Bechdel: Round Two

[Philip Overby]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I definitely thing the Bechdel test is kind of useless.

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

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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 clichés that had no place in such distinctive, progressive works.

 

[Steerpike]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.