The Bechdel Test

[T.Allen.Smith]

If there's one thing I hope everyone gets out of this thread, it's "what do I write when I write at whim?"

I can accept that. I don't think I'd want to scrutinize character inclusion to the level that some suggest. However, I'm definitely in favor of making choices in writing. For me, choices geared to story are more important than other considerations. That will not be the same for everyone.

That is a LOT of vitriol. Maybe we should all take a break and calm down.

Passionate arguments & beliefs are wonderful when they are delivered with tact and civility. I've seen nothing out of bounds up to this point, just a few barbs & passionate arguments. These are the types of threads I learn the most from, where dissenting opinions can shed new light.

You don't have to agree with opposing viewpoints to understand them. Understanding doesn't mean you have to accept another's perspective and fall in line.

I'd also like to clear up that I'm not Saellys, although judging from her thanks, Saellys might be me. I don't want her blamed for everything I've been saying. (Similarly, BWFoster seems to be making different arguments than T Allen Smith.)

Actually, I feel that my perceptions & thinking fall close in line with BWF & Ankari here.

Perhaps I inferred an incorrect meaning, but I too felt as if we were being told that to be considered quality writing, our characters/stories needed to support another's agenda or vision, specifically when it comes to character selection. This was the main point of contention for me (and I think some others).

On another related note, consider plausibility. This is an important concept for my writing. As such, I have several strong female characters that do not concern themselves much with men, nor are their goals & motivations defined romantically. Out of the other minority groups mentioned in the thread, race & orientation, I have only a couple of differing races and currently none of differing sexual orientation (at least at this point). The orientation issue hasn't come up as needed in the story yet. I don't know if it ever will. Unless the story takes a direction that would require the inclusion of a gay or bi character, then I'm not going to search for that spot. If it arises organically then it'd certainly be considered. Distinctions and differences can be a marvelous thing as long as they fit the story.
Plausibility, for me, comes into play when considering representative populations. Orientations other than hetero compose a small percentage of our real world population (something I think Jabrosky touched on earlier). In light of this, I choose to keep that in mind when writing a fantasy story. In my view, writing extreme diversity without cause developed by story demands, can reduce plausibility or believability. Although, you may not feel this way, I do. That everyone should at least be able to understand.

 

[saellys]

It would at least give us a starting point for understanding.

Sweet! Let's start this over, then.

A hypothetical premise: the equality of the human race is an agenda about which some people feel more strongly than others. The Bechdel Test is the first, surface-level, way to determine whether you treat your male and female characters equally (when adjusted for various criteria that could render your story a single-sex environment). Some writers may not need to run their work through the test because they naturally create stories that pass, but a modicum of awareness is generally a positive thing.

 

[Mindfire]

Even if one is the more useful approach, what prevents us from doing both?

Nothing prevents you, sure. But is it a profitable use of your time and energy? I personally don't think convincing T. Allen or Brian to write about POC protagonists is nearly as important or interesting as writing about my own and I've made a value judgment that it's a better use of my time to focus on one than on the other. You may (and clearly do) see the matter differently.

"Right" and "opinion" don't go together. If people don't choose to acknowledge that harmful representation in media is a problem, there isn't anything I can do to convince them. (See also: this entire thread.)

Hold on, this is a potential semantics train wreck waiting to happen. What do you mean by that? As I see it, what's the point of having an opinion if you don't think it's correct? And if an opinion can be correct or incorrect, it stands to reason that in a situation where two opinions conflict, there are three possibilities: one is right and the other is wrong, they are both right, or they are both wrong. The third option generally only takes place when there exists a third, unconsidered opinion, so it can be neglected if the situation is assumed to be a binary. The second is only possible if there is some paradox inherent in the situation or if the conflicting opinions have been formed in some degree of ignorance. Assuming that is not the case, we can neglect that as well. Therefore, it becomes evident that in a situation where two opinions conflict, one must be correct and the other must be incorrect, provided that the assumptions I have named are valid. In that sense, an opinion can be "right" or "wrong". I think we should draw a line between "opinions", which have some degree of subjectivity, and "preferences", which are completely subjective.

Okay. My husband reported that there was nothing misogynist in Skyfall. In both situations, I think it's a matter of blind spots. That's not a bad thing. It is what it is.

