@Iain Aschendale This will sound kinda funny, but what are your thoughts when a woman writes a woman in a similar fashion to the way you have described? I have had the pleasure of reading something to similar effect, only by a woman writing about a woman.
Not a fan of characters like that. I like characters who think strategically, who respect danger and who do things for understandable reasons. On another writing site I won't mention, there was serious talk about a woman warrior carrying children into war when she could have had the option of leaving them home. Why? Cos she's just so skilled and arrogant or something she believes her kids would be safer with her. Never mind violence and death is still traumatizing in your world, right? RIGHT?! Then in my college library I saw a comic with Spiderwoman on it with a HUGE baby bump with a spine snapping feminist pose. I'd seen that cover before but I thought that was just the cover. Sure enough inside she's leaping around like froggart massively pregnant. The most ludicrous thing I've seen in awhile. Isn't shaking babies bad? Or does her superpowers allow her to magically absorb shocks beyond what the human womb can take. Oh she must have a spider womb too I guess. Extra dual suspension. And some doctor must have told her she could get away with that somehow. More likely, she just turned off her brain and assumed everything will work out. Satele Shan from Star Wars the old republic. A 30 year old jedi knight randomly has a six month sex romp with Colonel Jace Malcom culminating with a pregnancy. Never mind the jedi code forbids it, never mind Arren Kae was permanently expelled from the jedi for the exact same thing, Shan turns her back on 30 years of training and jedi indoctrination. Erm, if it was that easy, why aren't other jedi doing it? She just turned off her brain and assumed everything will work out. Alas she was right! Not only do they hypocritically not expel her, they tell her to get rid of the baby, give it away, and she does! Doesn't tell them to get bent and raise her son like a real mother, just cuts him loose! Never sees him again! And then is promoted to Grandmaster of the Jedi Order some years after. The equivalent of YODA! So basically if you're a deadbeat parent you inherit great things? What an amazing lesson for the kids! Or Bella Swan as we all know. Still dates the guy who breaks into her house and watches her sleep. Who admits he's a murderer. Turns off her brain and assumed everything will work out. Or Padme's "to be angry is to be human" Just heard Anakin killed men, women and children. Just turn off your brain and marry him anyway! Gotta get dem bad boys in, right? In Eragon - Saphira chose eragon over Arya...why? nasuada's cutting herself, why? The Varden are marching on Urubaen...why? None of this would make sense to Arya. Don't question anything you 120 year old elf who's meant to be smart and logical. Just turn off your brain and assume everything will work out. In Lord of the Rings two towers film version, Eowyn and the other women of Rohan , fully trained to fight, stay underground cowering with the kids while bewildered looking ten year old boys are given swords and shields up above! Don't question their patriarchal bullshit! Turn off your brain! You know the rest! Those noodle armed little boys could totally kick your asses anyway! Or in Matrix Reloaded, Trinity jumps out a window from a skyscraper when fighting an agent (?). How does that help you again? If he didn't shoot her, what would she have done? Die? Did she...plan to get hit caught by Neo at Mach 10? I hate female characters like that. They don't think like they care. About anything. They don't challenge anything.
Whether they wish to admit it or not, when men include women in their work it's as a utility device; shore up the man's image, endorse the man's choices or approach, validate the man's manliness in some way. If not that, then to vindicate the author's view of women, which unfortunately is anecdotally derived from limited experience...condemning more than half the world's population 'cause some girl ditched you kinda thing. Robert Heinlein was notoriously bad at women's dialogue, as another for instance. He wrote rather well until he reached that then it was like he fashioned a Mercedes out of tin. I was always left with the impression he hadn't had much experience speaking to women. Or, at least, men have to admit they speak to women (by and large and yeah it's a generalization - but no less true for that fact) under specific conditions about a limited range of things. This is why I suggested trying to write how a woman would talk to a woman. I shouldn't have to explain further.
@Phil Mitchell Just to add a couple to your list. 50Shades- Anna Steele: Why I love a man who treats me like a sex doll and abuses me, gotta sign that contract. Because money trumps brain. His To Use-Melody: Sure being homeless sucks, but this guy said it would be a year off the streets. All I need to do is agree to do whatever he wants. (Ends up with a bed and food, anally raped and tortured various ways.) But its ok because reasons... We need to combine all of this into one solitary character. The pinnacle of poorly written characters slave to plot demands.
I think the pinnacle has to be this: He's thousands of times weaker than her but.... I'M GOING, WHEN I GET BACK HAVE DINNER ON THE TABLE WOMAN! XD
I've written two books from a 3rd person female perspective. Actually, the first one bounced back and forth between a male and female perspective, which was fun. My women readers enjoyed both books and have thus far offered no criticism on my portrayal of females. Thus fueled by this resulting arrogance I have decided to undertake a new WIP written in first person female. Why do I feel like I can get away with this? Well, if I may pat myself on the back a little...to be able to write convincing characters you need to be a student of the human race. I've had half a century of experience studying people; how they act, how they talk, how they react to situations, etc. It really shouldn't matter all that much which gender they are. If I've been a good student I should be able to depict either sex equally well, at least in 3rd person. First person is a bit trickier because now I'm truly in her head. I have to know how her thought processes work and be able to rationalize her own behavior to herself and the reader. Being I'm still on Chapter One it is too soon to tell if I'm successful but I think this particular story is better told in first person...and from the female perspective (there is an equal male character as well). If I chose to use first person male the story would look different and I don't think it would be as flattering to the female character. We'd just see her react to situations and not be able to convey her reasoning properly. For reasons I can't explain I also find it easier to write stories with female MC's. Makes no sense to me but that is my reality. I also think by using the opposite sex I'm forced to think my MC through with more detail. If I write a male they usually are a bit too vanilla, probably because my mind is too comfortable with my own sex. I assume instant knowledge but don't relay it to the reader as well because I don't really pay attention to how I'm developing the character.
