on writing female characters

[splinteredstar]

Okay, so. This is mostly me trying to sort my own brain out. Sometimes writing things down helps me figure out what they are.

Short version: sometimes I get wigged out over female characters.

Context: I have an old, old idea. Involves rebels against an oppressive government, only the leader of the rebellion falls under the influence of the superweapon (I can ramble about how that works later) and goes bug fuck insane. Still not certain if the crazy is terminal.

Originally, the rebel leader was a man named Joshua, but Joshua ended up being a very different character (a Royalist, for one). So I split him into two, Joshua and Julian, Julian being the rebel leader who eventually goes insane and becomes the villain. And it sat for a year.

Well this week I was struck with the idea. What if Julian was instead Jillian?

But that sort of opened a mess of questions in my head. A good rebel leader (and good villain) requires passion and drive and cunning and charisma. Would making the villain a woman ‘make a statement’ about women with those traits? I always despaired as a child that all the powerful women in fiction were evil. But if I /don’t/ make the character a woman, is that making a different, equally bad statement? Does equal representation count for the antagonists?

Worrying about all this is a bit daft, I know. A character shouldn’t be swayed by the pressures in my society. But I do worry. What if I’m being swayed and not aware of it? There's a mess of social implications with female characters which of course also exist for male characters, but I don't feel them as strongly. Thinking about it is better than, well, not thinking about it, but how do I find an /answer/?

Arg. Any opinions would be wonderful.

 

Comments

[splinteredstar]

Yeah, you're right. I mean, part of the problem is I'm not sure if there 's a "good" side yet, so much as "slightly less crazy" side. But yes.

[inkdust]

Well, slightly-less-crazy side, then. That could be even better :)

[splinteredstar]

*nod* Like, calling Joshua a 'royalist' kind of over simplifies it. Because there's the current crazy king, the royalists who want the crazy king's considerably less crazy but totally unwilling brother on the throne, and the rebels led by Jillian, who starts out democratic but becomes increasingly anarchistic as her sanity slips.

So I'm not really sure there's a right or wrong side. Just shades of lunacy that happen to point in opposite directions, until Jillian goes completely crazy and starts burning everything. But yes, putting equally compelling women opposite her (in each faction, most likely) is probably the way forward, isn't it?

[inkdust]

Definitely the way forward. Nothing makes a statement like creating an "only one." The more women you include, the less you could be seen as saying anything about gender (except maybe of equality). I tend to write more female characters than male, so I'm happy to be a sounding board, if you find them trickier.

[splinteredstar]

Hm, yeah. Thank you! I might take you up on that offer, some time.

It's just. I grew up with two older brothers, and always hung out with their friends and boy scout activities. And a lot of the older novels I read growing have male protagonists, and the female characters were so far from people as to be useless. So even now I'm like "oh god, women, how do I."

But that's my own issue. I'm working on it.

[inkdust]

Ah, I understand. I was always the typical girls-are-way-better :D But every bit you do helps. I wish you luck!