Female lead characters

[Apache]

Originally Posted by issybird

A long time ago now, I moved from New York City to California and I became aware, after a while, that I seemed to be interrupting people a lot. This embarrassed me, of course, and I started to pay attention to my timing. Shortly thereafter, I read an article in the NY Times on geographic differences in conversation, which said that in New York, it was courteous to interrupt people. You were signaling that you were engaged, that you were interested in what the person said and conversations would proceed in this manner. Clearly I had taken my New York ways to an environment where that did not hold and I only became aware of it because instead of furthering a conversation, I was being signaled, presumably by a slight halt in the talk, that my manner was unacceptable. Phew! I wasn't quite the innate bumpkin I had started to think, I just hadn't acclimated yet.

How salespeople sell is also different depending on the region. My wife and I used to travel doing jewelry restyling shows. We had been in New York City, Long Island and New Jersey for about six weeks and then flew to Cape Girardeau, Missouri. I laughed because my wife for got where we were and was (trying) to sell like we were still in the Northeast. Trust me it doesn't work.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, not that it's a "uniquely feminine response", but that it's an issue that affects women that fiction tends to overlook.

I'm fairly certain that squatting in a trench in a war-zone is an issue that most fiction tends to overlook regardless of a character's gender. Or are you saying that male war correspondents are somehow inherently immune to the lack of decent facilities, so there's no need for a fiction author to ever bring it up RE his male hero?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm fairly certain that squatting in a trench in a war-zone is an issue that fiction tends to overlook regardless of a character's gender. Or are you saying that male war correspondents are somehow inherently immune to the lack decent facilities, so there's no need for a fiction author to ever bring it up RE his male hero?

I'm saying that Kate Adie considered it to be the issue that was the most difficult aspect of being a woman in a war zone. Disagree with her, if you wish, not me.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, not that it's a "uniquely feminine response", but that it's an issue that affects women that fiction tends to overlook.

It's an issue that affects both sexes that I want fiction to overlook!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm saying that Kate Adie considered it to be the issue that was the most difficult aspect of being a woman in a war zone. Disagree with her, if you wish, not me.

Are you absolutely sure that was her message? There's zero chance that she was answering the loaded (and quite pointless) question with a barb of her own that some people just didn't pick up on? In my opinion, she answered a silly question with an equally silly answer.

And also, the "take it up with Adie" deflection is disingenuous. It was you, and not Adie, who suggested that fiction authors might need to incorporate her observation (genuine or otherwise) into their stories in order to achieve a more "realistic balance" in their written female characters. Even if you take her opinion at face value, she's one woman war correspondent, not all women war correspondents. Hardly evidence that an author who doesn't incorporate her particular concern with the condition of war-zone facilities into his heroine's personality is overlooking anything.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm saying that Kate Adie considered it to be the issue that was the most difficult aspect of being a woman in a war zone. Disagree with her, if you wish, not me.

I take the opposite meaning from it. If that was the most difficult aspect of being a woman, she was saying that being a woman wasn't an issue in itself.

[crich70]

I think that whether the lead character is male or female depends upon the story that the author is telling.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm fairly certain that squatting in a trench in a war-zone is an issue that most fiction tends to overlook regardless of a character's gender. Or are you saying that male war correspondents are somehow inherently immune to the lack decent facilities, so there's no need for a fiction author to ever bring it up RE his male hero?

I wasn't thinking about the squatting part, but the woman only part that shows up once a month.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Amiieey

Gender roles are silly and in reality, that line of thinking should be avoided. It leads to silly things like toxic masculinity and gender stereotypes. Women and men don't have to act a certain way in stories. They can act any way they like so long as the story is believable and good.

Gender differences are reality. For a story to be believable men have to be men and women have to be women. All the "PC" delusions in the world aren't going to change that fact. And what exactly is the term "toxic masculinity" supposed to mean? Sounds like a stereotype to me.

I would say probably half (or more) of the books I've read in the past year have had strong female protagonists – all came across as realistic. One was a fantasy novel based on (or stolen from) the life of Joan of Arc (which the author admitted in the concluding "note to the reader.") But being a strong female protagonist doesn't mean she ceases to be a woman. You can't suspend disbelief that much (unless you have an agenda).

[Catlady]

Earlier this year I listened to a domestic thriller in which the author gave gender-neutral names to both halves of a married couple. One stayed home with their kid; the other was career driven and abusive. The author did a good job of avoiding gender pronouns without getting too convoluted. But the attempt at cleverness didn't really work--I knew early on that the author was doing a role reversal and, worse, it was a reversal that I didn't believe.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Earlier this year I listened to a domestic thriller in which the author gave gender-neutral names to both halves of a married couple. One stayed home with their kid; the other was career driven and abusive. The author did a good job of avoiding gender pronouns without getting too convoluted. But the attempt at cleverness didn't really work--I knew early on that the author was doing a role reversal and, worse, it was a reversal that I didn't believe.

