proprietary fannish love; or, who "ruined" my female character

[pellucid]

Yesterday I participated in a discussion about what this whole fanfic thing is all about, anyway. Yesterday and today I participated in two different discussions about female characters. I propose that there are some similar principles underlying both sets of discussions.

Comments

[beccatoria]

Great post! I don't have so much to say on the subject of the fanfic forum, but I guess I can chime in at least on my personal thoughts on "strong" or "weak" female characters.

I don't think either of those are terms I generally use when describing why I like or dislike a character. If I'm going to use those words it's generally not as a way of attributing (lack of) worth to a character in a meta or feminist sense, but rather if I'm actually discussing or attempting to describe my views of the character in an...in-universe sense? Like, I will talk about the strengths or weaknesses that Starbuck exhibits in any given situation but I won't say, "I like Starbuck because she is a strong, female character," (even though the intention of that sentence would be accurate) because if nothing else it's become so cliche as to be almost meaningless

[pellucid]

where strong is defined as "strength of characterisation"

Yes, exactly, and I like the way you put this. "Strong" and "weak" would not have been my chosen terms (hence the scare quotes), but I adopted them on purpose from the discussions I was responding to. Because I very much agree with you that the problem is often one of using the words in ways that purport to be pro-woman (hey, Starbuck can beat up the guys!) but actually just reinforces patriarchal stereotypes (physical strength="strong"; emotions="weak", etc.).

danceswithwords mentioned the importance of female characters' agency above, and I agreed with her and added that understanding and even empathy is also key: I want the character to make her own decisions, to do things rather than have them done to her, and I want to understand why she makes the decisions she makes. Not that I have to like her decisions, or even like her, but I want to see what makes her tick--and I want to see that the writers know it's important to show what makes her tick. And all of that, I think, falls under

[tejas]

sometimes it almost seems that "strong female character" becomes code for "stereotype thrown in to pacify the girls." Yes! Thank you! That's a major facet of the problem for me. I also agree with you on the "strength of characterization" bit. I've found, overall, women tend to be written far more inconsistently than men. Or, maybe a better way to put it is when I see women characters written inconsistently, more often than not, the men are written significantly *more* consistently. Consistency, in this instance would be in-universe - even though we've never seen Character A do this before, it makes *complete* sense that he/she would go home and polish off a bottle of Jack after Traumatic Event Y. When every new thing we learn about a character slots into what we already know (builds a clearer picture) without the aid of a crowbar, that's consistent writing. Characters grow from their pasts, just as real people do (or they *should* ;-). When, however, a character demonstrates a pattern of behavior or thought that contradicts their

[tejas]

I was thinking about this and realized I left out something important. (That's the problem with taking a discussion from a known group where underlying assumptions are known to a broader group who don't necessarily share those same assumptions. :-)

When, however, a character demonstrates a pattern of behavior or thought that contradicts their known traits (note 'pattern' - smart people do stupid things from time to time) that messes with the characterization. The new pattern of behavior *can* be growth and if so, that's great. Where I find it inconsistent is when the impact of the new information is ignored. Character A has been shown to be a bit of a slob from day one. Oh, she can find whatever she needs and is in no danger from the health department, but she's not into the whole orderliness thing. ;-) Suddenly, she's shown to be very fastidious about hanging clothes or folding towels just so and her apartment is suddenly in good order. At work, her desk is no longer hip deep in paper with files overflowing onto the floor. Now, this

[pellucid]

Lots of agreement with most of what you say here--shocking, I know, that we should agree! ;) I don't feel much guilt about blaming the writers, though, I must confess. I do try to keep in mind that there are so many various considerations and so many different people that go into making a television show that it isn't fair to heap blame solely at the feet of the creator or the person who got screenplay credit on a particular episode, etc. But I do think it's reflective of the continuing pervasiveness of patriarchal stereotypes in all aspects of our society, and I have no problem saying so. I'm not sure what a better alternative is, really. I don't see much use in blaming the character herself--not only is this counterproductive when it comes to feminism, but, uh, they're not actually real! And hopefully complaints are positively directed, at least in terms of reminding myself not to be complacent if not anything more than that. Though I'd typically rather dwell on the positive.

