And, of course, failing the test doesn't make you a "bad" person or mean that you've written a "bad" book. The point of the test, as I understand it, was to point out overall trends in media. So if you write a book that doesn't pass the test, you're part of the overall trend, that's all. Some people are interested in bucking the trend, and if they are, the test is useful. ETA: Cross-posted with @hawls
They aren't there for the purposes of racism/sexism/otherism issues. They're just people who happen to not be white males.
Eh. My book's set in a world that is sexist, racist and homophobic world. I pass the Bechdel test so long as you don't class a male corpse as a man. I don't pass the Mako Mori test on the grounds of I only have my main plot, and my main character is male.
Thanks for all the interesting comments. I think the biggest glaring issue for my WIP is there's never a scene where two main female characters ever talk to each other. I think I pass everything else. Sort of. I'm probably over thinking the issue.
The thing with these tests is the longer the thing goes on for the easier it is to pass them. So tv shows get an unfair advantage, particuarly very long running ones.(as demonstrated by Buffy's spectacular list of passes over it's long run) All they need is chance and sooner or later they do a scene or character that passes, but it doesn't guarantee their values shown. (Not that I'm saying Buffy's sexist) And tbh, I don't think media representation is much of an issue. There's plenty of good representation out there for everyone. It's not equally fair among groups, but I think it's overhyped as a talking point.
I wonder how the Mako Mori test defines a narrative arc, particularly for literature (although I think it's an ambiguous enough term that even its original application in film could get sketchy). I assume the female character must be acting as the protagonist in either a subplot, the main plot or a self-contained section of it. I assume that she doesn't necessarily have to be the point-of-view character, because there are an awful lot of stories that have only one POV character (male) but otherwise represent females fairly. Granted, I'm picking nits; it seems that it's more a device to raise awareness of female representation and the specific results don't matter as much as the big picture (as many have pointed out).
That assumes that all these characters and situations are already there in the story, naturally. But here's my point: How does mentioning a male character automatically mean the conversation is "about a man"? Two female characters are talking about work the office. One of their colleagues is a man. He gets mentioned in context of the work. They're not talking about him--but that fails. The two women are talking about race relations and social change. One of them mentions something her father used to say. They're not talking about her father; he just gets mentioned (they also mention her mother and someone else's grandmother). That fails. Two women are talking about work again. The lead client on that particular job, a government official, is a man. They're not talking about him, per se, they're talking about are they going to get the job. But that fails. You might say I should change the gender of these secondary characters. But that would change the dynamic of the story, and I refuse to do it to pass a PC test. Believe it or not, this novel features a female main character with her own, independent arc; in fact, her choosing to be independent of the hero at the crucial moment is the key to the plot. And it purposely raises questions of gender inequality. But maybe I should mention that it takes place in the 1960s to early 1980s? Now, my second project, which is set in the 2010s, does have woman-to-woman conversations where no men are mentioned or involved. But the milieu is different. And the conversations are natural to the plot, not imposed by outside rule.
So is mentioning a man, any man, in a conversation about something else "supporting" him or "tying" the female character to him? I disagree. Strongly.
I don't even know how you got that impression from anything that I said. I have been frantically re-reading my post several times out of social anxiety because I never meant to imply anything of the sort! I'm hoping you were just replying to the topic in general and not to my post specifically. To add, the test demonstrably does not measure quality. It was never intended to. That wasn't the point. Aggressively (obsessively?) applying it to all books, tv shows and films past and present is pointless. It's a meaningless gimmick that reveals nothing of the true value of the work.
For what it's worth, they don't need to be main female characters, just female characters. (Though some versions of the test want them to have names.)
Not necessarily. But... Ok, analogy. I remember reading that a huge, HUGE, percentage of products in the US involve corn in some way. (If you're going "huh?" think of corn starch on boxes of little rubber gloves to keep the gloves from sticking together, as one tiny example.) Now,the fact that corn was used six different ways in manufacturing and packaging a tricycle doesn't mean that the tricycle is "about" corn or is a corn product. It doesn't mean consumers are going out and saying, "I want a tricycle with lots of corn." But it does mean that when US manufacturers have a need, they tend to go to corn. It's what worked before, it's familiar, it's what they do. They aren't going to stray out of familiar territory and use rice; they use corn. In this analogy, male characters are corn and female characters are rice. When the main character is male, the rest of the world tends to be male--it's only female when there's a specific need. When the main character is female, the rest of the world still tends to be male--it's only female when there's a specific need.
