Bechdel: Round Two

[T.Allen.Smith]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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!)

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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.

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 naïve 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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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