It might work better as a short story than a book.

What was the name?

[Amiieey]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Gender differences are reality. For a story to be believable men have to be men and women have to be women. All the "PC" delusions in the world aren't going to change that fact. And what exactly is the term "toxic masculinity" supposed to mean? Sounds like a stereotype to me.

I would say probably half (or more) of the books I've read in the past year have had strong female protagonists – all came across as realistic. One was a fantasy novel based on (or stolen from) the life of Joan of Arc (which the author admitted in the concluding "note to the reader.") But being a strong female protagonist doesn't mean she ceases to be a woman. You can't suspend disbelief that much (unless you have an agenda).

I replied to a comment about this earlier, you can take a look at it. Yeah, I did word it poorly when I said they don't exist. They do exist, so my bad and I'm really sorry about making people get the wrong idea.

My take on toxic masculinity: in fantasy fiction - male heroes are often expected to want to fight all the time, to win all the time, to always want to be so manly and whatnot. They can feel that way, but my point is, wouldn't it be a bit more interesting if we didn't have this line of thinking all the time? A lot of stories seem to insinuate that if a character isn't masculine enough, if they don't want to fight and win enough, they're viewed as effeminate, unheroic and unsuitable for a hero. Which makes no sense to me.. Would be more fun to see them lose and have some other interests too. Same goes for female characters that are often cast as villains or damsels in distress. Thankfully this trend is changing.

My point was that stereotypes related to gender have been kind of restrictive in fiction. This just means things like the typical male hero who is constantly worried about fighting (don't get me wrong -- a lot of stories with this trope are fine). This isn't about political correctness, at least I didn't mean for it to be.

It's more just about, "can we get male heroes in fantasy who don't care so much about fighting all the time", and "how about female characters who are going to be more than just the usual "kick-ass"? Would like to see them with some interesting traits but at the same time, not losing their gender identity of course. I'm not asking for gender reversals here. I'm not asking for men to act like women or women to act like men. I'm just asking for some deviation from stereotypes and tropes in fiction. If that's your sort of story, then no judgement, but personally would be nice to see something different in modern fiction.

Nice to see fantasy is improving though.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Amiieey

My take on toxic masculinity: in fantasy fiction - male heroes are often expected to want to fight all the time, to win all the time, to always want to be so manly and whatnot. They can feel that way, but my point is, wouldn't it be a bit more interesting if we didn't have this line of thinking all the time? A lot of stories seem to insinuate that if a character isn't masculine enough, if they don't want to fight and win enough, they're viewed as effeminate, unheroic and unsuitable for a hero. Which makes no sense to me.. Would be more fun to see them lose and have some other interests too. Same goes for female characters that are often cast as villains or damsels in distress. Thankfully this trend is changing. ...

Okay, I've got your meaning now. I don't read these kind of stories. I think what you're saying is that you want your male characters well rounded and deeper. I agree with that. The "all brawn, no brain" characters might work as sidekicks or comic relief (kind of like how "Jane" was used in Firefly), but they would be boring as "all get-out" as the protagonist. I like characters like Odd Thomas (or several other Dean Koontz characters (male or female) I've just discovered). A lot more interesting. Or even the characters in Lord of the Rings, who were basically anti-heroes.

Some people were talking highly about Baen Books so I downloaded one of their sample (free) books ... I'm guessing this might be what you're talking about as the main character seems to be "military" (one dimensional) all the time. I'm guessing this one is not going to get read. ...

(Well, time to help my boy finish installing a new toilet, just taking a break from carrying out the old one. ... Seriously.)

[disconnected]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Earlier this year I listened to a domestic thriller in which the author gave gender-neutral names to both halves of a married couple. One stayed home with their kid; the other was career driven and abusive. The author did a good job of avoiding gender pronouns without getting too convoluted. But the attempt at cleverness didn't really work--I knew early on that the author was doing a role reversal and, worse, it was a reversal that I didn't believe.

There's a short mystery series where I think the ambiguity was well done --
https://www.amazon.com/Sarah-Caudwel...t_pop_ebooks_1

[meeera]

Originally Posted by disconnected

There's a short mystery series where I think the ambiguity was well done --
https://www.amazon.com/Sarah-Caudwel...t_pop_ebooks_1

And a whole novel - mystery SF:

Spoiler:

John Scalzi's Lock In.