# Bechdel:  Round Two



## Devor (Mar 8, 2013)

As some of you have been waiting for, this thread follows up a previous discussion on _The Bechdel Test_ about the role of women in your fantasy stories.

In a nutshell, the test reads:



Guru Coyote said:


> The Bechdel Test:
> 1. Is there more than one character in the movie that is female who has lines?
> 2. And do these women talk to each other at any point in the movie?
> 3. And is their conversation about something other than the guy that they both like?



I want to remind everyone here that modern politics is a banned subject, except as it relates strictly to fantasy storytelling, and nobody should have any expectations about changing that policy.  If you have comments about our policy regarding politics, take them to the linked thread.  Posting them here is probably the fastest way to derail the discussion.

We come to Mythic Scribes to focus on our writing, and politics are only a distraction towards our work because many of us have strong feelings about the subjects at hand.  We want Mythic Scribes to be a motivator for our writing, and not a deterrent.  _*This isn't the place for activism, venting, or debating.*_

One last thing.  We ask that you respect other members of our community and not try to characterize somebody else's mindset.  This isn't the place to imply that somebody is a misogynist or else suffers from a "victim mentality."  You're only seeing a very narrow strip of somebody's opinions in a conversation like this, which may have nothing to do with their broader mindset or with how they live their lives.  If you're getting those kinds of vibes from somebody, just assume that you're only seeing fatigue from the discussion and leave it alone.

So again, please keep it on topic:

_*How should we portray women in fantasy?*_


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

*Awareness is key*

If you fail this test and it brings awareness of issues you haven't thought about, then great. If you look at the story and determine it's just how you want it, that's fine as well. But if it can prevent a writer from unwittingly creating a work that has bad characterization, then it has benefits. I think it is a particularly good baseline if you have female primary characters. The test is such a low bar that if you have female characters you see as primary, and you don't pass it, you've got a good indication that the characters are not well developed. Looked at in that context, as a way to get thinking about things, I think it can only be helpful.


----------



## Chime85 (Mar 8, 2013)

On a most basic level, with the same integrity as a writer would any other character. At the end of the day, why include a character if the writer is going to simply gloss over the traits of that person. I don’t mean they should necessarily keep clear of stereotypes, rather, to keep in mind that people very rarely fall into those categories. Or at least, they would show many other traits along with them.

On the other hand, they should also be written accurately within the socialisation of the world created. Of course, it is often the odd ones out that make for interesting characters, but they should still reflect (whether they be for or against) the values of society around them. A small but clumsy example would be for instance; if a society placed women as the dominant of the genders, I would imagine the female characters would often be the decision makers. However, if a female character was a good twenty years younger than a male counterpart, there could very well be a conflict of power and opinion on that matter.


----------



## Chilari (Mar 8, 2013)

Well timed rejuvenation of the topic, given that today is International Women's Day.

I think one way to approach character creation to ensure that each character has been developed to an appropriate level regardless of gender would be to create genderless characters from the outset, and only later assign them genders as appropriate. I have heard it said that this was done with Ripley in Alien - a character written without gender being part of the character's actions, and later cast with a female actor, the incredibly awesome Sigourney Weaver.

But really, as long as the female characters aren't cliched then you can't go too far wrong. What I don't like seeing is female characters who are clearly designed to be the male hero's "reward" when he's won, female characters with no female friends, or where the only female characters are either family members or love interests to main male characters. As long as writers don't do that, I'm generally happy.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 8, 2013)

> How should we portray women in fantasy?



They should be portrayed to fit the demands of the story, as should the male characters and any other type of character.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

Chilari said:


> I think one way to approach character creation to ensure that each character has been developed to an appropriate level regardless of gender would be to create genderless characters from the outset, and only later assign them genders as appropriate. I have heard it said that this was done with Ripley in Alien - a character written without gender being part of the character's actions, and later cast with a female actor, the incredibly awesome Sigourney Weaver.



This is generally my approach. When people say "I don't know how to write a woman" or "I don't know how to write a man," my answer is "write a person." If you're going out of your way to say "what would a woman do in this situation," you're already heading down the wrong path. The right question is "what would my character do in this situation?"


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 8, 2013)

May I propose a stronger Bechdel tests for fans of the first? I call it the Bechdel Test for people that read like Steerpike. It reads: 



			
				The Bechdel Test for people that read like Steerpike: said:
			
		

> 1. Is there more than one character in the movie that is female who has lines?
> 2. And do these women talk to each other at any point in the movie?
> 3. And is their conversation about something other than the guy that they both like?
> 4. And does all this happen outside of the prologue?


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Chilari said:


> What I don't like seeing is female characters who are clearly designed to be the male hero's "reward" when he's won.



So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but when the opposite happens, it's perfectly okay? 

For example, many Avatar fans thought Aang's marriage to Katara was unearned and reduced her to a trophy (mostly just because they were bitter Zutarans), but later on those same fans were frothing at the mouth and DEMANDING that Korra get Mako as a trophy because she "deserved him".


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but when the opposite happens, it's perfectly okay?



I don't remember Chilari saying that in her post. Maybe you can quote the portion that says it?


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> May I propose a stronger Bechdel tests for fans of the first? I call it the Bechdel Test for people that read like Steerpike.



Why don't we design a new characterization "test" altogether? As I see it, the Bechdel test is a loaded gun. Its so strongly associated with feminism and gender politics that it's more of a distraction than a tool, as we saw in part 1 of this discussion. I say ditch it and make something without all the connotations.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Why don't we design a new characterization "test" altogether?



There are plenty of other characterization tests. The Bechdel test is specifically about portrayal of female characters. If you change it to be about something other than the portrayal of female characters, you've missed the point entirely.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I don't remember Chilari saying that in her post. Maybe you can quote the portion that says it?



I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say. That and observations of an attitude I've seen in other places that I thought relevant to this discussion. 

I'm raising the question: are there double standards? Should there be? And it's not just about trophy mates. There's also a tendency to let female villains off the hook more than male villains. Its become a trope unto itself.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say.



Well, she also didn't say unicorns exist. You could have just written "So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but unicorns exist?" and it would have follow just as well. :tongue:

Arg, I should be trying to work!


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 8, 2013)

Chilari said:
			
		

> What I don't like seeing is female characters who are clearly designed to be the male hero's "reward" when he's won.





Mindfire said:


> So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but when the opposite happens, it's perfectly okay?
> 
> For example, many Avatar fans thought Aang's marriage to Katara was unearned and reduced her to a trophy (mostly just because they were bitter Zutarans), but later on those same fans were frothing at the mouth and DEMANDING that Korra get Mako as a trophy because she "deserved him".



I also dislike this as poor characterization. Also, why would the guy necessarily *want* the girl as a reward? Because he's shallow? If the characters and their relationship have been significantly developed, then the girl won't be seen as just a reward and the coupling will be natural and organic. Having a character exist as a reward in general is bad whether it's done for girls or guys (unless you're writing something where having a character exist as a reward is saying something in and of itself).


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> There are plenty of other characterization tests. The Bechdel test is specifically about portrayal of female characters. If you change it to be about something other than the portrayal of female characters, you've missed the point entirely.



It would still be about female characters, it just wouldn't be the _Bechdel_ test with the _Bechdel_ label on it.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 8, 2013)

I'm not a fan of passive damsels in distress either. It's one thing to have a man rescue a woman, but I can't accept a woman losing all agency in the situation unless the story provides a good explanation. Besides, I like women who can take care of themselves and work as equals with their man.

That said, I will admit that I prefer to write romantic situations from the man's point of view. I am a guy after all, so I have a more intimate understanding of male than female desires and feelings about that sort of thing. In all other circumstances, however, I have no problem with a female character's perspective.


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Well, she also didn't say unicorns exist. You could have just written "So its bad when a hero gets a woman as a reward, but unicorns exist?" and it would have follow just as well. :tongue:
> 
> Arg, I should be trying to work!



I was just trying to bring up a related issue. Geez. Crucified for one shaky transition.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 8, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say. That and observations of an attitude I've seen in other places that I indeed relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm raising the question: are there double standards? Should there be? And it's not just about trophy mates. There's also a tendency to let female villains off the hook more than male villains. Its become a trope unto itself.



