The chart of doom.
Oct. 12th, 2010 01:25 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sarasvatiSo this chart has been making the rounds lately. It's a flowchart of female characters in the media, and essentially how the majority of them suck because they're not "strong women."
They seem to have real problems defining exactly what a strong woman is, however, because one of their questions is, "Does she represent an idea?" What exactly does that mean, anyway? Are they trying to get across the concept of something like the "wise old sage" kind of character, or something like that? A glorified plot point? Someone from a tribe of all-female warriors who hate men? What exactly does "representing an idea" actually freaking mean?
I wonder, then, if I pass muster as a "strong female character." Let's see.
Can she carry her own story?
Yes, but only if you mean that my life is my own story. Of course then I can carry it, but only because once I'm dead, the story's over. If you mean whether or not someone can plonk me into a wonky situation and expect me to be the protagonist and lead everyone to glorious victory, then hell no!
But for the purposes of this, let's say that my own story is my life. So yes, I can carry it.
Is she three-dimensional?
I'm long, broad, and wide, so I'd say yes to that one.
Does she represent an idea?
Since I have no idea what this mean, I'll say no.
...Maybe they mean "ideal."
Does she have any flaws?
Do I ever!
Is she killed before the third act?
Well, I'm still alive, and given that I'm not precognitive, let's just say yes to this.
Congratulations! Strong female character!
Yay me!
I think I'd be more proud of this if I had any idea as to what they meant by some of their questions. Oh, and if it had any basis in fact. Stick me in any story that you'd see on TV, in a movie, or in a book, and no, I'm not strong. I'm actually rather forgettable. I don't say that with the intent of fishing for compliments. I'm just being honest as I see myself. I'm rather shy and reserved, prefer to keep my own company, prefer reading or playing video games to doing just about anything else. I knit and sew, I can't fight, I don't talk back much, and when I get in arguments I often get quite emotional and end up crying because I'm so frustrated at not being able to properly express myself and for making the other people angry.
Throw that into the equation, and I'm the very opposite of a strong character. I'm a weak nerdy little forgettable person who's probably just in the story to make the other characters look better by comparison.
Doesn't make me any less of a valid person, though.
But let's assume, for argument's sake, that I answered differently to any of those questions, because I kid you not, answering the way I did is the only way to get to being a strong female character according to that flowchart. So let's assume I answered differently, and see where I end up.
Villain?
I may have played a lousy double agent between factions of my friends in high school, but those days are in the past, I've grown. I would say that at the moment, I'm not a villain.
Is she mainly a love interest?
Nope. I'm single, and likely to remain that way for a good long while.
Is she part of a team/family?
This is so ambiguously phrased that it's hard to answer. Am I part of a family? Yes. I have parents. I have aunts, uncles, cousins, and a remaining grandparent. But I'm not on any team, or close organization of friends banding together for one purpose, so let's just say no to this one.
How does she feel about babies?
I hate this question. Why? Because of my choices. I can have one, want one, or not want one right now, which has the implication that I will eventually want one, or that I do want one but know that this isn't the right time of my life to have one. The closest option is the last one, though in actuality, I don't want children at all. I don't much care for them, I find it awkward to interact with them, it bugs me when people go on and on about how cute babies are, and I know I'd be a lousy parent because I have too many of my own issues to deal with.
I guess this is supposed to represent that female characters in media, if they aren't automatically "strong female characters" by fitting some nebulous definition of a few vague terms, always want or have children at some point in their lives, and that there's no representation for females who don't want kids. Of course, there are actually such characters out there, but this chart chooses to ignore that option. Probably because it doesn't prove enough of a point.
But since the closest option I can apply to myself is that I don't want them right now, let's follow that path.
Does she get pregnant?
Oh hells no!
Is she in a horror story?
Not in the classical sense...
Is she violent?
I can snap at people sometimes, sure, but I'm not what most people could consider violent.
Is she nearly perfect?
By what standard? But given that I admitted that I have flaws already, and a lot of them, then no, I'm not nearly perfect.
Funny, isn't it, how the same thing, when phrased differently, can have such a different effect. Do I have flaws? Yes. That gives me one point, so to speak, toward being a strong female. But express that same thing if I've said that I can't carry my own story (I could say that legitimately, because at some points in my life it's only been through the help of others that I'm still alive to be telling you all this), then the meaning becomes totally different.
