greyias | (no subject)

Late last night, about 18K into my Big Bang monster, I realized something that made me stop and boggle a little: There's a startling lack of female characters in my cast.

I think there have been maybe three females that have cropped up in the entire fic, and they've all been minor bit characters: one a waitress, one a secretary, and the HR director. When I looked at that, I squirmed a little, because no, that's not stereotypical at all.

Then the more I thought about it, the more unsettled I became. Honestly, I don't think many people would be reading it and suddenly go "Hey wait! Where are all the women? This is crap!". (Who does that, though?) However it started thinking about the stuff I've written in the past, and how many stories (both fic and original) where I have a woman with a strong lead role -- and I've kind of come up short. I mean, I have one long series of original stories in my head that's told by a female, but I don't think it counts seeing as it's not on paper.

But now I'm just kind of wondering, idly what this says about me. Obviously, it's something I need to work on in the future, along with more setting and character description. I do seem to have a much harder time climbing into female characters' heads than my guys, but is that because they're so much more fleshed out? Or is it because it's that much harder to write a female character that's accepted for who she is without being accused of being a Mary Sue?

Oh, well. I'm sure at least one or two more women will pop up in the course of the story. Maybe I'll write some Teyla fic or something as penance after all of this is done.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think my reply to everything you said is: WORD.

Spunky sassy women are fine and dandy, as long as they have depth. Many of the ones you've mentioned are basically on-screen Mary Sues, because in my opinion what makes a Sue a Sue, whether they be male or female, is that lack of depth. A character that HAS that will automatically have quirks, flaws, and failings that they overcome within the course of the story to achieve the goal of the plot.

We were watching the fourth season of The OC this week, and I was struck by how much I adored several of the female characters that were absolutely horrid in the previous season. My absolute favorite of them was Taylor Townsend, who had a self-admitted emotional addiction problem that had her cling to anyone who was nice to her. In one episode she wound up stalking her own boyfriend in progressively wackier and hilarious ways. It was all of her problems and hang ups, but this desire to try and do better (sometimes failing miserably) that made her a joy to watch on screen.

Compare her to, oh, Elizabeth Swann of Pirates of the Caribbean, who's main problem is getting kidnapped by pirates and kissing Johnny Depp. All of her conflict is external, as opposed to the rest of the cast. She doesn't grate on my nerves, but I far enjoyed the scenes between Jack and Will than the ones between her and... anyone else. Of course, you can overboard with the flaws and make a character completely unlikable. It's a balancing act I guess.

Have you watched Road to El Dorado? Or Dreamworks' Sinbad?
All slash or slashy inclinations aside, ask yourself this: Could the movies have worked without the women?

And that's what I'm talking about. A character is unimportant when it can be replaced either by a trinket, a perfectly unimportant extra, or altogether removed without damaging the plot. This isn't perfect math, but it's usually the case with some female characters.

Let's suffer a bit.
Let's think of the Batman & Robin movie. A truly horrible, yes, but Batgirl. Tell me now: couldn't they have beaten Uma Thurman and the Terminator without her help? You bet your ass they could.

An example of the opposite would be characters like the one you mentioned. Depth makes them interesting. They make the story richer by being there.

It's been years since I saw Road to El Dorado, but I do remember disliking the female character there. Never saw Sinbad, because I thought animated Catherine Zeta-Jones-Douglas was in the whole movie, and I really just don't care for "pasted on" romance to try and lure a few young girls into the theatre.

when it can be replaced either by a trinket

I'm sorry, I'm laughing at the thought of these "spunky females" in these movies being replaced by an equally spunky broom or dust mop and having the same effect on the storyline.

"Oh noes! Dusty Mop's been kidnapped by the bad guys! We have to save her!"

In return, Dusty Mop thanks the hero by spewing dust all over them.

Okay, crack aside, back the original discussion. Yes, both Road to El Dorado, I think, and Batman and Robin could have worked without the spunky heroines.

I will clarify that I mean Marina from Sinbad - the spunky heroine. Not so much as Eris the goddess of Chaos. SHE MADE THE MOVIE. Why? Because the woman was the plot. If you remove her, there is no plot. She was awesome.

And come now, seriously: Remove our heroine for an equally precious object.
Take pirates of the Caribbean. Imagine if, say, some personal keepsake of Will had been taken away by Barbosa. Something really personal. Can't you imagine him getting all caught up going "Damn pirates, I hate pirates, I'm GETTING IT BACK!"?

Ahaha! They took Will's lucky rabbit's foot, and he's getting it back! Of course, it's such a lucky animal foot that both Norrington and Will's partner-in-piracy Jack Sparrow both are drawn towards it as well.

I will probably schedule a watching of the Sinbad movie... or just Tivo it or something. My brain is going to be mush by the time August rolls around.

On the other hand, one should clarify that the issue isn't with women. The issue is with the way the industry portrays them.

Try an example:
Shepherd.
Now, make him a woman, with the exact same story, the exact same dysfunctions and faults but also the same sort of spunk and heroism. It actually works... so long as you keep all the good and the BAD things about Shepherd there. Same with McKay. Don't change anything, don't make girl-Shepherd into a MORE EMOTIONAL SHEPHERD or anything like that.

On the other hand, try to imagine what it would have been like if the head of the SGA team had been an INDEPENDENT WOMAN who will sass it up, but deep down is worried that you'll think her vulnerable, and (secretly, always secretly) is looking for that elusive kiss-kiss action. Keep in mind, that's all they'll give you - not unlike the original plan for Samantha Carter ("I R WOMAN IN THE ARMY!")

The problem with the way women are written is that they're written with their gender on their greeting card. Literally:

MARY S. SUE
WOMAN, Heroine

They do this just in CASE you forget that, golly, that thing has a bajingo but she sure can fight, even though(!) her sexual organs are on the inside. And then when they try to do the opposite, they make asexual or butch women, because you can't leave your gender issues behind without leaving your whole gender in the closet (this usually ends up playing out by having our G.I.Jane have a SOFT CORE that she dares not reveal.) Tsk.

There was actually a really nice story someone wrote that genderswapped both John and Rodney's roles, but didn't give them those hang ups. They still came across as almost the same characters, but there were differences due to the fact that they were of a different gender. They couldn't talk to each other any better as females than males, but they still had the same level of depth. Wish I could remember the name.

But yes, I think that is the problem with a lot of stuff. Not only things written for younger audiences, but in general. They focus entirely too much on a character's gender, rather than the character itself.

They do this just in CASE you forget that, golly, that thing has a bajingo but she sure can fight, even though(!) her sexual organs are on the inside. And then when they try to do the opposite, they make asexual or butch women, because you can't leave your gender issues behind without leaving your whole gender in the closet

Actually, there's an upcoming episode of SGA that should be very interesting in light of this discussion, but I will talk to you about that on gmail chat to keep spoilers from leaking into the discussion.