Haven't seen Skyfall yet. No spoilers, please.

I feel unqualified to get into the nitty gritty details of this, so I'm going to sum up by saying that the adaptation felt to me like less of a modernization of the bare bones of a story the way other Sherlock episodes were and more of a presentation of Victorian ideals somehow transplanted into the modern world.

I didn't pick up on that, sorry. *shrug*

How do you know?

Well, he said he was pretending. But then again, Moriarty does lie a lot. I guess the best answer is that when you're dealing with their version of Moriarty, "gay" and "straight" and other such alignments don't really apply. He doesn't love anyone obviously, and I don't think he feels sexual attraction at all either. The only attraction he feels is the intellectual challenge Sherlock represents. To him, "gay" is just another mask to put on and take off at will.

I still don't see why it was necessary, particularly after two episodes where being mistaken for a gay man was the basis of several jokes about Holmes and Watson.

It was necessary because it furthered the dynamic between Sherlock and Molly, and also developed Moriarty. It established him as a person who has no boundaries, who will do absolutely anything.

Fine. The problem was that it was the first introduction (apart from the very short press conference) to Sergeant Donovan, and for the next five episodes it was all we knew about her. Her entire character development amounted to "haha, she's an antagonistic slut!" That was all we got with regard to one of only three recurring female characters on the show, up until "The Reichenbach Fall" when she finally developed some agency (which was unfortunately Moriarty-directed, just like Irene Adler's agency). Her antagonism with Holmes was never explored, even though that would have been super interesting. Her professional relationship with Lestrade is nothing more than tantalizing glimpses. For half a second it looked like she might have ended up being friends with Watson, but that didn't pan out either. The only thing we knew about Donovan was that she slept with Anderson. That's not a well-developed character.

Did you really want to know more about her? If so, I'm sorry that interest wasn't served. Personally, I disliked her near immediately. Also, she's a background character. Of course she's not going to get much development. That guy she slept with got even less development than she did and had just about as many appearances. That's not a function of gender, it's a function of being a minor character. As for her agency being Moriarty-directed, Moriarty manipulates everyone. It's what he does. If you're going to say a character is poor just because Moriarty manipulated them into doing something, then no one on the show is well written except Sherlock and John. Maybe. And her professional relationship with Lestrade and maybe friendship with Watson weren't developed because she's not the focus of the show, Sherlock is. Everything else either serves the plot, or serves to contrast with/complement him. That's what it means when you have a show that centers on a single character. It is as if you are calling Batman: The Animated Series misogynist because they didn't develop Renee Montoya more.

 

[saellys]

I'm not Feo, but I'm responding anyway!

However, I'm definitely in favor of making choices in writing.

Another hypothetical premise: writers constantly make choices, conscious and otherwise. The unconscious exclusion of, for instance, female characters who talk to each other is a choice, as is the conscious choice choice to keep that as-is in later drafts of the same story. The author can justify that choice to themselves with "The story didn't grow that way naturally" or "I'm not going to change it just to be PC" or any other reason, but it was still a choice.

Passionate arguments & beliefs are wonderful when they are delivered with tact and civility. I've seen nothing out of bounds up to this point, just a few barbs & passionate arguments. These are the types of threads I learn the most from, where dissenting opinions can shed new light.

You don't have to agree with opposing viewpoints to understand them. Understanding doesn't mean you have to accept another's perspective and fall in line.

A great big plus one to this as well.

Perhaps I inferred an incorrect meaning, but I too felt as if we were being told that to be considered quality writing, our characters/stories needed to support another's agenda or vision, specifically when it comes to character selection. This was the main point of contention for me (and I think some others).

I clarified this a little and said I can recognize the quality of a given piece of writing, but my enjoyment and entertainment (the end goal for you and for BWF, as I recall) will be diminished if I don't see some diverse representation, most generally in the form of passing the Bechdel Test, but in other ways as well. I loved the poo out of The Lies of Locke Lamora, but didn't really dig its "men are the cons and women are the marks or end up getting fridged" undertones. I enjoyed The Lions of Al-Rassan, but Jehane being a plot point really bugged me. I thought The Name of the Wind was pretty cool, but would have thought it was a lot cooler if Kvothe didn't relate to every female around him like they needed him to rescue them.

