Characters you dislike

Discussion in 'Character Development' started by Chinspinner, Jan 12, 2015.

  1. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    I know right?

    Which is strange 'cause I consider myself a feminist, and I don't mind a wholesome female character at all. It's just that years of combat sports and other traditionally "manly" hobbies have stripped off some the idealism and replaced it with realism. :wtf:
     
    NewEnterprise likes this.
  2. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    Can you give an example of a character like this? I don't think I've encountered one...
     
  3. Leviathan

    Leviathan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Ayla from the earth children series comes to mind,
    a cro-magnum from the stone age who discovered, among others, using pyrite to make fire, domestication of animals (horses, wolves and even lions) and the mechanics of reproduction. She has also shown to be able to learn new languages after hearing two sentences spoken, is an accomplished healer and hunter, and can see the future (skyscrapers) when intoxicated.
     
  4. Leviathan

    Leviathan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Though more of a mary sue then a case of 'women are better'. Since other women are also in awe of the invincible Ayla.
     
  5. NewEnterprise

    NewEnterprise Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Australia
    Stephenie Meyers toes the line quite a bit between female characters who are semi-believable, overly unstable and manic, and the femi-nazi character I mentioned before. Don't rate her :p

    Whereas if you look at another teen-fiction character of a similar vein like Hermione Granger - I think you find a fantastically developed character who I myself sympathised with as a child!

    Ionno, some girls just irk me...
     
  6. Steerpike

    Steerpike Felis amatus Contributor

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2010
    Messages:
    13,984
    Likes Received:
    8,557
    Location:
    California, US
    Use of the term "feminazi" doesn't add weight to an argument.
     
    Tenderiser and ChickenFreak like this.
  7. NewEnterprise

    NewEnterprise Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Australia
    I love the term :p

    I doubt I'd use it in literature it's just a funny idea
     
  8. Leviathan

    Leviathan Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2015
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I always thought Stephenie Meyer's characters where the opposite of feminist, being unable to function without their boyfriends and all that. I may remember wrong, but I'd think Bella spent more time swooning over how pretty boys were then doing stuff.
     
  9. NewEnterprise

    NewEnterprise Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Australia
    Yeah that'd be the grey line toward the unstable end of the spectrum haha

    Swooning over Jacob and Edward seemed to be Bella's main preoccupation for some of the time... maybe not dissimilar for many real-life 14 year olds! :p
     
  10. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    When Women Were Warriors -series is to me an example of a feminist statement with decidedly feminist characters, who, unfortunately do things often in such an unrealistic manner that it makes it look like women are so incompetent they can only get by with the power of magic and fantasy. I know not everyone gives two shits about realism, and yeah, matriarchal societies have existed (although not all that many), but back in the medieval times, it kiiiind of made sense that men did the fighting and died while women ensured that their tribe survived. In modern warfare this isn't really relevant, but in those novels' context, I was like wtf. Yeah, I couldn't read them all, I tend to drop a book I find insufferable, so there must've been some redeeming factors as well.

    It's not a feminist statement per se, although it's possible Joe Abercrombie capitalized on the Strong Independent Women craze with his Best Served Cold and the First Law series, but it irked me to no end how he first creates this gritty hack'n slash fantasy setting with a generous dollop of realism when it comes to society, bloodshed, and unpleasantness of war, but then I'm supposed to buy that these skinny little ladies overpower big, trained warriors, no firearms allowed? Sure, I've heard women half my size brag they knocked out a guy in karate by poking them in the eye (huh?) or leveled several dudes in a bar fight, but in general, unfortunately, you need both skill and muscle to take down a musclebound, trained guy. The difference in strength can be really unnerving and inconvenient sometimes. I appreciate Abercrombie wrote these characters 'cause they're fun and interesting, but give us some credit: we can also get big and strong, and yeah, it might not be convenient to your beauty ideals ("urgh, mannish muscles"), but the time of women having to also serve as ornaments is past. Besides, if you look at e.g. female cross-fit competitors, they're crazy strong and functional, but not mannish (exceptions do exist).

    Torin Kerr, a character by Tanya Huff, is kind of like the Jack Reacher of women. Her morning run is 50K long. A friend of mine writes a fantasy series, and while I do love the fact that her characters aren't cardboard cut-outs when it comes to their behavior, I'm not a fan of the crazy super-powery acrobatic fighting her thin, big-breasted female leads do (they don't have super powers).

