crankyMeanwhile, the New Statesman has posted an article titled "I Hate Strong Female Characters," taking the position that male characters are allowed to be flawed, complex, and infinitely interesting, while female characters are expected to stop at "strong." Woo! That character is strong! Flawless feminist writing!
Groan.
I've talked before about the concept of "the Mary Sue," and why I think she is both unfairly maligned and non-existent. You can find that post here, which I think officially makes this the post with the most "required background reading" thus far this year. A lot of people have pointed this out recently—it is not an original thought—but I'm going to put it here anyway, because I think it's salient:
1. Mary Sue is the best she is at what she does.
2. Mary Sue has a mysterious and tortured past, and is probably an orphan.
3. Mary Sue is physically attractive.
4. Mary Sue is either rich or somehow never has a problem with money.
5. Mary Sue develops powers to suit the situation, because she always wins, unless she needs to lose for the sake of beautiful angst.
6. Mary Sue doesn't have to follow the rules of the story she's in. Ergo...
7. Batman and Wolverine are both Mary Sues.
(Pointing this out to people who are piously explaining how only female characters can be Mary Sues, because only female characters are ever that unrealistically written, is hysterical. And by "hysterical," I mean "a really good way to get yelled at by enraged nerds who don't want to admit, even a little bit, that their magical dick-lords could be just as much wish-fulfillment as all those violet-eyed sixteen-year-old ensigns flying starships.")
So. Let us begin.
October "Toby" Daye was in many ways my first "real" protagonist. She was complicated, she was sad, she was bruised and refusing to break, and she was not afraid to put her duty ahead of her desire to be liked. She bullied her way through the world she was created to inhabit, looking at every complication that stood in her way and saying "No, you move." After a lifetime spent moving dolls through stories, it was like I finally had a real person to follow and document. I started writing her adventures, and sending them out to people I trusted to read and review. Midway through either the second or the third book—I don't remember anymore—I got a note from one of my proofers saying "You can't have Toby do this, she's always been a little bitchy, but this makes her a total bitch. No one will like her if she does this."
I panicked. I couldn't write a series about an unlikeable character! I'd never get published, no one else would ever meet my imaginary friends, and everything I'd worked for my whole life would be over, all because Toby was unlikeable.
Then I took a deep breath, and wrote back to the proofer requesting that they do a find/replace on the .doc, and plug in the name "Harry Dresden" for every instance of "October Daye." They did, and lo and behold, what had been "bitchy" and "inappropriate" was suddenly "bold" and "assertive." A male character in the same situation, with the same background, taking the same actions, was completely in the right, justified, and draped with glory. He was a hero. Toby? Toby was an unlikeable bitch.
The proofer withdrew the compliant. I have never forgotten it.
Female characters are expected to be perfect without being perfect, a contradiction that is as nonsensical as it is impossible. There's a full list in the article I linked above ("I Hate Strong Female Characters"), but these are the ones that really frustrate me. Female characters have to be:
* Thin and conventionally pretty, but eat only junk food/eat constantly, and never, ever worry about gaining weight;
* Incredibly sexy but unaware of their own sexuality ("You don't know you're beautiful!").
* TOTALLY SURPRISED when a push-up bra or pair of leather pants changes the way people look at them.
* Convinced that every woman around them is a bitch, slut, or whore.
That last one...yeah. See, there's this huge narrative of "I'm not like the other girls" that runs through a lot of these critiques, and it's not "I'm not like..." the way that, say, Harry Potter is not like the other wizards in his year group. No, it's "You Belong With Me"-level "she wears high heels, I wear sneakers" shit, totally denying that the other girls could have anything of value to bring to the conversation. It's like being a member of the Disney Princess collection. You can't let those other princesses steal your spotlight, no! Ignore them, shame them, refuse to make eye contact. Call a girl who wears the same thing you do a skank, it's okay. Call a girl who's had two boyfriends a slut, even as you dance at the center of your own love pentagon. It's all fine, because you're not like those other girls. By creating a single focal point of "not like" that it's okay to care about, you place the rest of the world's female humans in a box labeled "icky." Not-like girls are great. They're strong female characters, they kick ass and take names and eat cheeseburgers and don't give a damn what the world thinks of them. All other girls are gross.
The amount of slut-shaming, fat-shaming, you-name-it-shaming that I see coming from these "strong female characters" is horrifying, because it requires that othering aspect be front and center. Your character must be above reproach, and since everyone knows that women are disgusting, horrifying, alien skin lizards wearing pretty makeup and hair dye to deceive and entrap men, she can't be like them. She can never be like those other girls.
I flip out when I meet a female character who's allowed to have female friends, because it's so damn rare. The upcoming Disney film, Frozen, has sisters in it. Sisters. Who get to be the same age and talk and stuff. I am ecstatic, because even if the movie turns out to be a sack of problematic eels, we got sisters on the goddamn screen, and that's even rarer than friends.
