Female Characters

[stickygirl]

There is a scene where they show the crew dossier. Scroll down to Lambert

http://platypuscomix.com/hollywood/nostromodossier.html

Unfortunate choice of words Female (Unnatural) but it was a very long time ago...

 

[Seethegood]

Just to cover the bases:

Yes, men can write women. Some men can do it really well. But over the course of history, women in fiction have been rather lacking, both in depth and in characterization. The truth is we live in a society loaded with biases and unspoken rules about what can and cannot be feminine and the value of traditionally feminine traits in the larger picture. Both men and women have been raised with these cultural ideals that can make it rather stifling to come up with a compelling female character. It's something everyone needs to work on and that doesn't make any of us bad people, nor does it mean you've been writing women the wrong way. It just means we can do better if put in the effort to do so.

As for how much it matters to write a decent female character in erotica, I'd say, unless it's a fetish, a flat character is a flat character. She doesn't magically become interesting as a person just because you think she's hot. If you don't want to flesh her out that's a perfectly valid choice on your part. The people who give a shit about this issue probably aren't your target demographic. Which is totally fine and dandy. We can all coexist and chill out with the mutual understanding that this thread is for people who are interested in figuring out how to write more fleshed out female characters. If you don't agree, that's fine, I'll stay out of your threads on the topic if you stay out of mine as there's nothing to gain from arguing on the subject.

I’m not here to tell anyone that they’re bad people. I am of the opinion that evil is not a thing you are, but instead a thing that anyone can do. This is meant to serve as a thread of tips and tricks for the people interested in hearing them.

Let’s get down to business:

It’s okay to be stereotypical with a woman's motives so long as they’re taken seriously.

If a woman's motive in a story is to have a baby she’s likely going to be concerned about more than just the creation of the baby. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense for someone who genuinely wants to be a good mother to have that child with just anyone. Wanting the baby to have a present second parent is a key factor and how qualified the second parent is to raise a child is also something she’d be looking out for. She might also want to make a cute nursery. Adding that extra depth can really make her feel like a real person even if it’s not pushing the envelope in terms of gender roles.

She doesn’t need to break the mold if the writer frames her respectfully. Acknowledging that being a stay-at-home parent, dedicating herself to taking care of a child and keeping the house in order is a full-time job, even if it doesn’t pay the mortgage. Her staying home is quite possibly what’s allowing the breadwinner to pick up those extra hours and put in the work necessary to earn a raise. By asserting that the role in life she has chosen is important to the health of the household, it no longer feels to the reader that the woman's role in the story is to fulfill a misogynistic fantasy. (Obviously in stories where degradation is the point, and misogyny is a fetish, this goes out the window.)

And this level of thought can be applied to any motive. I’m merely using the baby motive as an example.

Imply she has a life outside of the sexual encounter

In stories that jump right into the sex this may be difficult, but it’s not impossible. You can tell a lot about a person's plans based on what they're wearing. So maybe have her dressed like it’s laundry day, or maybe wearing an article of clothing that tells you where she was immediately before an encounter. Maybe she enters the scene in khakis and a blue polo, implying that she works at a bust buy. If she’s a prostitute, she could mention putting the money earned towards a new car. Just about anything counts.

Even if she’s not the main character, her actions should have some impact on the plot

Any alteration in the trajectory of the plot counts. Just make it feel like her actions have some kind of weight in the story. If she could be replaced by another female character without any change to the plot, she’s probably a little flat.

Do research and ask questions!

This goes for everyone. The more educated you are on a topic, the more likely you are to have a solid concept of what you don’t know. It’s the Dunning Kruger effect. An example in my own life as a woman is when my MTF girlfriend sent me a flaccid dick pic and I thought she’d been in some sort of accident. Turns out uncircumcised dicks just look like that when they’re not hard. It’s okay to not know things, and it’s okay to feel like an idiot while you’re learning. Because a lot of the time it’s just shit that you had no way of knowing until you get corrected.

