User blog:SereneDreams/Well-Written and Interesting Female Characters: A Shallow Enigma

Dramatic title aside allow me to start this blog by introducing myself. As most of the user base already knows, my name is SereneDreams, but most just call me Serene. I'm a fairly avid editor here, although I do have some off-periods. And I do for the most part, whether it has been acknowledged by anyone else or not, I make mostly female characters, primarily for the story that I just cannot seem to consistently work on. Oh well.

With that out of the way, I should get to actually explaining what this blog is going to be about and not to mention, why I'm making it. This blog is, obviously, going to be about the process of writing female characters. However, I don't want you, the reader, to treat this as a sort of universal guide on how to successfully write a character that identifies as female. Since this is a blog containing my opinions, it is naturally going to be biased and thus, I encourage what I write to be challenged! To an extent, at least. I am, after all, a writer myself, in addition to a person. I, too, grow and change as I delve deeper into, well, anything! If you can open my eyes to something, then kudos to you! I am not here to stop you from creating characters in a way you enjoy, either. If you want to stick to the way you were accustomed to, I am by no means going to stop you! Go ahead and express your creativity in the manner in which you are comfortable. I do hope that you want to at least consider what I have to say, though, but if you want to dismiss it as babble, that is entirely OK!

With that being said, I do believe that what I am going to address here is moderately valid for the community. Not necessarily for everyone, but some, at least! Even people this does not apply to will hopefully benefit some from this, if not only for a change in perspective!

Why was this blog made? What does it entail?
Now, to the actual questions regarding this blog's existence (meta, I know). This blog is specifically made for the purpose of examining how female characters tend to be written, in addition to how to write one. I do believe it is, while not necessary, useful for the majority of the community to see contrasts between various female characters and how they are portrayed. I will most likely be referring to how things are done in general on here and various examples in media, particularly anime and manga, which many derive inspiration from. What I am not going to do, however, is to portray a user's character as a negative example, as that is poor conduct and bordering on harassment. I am intending to use a certain character another user has made as a positive example, as it is not nearly stigmatizing as the former. So fear not! I am not making this blog to step on anyone's toes, but rather intend for it to be educational at best, and offer a different perspective at worst.

A considerable amount of the user base take tend to take inspiration from Japanese media (i.e. anime and manga), which tend to have some pretty stereotypical ways to portray women. This is, of course, natural to mimic, in the sense that the characters belong to a particular franchise or author of which one might enjoy. In turn, this leads to a portrayal of women, which might be either rather stale, repetitive or overtly sexualized, or all of the above. Needless to say, women in real life aren't like this. They are humans first, female second. That's going to be an important line I'm going to repeat on multiple occasions as I write this, as I cannot stress it enough, regardless of how mundane the saying is. The same should apply to characters, as well, for the most part, but not necessarily always, seeing as they are just characters.

I suppose that's enough for the "why"-part regarding the blog's existence. Now for the "what"-part!

This blog is going to entail what a well-written female character encompasses, common mistakes when it comes to creating them, strong female characters vs. well-written ones, female characters and femininity, the challenging of stereotypical roles in fiction and the importance of flaws. This might sound daunting, so please bear with me! Trust me when I say that the prospect of compiling this list was more daunting to me! Based on this list, the blog is most likely going to contain a plethora of information, so whether you want to read everything or just a section is entirely up to you.

Now, let's actually get into this, shall we?

What is a 'well-written female character'?
This is a very difficult question to answer objectively, hence why it is placed between apostrophes. What one might define as a well-written character, another might dismiss as entirely invalid. Especially when you decide to throw a specific label onto said character type. Which in this case, is the female gender! As this is a personal blog, what the author's personally regards as a 'well-written female character' is going to be what's placed in the focus. Some of the criteria for a well-written female character would be: being someone whose identity has been thoroughly planned, avoids stereotypes or challenges them, possesses notable flaws, has personal challenges in her life, and displays or struggles with a notable independence in her environment. This might sound rather daunting at first, but most of this also applies to most male characters, so most experienced writers might be able to apply this to females easily as well! For as I said earlier, female characters are characters first, female second. Their status as female is the secondary quality that defines them, not their primary.

Of course, there exist female characters who don't fulfill some of these criteria and still manage to be 'interesting'. 'Interesting' is, like well-written, placed between apostrophes as it is a very subjective term. On a general basis, characters that seem human tend to draw the reader's interest more than one that does not. Aforementioned criteria tend to favor the characters with the most human traits, for the most part, which is why they can be considered valid criteria in the first place. In that sense, a well-written female character is a character that seems human. That is, if said character is human in the first place. It is by no means valid if the character is of an alien species. Most of the criteria still apply, however, if you want the character's defined secondary characteristic to be female. The majority of the time, though, a character that belongs to a foreign species' defining characteristic is going to be their identity as an alien character. This results in their characteristic as female being downplayed considerably. I won't be getting too excessively into this, as that's perhaps a blog for another time!