Where does this come from? Well, in part, it comes from the things we surround ourselves with. Books and movies where the Smurfette Principle is in full effect, which means that one woman must stand in for all women, and thus can't have a personality beyond "the girl." Series where you have the one sensible, sympathetic female, and every other female character is there to cause trouble or gasp no oh no panic, steal her man. Series where the female characters are killed off to further male pain, or because the male characters are "easier to write" (a statement that often matches up to an all-male writer's room).
It needs to stop.
Female characters should be people. Flawed, glorious, interesting, enthralling people. Let them dye their hair and pierce their ears without going "wah wah wah I'm so bad at being a girl wait hey look suddenly I've gotten a makeover and I'm gorgeous." Let them have female friends. Let them fuck up. Let them have bad days, and swear, and be snotty, and be people. Stop shoving them into these boxes where anything less than perfect adherence to a set of ticky-boxes means failure. They are better than that. We are better than that.
It's time for everybody's standards to look the same.
August 19 2013, 22:14:26 UTC 3 years ago
August 20 2013, 02:15:52 UTC 3 years ago
August 20 2013, 06:44:41 UTC 3 years ago
So does most of the population of the Solarian League and the Manticoran Star Kingdom.
...needs chocolate to keep her weight up...
Well, not chocolate. But yes, she eats unusual amounts in order to keep up with her metabolism. Or at least she does now. As far as I can tell, Weber put that in just so he could starve her. If you can find anything written prior to In Enemy Hands which has her eating heavily, let me know. (From my viewpoint, the hot chocolate read more as a personal taste than as part of the plan to keep up with her caloric requirements.)
...and has an intelligent telepathic cat).
Well, if she had the only one, I'd be bothered. Otherwise, you'll have to explain the difference between David Weber's characters and Anne McCaffrey's characters in that respect.
August 20 2013, 12:32:22 UTC 3 years ago
August 20 2013, 13:22:54 UTC 3 years ago
August 20 2013, 18:21:56 UTC 3 years ago
(I'm going to assume that you meant, "each of those qualities is rare.")
Prolong: Rare for the universe, possibly. However, she's lucky enough to have parents in high-paying careers, and be born into a region that is economically powerful out of proportion to its size. In that context, it would be unusual if she had not had the prolong treatment. If you're going to consider that a rarity, then you and I are rarities, considering our medical, technological and educational advantages compared against the entire planet. However, for the United States, you and I are probably close to average in terms of what we have available to us. Similarly, for the Manticoran Star Kingdom, Honor having prolong is close to average.
Unusually high metabolism: Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. As far as I am aware without going back and reading everything again (which I could do, but I don't feel like taking a weekend), she was not described as having that high metabolism until just before she was almost starved. And by "just before," I mean, "earlier in the same book." If she's a wish-fulfillment character for that aspect, then I can only say that it looks more like David Weber wishes to make Honor as miserable as possible, and he will happily fill in holes in her backstory to do just that.
Treecats: Yes, most people think they are animals. This isn't an accident. It's the product of a concerted effort by the treecats. They spent years hiding from the people who colonized Sphinx, and when that fell apart, they worked to keep the universe in general from realizing that they were intelligent, with a certain amount of help from the humans that they bonded to. Furthermore, this is another place where context matters. Honor Harrington was born on Sphinx, and grew up there, which improves the probability of being adopted by a treecat considerably, because a person in that position is more likely to come within range of multiple treecats over the course of fifteen to twenty years.
"...her lover was hesitant because she looked so very young."
Which book was this in? I can't find anything like that in The Short Victorious War.
August 20 2013, 20:19:29 UTC 3 years ago
Also, who CARES if she's a Mary Sue or not? It's a problematic label at the best of times, and I thought the whole point of this post was that female characters should be treated as people. Sometimes people are extraordinary.
August 20 2013, 20:48:42 UTC 3 years ago
Yes, and her age was arguably the least of them.
Sometimes people are extraordinary.
True enough. On the other hand, if I were going to point out why Honor Harrington was extraordinary, I wouldn't point out her prolong treatment, the retroactive addition to continuity of high-gravity enhancements and corresponding metabolism, or Nimitz. Taken in context of where and when she is, having a treecat is unusual, and the rest of it is ordinary.
If
I don't really care whether she's a Mary Sue or not - I'll keep buying the books regardless of what other people think - but the arguments for being extraordinary were falling well short of the mark.
August 21 2013, 01:07:04 UTC 3 years ago
August 21 2013, 18:55:09 UTC 3 years ago
Now, that's not a bad thing in itself (it's a reason I don't particularly like the character, but it's also a factor why I strongly prefer Jack Aubrey to Hornblower, of whom the same touchstone issue is also true). But what's interesting is how Weber gets a pass on a lot of such issues with regard to HH, which I bet a female writer writing the same character wouldn't get.