When you consistently see representations of women in roles like these, it starts to get old. You start to wish for something else, and actively seek out the things that are different, which is where applying the Bechdel Test to pre-existing media, to see if it has a chance of being different at the surface level, becomes really useful.

On another related note, consider plausibility. This is an important concept for my writing. As such, I have several strong female characters that do not concern themselves much with men, nor are there goals & motivations defined romantically. Out of the other minority groups mentioned in the thread, race & orientation, I have only a couple of differing races and currently none of differing sexual orientation (at least at this point). The orientation issue hasn't come up as needed in the story yet. I don't know if it ever will. Unless the story takes a direction that would require the inclusion of a gay or bi character, then I'm not going to search for that spot. If it arises organically then it'd certainly be considered. Distinctions and differences can be a marvelous thing as long as they fit the story.
Plausibility, for me, comes into play when considering representative populations. Orientations other than hetero compose a small percentage of our real world population (something I think Jabrosky touched on earlier). In light of this, I choose to keep that in mind when writing a fantasy story. In my view, writing extreme diversity without cause developed by story demands, can reduce plausibility or believability. Although, you may not feel this way, I do. That everyone should at least be able to understand.

Fair enough, though I maintain that grounding any decisions about a fantasy world firmly in statistics from the real world is limiting. I absolutely agree that decisions should fit the story, but I mentioned briefly earlier that it can be really interesting to start with the premise of "under-represented character A" and see what kind of story you can develop around that character.

 

[Mindfire]

And about the jokes. I think the gay-jokes about Sherlock and Watson are Moffat's way of mocking those certain kinds of fans who take any close same-gender friendship and immediately try to ship it into a gay couple, canon be damned. Sherlock and Watson are not the only ones to have been treated this way. Kirk and Spock, Frodo and Sam, Naruto and Sasuke, Batman and Robin, etc. The jokes are Moffat's way of telling these people to kindly sit down and shut up. And in that sense, I agree with him.

 

[saellys]

EDIT: Though, honestly, since you are the one who is trying to get others to change their behavior, you should be offering rational arguments as to why we should do so. My pursuit of such is what started my participation in this discussion.

I've heard that you want us to change our behavior because equality of all is the All Important Good Thing We Should All Strive Toward, but, to me, that is a personally held strong belief of yours, not a rational argument.

One rational argument I've offered concerns increasing the breadth of your readership and not alienating particular groups who are tired of not seeing themselves represented favorably in a genre they otherwise really enjoy. If you write it, they will come. You may insist that you're not responsible for people's feelings when they read your book, but if you gave them that much more to relate to, they might come back and read your next book, which translates to money in your pocket.

Another rational argument I've been meaning to throw in here, but haven't found the opportune moment, is challenging yourself as a writer. That happens when you get out of your comfort zone and write things you normally wouldn't (hypothetical "you" once again).

 

[Ireth]

And about the jokes. I think the gay-jokes about Sherlock and Watson are Moffat's way of mocking those certain kinds of fans who take any close same-gender friendship and immediately try to ship it into a gay couple, canon be damned. Sherlock and Watson are not the only ones to have been treated this way. Kirk and Spock, Frodo and Sam, Naruto and Sasuke, Batman and Robin, etc. The jokes are Moffat's way of telling these people to kindly sit down and shut up. And in that sense, I agree with him.

Unfortunately, at least in the case of Sherlock, from what I've seen that plan has backfired. Even Sherlock's own statements that he is asexual haven't stopped the fans from shipping them.

 

[Mindfire]

Unfortunately, at least in the case of Sherlock, from what I've seen that plan has backfired. Even Sherlock's own statements that he is asexual haven't stopped the fans from shipping them.

Fan Dumb - TV Tropes

Pity. I thought Watson's plea might have been enough to make them see sense.

"And in case anyone still cares, I'm not actually gay."

 

[saellys]

Nothing prevents you, sure. But is it a profitable use of your time and energy? I personally don't think convincing T. Allen or Brian to write about POC protagonists is nearly as important or interesting as writing about my own and I've made a value judgment that it's a better use of my time to focus on one than on the other. You may (and clearly do) see the matter differently.

