On Writing Women. Looking for honesty...

[Heliotrope]

A good example of this that has stayed with me for a long time is the meaning of the word used. I read about a survey where participants had been asked to rate whether they found certain words to be positively, neutrally, or negatively charged. According to the survey (which I've not been able to find again), males found the word used to be neutrally charged, while females found it to be negatively charged.

It's a small detail, and I'm sure it's not universal, but I think it's a great example of how people from different backgrounds can related differently to the same thing.

Reminds me of this little (very unprofessional, not to be taken seriously) study on how men and women use different words when writing love poetry.

Study Reveals What Words Men And Women Use To Write About Love, And The Difference Is Striking

 

[Devor]

I think there's layers to a story. If you look at Stranger Things (season 1), for instance, we have the three or four boys, and Eleven, as this core group. Outside that group, we have characters like Hopper and Joyce, Nancy and Jonathan, Barbara and Benny, the scientist guy, and that evil woman who that shoots people. Then we have the "mooks" - the lab workers who exist just to die.

If we were going to grade Stranger Things based on its inclusion of women, I would say it's mostly that middle group of characters that should be graded. Some stories simply focus on certain types of people - it's unfortunate that over a larger pattern some people feel left out, but you can't task every individual work with the job of fixing everything. You can't judge a story about a group of 80s boys who play D&D for being about a group of 80s boys playing D&D. But as you start to zoom out, and look at the other people in their lives and those others who are affected by the broader story, it would be a little weird if you didn't see any women involved. Then of course you come to the nameless mooks who exist to die, and that raises all these emotions in many people about violence towards women... so there's that.

I'm not personally interested in actually grading Stranger Things or LOTR or any other stories past or present. There's a larger point I'm trying to make, not as a reader or critic, but a writer.

Somebody mentioned "target audience" above, and that's a concept that has changed over time. More recently, marketing experts talk about layering their target markets. Even if the main elements of your work primarily appeal to men or women or horror-lovers or teens or another group, there are multiple things happening in your work that can appeal to different people. Maybe a lot of women don't like a lot of horror, yet it seems apparent that there are a lot of women who like Stranger Things, doesn't it? Stranger Things has multiple target audiences and multiple ways that it appeals to them.

As a writer, I have a central vision for each story that I don't want to compromise (the D&D-playing boys who find themselves stuck in a horror). But given that central vision, how can I work in the vast supporting areas of my story to do better by a broader audience?

 

[Heliotrope]

As a writer, I have a central vision for each story that I don't want to compromise (the D&D-playing boys who find themselves stuck in a horror). But given that central vision, how can I work in the vast supporting areas of my story to do better by a broader audience?

This is nice. I like this. I try to do a similar thing. Even though I'm writing middle grades with a female mc I do think that I want to add something for the boys reading the story, for the parents reading the story, for the teachers reading the story... etc.

I read somewhere that this is why Disney started the film Frozen with the ice workers digging at the lake and little Christoph and Sven trying to keep up. It was to show the boys viewing the film that there was something for them here too. It wasn't just a gooey movie about two sisters.

Also read that this is why Tangled was narrated through Flynn Ryder, as if it were "his" story.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

This is nice. I like this. I try to do a similar thing. Even though I'm writing middle grades with a female mc I do think that I want to add something for the boys reading the story, for the parents reading the story, for the teachers reading the story... etc.

I read somewhere that this is why Disney started the film Frozen with the ice workers digging at the lake and little Christoph and Sven trying to keep up. It was to show the boys viewing the film that there was something for them here too. It wasn't just a gooey movie about two sisters.

Also read that this is why Tangled was narrated through Flynn Ryder, as if it were "his" story.

Which raises an interesting point...

No Boys Allowed: School visits as a woman writer

As I just linked, Shannon Hale wrote a post a while back about how schools consider certain writing "for girls" as opposed to writing "for boys." You notice that most movies don't go out of their way to reach a female audience, because that media is considered to be accessible to everyone. But movies that might be considered "for girls," well, now, we have to make sure the boys feel included, because those stories aren't for them, otherwise.

 

[Heliotrope]

But because I’m a woman, because some of my books have pictures of girls on the cover, because some of my books have “princess” in the title, I’m stamped as “for girls only.” However, the male writers who have boys on their covers speak to the entire school.

Oh my gosh, sickening, but so true!

perpetuating the myth that women only have things of interest to say to girls while men’s voices are universally important.

Yeah. That article just made me mad (in a good way) because it totally validates everything I was thinking. Hypothetically, if Stranger Things had been about a group of five girls, would it have had the same success? Or would it be labelled something akin to "Pretty Little Alien Hunters" and be classified as a girl show, with girl drama? I don't know. Of course it is all speculation, but yeah, the fact that boy characters are seen as "neutral" (everyone will like this story), and girl MC's get prefaced with "It's about a girl, but there is still some good stuff in here for boys!" makes me mental.