What is her flaw?
I'm looking at all the options here, and the closest one I can come to is "Cat Lady." I'm not a ditz, a klutz, an attention whore, a spoiled rich girl, a slut, a sassmouth, and so on. For all my diversity, for the talents that I do have and all the roles I could play depending on what the story is, I get relegated to being a cat lady.
Not that I'm complaining, hugely. I get to stay out of the way and enjoy life with my kitties. Of all the ending that flowchart could have led me to, this is probably one of the least offensive.
The chart also does some serious oversimplification of characters, too. Tsukino Usagi, also known as Sailor Moon, gets relegated to being the Adorable Klutz. Never mind the large amount of character growth we see in her over the years of the anime and manga. Never mind that despite being terrified very often, she still manages to stand up and stop evil things from hurting people, and that she's saved the world a few times. The entire show is named after her. If you look at her as a character, she actually passes muster for the "strong female character" role. She carries her own story, she's got flaws, she's 3-dimensional (she has layers, and shows a lot of growth as time goes on, even if she's somewhat flighty and lazy at times), she doesn't represent some idea or ideal, and she's not killed before the story ends. Yay, she's actually a strong character!
But to acknowledge that would make the whole flowchart fall apart.
According to the flowchart, there's only one very narrow way to make a strong female character. A villain can never be a strong female character. Somebody in love can never be a strong female character either. Or possibly they can, since that stuff isn't even brought into question until after the prime questions have been asked and answered. But the implication is there. If you're not the protagonist of a story, you're not a strong female character. The only way to be strong is to be the protagonist, be flawed (but not too flawed, or flawed in the wrong way, because admit it, a female protagonist who screams at the sight of spiders isn't going to be called strong for very long, no matter how many times they save the world)
For crying out loud, Molly Weasley's on that flowchart and being the Team Mom. The woman who flipped a bitch when one of the bad guys tried to hurt one of her kids, and who caused fans for miles around to cheer when they read that scene in Deathly Hallows. She's Molly freaking Weasley! The woman who helped raise a large family of intelligent and successful children on less than most people would find comfortable, who's a force to be reckoned with inside her family and out, and anyone who's read the books will know that she's the one who really wears the pants in the family, so to speak. If she's not a strong character, then I don't know who is!
Strength comes in many forms. The woman who willingly has a large family because she enjoys having children around, who raises them well and who enjoys her life, is stronger than me because I couldn't stand that situation for more than 10 minutes without wanting to tear my hair out. The high-powered CEO who sacrifices friends and family to reach her goals is stronger than me because I don't have the tenacity and drive to sacrifice those things. The girl who does Tae Kwon Do every Saturday is stronger, and so is the woman who knits 2 really awesome and complicated fancy lace shawls each week. Strength comes in all forms, and you know, I think it would do some people a world of good to learn that instead of dismissing all those females who don't fit into a very small box that pleases only a percentage of the population.
Oh wow, doesn't that sound familiar...
In a nutshell, these people clearly have no idea what a strong female is.
They seem to have real problems defining exactly what a strong woman is, however, because one of their questions is, "Does she represent an idea?" What exactly does that mean, anyway? Are they trying to get across the concept of something like the "wise old sage" kind of character, or something like that? A glorified plot point? Someone from a tribe of all-female warriors who hate men? What exactly does "representing an idea" actually freaking mean?
I wonder, then, if I pass muster as a "strong female character." Let's see.
Can she carry her own story?
Yes, but only if you mean that my life is my own story. Of course then I can carry it, but only because once I'm dead, the story's over. If you mean whether or not someone can plonk me into a wonky situation and expect me to be the protagonist and lead everyone to glorious victory, then hell no!
But for the purposes of this, let's say that my own story is my life. So yes, I can carry it.
Is she three-dimensional?
I'm long, broad, and wide, so I'd say yes to that one.
Does she represent an idea?
Since I have no idea what this mean, I'll say no.
...Maybe they mean "ideal."
Does she have any flaws?
Do I ever!
Is she killed before the third act?
Well, I'm still alive, and given that I'm not precognitive, let's just say yes to this.