It seemed that you were bringing in your frustration over the double standard from another source. Chilari always seems pretty level-headed in discussions, please try to keep the conversation polite and avoid angry retorts to imagined slights or this thread will not exist long at all before being closed. 

I always recommend when making points that we establish where they are coming from and why we believe them. Remember we are not necessarily trying to debate, but rather discuss the role of female characters in novels.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> It would still be about female characters, it just wouldn't be the _Bechdel_ test with the _Bechdel_ label on it.



Oh, I see what you mean. I misunderstood you!


----------



## Chime85 (Mar 8, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> I didn't mean to imply that she said it. It was more about what she didn't say. That and observations of an attitude I've seen in other places that I indeed relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm raising the question: are there double standards? Should there be? And it's not just about trophy mates. There's also a tendency to let female villains off the hook more than male villains. Its become a trope unto itself.



Well there are two points to be made about this. The Betchel test is meant to eliminate double standards, placing female characters on par with male characters. The fact this test exists highlights they are not. Of course, there are examples of female characters being very well written (Ripley, as exampled above) but that number is dwarfed by the number of women in stories who are closer to a prize (like Bilbos trasure!) than a person. 

As you say, female villains being let "off the hook" does highlight a double standard. A standard many women wish to see changed.

Edit: Personally, I would love to see a female villain get her "come up-ence"


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> It seemed that you were bringing in your frustration over the double standard from another source. Chilari always seems pretty level-headed in discussions, please try to keep the conversation polite and avoid angry retorts to imagined slights or this thread will not exist long at all before being closed.
> 
> I always recommend when making points that we establish where they are coming from and why we believe them. Remember we are not necessarily trying to debate, but rather discuss the role of female characters in novels.



Angry? Who's angry? I'm not. But its hard to read emotions over the internet. From now on I will make frequent use of emoticons to avoid confusion.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 8, 2013)

I think the "double standard" argument is valid, but is frequently used as an "anti-feminism" tool. It's unfortunately got a "guilty-by-association" vibe.

Men and women ARE different. I don't think anyone debates that, and society in general does have different expectations of men and women. What we want to do is either use societal expectation in order to help characterization (as in, if a character is the "expected", then we don't have to describe them as much, or if they are the "unexpected", then they appear more prominently as long as they are not cheesy) or, if we do have political statements to make, help change societal expectation.

Now, it's taken me about 5 minutes to type this, so I probably have missed out on 123 posts in the discussion...
_Edit: ooo, posts haven't picked up the velocity of the origination thread yet_


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 8, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I also dislike this as poor characterization. Also, why would the guy necessarily *want* the girl as a reward? Because he's shallow? If the characters and their relationship have been significantly developed, then the girl won't be seen as just a reward and the coupling will be natural and organic. Having a character exist as a reward in general is bad whether it's done for girls or guys (unless you're writing something where having a character exist as a reward is saying something in and of itself).


I have to confess that I actually like "guy tries to win pretty girl over" stories. I have certainly found myself ogling beautiful women and wanting to date them, so I can identify with this type of plot. This doesn't necessarily mean reducing the girl to a passive "reward" who does nothing but wait for the hero to impress her; she can be a colleague in the action too.


----------



## Devor (Mar 8, 2013)

Mindfire said:


> Why don't we design a new characterization "test" altogether? As I see it, the Bechdel test is a loaded gun. Its so strongly associated with feminism and gender politics that it's more of a distraction than a tool, as we saw in part 1 of this discussion. I say ditch it and make something without all the connotations.



What would that look like?

When I first saw the Bechdel test, I rolled my eyes and thought, "Wow, you'd have to be shallow if _every last woman_ in the book is a young adult swooning over the MC.  Are there really many stories failing this test?"  Well, apparently.

Even so, I think some of this is taken too far.  Some stories keep things simple and don't have a lot of characters.  And those coming-of-age, finding-a-girl stories are what a lot of young fantasy writers connect with.  It's also the kind of story that sells because _everyone_ has either gone through that stage of life or wants to go through it.  I don't think failing the test is even a hint of misogyny - I think people who feel that way are similarly failing to empathize, in turn, with men in that stage of life.

When it comes to women (and a lot of other things people get offended about) in fantasy, I usually tend to dismiss a lot as just bad writing.  The woman had no depth.  Well, neither did the plot, or anything else about the story.  It's more telling, to me, when the characters are complex, but the story still in some ways elevates negative qualities or miss-perceptions.  I won't quote examples because I don't want to start that debate.

But "misogynist" is still far too strong a word.  First, there's no end to the mistakes people make trying to divine what an author intended with his work.  And second, your reading and writing represent only a sliver of a person's life and psyche.  Let's reserve the strongest words for the strongest offenses, and not toss them about over every slight, real or imagined.

Still, my opinion remains the same.  You have to put your story first, and tune everything else out.  Sometimes you can ruin a good thing trying to force something that doesn't fit or that you're not skilled enough to handle.  But if you really want to be an activist about it, the only thing you can do is to _go write a story about the kinds of characters you want to see_, and if it's any good, the consumers will do the demanding for you.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 8, 2013)

> The Betchel test is meant to eliminate double standards, placing female characters on par with male characters. The fact this test exists highlights they are not.



I'm not sure I agree with the logic here.  The existence of a test doesn't prove anything other than that someone perceived a need for a test; it says nothing about the reality of their perception.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 8, 2013)

> Some stories keep things simple and don't have a lot of characters. And those coming-of-age, finding-a-girl stories are what a lot of young fantasy writers connect with. It's also the kind of story that sells because everyone has either gone through that stage of life or wants to go through it. I don't think failing the test is even a hint of misogyny - I think people who feel that way are similarly failing to empathize, in turn, with men in that stage of life.



This is an excellent point.



> When it comes to women (and a lot of other things people get offended about) in fantasy, I usually tend to dismiss a lot as just bad writing. The woman had no depth. Well, neither did the plot, or anything else about the story. It's more telling, to me, when the characters are complex, but the story still in some ways elevates negative qualities or miss-perceptions. I won't quote examples because I don't want to start that debate.



Another well-thought-out, excellent point.

I guess that part of my problem with the test other than the ones I highlighted in the previous discussion is that I have no idea how the proposed "solutions" offered by the test offer any improvement to perceived misrepresentation.

If a author writes a strong, well-balanced woman, it's somehow bad because there aren't two women?  Or am I misreading the point?


----------



## Mindfire (Mar 8, 2013)

Devor said:


> What would that look like?



It would look like something not _called_ the _Bechdel_ test. 



Devor said:


> But "misogynist" is still far too strong a word.



"Misogynist" is also a loaded word, and one I think we'd do well to avoid here. It literally means "woman hater". Yeah... I don't think the vast majority of writers who short-change their female characters actually _hate_ women.



Zero Angel said:


> I think the "double standard" argument is valid, but is frequently used as an "anti-feminism" tool. It's unfortunately got a "guilty-by-association" vibe.



Maybe, but guilt by association is a fallacy. What's next, lambasting people for eating sugar because, well Hitler Ate Sugar! 

(Yes, I realize the irony of using the slippery slope fallacy to criticize the guilt by association fallacy. However, considering my point to be false simply because I made use of a fallacy is also a fallacy, the fallacy fallacy. No, really. It is.)



Zero Angel said:


> Men and women ARE different. I don't think anyone debates that.



Oh you'd be surprised... -_-



Zero Angel said:


> Now, it's taken me about 5 minutes to type this, so I probably have missed out on 123 posts in the discussion...
> _Edit: ooo, posts haven't picked up the velocity of the origination thread yet_



I'm sure things will pick up when Saellys gets back.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I'm not sure I agree with the logic here.  The existence of a test doesn't prove anything other than that someone perceived a need for a test; it says nothing about the reality of their perception.



This is true. That said, there is a good deal of scholarship in the area, and I don't think too many people dispute the fact that science fiction and fantasy in particular have a long history of disproportionate representation, differential treatment of female characters, and so on.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> This is true. That said, there is a good deal of scholarship in the area, and I don't think too many people dispute the fact that science fiction and fantasy in particular have a long history of disproportionate representation, differential treatment of female characters, and so on.