Oh, I have no illusions of convincing T. Allen or Brian to include more diversity in their stories--primarily because they've both said they already do, naturally and organically. And believe it or not, I've spent more time writing than discussing this issue. It is, to use a cliché, a matter of principle now. I don't think anybody in this thread disagrees that diversity is good, but there's an awful lot of resistance to the notion that action is necessary to make that happen, and that's why I'm still here talking about it.

Hold on, this is a potential semantics train wreck waiting to happen. What do you mean by that? As I see it, what's the point of having an opinion if you don't think it's correct? And if an opinion can be correct or incorrect, it stands to reason that in a situation where two opinions conflict, there are three possibilities: one is right and the other is wrong, they are both right, or they are both wrong. The third option generally only takes place when there exists a third, unconsidered opinion, so it can be neglected if the situation is assumed to be a binary. The second is only possible if there is some paradox inherent in the situation or if the conflicting opinions have been formed in some degree of ignorance. Assuming that is not the case, we can neglect that as well. Therefore, it becomes evident that in a situation where two opinions conflict, one must be correct and the other must be incorrect, provided that the assumptions I have named are valid. In that sense, an opinion can be "right" or "wrong". I think we should draw a line between "opinions", which have some degree of subjectivity, and "preferences", which are completely subjective.

I meant that arguing about the rightness or wrongness of opinions is a zero-sum game because someone can (and always does) end the discussion with "Well, that's just your opinion!" Which in this case means that no further examination of the media we enjoy or challenging thought about our own work is necessary. Convenient.

Haven't seen Skyfall yet. No spoilers, please.

I haven't either, so don't worry.

Well, he said he was pretending. But then again, Moriarty does lie a lot. I guess the best answer is that when you're dealing with their version of Moriarty, "gay" and "straight" and other such alignments don't really apply. He doesn't love anyone obviously, and I don't think he feels sexual attraction at all either. The only attraction he feels is the intellectual challenge Sherlock represents. To him, "gay" is just another mask to put on and take off at will.

I like that analysis a lot, actually. Headcanon accepted. (And I just remembered the "Being Jim? Being gay?" line.)

It was necessary because it furthered the dynamic between Sherlock and Molly, and also developed Moriarty. It established him as a person who has no boundaries, who will do absolutely anything.

Okay, much like Donovan's slut-shaming, this comes down to a matter of whether the writer could have accomplished it any other way. In this case, it was Mark Gatiss, so I can't pin it on Moffat's queer-baiting, but the fact remains that there are loads of ways to show a person has no boundaries without basing it on sexuality or using it against a long-suffering woman whose entire character revolves around getting casually insulted by Sherlock. As far as choices the writers made, I think they could have done better.

Did you really want to know more about her? If so, I'm sorry that interest wasn't served. Personally, I disliked her near immediately. Also, she's a background character. Of course she's not going to get much development. That guy she slept with got even less development than she did and had just about as many appearances. That's not a function of gender, it's a function of being a minor character. As for her agency being Moriarty-directed, Moriarty manipulates everyone. It's what he does. If you're going to say a character is poor just because Moriarty manipulated them into doing something, then no one on the show is well written except Sherlock and John. Maybe. And her professional relationship with Lestrade and maybe friendship with Watson weren't developed because she's not the focus of the show, Sherlock is. Everything else either serves the plot, or serves to contrast with/complement him. That's what it means when you have a show that centers on a single character. It is as if you are calling Batman: The Animated Series misogynist because they didn't develop Renee Montoya more.

Let's go a different direction: Kitty Riley. One episode. She stalks Sherlock in a bathroom and essentially propositions him as pretense for getting an interview. Blah di blah, shows her cleavage, sex sells, whatever. She ended up getting manipulated by Moriarty too, but the difference is that we learned more about her in one episode than we did about Donovan in six. Most of what we learned was through Sherlock's deductions, too. She's a background character, too. Yet I actually have some notion of her personality and goals in life and what she'll do to accomplish them, whereas all I know about Donovan is that she slept with Anderson and she was smart enough to follow Moriarty's trail of breadcrumbs.

I liked Kitty a lot. I wanted to like Donovan, but Moffat never let me, and that felt forced.