No matter who you are or what you’re writing about, there’s going to be some detail that you just don’t know about. So ask for help. Don’t be afraid to get the opinion of someone who would have personal experience with the subject at hand. Just be careful about who you ask and be sure to get consent from the person you're asking. A simple “Hey, can I ask you questions about (insert topic here)?” is more than enough.

If you’re unsure where to start, find yourself a female beta reader and ask her what she thinks of the female lead.

If you have any other tricks or suggestions feel free to add them to the thread!

All I ask is that we be mindful. I'd like this thread to consist of people saying "try this" so if you have a tip that's more of a "Don't do this thing" maybe hold onto that thought for a different thread. I want to keep this topic approachable to those who might not be ready to hear that they've done something wrong.

Hello.
I like the topic you’ve brought up and have already learned a few tips just from reading your opening post. I love history and strong women, and tend to combine the two. I’ve written one story and am currently writing a second that gets published a chapter at a time. I think most of my readers are men judging from the feedback I’ve gotten and have wondered quite often what a female reader would think of my characters. I’m a guy by the way, so your topic is quite interesting to me. Thanks for putting the effort into this thread. Subscribed!

 

[MelissaBaby]

Unfortunate choice of words Female (Unnatural) but it was a very long time ago...

Hopefully, not an accurate prediction of the future...

 

[Djmac1031]

I'm still a pretty new writer, but I've done my best to make my female characters more than just a pair of tits and a vagina.

My main female lead in my Jenna Arrangement series is a young college girl with dreams of becoming a professional artist.

She's smart, talented, friendly, loyal. But she's no push over or wilting flower. She can handle herself.

She knows what she wants in her life and relationships, and is open to exploring her sexual kinks and desires.

She's had some negative past experiences, mainly in early relationships, and some family drama (who hasn't?) but these things don't define her, nor has she let them keep her down.

I say all this to say: my reasons for writing her this way were simple: as a man, I gave her the attributes I find attractive in a woman. Things that make her beautiful beyond just her physical looks.

I've had readers tell me they find her realistic. Obviously I suppose that's subjective. But it's certainly something I strive for and at least am hitting that mark to some degree.

 

[RetroFan]

Reading this thread I keep thinking about two female characters, Nurse Mildred Ratched from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and Rey from the new Star Wars trilogy.

I disliked both of them, but for different reasons. Nurse Ratched from OFOTCN is one of the most vile, evil and reprehensible fictional characters ever created. Her evil comes through in the pages of the book, and she is portrayed so well with cold realism by Louise Fletcher in the 1975 film. Yet despite hating Nurse Ratched, she is one of my favourite fictional female characters of all time, because she is so well written, so evil and devoid of morals and conscience and can stir such emotions in people, both from reading the book and watching the film. You are meant to hate this character, and that goal is easily achieved. Basically, Nurse Ratched is awesome.

My reasons for disliking Rey however were completely different. Star Wars fans are meant to like the character and to be fair some do, but Rey has very little depth to her and there has been significant negative reaction to her by Star Wars fans. She is inexplicably good at things despite having no training or expertise, and can never lose which means she can never really grow or learn. Things just seem to happen for her, landing in her lap as though by magic. The character comes across as flat and largely devoid of emotion, except in some scenes where she paradoxically shows too much emotion such as over-celebrating like a gamer reaching a new level at shooting down three first order ships in The Last Jedi.

To sum it up, Nurse Ratched is a well-written character meant to be hated, Rey is a badly-written character meant to be liked. Write a Nurse Ratched, not a Rey.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't recall the Joan Lambert MtF bit. Where was that in Aliens?

As far as I know, nobody noticed it until the advent of DVDs made it possible to get a clean freeze-frame.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I was going to reply to something here but it felt too much like derailing, so I'm just going to note that it's REALLY INTERESTING to see some of the reasons given for disliking female characters and to test those standards out on popular male characters in the same media.

