hades in the latest Hollywood incarnations from Clash of the Titans. What made these characters compelling? Was it the fact they were gods? Was it the subtle maneurisms that each actor brought to the characters? What about Perseus? Queen Andromeda? Was it their actions? Their personal characteristics? The setting they found themselves in?

When one considers their tropes, we don't come out with much beyond stoic male protagonist for Perseus and damsel-in-distress female love interest Andromeda.

What about The Fifth Element? Sort of popcorn munching adorable action flick. Yet we have the same stereotypes used in our two primary characters. Was it different because she was ridiculously powerful and was the key to protecting the universe? Someone people might think that's the epitome of "objectification" because she could have been easily replaced with a magic box.

Now don't get me wrong, I like characters that indicate a whole additional level of understanding then what's superficially presented to me externally. But that always requires a little forethought on my part, and I get the feeling that isn't the same for how others interpret characters, probably more reactionary than anything else. So I'm trying to find a more objective criteria for a definition of "well written" or "compelling" that we could base our discussions on.

 

[balladbird]

this reminds me of the interview with George R.R. Martin where he was asked how he was able to write so many compelling, and memorable female characters. His answer was something like "well, I've always considered women to be people."

Which I find incredibly pretentious and condescending.

Not everyone who tries their hand in writing is going to write best-sellers, and many will fall victim to all the stereotypical traps, yet that doesn't mean "they don't consider women to be people", so I consider that particular quote to be a botched attempt at modesty at best.

(Not that I like ASOIAF at all...I simply don't get what's so great in it, but no accounting for taste I guess)

I agree that it's a tad pretentious, but I didn't feel it was so much condescending as it was an appeal to simplicity. For a younger writer, starting out, stressed by the age of heightened awareness of sexism and racial cliches, it's perfectly possible to be so overwhelmed trying to do something right that you forget a simple thing, or make it more difficult for yourself than you might have.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

The reason, IMO, that the female gender became "THE defining trait" is simply due to the rarity of them, which is thankfully starting to fade for now. And quality is on the rise, too, not just of the characters, but the games, both factors being extremely necessary.

See, if you deprive people too long of something, they fixate on that because it gains novelty. If you make it a point to not include something, people are going to wonder why, especially if it's something people have made a point to not include for a while.

So, female will remain "THE defining trait" so long as they're perceived as rare, and second class.

Also making excuses as to why women are rare doesn't help anything, by the way. Frankly ignoring the problem just makes it worse.

Now I'm not saying there needs to be a quota, or anything, but being inclusive is a good thing.

I don't argue that we shouldn't focus on gender, but that works both/all ways. Male doesn't need to be the default/forced perspective. With no pressure to focus on male characters, we'll get other genders more naturally, and this issue will reach some equilibrium, IMO.

Good writing is the key, sure. Good writing is free writing. Good writing generally includes some diversity.

And, well,

Spoiler

 

[DEAD34345]

Unless there's a specific reason in the story to make a character male or female specifically, it just doesn't matter at all. If you make a good male character, 90% of the time it would also make a good female character. The only exceptions I can think of are biological or societal, you (generally) can't have a male character die by childbirth for example.

*Additional Edit* I don't even get why it's considered difficult or unusual in the first place. Of all the differences between an author and their characters, gender is one of the least important. Surely it's far, far more difficult for an average male author to create something as alien to most people as a legendary warrior-knight, space-faring vigilante or master thief than it is to write an average female person.

 

[Vegosiux]

And, well,

Spoiler

I'll just requote myself.

Which I find incredibly pretentious and condescending.

Not everyone who tries their hand in writing is going to write best-sellers, and many will fall victim to all the stereotypical traps, yet that doesn't mean "they don't consider women to be people", so I consider that particular quote to be a botched attempt at modesty at best. At worst, he just called whoever fails to write up a good story "sexist bigots". I see a problem with that.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

And, well,

Spoiler

I'll just requote myself.

Which I find incredibly pretentious and condescending.

Not everyone who tries their hand in writing is going to write best-sellers, and many will fall victim to all the stereotypical traps, yet that doesn't mean "they don't consider women to be people", so I consider that particular quote to be a botched attempt at modesty at best. At worst, he just called whoever fails to write up a good story "sexist bigots". I see a problem with that.

That's ... like... your opinion.

I think it's -advice-, honestly. The excuse about people not being able to write for women (despite a lot of characters in movies, tv, and other media being written by men) shouldn't exist. Write the women as a person, and be done with it.
Honestly, all the times women exist as the goal, with little more purpose than to be support, saved, and/or love interests, and little fleshing out beyond that, it makes me think of this guy's quote.