Congratulations! Strong female character!
Yay me!
I think I'd be more proud of this if I had any idea as to what they meant by some of their questions. Oh, and if it had any basis in fact. Stick me in any story that you'd see on TV, in a movie, or in a book, and no, I'm not strong. I'm actually rather forgettable. I don't say that with the intent of fishing for compliments. I'm just being honest as I see myself. I'm rather shy and reserved, prefer to keep my own company, prefer reading or playing video games to doing just about anything else. I knit and sew, I can't fight, I don't talk back much, and when I get in arguments I often get quite emotional and end up crying because I'm so frustrated at not being able to properly express myself and for making the other people angry.
Throw that into the equation, and I'm the very opposite of a strong character. I'm a weak nerdy little forgettable person who's probably just in the story to make the other characters look better by comparison.
Doesn't make me any less of a valid person, though.
But let's assume, for argument's sake, that I answered differently to any of those questions, because I kid you not, answering the way I did is the only way to get to being a strong female character according to that flowchart. So let's assume I answered differently, and see where I end up.
Villain?
I may have played a lousy double agent between factions of my friends in high school, but those days are in the past, I've grown. I would say that at the moment, I'm not a villain.
Is she mainly a love interest?
Nope. I'm single, and likely to remain that way for a good long while.
Is she part of a team/family?
This is so ambiguously phrased that it's hard to answer. Am I part of a family? Yes. I have parents. I have aunts, uncles, cousins, and a remaining grandparent. But I'm not on any team, or close organization of friends banding together for one purpose, so let's just say no to this one.
How does she feel about babies?
I hate this question. Why? Because of my choices. I can have one, want one, or not want one right now, which has the implication that I will eventually want one, or that I do want one but know that this isn't the right time of my life to have one. The closest option is the last one, though in actuality, I don't want children at all. I don't much care for them, I find it awkward to interact with them, it bugs me when people go on and on about how cute babies are, and I know I'd be a lousy parent because I have too many of my own issues to deal with.
I guess this is supposed to represent that female characters in media, if they aren't automatically "strong female characters" by fitting some nebulous definition of a few vague terms, always want or have children at some point in their lives, and that there's no representation for females who don't want kids. Of course, there are actually such characters out there, but this chart chooses to ignore that option. Probably because it doesn't prove enough of a point.
But since the closest option I can apply to myself is that I don't want them right now, let's follow that path.
Does she get pregnant?
Oh hells no!
Is she in a horror story?
Not in the classical sense...
Is she violent?
I can snap at people sometimes, sure, but I'm not what most people could consider violent.
Is she nearly perfect?
By what standard? But given that I admitted that I have flaws already, and a lot of them, then no, I'm not nearly perfect.
Funny, isn't it, how the same thing, when phrased differently, can have such a different effect. Do I have flaws? Yes. That gives me one point, so to speak, toward being a strong female. But express that same thing if I've said that I can't carry my own story (I could say that legitimately, because at some points in my life it's only been through the help of others that I'm still alive to be telling you all this), then the meaning becomes totally different.
What is her flaw?
I'm looking at all the options here, and the closest one I can come to is "Cat Lady." I'm not a ditz, a klutz, an attention whore, a spoiled rich girl, a slut, a sassmouth, and so on. For all my diversity, for the talents that I do have and all the roles I could play depending on what the story is, I get relegated to being a cat lady.
Not that I'm complaining, hugely. I get to stay out of the way and enjoy life with my kitties. Of all the ending that flowchart could have led me to, this is probably one of the least offensive.
The chart also does some serious oversimplification of characters, too. Tsukino Usagi, also known as Sailor Moon, gets relegated to being the Adorable Klutz. Never mind the large amount of character growth we see in her over the years of the anime and manga. Never mind that despite being terrified very often, she still manages to stand up and stop evil things from hurting people, and that she's saved the world a few times. The entire show is named after her. If you look at her as a character, she actually passes muster for the "strong female character" role. She carries her own story, she's got flaws, she's 3-dimensional (she has layers, and shows a lot of growth as time goes on, even if she's somewhat flighty and lazy at times), she doesn't represent some idea or ideal, and she's not killed before the story ends. Yay, she's actually a strong character!