 

[Lifestyle66]

She’s inexplicably good at things, like Luke?
Or literally how Jedi are, as per the prequels?

You might be reading too much into his comment ref Rey.

She was a mechanic, and yet when thrown into a land cruiser fighter she was an expert in combat. That would be like taking the whited suited Storm Troopers and throwing any one of them into a fighter to destroy Luke. But Luke had "the Force" to explain their powers (the whole theme of the movies!) Rey was just there when the writers threw her into the scene, thus his 'flat character" comment. (Yes, I'm a geek, and it's what we do.)

 

[MelissaBaby]

I was going to reply to something here but it felt too much like derailing, so I'm just going to note that it's REALLY INTERESTING to see some of the reasons given for disliking female characters and to test those standards out on popular male characters in the same media.

Also interesting to look at "Skyler White Syndrome", the tendency of some (usually male) viewers to declare that female characters who they find annoying are somehow "worse people" than male characters on the same show who are, by any objective standard, far worse.

Examples:

Skyler White (Breaking Bad)
Meadow Soprano (The Sopranos)
Betty Draper (Mad Men)
Debra Morgan (Dexter)

 

[ElectricBlue]

I was sitting in the bath thinking I'd PM you too great minds think in the bath x

Hot damn. Can I run with the idea of stickygirl and Melissa both in their bathtubs, sending each other PMs? Politically incorrect I know (given the nature of the thread), but fuu...cckkk!

Moving right along.

Thanks for the call-outs, ladies. Hopefully, Melissa, I had my money where my mouth was; and I suspect it was me, semi-colons.

And as for sticky's thousand words - she literally passed them over in the middle of a sentence! She does it at the end of paragraphs now .

 

[MelissaBaby]

The woman who played Skylar got SO much harassment, personally.

Yeah, but see, she cheated on her meth dealing mass murderer husband, so she is a much worse person than him.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Oh, you mean like Anakin in Episode I (as a child, mind you)?
Or how Luke was able to spend a couple weeks with Yoda and then fight Vader almost to a stand-still?
And I'm a geek.
"She is inexplicably good at things despite having no training or expertise, and can never lose which means she can never really grow or learn. "
That is not calling her a flat character. That is being annoyed that she's a Jedi, and behaves like other Jedi, but...dammit...what could the difference be?

They spent far more time in the series building Anakin and Luke before putting them into a fight. Rey was pushed into conflict without the character buildup to provide the combat skills. It's not about her being female. The criticism is poor writing, and a rushed film.

 

[MelissaBaby]

And the actress actually wrote all those scripts!

I think some people assume that actresses are the same as their characters, because otherwise, they'd have to admit they got the role through their talent and hard work, and not because women are manipulative bitches who always get their way.

 

[SimonDoom]

I was going to reply to something here but it felt too much like derailing, so I'm just going to note that it's REALLY INTERESTING to see some of the reasons given for disliking female characters and to test those standards out on popular male characters in the same media.

I don't think it's derailing. I think reaction to the Rey character in Star Wars is something of a Rorschach test, and it is relevant to the discussion in this thread. I'm struck by how invested some people are in the characters of the last trilogy. These aren't real people. Comments about them are comments about the screenwriters, not the characters.

Rey, to me, is a good example of a female character with potential that was unfulfilled. I think things started off well with her in Force Awakens, but I thought the next two movies botched her character. But I thought the same thing about all the characters in the final trilogy. I thought the whole thing was just a mess, mainly because of the conflict in the two different directors' visions. The second movie rejected everything from the first, and then the third movie . . . I don't know what it was trying to do.

Rey is basically a female version of Luke from the original trilogy. The difference is that there's a spirit of levity and wink-wink good fun in the original trilogy that is missing from all the movies that followed, and it's a critical loss, because the whole thing is a bunch of nonsense. The force? Come on. But criticism of the way her character was treated in the final series isn't non-feminist. It's a criticism of the limited vision of the screenwriters.