IMO it doesn't put the author in a good light when they shower the guy(s) with attention, and detail, and barely give the women a passing thought. It's just lazy, frankly. The author can make all the excuses they want but that doesn't mean the consumers will swallow it, nor should they have to.

Look at it this way. Making the woman of the story more fleshed out means story is made. The very attempt might improve the writer.

 

[Vegosiux]

That's ... like... your opinion.

Yeah, pretty much. I just get a little irked when I see it, because the implications simply rub me the wrong way. So what follows here is also an opinion piece, keep that in mind.

I think it's -advice-, honestly.

Might be, but then I'd say he needs to work on delivery. For example; "I just write a character without constantly stressing myself out over their gender", or something. Or "I don't just wave a magic wand, I've had to rewrite my characters too, but practice makes perfect." Or "I write them to have an own agenda, to take an active role." - all skills and efforts that any writer should aspire to; and they actually give some "how to" while at it.

But no, instead it's basically "Well, I'm not sexist, lol".

The excuse about people not being able to write for women (despite a lot of characters in movies, tv, and other media being written by men) shouldn't exist.

Well, I would argue that some people have more of a talent for writing than others, and for different genres too. I mean I could never write a "chick flick" or a Cosmopolitan article (which are also written for women, doesn't necessarily make them good in my eyes).

Write the women as a person, and be done with it.

See, here's the unfortunate implication again; "You fail to write a good female character because you don't consider women to be people".

Honestly, all the times women exist as the goal, with little more purpose than to be support, saved, and/or love interests, and little fleshing out beyond that, it makes me think of this guy's quote.

It makes me think of "Jeez, seen this a million times...NEXT!"

IMO it doesn't put the author in a good light when they shower the guy(s) with attention, and detail, and barely give the women a passing thought. It's just lazy, frankly. The author can make all the excuses they want but that doesn't mean the consumers will swallow it, nor should they have to.

Some will, some won't. Those who won't have every right to say "You know, I think this is bullshit." What they're not entitled to is telling those who did swallow it "Spit it out, you're not supposed to like and/or want that in your fiction!"

Look at it this way. Making the woman of the story more fleshed out means story is made. The very attempt might improve the writer.

But again, for advice, the "how" is missing here.

A rickety analogy; Imagine Alex and Leslie[footnote]Androgynous names picked on purpose[/footnote] both had a buttload of bricks (character traits), some mortar (a plot), and a bunch of tools (tropes) and decided to have a build-off (write-off). And while Alex' construction was rickety and full of holes, while Leslie's was a firm and stable one, and Alex asked Leslie "How did you manage to do that?" to which Leslie answered "Well, I just treated my work as a house."; just how could Alex use that advice to become a better builder (writer)?

 

[Rebel_Raven]

That's ... like... your opinion.

Yeah, pretty much. I just get a little irked when I see it, because the implications simply rub me the wrong way. So what follows here is also an opinion piece, keep that in mind.

I think it's -advice-, honestly.

Might be, but then I'd say he needs to work on delivery. For example; "I just write a character without constantly stressing myself out over their gender", or something. Or "I don't just wave a magic wand, I've had to rewrite my characters too, but practice makes perfect." Or "I write them to have an own agenda, to take an active role." - all skills and efforts that any writer should aspire to; and they actually give some "how to" while at it.

But no, instead it's basically "Well, I'm not sexist, lol".

The excuse about people not being able to write for women (despite a lot of characters in movies, tv, and other media being written by men) shouldn't exist.

Well, I would argue that some people have more of a talent for writing than others, and for different genres too. I mean I could never write a "chick flick" or a Cosmopolitan article (which are also written for women, doesn't necessarily make them good in my eyes).

Write the women as a person, and be done with it.

See, here's the unfortunate implication again; "You fail to write a good female character because you don't consider women to be people".

Honestly, all the times women exist as the goal, with little more purpose than to be support, saved, and/or love interests, and little fleshing out beyond that, it makes me think of this guy's quote.

It makes me think of "Jeez, seen this a million times...NEXT!"

IMO it doesn't put the author in a good light when they shower the guy(s) with attention, and detail, and barely give the women a passing thought. It's just lazy, frankly. The author can make all the excuses they want but that doesn't mean the consumers will swallow it, nor should they have to.

Some will, some won't. Those who won't have every right to say "You know, I think this is bullshit." What they're not entitled to is telling those who did swallow it "Spit it out, you're not supposed to like and/or want that in your fiction!"