But to acknowledge that would make the whole flowchart fall apart.
According to the flowchart, there's only one very narrow way to make a strong female character. A villain can never be a strong female character. Somebody in love can never be a strong female character either. Or possibly they can, since that stuff isn't even brought into question until after the prime questions have been asked and answered. But the implication is there. If you're not the protagonist of a story, you're not a strong female character. The only way to be strong is to be the protagonist, be flawed (but not too flawed, or flawed in the wrong way, because admit it, a female protagonist who screams at the sight of spiders isn't going to be called strong for very long, no matter how many times they save the world)
For crying out loud, Molly Weasley's on that flowchart and being the Team Mom. The woman who flipped a bitch when one of the bad guys tried to hurt one of her kids, and who caused fans for miles around to cheer when they read that scene in Deathly Hallows. She's Molly freaking Weasley! The woman who helped raise a large family of intelligent and successful children on less than most people would find comfortable, who's a force to be reckoned with inside her family and out, and anyone who's read the books will know that she's the one who really wears the pants in the family, so to speak. If she's not a strong character, then I don't know who is!
Strength comes in many forms. The woman who willingly has a large family because she enjoys having children around, who raises them well and who enjoys her life, is stronger than me because I couldn't stand that situation for more than 10 minutes without wanting to tear my hair out. The high-powered CEO who sacrifices friends and family to reach her goals is stronger than me because I don't have the tenacity and drive to sacrifice those things. The girl who does Tae Kwon Do every Saturday is stronger, and so is the woman who knits 2 really awesome and complicated fancy lace shawls each week. Strength comes in all forms, and you know, I think it would do some people a world of good to learn that instead of dismissing all those females who don't fit into a very small box that pleases only a percentage of the population.
Oh wow, doesn't that sound familiar...
In a nutshell, these people clearly have no idea what a strong female is.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-13 08:37 am (UTC)What is her main role?
My choices are Rogue, Healer, Voice of Reason, Token Female, Emotional Core, Offense, Punching Bag or Leader. None of which really fits my relationship with my friends or any of the people I've ever worked with.
I'll eliminate Rogue and Healer right off the bat because I am NOT living in a D & D game, thanks awfully. I'm certainly not the token female, since most of my friends are women and most of the people I've worked with have been women. I'm not the emotional core of the group and I'm not the punching bag. And I've rarely been the leader in the group; I'm usually the power behind the throne who organizes things and gets them done.
Voice of Reason is probably closest but it's not always correct either, as I've gone on the Offense a time or two as well
For Voice of Reason:
What is her MO?
My choices here are Shy Intelligence, Henpecking and Sarcasm. I am intelligent, but I'm not shy about it. And I can be sarcastic...but not always. Also, wouldn't Henpecking and Sarcasm be related?
If I pick Shy Intelligence, I'm the Sweet Nerd. If I pick Sarcasm, I'm the Wet Blanket. Both sound pretty dismissive of women's intelligence and humor to me.
Okay, go to Offense. The next question throws me for a loop.
Feminine or masculine?
If I answer "Masculine," only one more question appears.
Does she die before the final act?
I hope not!
But "no" is the wrong answer. If you're not conventionally feminine and you don't die conveniently, you can be dismissed as a tomboy. If you're not conventionally feminine and you do die conveniently, you're Michelle Rodriguez.
If I answer "feminine," the next question is weird.
Older or younger?
Older or younger than WHAT? The other protagonist? The antagonist? A mayfly? A Galapagos tortoise? The cosmos? What?
The answers are "older," "same age" and "younger." The same age as who or what, I don't know.
At forty-eight, I'm an older woman, I think. But that only gives me one choice--Lady of War. Now, I adore Zoe Alleyne Washburne, but she's NOT me.
If I say that I'm "same age," whatever THAT means, I get this question:
Sickly?
I've got a progressive, disabling and incurable condition as the result of a defective chromosome. What do YOU think, chart?
But that only gives me one option as well--Badass Waif. Badass? I would love to be considered badass. But the chart couples that with being fragile in appearance or delicate-looking, and there's no way in hell that I'll ever achieve that.