I can't speak to modern science fiction as I don't read much of it.

Is this the case with modern fantasy?  Someone I know from college wrote a thesis about how WoT represented a feminist viewpoint (not sure how strong her case was since I never got around to actually reading her paper).  It certainly seems to me that most of the modern popular fantasy that I read represents women much better than the old sword and sorcery kind of stuff.

Truthfully, though, the comment was mainly addressed to the logic.  If the point is to say that women aren't fairly represented, that point should be proved, imo, instead of presented as fact.

As I've said in so many threads that I've lost count, it helps to define terms.  Are we talking early fantasy or modern?  I tend to focus on modern epic fantasy, so I can't really speak to much beyond that.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 8, 2013)

> Yes, I realize the irony of using the slippery slope fallacy to criticize the guilt by association fallacy. However, discrediting my point entirely simply because I made use of a fallacy is also a fallacy, the fallacy fallacy. No, really. It is.)



Best statement on this thread.  Bar none!


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

I think there has certainly been improvement among current fantasy writers as opposed to earlier writers. Much of the problematic aspects of representations in the genre seem to now reside in gaming, graphic novels, and comic books. Probably movies too, to be honest. There is a lot more diversity of work in written fantasy literature, and written fantasy literature isn't as heavily male-dominated, in terms of content creators, as the others.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> ... I don't think too many people dispute the fact that science fiction and fantasy in particular have a long history of disproportionate representation, differential treatment of female characters, and so on.



I don't dispute this. Though, we should also note that the readership for these genres has traditionally been a heavily male audience. This may not be as skewed now as in the past but its still something to consider.

If you're writing only certain types of female characters and certain types of male characters, you're likely just not very good at writing well rounded & varied characters at all.

Truth is, reality presents us with all types. With females in our real world, we see as broad of a range as we do with males. We have the dizzy bleach blond stereotypes up through the independent and ultra-capable women, and every shade in between.

The same holds true for men. In reality we have plenty of competent, commanding men but we're also surrounded by the bumbling male idiots. How many of those bumbling male husbands exist as sitcom characters, or those in movies, men that couldn't tie their own shoes without the help of the woman in their life? 

My point being, if you want to represent realism you probably need clear distinctions among all of your characters. Show the reader differences across the entire spectrum. Allow them to act as foils to one another. This holds true for all differences inherent in the human condition, ranging from gender to race to orientation and beyond.
You probably shouldn't need a test like this to strive for character distinctions, those that make your story's players come to life, but if you do, so be it. 

I'd rather spend my energies making characters that are as realistic and distinct from one another as possible without referencing outside measures or tests. I do that because I want to engage the reader and make them care about the cast in the story, not because I'm concerned about representation. There's a lot more ground to cover there than appearance, creeds, and motivations when considering characterization. Still, all choices should serve the story and the story alone.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think there has certainly been improvement among current fantasy writers as opposed to earlier writers. Much of the problematic aspects of representations in the genre seem to now reside in gaming, graphic novels, and comic books. Probably movies too, to be honest. There is a lot more diversity of work in written fantasy literature, and written fantasy literature isn't as heavily male-dominated, in terms of content creators, as the others.



I thought I read two interesting facts in different places:

Women make up a significant percentage of the modern fantasy audience.
The self publishing phenomenom is drawing a bunch of women writers moreso than men.

It seems dishonest somehow to talk about the problems with historical fantasy in relation to a thread like this one (I have a lot of problems with classic fantasy that have nothing to do with depiction of any group), and this forum is specifically dedicated to fantasy, not scifi.

Therefore, it seems logical to discuss modern fantasy.

If there is a perceived problem with modern fantasy's representation of women, I wish someone would attempt to justify that viewpoint.

(Strictly from my personal viewpoint, I don't really care all that much what is happening in gaming, graphic novels, and comic books as I'm not much of a consumer of those services.)


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> If there is a perceived problem with modern fantasy's representation of women, I wish someone would attempt to justify that viewpoint.



Again, there has been some scholarship in this area. You can find at least one Wikipedia article with a bunch of references cited at the bottom, there are plenty of blog sites where people post on the issue, and so on. SFWA even had a panel on representations of women in science fiction and fantasy, which seems an odd thing to do if there is no issue to be discussed. 

I suppose the topic could be diverted to arguing whether there is even a disparity in the first place, but personally I don't think there is a great deal of ground to debate on that particular question (a few quick Google searches will turn up a lot of material on the subject) and find it more interesting to talk about how to create good characters generally (male and female), and how to identify if you've unwittingly created a work where the male characters are developed but females are caricatures.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I don't dispute this. Though, we should also note that the readership for these genres has traditionally been a heavily male audience. This may not be as skewed now as in the past but its still something to consider.



Yes. This is why female writers adopted names like James Tiptree, Jr.

I agree regarding constructing realistic and distinct characters. I think that's another reason why asking "what would a male/female do in this situation" is a mistake from the outset. A lot of the problems we've discussed in these threads go away if you start viewing characters as people and not as genders (or, I suppose more accurately, sexes).


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think that's another reason why asking "what would a male/female do in this situation" is a mistake from the outset. A lot of the problems we've discussed in these threads go away if you start viewing characters as people and not as genders (or, I suppose more accurately, sexes).


I agree for the most part. However, there are instances where the expected differences between the sexes can be used to great effect as well. As much as it can be a mistake to focus on gender, it can also be limiting (in realism terms) to act like gender differences do not exist. Balance along the character cast is key.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Mar 8, 2013)

> Again, there has been some scholarship in this area. You can find at least one Wikipedia article with a bunch of references cited at the bottom, there are plenty of blog sites where people post on the issue, and so on. SFWA even had a panel on representations of women in science fiction and fantasy, which seems an odd thing to do if there is no issue to be discussed.



I find it hard to comment on this without straying from the guidelines that Devor set for this thread, so I'll refrain.



> find it more interesting to talk about how to create good characters generally (male and female), and how to identify if you've unwittingly created a work where the male characters are developed but females are caricatures.



Always a good idea to discuss good character creation.  Seems to me, though, that if one simply follows the same procedure in creating male characters and female characters, I'm not sure why you would need any identification process.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 8, 2013)

I thought we had progressed from talking about the validity of the Bechdel test to talking about how to create more interesting female characters? 

Can we agree that the Bechdel test is a flawed test but the fact that there are so many egregious offenses of what the Bechdel test is _trying_ to analyze troublesome?

Here's a question. How can we make our well-rounded characters not throw up red flags to people looking for things to be annoyed by?

Although we can say that we shouldn't care and that bad press is still press which is good, I know that I would be offended if specific characters were called out by feminists or masculinists or any other group as being an example of being anti-whatever they are (unless of course, they were supposed to be like that through their characterization!)


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I agree for the most part. However, there are instances where the expected differences between the sexes can be used to great effect as well. As much as it can be a mistake to focus on gender, it can also be limiting (in realism terms) to act like gender differences do not exist. Balance along the character cast is key.



Yeah, but I still think it comes down to character. We might say that statistically, men are more likely to X and women are more likely to do Y, but our characters aren't statistics. I have a female friend who responds like a stereotypical male to everything she does; she grew up only hanging with guys; she was involved in athletics with guys far longer than most; she was in the Army and competed on the male PT tests. By the same token, I know some guys who are fairly effeminate by traditional standards.

So taking into consideration the amount of overlap between male and female reactions, it doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind to say "hmmm, what would a women do here?" For my specific character, it's more like "what would THIS woman do here?" which is the same as asking "what would this person do here?"  

That's my general approach on it, at any rate. if you have a female character who acts in what one might consider a traditional, stereotypically feminine way, then that's already built into her character, so asking "what would this person do?" gets you to the same place.

Does that make sense?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 8, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Here's a question. How can we make our well-rounded characters not throw up red flags to people looking for things to be annoyed by?


