The Bechdel Test

[saellys]

Generally in Fantasy you won't pass this test due to how comparatively isolated the races were in pre-industrial/colonial times where most fantasy takes place.

Except it's fantasy, not historical fiction, so you could actually do whatever you want to mingle the races as long as it's justified by internal consistency.

I think fantasy and fiction in general has come a long way from these sorts of stereotypes.

Mine pass, but it's like Alex 97 said, those stereotypes are pretty near gone in today's books and movies and TV.

Have you tried applying the Bechdel test to the fantasy books you've read, let alone movies and TV? The tired damsel-in-distress stereotype may have fallen by the wayside, but the first step in writing female characters with the same depth and agency as male characters is still absent from the overwhelming majority of modern fantasy. Books that are lauded here on this forum as well as in the broader literary world fail the Bechdel test. Some of them fail spectacularly in an otherwise beautifully crafted story. You may have read one where the female POV character wishes she had other female friends in her all-male circle so she could--wait for it--talk to them about men. *facepalm*

It is, as Penpilot and Chilari said, not a test of whether a work is feminist in nature. But it's a jumping-off point to more deeply analyze how a writer treats their characters, male and female alike. It's also, as mentioned earlier, a matter of representation. Representation is important. It shapes attitudes.

Keep it in mind during the next book you read (of any genre) and see if it passes. And if you're not writing a story that has a good reason for almost exclusively male characters, try to fit in a conversation between two female characters. Your world will almost certainly be richer for it.

Also, if anyone's curious, the last movie I watched that passed the Bechdel Test and Deggans' Rule was Tremors 3. Yeah, I was surprised too.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I actually make a conscious effort to make sure whatever I write passes the Bechdel test. Doesn't always happen (sometimes a story is just about dudes and there's no women around), but if there's at least one substantial female character, there's no reason there can't be more. Most of my protagonists are women, actually; Bjarheim's Shadow has the first male protagonist I've written in quite a while.

 

[Mindfire]

I'd be wary of writing a story specifically to pass a certain criterion. The way I see it, being true to the story is more important than shoving in a scene to get feminist brownie points. That's just sugar coated tokenism. The better approach is to let your female characters appear organically and once you create them, remember not to neglect proper development just as you would for a male character of equal standing wrt the plot.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

There's no shoving in to be done at all; I design the story so that women are as fairly represented as they would be in reality. It's too common to end up with most of the characters being male for no other reason than that the writer's male. And all the characters get development, regardless of gender.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I'd be wary of writing a story specifically to pass a certain criterion. The way I see it, being true to the story is more important than shoving in a scene to get feminist brownie points. That's just sugar coated tokenism. The better approach is to let your female characters appear organically and once you create them, remember not to neglect proper development just as you would for a male character of equal standing wrt the plot.

Coincidentally, I read this earlier today. It's about a video game, but the same principle applies.

Two things frustrate me, and together they frustrate me doubly by existing in parallel . . . Essential Frustration #1: The fear that "diverse" characters are risky and might offend or alienate players by their simple inclusion–that including them requires a magic touch, special bravery, a trembling sensitivity, or a mandate to ignore sales. (Liberation is selling very well, thanks for asking!) . . . Essential Frustration #2: The concept that we don't need to try to create diverse characters–that if it's right for the story, it will just happen. Of course it's not going to just happen. If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The reason it doesn't just happen is contained in my first frustration. It's necessary to fight these assumptions, and stand up for our characters. If we believe in them, we have to rise to the occasion and show ourselves and the people we work with how to bring them to life successfully. But this does not require magic, scary effort–it's effort anyone can put in. It's fun, it adds variety, and it makes a lot of players feel good. It's more than worthwhile and we should definitely try to do more of it.

 

[saellys]

I'd be wary of writing a story specifically to pass a certain criterion. The way I see it, being true to the story is more important than shoving in a scene to get feminist brownie points. That's just sugar coated tokenism. The better approach is to let your female characters appear organically and once you create them, remember not to neglect proper development just as you would for a male character of equal standing wrt the plot.

Oh gosh, do I ever hate it when people misappropriate the word tokenism to argue against taking care to create well-rounded and diverse stories. I sure do hope people aren't doing this for brownie points (sorry--feminists don't give out badges!), but rather to write good stories, where every character, male or female or trans or intersex or not applicable, has a legitimate reason for existing and gets to accomplish something. Passing the Bechdel test, as stated multiple times in this thread, is just the first step.