Strength comes in all forms, and you know, I think it would do some people a world of good to learn that instead of dismissing all those females who don't fit into a very small box that pleases only a percentage of the population.
Oh wow, doesn't that sound familiar...
Amen. A-freaking-MEN.
I really, really hate this chart so damned much.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-10-17 11:51 am (UTC)Yay me!
I think I'd be more proud of this if I had any idea as to what they meant by some of their questions. Oh, and if it had any basis in fact. Stick me in any story that you'd see on TV, in a movie, or in a book, and no, I'm not strong. I'm actually rather forgettable. I don't say that with the intent of fishing for compliments. I'm just being honest as I see myself. I'm rather shy and reserved, prefer to keep my own company, prefer reading or playing video games to doing just about anything else. I knit and sew, I can't fight, I don't talk back much, and when I get in arguments I often get quite emotional and end up crying because I'm so frustrated at not being able to properly express myself and for making the other people angry.
Throw that into the equation, and I'm the very opposite of a strong character. I'm a weak nerdy little forgettable person who's probably just in the story to make the other characters look better by comparison.
Doesn't make me any less of a valid person, though.
But - all this is the real point. You are a real person, so you have flaws, are three-dimensional and don't represent any idea - just as any real person. If you consider your life as your story, you won't be killed before the third act - by definition. The question that remains is whether you can carry your own story - and well, as it's your life, it is certainly very important and interesting to you. Plonking you into a wonky situation and seeing if you can lead everyone into victory is a cliché too - a predominantly male cliché, in this case, and maybe if a female is cast in such a role she would turn up on the flip chart too.
The problem with the flip chart is that it casts women into roles - fictional women. If you test it on yourself, you end up as something weird, in your case a cat lady. But that's exactly the problem the chart wants to point out: Real women don't fit in. I think that your correct answer to the chart is your first one: I am three-dimensional, I have my own story, I am not just an idea, I don't die before the last act (my own death) and so I am a strong character. A character that's not clichéd because real persons are never clichéd.
Coming to think of it, the real problem of the chart is the word "strong character". People want a strong female character - and end up with a new cliché, in the worst case the Sue, and various ways to work around her, that turn out as clichés too. Maybe "well-written realistic woman" would be better - because we want good stories, with women we can really relate to, not just "strong women" who annoy us with being one-dimensional.
So when I look at the chart, I don't try to fit myself into it, but I rather look at my female characters. I am not sure whether mine fit, but I am aware that some of them are quite clichéd too - maybe they are my own clichés that I have developped over the years. Maybe watching the world and forming my opinion about several kinds of people has done the job. But at least they are my own clichés.
Then we also have the question of writing economy. Not every bus driver can be complex and nuanced. And what else comes to my mind - there's types of writings that use types to point out some things that are really a bit weird. Types can be useful when they are used in an intelligent way. We just have to keep in mind that they are types, not real persons.
Would a real person's story make a story that other people want to read? I cannot answer this - these days I read mainly non-fiction. One tentative answer - there's two things that turn a real person's that I might like to read: Reflection and form - and there's a tension between these two, reflection breaks the form.
Only one way to write a strong character - I don't think so - if you answer the first five questions the "right" way and go past the clichés, there's a lot of open space.
Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-10-17 04:45 pm (UTC)1.) the author of the chart mistakes tropes for stereotypes (your cliches).
2.) the examples that she gives are often far more nuanced and complex than any of the male characters in the same text.
3.) the author uses real life women (Michelle Rodriquez and Yoko Ono) in the chart. So clearly she did intend to apply it to real people as well.
The chart is essentially just another attempt to use feminism to bash on women. Particularly women of color as most of the women included on that chart are iconic POC characters. (Uhura is in particular enraging.) There is plenty of other meta around this chart that goes into the rest of its problems, but you clearly aren't seeing how it is actually deeply offensive.
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-10-17 05:04 pm (UTC)I don't know every example. I think some of them are not well chosen, e.g. Ellen Ripley. I differ about Molley Weasley however - she's is a clichéd character: the mother who cares about everyone and for whom this is the content of her life.
It does not matter whether men are just as stereotyped. Stereotyping men is just as problematic as stereotyping women.