While you're not going to please everyone, every time, well-rounded characters if they are truly well-rounded & distinct, will be much less likely to draw the ire of critics.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 8, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, but I still think it comes down to character. We might say that statistically, men are more likely to X and women are more likely to do Y, but our characters aren't statistics. I have a female friend who responds like a stereotypical male to everything she does; she grew up only hanging with guys; she was involved in athletics with guys far longer than most; she was in the Army and competed on the male PT tests. By the same token, I know some guys who are fairly effeminate by traditional standards.
> 
> So taking into consideration the amount of overlap between male and female reactions, it doesn't make a lot of sense in my mind to say "hmmm, what would a women do here?" For my specific character, it's more like "what would THIS woman do here?" which is the same as asking "what would this person do here?"
> 
> ...



Yes & I concur. I was only trying to point out that within a specific character, of a specific gender, you may chose to emphasize traditional societal expectations because that's what that character is...and that's okay. I'd say your question "What would THIS woman do here?" is spot on.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 8, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Yes & I concur. I was only trying to point out that within a specific character, of a specific gender, you may chose to emphasize traditional societal expectations because that's what that character is...and that's okay. I'd say your question "What would THIS woman do here?" is spot on.



Yep. I agree with that.


----------



## Chilari (Mar 8, 2013)

At the risk of taking the discussion back a ways, I will respond to Mindfire's post about "reward" romances. Yes, it's bad when a male character is treated as a female character's reward, of course it is. But in my reading and viewing, the trend has been heavily in favour of female "reward" characters - probably over 90%.

I also dispute the Avatar examples - Aang and Katara, Korra and Mako. I don't see either Katara or Mako as "reward" characters, because they each have a large an important part in the plots. I would class a "reward" character as someone who has minimal impact upon the overall plot (even if they are there a lot), minimal decision-making, and is clearly there solely or primarily for the purpose of sex or romance with the protagonist towards the end. Both Katara and Mako made important plot-crucial decisions. With the case of the Legend of Korra, I feel the whole thing was not especially well put together in terms of pacing and especially in terms of the main romance, so it does lean more towards Mako as a "reward" character, especially with his relationship with whateverherfacewas preceding that with Korra. But I think that romance plot was quite simply bad, in more ways that Mako "reward" cahractering. In so many more ways.

As I say, I see female characters being there solely to have sex with the protagonist an awful lot in fantasy, though admittedly more the stuff written in the 80s and 90s than the most recent stuff, and I'm glad to see the trend diminishing. See, what's behind the trend, as far as I can tell, is that the author of such works, the target audience or both are generally male, generally not in a serious long term relationship with a woman, and wanting to be. Their view of women thus appears to be: if I do things right (like defeat the bad guy) then this woman will have sex with me. This comes alarmingly close to the "friendzone" mentality ("I am entitled to have a woman be attracted to me whom I am attracted to; she is not entitled to want to be friends with me only") and also perpetuates it. But I think that strays quite close enough to topics which should not be discussed; if anyone cares for my views on friendzoning being perpetuated by and pertuating bad attitudes to female characters they can PM me.


----------



## Chime85 (Mar 8, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> I thought we had progressed from talking about the validity of the Bechdel test to talking about how to create more interesting female characters?
> 
> Can we agree that the Bechdel test is a flawed test but the fact that there are so many egregious offenses of what the Bechdel test is _trying_ to analyze troublesome?
> 
> ...



Tbh, A solid, well thought out character. We all know people from many different backrounds etc who do not conform to stereotypes. In fact, we'd be hard pressed to jot a list of our nearest and dearest who do. So, why not use that very observation in your* writing?

I will agree, we certainly see traits in people we know that could be classed as a stereotype or a category. However, they likely have many other characteristics that make them a whole and unique person. Bringing forward that idea to writing is important for making a convincing and relatable character. Take Harry Potter for example; he's a boy, but many women relate to him. The reason this is so is because he has many other qualities readers can pick up and empathize with.

*Hypothetical


----------



## MongrelChuck (Mar 8, 2013)

Chime85 said:


> I will agree, we certainly see traits in people we know that could be classed as a stereotype or a category. However, they likely have many other characteristics that make them a whole and unique person. Bringing forward that idea to writing is important for making a convincing and relatable character. *Take Harry Potter for example; he's a boy, but many women relate to him. The reason this is so is because he has many other qualities readers can pick up and empathize with.*
> 
> *Hypothetical



Harry Potter is a walking stereotype whose introduction creates a sympathetic character.  Everyone can relate to the main characters in a children's book . . . you don't have to do so in longer, more adult fiction.  Not all characters should be an enforcement of some desire to be unique.  Special snowflakes melt far too quick into a mundane soup if not backed by some movement and narrative cohesion.


----------



## Chime85 (Mar 8, 2013)

MongrelChuck said:


> Harry Potter is a walking stereotype whose introduction creates a sympathetic character.  Everyone can relate to the main characters in a children's book . . . you don't have to do so in longer, more adult fiction.  Not all characters should be an enforcement of some desire to be unique.  Special snowflakes melt far too quick into a mundane soup if not backed by some movement and narrative cohesion.



HP goes on for 7 books. I would say that's a rather long time (for both adults and children) to put up with someone nobdy could relate to.

I'll play devils advocate here and swap HP for Alex in Clockwork Orange (Anthony Burgess). Let's face it, he's a nasty piece of work. He does nasty things to plenty of people. However, readers still relate to him. Why's this? Because he is still a well thought out, three dimensional character. The reader wants him to win, partially because they relate to his misery at the second half of the book (I'm not going to post spoilers), and because he is a solid character.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 8, 2013)

If there's one thing I want to see in fantasy fiction, it's a female character who's a coward. Not a female character who's just a civilian in a violent situation, and reacts expectedly to it--there are already tons of those, sometimes even in stories where male civilians are all utterly fearless--but a character for whom cowardice, even beyond the situation, is a clear flaw. It feels like there are writers who take it for granted that female characters are frightened and timid, and writers who respond by making their female characters brave, but not many who take the obvious next step and allow some female characters to not be brave.

(Granted, there are some Japanese stories in which female protagonists are cowardly, but they seem to always treat it as something innate to women, rather than as a flaw to be overcome.)


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 8, 2013)

To me, when applying the Bechdel test to your own writing, having one story fail the test doesn't mean a whole lot, but if all your stories fail, it's a reason to go back and ask why? Maybe all your stories have good reasons to fail, but it can't hurt to see where what your tendencies are.


----------



## Chilari (Mar 8, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> If there's one thing I want to see in fantasy fiction, it's a female character who's a coward. Not a female character who's just a civilian in a violent situation, and reacts expectedly to it--there are already tons of those, sometimes even in stories where male civilians are all utterly fearless--but a character for whom cowardice, even beyond the situation, is a clear flaw. It feels like there are writers who take it for granted that female characters are frightened and timid, and writers who respond by making their female characters brave, but not many who take the obvious next step and allow some female characters to not be brave.
> 
> (Granted, there are some Japanese stories in which female protagonists are cowardly, but they seem to always treat it as something innate to women, rather than as a flaw to be overcome.)



I agree; a woman being frightened isn't treated as a woman being a coward in fiction, but as a woman being a woman. There's a different flavour to it. Frightened women aren't regarded as characters who lack bravery or act in self-preservation even when the threat is not perhaps especially large, like with male characters. They're treated as fragile things to be protected, for whom a state of frightenedness is to be expected. It's treated not as a flaw, but as a means for a male character to show their strengths.

A well-written female coward is certainly something that fantasy could do with more of, though obviously balanced with female characters with different flaws and strengths.


----------



## saellys (Mar 8, 2013)

I'm SO glad this discussion is up and running again. 



Mindfire said:


> And it's not just about trophy mates. There's also a tendency to let female villains off the hook more than male villains. Its become a trope unto itself.



Not to get all "But have you seen this one thing?" on you, because the plural of anecdote is not data, and this isn't even plural, but I think the way Ravenna was handled in _Snow White and the Huntsman_ (WARNING: not a good movie) was top notch. Her motivation was revenge and misandry, and while Charlize Theron's performance was pretty spectacular, no one let her off the hook. 



Mindfire said:


> Why don't we design a new characterization "test" altogether? As I see it, the Bechdel test is a loaded gun. Its so strongly associated with feminism and gender politics that it's more of a distraction than a tool, as we saw in part 1 of this discussion. I say ditch it and make something without all the connotations.





Mindfire said:


> It would still be about female characters, it just wouldn't be the _Bechdel_ test with the _Bechdel_ label on it.