Look at it this way. Making the woman of the story more fleshed out means story is made. The very attempt might improve the writer.

But again, for advice, the "how" is missing here.

A rickety analogy; Imagine Alex and Leslie[footnote]Androgynous names picked on purpose[/footnote] both had a buttload of bricks (character traits), some mortar (a plot), and a bunch of tools (tropes) and decided to have a build-off (write-off). And while Alex' construction was rickety and full of holes, while Leslie's was a firm and stable one, and Alex asked Leslie "How did you manage to do that?" to which Leslie answered "Well, I just treated my work as a house."; just how could Alex use that advice to become a better builder (writer)?

I know how you feel about stuff rubbing the wrong way, believe me.

His delivery may not be perfect, but it still fits with me concerning how many women are just... there. Not much to them. They generally exist in the shadows of the men, and less detailed.

IMO, there's no need for a "how to." Write a person who happens to be female. It's not always easy to teach this sort of thing, either. It's not likely he had the time to elaborate more. These interviews are on a schedule, after all.
How to boils down to write a person who happens to be female if all else fails. Or at least try to flesh them out as a person. Why's that need to be explained?

Yeah, people have different strengths in writing which leads to the problems in delivering a "how to." But women aren't relegated to Cosmo, and Chick Flicks. If one is more comfortable in other genres, women can likely be applied to those genres.

If a woman is important to the plot, and the woman doesn't get enough respect as a character to be as detailed, or as well rounded, that implication is going to appear. Especially if it consistently happens. The writer doesn't care enough to flesh out the important woman, yet they'll spend the time to make the guy as detailed as they can.

You must say "Jeez, seen this a million times...NEXT!" a lot. I know I do.

People trying to change the minds of others is natural. It's the point of debates, arguments, and other conflicts. I think they do have the right, to an extent. To an extent, it's how change in a medium happens.

Looks like Leslie respected the work enough to make sure it was done well? I mean, there's research out there to make one a better home builder. If Alex didn't care enough about the finished product to make sure it was a suitable home, or flat out lacked the talent, then that's how it is, but that's not going to protect against criticism.

Edit: I mean, if the writer can write a guy as a person, beyond the tropes, and such, and treat them as a person, why not women? They're people. They both have that in common. male, or female, emotions are there. Love is there. the desire to seek out others is there. There's a lot of similarity to draw from.

 

[Silverfox99]

Op: The problem that you seem to be running into is that when you define the gender of a character you are implying many things about that character. Depending on how that character is written, it may or may not be the defining trait. Either way can be fine depending on the story and that character role within the story.

If your story is about a female warrior then your story will automatically carry specific themes. Every story you write will be based off of societies standards. So a female warrior is automatically about a woman's role in the patriarchy. This is true even in a story where the world is a matriarchy and the female aspect is downplayed. This is unavoidable. What is in the writers control is how the written world reacts to the character and the character reacts to the written world. Because of this a good female character is a good character that is female that also tries to bring more understanding to the situation that women face in society. This is also why you can't just write good characters. Defining them as a specific race, gender, sexual orientation, or nationality is making the character more then just a character. They are becoming a symbol. Good writers will be aware of this even when the story is NOT about about sexism, racism, or anything other subject that can come from those traits.

 

[lacktheknack]

There is nothing wrong with noting social gender roles, even if you don't conform to them.

Using society's expectations of women to pressure your character one way will greatly help define her when/if she breaks out of the standard role.

That's an "easy" way to make a character's gender matter while still allowing for the character to be strong/interesting. Watch "Mulan" again - the entire plot revolved around her gender and her discomfort with the roles she's given, and many people think she's on the "better written" end of the Disney female canon.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Is the key to good female characters simply good characters?

I'm leaning more towards using the Mako Mori Test:

For a work to pass the Mako Mori Test:
a): It must have at least one female character
b): That female character gets her own narrative arc
c): Her story arc is not about supporting a man?s story.

Admittedly this test is more about judging holistic works rather than individual characters, but conditions two and three can still work.

Then I think Mako herself fails that test because...the whole reason Mako is alive is thanks to Pentecost saving her when she was little. Her main role in the movie is to be a replacement for Yancy. The fact she's female gave an easy excuse to make her an arbitrary love interest, which is exactly what happens. The stick-fighting test made no sense, she's so slim/small while Raleigh is built like He-Man...that whole scene was just not believable/convincing that they are "evenly matched" lol. Knowing martial arts only goes so far.
During training Mako accidentally almost kills everyone in the hangar. When Chuck vocally points that out to her (rightly so), Raleigh responds by beating the shit out of him while Mako stands on the side. At the end she basically gets a free ride in the escape pod while Raleigh risks his life to finish the job. She's absolutely a support, nothing more.

