My own problem with discussing the chart is that I don't know a lot of the characters given as examples as I am not really into pop culture. So I cannot comment on Sailor Moon.
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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna
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.