Names. Names are bad. Boo names. 

Seriously though, if you're saying writers might get turned off by the feminist connotations of the Bechdel test when it's called the Bechdel test, I say that's a real shame. It reminds me of various men I know insisting "I'm not feminist; I'm egalitarian!" even though their definitions for both are identical. 



Jabrosky said:


> I have to confess that I actually like "guy tries to win pretty girl over" stories. I have certainly found myself ogling beautiful women and wanting to date them, so I can identify with this type of plot. This doesn't necessarily mean reducing the girl to a passive "reward" who does nothing but wait for the hero to impress her; she can be a colleague in the action too.



Personally, I'm tired of the idea that men and women can only relate to each other as potential romantic interests (especially when the interest only goes one way and the girl needs to be "won over"), and I'd like some different portrayals of relationships between men and women. Sexual tension can only get one so far, particularly when the author includes no chemistry whatsoever between the characters we're supposed to want to see hook up by the end of the book and the only justification is "She's pretty and he's the hero!" 



BWFoster78 said:


> I guess that part of my problem with the test other than the ones I highlighted in the previous discussion is that I have no idea how the proposed "solutions" offered by the test offer any improvement to perceived misrepresentation.
> 
> If a author writes a strong, well-balanced woman, it's somehow bad because there aren't two women?  Or am I misreading the point?



Nope, it's not bad to only include one strong, well-balanced female character. As stated multiple times in the previous thread, the Bechdel test is a surface-level indication of how an author treats female characters. A work can pass Bechdel and still misrepresent women, and fail Bechdel and still have a female-positive message. 

As for improving perceived misrepresentation, if you start with one female character but fail Bechdel and decide to add/change another character to pass, you have doubled your chances of writing strong, well-balanced female characters. Even if one of them isn't and the other is, you have struck a balance and represented more than a shallow stereotype of that sort of human being. I believe they call that a result.



BWFoster78 said:


> It certainly seems to me that most of the modern popular fantasy that I read represents women much better than the old sword and sorcery kind of stuff.



Some of it does, in my experience. In other ways we've traded old problems for new ones. 



BWFoster78 said:


> Truthfully, though, the comment was mainly addressed to the logic.  If the point is to say that women aren't fairly represented, that point should be proved, imo, instead of presented as fact.



What exactly would prove this point for you? Like Steerpike said, it's easily Google-able, and you can find relatively objective opinions on both sides of a fairly subjective issue and draw your own conclusions from there. 

I've accepted misrepresentation as fact over the course of my own reading and research. I'm not going to give you an itemized list or percentages or a pie chart or whatever, but I did mention several examples in the previous thread of extremely popular recent fantasy works that fail Bechdel as well as presenting positive portrayals of women. They're the tip of the iceberg.

Now, asking for proof of misrepresentation strikes me as derailment for a bigger reason: this thread is about applying Bechdel to our _own_ work first and foremost, and asking how _we_ ought to write women in fantasy. If the broader genre is a gender utopia, that's great, but it's not an excuse for us to knowingly put misrepresentation out there. Even less so if the broader genre is not a gender utopia. You don't have to accept that misrepresentation is a fact in order to apply Bechdel to your own work and benefit from it. 



BWFoster78 said:


> As I've said in so many threads that I've lost count, it helps to define terms.  Are we talking early fantasy or modern?  I tend to focus on modern epic fantasy, so I can't really speak to much beyond that.



Since this is a thread about how we, modern fantasy writers, ought to write women in our modern fantasy, I think it's safe to say we're talking about modern fantasy. 



T.Allen.Smith said:


> My point being, if you want to represent realism you probably need clear distinctions among all of your characters. Show the reader differences across the entire spectrum. Allow them to act as foils to one another. This holds true for all differences inherent in the human condition, ranging from gender to race to orientation and beyond.
> You probably shouldn't need a test like this to strive for character distinctions, those that make your story's players come to life, but if you do, so be it.
> 
> I'd rather spend my energies making characters that are as realistic and distinct from one another as possible without referencing outside measures or tests. I do that because I want to engage the reader and make them care about the cast in the story, not because I'm concerned about representation. There's a lot more ground to cover there than appearance, creeds, and motivations when considering characterization. Still, all choices should serve the story and the story alone.



This is probably the most I've ever agreed with your stance on the issue. Believe me, I subscribe wholeheartedly to the bit about there being more to cover than appearance, creeds, and motivations. And no, not everyone needs Bechdel, and the ones who do usually need help in more areas than representation. It's only one of many things we writers can consider at some point in our creative process. 

I maintain that you can make all your decisions to serve the story, but if a reader encounters something problematic and voices that, you also need to be able to respond to that gracefully. 



Zero Angel said:


> Here's a question. How can we make our well-rounded characters not throw up red flags to people looking for things to be annoyed by?



By presenting more than just that character's worst traits in a story. See also: FatCat's questions in the first Bechdel thread about his misogynist POV character. Doesn't matter how offensive that character can be--they're part of a larger world, and will at some point encounter something that contradicts their behavior or beliefs, and when the narrative clearly supports that contradiction, people are a lot less likely to see red flags. 

To put it less circularly, if your book full of dudes saying misogynist stuff contains no women who do something--anything!--to contradict all that misogyny, your audience is likely to infer that you the author are just as misogynist as your character. 



Feo Takahari said:


> If there's one thing I want to see in fantasy fiction, it's a female character who's a coward. Not a female character who's just a civilian in a violent situation, and reacts expectedly to it--there are already tons of those, sometimes even in stories where male civilians are all utterly fearless--but a character for whom cowardice, even beyond the situation, is a clear flaw. It feels like there are writers who take it for granted that female characters are frightened and timid, and writers who respond by making their female characters brave, but not many who take the obvious next step and allow some female characters to not be brave.
> 
> (Granted, there are some Japanese stories in which female protagonists are cowardly, but they seem to always treat it as something innate to women, rather than as a flaw to be overcome.)



I've never thought about this, and I like this idea a lot. I might have to write her.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 8, 2013)

Aside: Is it just me or does it seem like everyone is getting along better this time around? I've yet to be offended whereas in the last thread it was getting to the point that I started blocking people.

Obviously, me not being offended is not a sign that someone else might not be or even that there is nothing to take offense to, but it's a much nicer tone.

Still, this means that there is less to disagree about and less to (let's call it "talk") talk about. 

Back on topic: I've personally never been accused of being mis-anything in my writing or my life by anyone that has read me or knows me. I am concerned about overreactions to minor things, or people reacting to things that would make sense if the veil the author keeps the reader shrouded in was pulled back. Then you have to worry if the veil is not designed to be pulled back until a future book if it will seem like you backpedaled when in truth it was designed that way from the get-go.

I guess this is a rather abstract and far-fetched worry, but worrying about my books and writings possibly occupies more of my time than anything -_-


----------



## saellys (Mar 8, 2013)

Zero Angel said:


> Aside: Is it just me or does it seem like everyone is getting along better this time around? I've yet to be offended whereas in the last thread it was getting to the point that I started blocking people.
> 
> Obviously, me not being offended is not a sign that someone else might not be or even that there is nothing to take offense to, but it's a much nicer tone.
> 
> Still, this means that there is less to disagree about and less to (let's call it "talk") talk about.



The tone is definitely less aggressive on all sides, and everyone seems to be expressing themselves a lot more thoroughly this time around. I don't think there will be any shortage of things to talk about, though. 



Zero Angel said:


> Back on topic: I've personally never been accused of being mis-anything in my writing or my life by anyone that has read me or knows me. I am concerned about overreactions to minor things, or people reacting to things that would make sense if the veil the author keeps the reader shrouded in was pulled back. Then you have to worry if the veil is not designed to be pulled back until a future book if it will seem like you backpedaled when in truth it was designed that way from the get-go.
> 
> I guess this is a rather abstract and far-fetched worry, but worrying about my books and writings possibly occupies more of my time than anything -_-



I don't think it's a far-fetched worry, and I think it's good you're thinking about it. No one who encourages authors to consider what they represent wants the authors to be crippled by these considerations. I'm very, very worried about how people are going to perceive one of the POV characters in _The Stone Front_, and that has lead me to change things for the better by making certain aspects of the story clearer and presenting things that contradict that character's negative attitudes and biases. 

