A strong character, male or female has to come across real. They have to have fears, faults and flaws like everyone else on this planet. I suppose, for me, a character comes across strong when they over come an internal war, a physical battle or prehaps confrontation with a situation, that led them to fear so much, in the first place. They have to learn from it and over come those challenges. They could recognise their fears in another and help them to over come it in someway and so they become a leader. This to me is what I'd regard as a strong character, but it does not matter the gender. My opinion.
Again, I think that you're talking about fear of the words. Objectification, for example. Are you saying that the majority absolutely and totally approve of selling products by draping buxom underclothed women over them? Really? The majority are totally comfortable with this ad? (Warning: probably Not Safe For Work): http://www.vocidicitta.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/tom-ford-parfum-pour-homme-campagne-2007.jpg Rape culture. When a rapist only gets a few months in jail, or people condemn the woman who dared to file charges when she was raped by a football hero, the majority are just fine with that? Male privilege. Until completely blind auditions were instituted, men were overwhelmingly chosen over women for orchestras. When the selection committee couldn't tell whether men or women were playing, the number of women selected went up tremendously. Do the majority think that the previous situation was just fine and dandy? Patriarchy: Most women WANT men to have unchallenged authority in the home and workplace? Really? And most men WANT to be regarded as unsuitable for child care and denied custody? Really?
Oh. Your earlier remark was supposed to be funny, not a desperate effort to win the argument by distracting with condescension and rudeness? Hm. Humor might not be your strongest skill.
To take the discussion off on a further tangent, it's important not to get too ham-fisted while attempting to write a strong female character. Let it happen naturally. I referred to George R.R Martin previously and I think he does an excellent job of this. In stark contrast is the latter seasons of the GoT tv show, which has gotten very clumsy and gone overboard with its attempts to promote the same ideal.
Um. What? I'm struggling to see the relevance of objectification arguments. Was Ghostbusters too polemical on rape culture, or something? I think I must have missed it amongst the ghosts and Holtzmann being batshit awesome. @karldots92 - sorry dude, this thread was always going to end up this way. Not your fault. Seriously, just give your characters agency and some depth, and you'll be fine.
Why oh why does almost every thread on this topic end in the same place: a mudslinging clash of political views?
So moving right along, I just came up with a potential scene for one of my intended Urban Fantasy sequels where my protagonists start learning magic themselves (the first installment I'm working on is about them navigating the magic that other people have been using), and one of my Big Three's (POV, his best friend, and their boss) allies laughs at how stereotypical it is that my POV protagonist, a man named Alec, gets to learn badass fire magic while Charlie, the woman who's ostensibly the boss, is stuck learning healing spells. Alec then starts listing off the top of his head: Charlie's also practicing invulnerability spells and knows how to use guns; defense magic is offense magic when there's only one shooter in the firefight who's bulletproof Best friend Amy is a woman too, but she's learning invulnerability and flame-throwing, making her as deadly a fighter-mage in that regard as Alec and Charlie combined Charlie's the boss: she's not supposed to be getting her own hands dirty, she's got people to do that for her (remember how nervous Luca Brasi was in the presence of Don Corleone?) Most importantly in Alec's mind, Charlie's the boss and if she says they're doing it like that, they're doing it Alec also has nightmares about the woman who's teaching them all of this in the first place. I'm kind of hoping that misogynists read my books hoping to read about a scary male criminal/wizard, only to be caught off-guard when it becomes more and more clear that he's actually the John Watson of the series, Amy and Charlie are the actual Holmeses driving the crimes that Alec lets himself get dragged along for because they're his friends
I'm not sure development has to happen for a strong= realistic character, given some characters plot involves an element as refusing to change. But courage and stuff are part of being personally strong, I agree. I kind of agree with what you say separated into two parts. Strong characters aren't always realistic, but you describe realism well, and you also describe personal strength well.
I'm not sure I agreed with the second bit, but yeah the first bit absolutely. Let the character be strong if that's what they are, let the character be weak if that's what they are. Make all your characters believable, so a "strong" character design, but they don't have to be admirable in any given way, that depends.
Yes, it's looking more like the YouTube comments section every minute, but not quite so entertaining. Anyway, as I was saying before I got interrupted. My book has at least ten prominent characters as well as a main character of course. Of those ten, five are women and the rest are well, men actually and they aren't all strong characters, except for the ex president who just happens to be a woman, a lady reporter, a midwife (female, obviously) and a teacher. The teacher is interesting because she´s a seducer of young men, mainly her pupils, but it doesn't necessarily follow that she's a strong character.She's a manipulator (ess?) who happens to be very seductive. My ex president is tyrannical, so that probably marks her as strong, up to a point.