And about the jokes. I think the gay-jokes about Sherlock and Watson are Moffat's way of mocking those certain kinds of fans who take any close same-gender friendship and immediately try to ship it into a gay couple, canon be damned. Sherlock and Watson are not the only ones to have been treated this way. Kirk and Spock, Frodo and Sam, Naruto and Sasuke, Batman and Robin, etc. The jokes are Moffat's way of telling these people to kindly sit down and shut up. And in that sense, I agree with him.

The problem is, the way Moffat handled it (poorly), it became queer-baiting, and later fan-service. Neither accomplishes what you think it was meant to accomplish. It backfired completely and ended up being a harmful stereotype.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Another hypothetical premise: writers constantly make choices, conscious and otherwise. The unconscious exclusion of, for instance, female characters who talk to each other is a choice, as is the conscious choice choice to keep that as-is in later drafts of the same story. The author can justify that choice to themselves with "The story didn't grow that way naturally" or "I'm not going to change it just to be PC" or any other reason, but it was still a choice.

I was referring only to conscious choices not unconscious actions. Just as I would consciously choose a strong, active verb over a modifying adverb, I choose characters based on what fits the story best (my vision of the story).

In your process, would you make that conscious choice based on what you think a story is lacking in terms of minority representation?

 

[Mindfire]

Oh, I have no illusions of convincing T. Allen or Brian to include more diversity in their stories--primarily because they've both said they already do, naturally and organically. And believe it or not, I've spent more time writing than discussing this issue. It is, to use a cliché, a matter of principle now. I don't think anybody in this thread disagrees that diversity is good, but there's an awful lot of resistance to the notion that action is necessary to make that happen, and that's why I'm still here talking about it.

So you're telling people about the merits of doing something they already do? I'm sorry, I think I've lost track of your goal.

I meant that arguing about the rightness or wrongness of opinions is a zero-sum game because someone can (and always does) end the discussion with "Well, that's just your opinion!" Which in this case means that no further examination of the media we enjoy or challenging thought about our own work is necessary. Convenient.

Ah, so like I said, semantics. Let's just neatly sidestep that bit and move on.

I like that analysis a lot, actually. Headcanon accepted. (And I just remembered the "Being Jim? Being gay?" line.)

Until now, I didn't realize there was any other way to read it.

Okay, much like Donovan's slut-shaming, this comes down to a matter of whether the writer could have accomplished it any other way. In this case, it was Mark Gatiss, so I can't pin it on Moffat's queer-baiting, but the fact remains that there are loads of ways to show a person has no boundaries without basing it on sexuality or using it against a long-suffering woman whose entire character revolves around getting casually insulted by Sherlock. As far as choices the writers made, I think they could have done better.

Perhaps they could have done better. What exactly would you have suggested?

Let's go a different direction: Kitty Riley. One episode. She stalks Sherlock in a bathroom and essentially propositions him as pretense for getting an interview. Blah di blah, shows her cleavage, sex sells, whatever. She ended up getting manipulated by Moriarty too, but the difference is that we learned more about her in one episode than we did about Donovan in six. Most of what we learned was through Sherlock's deductions, too. She's a background character, too. Yet I actually have some notion of her personality and goals in life and what she'll do to accomplish them, whereas all I know about Donovan is that she slept with Anderson and she was smart enough to follow Moriarty's trail of breadcrumbs.

I liked Kitty a lot. I wanted to like Donovan, but Moffat never let me, and that felt forced.

Smart enough to follow a trail Moriarty hand-fed her? But as for the Kitty/Donovan comparison, that's an interesting point. I think the difference is the needs of the plot. Kitty is meant to be sympathetic, Donovan is not. When Sherlock dissects Donovan, it's meant to show off feel like a triumph, like she deserved it. His dismissal of Kitty is meant to show that his coldness and arrogance are catching up with him. And what's more, Kitty is a more important character than Donovan is as far as the plot is concerned, so she gets more development because the plot requires her to have that development. Donovan not so much because she's kind of an extra. And as I said, that forensic fellow got even less development than she did.

The problem is, the way Moffat handled it (poorly), it became queer-baiting, and later fan-service. Neither accomplishes what you think it was meant to accomplish. It backfired completely and ended up being a harmful stereotype.