Likewise, most readers are willing to give authors the benefit of a doubt when something seems problematic early on in the work. I could have closed _A Game of Thrones_ in disgust after Daenerys's first chapter because _oh yay_, another naÃ¯ve young woman getting married off to a man she doesn't know or love--I definitely haven't read enough of _that_ in fantasy books.  But I gave Martin a chance, and was rewarded with one of the coolest character arcs EVER, not to mention a dozen other amazing and diverse female characters to love alongside Dany.


----------



## Ankari (Mar 8, 2013)

saellys said:


> Nope, it's not bad to only include one strong, well-balanced female character. As stated multiple times in the previous thread, *the Bechdel test is a surface-level indication of how an author treats female characters. A work can pass Bechdel and still misrepresent women, and fail Bechdel and still have a female-positive message.*
> 
> As for improving perceived misrepresentation, if you start with one female character but fail Bechdel and decide to add/change another character to pass, *you have doubled your chances of writing strong, well-balanced female characters.* Even if one of them isn't and the other is, you have struck a balance and represented more than a shallow stereotype of that sort of human being. I believe they call that a result.



The first bold sentences highlights exactly _why_ this test is a waste of time.  You can pass the test but fail the point of the test?  Or you can fail the test but promote the spirit of it?  If anyone had to pay money to do this test, it would have died on the market ages ago.

The main argument against this test, I feel, derives from the fact that _we are beyond the need of this test because we know how to represent strong women._  And the requirement to force another strong women in our story simply to pass a test doesn't make our story stronger.

Actually, I want someone to define for me what a _strong character_ is.  Make this completely gender free.  Is it possible to have a weak woman be a strong character?

I want to highlight another point that hasn't been brought to light.  Why are women portrayed the way they are?  If you look at every world building thread, or read authors that are considered great world builders, most (if not all) derive their cultures from our past.  You can argue, and be right, that our past hasn't been kind to women.  That our ancestors treated women as objects, or subservient, or denied them equal rights.  And you will say that using the past will create weak women in our worlds (again, you are right).

But why do we use them?  Why do authors study books on medieval strategies, or ancient architecture.  Why do we use the myths and legends that once served as religions to tribal Europeans (and others, of course) as sparks for our fantasy settings/novels/plots/ideas?

Because we have actual data that will appear plausible.  But fantasy has license to defy plausibility!  In a sense, yes.  Only if you evaluate the surface of the story.  If you grind away all of the flashy magic, or exotic settings, you're left with one of only (I think it's) 27 story archetypes.  These archetypes and all the little extras, magic, settings, creatures, histories, paint these archetypes in a slightly different light to make them appear new, or new enough for reconsumption.

Since fantasy is so tightly wound around our real history, readers (either consciously or subconsciously) seek plausibility based on the era in which the story derives it's rules.  That isn't to say you can't write strong women into fantasy, but writers automatically find it easier to repurpose established behaviours instead of creating new reactions that have to overcome so many minute factors to be considered plausible.

What I have written isn't an argument against establishing strong (I would like a definition on what that means) women.  It just my long-winded response explaining _why_ it may not be occuring.


----------



## Zero Angel (Mar 8, 2013)

Ankari said:


> The main argument against this test, I feel, derives from the fact that _we are beyond the need of this test because we know how to represent strong women._  And the requirement to force another strong women in our story simply to pass a test doesn't make our story stronger.



I'm not sure who this "we" fellow is, but we can talk about how WE (you and me and others reading and posting in this forum) are beyond this test, because we do what the test is trying to encourage naturally or intentionally or whatever, whereas there are plenty of people that never even considered how they were representing others. To those, the existence of this test may help them.

It's kinda' like homework. I never felt the need to do any homework because I already knew how to do everything, but I would never have recommended to others to skip the homework if I felt they had some deficiencies. 

I thought I defined strong characters in the last Bechdel thread?


----------



## saellys (Mar 8, 2013)

Ankari said:


> The first bold sentences highlights exactly _why_ this test is a waste of time.  You can pass the test but fail the point of the test?  Or you can fail the test but promote the spirit of it?  If anyone had to pay money to do this test, it would have died on the market ages ago.



Yes, determining whether a given work presents equal representation (in quality, if not necessarily quantity) of women as well as men requires significantly more nuance than just counting the women and seeing if they talk to each other. Covered that in the last thread. Tests are not nuanced. You can memorize everything you need to know to pass a multiple choice/true-or-false test, but it doesn't mean you actually understand the material. 



Ankari said:


> The main argument against this test, I feel, derives from the fact that _we are beyond the need of this test because we know how to represent strong women._  And the requirement to force another strong women in our story simply to pass a test doesn't make our story stronger.



See my previous post. Not everyone needs the Bechdel test to indicate problems in their work. Lots of people still do, though. 



Ankari said:


> Actually, I want someone to define for me what a _strong character_ is.  Make this completely gender free.  Is it possible to have a weak woman be a strong character?



Sure it is, if she influences the plot. Feo's cowardly woman could run for her life instead of fighting to defend her village, for instance, and in so doing put any number of events in motion. Strong characters influence the plot. 



Ankari said:


> I want to highlight another point that hasn't been brought to light.  Why are women portrayed the way they are?  If you look at every world building thread, or read authors that are considered great world builders, most (if not all) derive their cultures from our past.  You can argue, and be right, that our past hasn't been kind to women.  That our ancestors treated women as objects, or subservient, or denied them equal rights.  And you will say that using the past will create weak women in our worlds (again, you are right).
> 
> But why do we use them?  Why do authors study books on medieval strategies, or ancient architecture.  Why do we use the myths and legends that once served as religions to tribal Europeans (and others, of course) as sparks for our fantasy settings/novels/plots/ideas?
> 
> ...



Covered this in the last thread. You can write a patriarchal/misogynist _world_ without writing a patriarchal/misogynist _story_. There have been women who influenced events around them in literally every culture throughout history. In this example, it seems to me that repurposing established behaviors would frequently be the path of least resistance--it's a lot easier than trying to think about how actual women in the past, whose voices didn't make it through history to us, reacted to the world around them. When that comes in the form of a male-centric story that marginalizes women or excludes them completely, and no alternative is presented to those repurposed established behaviors, that reeks of laziness to me. 



Ankari said:


> What I have written isn't an argument against establishing strong (I would like a definition on what that means) women.  It just my long-winded response explaining _why_ it may not be occuring.



I think your summary of the reasons is pretty close to what actually happens in most cases, in a passive way. When it becomes active in the form of authors defending their decisions by saying, "But this is how it really happened!" and "History hasn't been kind to women and I'm just being historically accurate," that demonstrates a lack of understanding of how humanity works. The resulting skewed characterization almost always, in my experience, is to the detriment of female characters.


----------



## Jabrosky (Mar 8, 2013)

In all honesty, is anyone here actually _opposed _to the idea of respectful or non-stereotypical depictions of female characters in fantasy?

While MS posters definitely come from a variety of walks, I have the impression that most of us here are culturally progressive, at least insofar as we are perfectly cool with representing women, PoC, or LGBT people with respect in fantasy fiction. Lots of forums all over the rest of the Internet are infested with white nationalists, misogynists, homophobes, and like-minded troglodytes, yet they never seem to show up here. I guess most of them lack the creativity to write fantasy.


----------



## saellys (Mar 8, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> In all honesty, is anyone here actually _opposed _to the idea of respectful or non-stereotypical depictions of female characters in fantasy?



My guess is that no one would say they're opposed to this. It's an easy thing to not be opposed to. The resistance I'm seeing is to the idea that there can be any external benchmark, no matter how simple or complex, that can indicate a lack of respect in such depictions.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 9, 2013)

I've been avoiding saying this, but I think the Bechdel Test is like the Mary Sue Litmus Test--it doesn't get straight to the question ("Is this book sexist?" or "Is this character a Mary Sue?"), and forcing test-compliance won't make a problematic work stop being problematic, but it can sometimes provide food for thought. (Though I know a lot of posters here don't like the Mary Sue Litmus Test, either . . .)