I feel sort of sorry for people younger than I am, because they cannot possibly know what it was like to see Star Wars when it came out in May 1977. It was breathtaking. Nothing like it had ever been made. It was a cinematic experience that nobody had ever seen before. Now, we have the infinite capability of CGI. Anything can be shown in a movie. The magic of that moment cannot be recaptured.

A much better example of a well-handled female character in a sci-fi action flick was Imperator Furiosa in Mad Max. She was a great character (and well played by Charlize Theron), even though we never got a full back story and you felt like you were just seeing the tip of the iceberg of who she was. If you adroitly show the tip, that's all you need to do.

 

[MelissaBaby]

ALso, I apologize for the derailment (which I think had its uses, but no longer does).
I will end that now.

I'm happy to read any post that doesn't mention Star Wars

 

[TheRedChamber]

Oh, you mean like Anakin in Episode I (as a child, mind you)?
Or how Luke was able to spend a couple weeks with Yoda and then fight Vader almost to a stand-still?
And I'm a geek.
"She is inexplicably good at things despite having no training or expertise, and can never lose which means she can never really grow or learn. "
That is not calling her a flat character. That is being annoyed that she's a Jedi, and behaves like other Jedi, but...dammit...what could the difference be?

One of the weirdest media phenomana over the past few years has been the way in which the population is so passionately divided over the Last Jedi, so much so, that it seems like any forum discussion must eventually end up in a debate about whether Rey is a Mary Sue. I managed to watch the Last Jedi thinking that it did not have a single redeaming feature (weirdly not even John Williams' score) and it was bizarre that Disney, a company that's been making entertainment for a whole century could spend billions of the licence and then miss the mark so completely. My sister, who's opinion I generally respect, on the other hand thinks it's the greatest Star Wars film ever. So, for the record, it's not so much that I don't like Rey as a character, I don't like any of the characters in the sequels - but as the main character she gets the most analysis.

The way I've come to think about it is that a lot of critics, myself included, used to say that they wanted hero characters who start off weak and grow as the movie/trilogy/series who grow as the story develops. The original trilogy was very good at this - Luke started fighting in the rebellion with lots of Heart but not Experience, whereas Han had lots of Experience but no Heart, and they eventually came to the point where the two of them had both at the end. (Note that Luke doesn't fight Vader to a stand-still, Vader absolutely destroys him in Empire even though he's holding back and testing Luke). The prequels had a different arc, Anakin was acknowledged as being uniquely talented, the question was how he would become evil - the arc wasn't very well realized, but it was clear what they were going for.

On the other hand, you have movies whose characters are just effortless cool. James Bond comes into each movie with extensive training and experience, and doesn't ever have any kind of personal growth (yes, I'd argue even when his wife of five minutes is murdered) - he doesn't learn anything and he doesn't hone is skills and that's mostly fine, although he's considered an old-fashioned and possibly uninteresting character. People generally accept this - Black Widow in the Marvel movies is essentially the same and didn't recieve any backlash (though you can argue this is because she's designed to fit into male fantasy)

Then you have the third type of character who is supernaturally good at something without any real explanation. Jackie Chan fits into this model in a lot of his movies - sometimes he's a police officer or an established martial artist, but often he's just an ordinary Joe who, when the mob come at him, starts off cowardly but ends up kicking their asses in the most ridiculous ways possible. People accept this with Jackie because we know that's the deal with his movies and its supposed to be funny.

The problem with Rey is that many people were expecting her or wanting her to be another Luke style hero, whereas she came across more as a Bond/Chan style hero, without having or needing any training, and without seeming to need any allies. I'd argue there were lots of other problems with her writing (inconsitent motivation for joining the rebellion, not being in the same scene as Finn throughout the whole of the second film etc), but that's another conversation.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Luke started fighting in the rebellion with lots of Heart but not Experience, whereas Han had lots of Experience but no Heart, and they eventually came to the point where the two of them had both at the end.