Examples of characters that might be perceived as well-written in other franchises include Ellen Ripley from Alien, Imperator Furiosa from Mad Max: Fury Road, the majority of the female cast in Homestuck, The Crystal Gems from Steven Universe, Helen Mirren's portrayal of Queen Elizabeth II in The Queen and GLaDOS from Portal (she's a machine, but with a feminine identity so she fits).

What are some common mistakes when writing a female character?
Just like the process of writing a male character, or a character in general, there are several mistakes that you can make on the way when you are attempting to write a female character. But since we are not examining the process of just writing a general character, but a character that belongs to a certain group, the blog is going to examine mistakes that are typical for female characters. The most effective way of doing so, is to place them all in a list. This way, it's easy to check and find flaws in regards to your character.


 * Mistake #1: Objectification: This is a very frequently utilized one, both in fanon and on especially in the source of inspiration for many, Japanese media. Portraying women as sexual objects with bouncing breasts and exposed buttocks is rather common both on here, and in the source material of the Wiki, Fairy Tail. There are few things that are more unnatural than gratuitous semi-nudity and teasing and can detriment from even the 'strongest' female character (i.e. Erza). It reduces the character's humanity and makes them seem placid, unwilling and generally like an object of the beholder's attention. To be fair, the very same applies to male characters as well; a sexualized male character is just as uninteresting and generally, creepy, as a female. However, there is a distinction between the two: the objectification of women by far outnumbers the objectification of men in media. I am by no means saying that a character should dress in a potato sack to hide her body. In a setting where it is natural, the character should feel free to wear scanty clothing. But would a woman walk around in a tight bikini at home alone? Most likely not. Would she wear tight leather suits most of the time? Doubtful! Speaking from personal experience, leather is a very constricting material and not even remotely practical to wear most of the time. The exception to this, is generally when the character objectifies herself consciously, in character, for situations where doing so is acceptable.
 * Mistake #2: Strong Female Character = Well-written Female Character: If I am allowed to be perfectly frank, this is even more prevalent than the previous mistake here. When one is writing a male character, it can become painfully obvious that he is not a very good character even if he is powerful. This is frequently not the case in female characters. This is a pitfall that is very easy to fall into, which frequently results in nonsensical and often shallow characters. This section is very brief section compared to the others, but that is because it is so big that it deserves to get its own section (yay?).
 * Mistake #3: Making a Satellite Character: This is not so much a huge mistake, compared to the two above, but a very notable one when done to a prominent character. A satellite character is an individual whose existence revolves around another character. A story is naturally going to have minor satellite characters (a parent, pet, teacher) and the likes, and that is completely okay! They don't necessary qualify as whole satellite characters as they are primarily background characters. However, if this is done to a secondary character, this is going to be a very prominent flaw that is going to detract from the character. The most prominent usage of the satellite character trope, is a female love interest. All she does is to exist solely to swoon over the protagonist and sit in a corner, blushing. Gradually, she's going to become an eyesore and probably be regarded as annoying by the reader. This is also a pretty lazy way of portraying love, which is not always necessary to have in a story. Sometimes, it may even come across as out of place. And speaking of love!
 * Mistake #4: Always Making the Hero and Heroine Fall in Love: Now this is a common and rusty ol' trope. Making the hero and the heroine gradually fall for each other in the course of the story, often with them denying their feelings for one another until the very end when they kiss, have a wedding and a dozen kids. Bleh. This is so overdone that we're honestly surprised when we see stories where this isn't the case. Where the character's dramatic journey doesn't end up with creating a spark between the two, but kinship instead. This trope has certain, important implications on the reader, the most noticeable being: "two people who are of the same sexual orientation cannot just be friends without underlying romantic tension". For the most part, this is just horse crap. Of course they can just be friends! For the most part, this trope is averted by establishing separate romantic interests for both the hero and the heroine, which is also slightly dull, but a marked improvement over the first trope.
 * Mistake #5: Succumbing to Stereotypes: Another very common mistake to make. Creating a dolly, little princess who needs saving as a plot device, a doting mother who exists only to worry about her children, a seductive, yet dangerous femme fatale or a clingy, possessive girl can be viewed as exceptionally dull. Why? Because these character types are pushed out, again and again, without any deviation from the norm. They progress from start to finish similarly to other characters belonging to the same archetype as they do. They are predictable from the get-go and generally don't stand out as characters as much as cardboard cutouts. Yes, it can be this bad occasionally. To mention some examples, Catwoman from the Batman: Arkham Knight (or Catwoman in general, really) has pretty much shaped the femme fatale trope and Princess Peach from the Super Mario-franchise was tailored as the damsel in distress until recently (kudos to you Nintendo for handling her well in Mario 3D World!). Stereotypes are things we, the consumers, will expect in media, but characters will also tend to expect certain stereotypes. So refusing to acknowledge their existence altogether is almost just as bad as succumbing to them, but challenging them both in- and out of character is quite welcome. -dere archetypes generally also go under literary stereotypes, so they are best left avoided, especially since what you are producing, is writing, not a visual project. The same applies to tokenism, as having a character belonging to a specific minority group, without giving them proper characterization, can often lead to rather flat characters.
 * Mistake #6: Harems: These are all too common in Japanese media and exist solely as a product of people's sexual projection of wanting to feel desired. In other words, it exists primarily to make it seem like all the women want the dude's schlong. The characters, in general, don't seem very human, as their primary obsession is to make the dude, often oblivious or dismissive, fall in love with them specifically and get their rivals out of the way. This situation does not constitute reality at all, as people will usually, through various means, grow aware of the other person's attraction and deal with it accordingly. Polygamy is, while acceptable in the eyes of the author, rare and in a completely different boat than harems, which are actually a form of objectification. "Reverse harems", while rare, are pretty much just as bad. It's fine to have sexual fantasies and the likes, but this is not an arena where they should be expressed.
 * Mistake #7: Adhering to the Bechdel Test: Okay, this is going to sound rather controversial, especially to new age feminists, but I do not think the Bechdel test is a good measurement for female inclusion or necessary at all for a well-written female character. For those unaware, the Bechdel test is something that, I quote: "is a simple test which names the following three criteria: (1) it has to have at least two women in it, who (2) who talk to each other, about (3) something besides a man. " On the surface, it might seem like a good indicator to determine whether you have included properly written female characters. But for the most part, it's not. It's specifically designed to be used in movies, but can be used as a tool when regarding other media to a less noticeable effect. To illustrate how useless it can be at times, let's look at an example: A well-thought out female character, who happens to be climbing the ranks of a male-dominated area and struggles with the issues this brings, doesn't talk to her best friend Betsy about shoes and therefore, doesn't pass this test. Yet, a ditsy bimbo who possesses the personality of a fridge who talks about pedicure with her best friends does. This illustrates just how inconsistent this test can be at times.