    I disagree about Twilight being much of a feminist work, though. Bella is just a Mary Sue, an avatar for the author to play out her vampire love fantasies. But, really, who doesn't play out their fantasies through writing? It's just that hers doesn't appeal to me.
     
    NewEnterprise, T.Trian and EllBeEss like this.
  11. Chinspinner

    Chinspinner Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,901
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    Location:
    London, now Auckland
    Yeah, the idea that dexterity and finesse will somehow overcome brute strength is a nonsense. If you put Bruce Lee and I dunno- one of them WWF fellahs (don't watch it, so don't know their names, and in this scenario they wouldn't be play-acting) in an arena the fight would be over in seconds and Bruce Lee wouldn't be walking out.

    There was some crap I watched with Angelina Jolie as some super-spy. It was utter crap, made a whole lot worse by the fact she threw punches like Roger Moore (but she was playing the part straight unlike his version of James Bond). They were the sort of punches where the only reaction would be "ouch, what did you do that for?"

    But it seems that aesthetics are more important than any semblance of realism in these things.
     
  12. EllBeEss

    EllBeEss Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2013
    Messages:
    299
    Likes Received:
    108
    Location:
    Perth
    I agree wholeheartedly with this. I think that in some cases having ridiculously strong female characters is just as bad as having women in stories exist only as victims and love interests. I really hate the idea that women are allowed to be good at anything and kick ass so long as they're pretty, size 8 and have big boobs. Women can be strong characters without beating up men.

    I dislike most female comic relief characters. I really dislike are women characters, especially otherwise well rounded characters, who just have it thrown in there that they're capable of beating up grown men, as if to prove they're not weak and incompetent.

    I can't recall the name of the book but one example occurred in a book I was reading a few years ago. A few chapters into the book MC (thin teenage girl) is going for a run. She runs into Love Interest and they have a slightly awkward conversation. She flips him over her shoulder and jogs away quite calmly.

    Not only was there no indication that she was capable of throwing grown men over her shoulder without thought or apparent effort but when it came to the climax of the novel she did nothing with her supposedly non super powers. It was never mentioned again. The conversation wouldn't even lead a normal person to punch someone in the arm, let alone throw them onto the side walk.
     
    T.Trian likes this.
  13. Jack Asher

    Jack Asher Banned Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2013
    Messages:
    3,545
    Likes Received:
    2,083
    Location:
    Denver
    Dude, Lee was incredibly strong and fought more and harder then anyone in the WWF. Weight isn't everything in a fight, and there's little more that a WWF fighter can bring to the table. Being faster then the cameras can record you helps, and breaking bones with a one inch punch is not something the wrestlers train for.
     
  14. Chinspinner

    Chinspinner Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2011
    Messages:
    1,901
    Likes Received:
    1,023
    Location:
    London, now Auckland
    There is this strange myth surrounding Bruce Lee that is propagated by speeded up footage in his films and general hero worship. This is an argument that is not worth having, if you believe that an 9 stone Bruce Lee would have a hope in hell against an 18+ stone wrestler you have a screw loose.
     
  15. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    Yeah. Even smaller women can handle weapons, like swords, very effectively. Small women (and men) are deadly with firearms. In fiction, I think it just comes down to how it's written and choreographed. If you were born petite (I'm flimsy as fuck), you'll learn to work around it and use your strengths to defeat your opponent. If you're not strong, you can be quick. You can be accurate. You learn to use what bodyweight you have to your advantage. You learn weapons and become a 400m dash expert. You can be smart about it. There're so many tools at the writer's disposal, but I guess they aren't as fancy or, I don't know, empowering.

    It is disheartening when a punch from a guy hurts like all hell and can knock you out, while a punch from a competent woman you can more often shrug off.

    And it sucks when sub wrestling and the guy uses his superior strength and considerable weight to submit you. No technique needed, just slam your whole bodyweight on her and force her hand... literally, sometimes. Now I won't complain too much, 'cause it's their loss (well, my loss the next morning) if they don't bother learning technique, but it kinda makes you picky when reading fiction. I feel cheated, hence I dislike such characters. Since most people don't really know about this stuff, they aren't bothered.
     
    T.Trian likes this.
  16. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    My thoughts exactly. :wtf:
     
  17. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689
    I agree that there are lots of ridiculously written female characters out there. For sure.

    But the post that started this line of discussion had a few different criteria rather than just "ridiculously empowered".

    Bolding mine:

    So, for the examples that I recognized above: Ayla's annoyingly subservient to males, isn't she? Not exactly smashing the patriarchy, and her goals, as I recall, seemed to be centred around surviving the winter? (I think I only read the first book or two - maybe she gets more ambitious later).

