Why the female protagonist just doesn't do it for you

[gategrrl]

Hi everyone!

I'm trying to write a short article on a subject some of you brought up when Rob Thurman's Cal Leandros series came up in conversation (as a group, you converted me, and I really like the series) a few months ago. It's been in my head ever since. The brief subject was, "I will never read a book with a female lead character and only read books with male lead characters."

Can you tell me more about this? Why this is so? Have you ever broken your own rule, and regretted it, or did not regret reading a female protag lead book but figured it was a fluke and you wouldn't do it again? Or the female POV just isn't interesting to you, even if the male POV is written by a woman (which you'd figure, is filtered through a female's POV anyhow).

All I have to go on are the reasons *I* think why, but I'd like to hear your own reasons, if you wouldn't mind telling me more about it. I think it's fascinating. I'm kind of in the same camp, but I have my own biases.

Comments

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

But on the flip side, I think that can also be a disservice because what is non-gendered? Usually, by default, it's male. So in a sense it's like we're abandoning women for men and once again women become silent.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

I think that gender, in and of itself, has far less impact on personality/character than we make it out to have.

One of the joys, to me, of SF&F is the ability to try and take ourselves out of our existing culture. It's the old nature/nurture discussion. I think men and women are far more alike than we are different. Does that mean I think all men and all women are alike? No, just that there's a continuum where both genders fall all along it. The problem comes when a culture only accepts certain portions of that continuum and does so selectively based on gender.

Does that make any sense at all? :-)

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

Does that make any sense at all? :-)

Absolutely, but that's my point. ;)

I'm arguing that you can't ignore culture. No matter what race you create, what worlds you populate, and what creatures thrive, they are all going to have their own unique culture. Look at the world we live in. Culture is in everything. Culture is life. You can't escape it.

How culture shapes ideas of gender is a huge part of how we live.

So for me it's important as a reader and a writer that culture and all of its baggage is not ignored. I'm not saying I go to pick up a book seeking all of this out. I just think when you're worldbuilding, you really do have to consider everything.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

Yes. You do have to take culture into account. Absolutely.

I seek to effect change in our culture both politically and through my writing. I want to excise those aspects that put constraints on both women *and* men based solely on their gender. (Yes, I know, you can't just remove things, but I find it a useful visualization at times because then I have to figure out what needs to be 'filled in'.)

By constructing a completely new (or as completely new as possible given that I am still a product of my culture) culture, I can begin to deconstruct the one I live in. Nor is it a matter of simply having men and women trade places. That probably worked *once*. Nor am I interested in creating utopias, just exploring what could happen if certain basic assumptions were different. For example, while many people recognize the ferocity of a mother defending her young, there's still something of a disconnect between that and the idea of females protecting the group, especially if those females are human. What happens when a culture doesn't have that disconnect? What caused it (or what was absent from our own cultural history)? How is it expressed? Where do fathers/males fit in? What kind of mind set do the members of this culture share? Where do they differ among themselves?

That said, I still can't see myself writing wussy protagonists. :-)

[gategrrl.livejournal.com]

True. Men become the "default", just as, when a writer doesn't specify the race of the character, the character defaults to white.

Briefly back to my main question, since this changes it.

Do women who prefer the male POV character/hero (not always the same thing) just simply don't connect with the female paradigm at all? Childless/childfree, single/formerly married/what have you...they simply do NOT relate at all to the angsty dilemmas and personal issues detailed with female characters?

For myself, I am married, have two kids, so I've done that stuff. But as much as I enjoy stories about pretty young things learning their way through the world (been there, done that) in ways I didn't; I don't necessarily *want* to read about women characters whose problems, even in SF/F, are close to my own. Hm. I contradict myself there. I WANT more women my age in my fiction, and I *want* them to be realistic...or do I? To me, the real fantasy woman is one who isn't fighting the patriarchy all the time (sick of it in RL, too); isn't constantly worried about childcare or schooling for her kids; none of that stuff.

