Women in fantasy

[Nihal]

After all, were we not just saying that many of GRRM's characters were strong because of their feminine qualities? Isn't identifying what those qualities are going to be important if we're then going to make judgments based upon them?

I wouldn't call them "feminine qualities". I would say they're strong because they manage to impact story without stepping (too much) outside their predetermined gender role - which was, traditionally, shut up and do whatever the men where ordering, be delicate, docile, etc etc etc.

 

[Steerpike]

Some female characters can act how women are expected to act.

Not all female characters should act how women are expected to act.

Everyone agrees with both these statements, right?

I expect so

 

[Devor]

Again, I'm talking about uniformity of depictions. I don't know how to make that much more clear than by stating it outright, as I've already done in this thread.

And Mindfire stated:

If we are talking about the former, I would say that starting off with a "female template", or recognizing a distinction between male and female, or making gender integral to a character, does not preclude variety in female characters.

Why would you go and portray that as saying:

If you are content to see stereotypical, gender-biased depictions of females as the vastly predominant depiction in fantasy media, then we'll just agree to disagree.

That doesn't follow, in my view. Some authors need a template - it's not much different from an archetype. In fact, Phil the Drill posted eight such templates earlier, from a book full of them, so we're clearly not the only ones.

If men and their depictions are the problem, it's not going to solve a problem to ignore their needs. If some men need a template to start with, you'd find a better solution by saying, "Here's a well-rounded, not-stereotypical way of putting it." Which, for instance, I've tried to do.

 

[Feo Takahari]

But why use the templates at all? I can write female characters who my female readers find believable without doing anything different from what I do with male characters. (To repeat, I have female readers, and they find these characters believable.)

 

[Nightender]

I think that marks a level of success for you, Feo. If you can make female characters that female readers can relate to and cheer for, then you've done it right.

 

[Steerpike]

But why use the templates at all? I can write female characters who my female readers find believable without doing anything different from what I do with male characters. (To repeat, I have female readers, and they find these characters believable.)

I'm out of "likes," so let me just say YES. This is the approach that makes the most sense, in my view.

 

[Mindfire]

Mindfire, I think you are purposefully disregarding things that have been repeated multiple times across this and other threads already. There is only so many times that it makes sense to re-state something. If you are content to see stereotypical, gender-biased depictions of females as the vastly predominant depiction in fantasy media, then we'll just agree to disagree.

As for the more and more diverse writers, certainly that will help, but casting the whole thing aside as "someone else's problem," and therefore we shouldn't consider it is a mistake, in my view.

I think this is a mischaracterization of my statement. I said that with regard to the genre as a whole, the best, or at least most practical, solution is to get more diverse writers. And you yourself seem to at least partially agree with that statement. And I don't think saying that is dismissing the issue. Each one of us individually has infinitesimal influence on the genre as a whole. So if we're discussing the genre as a whole, individual decisions fall out of consideration because they have next to no weight. The only sensible way to approach a general problem is with a general solution. Now if we're talking about specific problems, i.e. case by case, then the best each individual can do is to offer their work up for consideration and open themselves to suggestions- which I have done and continue to do. So far, I have noted no particular disapproval of my work as it relates to this issue, so I can only assume I've done at least passably well. If you think otherwise, I sincerely welcome your input.

 

[Mindfire]

Some female characters can act how women are expected to act.

Not all female characters should act how women are expected to act.

Everyone agrees with both these statements, right?

I would amend that as follows:

Female characters can act as women are expected to act.

Not all female characters need to act as women are expected to act.

There's a subtle difference. Your version implicitly requires the author to include at least one female character who defies gender expectations. My version includes no such requirement, only the freedom to do so at the author's discretion.

 

[Mindfire]

But why use the templates at all? I can write female characters who my female readers find believable without doing anything different from what I do with male characters. (To repeat, I have female readers, and they find these characters believable.)

Not everyone writes the same. Some people need or just want templates. Others don't. I tend to be systematic and methodical (almost mechanically so) when constructing my world and characters. Templates, tables, and forms are useful for me. You may be able to approach male and female characters identically, but I cannot. To do so would be to reduce the difference between male and female to nothing more than a cosmetic distinction, something that does not jive with my personal beliefs and observations. It's also just plain difficult.

 

[Feo Takahari]

You version implicitly requires the author to include at least one female character who defies gender expectations. My version includes no such requirement, only the freedom to do so at the author's discretion.

In a short story, sure. But if you're writing a full-length novel, and it doesn't take place in some largely male setting (say, a gender-segregated military), it's kind of odd if all your female characters act the same.

 

[Steerpike]

So if we're discussing the genre as a whole, individual decisions fall out of consideration because they have next to no weight.

