High Fantasy/Sword and Sorcery/Whatever with a Female Main Protagonist

[Thaluikhain]

Even in cases where you find a female taking the lead the gender is largely irrelevant as they are symbolically male.

Yeah...no.

It's not a matter of them being symbolically male, it's that heroic virtues are associated with men because the default state for being a hero is male. You can't be a hero without being heroic, and heroism is defined in relation to being a man.

Now, there's no reason why this should be, and if male stopped being the default, it wouldn't be, but as it is it's not going anywhere.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

The Shannara series contain some stories where the protagonist is female.

Specifically (as far as I've read in the series) The Wishsong of Shannara and The Elf Queen of Shannara have Female Protagonists.

EDIT: AHHHH RED BUTTON RED BUTTON! WHY IS THAT A THING?!

 

[Thaluikhain]

EDIT: AHHHH RED BUTTON RED BUTTON! WHY IS THAT A THING?!

Because it never gets...actually, yeah, people seem to be over rabidly hating Bieber. Shouldn't we have a button that makes fun of Honey Boo Boo for being poor, or whatever it is noways?

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Even in cases where you find a female taking the lead the gender is largely irrelevant as they are symbolically male.

Yeah...no.

It's not a matter of them being symbolically male, it's that heroic virtues are associated with men because the default state for being a hero is male. You can't be a hero without being heroic, and heroism is defined in relation to being a man.

Now, there's no reason why this should be, and if male stopped being the default, it wouldn't be, but as it is it's not going anywhere.

I disagree. The problem is that the archetype being used in most cases is the heroic male. There is a heroic female archetype but, it should be noted, it is meaningfully different.

The example, in this case, keeps being Vin from Mistborn but lets play it slightly differently. If you took a character, say Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, and simply changed his gender and that of his love interest, what have you gained? The role is still masculine. All you have done is have the part of heroic male played by a female. More importantly, it undermines certain key conflicts inherent to the character. In a world where the female is marginalized in most roles (That's what makes Eomer stand out as a shield maiden after all) what conflict is produced by her not wanting to be Queen?

By contrast, take Maggie in Million Dollar Baby and swap her gender. Because feminity is a core aspect of Maggie (being female and all), much of the conflict evaporates and indeed the core cited motivation for Frankie's actions at the start would need to change.

This is the key point: gender can be important in the story being told. Indeed, it should be important because it is a defining characteristic as much as intellect, athletic ability, wit, gumption, or courage. Without exploring what makes that detail important in a world, it is irrelevant and meaningless. Mass Effect's female shepard isn't a heroic female - she's just an archetypal hero who happens to be female.

And, if you don't see why there is a distinction between those two points I don't know what else to say.

My problem with this logic is that the choice of gender becomes meaningless

Thats because it is meaningless. As far as distinctions go, it is completely, 100% meaningless.

Here's a question: why do you think the choice of gender is meaningless? After all, gender is going to affect things like:

Probable Height and Weight Range
Reproductive goals
Neurological Chemistry
Neurological Configuration
Physiological responses to verbal and non-verbal queues
Social Status
Social Interactions
Fashion
Health and Hygeine

The list really could go on for a long while. Yes, you could point to anything on that list and say "but not necessarily" and you'd be right. But, as a rule, I don't think you'll find many supporters of the idea that male and female are indistinguishable or that their lives are, on the whole, interchangable. You might even go so far as to say that some entries on that list are wholly artificial constructs (the social status in particular) and, again, you are probably completely right. But, considering how human society has operated thus far, it is safe to say that males and females are very generally different. Therefore, it is just as safe to assume that choice of gender of a character could easily have an impact on the character.

Gender is only an irrelevant detail if your story chooses to make it irrelevant.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I just like the idea of taking the most basic and "default" of modern high fantasy settings and shaking it up with subtle changes to the basics and see how they alter the work as a whole, like "What if Middle Earth didn't have medieval stasis and had developed technologically to match 17th century Europe". (An admittedly not a particularily subtle base change, but a good example of the general idea)

You'd like Joe Abercrombie. Through his first trilogy and then into his three stand alone follow ups, he's transitioning a fantasy world w/magic into a coal/steam powered industrial revolution. You see the first beginnings of it at the end of Red Country.

Alas, of the 6 books, only Red Country and Best Served Cold have a primary female protagonist. The First Law trilogy has a couple of female characters of varied degrees of prominence, but it is for the most part a sausage fest.

Thanks for making this thread, btw. I'm scouring it for suggestions as well. I love a good fantasy and a good female protagonist, and they are few and far between.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

No, there isn't: You are demonstrably wrong.

Then demonstrate it is different. Seems remakably hard to do given that even a cursory googling will show you lots of information on the Heroine's journey and cursory reading skills will help you identify the differences.