 

[TheKillerBs]

This is about degree. It shouldn't try to compete with a book that's dedicated to relationship drama. Tolkien was right to do a few things well then trying to do too many things and please too many people. Try to please everyone and you please no one.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow.

 

[Annoyingkid]

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow.

The action or epic oriented fantasy isn't playing to it's strengths if it tries to include things like daddy drama to anything close to the extent of a romance story.

 

[TheKillerBs]

The action or epic oriented fantasy isn't playing to it's strengths if it tries to include things like daddy drama to anything close to the extent of a romance story.

Oh, definitely. But that doesn't preclude female characters with some kind of emotional baggage from having important or even main roles, and LOTR doesn't have anything resembling that and I don't think it should get a pass for that either.

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

^Does Eowyn not count? Maybe she doesn't count...

 

[Svrtnsse]

^Does Eowyn not count? Maybe she doesn't count...

I guess that depends on what point you're trying to make, and why.

 

[Heliotrope]

For me Eowyn didn't count. She was a "strong female character" for sure, but one who was entirely devoted to her "people" as all good Tolkein women should be. She was an extension of the elves, without being an elf. She was highly idealized, asexual. The only difference between Tolkein's women is their costumes and their names.

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

Luthien didn't seem 'entirely devoted to her "people"' as you put it. In fact, she kind of went against them. Maybe I'm just bias. I apologize.

 

[Heliotrope]

Don't apologize! I'm just explaining why Eowyn didn't count for me. I didn't finish LOTR, so there is no way I would have read the Silmarillion, lol! So I can't speak to Luthien. She may have been more well rounded.

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

Her feats surpass Eowyn by a fair margin. Not only did Luthien escape from her parental induced house arrest, she rescued her lover, Beren, from Sauron's dungeons, and then, stole one of the Silmarils [semi-divine jewels, in case you're wondering] from Morgoth. They succeeded, though Beren lost his life in the process, and then Luthien went to the halls of the dead and sang a lament so moving that Beren was granted a second life. She accomplished more than most heroes, in my opinion.

 

[TheKillerBs]

For me Eowyn didn't count. She was a "strong female character" for sure, but one who was entirely devoted to her "people" as all good Tolkein women should be. She was an extension of the elves, without being an elf. She was highly idealized, asexual. The only difference between Tolkein's women is their costumes and their names.

And their lack of screentime, so to speak. At least in LOTR, I have never read the Silmarillion, either.

 

[Annoyingkid]

I don't care if Eowyn was sexual or not, what bothered me was the bad internal logic of her training and status. She says she and the women of that land are trained in combat. Her actions in ROTK prove that. Yet literally everybody are intent on telling her that fighting is too dangerous. So what's the point in training them then? Or allowing them to train in fighting if they're not allowed to fight? it's just a big waste of time and energy. It's not like they stayed in Rohan's cities and towns to defend it when the men are gone, they fled to the hills or some crap. I find it baffling.

 

[Devor]

I don't care if Eowyn was sexual or not, what bothered me was the bad internal logic of her training and status. She says she and the women of that land are trained in combat. Her actions in ROTK prove that. Yet literally everybody are intent on telling her that fighting is too dangerous. So what's the point in training them then? Or allowing them to train in fighting if they're not allowed to fight? it's just a big waste of time and energy. It's not like they stayed in Rohan's cities and towns to defend it when the men are gone, they fled to the hills or some crap. I find it baffling.

In Japan it was custom for many women to train in the Naginata in order to defend themselves against a home invasion. There's nothing inconsistent at all about training someone to fight and telling them not to go to war, especially somebody like Eowyn whom an enemy might target.

 

[TheCrystallineEntity]

^I know that firsthand, sort of, because I used a real naginata when I took Karate lessons.

 

[TheKillerBs]

In Japan it was custom for many women to train in the Naginata in order to defend themselves against a home invasion. There's nothing inconsistent at all about training someone to fight and telling them not to go to war, especially somebody like Eowyn whom an enemy might target.

But they did that because they stayed home. The wives of the samurai were expected to hold the fort while the men were on campaign. The women of Rohan weren't.

 

[Devor]

But they did that because they stayed home. The wives of the samurai were expected to hold the fort while the men were on campaign. The women of Rohan weren't.

All the more reason to train them...? I wasn't arguing that women can't or shouldn't fight, only that I didn't think the logic in LOTR was inconsistent. In a world of orcs and magic, it's not like you can put women / civilians, well, anywhere, with any guarantee they won't need to defend themselves.