As for appearing organically, there are legitimate reasons why female characters might not in a given story, but it doesn't happen often and it should happen even less frequently in a fantasy world where you can quite literally make anything happen. If female characters did grow organically and consistently act naturally, we wouldn't need the Bechdel test. The overwhelming majority of the time, it doesn't happen.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Citing "historical accuracy" to back up the conscious decision to put your story on a spectrum between female-excluding to outright misogynist does not work when you write within this genre.

Although I agree with most of what you said, this last sentence is too absolute. Authors are free to write what they please, design societies and cultures as they please. Whether or not they choose to include strong female characters may have significances other than misogyny or some male driven desire for "female exclusion". Whether or not that story will work is very subjective. You, of course, may choose not to read that story if it doesn't fit your ideal. If people choose to write about patriarchal societies because they believe them to be more representative of a time period then more power to them.

I don't see where the attraction lies in tests like these. I tell the story I want to tell. The current one has several strong female characters (2 of 5 POVs are strong females) mixed into the male at about a 3:5 ratio overall. For the most part it is a patriarchal society with a few exceptions. Those decisions are not made to rail against, or support, feminist ideals, race inclusion ideals, or the wishes of any other group that may feel underrepresented. The choices are geared towards one thing only...the telling of a story.

 

[Mindfire]

Coincidentally, I read this earlier today. It's about a video game, but the same principle applies.

I object to your implications. My cast is reasonably diverse and I didn't "make" it happen. It just happened. The characters grew organically from the story. Figures from my WIP:

# total significant human characters: 26

people of color: 15
women: 9
​

Note that these numbers do not include background characters or non-human characters (intelligent animals, spirits, etc.) in order to avoid inflation. Also note that this is for the saga as a whole as I've currently planned it, not for any individual book, though I'll do a tally for each book or more specific breakdowns if asked. I know you can't tell much about how characters are treated based on a few numbers, but I think it supports my position adequately. Diversity can spring organically from the story so long as your imagination is broad enough. I didn't say "why don't I put a female character here?" or "why don't I make this character black instead?" The characters simply appeared when I needed them. My main character is even a man of color, which is unusual in fantasy.

Spoiler: .

but then again, this is me:

So I guess I'm not the typical case. Grain of salt?

 

[Mindfire]

Those decisions are not made to rail against, or support, feminist ideals, race inclusion ideals, or the wishes of any other group that may feel underrepresented. The choices are geared towards one thing only...the telling of a story.

This is the most important thing, I think. I refuse to make any decisions regarding my work for political reasons. And I would be glad if other writers did the same. The main concern should be making the story better. If you believe you can tell the story better by using a character of X demographic, then by all means do so, whitewashing meddlers be damned. But if you're doing it just in the interest of "fairness", then I might call that misguided.

 

[Chilari]

Although I agree with most of what you said, this last sentence is too absolute. Authors are free to write what they please, design societies and cultures as they please. Whether or not they choose to include strong female characters may have significances other than misogyny or some male driven desire for "female exclusion". Whether or not that story will work is very subjective. You, of course, may choose not to read that story if it doesn't fit your ideal. If people choose to write about patriarchal societies because they believe them to be more representative of a time period then more power to them.

But the power of fantasy, as opposed to a lot of historical fiction, is that you can chose to focus on whoever you want. If you're setting a story in a Roman legion or in classical Athens or on an early 19th century British naval ship, you have legitimate reasons to have no or few female characters, or if you do, for them not to have a huge amount of direct influence upon the core plot. But in fantasy you can chose what the gender roles are, and even within a patriarchal society you can pick a female perspective and give her some degree of influence and some degree of freedom without someone crying foul because it's not historically accurate.

One example where female roles are shown really well in a patriarchal society in fantasy are Robin Hobb's Liveship books and the sequel trilogy with dragons. It's a society that's becoming more patriarchal, but the female characters, whether they adhere to gender roles or break free of them, have agency and their own unique goals, which, while influenced by other characters including male characters, are not dependent on them.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there's really no need in fantasy to have the characters who influence the plot be exclusively male.