So, the two of them could have gone to see the Wizard of Oz and saved everybody a lot of trouble.

 

[NotWise]

Do you need to worry about how you write female characters in science fiction or fantasy settings? Do they make great examples of how to write or not to write female characters?

 

[TheRedChamber]

So, the two of them could have gone to see the Wizard of Oz and saved everybody a lot of trouble.

You can mock, but essentially, yes, at a basic level Luke and Han pass the Dorothy test - they're simple characters but they have a clear motive for following the Yellow Brick Road that the audience isn't going to be confused about.

 

[RetroFan]

I have absolutely no objection to a female Jedi at all, in fact I would welcome it. And I think Princess Leia from the original trilogy and Jyn Erso from Rogue One were awesome characters. I like strong female characters. I like strong male characters. I don't like poorly written characters, female or male. If Rey was male, I would have exactly the same reservations about her character.

 

[ElectricBlue]

And then spend the rest of their lives in black and white!

Ah no. Technicolor, and sepia back in Kansas .

 

[ElectricBlue]

I feel sort of sorry for people younger than I am, because they cannot possibly know what it was like to see Star Wars when it came out in May 1977. It was breathtaking. Nothing like it had ever been made. It was a cinematic experience that nobody had ever seen before. Now, we have the infinite capability of CGI. Anything can be shown in a movie. The magic of that moment cannot be recaptured.

Hmmmm.

EB looks at Simon with sorrow, and shakes his head.

"Before Star Wars there always was, and always will be, 2001, A Space Odyssey." **

** Marketing campaign for the tenth anniversary release of 2001, the magnum opus of twentieth century sci-fi.

"Should he spit out the soap?" asked Suzie, nervously stepping away from her brother.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Some real life people are flat as fuck, never learn, never grow, never change, just live their lives in their stereotypical roles and are quite happy to do so, not because they necessarily want to but because they don't expect anything else out of their life. Including having kids with just anyone because they want a kid and don't put any thought into it beyond "must mate with whoever will have me because I have no worth without a child."

Some tiny women can unexpectedly kick your fucking ass with zero training and only survival instincts. And some trained fighters can freeze in a moment of true peril.

Most of my female characters are either reflections of parts of myself or women I know. Some women have no motivation beyond making men happy and that doesn't make them any less realistic women, it just reflects a specific subtype of woman.

Manic Pixie Dream Girls are often based on real girls, as are Mary Sues, calling them unrealistic or poorly written puts out the idea to the women those characters resonate with that they are not properly women or are not good examples of women and I don't think that's the intention of calling out poorly written female characters.

To me, a poorly written female character is one who goes against how she is written. Beyond that? Anything goes in my opinion.

That's not to say a cowardly woman can't become brave, but an uptight, prudish boss-type is unlikely to suddenly become the office whore in the course of a couple hours just because she saw an employee's "impressive" dick. Having her go through a transition between a private interaction with that employee and eventually experimenting further with other employees in a small group setting and it becomes a little more believable that she decides there's something in it for her to hold a work party where she's the free-use centerpiece. If you establish early on that she desperately wants to be a whore for the men in her office, then go for it because that's how you wrote her.

I'm gonna use an odd example here. In The Little Mermaid (non-seafoam version) a lot of people frame it as Ariel ditching her family and selling her soul/giving up her voice for a guy she doesn't know at all. I never saw it like that. I saw it as her escaping a controlling family to learn more about a part of the world she was forbidden from knowing about but had a deep desire to understand.

Prince Eric is nothing but a means to an end in giving her a safe place to begin that exploration. It would've been a much darker story without Eric and Max finding her on the beach and bringing her back to the very safe palace.

She gives up things she feels aren't in her control anyway because no one listens to her and her own desires are framed as selfish and careless in order to keep her from experiencing something she's dreamed of for most of her life, which is evident by the grotto and her collection of human things. She gives up the only thing her domineering father values about her in order to have a chance at a life of her own and following her dreams.