    I haven't read the Twilight books, but from what I've seen I'd have to agree that they're in no way feminist novels. Was there scoffing, tradition-tearing, and idealistic-goaling?

    And I don't remember the women in Abercrombie's books having idealistic goals, that's for sure. Some scoffing, I guess, but not really centred around the patriarchy...

    I haven't read the other books mentioned.

    So, yeah, I agree, there are lots of unrealistic female characters out there. But I don't think I've seen the rest of the criteria being met.

    Personally I think it's simplistic and essentially anti-feminist when authors seem to think that a "strong" female character is one that is most able to excel at traditionally 'male' virtues, while still remaining dainty and attractive to men. I don't see much patriarchy-smashing in the books that are being offered as examples (to be fair, I think this is because they were meant as examples of the "ridiculously empowered" part of the earlier post, not the rest of it).
     
    Tenderiser likes this.
  18. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    @BayView I brought up When Women Were Warriors ''cause to me it read like an unrealistic feminist utopia anthem, but like I said, I didn't finish the series 'cause I found it a waste of time. Maybe it got better. But I do agree with some of the aspects @NewEnterprise brought up. I'd be interested to read that one woman's... what's her name, Cameron Something? Her novels 'cause she seems super conscious of representations of women in fiction. I also follow the blog of one woman writer, Linda Maye Adams, and sometimes she seems so conscious of sending a feminist message, I gotta wonder if she's getting a bit carried away. Although her soldiering depictions are realistic 'cause she's an ex-soldier. Personally I dislike it when idealism has replaced realism in a work of fiction, which is weird I guess since it is fiction, but that's me.
     
  19. NewEnterprise

    NewEnterprise Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Australia
    Yeah I have skimmed over When Women Were Warriors and I thought much the same as you @KaTrian

    I know it's fiction and people tend to create their "ideal" even if it's exaggerated - but some ideals irk me more than others haha
     
  20. BayView

    BayView Huh. Interesting. Contributor

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    10,462
    Likes Received:
    11,689

    I haven't read those, so I can't comment on them.

    And I agree that it can be annoying to read idealism instead of realism, but hope you're making that statement with an understanding that both "idealism" and "realism" are in the eye of the beholder. Is it "realism" to assume that because things are one way in one culture, or even one way in many cultures, that's the only way they could ever be? Or is it actually a form of idealism, believing that our version of "reality" is somehow universal and truly real?
     
  21. KaTrian

    KaTrian A foolish little beast. Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2013
    Messages:
    6,764
    Likes Received:
    5,393
    Location:
    Funland
    With When Women Were Warriors, it was quite clear the characters were humans and women gave birth, so I expected women would be protected more by the men to ensure the survival of the tribe. Guess their minds didn't work that way, then.

    Alternative realities can be very interesting, but I expect the author to offer me the parameters, the hows and whys, so I can believe it. If their physics work differently, fine, but I'd like it to be cohesive, not convenient.

    There could be e.g. a matriarchal society where the women decide who they mate with to ensure the best genes are passed on from the strongest men (and women), and because they're responsible for that, they could also be the leaders of said society. I think in the TV show Andromeda they did something like that with Nietzcheans. The women could also decide after mating whether they'd keep the child or not.
     
  22. T.Trian

    T.Trian Overly Pompous Bastard Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2013
    Messages:
    2,253
    Likes Received:
    1,470
    Location:
    Mushroom Land
    I actually enjoy the feminist anthem/fuck patriarchy -kind of female characters, but, just like with every other character type, only when they're done well (yes, it IS possible to write them well). Good, realistic depictions of such characters just seem to be extremely rare in action-oriented sci-fi and fantasy. In addition to Brienne of Tarth, I can't think of any, actually, and even she was too dim for her own good... and actually she was also all about serving a man. What gives?

    To elaborate on the hopeless state of female fantasy/sci-fi warriors and from where I believe many of the problems are stemming:
    I really hate the "eww, she's so manly! She looks like a man!" -type of reaction to very muscular, small-breasted (and *gasp* short-haired) characters because the moron saying that is (even when they think they aren't) essentially saying "to be feminine is to be weak and to be masculine is to be strong." I mean wtf? Do we still live in the stone age? Sure, it requires more effort from a woman to become a serious threat to trained men with longswords than with modern firearms, but it's nonetheless perfectly possible, especially in a non-historic fantasy setting depicting a society where women can become warriors without facing the wrath of, well, just about everyone, male and female.