But I think it depends on the author. I think an author who has experience of living in a situation which is diverse, who has had strong female role models - or strong models from ethnic, racial, sexuality or other minorities - will find it a lot easier to write stories which organically present varied characters, whereas someone who has grown up in a traditionalist society where the man is the head of a household and makes the major decisions, where there is little racial diversity and where sexuality is not discussed or expressed might well find it more difficult to present more varied characters. It comes down to experiences: someone who knows a range of different types of people will do better as presenting a range of different characters effectively than someone who has a very small network that's fairly homogeneous. A man who has never had much contact with women besides his mother and maybe the odd girlfriend but otherwise spends all his time with men is not going to have sufficient experience of women to reliably present interesting, well-rounded female characters.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

But the power of fantasy, as opposed to a lot of historical fiction, is that you can chose to focus on whoever you want. If you're setting a story in a Roman legion or in classical Athens or on an early 19th century British naval ship, you have legitimate reasons to have no or few female characters, or if you do, for them not to have a huge amount of direct influence upon the core plot. But in fantasy you can chose what the gender roles are, and even within a patriarchal society you can pick a female perspective and give her some degree of influence and some degree of freedom without someone crying foul because it's not historically accurate.

One example where female roles are shown really well in a patriarchal society in fantasy are Robin Hobb's Liveship books and the sequel trilogy with dragons. It's a society that's becoming more patriarchal, but the female characters, whether they adhere to gender roles or break free of them, have agency and their own unique goals, which, while influenced by other characters including male characters, are not dependent on them.

Basically, what I'm saying is that there's really no need in fantasy to have the characters who influence the plot be exclusively male.

Completely agree. I only meant to state that I believe it's the story that should decide characters, not the political/ideological considerations of making sure certain groups are represented.

Some authors though, may want to stick more closely to accepted (real) history while still not writing what we'd consider historical fantasy. A world that resembles medieval Europe doesn't have to be historical fantasy. In fact, it usually isn't.

...I think an author who has experience of living in a situation which is diverse, who has had strong female role models - or strong models from ethnic, racial, sexuality or other minorities - will find it a lot easier to write stories which organically present varied characters, whereas someone who has grown up in a traditionalist society where the man is the head of a household and makes the major decisions, where there is little racial diversity and where sexuality is not discussed or expressed might well find it more difficult to present more varied characters. It comes down to experiences: someone who knows a range of different types of people will do better as presenting a range of different characters effectively than someone who has a very small network that's fairly homogeneous. A man who has never had much contact with women besides his mother and maybe the odd girlfriend but otherwise spends all his time with men is not going to have sufficient experience of women to reliably present interesting, well-rounded female characters.

I tend to agree here also. Experience can only help in creating real, well fleshed out characters and stories. I don't think it's impossible though, for an author to have an ability to create great characters from nothing more than imagination and a desire to create strong, interesting characters.

 

[saellys]

Although I agree with most of what you said, this last sentence is too absolute. Authors are free to write what they please, design societies and cultures as they please. Whether or not they choose to include strong female characters may have significances other than misogyny or some male driven desire for "female exclusion". Whether or not that story will work is very subjective. You, of course, may choose not to read that story if it doesn't fit your ideal. If people choose to write about patriarchal societies because they believe them to be more representative of a time period then more power to them.

I don't see where the attraction lies in tests like these. I tell the story I want to tell. The current one has several strong female characters (2 of 5 POVs are strong females) mixed into the male at about a 3:5 ratio overall. For the most part it is a patriarchal society with a few exceptions. Those decisions are not made to rail against, or support, feminist ideals, race inclusion ideals, or the wishes of any other group that may feel underrepresented. The choices are geared towards one thing only...the telling of a story.

I edited that line out of my post precisely because it would inevitably lead to a rabbit trail, but please note that I said "your story" and not "your world". You can write a female-excluding, patriarchal, and/or even misogynist world while still writing a female-positive story. No matter how your world treats women, women are part of your world and should be part of your story as well, barring the aforementioned extreme legitimate men-only examples.

Tests like these are important, if not necessarily attractive, because anyone who tells a story has a responsibility to think carefully about what their story represents and perpetuates and normalizes. I don't understand the resistance to this notion--you're a great writer who can tell artful stories about women as well as men, so why not make a conscious effort to ensure that your artful stories include both women and men? Nobody loses. Nobody will think less of you. Your story won't suffer, because you're not a hack.

I'm real happy for all you guys who naturally and organically wrote diverse, woman-friendly casts, but you need to understand that a ton of published and self-published authors don't. Even if you don't personally need the Bechdel Test or respond to it positively, others do and might, and thereby improve their stories and broaden their consciousness and start representing more than a whitewashed all-male story that has already been told a million times.

