Multiple POV story - Lack of female leads

[Steerpike]

I think the reason you ask the question when you have an all male cast, and particularly an all white male cast, is that historically, and even to a large extent today, it's a default assumption that isn't necessarily based on a great deal of thought. No harm in a bit of self-reflection and analysis to determine whether a change is in order.

 

[Jabrosky]

For most situations, I don't think writing a female PoV should be any different from a male PoV. Men and women probably have the same underlying thought processes and emotions most of the time, even if their culture has different social expectations for the sexes. Seamstresses and warriors can both get frustrated and angry when things don't go their way, even if the subjects of their ire are different.

What might be trickier is writing sexual attraction your characters may experience, at least if they have different sexual orientations from yourself. The anatomical traits heterosexual men like on women are obviously different from what heterosexual women like on men, and homosexuals of both sexes might differ from both. As a straight male, I can easily project my own experience of attraction onto a straight male character's viewpoint, but can only guess how straight women might perceive male hotness.

Actually, lately I have started to consider that straight men might indeed experience sexual attraction differently from women. I've been reading a bit on the experiences of female-to-male transgender men who have undergone hormone replacement, and they commonly mention both an increase in sex drive and a change in how that drive worked. Here is one exemplary anecdote:

When I started testosterone a dozen years ago, I expected my sex drive to increase. The “horror” stories are a part of trans man lore, passed down from generation to generation as we all gear up for male adolescence, no matter how old we are, and take out a line of credit at the adult toy store.

And it did increase, within about four days of my first shot, and I basically squirmed a lot for two years before I got used to it. But I was planning for that. Here are the things that took me by surprise:


* It became very focused on one thing – the goal, the prize, the end. That doesn’t mean that I was not able to “make love.” What it does mean is that there was a madness to my method, because it was goal-oriented. There was a light at the end of the tunnel. There was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There was an unguarded hoop just waiting for a slam dunk – score!

* It became very visual. I saw it, I wanted it – whatever it was. This was a new experience for me, because, in the past, I had not been aroused so much by pictures and body parts (or pictures of body parts) as I had been by words – erotic descriptions, stories, and things said to me.

* It became very visceral – instinctual – with a need to take care of it. It had very little to do with romance or even an attraction that made sense intellectually. You’re hungry, you eat. There was a matter-of-factness about it, especially when I was by myself. Hmm … peanut butter sandwich sounds good. Okay, done. Let’s move on.

I may not be transgender, but the way he described his new-found sexuality reminded me uncannily of my own. Maybe we straight dudes do see sex and attraction differently from straight women at least. Not sure whether it would apply to gays of either sex though.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

No harm in a bit of self-reflection and analysis to determine whether a change is in order.

I'm not disagreeing with you on this point.

It just seems a bit funny that I'm okay with having all female POVs while having all male POVs leads authors to self-reflection so easily. --even in this case, in which the OP has a homosexual MC and one non-white POV guy, rather than all three being the "default" white, straight male age 18-34.

For my last story, my reason for adding a new POV wasn't gender-based, but story-based. The MC is a fun and interesting woman, and her POV can carry a story. But I felt the reader needed to see the POV of another character so he wouldn't just show up leaving the reader wondering "who's this asshole?"

I think having an interesting woman in the story is great, but rather than ask, "Who can I change to woman?" Why not ask, "Will adding a woman improve my story?" (For me, honestly, gender wouldn't enter the equation. If my story's weak, I ask how to improve it; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.)

The last writer who asked this already had an interesting female character in his story, if I remember correctly. It was just a matter of adding her perspective as a POV character. Personally, I felt he made a good decision there because it sounded like he'd end up with a more fun way to tell the story.

I didn't see The Hobbit, but it seems that Tauriel came off as a "tacked-on love interest." That's an example of how adding a woman didn't improve the story (even if she's a great character).

 

[Ireth]

I didn't see The Hobbit, but it seems that Tauriel came off as a "tacked-on love interest." That's an example of how adding a woman didn't improve the story (even if she's a great character).

At the risk of derailing the thread, I half agree with that. I appreciate her as a character, being an expansion of a very minor character in the book (who originally was also male). It was awesome to see a woman being badass, even if it wasn't strictly canon. (As far as canon-woman badassery goes, Galadriel was AWESOME in the third film.) The love story was the tacked-on part.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Now that you've said that, I guess I really DON'T have a problem with a male character being changed to a female character. I don't know why, but for some reason Ireth, when you mentioned Tauriel was a male character (who I forgot about from reading 30 years ago, but I do remember that coming up in an MS discussion) just now, I thought "that's actually pretty cool."

I don't think I'd have been in the anti-Tauriel camp, had her role been what it was but as a woman instead of a man.