Mate, i'm seriously going to try to find a nice way to say this: *ahem* No one gives a fuck about Mistborn... I'm going to assume its the only book you've ever red.

Nope, it is just the biggest name book that comes to mind that has a female lead. At least in the genre of fantasy.

You really need to pick up some different ficiton, outside of your own comfort zone, or better yet, try you hand at some table-top gaming. Because nothing will disuade you from this false notion of "female archtypes" & there apparently intrinsic female powers faster then tabletop gaming as a female character... Oh sure you'll have your character killed 6 or 7 times in the period of 3 sessions, but you'll pretty quickly learn that in a internally consistent universe the heroic role is not a male one, its just a heroic one... An that the female fighter is no different then the male fighter.

I read a wide variety of books from a wide variety of sources. I rarely read fantasy because most of what I find there is derivative garbage.

And you latter point about game mechanics does not offer any demonstrable truth to your argument. Given that, broadly at least, women tend to be shorter and lighter, to assert that a fighter who relies on pure physical prowess and strength of arms would fight the same regardless of gender in general is silly. Hell, considerations of reach alone in a duel consisting of light weapons is enough to force a complete alteration of one's style.

Nothing... An why would you think you would gain something?

Then why would you replace that character with a female if it doesn't serve the story?

Hahahahaha, no.

I'm sorry - I must have missed the part in lord of the rings where there were numerous female characters present during important moments. Given how rarely they show up in that story at all, one might wonder just how many women live in middle earth.

Nope. You can force it to be important, but it none the less is not intrinsically important. I can make race important to, but its not important unless i force it to be so as the books writer.

If a character trait is unimportant then how can you cite a character with that trait as good example of the same? A deaf character who's story never relies on sound in any way may as well not be deaf.

Mate, none of those things exist in a narrative. How tall the character is, is not a feature of gender, its a feature of whatever i as the writer decide it is. Fictional characters are not people, they are a mirage of my creativity as a writer.

Yes, they are fictional. But, again, if a fundamental trait of a character is unimportant then citing that character as an excellent example of someone with that trait is impossible. A female character who's gender is utterly irrelevant as a result of writer constructs can never be a good female character. They may be a good character but citing the gender is impossible as it has been rendered irrelevant.

Same goes for the rest... All those are aspects of whatever traits i decide to give a character. An those traits are only as important as i as the writer decide to make them. If i decide i am not interested in having them be important, for the same reason i decided they were not important for the male hero who would possess the same role, they cease to be important. They do not appear in the narrative unless i as the writer have decided that they would contribute to the story i have chosen to tell & mostly should not appear.

The reverse in the middle of this paragraph is odd. You start by saying that the traits can be what a writer wants them to be - this is true. Then you turn around and say that they only matter if the writer decides they should matter - my core assertion. If a writer opts to make a female character and the fact the character is rendered entirely irrelevant, why cite her as an example of a good female character? Such a use case is purely aesthetic.

Trying to defend an aesthetic choice as being meaningful, which is fundamentally what you are doing when you say that that a certain character is an excellent example of a female lead, is an impossible assertion to defend with any rigor.

No mate, its the other way round: Its only relevant when the writer wants to make it so. The default position in writing is that nothing is important until the writer chooses to make it so.

Right. Now, answer me this simple question. If a writer chooses to make a character female and then they construct a world where being female is entirely irrelevant, then how is the fact she is female remotely laudable?

My assertion is that by virtue of rendering that choice irrelevant, her status as female is moot precisely because it has been rendered meaningless and, as such, trying to heap praise upon a character for possessing this trait is folly.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

An it can be boiled down even further: If you don't make the only characteristic of a female character her femaleness how is writing a femalenessless female laudable?

An the answer is simple: ITS NOT LAUDABLE!

After a long exchange, you arrive at my precise assertion! Fancy that!

The point of writing a character, any character, regardless of that characters gender is to write a character who interacts with his or her setting in an enjoyable fashion, while telling a story.

The point of writing a character will vary from person to person. I think you'll find something about consistency of action in any study of a quality character.

There is literally nothing clever, important or special about making that character female. Said female character possess no special narrative powers from femaleness.

Right - by default making a statement about about a character is meaningless unless the writer chooses to make it important.

There is no way that i could make that any clearer. Your views on women are exceptionally archaic.

The funny thing here is that you agree with my core assertion. If you don't find the character laudable for possessing a trait because the writer chose to make it meaningless, then what basis do you have to point to that very same character and say "This is an excellent example of someone who possesses this trait".

It's like having a story about a race car driver who never once in the course of the narrative participates in any race or uses that racing skill in any tangential way and saying it's an excellent example of a driver in fiction.