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 9, 2013)

Ankari said:


> ...I want someone to define for me what a _strong character_ is.  Make this completely gender free.


I'll give it a shot although my definition will not be exhaustive. Instead of _*strong characters *_I'd prefer to think of them as _*compelling characters*_. Perhaps others can add to this list:

Compelling characters should have some/many of the following traits:
1) Motivations, needs, desires, goals, or ambitions - A Purpose
2) Proactive 
3) Contradictions - complexities of their psychological makeup that might seem as odd when paired (i.e. rude but sensitive to criticism).
4) Flaws, weaknesses, and vulnerabilities 
5) Virtues & strengths (note that some strengths may be weaknesses in other situations. A CEO who runs a tight ship at the office might be a disasterous father because he tries to lord over his children the same way)
6) Quirks
7) Change & evolution in a charcater arc
8) Secrets
9) Character has a problem, obstacles, struggles, & adversities (pressure stays on until climax)
10) Internal & External conflicts
11) Relatable to the reader
12) Reader empathy
13) Impact on the plot (*from Saellys's previous post)
14) Character is good at something...perhaps an expert even if it's a strange skill set


Okay, I wanted 10 and went a bit beyond... I'm sure there's plenty I've missed....


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Mar 9, 2013)

Ankari said:


> Actually, I want someone to define for me what a _strong character_ is.  Make this completely gender free.



I'd like to hear that definition too. It's something that's puzzled me for ages. I don't think it's sufficient to say: well, it's a character who influences the plot, because the character who stupidly gets captured and has to be rescued is influencing the plot, but it's not exactly epitomising a strong character. Nor is it merely a protagonist (and a lot of authors say: look, I've got strong female characters in my book, and all they mean is that they have their own POV chapters).

I suppose it comes down to agency: a strong character is one working to his or her own agenda, and not just following someone else's agenda. Other suggestions welcome.

ETA: And while I was mulling that over, I see that there's a beautifully detailed answer posted already. I should adhere to the Bechdel Test Thread Rule: don't worry about composing a reply, because it will be obsolete before you ever finish it


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 9, 2013)

As others have said, I think it's plausible to have all sorts of different types of characters in a story, regardless of what sex they are.  I think strong women, weak women, happy women, crazy women, scary women, and kind women all need to be represented the same way strong men, weak men, happy men, crazy men, scary men, and kind men need to be.  And while I'm on that subject, can't a woman character be multiple things?  Does she have to be only positively represented?  Can't she have good features and bad ones?  

For me, Cersei Lannister (from George R.R. Martin's _A Song of Fire and Ice_) is one the most despicable characters in fantasy literature.  But she's interesting and has moments where I feel for her situation.  She's conniving and vindictive, but also intelligent and doting on her children.  She shows fear, anger, love, kindness, the full range of human emotions.  That's what I want in a man or woman character.  A round character, not a flat 2-D representation of a "strong man/woman."  

What attracts readers to stories generally are _compelling_ characters (like BW suggests), meaning not only making your women characters more three dimensional, but making your men characters that way too.  

For instance, if I'm writing a novel and I want a crazy person in it, should it really matter if it's a man or a woman?  I want readers to ultimately say "Wow, so-and-so is absolutely nuts!  I can't wait to see what he/she does next!" not to be reflecting on some kind of political commentary I'm trying to make.  I personally never do that when I'm reading.  Maybe I'm a dull reader, but I just enjoy the characters and the plot for what they are.  

For me, if the characters are compelling, I don't so much care if they're plants, animals, or aliens with no sex whatsoever.  I don't think I'd ever use any of these sorts of tests personally because they seem geared to make writers change their vision of their stories and characters.  An author's first instinct is usually his or her best one.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Mar 9, 2013)

Phil the Drill said:


> I don't think I'd ever use any of these sorts of tests personally because they seem geared to make writers change their vision of their stories and characters.  An author's first instinct is usually his or her best one.



I'd like to address this in two grounds:

1): I don't see the Bechdel Test as prescriptive--"you should have two female characters talk to each other." I see it as "if you don't have two female characters talk to each other, you might want to consider why that's the case." (Saellys has already talked quite a bit about the various things that might be considered.)

2): I discard plot and setting ideas all the time, not necessarily because they're bad, but because I came up with something that worked better for the story I want to tell. Speaking in a general sense, I don't think changing your characters is fundamentally different from deciding "Maybe this works better in a seaside town" or "Maybe after he's stabbed, he lives long enough to identify his attacker."


----------



## Devor (Mar 9, 2013)

saellys said:


> My guess is that no one would say they're opposed to this. It's an easy thing to not be opposed to. The resistance I'm seeing is to the idea that there can be any external benchmark, no matter how simple or complex, that can indicate a lack of respect in such depictions.



I think the problem here is that the Bechdel test is kind of useless for actually creating compelling characters.  It makes the problem feel artificial because the criteria it uses are artificial.

With respect to T.Allen's list, it's a little long and I think, also doesn't get to the heart of the matter.  So what about:

_*The Mythic Woman Test*_

_(The Devor Test sounded pathetic.)_

 - Do the women in your story take actions which have an impact on the story and plot?

 - Do the women in your story have a character arc _besides one that is tied to their gender_?

(i.e., their relationship with their love interest, coming to grips as the only female to do this-that-or-the-other, being captured as the helpless damsel, overcoming bigotry, and so on - these are all fine to include, but a fully developed character should have more)

 - This last one I'm having trouble putting into a simple statement.  Are the women in your story viewed differently in the narrative?  That is, there should be a tonal difference.  You shouldn't be getting the vibe that the passive judgement hinted at in the narrative is the same towards all of the women in the story.  Women can be good guys, villains, and awkward nobodies just like men.

Would that be better?


----------



## saellys (Mar 9, 2013)

Everybody seems to think that by "positive" depictions, I mean the woman has to be the hero or something. I'm not saying every woman in a fantasy novel has to be Paksenarrion (but while I'm here, that book passed Bechdel and presented a fascinating and egalitarian military structure that I think a lot of authors could benefit from echoing). On the contrary, Cersei Lannister is one of those awesome female characters I loved right alongside Daenerys. 

I think I'll start using the word "active" instead of "positive," as it holds less potential for misunderstanding based on other definitions. The point is that there is rarely, if ever, any reason to write a story where any female characters are essentially comatose while male characters are active.

I like the Mythic Woman test, though it does leave some wiggle room in answering those questions subjectively, a la Pauline's exception to my statement about influencing the plot: that can include getting kidnapped and needing to be rescued. It would also probably take a long time and a lot of intensive reading to determine whether a work passes, while Bechdel, for all its faults, is nearly instantaneous. But nothing is perfect, and there's not really an easy way to handle such a complex issue.


----------



## JBryden88 (Mar 9, 2013)

I definitely thing the Bechdel test is kind of useless. As for the question of how they should be portrayed? Like any other person. Characters are characters are characters are characters. The character is either well developed or she isn't.

I have a bigger problem with fiction that tries to avoid the "stereotypes" more then those that fall into them - they are ultimately just as if not more unrealistic. That's why I love Martin's work, and that's why I loathe all the "supernatural paranormal romance" garbage that saturates the market. One takes the social stereotypes of the medieval period and portrays his characters realistically - man or woman. The other either takes a viewpoint that is one extreme or the other, and thus character development is horrid. (As is the writing itself.)

The main female lead of my story is in love with the main male lead. Does that make her a cliche? No. Because in reality, people fall in love. I think the real test is...

- Is that all there is to the character?

And that could be the ultimate test for any character of any gender about any topic. If all there is about that character is ONE thing, then they fail.


----------



## saellys (Mar 9, 2013)

JBryden88 said:


> I definitely thing the Bechdel test is kind of useless.



For you personally. Other writers could stand to benefit from it. 



JBryden88 said:


> I think the real test is...
> 
> - Is that all there is to the character?
> 
> And that could be the ultimate test for any character of any gender about any topic. If all there is about that character is ONE thing, then they fail.



Agreed.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 9, 2013)

This isn't directed to any specific individual; I don't know how to make it more plain than by saying that 

I think sometimes people have to take a little time to try, to the extent possible, to step in to the shoes of another group of individuals. It applies not just to this issue, but to quite a large number of them. It's not always easy to do, and in fact is it much easier to be either dismissive or defensive.

