In March of 2018, Whitney Reynolds proposed a Twitter challenge for women: to describe themselves as male authors
While amusing, this draws attention to the characteristics male writers repetitively use to create female characters. Even the greats have received criticism for their depictions of women, such as Hemingway, Murakami and Shakespeare. It’s not that their women characters are bad people, rather they are badly written. They fall into stereotypes, disappear after a few scenes, have no emotional depth and only exist as a source of reward or pain for the male protagonists. Our first impressions of these women are often unnecessarily detailed or crude descriptions, emphasizing their superficial relationship to stories.
The novelist Sally Kaslow once said that “by default, women have it easier than men when they attempt to craft characters of the opposite sex, because our whole lives we’ve been reading vast amounts of literature written by men” (The Late Lamented Molly Marx). While that may not always hold in the modern age full of female protagonists and authors, many of the classics women are exposed to growing up were written by those who put significantly less effort into developing female characters than males. Since these works were so popular and dominant, these portrayals of women became precedent for future characters. So, the cycle continued.
Of course, this doesn’t mean all female characters are badly written. Jane Austen is known for her classics featuring strong-willed, well-rounded women who exist beyond male fantasies. Maya Angelou is known for her powerful stories centred on social issues and women. Jhumpa Lahiri discusses the varying nuances of an immigrant woman’s life.
However, despite the multitude of good examples, badly written female characters still exist today, whether from a lack of knowledge on the depth of a female perspective, or purposeful portrayals that only emphasize stereotypes. Writer Casey Nungent discusses in this article how shows like True Detective portray women only in relation to the main male protagonist and highly sexualize female murder victims. Game of Thrones (despite acknowledging that its characters live within a patriarchy) often uses violence against women for shock value, and even Sherlock has reduced smart women in sappy love interests.
Take, for example, the “strong female character.” This trope is a modern attempt to reject the traditional “feminine” role of many women in the media. These women are spunky, badass and heroic – think of Black Widow from the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Buffy Summers. These characters often “transform” their femininity into something more powerful (high-heeled weapons, anyone?).
In theory, we can see how this would work. Rather than settle for minimal supportive roles, these women try to change the narrative in their favour. Nonetheless, the strong female can backfire if she isn’t given any sort of depth beyond her physical capabilities. Sure, she can shoot multiple weapons, but is she given any screen time that doesn’t involve her shooting said weapons? Does she have emotional depth? Does she experience a character arc? Is she exposed to realistic experiences and relationships that serve her development, and not just someone else’s? And if she’s the protagonist of the story, does she get to exercise agency, or does the spotlight fall on somebody else?
These are often characteristics unique to this trope because male protagonists are given the depth that character development often calls for. They have a tragic history, a cause to fight for and emotionally fulfilling relationships, while “strong female characters” get the gun and nothing else.
The strong female character to the classic damsel in distress, the Mary Sue, the disposable girlfriend, the seductress and the token woman of colour are all damage-dealing roles to what we perceive as a well-developed female character. Women don’t need to be fashioned into these narrow categories – female characters can be meek or strong-willed, reluctant heroines, vulnerable allies, manipulative or fiercely loyal. They can be as fascinating as the women we see today.
So how should well-developed female characters be constructed? Before we begin, it’s important to note that there is no perfect depiction of any kind of character, but we can propose a loose set of guidelines. For one, writers should observe those around them. The best characters are the ones people can relate to regardless of setting. Strengths, flaws, understandable motives and just enough scandal to make the audience gasp are factors writers should consider.
As well, the number of female characters is central to the story. Catherynne M. Valente states quite accurately that, “If there’s only one woman in a story, she ends up having to stand in for all women.” A quick solution is featuring multiple women that offer different perspectives, influence each other, and propel the story forward in various ways.
The debate concerning female characters is nuanced, but there is one thing we can take away from this: the potential to create memorable women is right in the palm of our hands. Women are much more than pretty side pieces or depthless soldiers. We can take a cue from experienced authors or create them ourselves by taking realistic experiences into account.
It’s not an easy path, but the result is more than worth it.
By Jareeat Purnava
Please note that opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views and values of The Blank Page.