Phew! I suppose that's a big enough list of common mistakes. Let's move on, shall we?

Can you elaborate on what you meant by with strong female characters?
Yes, that was the plan!

This is a pretty prominent thing in this setting (i.e. fanon wiki), where the user foregoes the process of planning a character's abilities, powers and making them super-nasty, powerful beings who can blast the moon to pieces. This applies to all genders. The rule of cool is pretty much the status quo here. It doesn't have to make sense, it doesn't have to be scaled according to the universe (Ash wrote a really neat blog about this, so I'm not going to wholly repeat what he said there). As long as it's cool, it's all good. This is not really a good state of affairs and pretty much venerates the mindless anime power mentality that is, more or less, infectious on fanon wiki like this one. And that comes at the expense of character-focus, in most cases.

While this is a problem in male characters, it is even more so in females. For the attribute 'strength' is treated differently based on which gender the character belongs to. Specifically, in the regards of how big an impression it leaves with the person who examines the character. We are, for the most part, accustomed to seeing muscular, powerful male characters to the point where it has become a stereotype. It doesn't leave a strong impression and causes the character to seem shallow. So for a male character to stand out, he has to be something more than just powerful. He needs traits, a goal, flaws, relationships, limitations and all in all, a distinct persona for us him to stand out among so many others.

According to status quo, this does not apply to female characters. Physical, or magical, as is the case here, strength in women is something relatively new. It's not an age-old trope that can be dated all the way back to Ancient Mesopotamia, unlike that of which we find in male characters. It's a fresh breath of air, and so feminist, woo-hoo!

Except it is not.



Upon closer examination of these female characters, it is possible to discern that that they are just as, if not more, shallow than the male characters. When they first started to make a common appearance in media, they might just have been what was needed, but truth be told? In the 21st century, this character archetype is outdated. Making a woman a mother who has gone to war to protect her babies is just as cliché as making a father who does the same thing.

