An A+-ish Article on Strong Characters

It's hard to talk about feminism without someone bringing up literary criticism. After all, one of the most commonly known pieces of modern feminism is a piece of lit-crit called the Bechdel Test. And now, I think I'll join in with a bit of discussion of why so many attempts at writing Strong Female Characters fail as such and fail the work.

The problem comes from a misunderstanding of what the term "strong character" means. Is Batman a strong character? Yes, for the most part. Is Batman physically strong, assertive, and generally someone who strikes fear into the hearts of superstitious and cowardly criminals? Yes. Is he strong because of the above? No.

See, because "physical strength" and "mental strength" get used so often as the definitions of "strength", a writer looking at writing a Strong Female Character will rely on those. The character punches everyone around her in the face, pushes people around, and terrifies the villains. But while she is strong, she is not a strong character.

The following material is flagged Red Level. It deals with the blogger's original ideas, personal beliefs, and delusions; and might not be believed by any expert in any field anywhere.

I will now define my terms:

1. A strong character has clearly defined motivations and is suggested to have an existence beyond the needs of the plot.
2. An awesome character takes actions and makes decisions that significantly influence the plot.

Of course, I am not saying that awesome-ness is not something to have in a character. Especially in the lead character, it's important that the character be more than just a MacGuffin for the secondary characters to chase (I'm looking at you, Stephenie Meyer), and a protagonist who does not influence the plot is no protagonist. Having women who are strong characters but sit on the sidelines or struggle ineffectually against the villain is A Problem, much like a strong character who exists solely for the Hero to chase after or swear vengeance for after she gets fridged.

But it is also a problem for the main character to be the Brooding Loner With No Personality Or Relationships Whose Only Role In The Plot Is To Kick A Lot Of Butt, at least outside of tabletop RPGs. (It's a problem there, too, but not quite as much of one since the rest of the party probably has at least one person with a personality, and because there's Gamist elements to an RPG.)

Let's start by contrasting two characters from The Avengers (movie version).

Strong Character Trait	Iron Man	Black Widow
Relationships	Virginia Potts (secondary cast member) (romantic interest), other Avengers (coworking)	Hawkeye (ambiguous), other Avengers (coworking)
Interests	Technology, clean energy, himself	Hawkeye
Motivation	Money, survival, make the world a better place	Hawkeye Um, sorry. Unknown. One scene suggests a possible motivation, but context shows that it is secondary or false.
Background	Not shown in Avengers. Shown in previous movies.	See Motivation. Some background elements are vaguely suggested.
Plot-Irrelevant Personality	Sarcastic, egotistical, drinks a lot.	None.

(plot-irrelevant personality is used because personality traits required for the plot to work the way it does are not a sign of depth or characterization)

So, as we can see, Joss Whedon failed to make Black Widow a strong character. She is certainly an awesome character: surviving a rampaging Hulk, tricking information out of Loki, saving Hawkeye, and so forth (all with no metahuman abilities or enhancements), but she is not a strong character.

Another set of contrasts (without the table this time) from FiM, that should emphasize the difference more: Princess Celestia vs. Rarity.

Celestia is very much an awesome character (with the exception of A Canterlot Wedding). When she takes an active hoof in the story, it either fixes the problem the heroines have gotten themselves into or allows them to succeed. When she acts, she has enough raw personal power and enough subtlety to make the plot act however she wants it to act. But she is not a strong character. She has no interests, motivations, relationships, or personality beyond that which is necessary for the plot to happen the way it does. She is, in effect, more of a living plot device than a character.

(This is a fairly common problem when writing godlike characters, related to the famous Problem of Evil. If the god is detached from the world, the god doesn't have much of an opportunity to show off a personality. If the god is accessible and part of the world, any trait the god has that is not necessary for the plot to happen would cause the plot to happen differently. Whedon hasn't got that excuse, since Black Widow is in no way godlike.)

Contrast this with Rarity. She is usually not an awesome character; when she is not the focus of the episode, she has very little effect on the plot (although she is certainly an awesome character when she is the focus character; see her self-rescuing damsel moment). But she is a strong character, with clear motivations, internal conflicts,  and personality.

And now for an image that was bouncing around my head while I was writing this, since I don't think anyone's ever made this comparison before:

Atheism+: In Which Talking Horses are Used to Discuss Intersectionality

Okay, I'm feeling a bit uncreative this week, so I'm going to be expanding on something that Natalie Reed posted to her Twitter here (yes, late, I know). Another SJ post, this time discussing how the narratives behind specific oppressions feed into one another. If you aren't interested, I'm sure you know the way to TVTropes by now.

The following material is flagged Yellow Level. It contains material that is disputed by some experts but accepted by others. Caution is advised when deciding whether you personally choose to believe it.

This week, I will be examining the Brony phenomenon and how it, or more specifically its anti-fans are connected to a social-justice issue. For those of you who don't pay attention to geek and fandom culture, the "Brony" community is the adult male fans of "My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic" (the adult female community being "Pegasisters").

Of course, I will say that there are some legitimate criticisms. There's the legitimate criticisms of any fandom (obsessiveness; horrifying, awful,  and/or horrifyingly awful fanfic), and there's the specific legitimate criticisms of any adult fandom of a work intended for children (insistence on making the work one exclusively for adults, tendency to interpret the work in incredibly cynical ways), and there's the ones that are MLP-fandom-specific (look, just because she's got rainbow hair and stereotypically masculine interests...). But there are criticisms that aren't legitimate, and I will be exploring one here.

Specifically, I will be exploring the "stop watching cartoons for girls" criticism. This is, at its core, the idea that there is something "funny" or "disgusting" or just plain "wrong" about gender-deviant men. It is similar to the idea that there is something funny about a man wearing a skirt, or disgusting about a man with an effeminate appearance.

So, how does this tie into SJ, aside from PHMT? I'm getting to that.

Let's look at the underlying narrative behind "gender-deviance in men is bad". Or rather, let's look at several of them.

The Gender Narrative: In a patriarchal system, men are valued more than women. As such, the system places less value on a man who has interests or traits it assigns as "feminine" and/or lacks those it assigns as "masculine". In other words, a man whose interests include sewing and cooking, or that do not include sports, is considered worth less than a man whose only interests are running a Fortune 500 company, playing rugby, hunting megafauna with a suspiciously large cannon, eating raw meat, enjoying the company of several women at a time, and combinations of the above.

The Gender Identity Narrative: Of course, the ultimate expression of an "effeminate man" (in the ways that patriarchal and transphobic societies view the term "man") is a trans woman. Deviation from the "masculine ideal" is considered a trans* trait, and a transphobic society is, well, transphobic.

The Sexual Orientation Narrative: See the Gender Identity narrative, but read "trans woman" as "gay man", "trans*" as "gay", and "transphobic" as "homophobic".

Of course, this might not be the best example; given that it does not tie into racist, ableist (beyond "hurr hurr, girly stuff is r*****ed"), or  classist narratives.

Oh, and an administrative note: I might be taking an extended break from this blog. I've been having some computer problems, and I have finals coming up; so I'll be posting intermittently if at all. I should be back to regular posting by February at the latest.