Strong Female Characters
Jul. 10th, 2008 09:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
flyingskullThe short version: When Angua was all chirpy and happy for Cheery because female dwarfs can do everything that the male dwarfs do, Cheery replied: "Yes, PROVIDED we ONLY do what the males do."
That's what I don't like in a lot of so-called strong female characters: they only do what the males do and the authors seem to forget they're, primarily, NOT males. Granted we're two genders of the same animal; granted, the similarities are more than the differences; but there are some differences and I think that to ignore them is the apex of bad writing. Well, maybe not that, but any author who writes males with boobs who are not transsexual or transgendered and calls them 'female' offends me.
I mean, it's not as if there's a dearth of strong female characters in literature that are primarily female with all the natural - I KNOW! Wrong word, perhaps, imprecise word at best. Not really important methinks, please bear with me - differences in mental/emotional processes, not to mention the differences generated by the cultural demands of society regarding gender roles.
Look at Sophie Hatter. She's strong, she's as badass - and it's so typical of male gender stereotyping that strong = badass a lot - as they come, she's the protagonist and hero of the story, she saves everyone... AND she's so female she uses housekeeping as a weapon of mass destruction; she's so female her magic is literally life-giving; she takes passive-aggressiveness to new heights and she makes wonderful lovely magic hats.
Look at Ayaka. She is the epitome of demure young womanhood and she steamrolls over everybody's life until they're living it the way she thinks it's best for them. She has a backbone of solid titanium - adamantium, even - that one. She takes ultra-polite badassness to and over the top.
And, of course, of course look at Granny, Nanny and Magrat. Look at Agnes. Look at Sybil. And look at how I could go on and on and on naming fucking STRONG female characters who are primarily female and do a lot of things that males do, but not all because they're not really interested in doing ALL the things that males do.
Mind you, some times the line dividing a well written truly strong FEMALE character and a sort of travesty of femaleness is really really thin. I admit I go by intuition while reading. It depends of what kind of subtext and implied bias I perceive in the text and I'm sure it's a very personal reaction, but I strongly feel there are lines that have not to be crossed.
Got that off me chest. *PUFF* Next, I think, villains. I love villains, there can be no hero without a suitable villain. I hate and loathe and despise badly written villains. I'd rather have a not so well written hero (of both sexes) than an uninteresting villain (of both sexes). Villain, how I love thee! :-D
That's what I don't like in a lot of so-called strong female characters: they only do what the males do and the authors seem to forget they're, primarily, NOT males. Granted we're two genders of the same animal; granted, the similarities are more than the differences; but there are some differences and I think that to ignore them is the apex of bad writing. Well, maybe not that, but any author who writes males with boobs who are not transsexual or transgendered and calls them 'female' offends me.
I mean, it's not as if there's a dearth of strong female characters in literature that are primarily female with all the natural - I KNOW! Wrong word, perhaps, imprecise word at best. Not really important methinks, please bear with me - differences in mental/emotional processes, not to mention the differences generated by the cultural demands of society regarding gender roles.
Look at Sophie Hatter. She's strong, she's as badass - and it's so typical of male gender stereotyping that strong = badass a lot - as they come, she's the protagonist and hero of the story, she saves everyone... AND she's so female she uses housekeeping as a weapon of mass destruction; she's so female her magic is literally life-giving; she takes passive-aggressiveness to new heights and she makes wonderful lovely magic hats.
Look at Ayaka. She is the epitome of demure young womanhood and she steamrolls over everybody's life until they're living it the way she thinks it's best for them. She has a backbone of solid titanium - adamantium, even - that one. She takes ultra-polite badassness to and over the top.
And, of course, of course look at Granny, Nanny and Magrat. Look at Agnes. Look at Sybil. And look at how I could go on and on and on naming fucking STRONG female characters who are primarily female and do a lot of things that males do, but not all because they're not really interested in doing ALL the things that males do.
Mind you, some times the line dividing a well written truly strong FEMALE character and a sort of travesty of femaleness is really really thin. I admit I go by intuition while reading. It depends of what kind of subtext and implied bias I perceive in the text and I'm sure it's a very personal reaction, but I strongly feel there are lines that have not to be crossed.
Got that off me chest. *PUFF* Next, I think, villains. I love villains, there can be no hero without a suitable villain. I hate and loathe and despise badly written villains. I'd rather have a not so well written hero (of both sexes) than an uninteresting villain (of both sexes). Villain, how I love thee! :-D
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-17 08:55 pm (UTC)Get thee to a bed and heal thyself! Summer fevers are 'orrible, awful things. Poor luv. HUGZ
She said in one of the 98884339875023 interviews where she contradicts everything she's written that the houses stood for the four elements, y'know? Gryffindor=Fire, Hufflepuff=Earth, Ravenclaw=Air and Slytherin=water. Except that this is so blatantly NOT true in the books. It'd make a nice irony in that the only truly useless house would be Gryff, because one can't live without air or water and, arguably, earth, what one can live without, albeit in discomfort, is fire. Cretinous woman.
Yet another thing that Rowling fails at as a fantasy writer is to understand the power of the iconic and the mythological - just how useful it is to have your fictional characters and organisations be the avatars of some outlook or trait.
Yeh, and that's why in this fandom most fans - even rabid ones - are so much more interesting and better at storytelling than the author. Have you read the Sacrifice Arc? I mean, yeah, over the top melodrama all the way, but Lightning on the Wave's reinterpretation of canon is WAAAAAY more interesting and coherent than canon. At least, in Lightning's world, magic is consistent and subject to clear laws.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-18 05:16 pm (UTC)Well, water is traditionally a female element and fire a male one, so I guess that much is correct. But as for other traits associated with those elements goes, well, fire = will = drive = ambition, so Slytherin should be the fire house. And come to think of it, which house contains Harry the emotional roller coaster and Ron the mean lean sulking-machine? Traditionally, water = emotion, so shouldn't Gryffindor be the water house?
Man, Rowling can't even get her own symbolism straight. And does anyone notice? Hell no. They're too busy praising her for inventing the hippogriff. (seriously, someone asked her how she came up with such a bizarre creature. I and every other fantasy geek on the planet headdesked mightily at that one)
And good call, fire is really the "smallest" element in terms of how much of it you need and how much of it you run into. But of course it's also the flashiest element. Flash without substance - that sounds like Rowling, all right.
Have you read the Sacrifice Arc?
I'm afraid not. What's that about?
At least, in Lightning's world, magic is consistent and subject to clear laws.
That does sound interesting right there. Magic is just so much more interesting when there's hard rules behind it, or it at least feels like there's hard rules behind it. Nothing takes the excitement out of a story more than realising that the magic can do whatever the author wants it to do at a given moment.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-21 04:44 pm (UTC)Now I see you're talking about R Rankin! YAY! *runs to read and comment*
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-22 05:01 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-22 08:33 pm (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-23 07:04 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-23 09:46 pm (UTC)*ahem*
Almost done, you'll get yours in a couple of days. ^_-
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-23 11:15 pm (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-24 11:22 pm (UTC)Naaaah, no worries, mate. I LIKE it. All serious critics have bouts of evil laughter coupled with cackling when drunk with TEH POWAH OF REVIEWING!!!eleventypoo :-D
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-27 12:12 am (UTC)I'm excited!
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-28 02:45 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-28 06:35 am (UTC)Oh, Ryan's dislike of Agito started in the tunnels, when he was getting queasy and short-tempered because of it. And, because of the fact that Ryan and Agito aren't very reflective at the best of times, neither of them talks about their feelings much, and Ryan likes pushing Agito's buttons, what might have been a simply resolved misunderstanding ballooned into... something of a situation. ;)
What is it that annoys you about Kenji? Just out of morbid curiosity.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-28 11:14 pm (UTC)Was just telling you my reaction to him. :)
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-29 01:47 am (UTC)Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-30 12:49 am (UTC)Mind you, I loved and love my parents and I wasn't TEH queen of tantrums. Actually I didn't tantrum, I just tended to view adults with a cynical and an unimpressed eye, you know how it is.
As I said (98430259354 times :P:P:P) it's personal and it takes nothing away from the fact that the character is very well written and observed.
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-30 03:02 am (UTC)I'm annoyingly persistant that way. ;)
Re: To be continued...
Date: 2008-07-30 04:06 am (UTC)Well, I'll tell you nothing more! Do you hear me? NOTHING! TCHA! :P