Creating a 'strong' female character in skimpy clothes (i.e. objectifying her, constantly) is also seen as appropriate, but this tends to detract from the overall experience of the character. The same applies to a femme fatale, which is a stereotype and as mentioned, best avoided. To add a little realism to the situation, try to think: "would I be comfortable wearing constricting or little clothing in this situation?" If the answer is 'no', give the gal something else to put on her body! She's primarily here to promote the story, not give the reader vivid images of what she looks like to please them sexually. Unless we're talking about pornography, which is not appropriate in this arena.

So to summarize this section: a strong female character is not necessarily characterized well, unlike a well-written one. She can be shallow, display few to no human characteristics or depth. But she is treated as a well-written female character because she differentiates herself from the 'rest' of the female cast by entering a role that was traditionally occupied by males, which is quite fallacious.

What about femininity in female characters? How do I handle that?
Contrary to popular belief, you can actually write a female character well while retaining her femininity! Shocking, right? Jesting aside, most people tend to associate femininity with stereotypes, which explains why they are so common. But women can be feminine without having to enter these set roles. The characters don't have to be overly feminine or overplay this as their primary characteristic, either! Often, in those cases, the character tends to come across as too obnoxious to the reader, often to a sickening extent. Unless that's what you want to do, say, with an antagonist!

Discretion is often the dosage you want to use when you distribute femininity and masculinity when you make a character, as all humans possess some attributes that can be placed in either box, as we, the readers, humans, are the only ones who classify them. Whether you want their story to reflect these traits being nurtured, neglected or repressed in a character's history, is up to you. Don't be afraid to create a female character that is 'girly' and doesn't rejects the female traits, but rather embraces or openly demonstrates them (not just physical ones, there are plenty of these).

That's really all there is to say on the matter!

How do I avoid utilizing stereotypes?
This can be quite a tricky one when you write, especially when you write many characters. But as a general rule of thumb, if you have a massive cast, a few stereotypical characters here and there won't be too detrimental to the story. If you try to concentrate the amount of characters and keep it to a bare minimum, it is strongly recommended that you try to not write these characters into stereotypical roles (at least not without challenging them, but I'll get to that soon!). This also applies to the important characters in a large cast. Stereotypes tend to hurt more than they help and being too accustomed to having them present, can create tricky situations where it is difficult for a reader to enjoy your works and make what you write stale.

If you see that the character you are creating is starting to become stereotypical, this happens quicker than you might realize, the best course of action is often not to press backspace and remove them altogether. Challenge the stereotype! Deconstruct it big time! You could always present the character is if they are a stereotype, but then present twists and turns, revealing all is not what it seems. This is much easier than it might seem. Changing a single characteristic in a character that is otherwise stereotypical, might change the entire character's dynamic in accordance to other characters and the story! An example of a challenged stereotype is this: a femme fatale character that utilizes poison to kill a politician, who is the epitome of sensuality and sexualization, is caught red-handed in her apartment. It turns out to be messier than a dump and she sits there in a hoodie and pajama pants. Her femme fatale persona is all an act to make her seem inconspicuous in the crime. She is embarrassed to be found in this state and shows more depth than her dolled-up, emotional facade allowed her to. This woman has already transcended the boundary of stereotype to a regular character.

See how easy it really is?

Just be careful that these transitions and questions regarding the stereotype flow naturally, for the sake of exposition, comedy, tragedy or the likes, otherwise they might be abrupt and leave the reader wondering why this happened. Foreshadowing and Chekhov's gun can be utilized in many areas, this one included!

Flaws have been mentioned repeatedly here. Why?
An astute observation! And that is because flaws are one of the most important aspects of a character. New writers are especially prone to making characters with too few flaws, pushing them into Mary Sue / Gary Stu territory. But as one gradually progresses as a writer, one is usually realizes that: "Hey, my characters don't seem all that human." Or is subjected to criticism regarding one's characters' lack of humanity. It all comes down to self-awareness and vanity. Either way, there is a point where one has to realize that the characters they have created, don't seem particularly human. Usually, this is not done intentionally, as sometimes characters are portrayed as monstrous by intention, which is acceptable. Often, this is just done subconsciously, as the writer believes the character to be decent.

But remember to not go overboard with character flaws. Protagonists seldom get recognition and following because they are assholes through and through. This is somewhat of a situational thing, though. If you want to deconstruct an asshole protagonist, feel free to shove as many flaws as you can down their throat before you kick them into the dirt and throw everything they love off a cliff. The sound of their screams and the taste of their tears is more often than not, absolutely delicious. Personal preferences aside, ensuring that your character is flawed to a certain extent is always good. Flaws create friction, and friction causes issues. Without personal issues, a character cannot experience personal growth. And without personal growth, the character becomes static, which is the exact opposite of what an author wants of their character, unless one is writing a classic comedy. If the friction occurs between individuals, the interpersonal growth can take place, which is even better!

