I hate Strong Female Characters
Sherlock Holmes gets to be brilliant, solitary, abrasive, Bohemian, whimsical, brave, sad, manipulative, neurotic, vain, untidy, fastidious, artistic, courteous, rude, a polymath genius. Female characters get to be Strong.http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/08/i-hate-strong-female-characters
Is Sherlock Holmes strong? Its not just that the answer is of course, its that its the wrong question.
What happens when one tries to fit other iconic male heroes into an imaginary Strong Male Character box? A few fit reasonably well, but many look cramped and bewildered in there. Theyre not used to this kind of confinement, poor things. Theyre used to being interesting across more than one axis and in more than two dimensions.
...
Chuck Wendig argues here that we shouldnt understand strong as meaning, well, strong, but rather as something like well-written. But I simply dont think its true that the majority of writers or readers are reading the term that way. How else to explain the fact that when the screenwriters of The Lord of the Rings decided to (clumsily) expand Arwens role from the books, they had her wander on screen, put a sword to her boyfriends throat and boast about how shed sneaked up on him? (It took Liv Tyler to realise later you dont have to put a sword in her hand to make her strong). Why else did Paul Feig, as Carina Chicano notes here, have to justify the fact that Bridesmaids hinges on a complex, interesting female character who appeared rather weak?
Personally, I wasted a lot of ink in my writing trying to make sure the female characters were "strong" before I realized it was getting in the way of making them, you know, actual characters in the story.
Response to Recursion (Original post)
mucifer This message was self-deleted by its author.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)American animated films....no one has ever come close.
Interesting article
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I love all of his characters, come to think of it.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I make a point of looking for it. Sometimes you have to look at translated work, US stuff tends to be commercial. Hint: read female authors, like Atwood, Silko, McCaffery, Roy.
TheJames
(120 posts)MyshkinCommaPrince
(611 posts)'Personally, I wasted a lot of ink in my writing trying to make sure the female characters were "strong" before I realized it was getting in the way of making them, you know, actual characters in the story. '
I think of the 1968 and 1990 versions of Night of the Living Dead. The character of Barbra (or Barbara... the spelling seems to vary, even in official documents about the films) in the 1968 original was criticized for having spent most of the story in a state of emotional breakdown. The 1990 remake turned the character into an action movie heroine. While either character could be valid in a story, I think the original is more honest and human, representing a better character for the story. I would have reacted just like she did, or worse, in such a situation. Not every character should be treated as an expression of some ideal or belief. I wish we could let fictional characters be what they need to be for a story, rather than treating them so often as emblems.
mainer
(12,022 posts)because literature today has plenty of complex, interesting female characters. Somehow this author gets hung up on old movies and old books that tell us exactly how currently poorly read she is.