I don't really identify with the notion of a 'strong character.' ..don't mind it so much, but strength is not a trait I seek out in my reading, or admire the strong-willed, or the cleverest character. Maybe I like weak characters who are written well, am I missing the point? More and more I see how I [can] write less - a reader projects their own set of 'pyjamas,' values, call it what you will - I like it when someone tells me what sort of person the character is. I nod, take it all on board, 'Absolutely,' I say. But 'strong characters' - this gives me evangelical willies - if I can say that. ... I mean like those abuse memoirs of a couple of years back...salvation/journey/redemption - oh, I suppose most books, mm
What a great turn of phrase. Fits very nicely and I have to agree with you as I'm writing my main character as an alter ego of myself, subconsciously.
...but I [reader] can't see this. I import the character, y'see - and go again - in my own mind [hopefully, for you.] If I flick easily through the first two pages, can follow sequence, visualise scene - have a character to hang on to - I'll read it all. Author needs only slip in key words 'fat,' or 'fool' or 'unsuccessful in almost every way,' I'll follow HER journey down the drain to p.200...we are bonded, 'less author provides unrelenting stream of 'was,' 'had,' 'just,' plus addition of personal CW hate word 'tendrils,' oh, and also 'like a marionette.' - but incredibly, creating that lucidity on the page is the most difficult thing. ... [Though some people talk about Mary Sue - another 'bad thing.'] Drivel, bed time.
Dude, you were the one who made the pointed remark that set other people off. Don't act like your at the top of the hill on calm, polite behaviour. And while doing so, I add, being condescending to the other people who you were talking to.
Again, depends on how we're unpacking the term. Is it strong character who's female, or strong female who's a character? And what do we mean by "strong" in either context? I'm not at all interested in comic-book heroes whether they're male or female, but I want characters who are strongly created (ie. well written, complex, coherent...)
Listen mate, I have absolutely no desire to enter into an argument with you or anyone else on this forum whatsoever, but it seems to me that there are some extremely touchy people here who like nothing more than jumping on other people's backs if the PC line is crossed. That much is obvious to me anyway. I knew as soon as I posted about my beloved Lara and the feminists point of view that it would result in this childish nonsense and quite frankly, I don't care. I've got much more important things to do with my life, but I will reply in the manner that I have done so already in future if others decide to get all snarky and personal. Oh and my stress pill comment clearly fell on stony ground...HAL 9000 anyone? That's the last I'm saying on this matter, you'll all be pleased to know as I have a book to write.
You're asking loaded questions. Clearly these people are identifying as egalitarians and not feminist. Most people take a central position somewhere between moderate Feminism and moderate MRA. They believe both sexes have their issues, but are uninterested in identity politics. Most people are simply out to be entertained, and don't expect their entertainment to be empowering by feminist standards. An author can't please everyone and must make a choice. If they try to please the vocal feminist critics and make designs and storys they're happy with, you displease others. If you try to please others, you displease feminist critics. Paul Feig went purely down the feminist route creatively, uncompromisingly, and it flopped, with the most disliked film trailer on youtube. As a creator, you can choose to take the word of people who may have degrees in women's and gender studies, but don't create art themselves or if they do, at an amateur level, telling you your story will be better if you followed these feminist ideals, or you can actually look at the completed work of a man who's a strident feminist, who followed those ideals to a T, and how he's done in the real world, you can look at actual feminist video games to see how they've performed, and so on, same with graphic novels and use that as your benchmark as to how beneficial these critiques really are. Does making the strong female character feminist, actually benefit the STORY. Not little girls, not the cause for women's rights, not men, not boys, not the world, not the environment, not collective consciousness, none of that. Does it benefit the story. That's all that matters.
What does the above have to do with the discussion? This sub-discussion was about the claim that feminists are a minority.
This discussion has been mostly polite and the pointedness hasn't been particularly strong, plus it hasn't gone on for very long. So relatively it's faired quite well.
Well, there is plenty of meaning to offense. I'd think you were able to see through the fear of the PC Demon to recognize that impacts on women are as okay as impacts on Jewish people. There's no justification for being mean to either. Now, there are pointed jokes and criticisms you can make, and one person complaining does not make it too far. But, there's plenty of reason to think about the impact of what you write, especially given how easy it is. And some aspects of social justice ideas about writing are beneficial, the push away from stereotypes and shallow depictions while sometimes crusade-y and dichotomist does benefit realistic character design. As long as you have your own sensible idea of how the ideas apply.