The one place we seem to actually disagree is that I believe that if a trait isn't justified or capitalized upon by a writer then it becomes irrelevant and thus citing said trait when heaping praise is pointless while your constant argument implies you believe otherwise.

As a side note, it seems strange that you'd say my views are archaic when I have been speaking about archetypal characters and offering the occasional conjecture as to why the archetypes exist. Any assertion I've made about women in general have been broad recognition of general differences that exist between the genders. These differences (you quoted the list previously) are readily defended:

Probable <a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_height>Height and <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight>weight differences
<a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estradiol>Differences in neural chemistry
<a href=http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/brain-myths/201207/two-myths-and-three-facts-about-the-differences-in-men-and-womens-brains>Differences in neural structures
Physiological response differences - don't even need a source - just example the difference in response to sexual excitement.
<a href=http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf>A social difference
Fashion - again, you don't need a source to note differences in garb is common between genders across western civilization.
Health and Hygiene - No source necessary again as the genders express obvious differences when it comes to health and hygiene considerations by looking no further than various ailments related to their respective reproductive systems.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Even in cases where you find a female taking the lead the gender is largely irrelevant as they are symbolically male.

Yeah...no.

It's not a matter of them being symbolically male, it's that heroic virtues are associated with men because the default state for being a hero is male. You can't be a hero without being heroic, and heroism is defined in relation to being a man.

Now, there's no reason why this should be, and if male stopped being the default, it wouldn't be, but as it is it's not going anywhere.

I disagree. The problem is that the archetype being used in most cases is the heroic male. There is a heroic female archetype but, it should be noted, it is meaningfully different.

Alright then, but much the same. A bunch of things just happen to be associated with maleness, and these include much of what we see as being a certain type of hero. But those are there for fairly arbitrary reasons.

There's very little that is essentially male. Enough books being written that deal with heroism in different ways, and the perception of what a male hero or what a female hero is could be changed dramatically.

...

Unless you mean that as well as having "male" heroic virtues or whatever, those female characters have a long and specific list of other things as well, which are associated with male heroes. In that case, fir enough.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Alright then, but much the same. A bunch of things just happen to be associated with maleness, and these include much of what we see as being a certain type of hero. But those are there for fairly arbitrary reasons.

There's very little that is essentially male. Enough books being written that deal with heroism in different ways, and the perception of what a male hero or what a female hero is could be changed dramatically.

...

Unless you mean that as well as having "male" heroic virtues or whatever, those female characters have a long and specific list of other things as well, which are associated with male heroes. In that case, fir enough.

What I specifically mean is that there exist variations on the heroic archetype that are associated with one gender or the other. While they, in some cases, share features with one another (the librarian archetype is fundamentally similar to the professor archetype after all), they are not identical.

Casting a female in the role traditionally reserved for a male (Say, as a warrior) is perfectly fine but without effort to tell us why that's an interesting choice it is entirely aesthetic. If no effort is spent making that gender choice important or meaningful, the casting choice means you've done nothing but make the heroine symbolically male. That is the double edged sword of using a common archetype as the basis for creating a character - it comes with, in some cases, millenia of baggage.

Offhand at this early hour, the only female lead I can think of that was even predominately a composite of female archetypes is Captain Janeway from Star Trek Voyager.

 

[Thaluikhain]

What I specifically mean is that there exist variations on the heroic archetype that are associated with one gender or the other. While they, in some cases, share features with one another (the librarian archetype is fundamentally similar to the professor archetype after all), they are not identical.

Casting a female in the role traditionally reserved for a male (Say, as a warrior) is perfectly fine but without effort to tell us why that's an interesting choice it is entirely aesthetic. If no effort is spent making that gender choice important or meaningful, the casting choice means you've done nothing but make the heroine symbolically male. That is the double edged sword of using a common archetype as the basis for creating a character - it comes with, in some cases, millenia of baggage.

Offhand at this early hour, the only female lead I can think of that was even predominately a composite of female archetypes is Captain Janeway from Star Trek Voyager.

Hmmm...well depends. If you mean, say, a professor as some guy who happens to be a professor, I wouldn't agree. There's nothing inherently male about being a professor (or being a warrior, for that matter). If you mean a professor as in a absent minded messy haired old person in a jacket that smokes a pipe and explains things using short films, that's a specific thing that's been attached to men, so fair enough.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Hmmm...well depends. If you mean, say, a professor as some guy who happens to be a professor, I wouldn't agree. There's nothing inherently male about being a professor (or being a warrior, for that matter). If you mean a professor as in a absent minded messy haired old person in a jacket that smokes a pipe and explains things using short films, that's a specific thing that's been attached to men, so fair enough.