Can you provide an example of a well-written female character on here?
Yes, of course. There are quite a few to pick from, but I'll pick my personal favorite of the bunch: Luna Amatsugo by Ash. Luna is a character I feel like doesn't get the recognition she deserves to the point where she may have become somewhat obscure, despite being one of Ash's most prominent characters. Her article is relatively short compared to that of other prominent characters, but don't take this as a flaw. What is summarized in Luna's article may be concise, but it still allows the reader to paint a vivid picture of what she is like.

If we were to go by the criteria I presented for well-written female characters, it is easy to see that Luna is a thoroughly planned character whose existence didn't come about on a whim. As the author states, and I quote: "Luna was conceptualized by the author after the pursuit of an interesting female lead who stands right beside the male leads and isn't overshadowed by either their personality traits or their abilities." Ash knew who Luna was going to be when he decided to write her, and specifically made her to be a prominent presence in his cast, alongside his other protagonist, Artemis Reznik. Her personality and moral values, at times, mirrors that of Artemis, which is a great source of friction and therefore, also interpersonal growth. Luna's personality doesn't need to be boisterous or overly brash. She is described as being jovial and carefree, but also blunt and sassy at times. There is a sense of tranquility to her character, which may seem like it reduces her more to the background than more active characters, but it actually strengthens the overall impression she makes, especially since she is described as coming across as confident with her body language.

Luna also avoids stereotypes altogether, as she is a fairly unique character that does not fit a common stereotype in media in regards of women. Even though she is stated to be loyal and cares for her comrades, she is portrayed as being on a platonic level with them, so she ultimately subverts the 'dating hero & heroine'-archetype some tend to fall into. Her appearance is described as being feminine, but not overly so; she doesn't have a gigantic hiney or double DD's. She does certainly look eccentric as far as other features go, yes, but her body proportions are realistic. Her femininity is as Ash states "empowering", not derogatory.

As far as flaws go, Luna has quite a few of them: she has an oxymoronic relationship with etiquette; she values manners and proper behavior, but will retort with a wicked tongue if people act uncouth towards her. She's also somewhat of a gadfly and will keep taunting someone if she finds it to be fun, even if the situation can be dire. She is also in the possession of the two-faced trait of opportunism, which may create internal conflict for her regarding situations where her moral compass and heart are telling her to do different things. It is also explicitly stated that Luna joined Desperados as an act of vengeance, which is not exactly the noblest of motives.

As far as independence and personal challenges go, Luna's article, for the most part, keep at least the latter vague. That is by no means a bad thing, as this can be better conveyed in a story. Luna evidently have some traits that clashes with the personalities of the people in her guild, particularly Artemis, of whom she is partly a foil. And since she has a thirst for vengeance that might not have been sated just yet, that also exemplifies a personal challenge she has to handle. Is she going to forgive and forget, or give people what she regards as their just desserts?

When you take a look at Luna's abilities to assess her combat capabilities, it is fairly easy to notice that she is not ostentatiously overdone. Her Magic sections are neat, and all, sans Hair Magic, tie in to a common theme: chance. Luna does possess a variety of different kinds of Magic, some of which are evidently rather powerful, but she is no bulldozer. As Ash states, he designed Luna to be, quote: "an overall "Jack of All Trades" without it seemingly being tacked on". In this regard, he was successful and managed to present a female character that is more than capable of engaging in combat, but also has flaws which causes her to rely on certain strategies. Her Keen Intellect is a section which is noticeably large, indicating that she relies primarily on brains over brawns.

Overall, Luna is a very much a fully-fledged character on her own, whose concept is rather unconventional and was executed swimmingly. To most people, she just stands out as a decent character, which is what most female characters ideally should. Again, female characters are characters first, female second. If you've grown sick of me saying that by now, then I've done a good job!

That's it?
Yes, that's about all I had to say for now about this matter!

Sure, there's plenty of things to mention about writing female characters still, but this blog is already long by blog standards (10 pages in a Word document) and I don't wanna squeeze nitpicking into this more than I already have. I feel like I have said most of what I had on my heart, and if I were to write even more, I fear I would be repeating myself more than I already have!

Properly writing characters, any character, can pose a challenge to writers with moderate experience, especially if they are to be featured in a story which is primarily character-driven. But don't give up! The only way is forwards when it comes to writing! I really should find a proper way to end this blog, but instead, I'm going to settle for ending with a little advice for all writers, big or small, young or old, fresh or veteran: Don't settle for mediocrity; aspire for greatness. And with that cheesy statement out of the way, I'm out!