I think my problem then (not specifically with Tauriel, but any gender change) is when changing gender leads to a plot change that screams "token female." Like tacking on a love story subplot.

I can't honestly say whether Tauriel would have worked better if the Tauriel-Killi love story fit seamlessly into the main story, or if the love story was never added. Theoretically, I believe this to be the case.




Also worth noting: changing a character (from male to female, from non-POV to POV) WILL change the story, and as a writer, you WILL be compelled to make a change (likely a major one, if not several) that suits the character's new image. I'm not trying to discourage that. I'm saying make a change and make it good, or the change will weaken your story.

 

[Nimue]

Bringing this back around to the original request:

Thank you everybody for all your replies!

First of all, I agree we are free people and we should let our creations roam free and so on, but I also think, as some people pointed, that diversity helps any story. And taking the point of view from the classic white-male hero gives some freshness too. Also, at least in Brazi, the majority of fantasy fiction readers are women and having characters they can identify with helps a lot. I still don't know what I'm gonna do. I'm at the third chapter with something around 12 thousand words in it and the publisher is pressing me a bit, so I don't know if I'll be able to make huge changes due to time constraints

You're clearly approaching this thoughtfully, and on the right track. However, with the information that you have a good chunk of it written already, and a publisher breathing down your neck, it might not indeed be the best time to make major POV changes. You can always take this thoughtfulness and apply it to your next project, and really do justice to a female protagonist.

I mean, really, the Tumblr Police aren't going to beat down your door because your book doesn't have a female POV. Particularly if, as Svrtnesse says, you have good, deep female characters that the POV characters interact with frequently. And it sound like you have that covered:

Even tough there is no female POV, there are many strong women in the book. The apparent "MC", for example, is the leader of a dystopian Sao Paulo favela. He is some sort of communitary leader that lives somehwere in the grey area between social work and crime. In order to help people, sometimes he needs to resort to crime syndicates or take part in criminal activity. His reluctand ally is a woman trying to change things in this enviroment and she is his moral compass sometimes. She thinks they can do well without resorting to the local mafia, prepares young women for leadership roles and taking action when she has to.

I like her a lot. Eventually, as I mentioned, a female character will become a POV and it's exaclty her. Also, in the other two POVs, there are strong women. But, still, the lack of a female POV worries me. According to data I got from a Brazilian bookreaders social network (and also my general impression on literary events), 70% of my readers are women.

Not dedicating at least one POV to them... worries me.

The more you describe this story, the less worried I think you should be. Is it possible that there would be some women who are less inclined to read your book because of the POV characters? I won't say no. But if important women show up in your first few chapters and/or your book blurb or something, it'll be clear that this isn't a flat masculine world or anything.

- The communitary leader can be a homossexual pretending to be straight, but it would be very unlikely in Brazil to have a female communitary-sort-of-criminal leader (or even in other countries, I imagine). Yeah, it's my book, I can even put an old lady with a cat named Cookies leading a criminal syndicate. But it would still be weird.

If you're writing within a real-world society, and there's more realism than fantasy, then yes, the characters should follow real gender roles because that's part of our world. I would like to point out that having a character be possible and having them be statistically average are two different things, and oddly often confused. But I know zilch about Brazilian organized crime, so I think you're the expert there.

- The third has some room for change. His a cop from Sao Paulo and a civil war veteran. But two things worry me: 1) I wouldn't like to create a female grunt and 2) if this character becomes a woman, I would have a homossexual male, a black male and a female as my three POVs. I don't know, but I think it would seem like I was trying too hard to be inclusive

I have a soft spot for female police officers and detectives who don't take bullshit, so if it's workable I'd agree with you that this character would make a good place for change.

As for the over-inclusive argument, some people might definitely read it that way, but um, I don't really consider women to be a square in token diversity bingo... I meant, we're not exactly a minority, are we? And if you don't introduce your book blurb with "the story of a gay guy, a black guy, and a lady cop who only deal with struggles directly related to their underpriviledgedness!" I wouldn't worry about it.

It's really up to you. If it's too much work to rehaul a major character right now, you can always be thoughtful about the depth and portrayal of the other women in the story. Maybe take a side plot or a minor character's role and reassign them to the main female character you're talking about, so she gets a little more screen time. Ramping up her role would also help readers transition to her POV when that happens. Even if we're not in her head, she can still be central to the story.

Without knowing all the details it's hard to say, but I don't think you have anything to worry about--you just have a lot to think about. And that's probably how it should be when you're writing.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

What might be trickier is writing sexual attraction your characters may experience, at least if they have different sexual orientations from yourself.

I understand why you might think this, but I don't believe it's the case.