So sure, when I'm in that mood, I know I'm pretty much going to have to pick up a book featuring a male protagonist because they don't worry about rape, or getting beaten up by their partner, or where their kids are going to school, etc etc.

And I admit I get tired of the seeping in of Romance into other categories of my fiction: fantasy, mystery, etc. Not in the old way, with a snippet here or there, but in dollops of sex scenes, smooshy candlelit dinners, etc. especially if it's a featured female protagonist.

I don't buy that "everyone needs a little romance" because "it's in real life". Gah.

I'd like to see the counter-part of the young orphan making their way through a story, only this time, it's a woman with realistic family connections she's either made herself, and deals with in a real manner.

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

It's a weird situation. I often think we want our female characters (and our male) to be realistic, but not too realistic because then that hits too close to home.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

I think we often want idealized versions of ourselves. Still flawed, still screwing up at times, not perfect, but rarely faced with anything they can't handle. Because sometimes we *are* faced with crap we don't necessarily have the skillsets or the experience or the *will* to handle without major disruptions in the lives we've become settled in.

I think we also want them faced with more interesting challenges than we see. "Daniel Jackson and the Departmental Head from Hell" might be good crack!fic, but reading about the banal evil of small-minded academics (or bureaucrats) with more power than brains would make me want to spork my eyes out.

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

Also, as much as I am one to enjoy the orphan cliche, I agree that it is used far far too much. The whole Orphan schtick seems like a guilt-free way of making a character move away some place that people "tied down" with families or parents or siblings or whatever can't do. So orphan Jim can go this place and that place and cut ties and be this big hero because there is nothing to hold him back. If Jim had family connections, this might look much different.

And if you make Jim Jane then that is loaded with all other sorts of considerations.

Plus, I think there is some romanticism in an orphan discovering their past. Like a mystery. I admit that is my fave part of the trope. It's just used so damn much.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

It's an easy hook to hang angst on, among other things.

[tejas.livejournal.com]

I posted a poll in my LJ asking if people now, or ever, pined for someone. Pining seems to be a common issue for female characters. The response has been overwhelmingly been "No".

It's a minor point and completely unscientific, but interesting, nevertheless.

So, no, I don't connect with most of the female characters I read about. It's less about the facts of their external lives than their internal lives. I, for example, don't sit around stressing over being divorced or single or a mother. It just *is* and I don't give it a second thought, just do what I have to do.

[forcryinoutloud.livejournal.com]

I don't necessarily *want* to read about women characters whose problems, even in SF/F, are close to my own.

This is an excellent point. Personally, I read, watch TV and movies for the pure escapism of it. I don't like movies, TV shows or books based on true stories, I hate reality TV and that's a big part of why - because it destroys that sense of escapism. And I think too that, because I can relate mostly to a female POV, being a woman, it's just a little too close to home to be interesting anymore. I certainly wouldn't want to read about myself. :P I'm not interested in reading about Mary Sue's inability to find a suitable husband or father for her future kids because seriously, I live that day in and day out. *snort* I want to read about the woman who has it all together, doesn't have those typical and kind of boring everyday worries that I do. I want her out there kicking ass and taking names, because in my escapism type fantasy, these are the things I'd love to be doing. Not necessarily in a man with breasts kind of way, but just...more balanced like the male characters getting written tend to be whereas the female ones tend not to, ya know?

[moonshayde.livejournal.com]

Oh I'm not arguing that books should all be chock full of realism. I'm just arguing the dangers of going too far to the opposite extreme.

it's like there needs to be enough realism to make a character relatable, but enough fantasy to have that sense of escapism. Does that make sense?

[forcryinoutloud.livejournal.com]

Yes, that makes sense. :) And I'm not trying to say I want it to be all superheroes and magic ;) just that if it's too much like a chronically of someone's everyday experiences it becomes nothing but a yawnfest - for ME. *G* Some people, actually friends and family, LOVE that whole true story/reality TV kind of thing. They don't get fantasy at all. :P