Female Characters
I get asked quite a bit why I like writing strong female characters. And the more I think about it, the more I realise it's not a simple question to answer.
Firstly, I like to cast against type. If there's a traditional stereotype for a particular kind of character, I'll always try to do something different. Given that my novels tend to have quite a bit of action in them, the lead character tends to be an 'action character' on one level, at least. Despite all the butt-kicking female characters that have been written, they still remain a small minority compared to all the male 'action characters' around the place, and I find my chances of originality increase dramatically with a female character.
Also, just because I have an 'action character' in the lead, doesn't mean that action is all that character does. I pride myself on being pretty good at characterisation -- it's always been my favorite thing to read in books, all the explosions in the world don't add up to one really good character to sympathise with. In a typical action story, whether in a novel, movie or TV show, the drama comes from asking the question, 'can the hero beat the bad guys?', usually in a straight up fight of some kind. With Cassandra Kresnov from Crossover, she's so lethal there's not ever really any doubt that she can, and will take the bad guys apart, in any straight-up fight. The drama comes from her asking, 'Why should I? And what does it cost me, and how can I live with myself afterwards?" Plus, of course, it's rarely a straight-up fight. I tend to get much more emotional depth from a female character, in answering those questions. Which might be a weak-point on my part, that I can't get as much emotional depth from male characters -- repressed masculinity and all that. But self-analysis beyond a certain point becomes boring, so at this point, I'll stick with what works.
Plus, at the risk of stating the obvious, butt-kicking girls are cool. Non-butt-kicking girls can also be cool, but femininity-as-doormat-or-ornament never interested me on any level. Masculinity neither, come to that. It's not a feminist statement, in that I'm not attempting to make any statement on BEHALF of any group, it's more just a rejection of the idea that any social classification should consign individuals to a small box, outside of which their personality and behavioral type should never venture. Thus I find the 'always manly' male characters in beer commercials tedious, and the 'always girly' women in clothes commercials tedious, and the 'always queer' gay characters in so many sitcoms and other shows pretty tedious too (although they often have the advantage of being genuinely funny, where the others are just annoying). I'm interested in people, not personality-mass-production. The best way to get to know the person, is often to construct them in some form of opposition to the social group into which people might normally classify them. And strong female characters are one way to do that.
Firstly, I like to cast against type. If there's a traditional stereotype for a particular kind of character, I'll always try to do something different. Given that my novels tend to have quite a bit of action in them, the lead character tends to be an 'action character' on one level, at least. Despite all the butt-kicking female characters that have been written, they still remain a small minority compared to all the male 'action characters' around the place, and I find my chances of originality increase dramatically with a female character.
Also, just because I have an 'action character' in the lead, doesn't mean that action is all that character does. I pride myself on being pretty good at characterisation -- it's always been my favorite thing to read in books, all the explosions in the world don't add up to one really good character to sympathise with. In a typical action story, whether in a novel, movie or TV show, the drama comes from asking the question, 'can the hero beat the bad guys?', usually in a straight up fight of some kind. With Cassandra Kresnov from Crossover, she's so lethal there's not ever really any doubt that she can, and will take the bad guys apart, in any straight-up fight. The drama comes from her asking, 'Why should I? And what does it cost me, and how can I live with myself afterwards?" Plus, of course, it's rarely a straight-up fight. I tend to get much more emotional depth from a female character, in answering those questions. Which might be a weak-point on my part, that I can't get as much emotional depth from male characters -- repressed masculinity and all that. But self-analysis beyond a certain point becomes boring, so at this point, I'll stick with what works.
Plus, at the risk of stating the obvious, butt-kicking girls are cool. Non-butt-kicking girls can also be cool, but femininity-as-doormat-or-ornament never interested me on any level. Masculinity neither, come to that. It's not a feminist statement, in that I'm not attempting to make any statement on BEHALF of any group, it's more just a rejection of the idea that any social classification should consign individuals to a small box, outside of which their personality and behavioral type should never venture. Thus I find the 'always manly' male characters in beer commercials tedious, and the 'always girly' women in clothes commercials tedious, and the 'always queer' gay characters in so many sitcoms and other shows pretty tedious too (although they often have the advantage of being genuinely funny, where the others are just annoying). I'm interested in people, not personality-mass-production. The best way to get to know the person, is often to construct them in some form of opposition to the social group into which people might normally classify them. And strong female characters are one way to do that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home