I don't get how Mako is a good example of a strong independent female character in any sense, and making something like a "Mako Mori Test" is almost insulting to far better female characters. You know, putting aside that she wasn't even a good actor. It was painfully obvious that she didn't have a full grip on her english lines and wasn't feeling them out, reminds me of when Jet Li tries to speak english (but at least he kicks ass).

Thank you, I've never been able to understand why so many people thought Mako Mori was such a great character. Even putting aside any 'grrrrrl power!' stuff, I found her character incredibly boring and didn't really add much of anything to the plot. It also felt incredibly weird to me that she and Raleigh ended up being 'drift compatible', when you consider that the other drift compatible folks were pretty much all family members:
-Raleigh and Yancy
-The father/son Australian team
-The Chinese Triplets
-The Russian siblings
yet somehow these two, who have basically nothing in common, just met one another, had entirely different upbringings from different cultures, and don't even speak the same 1st language, are somehow compatible? Made no real sense (and yes I know Pentecost and the Australian son were also compatible, but they'd been working together for years).

 

[StriderShinryu]

I think it's a difficult place to be simply because it's sort of walking a tightrope. There's definitely value in approaching each character as a character and not just as a gender. A good character is much more than just what body parts they happen to have, so it's tempting to consider all characters as the same. But, when you actually think about it, there are many aspects to real people that do actually do at least partially rely on their gender. If you just view gender as nothing more than a costume change or palette swap, to use videogame terms, then your characters are never going to be as deep as they could be if you did consider gender.

Also, and this is something else that doesn't seem to get considered all that often, there are specific differences in both your average male and female experience. The specifics of the male experience are often not considered because they feel sort of like the default.

 

[Wyatt Wilkerson]

i think when it comes to female characters it kind of just comes down to good writing and bad writing having a character whose only purpose is to be rescued or who is just shoehorned into a romance or has one single defining feature there a bad character it doesn't matter what gender they are now this does seem to happen more to female characters probably due to men writing a lot of stuff but bad writing ca apply to anybody.

 

[WhiteFangofWhoa]

Extra Credits did a video on this I felt articulated my thoughts on the matter well.

The core nugget of their view on it is that like any type of character, female characters develop characteristics that are usually reactionary to how the society in which they live, fictional or otherwise, expects them to behave, and how strongly those roles are enforced (a rebellious tomboy in 18th century England being a rarity among the more common housewives for example, though both of those can be made interesting). Given that for most if not all of history real-life society has had stricter ideas of what a woman 'should' be and many fictional universes (particularly medieval Fantasies) are reflective of that mindset, their decision to defy or conform to those ideas often bears more gravity than others might.

In the Star Wars Expanded Universe a female leader isn't treated with any shock or aplomb most of the time, many of the planetary cultures don't place many expectations on gender roles (though there are two Matriarchy nations whose citizens shows signs of their heritage occasionally)... but a life growing up in the patriarchal and racist Galactic Empire results in one particular female Imperial commander becoming very gender-biased in her own recruitment policies (that is to say, she promotes intelligent women whenever possible out of resentment for how hard she has had to work to get to her position, and is scornful of less intelligent or traditionally 'delicate' women).

 

[Doclector]

It's very difficult. Sometimes it matters, sometimes it does not. I'm writing a script at the moment intended as a metaphor for mental health, the only character where the gender mattered at all is that I made the main character male, due to the added stigma about men talking about openly about their emotional/mental health, and that's really only a small influence on my decision, gender simply isn't a big part of this story. There are only three other characters, only one of which has a speaking role, who is in a position to help, but does not.

I make all characters male; Someone complains.
I make all other characters female: Harem.
I make the speaking character male, but at least one of the others female: Females only present as set dressing.
I make the speaking character female, but at least one of the others male: On a personal level, stinks of saying that a relationship can solve everything, because sad fact is, many people don't assume a platonic relationship when a male and female character talk in movies, we've been unfortunately trained to see that, but also, someone may think that I'm trying to get the audience to see her as evil because she didn't form a relationship with the guy.

Whatever happens, I've offended someone, I've set up a scenario in which someone can see the wrong message and call me a bigot for it.

I'd just concentrate on having good characters overall, including aspects of gender, and try to ignore any undue criticism unless it a load of people say the same thing, thus meaning that the unintended reading is the one that people are picking up the most.