Consider how varied attraction (sexual or otherwise) is within just the male heterosexual community. Men vary greatly on what they consider attractive. That transcends cultural preferences too. Stereotypes of attraction exist, but they, like any stereotype, do not reflect individual tastes or the group accurately. They're assumptions.

As such, when considering any sexual orientation (as with gender), writers should approach the character as an individual.

I'm fully confident in my ability to write a convincing asian lesbian character though I'm a Caucasian heterosexual male. Why? Because my character will be unique, like any person. Her tastes will be hers alone and not subject to some false social parameters or expectations. Maybe she likes women with strong legs and wide hips. Maybe she likes the same her male competition does, setting up conflict. Maybe she is submissive and likes women with masculine features. Or maybe it's the complete opposite, or even somewhere in between. Could be anything I can dream up. Why limit yourself?

Just write all your characters as unique characters who have their own likes & dislikes, their own opinions & assumptions, their own perceptions and judgments....and so on.....

Once you can step away from narrowing your characters to fit into some social expectation box, you'll be free to make varied characters who feel real. The alternative is to remain trapped in cliché.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

a convincing asian lesbian character

Honestly, I can't help but comment on this. Some of my wife's former classmates (in Hong Kong) have girlfriends that I would agree are attractive, and they were among the easiest for me to talk to of my wife's friends. Maybe they were more confident in their English as they were more prone to defying cultural norms, and as a result, didn't just stick with people who were "traditional Chinese."

My huntress character is a lesbian, but in my more recent short story, that doesn't come up. I don't care to put any romance scenes into her stories, but simply focus on the hunt. Her being a woman or being attracted to women don't define her, though they can be important details to the story. I see in her world that hunting monsters is a male dominated business, and in my latest story with her, one character refers to her and a male hunting companion as "lovebirds." The most interesting detail related to her being a lesbian is a story I have yet to tell, but it's in my mind. (A clean story, before anyone gets the wrong idea.)

So that's my feelings on gender and sexual preference. Neither should define characters (individuals), but it might affect how the characters (part of a group) are perceived by other characters.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

So that's my feelings on gender and sexual preference. Neither should define characters (individuals), but it might affect how the characters (part of a group) are perceived by other characters.

I couldn't agree more. The impact of that facet of a character's life can have as great or minimal impact as the story needs.

Real people are far too varied to be defined by any single aspect of their lives.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

What might be trickier is writing sexual attraction your characters may experience, at least if they have different sexual orientations from yourself.

A funny thing is I thought that when I first created the aforementioned warrior women I wanted to write. Only one was written as an MC in serious stories, while the others were RP'd in games on this site.

I've been playing the barbarian woman in Steerpike's game for two years. She is straight, but at 16 joined her young nun friend and sparring partner in taking a vow of chastity–for moral support, but also to force her way out of a political marriage.

None of that is important to the game, but when playing the character, I know how she thinks. I even know which male character she finds attractive, and why him, even though my character will not pursue romance and I don't even find it to be an appropriate pursuit for the purposes of the game. It's just me knowing my character. I really didn't expect to know a female character that well, that I'd know what man she's attracted to when I don't even have an interest in writing that desire for her.

It would be far less surprising had I intended romance for her and created the man who so attracts her.




My lesbian huntress also experiences what may appear (from a reader's perspective) to be "the seeds of romance" as she spends a month in the wilderness with a man. It's a platonic friendship which develops, but remains platonic. However, there is a scene in which she sees the man is attracted to her. She is flattered and she likes the way he looks at her, though she never entertains the thought of being more than friends.

I don't know what it's like to be a lesbian, but I can tell you that my character normally would NOT care for a guy making eyes at her. For some reason, it felt right in this particular scene. Had the two been in the wilderness for a year, just him and her, she'd probably have to give the "just friends" speech. There was never a chance it was going to get any better than that for the man.

Again, I wasn't focused on including anything resembling romance the story. That was just me putting myself in the mind of a character I created and have little in common with, and I wrote what felt right for her.

 

[Fyle]

I didn't see The Hobbit, but it seems that Tauriel came off as a "tacked-on love interest." That's an example of how adding a woman didn't improve the story (even if she's a great character).

This is right, you don’t even have to see the movie to know she was “tacked-on” not just as a love interest but simply because JRR Tolkien was not known for writing female leads. And, if you watch the trilogy, you find in the end, she adds nothing to the story. It feels very forced, or tacked on, and I would say “sell out,” personally.

When a female lead / MC works, it should feel intended and natural, not added in just because a female was needed, and for that matter, nothing should be added in simply because it is absent and for no other reason.