Eric presents Ariel with an opportunity to explore that new world with someone she's moderately familiar with. She followed his ship and watched him interact with his crew and Max. She got to see parts of his character in those interactions so she didn't just blindly go off with a stranger. Boat journeys take time, she likely followed and watched him for weeks but that would be super boring to show.

I don't see Ariel as a poorly written female character, but I know a lot of people do. I see her as a naive girl who takes a chance to follow the dreams her family tried to destroy. Those girls exist and are as valid as the Moana types who set off on forbidden adventure to save their supportive but tradition-obsessed family. I often see those two pitted against each other. Stop it. They are two different types of girls and neither is a better example of a girl than the other. Both types exist, let them exist without being measured up against each other.

So this would be my contribution:

1. Stop pitting different types of women against each other as a "better" or "worse" example of a woman. Let them exist as individuals without comparing their virtues and flaws against your own ideals of what a woman should be.

2. Stay true to the character you laid out at the beginning of the story. You can have a shy girl want to be madly promiscuous and establish that with little more than a thought or daydream about her desire to be freely used. She can still be super shy, but since you established that freaky undercurrent it becomes believable when she finds herself in a fulfilling quartet of fuckery without being in the midst of a panic attack or a noncon situation.

Also, Moana and Ariel would be the fucking best of friends.

Good post and I agree with most of it. I've know one possibly two Manic Pixie Dream Girls in my life.

I watched Little Mermaid with my daughter for the first time last year. The issue I had with it was that it didn't seem to have the proper core or moral I was expecting. That is, I was expecting it to have something to say about why giving up 'your voice' might be a bad idea - either because it represents your choices, or your personality or the reason he loves you or even simply that you can't scream for help. I think Ariel is pretty well drawn for the beginning of the movie, makes some dumb choices (which is fine, characters do that) but never really gets a chance to make smart decisions at the end of the movie. Instead Ursula just hypnotises Eric, there's a big battle at the end and then they decide Urusal is evil so the contract is null and void. It just doesn't feel satisfying. I think it is worth pointing out that some of the princes in the Disney movies are as empty and vapid as female characters are often pointed out to be (the Cinderella prince being the worst example).

 

[JGittes]

I'm happy to read any post that doesn't mention Star Wars

Let's move on to Captain Marvel, then.

I believe it to be the best MCU entry (damning with faint praise.) It has a believable (sort of) superhuman strength origin story, complex character development (for a superhero movie), and cool depictions of the joy of flight and going into space. It's basically a mash-up of 'Top Gun' and 'The Right Stuff,' even name-checking 'The Right Stuff.' For the icing on the cake, Danvers decapitates the evil villain of 'True Lies,' Harry Tasker.

 

[TheRedChamber]

The thing I had a problem with about the story is that at the end of the movie, you realize the story never really about Ariel, but her father. He's the one who learns the lesson around the perils of stripping your daughter of her autonomy to suit your own interest in her life. Any of his daughters could've been substituted for Ariel with their own desires and dreams and it would've played out just the same way, ultimately with Triton learning the lesson and changing at the end of film to "allow" his daughter to make her own choices, for better or worse.

And again, her giving up her voice was, in my opinion, symbolic of ridding herself of the one thing her father appeared to value in her (her singing being similar to her dead mother's, which is a whole other level of twisted.) It's only after he exchanges his soul for Ariel's at Ursula's that he expresses any consideration for her as a whole being to her. Before that it was only ever about her performing for him.

Yes, that's certainly a better reading of it than I'd come up with. That said, it still feels a bit thin, as I'd expect both of them to have learned some kind of lesson by the end. The autonomy part is interesting because she always seems to do whatever she wants anyway and as she nearly gets eaten by a shart in the first five minutes and then trades her soul to the most obviously cartoonishly evil woman ever, as a father I'm kind of on his side! Still, this is the sort of thing that makes characters come alive.