I don't know what you mean by queer-baiting. As for it backfiring, see the link in my above post. As for a stereotype, what was stereotyped? That two non-gay men resent being mistaken for a gay couple? How is that a harmful stereotype? If I was hanging out with my best friend and someone made comments like that, I'd resent it too.

 

[saellys]

I was referring only to conscious choices not unconscious actions. Just as I would consciously choose a strong, active verb over a modifying adverb, I choose characters based on what fits the story best (my vision of the story).

In your process, would you make that conscious choice based on what you think a story is lacking in terms of minority representation?

In the second draft of The Stone Front my co-writers and I made this one of our goals. It's going really well so far. We made a lot of unconscious choices in the first draft that we came to question, and they're proving to be surprisingly easy to fix. Our world is broader and our story is richer now.

So you're telling people about the merits of doing something they already do? I'm sorry, I think I've lost track of your goal.

That seems to be the case, since they keep insisting writers shouldn't bother with doing it on purpose.

Until now, I didn't realize there was any other way to read it.

I didn't give much consideration to Moriarty's actual sexuality or lack thereof, and I don't think I bothered interpreting that line at all at the time.

Perhaps they could have done better. What exactly would you have suggested?

Let me state first of all that I think it's a bit unreasonable to demand that anyone who points out potentially problematic elements of a story provide some alternative. The implication is if that person can't come up with something, there must not have been anything wrong in the first place. A brewery in my town recently posted a very old, very sexist beer joke on their Facebook page, and when some folks pointed out just how old and sexist the joke was, others demanded to know what they would have posted instead. Er, something that's not sexist?

Anyway, for the sake of hypotheticals once more, Sherlock could have deduced anything at all about Jim and revealed it to Molly in a socially tactless way, and it did not have to be boiling down his sexual orientation to his underwear and bloodshot eyes. Maybe he was pilfering formaldehyde behind Molly's back and going into the closet to huff it. Molly probably would have gotten just as irked at Sherlock, particularly if he delivered the news in the same thoughtless way he did in the original version. Just one example. It could have gone in all kinds of directions.

Smart enough to follow a trail Moriarty hand-fed her?

Which no one else saw or wanted to see. And motivated enough to follow through.

But as for the Kitty/Donovan comparison, that's an interesting point. I think the difference is the needs of the plot. Kitty is meant to be sympathetic, Donovan is not. When Sherlock dissects Donovan, it's meant to show off feel like a triumph, like she deserved it. His dismissal of Kitty is meant to show that his coldness and arrogance are catching up with him.

That's the thing though--it didn't feel like a triumph to me. It felt like Sherlock couldn't come up with any other way to shut Donovan down, so he resorted to point out her affair with Anderson.

And what's more, Kitty is a more important character than Donovan is as far as the plot is concerned, so she gets more development because the plot requires her to have that development. Donovan not so much because she's kind of an extra. And as I said, that forensic fellow got even less development than she did.

I would argue that Donovan and Kitty did equal amounts of work to bring Sherlock down (no pun intended).

I don't know what you mean by queer-baiting.

This handy post aligns pretty closely with my definition.

As for it backfiring, see the link in my above post. As for a stereotype, what was stereotyped? That two non-gay men resent being mistaken for a gay couple? How is that a harmful stereotype? If I was hanging out with my best friend and someone made comments like that, I'd resent it too.

See the aforementioned handy post.

 

[Zero Angel]

This handy post aligns pretty closely with my definition.



See the aforementioned handy post.

I couldn't follow this post at all, but I looked up "queer-baiting" and saw that this is when heterosexual cast members are shown to have chemistry. Are you against this, or just when it is done, as you see it, poorly?

 

[saellys]

I couldn't follow this post at all, but I looked up "queer-baiting" and saw that this is when heterosexual cast members are shown to have chemistry. Are you against this, or just when it is done, as you see it, poorly?

My definition of queer-baiting is when two same-gender characters who will never be in a canonical relationship are put in situations where other characters ask whether or imply that they're a couple (in the case of Sherlock, sharing a flat is apparently reason enough for everyone around them to make such implications), to which the characters in question consistently respond, "We're not a couple!" or "We're not gay!" It's a cheap joke, but in Sherlock's case it can also be considered harmful because Holmes is generally accepted to be canonically asexual, and obscuring that fact (or in the case of "Scandal," covering it with "He's a virgin, ZOMG!") functions as erasure of an orientation that already receives precious little attention in the media.