    Furthermore, the notion that only weak (and weak-looking) women can be womanly Women with a capital 'W' is just old-fashioned and, in my opinion, misogynistic, as if women are only valuable as representatives of their sex as long as they are nice to look at (for the dim-witted, misogynistic assholes anyway) and remain easily controllable i.e. weak.
    Why all the resistance to women who are not only strong but look the part? Too intimidating because they could kick your ass even without a gun? Whatever happened to seeing beauty in function or does that only apply to everything else but women? What happened to the idea that all healthy bodytypes can look good? Yes, it's perfectly possible for women to become strong even without anabolic steroids or other such illegal and unhealthy performance enhancers (only the aforementioned misogynist morons cry "steroids!" every time they see a woman with more muscle than catwalk models).

    To carry on from what @KaTrian said, that's where realism comes into play: if we are to believe that the story's humans are like us, it means the female warriors need to be strong enough to survive against trained men since you can't always rely on tactics and cunning. Sometimes you just need brute strength or at least enough of it, and, alas, when the person is already using proper technique and form, the rest of their strength is largely tied to the size of their muscles. That means that if I am to believe a swordswoman is consistently beating trained men in various fights, some involving less tactics and more brawn, she needs to at least look like crossfit athletes, for example. After all, for me to believe a man can consistently whoop the asses of other trained fighters, I expect him to look the part. "Surprisingly," they practically always do (sans those probably written mostly by Legolas and anime fans). Often the male heroes are even more muscular than necessary to be able to do what's depicteed in the story. How's that equal?
    I get that for women to become muscular, their diets need enough calories and enough protein, but guess what? The same applies to men, so if the story's men can eat enough meat etc. to grow big, strong muscles, and the story's setting allows women to also be warriors, it just stands to reason that they, too, have enough protein to eat to help build those muscles.

    Likewise, I expect their gear to make sense as well. Usually, again, it's acceptable for men to wear sensibly covering armor and carry suitable weapons, but for idiotic reasons, women are still usually stuffed into chainmail bikinis (or some equally sensless garb) and given tiny knives/projectile weapons impractical at close quarters or, in more contemporary or futuristic settings, tiny (and in reality comparably inaccurate) pistols when they go against men armed with AR-15s fitted with scopes/red dot sights even though fact is, rifles actually require LESS strength to be used effectively than pistols. Why is this since women can full well use rifles/carbines as well as longswords which are light enough for a 12yo girl to wield effectively? Oh yeah: unlike men, women need to look pretty (read "weak and unintimidating to the male reader's withered masculinity") even when they're supposed to be fighters. Hence the shortage of small-breasted, and muscular action heroines who don't wear make-up and high heels to combat.

    Am I preaching to the choir here?
     
  23. NewEnterprise

    NewEnterprise Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    35
    Likes Received:
    16
    Location:
    Australia
    @T.Trian Preach *hallelujah*

    Video games are also fairly representative of what you're talking about.

    Like, I'm not saying I want my female characters to be armed with Germaine Greer novels, a bald cut and distrust for all mankind... but I would like an action-female to appear to have gone through some sort of practical training which would lead her to the conclusion that the chainmail bikini is NOT a good piece of equipment.
     
    EllBeEss, T.Trian and KaTrian like this.
  24. Bryan Romer

    Bryan Romer Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2014
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    391
    Smaller people of either sex can be effective warriors. Just ask the European knights who came up against the Mongols. But it requires adopting the right combat styles and equipment, plus the right training and motivation.

    As for injuries, a human being can absorb amazing amounts of injury and still function. He or she may not survive long term due to blood loss or infection, but they can fight. There are documented cases of people fighting on with a limb cut off, or with several arrows in their body. There was a WW1 (I think) case of a soldier who was shot 33 times fighting his way through enemy forces and who still walked back to his own lines.

    Whiny teenagers are my biggest turn off. If it is the Zombie Apocalypse and he or she is still whiny that teenager should be the first to be fed to the zombies as a distraction.
     
  25. Some_Bloke

    Some_Bloke Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2014
    Messages:
    110
    Likes Received:
    34
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    I'm okay with this character if they eventually change. Like they have a younger sibling and their parents are killed so they have to take on the role of a carer or in the case of a zombie apocalypse, they have to change their ways in order to survive.

    Basically, they start of whiny and then something bad happens that they either feel responsible for or makes them feel responsible and thus they change their ways. If they never change, then I don't feel anything if the character dies.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice