Meta -- Female Characters; Male Writers

[butterfly]

In two of the shows that I actually bother to watch regularly these days, the female characters are not well-written (and while this bugs the hell out of me, the guys are written interestingly enough that I don't want to give up on the shows in question). And I think that a lot of the bad female writing comes not from having male writers, per se, but from having male writers who love their female characters too shallowly.

Because the problem is not in loving your characters -- I can't write a character that I don't adore. And if I do write a character that I don't like? I'll love them while I'm writing the story. When I'm writing (and I always write from a character's pov, never omniscient), I'm in the character's head. And that means that I absolutely must explain their actions to myself, in a way that makes sense and is sympathetic. Because, as Tom Ripley once said, "It all makes sense, in your head. Nobody thinks that they're a bad person." Even people who assume the worst of themselves don't make themselves villains, they make themselves victims.

But that love comes from living inside that character's head. This is the kind of love that makes Joss Whedon remark on a dvd commentary that the moment he loves Buffy the most is when she's shooting that rocket launcher at the Judge in Innocence. This is not at all the same as the love that inspires the writers of Lana Lang on Smallville or Sam on Stargate SG-1.

Infatuation is dangerously easy to confuse with love -- you see it all the time in fiction (and in real life, but we aren't talking about that). Lust is easier to recognise, being body-based. When someone is drooling over a beauty, it's a simple matter to figure out that they're feeling lust, not love.

Infatuation, though, is harder to tell from love. Similar to lust, it can strike at first sight, but because it's not always about the physical, it's easy to think that it's an overpowering bolt from the blue, a sign from the divine that you've found your one true love (in fact, I'd actually put lust down as a subset under infatuation if it weren't such a huge part of it all).

Lust blinds the afflicted to all but the most base qualities of the admired. Infatuation can appear to be focused on a healthier and more lasting bond.

If I were speaking of characters, I would go on to talk about how to turn lust or infatuation into love, but right now, I'm talking about writers and that is a whole different ball game.

Because in real life, relationships either falter after the initial flush of attraction or they grow into something more. But with writers, there's a new element -- they are the ones in control of their object of affection. Because of this, there's no reason for the writers to move beyond the state of infatuation. There's no reason to change their beloved out of the mold that they adore them in.

Sam cannot change, because if she did, she would no longer be the Sam that the writers adore. Lana can't grow, because to make her a real girl would mean giving her real faults and that would push her off that pedestal.

And so, with House, I'm wondering just how self-aware the writers are. Because this is something that I do, truly, admire about Joss Whedon -- his tremendous awareness of women as people and not objects. Buffy was a real woman, with faults and virtues and contradiction. Willow, for all that I don't like her that much, also rings very real to me. And Joss is, of course, smart enough to realise that having strong female writers helps you write strong female characters.

But I love Joss' writing style over all -- his pattern is to take a stereotype and slowly break it down to reveal a real person behind it.

Because there's another key element, too -- for all their love of Lana, I don't get the feeling that the Smallville writers care all that much for women in general. And if you don't care for an entire subset of people while taking a couple of individuals from that subset and raising them up on a pedestal, you end up with a couple of 'too perfect' characters and a whole bunch of extremely ignored ones.

And Joss likes people, very much including women. He likes people in the same way that I like people, which is quite possibly another reason that I always end up adoring his work so much -- we share a very similar worldview.

People are fascinating, so much so that even when I don't like someone, I find them interesting. I truly believe that there is no such thing as a dull person (dull characters? yes. people? no.). Even someone who lives a dull life is a whole world entire, with unseen currents and hidden waterfalls. We live in a world that is both enormous and tiny, partly so because there are billions upon billions of separate lives, bumping together and drifting apart again, captive universes huddled inside a small town or racing down narrow streets.

People do not exist for us to interact with -- that is the cardinal sin that bad writers make, creating characters that only exist to impact the main character. All characters should impact the main character(s), but each one is unique, never to be seen again. Each traveling down its own road, crossing the main character's path, but they are separate roads, not stops along the way.

There are many writers who are otherwise good but who can't write women. Their men are complex, but their women are so simple by comparison. And it's because they cannot make the connection that women are people. They separate women out, make them special.

This is the question playing out on House right now -- do the writers view women as people?

We'll see.

Comments

[thepouncer.livejournal.com]

This is lovely. I know you're discussing canonical characterization, but when you said this:

But with writers, there's a new element -- they are the ones in control of their object of affection. Because of this, there's no reason for the writers to move beyond the state of infatuation. There's no reason to change their beloved out of the mold that they adore them in.

I finally realized why I've been having so many problems with certain fanfic authors interpretation of some of my favorite characters. There's an infatuation at work which doesn't allow for the nuance I see. Thank you - at least now I understand why their stories irritate me so much.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I finally realized why I've been having so many problems with certain fanfic authors interpretation of some of my favorite characters. There's an infatuation at work which doesn't allow for the nuance I see.

Like that odd, odd notion that I still see around in some places about Daniel being a pacifist. Violence may be one of his last resorts, but it's definitely there as an option, more so as the years go by. But people like the diplomat in him so much that they forget about the guy who killed a bunch of baby Goa'ulds, who threatened Apophis and who was, in his own mind, capable of blowing up Moscow to save time.

And with McKay and Sheppard -- they have a quick bond, but it's incredibly snarky, in a way that they really aren't with other people. They're clearly delighted by each other's brains and just... each other, but they express it in a very grade-school way that amuses me so much. I can't imagine Sheppard snarking, "But ultimately failing," about anyone's AU death but Rodney, because Rodney is the one person that he's sure knows that he doesn't mean it that way.

Thank you - at least now I understand why their stories irritate me so much.

You are more than welcome.

[huzzlewhat.livejournal.com]

Very good points here. Strangely enough, though, the writerly infatuation with Lana works for me in a way that it doesn't seem to with a lot of (most?) Smallville fans. Because that's who Lana is in the overall epic story -- she's the high school infatuation, the crush that's nothing like the real adult relationships that come later for Our Hero. And while that robs Lana, as a character in this particular show, of anything truly resembling depth, it fits that she's just this idealized so-perfect shell of a girl. The audience is annoyed at Clark for being a blind, hormonally charged idiot for not appreciating other, more real girls, and of course, he is. But he won't be forever.

And I have little doubt that that isn't what the creators intended (and it would be much less annoying if we spent a little less time with the girl), but screw 'em. It makes sense to me. ;-)

[emrinalexander.livejournal.com]

What bugs the bejeesus out of me with regard to Lana isn't that they make her a perfect icon - its that they insist on shoehorning her into the plot whether she belongs there or not and then making her the focus of Smallville - and if that means pushing Lex Luthor and Clark Kent off to the point where they are almost minor characters, so be it. We haven't been calling it "Lanaville" for no reason, and it is bloody annoying. It's as though I tune into watch a series called "House" and find it is all about this doctor named Cameron...

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Exactly. She's always bloody there, which only serves to remind us all that she's a very shallow character that the writers are pretending is deep and interesting.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

And if Clark were the only person idealising her (or that number was less than 'pretty much everyone') I'd be fine with it. But, watching the show, I get the very strong impression that the writers (at least some of them) feel that infatuation themselves. Because we spend too much time with Lana for her to be as one-dimension as she is. What would have been neat would be to have Lana just as she is in scenes with Clark, but making her more realistic in scenes without him. Then, I'd actually believe that they were making a point.

Because while Clark may grow out of his infatuation, I have serious doubts about Al and Miles ever growing up (I have serious doubts about buying the dvds because I have heard creepiness about their commentaries).

[huzzlewhat.livejournal.com]

What would have been neat would be to have Lana just as she is in scenes with Clark, but making her more realistic in scenes without him. Then, I'd actually believe that they were making a point.

Agreed -- that would be neat. And I did say that I didn't think that my interpretation was what the writers intended -- it's just my interpretation that makes it work for me.

Because while Clark may grow out of his infatuation, I have serious doubts about Al and Miles ever growing up...

To be honest, this is something that readers of comics deal with a lot. There are a lot of seriously talented writers writing comics, but there are also some underdeveloped fanboys with pretty obvious female issues -- either demeaning or idealizing them -- who still manage to tell good stories, if you can turn a blind eye to some... things. I do a lot of shrugging at and fast-forwarding of Lana scenes in Smallville, just as I do a lot of shrugging and page-flipping at some of the gratuitous T&A in printed comics.

I'm not defending the over-use of Lana -- believe me, I'm not. Cutting her role in half could only improve the show. I'm curious (in an idle, completely lazy way) if it's less-stressful, approaching the show like a comic book, rather than a TV show as we've become accustomed to them. (Especially since shows like Buffy and Sopranos, etc., that have taught us to expect certain things in terms of character progression.) I've only dipped my toe into Smallville fandom, but some (certainly not all, by any means) of the complaints that some viewers have about the show seem to be objections to what are standard comic conventions.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I could never get into comics. They just don't hit the right spots for me -- I generally need an actual human voice in order to connect with a character (I also can't listen to most classical music sitting still because I'm always waiting for the voice that never comes). And it comes across too... bright and stilted for me.

And voices are very important for me, in building a sense of character. I don't have that problem with books, but comics feel incomplete to me, because they provide flashy images without sound.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

I only watch one of the four shows you mention, so I can't really compare them, but I most definitely agree with you on Joss's skill at creating characters, especially female ones. Of all his incredibly complex characters, in a way it's *Anya* who impresses me most, because she seems so shallow at first glance -- and second. Once you look at her, though, there really is a person with flaws and virtues underneath all that bluntly open love of sex and money (even w/o taking the last two eps into account), and those loves fit into her personality rather than driving it. It's also why finding well-written Anya in fanfics is really very rare.

People are fascinating, so much so that even when I don't like someone, I find them interesting. I truly believe that there is no such thing as a dull person (dull characters? yes. people? no.). Even someone who lives a dull life is a whole world entire, with unseen currents and hidden waterfalls.

Very true. Of course, in real life, I admit that I generally don't want to know nearly that much about people; I'm far more comfortable looking at them when they're fictional. Straying OT, this is why I hate it when people within a complex fandom (usually HP, in my case) brush off or try to stifle discussion (or fanfic) of a particular character because they're "one-dimensional" or they just "don't have any depth." It's one thing to say that as a discussion of the author or writers, but not as a commentary on the actual characters. Once you've got a fandom that provides you with plenty of characters that seem human, most discussion on them treats them as though they're real people; when we try to explain a character's personality or motivation, we avoid saying, "Well, it was really convenient for the storyline to have a character who does X, so this character does X." These discussions are why I'm in fandom. Despite that, some people dislike hearing certain characters (frequently Draco) discussed that way, so they go on about how the character is boring and has no depth. This doesn't work, because we take characters in the fandom as real, and there are *no* real people without depth, whether or not they choose to show it to everyone. We have less information to work from for some characters, but that doesn't mean there aren't layers and "real" personalities to explore.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I only watch one of the four shows you mention, so I can't really compare them, but I most definitely agree with you on Joss's skill at creating characters, especially female ones. Of all his incredibly complex characters, in a way it's *Anya* who impresses me most, because she seems so shallow at first glance -- and second. Once you look at her, though, there really is a person with flaws and virtues underneath all that bluntly open love of sex and money (even w/o taking the last two eps into account), and those loves fit into her personality rather than driving it. It's also why finding well-written Anya in fanfics is really very rare.

I agree with you so much on Anya. On both parts. She's a complex person, but she's mostly loud about the less complex parts of herself, so the complexity gets lost while people are busy either taking offense or laughing.

This doesn't work, because we take characters in the fandom as real, and there are *no* real people without depth, whether or not they choose to show it to everyone. We have less information to work from for some characters, but that doesn't mean there aren't layers and "real" personalities to explore.

Right. Any character is only boring as long as you don't connect the dots. Lana. To take HP, the reason that Ginny adores me is that she doesn't make sense. If I cared enough about her to write about her, I would have to make sense of the change between the fourth book and the fifth, and she would have a character arc and depth. But, alas, I really don't. Because she both bores me and kinda annoys me.

[sisabet.livejournal.com]

Brilliant post!

Even someone who lives a dull life is a whole world entire, with unseen currents and hidden waterfalls. We live in a world that is both enormous and tiny, partly so because there are billions upon billions of separate lives, bumping together and drifting apart again, captive universes huddled inside a small town or racing down narrow streets.

People are incredible and beautiful and I am always really sad when other people don't get that part of what makes us so fascinating are the nasty little faults and shortcomings. It makes us real. I don't love so many of my characters despite them being an asshole. I love them because of it.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Brilliant post!

Thank you.

People are incredible and beautiful and I am always really sad when other people don't get that part of what makes us so fascinating are the nasty little faults and shortcomings. It makes us real. I don't love so many of my characters despite them being an asshole. I love them because of it.

Exactly. Like, the reason that I fell in love with Angel is because, in Home, he did the wrong thing for the right reason. He was willing to screw his friends over to try to save his son. He was willing to do anything to save his son and that was the one offer that he couldn't refuse. He's still the same asshole that I didn't like before, only now I understand him and love him because of that assholiness.

[pepperjackcandy.livejournal.com]

I've never seen Lana as perfect. I've seen her as occasionally downright villainous, but Teflon-coated, so that there are never any repercussions for, say, breaking into Chloe's computer and rummaging around in her personal files. Well, there was one repercussion -- Chloe ended up apologizing.

I used to really, really hope that TIIC are writing her that way on purpose. It fits in with her character's abandonment issues, and the "wishing rock" nature of the meteorites, that Lana would exude a sort of aura that would make people love her without reservation, want to be near her and crave her approval.

But then S2 started and any hopes I had for actual, sensible, character development flew out the window.

One man who writes good women, imho, is Robert Jordan. :startles: And, since WoT is in your interests, I guess you must at least find them acceptable. ;-)

I was gonna use a CLex icon, but I think I'll use my WoT icon instead.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

One man who writes good women, imho, is Robert Jordan. :startles: And, since WoT is in your interests, I guess you must at least find them acceptable.

I do, indeed. They can be shallow and lost and flawed and desperate, and so can the guys. I think that both his male and female characters show a lot of depth of character, and I really like the societies that he's created. I definitely didn't mind that one of his books took about a thousand pages to describe one day, because I found the story interesting enough to warrent the time spent. I went back and reread the series before the latest came out, and still really enjoyed it, so it's holding up for me, too.

[pepperjackcandy.livejournal.com]

I definitely didn't mind that one of his books took about a thousand pages to describe one day, because I found the story interesting enough to warrent the time spent.

Me, too (neither?). I wonder if back in the days when WoT was supposed to be eight books, he knew that someday he'd have to show events from so many points of view.

My theory, fwiw, is that while Rand's trying to create his "Hundred Companions" with the Asha'man, the actual "Hundred Companions" are going to be the supporting characters we've seen all along -- Mat, Perrin, Egwene, Nynaeve, . . . . That's why it's taking so long to tell the story; he has to get everyone to do what they have to do before they all have a date with destiny at Shayol Ghul.

Of course, I also think that "the blood of the Dragon" refers not to Rand's physical blood, but his family (Elayne, the twins, Galad, etc.), so what do I know? 8-)

[wolfling]

You know, I really dig all these meta posts you make -- they're always so well thought out and reasoned. :)

This whole subject is something I've thought about on and off over the years, especially in regards to some book series I read which I loved but in which the women were written not so much as three dimensional characters as strange entities that didn't react in any way a rational person would, but who were "cute" and "adorable" all the same.

I finally came to the conclusion that it seemed there were very few men that could get inside a woman character's head and write her in a way I could believe she was real. The whole infatuation angle wasn't one I considered, but... yes. It fits.

Luckily there are a few men out there who have proven that they can write woman characters who are as real and complex as male characters. Joss is certainly one of them. Also JMS -- one of the things about Babylon 5 that so fascinated me was that there was no weak characters -- the women were as strong and as flawed and as well developed as the men.

It's still a very rare thing though; hopefully it'll become less rare with time.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I do want to watch B5 sometime. I've heard a lot of good things about it. Of course, that doesn't always work out (see: my five failed attempts to get into Farscape), but sometimes it does.

[meri-sefket.livejournal.com]

*delurks*

This is a great post and sums up a lot of what I've been thinking about when I watch TV recently.

I've been watching House fairly consistently this season, and I have a lot of the same problems with the writing as you and many other people. At least with Cameron.

I think that the show is written from House's POV, for the most part. And accordingly the only two characters that are fleshed out at all besides House are Cuddy and Wilson, the two people closest to him. It explains why the ducklings are often one dimensional and why Vogler was beyond one dimensional. I think that's why the "courtship" between Cameron and House is progressing how it is. Because House sees her as a pretty, young, naive pollyanna and he both doesn't like that and craves that. However, it won't be until next week or maybe even the end of the season that I could say for sure if it's intentional for the writers - and will be going to an interesting place - or if it's just poor writing.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I really hope that it turns out that the writers see how unhealthy the whole thing is. Because I don't mind that (ex. I rarely had a problem with how BtVS dealt with the Buffy/Spike thing, just how some fans jumped on it as True Love).

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

I love this post because it rings true for me for many reasons. First of all, I think you're making an importantt distinction between "love" for characters and "infatuation" -I would assume that generally love for characters, makes for great writing, while infatuation with them will make for crappy writing. Because in my opinion, "love" is the same thing as "recognising" and "accepting", ie, you recognise the person as who they really are, without rose-coloured glasses, and you're honest and accepting of the flaws they have and mistake they make, but love them nevertheless, whereas "infatuation" is having those rosecoloured glasses on, and putting the object up on the pedestal. I think it's pretty common for female writers to do this to their female characters as well, btw. Just look at Mary Sue, how oftten have you not seen the writer of her defending her with flesh and bone, totally uncomprending the fact that the readers aren't as in love with the Mary Sue as the writer herself is? (And yes, I'm generalising here, since there are both male Mary Sues, and male writers probably write them too.)

People are fascinating, so much so that even when I don't like someone, I find them interesting. I truly believe that there is no such thing as a dull person (dull characters? yes. people? no.). Even someone who lives a dull life is a whole world entire, with unseen currents and hidden waterfalls. We live in a world that is both enormous and tiny, partly so because there are billions upon billions of separate lives, bumping together and drifting apart again, captive universes huddled inside a small town or racing down narrow streets.

Yes, this is so true. This is why any character who seem like a real, live person can never be dull to me. If a writer finds one of their own characters dull, they are probably doing something wrong with them. I do think it's possible to create good characters that you don't like (even though I would probably not be able to write characters I don't, on some level, like myself), but it's not possible to create a good character, if you find them dull. You must find something in them that makes them interesting. And you always can with a real human being, so you should be able to, in a character as well.

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

I'd actually separate out the 'mary-sue' thing. Mary-Sue tend to be able to 'do it all' in a way that appears to be like SuperSam, but a Mary-Sue isn't placed into vulnerable situations. They don't share the 'damsel in distress' problem. It's similar, but springs from a different urge -- one side is about idealising something you view as 'other' and 'special', while the second is about idealising something you view as part of yourself. One is about creating someone to take care of, the other about creating someone to pretend to be. If that makes sense.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Generally, a character's dullness is equal to a viewer/reader's uncaringness. Riley, for example, is a BtVS character often slammed for being dull. But if a viewer steps into his head and tries to look at the story from his perspective - Riley's not dull. Tends to apply to most everyone.

I'm not familiar with "House", but I've definitely felt the Lana-infatuation you mention, and seen similar character-focused infatuations in fanfic and stories before. It's a pitfall of being a creator. Sometimes, folks get so enamored of a character that they lose the ability to soo how characters need to grow and change. (Because that's admitting to a flaws, and the infatuated person hates doing that.) Some writers just fall into that trap, and some start out that way on purpose. Subconsciously, anyway. (Smallville)

[butterfly.livejournal.com]

Generally, a character's dullness is equal to a viewer/reader's uncaringness. Riley, for example, is a BtVS character often slammed for being dull. But if a viewer steps into his head and tries to look at the story from his perspective - Riley's not dull. Tends to apply to most everyone.

So very true. I disliked Riley the second he showed up, so I needed a reason to hate him. 'Dull' is as good as any, plus it makes it sound as though hatred isn't involved at all. Which may just have been me, but if I did it, I'm sure at least one other person in fandom did, because no one is alone.