 

[Penpilot]

I've been keeping out of this, but after reading a few things, I've decided to cherry pick something to point out.

The thing is, although the test is a bit clumsy, it still highlights the issue that some demographics are represented much less than others in media (in this case, writing). I’m not saying that anyone should set their writing in the rules of that test (be it for women, or any other demographic you care to replace women with), but instead, to take to mind what the test is trying to highlight.

I'd like to point out this lack of representation, specifically in ethnicity, is referencing Western media, not media in general. If I wanted to say watch a movie or read a book with an all Asian cast, I can just watch or read something from Hong Kong, China, Korea, etc.

 

[Zero Angel]

Wow! So I read all the posts the first day this thread was posted and a few days later we're up to ~14 pages of posts! I finally caught up, reading EVERY FREAKING post. I think that I would argue somewhere in the middle, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say people will identify me with one side or another.

Actually, the Bechdel Test is so basic that you'll pass it so long as you have more than one female character and they behave as realistic, developed characters. I don't recommend writing to conform to a "test," either, but if you don't pass the Bechdel test then it's at least worthwhile to look at your work again. If you don't pass because the work, by its nature, has no female characters (maybe the whole thing takes place in a fox hole in WWI, I don't know), then that's one thing. If you have female characters and fail the test, you may have a problem.

What I question is this idea that "realistic" female characters are somehow enlightened, or that the reader cares about a particular conversation that the female characters have.

In my real-life experience, girls can be guy-crazy and want to talk or think about nothing else but them. I'm not saying all girls are like this, but I don't think anyone will disagree that there are superficial, guy-crazy girls in the same way that there are superficial, girl-crazy guys.

In terms of speaking to the people saying they shouldn't have to write to fit this agenda, I whole-heartedly agree. I'm not saying multiracial, multi-gender, multi-sexual groups don't exist naturally, but I doubt they exist in such levels as they do in stock photos and Disney programs. Those types of inclusions seem fake to someone living in the world. Should we present these relationships as an ideal or are we writing in some sort of Utopia-world where everyone is accepted for who they are instead of what they are?

Also speaking to this idea, I think there are a few different types of writers. I feel that many fantasy writers are of the sort that have a story that calls to them and that story begs to be written. It develops relatively organically without much force, and the writer (for example, Brian) is responsible primarily for choosing the appropriate words and making that story as effective as possible. I don't see anything wrong with this, and I thought it was especially emphasized by Brian's surprise over the idea of throwaway scenes and Feo's even more surprise over the idea of NOT doing experimental scenes.

I also don't see anything wrong with using writing as a platform or emphasizing agendas and other stuff. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to exist in every stories. It is possible that the stories can be "pure" in the sense that they are stories and not arthouse stories.

Does anyone find it sexist that the example we keep throwing around of what women can talk about that is not men is shoes? But then, the question becomes, what can they talk about that isn't sexist? If they talk about their menstrual cycles is that sexist? If they talk about blah blah blah is that sexist? To some people, everything will be sexist. I don't see the point of them talking about something that isn't related to the story, and if the story involves one or more of the woman's romance to a character, then that's what they should talk about.

There's always the question of why have a break-out conversation between the women in the first place (not because it's unnatural, but because it takes ink and may not further the story), but if we are going to have them break-out on their own, then it is going to be because we want them to talk about something they wouldn't talk about in front of the other character(s). What could that be? If it's anything that ISN'T sexist (or at least having to do with the fact that they are both women), then they should be talking about it with the other group (again, I'm thinking of fantasy so I'm thinking of adventuring groups in my head as I'm writing this, but if you write political fantasies or whatever then that's great, there still needs to be a reason for every grouping).

 

[Steerpike]

In my real-life experience, girls can be guy-crazy and want to talk or think about nothing else but them. I'm not saying all girls are like this, but I don't think anyone will disagree that there are superficial, guy-crazy girls in the same way that there are superficial, girl-crazy guys.

Having a teenage daughter who has friends over, I've seen the guy-crazy phases. I've seen them in others as well, particularly when I was younger - teens, early 20s and so on. I've never in all my years known a girl who talks exclusively about what guy she is after and never ventures into any other territory beyond the 'guy.'