Concerning Yoko Ono: Yes, she's a real person - but also a myth. The myth is that it's her fault that the Beatles broke apart, because she estranged John Lennon from the rest of them. The real person goes the top most line: she carries her own story (an artist in her own right, even before she met John Lennon) she is three-dimensional, she has flaws, she does not carry an idea, and she is also still alive.
Concerning POC: If no women of colour had been included, there'd be an outcry too. I know of the significance of Uhura - I once saw an interview with the actress, and she explained that she once considered quitting and that Martin Luther King called her and asked her not to quit. But on the other hand, even as a child when I watched TOS I wondered why Uhura never left the Enterprise for some landing mission.
Bashing female stereotypes has nothing to do with bashing women. On the contrary, criticizing stereotypes is liberating. No real woman is bashed by the chart, as all real women go the first path, the one that leads to "strong female character" and should better be named "realistic female character". Because of this, none of the questions on the lower part of the flip chart have to be answered by any real women, nor have they to be answered for a three-dimensional character.
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-10-17 09:18 pm (UTC)This is an unprovable assertion, since we only have the chart as it is. Besides, is it supposed to be better that a great many supposedly broken female characters are POC? Is it supposed to be better that a work that discourages the writing of female characters to begin with is especially hard on WOC? Would it have been better for Uhura not to have existed because she wasn't on the landing parties?
Considering how to write female characters who more accurately reflect the threedimensional reality of actual women would be excellent, and considering how fictional works and their creators consistently fail female characters (which is to say, placing the responsibility with the creators rather than with the characters) would be even better, but this chart encourages the opposite conclusions by its condemnation of such a wide swath of female characters. The only conclusion I can see the chart encouraging is that there's one proper way of writing female characters, that it's vague and indefinable, and really women just aren't worth writing. I for one absolutely can't agree with that.
(
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-10-17 09:29 pm (UTC)It certainly doesn't help that there are a load of examples of so-called weak female characters, but not a single example of a character that fits all the traits of a strong character and none of the weak ones. Are they trying to get at the fact that there are so strong female characters in the media at all? Because that just add another level of stupid to the chart.
(
Heh, thanks. I have no idea how stuff I write ends up on Metafandom in the first place, but when it does, I love people dropping by to give their thoughts on things too. :3
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-10-17 09:39 pm (UTC)I don't think that the chart discourages the writing of female characters. It just warns us of the traps we might fall into. (I am looking for a word, but I don't find it - these tiny traps you easily step into without noticing.) And no, I don't think it would be better if Uhura had not existed. It's a huge progress that she existed. But she should have been allowed on some landing missions.
Considering how to write female characters who more accurately reflect the threedimensional reality of actual women would be excellent, and considering how fictional works and their creators consistently fail female characters (which is to say, placing the responsibility with the creators rather than with the characters) would be even better, but this chart encourages the opposite conclusions by its condemnation of such a wide swath of female characters. The only conclusion I can see the chart encouraging is that there's one proper way of writing female characters, that it's vague and indefinable, and really women just aren't worth writing. I for one absolutely can't agree with that.
Again, I don't think that the chart's intention is to discourage people from writing female characters. It discourages them from writing one-dimensional characters, characters that can be easily put into an already existing stereotype. There's a lot of stereotypes out there, and I wonder whether the huge number of stereotypes does not undermine the chart's purpose - maybe less would have been more. And yes, a wide swath of female characters are "condemned" or rather pointed out as stereotypes. But the point is not that having a woman who's a villain, or a mother, or ugly is a bad idea in a story - the problem is when people (not only women) can be reduced to one character trait or one function. A woman who is all these stereotypes, or at least a number of these stereotypes, gains three dimensions.
I have given some thought to Molly Weasly. No, there`s nothing wrong with having a lot of children and caring for them. But if she at least had been a bit on the skinny side it would have made her less of a cliché. Nothing against women who are overweight - but why not have McGonagall overweight and Molly Weasley skinny? And, yes, she fights - but that's part of the "mother"-stereotype - the lioness or the ewe fighting for her young ones. (I read the Tiffany books by Terry Pratchett.) Why not give her an interesting hobby - with he magical skills, she cannot spend all her time on the household? So there are ways to write women who aren't stereotyped...