I deeply appreciate that Roslin is not looked at askance

[pellucid]

I do see what you're saying about blaming the writers vs. blaming yourself for having unrealistic expectations--and I do agree that it's an important distinction to make. I guess for me it all comes back to wanting to see the character's agency and to understand her motivations: I'm usually pretty okay with whatever a character does (even when I don't necessarily like it) if I feel like there was good reason for it. When the "reason" seems to be a result of lazy writing or especially of assumptions based on sexist stereotypes, then I bristle. Put, for instance, a character pregnancy plot in the hands of a writer who really makes me understand why the character feels the way she feels and is choosing what she's choosing, and I might really like it; put the same bare bones of a pregnancy plot in the hands of a writer who assumes that women love babies, right? and I'll probably do a lot of bristling

[admireddisorder]

odd you should post about this, because i've been pondering something similar these past couple of days. my strange conclusion is that a lot of fannish behavior stems from being in fandom in the first place. if i elaborated, i'd end up writing a book, bottom line is, i seriously believe that people encourage each other, directly or indirectly, to contribute something once they join a group where everyone is interested in the same thing.

"qualification", i believe, has similar roots. i can watch a tv show and not miss an episode, but not feel qualified to write about it - meta or fanfic - nevertheless. why? well, probably because i haven't thought about it, haven't discussed it, haven't analyzed it as thoroughly as other people - fandom - have. i don't think i could write the west wing for the life of me, although i've seen all the season 1-4 episodes. i ADORE toby and cj, but to write them... that would be impossible. i am thoroughly unqualified

[pellucid]

I do think the fandom is hugely imitative. There are certainly people who are independently inspired to write what they learn after the fact is fanfic, and I'd sort of be curious to know what proportion of people in fanfic would fall under this rubric: was it first an impulse that later found a location in fandom, or did it happen the other way around. I was definitely the other way around. I was looking for X-Files episode reviews when I ran across fanfic accidentally, and I was kind of blown away by the fact that it existed. I thought it was cool (clearly it scratched an itch that I had, ardent shipper that I was), I started to read, and eventually I wrote my own. The kind of fic I've written over the years has been largely shaped by the different communities I've been a part of, as well. So yes, I agree

[admireddisorder]

strange confession: i started writing "fanfic" when i was about 12 or 13. that was back in the mid 90's, there was no internet, but i'd write star trek stories with my 8 year old brother. we were just having fun, and i remember being quite shocked to discover later, much later (2000, actually, after i went to college and bought a computer), that there were quite a few people out there who wrote stories based on characters other people have created. so yes, i do believe some people feel the need to write, draw, or analyze independently of fandom, but fandom is such an important factor nowadays, well, since the internet exploded the way it did. or, perhaps, one could argue that my brother and i, together with my 2 best friends who watch the show with me, WERE fandom, in a way

[pellucid]

The key thing, I think, is that there is a huge sliding scale between awful writers shoehorning characters into their story on one hand and fans expecting characters to adapt to their worldview on the other. And what matters and is interesting is all the complex and unique combinations of factors--which change according to each individual fan and each individual character, I think.

I think I still come back to the two terms coming out of this discussion that I find most helpful: agency and strength of characterization. If a character (regardless of gender) is has agency and is strongly characterized in a way that makes sense, that's what I'm looking for. If not, if I can point to things and say "hey, this person only has things done to him/her and never gets to act" or "where are this character's motivations? why does he/she feel this way about this particular development?" then I spy problems with the writing. I don't have to agree with the character's decisions or motivations (nor would I always want to), but good writing involves

[em_h]

on the subject of the workshop: i've now created a teeny LJ community for people to post their resultant fics, so if you come up with anything that might have been to some extent sparked by the evening, do feel free to post. if you want to link to this discussion, that'd be great too.

on the more substantive discussion, as usual i have no time to be substantive, sigh. but i think beccatoria has a very good point there which has probably helped me clarify my own thinking on this.

[em_h]

um, a link to the comm would help, wouldn't it? i didn't get much sleep last night.

this'd be it.

[pellucid]

Oh awesome! I feel like I've been drawn into a giant work vortex in the last 24 hours in particular that is likely to last until I leave town next week, but I do really want to get back to the five things prompt that that I poked at briefly at the workshop because it is one I'm interested in, and the one sentence I wrote there, while not necessarily one I'll keep, did make me think about where to go with this character (who is someone I've been struggling to write for some time). So if that actually happens, I'll definitely link you, and I'm really curious to see what other people come up with!