The idea that a realistic portrayal is interpreted as having to somehow show the characters as "enlightened" seems to me to say something in and of itself. Men can be complex and multifaceted and it's normal. If a female character is complex and multifaceted, it's an artificial attempt to portray them as "enlightened?"

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'd like to propose a distinction:

Campaigning for more minority characters is a cause, or a goal, or what have you. (I dislike the connotations of the word "agenda", but I'll use it if I have to.)

Writing a story that has minority characters in it is not, in and of itself, directly connected to any agenda.

I feel compelled to make the distinction because there seems to be a recurrent assumption that just having minority characters means saying something political. It's true that some people will read in political assumptions, but if you'd tell people to take a hike for criticizing your white male characters, you could just as easily tell them to take a hike for not letting your albino lesbian Eskimo or whatnot slay dragons in peace.

@Zero Angel: you have no idea how much you've just swelled my head. I stretch and change my stories because they aren't really mine to begin with--I can't create half so well as I imitate. If your assessment is true, I have more freedom to write stories that are unusual and different than actual "creative" writers!

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Now I'm beginning to wonder whether this thread would pass the Bechdel test.

 

[Zero Angel]

Having a teenage daughter who has friends over, I've seen the guy-crazy phases. I've seen them in others as well, particularly when I was younger - teens, early 20s and so on. I've never in all my years known a girl who talks exclusively about what guy she is after and never ventures into any other territory beyond the 'guy.'

The idea that a realistic portrayal is interpreted as having to somehow show the characters as "enlightened" seems to me to say something in and of itself. Men can be complex and multifaceted and it's normal. If a female character is complex and multifaceted, it's an artificial attempt to portray them as "enlightened?"

haha, so I was trying to avoid saying the other way around because in a different thread saellys had taken umbrage. It's not that a female character being complex is necessarily "enlightened", but that no one cares if a male character isn't (but as saellys would say, even though guys (maybe I'm generalizing too much, even though *I*) don't care if males are objectified or stupid or unenlightened, when a girl isn't it is cited as being sexist. Where as, in order for a female character to be considered OK by (insert group here), they MUST be enlightened.

I'd like to propose a distinction:

Campaigning for more minority characters is a cause, or a goal, or what have you. (I dislike the connotations of the word "agenda", but I'll use it if I have to.)

Writing a story that has minority characters in it is not, in and of itself, directly connected to any agenda.

I feel compelled to make the distinction because there seems to be a recurrent assumption that just having minority characters means saying something political. It's true that some people will read in political assumptions, but if you'd tell people to take a hike for criticizing your white male characters, you could just as easily tell them to take a hike for not letting your albino lesbian Eskimo or whatnot slay dragons in peace.

@Zero Angel: you have no idea how much you've just swelled my head. I stretch and change my stories because they aren't really mine to begin with--I can't create half so well as I imitate. If your assessment is true, I have more freedom to write stories that are unusual and different than actual "creative" writers!

I think everyone here that I've read snippets/blurbs of are creative. Give yourself credit for what you do, even if you (being anyone, not necessarily YOU Feo) don't have the goal of being a professional writer, writing anything is a creative process. Writing experiments are recommended by a lot of writing workshops and professors and whatnot and not because they are easy to do. What's the phrase? Any sufficiently analyzed creative endeavor is indistinguishable from a derivative work? ...or something like that

Personally, I think of strange situations, but I never do it just to do it. If there's a situation I want to explore, then I am going to turn it into at least a scene designed to make it past the cutting room floor, and probably a short story or novella. I don't have the luxury of writing for fun anymore.

I don't see a problem with including characters, but I disagree that we should need to include GOOD characters. I think there's just as much to say for equality that we have BAD characters of different races, sexual orientation and gender. White heterosexual males have been allowed to be petty, shallow creatures for generations, isn't it about time that we extended this to everyone?

Counterargument: while white men have been actively bad, others are passively (not necessarily actually passive, but inherently) bad. I don't see a problem with others being bad so long as the writing supports it. If they are bad to promote an agenda, then I find that immoral. If they are bad to support the story or rather, the story supports them being bad, then that is storytelling and above claims of sexism, orientation-ism (don't know the word there), and racism.