(Untitled)
mekosuchinae linked to a particularly awful and fail-filled female character flow chart that was completely counterproductive and missed the point. www.overthinkingit.com/2010/10/11/female-character-flowchart/
My instinctive reaction to this was, "can we please stop putting down female characters in the name of feminism." Things like this are one of many ( Read more... )
My instinctive reaction to this was, "can we please stop putting down female characters in the name of feminism." Things like this are one of many ( Read more... )
She writes:
Note to writers: The "Mama Bear" and "Vanilla Action Girl" do not count as "strong female characters."
And I wonder - why the hell not? Not that I can really say much about "Vanilla Action Girl" as I don't get what it's supposed to mean - "Vanilla" just implies "standard, decent, bland" to me (except according to the flow chart, it's what all feminine, offensive, healthy team fighters of a certain age turn out to be, if female, which isn't saying much at all).
But I know what the "Mama Bear" trope is. Unlike the article writer, I don't think a character who you can apply that quote to must be a bad stereotype. If the trope is all there is to the character, well yes, it's probably not a terribly interesting person. But as long as there are other sides to her than her protective interest in her children, then she may well be a strong character still - depending on what those other sides are and how well it all comes together. Even if the "Mama Bear" label might still be the first thing that comes to mind when readers/viewers might want to label her, as long as it's not sufficient to portray her in full, she can still be strong. (I can think of several characters like that, in fact.)
And that's just one example among many, many tropes on the chart. Indeed, I'd say some of them seem to be more likely than not to favour strong women in themselves, like "Lady of War" - though of course, no trope is immune to bad, reductive writing.
The writer appears to believe that if you can describe a character with a trope, then that character is badly written, period. Even if the trope by no means is enough to cover the whole of that character. I think this is a gross misunderstanding of what tropes are - you're supposed to be able to apply tropes to all fictional characters. The more complex ones are merely more than the sum of their tropes.
(Heck, even prominent characters who might not necessarily strike me as the most complex ones usually needs more than one trope, too. Like on the flow chart, Usagi Tsukino is an Adorable Klutz, true - but at the same time, she's also The Messiah.)
...wow, I typed a lot. Er. I'm not an expert on this stuff, but the whole reductiveness of the chart and the muddled reasoning behind it kinda set me off this time.
Reply
Someone explained to me that a Vanilla Action Girl is a female character who fights without a purpose. They are generic action girls because they supposedly have nothing motivating them to fight in the first place.
Reply
*snort* I read that someone ran Riza Hawkeye through that thing and ended up at vanilla action girl. Knowing what vanilla action girl means makes it even funnier. (Well, not ha-ha funny...)
That chart sure is enraging and all kinds of wrong, but I gotta appreciate how it graphically disproves the very point they're trying to make... the very stupid, misguided, faux-feminist, absolutely counterprodactive rethoric we've had thrown in our faces for years. A picture says more than thousand words. ;)
What really bugs me is that when one ventures away from LJ there are people actually endorsing this piece of garbage as a guide to writing three-dimensional characters. /o\
Reply
Leave a comment