I see gender as just a layer of personality. I first write a person the way I would any other. I make them initially genderless if I have to. Then, after I have fleshed them out plenty, I sprinkle on the nuances of gender. I'll ask myself things like "how would being a woman make this scenario or the character's reactions different?"
I'd like to disagree with that. Yes, that is the most common way to do it, many novels and almost all Hollywood movies prove it, but that doesn't mean that everyone does. This is a generalisation. Some have women in these support-only roles, because they don't want to stand out, some do it, because they imagined all important characters being male and then they were desperately looking for a place to put a female character in. But every once in a while you stumble across a female protagonist in a novel written by a man. And sometimes it's a really great one, too. Now, I can't speak for every book ever written, but from what I have read I would assume that the most well-rounded and interesting female characters are actually written by men. An example would be Lisbeth Salander, created by Stephen King, another, older, example would be Antigone. In my humble opinion there are very few characters (even male) that reach the depth of these two, especially Antigone. The second thing you said, about vindicating, is kinda fascinating though. Writing is - at least what it's for some - a way of dealing with experiences, and this means that what you write is always gonna be biased. Writing a novel is not portraying the real world(unless you're writing about historical people) so as an author you are allowed to do certain things. In a novel you are allowed to say: "All women are (lets say) sluts" and it will be true for your novel, and your novel ONLY. As long as both author and audience recognize that, there's no problem.
It says in the text it's a generalization. Thanks for pointing that out. Using Stephen King as an example when he himself said he is a poor writer and can't understand his success? This is a response based on dogma, nothing more.
Lisbeth Salander is from Stieg Larsson, surely, not Stephen King? I agree, though, that it's totally possible for men to write women well. They just have to get past the idea that they're writing A Woman and just write a character.
You can also quote Socrates although he said that he knew he knew nothing. If he knows nothing why do you consider him am authority then? There is nothing wrong in using King as an example. He may be a poor writer in regards to his own expectations and ideals, but the fact remains he is considered one of the best modern day authors.
I'd agree that Stephen King does write compelling female characters, at least in some of his books. His main characters tend to be male, I think, but I can't remember ever having rolled my eyes at his portrayal of female characters in secondary roles.
Ummm....right. Socrates and Stephen King...don't let anyone tell yah you're dogmatic. Woof. Woof. He's not "considered" to be one of the best modern day authors. He's considered to be one of the most $ucce$$ful authors in the late 20th Century. There's a difference.
And he is succesful because he is bad,eh? Thats some great logic. How about you stopped contradicting me in the little details just for the sake of contradicting and focused on my main point?
He's been doing his best impression of a common troll since he showed up, I wouldn't sweat it too much.
Fortunately he has a memorable username. Tip of the Day: if you click on someone's name on the left side of their post, a little window pops up with a very handy "Ignore" button. It's quite effective.
The quality of Stephen King's writing can be debated and I think King himself would enjoy the debate. What I don't think can be argued much--and what also explains his huge success--is that he is an exceptional story teller. The two do not always go hand-in-hand. King writes great entertainment but I don't think much--if any--of it will be regarded as 'literature' in the same vein as Twain and Dickens.
Thank you for saying this. I've been reading over the past few pages of this thread, and the excellent long comment by @Phil Mitchell using Star Wars, Twilight, LotR, etc as examples. And all the while thinking ...they've sacrificed the integrity of their characters to service the plot. (Mind you, these are all movies or TV shows, not books. Tolkien's written story didn't emphasize the 'warrior woman' aspect of Eowyn's character. In fact, we got the distinct impression she was NOT trained.) If you say to yourself, as a writer ...I want this to happen because it's part of the all-important plot, so I'll just stick a character in there and make it happen ...then you're very likely to create a situation where your character discards his or her brain and does stupid stuff. I'm a much bigger fan of a character-driven story, because a plausible plot usually unfolds around a believable character, even though it may take more time to create it. Just sayin'....
@ddavidv: Certainly, as popular literature and the literature you mentioned have somewhat different rules. Just like music. The books you mentioned also porbably adress a different type of audience, or at least require that you invest some time understanding it
This post leaves me thinking you are the one with limited experience of women. When I (and indeed most male writers) include women in their work its because women make up roughly half of the population and with a few exceptions its impossible to be realistic with a male only cast. As to writing a definitive description of how women talk to women - that's impossible because every woman is different, just as every man is different , because we're all people , and female characters are individuals not cardboard cut out two dimensional beings entirely defined by their sex.
I rarely experience this in literature but it might just be a coincidence that I haven't - I also read overwhelmingly much literature by woman (not a choice, btw, it just happened that way). However, I can think of a few (okay, more than a few) experiences in life where (some) men have thought that we spend 90% of our time thinking about men. It's not that we don't like it, but I men are probably the least talked about topic when I meet my female friends - and we are very much girly girls Also, don't get this wrong, but we usually know that men like us, so we don't need to obsess too much over it. But what do I know? I am woman who finds nothing sexier than a shy, nerdy, dependable man, so I don't fit in literature's picture of women.