I also disagree that the "one proper way" is vague and indefinable. It's true, what remains after "carries her own story", "does not carry an idea", "has flaws", "is three-dimensional" and "does not die before the third act" is not concrete at all - but this is not because the only woman worth writing is vague and undefinable, but because from that point it's ours, the author's job, to make up a female character who's both unique and complex, or unique in her complexity. There cannot be any instructions how to do it - if there are, we just get another stereotype. This is why the "instructions" are vague - they have to be to give the author freedom to come up with a concrete character of her own.
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-10-17 09:57 pm (UTC)Freaking Bella Swann could, according to that chart, be labeled a strong character. And maybe it's my own bias speaking, but I really don't think that she counts as one.
But there's the rub. The definitions are so vague that you can make anybody and nobody fit them. Any female protagonist can fit the mold. Most female side characters can fit the mold. Just about every female in the world fits the mold. Nearly all of those of those weak characters fit the mold, and yes, even some of the real people they threw in there. Which is quite insulting, given that the chart is essentially conveying the message then that these real people are not strong and don't deserve to be looked up to.
And if people don't create characters who feel and act and look like real people, then I don't think the issue is whether or not they're strong anymore.
The vague instructions for making a strong character only give creators freedom when those freedoms aren't taken away, so to speak, by the rest of the chart. If I tried to avoid every potential path to "weak character" on that chart, I'd believe I'd have to write in a non-horror setting with a female protagonist who practically works within a bubble (can't be a member of a team, after all) and whose sexual life never once comes into things, not even to have or be a romantic interest. Somebody on another journal pointed out that all of the so-called weak character traits and paths all had to do with how the character relates to others, and none of the strong traits involve that at all. Apples to oranges.
While it may not be what the chartmaker originally intended to convey, there is the implication there that any of the traits in the very short "strong character" path equal a weak character, and yet it's very hard to write a character at all, male, female, or other, without bringing into play issues like how they relate to people and how they behave.
Re: Here via metafandom
Date: 2010-10-17 10:34 pm (UTC)Bella Swann of Twilight (yes, I read the first volume.) No, she's definitely not a strong character. She is very clichéd and without any characteristics. Ah, I know now where for her the "strong character" question goes wrong - three-dimensional. I wonder whether she is two-dimensional. She's in love with Edward, and that's all that can be said about her.
I don't know what you mean with "mold". No, I don't think that any real woman can be pigeonholed into and of the 75 stereotypes.
I think the real problem of the story is that it writes "strong female character" where it should write "realistic female character" or "interesting female characters". It's not about being strong and worth being looked up to - if that is what counts, we end up with a Mary Sue.
And if people don't create characters who feel and act and look like real people, then I don't think the issue is whether or not they're strong anymore.
Yes, this is something I agree to.
No, I don't think that possibilities are taken away by the rest of the chart. If you answer the five questions on top of the page in the "correct" way, the rest of the chart is irrelevant to you - you still end up as "strong (read realistic) character". You may end up with this or that character trait from the chart (people often have children, or work in a team, or are in love), but this will never be the complete character. The trick is not to avoid the character traits of the chart, but to combine them in a unique way.
There's an essay by Ursula K. LeGuin "Science-Fiction and Mrs. Brown" in the collection "the Language of the Night" where she quotes an essay by Virginia Woolf "Mr. Bennett and Mrs Brown" that I don't have at home. Mrs. Brown is an ordinary woman - an elderly lady, quite poor, travelling with the narrator in the underground - and suddenly asking: Can you tell me if an oak tree ties when the leaves have been eaten for two years in succcession by caterpillars?
Stories about this kind of Mrs. Brown are one solution. The problem is that now that I have told you, this too may become a cliché. For example, I liked the "Oracle" in Matrix, and also Guinan in Star Trek, and when they were introduced they probably ran against clichés - the problem is that after a while, these become clichés too, so that you either have to add another additional, original flavour to them, or look for something new.
So in some way it's true, you should be wary of the stereotypes on the list. One should be wary of one's own internalized stereotypes, gained not from observing real people, but from watching TV. But all in all, I can only say: I don't feel discouraged. I feel encouraged to have a close at my own female characters, and then go on writing.
Ah, and I have found the blog entry of the woman who made the chart: The Female Character Flowchart.