When it comes to depictions of females in fantasy, I think the problem is very easy to see in images that dominate the genre - book covers, RPGs, video games, movies, and so on. It is pretty easy to see in some written works and much less easy in others, even when it is there (which isn't all the time, of course).

I also think I'm less likely to realize it in close cases than a female; and less likely to feel the impact of it on the same level as a female. As a white guy, I can intellectually identify these things and understand what's harmful about them, but I'll never really _grok_ the thing on the same level as a woman who enjoys the genre.

Whenever a topic like this comes up, a large predominance of the flat-out dismissive comments seem to come from guys. I think the perception disparity that falls along gender lines tells you something in and of itself.

We have a lot of intelligent females who have commented on the two threads and supported the idea that current depictions are often problematic. I think everyone will agree these are smart people. As I mentioned in chat previously, an ex of mine has her Ph.D. in Women's Studies and she is easily one of the smartest people I've ever met, inside her discipline and outside of it, and she is able to comment at length on these issues.

So if we're just going to dismiss the whole idea out of hand, what are the possibilities with respect to all of the smart people of the other sex who see something there?

1. They're not as smart as we think they are; they're just stupid enough not to realize they're inventing a problem that doesn't exist; or

2. They're liars; or

3. They're just delusional - out of touch with reality.

When it comes down to it, if you blow the whole thing off then an explanation for why so many women involved in the genre, as gamers, artists, or what have you, see an important issue here has to be provided. 

I submit that the mere fact that the perception is so prevalent among women involved in SF/F culture demonstrates an issue. I don't find the fact that someone not a member of that group either doesn't see it or doesn't think it's an issue to be at all compelling.

To tie it back into our writing individually, the genre is made up as a collection of individuals. What we produce and put out there becomes a part, however large or small, of the face of the genre. With our work, we'll end up pushing this issue in one direction or another, either on purpose or inadvertently. Either way, there's no excuse for being ignorant on the issue.

That's my view.

And I enjoyed the mention of Parksenarrion, above. Anyone who hasn't read it, look for a copy of Sheepfarmer's Daughter, by Elizabeth Moon. It's a well-written fantasy that I think most would enjoy, and it does a nice job of bringing a realistic military feeling to a fantasy work. She won a few awards for it, and Moon herself was in the Marine Corps and knows her stuff.


----------



## Devor (Mar 9, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> So if we're just going to dismiss the whole idea out of hand, what are the possibilities with respect to all of the smart people of the other sex who see something there?
> 
> 1. They're not as smart as we think they are; they're just stupid enough not to realize they're inventing a problem that doesn't exist; or
> 
> ...



I don't mean to be disrespectful, Steerpike, but that kind of false characterization isn't helpful, either.  That's the you-either-agree-with-me-or-you're-against-me attitude that had been getting words like misogynist thrown around.  I think that most of the people who are dismissive of the problem really think:

4. They're overreacting to minor offenses.

I don't mean to take a side, here - I think there's offenses both minor and significant, and regardless, much that can be said about overcoming predispositions - but please put both sides in an accurate perspective, and not create animosity where it doesn't need to exist.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 9, 2013)

Devor said:


> 4. They're overreacting to minor offenses.



That crosses between out of touch with reality or stupid. Silly them, they either just can't understand that the issues are so minor because they aren't as smart as other people, or their world view is skewed so that small issues seem big to them.


----------



## saellys (Mar 9, 2013)

Devor said:


> I don't mean to be disrespectful, Steerpike, but that kind of false characterization isn't helpful, either.  That's the you-either-agree-with-me-or-you're-against-me attitude that had been getting words like misogynist thrown around.  I think that most of the people who are dismissive of the problem really think:
> 
> 4. They're overreacting to minor offenses.
> 
> I don't mean to take a side, here - I think there's offenses both minor and significant, and regardless, much that can be said about overcoming predispositions - but please put both sides in an accurate perspective, and not create animosity where it doesn't need to exist.



I think you're absolutely right, and not only that, but in most cases the people who think this are also right (gasp!) about individual cases being minor offenses. They don't think this is a big deal because, on a case-by-case basis (which is how I've been told I should view this issue, both on this forum and elsewhere), it's _almost always_ a minor offense. Even those of us closer to the issue than others are willing to admit that: it really doesn't matter if a particular book or story excludes a particular group.

As others in this thread and the last have stated, this is a matter of scale. When story after story or book after book consistently presents the same exclusions and misrepresentations, _then_ people start to make note of problems on a smaller individual scale. It's almost always done out of love for the work, too--I thought _The Lies of Locke Lamora_ and _The Name of the Wind_ and _The Prince of Nothing_ and _The Lions of Al-Rassan_ were all wonderful books because they all brought something new to the fantasy genre. That means their problems of representation stood out all the more to me for being relics of tired old attitudes and clichÃ©s that had no place in such distinctive, progressive works.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 9, 2013)

saellys said:


> I think you're absolutely right, and not only that, but in most cases the people who think this are also right (gasp!) about individual cases being minor offenses. They don't think this is a big deal because, on a case-by-case basis (which is how I've been told I should view this issue, both on this forum and elsewhere), it's _almost always_ a minor offense. Even those of us closer to the issue than others are willing to admit that: it really doesn't matter if a particular book or story excludes a particular group.



The reaction is based on a view of the genre as a whole, not on each minor case in and of itself. 

Besides, calling it an overreaction is no less of an insulting way to look at it than the three ways I posed above. It means the reaction is wrong. That's what the prefix "over" is for. The reaction is disproportionate to what is reasonable under the circumstances. So if you say someone is overreacting, then you have to think about why they would overreact. Are they not smart enough to know what the right reaction is? Are they not in touch with the reality of the situation so that they don't understand the right reaction?

Really, saying someone is overreacting falls right into the categories of dismissal I laid out above. People like to dress these things up in other words, but when you dig past the clutter and get to the heart of what is being said, you end up in the same place.

You've either got an appropriate understanding of the issue and an appropriate reaction to it, or you have not.

At the very least, when we're getting back to our own writing, there's no harm that can come from an awareness of the issue, and potentially some good that can come out of it.


----------



## saellys (Mar 9, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> The reaction is based on a view of the genre as a whole, not on each minor case in and of itself.
> 
> Besides, calling it an overreaction is no less of an insulting way to look at it than the three ways I posed above. It means the reaction is wrong. That's what the prefix "over" is for. The reaction is disproportionate to what is reasonable under the circumstances. So if you say someone is overreacting, then you have to think about why they would overreact. Are they not smart enough to know what the right reaction is? Are they not in touch with the reality of the situation so that they don't understand the right reaction?
> 
> ...



We're in complete agreement about the loaded nature of "overreacting" as a response (and the way that word gets used against women who care about all kinds of stuff _all the time_). All I'm saying is that in the context of discussing this topic with people who don't consider themselves affected by it, I can understand the difficulty of viewing the big picture over the minor offenses on an individual basis.


----------



## Steerpike (Mar 9, 2013)

saellys said:


> We're in complete agreement about the loaded nature of "overreacting" as a response. All I'm saying is that in the context of discussing this topic with people who don't consider themselves affected by it, I can understand the difficulty of viewing the big picture over the minor offenses on an individual basis.



Yes, I think that's true. That's part of what I was trying to get at in my longer post, above. As part of a different group (guys) it is easier to blow all of it off as a series of minor offenses, because the issue is never going to impact us on the same level as it will females in the genre, no matter how much we can empathize. It's just not possible to recreate in the mind. But it doesn't take much looking around the web to see that a large proportion of women involved in SF/F (gaming, RPGs, comics, books, and other media) are saying there is a serious issue. There has to be a reason for that, and I think it is too convenient an out to just say they are all wrong, stupid, making it up, OR overreacting


----------



## Devor (Mar 9, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> You've either got an appropriate understanding of the issue and an appropriate reaction to it, or you have not.



Right there, now flip it around.  You're implying that everyone who disagrees with you about the situation has a "wrong" reaction, and is either too dumb or out of touch with reality to recognize the problem.

How is that any better?

It's not.

I'm locking the thread.  It's not civil anymore.


----------