 

[Jabrosky]

A lot of my stories involve whole troops or even armies of women warriors, and since these women are always banding together to do something other than winning men over, they pass the Bechdel test by default. Really, I'm surprised more movies don't pass this test, since it comes so easily to me.

There's also Deggan's Rule, which just requires two non-white characters in a show that's not about race. (They don't have to talk to each other for this test, although it does specify they have to be human.) I've only got two stories that clearly pass this, although I've got several with racially ambiguous characters.

Also not that hard for me. I prefer more "exotic" settings for my stories anyway.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Tests like these are important, if not necessarily attractive, because anyone who tells a story has a responsibility to think carefully about what their story represents and perpetuates and normalizes. I don't understand the resistance to this notion...

This is the only point of contention between us, near as I can tell.

Where these things greatly concern you, I merely want to entertain through the telling of a story. In my view, all considerations are subservient to the story. I don't really care what some may feel the story represents and perpetuates or what some think the story might normalize. I don't feel any level of societal responsibility for guiding, shaping, or conforming to people's viewpoints.

My only concerns are that I write the story with frank honesty and that people have an emotional reaction to the tale...that they enjoy the reading.

 

[BWFoster78]

Basically, what I'm saying is that there's really no need in fantasy to have the characters who influence the plot be exclusively male.

The question that pops into my mind when reading this, and what everyone seems to be dancing around, is:

Is there a need in fantasy to have the characters who influence the plot not be exclusively male?

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Wouldn't that just depend on the story?

 

[BWFoster78]

Wouldn't that just depend on the story?

Trying to read between the lines - and, admittedly, perhaps failing - that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion. But, again, I could be wrong.

 

[Steerpike]

Trying to read between the lines - and, admittedly, perhaps failing - that doesn't seem to be the prevailing opinion. But, again, I could be wrong.

I think many would say that if you're writing a lot of those kinds of stories (and there are a lot out there), that:

1) There are societal reasons that you're writing them that way, and that those are worth reflecting on and it is worth considering why the story you created was developed in a such a manner as to not need well-rounded female characters; and

2) Stories project certain values to the readership, and that should be considered as well.

I'm all for writing the story that speaks out to you as the author, and rules and tests be damned. I don't think there is any harm in self-reflection and in looking at these issues, though, to see if you're unintentionally or subconsciously falling into traps with female characters that you don't have to fall into to serve your story.

I also disagree with a comment above that said if the reason for inclusion is specifically for purposes of 'fairness' or other policy reasons, it is a mistake. That's not always going to be the case. Fiction has long served as a vehicle for commenting on social policy or conditions, and for advocating for change. If your goal in writing a story is to make a political or social point, in addition to entertain, then it makes sense that you would consider these issues and possibly modify the story for reasons specifically related to social equality, fairness, and the like.

 

[Feo Takahari]

This is the only point of contention between us, near as I can tell.

Where these things greatly concern you, I merely want to entertain through the telling of a story. In my view, all considerations are subservient to the story. I don't really care what some may feel the story represents and perpetuates or what some think the story might normalize. I don't feel any level of societal responsibility for guiding, shaping, or conforming to people's viewpoints.

My only concerns are that I write the story with frank honesty and that people have an emotional reaction to the tale...that they enjoy the reading.

I think there might be a much larger issue at work here, involving liberal versus conservative or moderate (or apathetic) ideology.

To give one example of what I mean, I read a lot of fantasy that involves "the rightful king". This "rightful king" tends to be someone who had the fortune to be born to the previous queen, and takes the throne away from some filthy commoner who stole it. But I'm a socialist. I don't believe in rightful kings. So when, say, Tales of the Abyss makes the case that

Spoiler: .

the princess, though adopted, is "rightful" because she genuinely cares about the people of the kingdom,

that warms the cockles of my little socialist heart.

A lot of the arguments I start on this site relate to my desire to challenge the assumptions that irritate me, and if a lot of people don't care, maybe that's a sign that I'm more irritated than they are. Maybe they don't really give a **** about rightful or wrongful leaders, or about the individual versus the collective, or about (in this case) media erasure of minorities. (But I'm still going to start small-scale stinks about them, because that's just the sort of ***hole I am, and because Saellys, at least, seems to be with me on some of them.)