Would the real strong female characters please stand up?

There’s been a lot of talk on the internet of late about female characters, be it their exclusion from the latest Assassin’s Creed release, their representation in comics and video games, or the almost obligatory inclusion of the Strong Female Character who turns out to be generally pointless. This last topic was covered over here, where they even gave this phenomenon a name – the Trinity Syndrome. Go give it a read, and come back here.

Now, I read this post and actually felt a bit depressed. I grew up with the likes of Sarah Connor, Ripley, Princess Leia and Lara Croft, and often wondered where such characters had gone – Ripley and Connor are occasionally dismissed as being ‘too masculine’ to count, but I’d argue against that as Ripley is clearly coded as The Maternal, and Connor is essentially mother to the human race in attempting to prevent Judgment Day. But now it’s amazing how many of the so-called ‘strong female characters’ are essentially narrative devices, or they’re simply there as prizes for the male characters. People will always point to exceptions – Merida in Brave is a popular one, as are a lot of the women in the Harry Potter universe, Yvaine from Stardust, and I’d always point to Eowyn from Lord of the Rings (true, she has a crush on Aragorn but she ends up with Faramir after a seemingly mutual attraction AND she slays the Witch King of Angmar) – but these characters shouldn’t simply be exceptions. They should be the norm, just as much as we’re allowed sensitive but capable male heroes.

It got me thinking about my own fiction, particularly The Necromancer’s Apprentice. For anyone who hasn’t read it, the Necromancer in question is Eufame Delsenza, the Necromancer General in charge of the House of the Long Dead. She started out as a replacement for the Sorcerer in The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, but she evolved into something else. She’s ancient. And she’s a woman. She’s also battling to keep her position because the men in charge don’t trust powerful women, and she doesn’t define herself according to any relationships with men, or even other women. She’s just Eufame, possessor of a rare gift, and keen to get on with her job. True, she’s the villain of the piece, but she ends up in a battle with another female character by the end of the book (Queen Neferpenthe, the mummy on the cover), while the male apprentice stands by, fairly ineffectual in the face of this stand-off between two women he can’t hope to defeat.

I only had four female characters in The Guns of Retribution, the femme fatale, the mousy bookworm, the abused Apache, and the mother. Of course, I was writing pulp, and there’s a certain formula to follow, but I’ve managed to deviate in order to introduce another character in the sequel, To Kill A Dead Man. Peggy Marsden wields a shotgun, batters one of the walking dead with a chair leg, and has already escaped from her captor by the time Grey O’Donnell tries to rescue her. Peggy is a lot of fun to write because she stands up to people, and she does what’s right simply because it’s what she feels she should do, not because she’s trying to impress a man or make him look good. So if I can write characters like that, why can’t others?

The blog post I linked to at the top of this post asked eight major questions about your Strong Female Character so I thought I’d apply them to Eufame.

After being introduced, does your Strong Female Character then fail to do anything fundamentally significant to the outcome of the plot? Anything at all?

Hehe no. She pretty much drives the plot, even if Jyx (the apprentice) feels like he’s the one in control.

If she does accomplish something plot-significant, is it primarily getting raped, beaten, or killed to motivate a male hero? Or deciding to have sex with/not have sex with/agreeing to date/deciding to break up with a male hero? Or nagging a male hero into growing up, or nagging him to stop being so heroic? Basically, does she only exist to service the male hero’s needs, development, or motivations?

Nope. She takes Jyx on as an apprentice and obviously intends to train him up but that’s not her sole function in the story. There’s no nagging here. It’s funny though, if a male character ‘nags’ another, he’s considered to be trying to toughen him up, or teach him a lesson. It’s seen as something positive. If a female character does the same, she’s a harpy, or a nag. Double standards?

Could your Strong Female Character be seamlessly replaced with a floor lamp with some useful information written on it to help a male hero?

Not in the slightest.

Is a fundamental point of your plot that your Strong Female Character is the strongest, smartest, meanest, toughest, or most experienced character in the story—until the protagonist arrives?

No, she remains the most intelligent, most ruthless, and most calculating character in the book. She possibly has a softer side, somewhere, but she doesn’t change because a male character turns up. She has work to do, and she just wants to be left alone to do it.

…or worse, does he enter the story as a bumbling f**k-up, but spend the whole movie rapidly evolving past her, while she stays entirely static, and even cheers him on? Does your Strong Female Character exist primarily so the protagonist can impress her?

Well Jyx tries to impress her – that’s part of the problem. He over-reaches himself. So his desire to impress leads to his downfall. I know this question clearly thinks that if a man tries to impress a woman then that’s somehow her fault but in this case Jyx very much needs to take responsibility for his own actions.

It’s nice if she’s hyper-cool, but does she only start off that way so a male hero will look even cooler by comparison when he rescues or surpasses her?

Given most of the reviews say they were shouting at Jyx then I don’t think there’s any point in the book where he seems cooler than Eufame.

Is she so strong and capable that she’s never needed rescuing before now, but once the plot kicks into gear, she’s suddenly captured or threatened by the villain, and needs the hero’s intervention? Is breaking down her pride a fundamental part of the story?

Not at all.

Does she disappear entirely for the second half/third act of the film, for any reason other than because she’s doing something significant to the plot (besides being a hostage, or dying)?

She disappears for a while because she’s at a meeting with the Crown Prince about his coronation procession, which is the whole reason why she needs an apprentice and therefore a pretty significant reason to be missing, but she’s back again for the third act.

Based on those questions, Eufame is a genuine Strong Female Character, and I’m pleased about that, although I have to bear in mind the fact that she’s also the villain, and therefore possibly not the type of character this questionnaire was intended for. Yet it worries me that there is a seeming lack of such characters both in books and on screen. I think a lot of it is tied in with the inherent gender bias so prevalent in our culture, and there appears to be some sort of belief that if a female character is genuinely strong and independent from the male character that the movie-going/book-buying/game-playing public won’t buy it. But people aren’t stupid – male fans used to actively cheer on the Final Girl from the first wave of slasher films, and I’m pretty sure most men recognise that empathising with a female character isn’t going to challenge their masculinity.

Don’t get me wrong, not every female character needs to be another Ripley – that would be just as implausible and unrealistic as the current state of affairs. Characters should essentially drive the plot forward and have a reason for existence, whether they’re male or female, but female characters that don’t depend on their looks or don’t need rescuing shouldn’t be so rare.

What do you think? Would a strong female lead put you off watching a movie, playing a video game, or reading a book?