I think you're taking the test the wrong way. Maybe it's because of the word "test" and "fail"? But the "you might say" part and "I refuse to do it to pass a PC test" really seems like you're looking for an argument no one is making. It's like someone responding to the idea of white privilege by saying "So, what do you want me to do, dye my skin black? Is that what you want? Or should I just stay at home and never apply for a job and never compete against a person of colour for anything ever?!?" - uh, no. No one is suggesting that. The term is just a tool for increased awareness. The test is just a tool for increased awareness. It's descriptive, not prescriptive.
OK, not 100% sure about the Bechdel test, (will have to look up my character's conversations with the other girls in the book), but I'm thinking yes ... More importantly, what if the story has no women - or only has one woman - in it? what then? Now I see where Mako comes into it (Pacific Rim) Does it guarantee success?? I'm not so sure! Maybe I should put that point in my next query letter ...
The problem with the use of the Bechdel test is both sides use it to make statements about a specific work without necessarily looking at the larger context. The test is as way to change perception or increase awareness across an entire genre, medium, or what have you. Looking at any given work in view of the test may not tell you anything useful. Examining the full corpus of a genre, on the other hand, may tell you quite a bit.
I was actually kinda sad when I realized my own WIP didn't pass the Bechdel test, despite the fact it does feature strong female characters central to the plot. However at the same time I don't want to force changes on it just for the sake of doing so. I'd have to agree with the comment of Hawls and say it is a test rather than a law, and most publishers probably won't be particularly interested in it.
Yep, and another point people seem to forget is that the test says nothing about quality. It's not saying that a book is good if it passes, and bad if it doesn't.
I was just thinking that myself. I mean, what if the story has no women? Or has one woman? Sometimes, gender equality is a crock of shit! And personally speaking, I liked Pacific Rim!
Well, it may or may not be worth thinking about why the story has no women. Is it obviously logical, or did the author just choose a man for every cab driver, cop, hotel clerk, food-cart seller, waitperson, random person in elevator, college professor, etc., etc., etc., because that author's mind automatically goes to men when populating their world? And is that author interested in perhaps changing that automatic reflex? If they decide they're not, so be it, but the test may be what makes them realize that they have that reflex.
Well, I think the point of the test is that so often stories DO have hardly any women, or at least not women in meaningful roles. Again, not a problem on an individual basis, anymore than it's a problem if an individual story perpetuates stereotypes about a minority group. But when a LOT of stories don't have women in meaningful roles, or when a LOT of stories perpetuate stereotypes, it's an issue.
And if a LOT of stories don't have women in meaningful roles, is that because a lot of authors think of male as the default as women as other? And if so... isn't that worrying?
To me, it depends on the setting. If it's a feudalistic world, fantasy or not, I'm willing to accept it. Though if it is fantasy it depends on the level of it. If it's set in the future or is sci fi, that's where I get a bit iffy.
Yes, but in terms of shopkeeps, being property owners, or having certain jobs, it was illegal. Plus, as a person writing low fantasy, most of my side characters are women as the men went to war.
But an "arc" doesn't only apply to a POV character, right? I mean, I assume your book has female characters dotted throughout it, that we probably see more than once. If they are also responding and changing in some way to the events around them, then they have an arc. Say, your POV character's wife, we see her at the beginning having a nice conversation over dinner. We see her a few chapters in, having the same conversation, only her husband's distracted by work and not really listening, we see her a bit later where they have a bit of an argument because he's not been paying attention to her, and we see her at the end where she's stopped bothering to try and engage him in conversation, but is pleasantly surprised when he asks her how her day's been. That's an arc. It's not a main character arc, but it means she's a bit more than window dressing, she's a fully fleshed out human being with her own thoughts in her head and her own responses to the world.