A good example of a lead female is Katniss in the Hunger Games (movie and books), unlike Tauriel, the author did not say, “hey, I need a strong female lead in here cause that’s what’s lacking!” Another good example of a strong female character is Trinity in the Matrix or Beatrix Kiddo in KILL BILL (an incredibly kick-ass female character might I add).

They fit in the story on their own and you can tell there was no throwing them in because they are women. If you cannot make the distinction between the two on some level, I think you have a poor conception of what is original concept and what is meant to be sold to the masses.

SO, this is why my point to the OP is, if it is not originally intended, or you just aren’t seeing it in that story, don’t force it! Don’t make a change only because you need a female, make a change IF a female makes sense in the story or works in naturally.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

A good example of a lead female is Katniss in the Hunger Games (movie and books), unlike Tauriel, the author did not say, “hey, I need a strong female lead in here cause that’s what’s lacking!” Another good example of a strong female character is Trinity in the Matrix or Beatrix Kiddo in KILL BILL (an incredibly kick-ass female character might I add).

They fit in the story on their own and you can tell there was no throwing them in because they are women. If you cannot make the distinction between the two on some level, I think you have a poor conception of what is original concept and what is meant to be sold to the masses.

Unless you're secretly Suzanne Collins, one of the Wachowskis, or Quentin Tarentino, I don't see how you can possibly make that claim.

 

[Trick]

May I harken back to a post of mine, very similar to the OP, that blew up like a plugged shotgun?

http://mythicscribes.com/forums/wri...o-few-female-characters.html?highlight=female

While the discussion raged for some time, I'm so glad I asked the question because it helped me realize that I didn't 'lack female characters.' I was under utilizing a great female character that I already had.

I thought the OP might gain some insight somewhere in the nearly 40 pages of discussion from that thread.

 

[Tom]

Hoo boy, that one got out of hand. I'm going to refrain from commenting too much in this thread because female characters, and the treatment of said characters, really is an issue with me.

But I will say, don't put in a female lead just because you feel you need a female lead. It needs to feel natural--not like you tacked it on for "Hey, diversity!" points. Perhaps you have a subplot that could be fleshed out more, and is one that would benefit from a female character at its heart?

 

[Gryphos]

When did it suddenly become bad to add or alter characters "for diversity's sake"? I'm sorry, but I can't understand what's inherently wrong with that. You're just trying to improve your story by making it more interesting/realistic/relatable to a wider range of readers. So yeah, I change characters just for the sake of diversity, and I think my writing is a lot better for it (otherwise my book would be populated entirely by straight white men, which is boring and dumb).

 

[Fyle]

Unless you're secretly Suzanne Collins, one of the Wachowskis, or Quentin Tarentino, I don't see how you can possibly make that claim.

They were all recieved well by fans and so far as i know none critized like Tauriel was by fans.

Also, it is left up to the readers and the fans to judge how well they think characters meet expectations.

Allen, you do not have to be George Lucas to say Jar Jar Binks feels out of place in Star Wars and is deliberately aimed at the under 13 age group.

These things are not hard to see when being honest. The females i mentioned had personalities, backround stories and dialoge that fit their fictional world well. Meaning, you can tell they were not tacked on, or added for diversity, but deeper characters who were probably created along with the world they inhabit than Tauriel.

 

[cupiscent]

Adding a character - for whatever reason - is a good way to end up with Trinity Syndrome (to sum up: when a female character is bad-ass, but has no purpose in the story and therefore no actual agency). If you're looking at a story going, "Oh, but I have no/too few women," then my advice would usually be to change the gender of one of the characters. Or conflate a couple of characters into the one female character. Or, like Trick, get more out of your female characters. (And I cheered about that, Trick. So pleased.)

 

[Gryphos]

These things are not hard to see when being honest. The females i mentioned had personalities, backround stories and dialoge that fit their fictional world well. Meaning, you can tell they were not tacked on, or added for diversity, but deeper characters who were probably created along with the world they inhabit than Tauriel.

Of course all characters need to have personalities and fit in the world!!! What you're talking about here is an issue of bad writing, not diversity.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

@Cupiscent,

I liked the Trinity Syndrome article. Particularly, I liked the "Is She Strong?" check questions. Humorous, but in a way that drove the point.

 

[Steerpike]

When did it suddenly become bad to add or alter characters "for diversity's sake"? I'm sorry, but I can't understand what's inherently wrong with that. You're just trying to improve your story by making it more interesting/realistic/relatable to a wider range of readers. So yeah, I change characters just for the sake of diversity, and I think my writing is a lot better for it (otherwise my book would be populated entirely by straight white men, which is boring and dumb).

Yes. You make all kinds of conscious decisions that change how you approach a story, with the goal of improving it. But if that decision includes making the story more diverse, some see it as a no-no. Doesn't make sense, in my view.