Actually, the professer archetype has little to do with actually being a professor - it is just a set of traits one might assocaite with a professor. These include high intellect, a drive to discover knowledge, and the fact that such a character tends to glean similar satisfaction from intellectual pursuits as from a relationship. Other aspects - absentmindedness, social intellect, etc are widely flexible. The classic archetypes are named after a role that often best exemplifies the traits. The traits of a warrior archetype are what you'd expect to see in a stalwart frontline hero in a standard sword and sorcery tale but those same traits can be seen in a character who faces other kinds of conflict with the same strength and unflinching determination.

Traditionally, the Professor is a male archetype but, likely as views of gender roles have changed, females are increasingly used as well. Sherlock Holmes is the most famous professor character I can think of off hand and most depictions of the character almost exclusively draw on the professor archetype rather than creating any sort of blend. Dana Scully, from the X-Files, is at least part professor but that is mixed with several traditional female archetypes including nurturer and crusader.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Actually, the professer archetype has little to do with actually being a professor - it is just a set of traits one might assocaite with a professor. These include high intellect, a drive to discover knowledge, and the fact that such a character tends to glean similar satisfaction from intellectual pursuits as from a relationship. Other aspects - absentmindedness, social intellect, etc are widely flexible. The classic archetypes are named after a role that often best exemplifies the traits. The traits of a warrior archetype are what you'd expect to see in a stalwart frontline hero in a standard sword and sorcery tale but those same traits can be seen in a character who faces other kinds of conflict with the same strength and unflinching determination.

Traditionally, the Professor is a male archetype but, likely as views of gender roles have changed, females are increasingly used as well. Sherlock Holmes is the most famous professor character I can think of off hand and most depictions of the character almost exclusively draw on the professor archetype rather than creating any sort of blend. Dana Scully, from the X-Files, is at least part professor but that is mixed with several traditional female archetypes including nurturer and crusader.

Ah, right. While I wouldn't say I necessarily agree with that, that seems to make sense.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Actually, the professer archetype has little to do with actually being a professor

See this is exactly what i mean, by you thinking you are saying something when you really aren't. Its this Post Modern Double Speak you are using... You use terminology that is meaningless... An i mean that in a very literal sense: The words out of your mouth have literally no meaning in the way you are using them, because each one you use has a meaning that only means something to you & only at the very instant that thats what you mean... As soon as you decide it means something else, it now means something else, even if those two definitions are now diametrically opposed to each other.

What you are saying is essenetially gibberish.

For your edification, since you appear to be unaware of literary archetypes. You can start with the <a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archetype>wikipedia. The notion is based upon the work of a handful of people, but Carl Jung is fairly key to the whole development of the idea.

That said, an archetype is nothing more than a collection of traits while a literary archetype is simply a shorthand way of classifying a character based upon established traits. Simple characters tend to be a single archetype (there's only about 16 or so that are universally recognized) while more complex characters are a blend of two or more. The archetypes are named based on something assocaited with that trait set. Thus a warrior archetype has qualities you would associate with a warrior but does not necessarily refer to a character who actively engages in combat. Instead, it is an archetype that focuses on overcoming physical challenge, works for the greater cause, is willing to make the personal sacrifice and so on.

Now, you may not subscribe to the various psychological portions of the archetype theory and that's all well and good. But even a cursory search of the subject will demonstrate I didn't invent it. <a href=http://mrob.com/pub/std/archetypes.html>Here, for example, is a fun periodic table of archetypes.

 

[thesilentman]

High fantasy (also referred to as epic fantasy) is a sub-genre of fantasy fiction, defined either by its taking place in an imaginary world distinct from our own or by the epic stature of its characters, themes and plot. Quintessential works of high fantasy, such as The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings and The Worm Ouroboros, have both of these attributes. Accordingly, works where the fantasy world impinges on our world, or where the characters are concerned only with adventure or personal goals (as in sword and sorcery fiction) are less likely to be classed as high fantasy.

That would be definition of High Fantasy. Video Games in RPG form tend to depend on your perspective.

So then Yuna, arguably the main character of FFX (and most definitely that of FFX-2) counts. So does Terra from FFVI.
But then, contrary to current popular belief, Final Fantasy is usually ahead of the curve (no pun intended).

OP: I point at Yuna and Terra.

That's two right there...

Seeing both of them reminds of of Yunica Tovah from Ys Origins, but I'm not sure that counts. :-/

OT- There's probably an example out there, but the whole genre got kicked off first with a male protagonist to the point where it's almost part of the design. So it becomes more of a "me first, so I dictate the rules" sort of deal.

For a parallel, think Microsoft and computers. The only reason that Office is a standard now is because MS bundled it with Windows when they first launched it, almost killing any other ideas to make an alternative for Windows up till MS charged for it.