I don't agree with this, either, because the whole of the genre is just made up of a collection of individuals, so individual decisions matter. It's kind of like another version of the think globally, act locally slogan. If you convince everyone you can only make a difference at a macro level, all you end up doing is excusing non-action at a micro level, when really action at the micro-level is a prerequisite to seeing a change at the macro level.

 

[Mindfire]

In a short story, sure. But if you're writing a full-length novel, and it doesn't take place in some largely male setting (say, a gender-segregated military), it's kind of odd if all your female characters act the same.

If they are all feminine that does not necessarily imply that the act the same. As I've said earlier, my female characters are quite variable.

 

[Devor]

Not everyone writes the same.

Yeah, no learning curve allowed.

 

[Mindfire]

I don't agree with this, either, because the whole of the genre is just made up of a collection of individuals, so individual decisions matter. It's kind of like another version of the think globally, act locally slogan. If you convince everyone you can only make a difference at a macro level, all you end up doing is excusing non-action at a micro level, when really action at the micro-level is a prerequisite to seeing a change at the macro level.

But that's not what I proposed. Rather, I suggested a two-pronged method: at the macro level, encourage authors with a variety of backgrounds. At the micro level, examine your own work and seek constrictive criticism.

 

[Steerpike]

But that's not what I proposed. Rather, I suggested a two-pronged method: at the macro level, encourage authors with a variety of backgrounds. At the micro level, examine your own work and seek constrictive criticism.

I think that works fine if you're open to constructive criticism.

 

[Mindfire]

I think that works fine if you're open to constructive criticism.

Well, I keep throwing things at you and asking "what do you think of this" and the general reaction is, "Eh. Okay." Since no one has rounded up the lynch mob yet I can only assume I'm doing alright. If not, give me a clue or something.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Well, I keep throwing things at you and asking "what do you think of this" and the general reaction is, "Eh. Okay." Since no one has rounded up the lynch mob yet I can only assume I'm doing alright. If not, give me a clue or something.

Keep in mind that most of us haven't actually read your work. It's a bit hard to tell anything just from general descriptions. (I think how characters' perspectives are portrayed, and whether those characters have internal lives at all, is a micro problem, but which character types keep showing up over and over is more of a macro problem.)

 

[saellys]

To bring it back to fantasy writing, insomuch as it can sometimes be useful to think about how men and women think differently, it helps me to think, loosely, "Women are more people-centered, and men are more abstract." So if I catch myself writing a woman who's upset about losing the war (an abstraction), I go back and change it to being upset over how many people are dying.

That's true enough, but at the same time, if I have a woman arguing about a war, it's also a good sign that too much of me is coming across, and not enough of the character. It goes towards creating your characters and their differences deliberately, rather than having your predispositions superimposed upon them by accident. Besides, I think we see enough women-who-think-and-talk-like-guys without me needing to do another one.

I really didn't mean it as an absolute, and it was also a pretty simple example to illustrate. But there've been a lot of men on the forums in the past who have said they have no idea how to write women. Rules are for people getting started; the people/abstraction distinction is a rule for learning how to get inside someone else's head, to be put aside once you grow beyond it.

There are at least three female characters in The Stone Front who would be more upset about losing the war than about losses on either side. Proposing rules like that for people who say they don't know how to write women is counterproductive. As Chilari said so eloquently, the gender dichotomy is a myth, and as Steerpike has been saying for three threads now, it's better to write characters who act naturally than characters who are unmistakably male or female. When you use an example where you're writing things a certain way as your first instinct, but then you go back and change the character's motivation to make her fit an arbitrary standard of femininity... well, I wouldn't say it's lazy per se, and I probably wouldn't throw your book at the wall, but it feels like a disservice to a character who could have represented more.

 

[Feo Takahari]

There are at least three female characters in The Stone Front who would be more upset about losing the war than about losses on either side. Proposing rules like that for people who say they don't know how to write women is counterproductive. As Chilari said so eloquently, the gender dichotomy is a myth, and as Steerpike has been saying for three threads now, it's better to write characters who act naturally than characters who are unmistakably male or female. When you use an example where you're writing things a certain way as your first instinct, but then you go back and change the character's motivation to make her fit an arbitrary standard of femininity... well, I wouldn't say it's lazy per se, and I probably wouldn't throw your book at the wall, but it feels like a disservice to a character who could have represented more.

Do be careful what you're arguing here, since you've previously argued against maintaining a character's initial motivation (under circumstances where that motivation is stereotypical.) I'm for more variety in character types, but I don't think a character's initial personality is necessarily better OR worse than her personality in rewrites.

 

[Mindfire]

Keep in mind that most of us haven't actually read your work. It's a bit hard to tell anything just from general descriptions. (I think how characters' perspectives are portrayed, and whether those characters have internal lives at all, is a micro problem, but which character types keep showing up over and over is more of a macro problem.)

What information would be useful to you?