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?
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 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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
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.