| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
0. To not define the woman in any way by her relations with men, but on her own personality. Then apply any of the reasons why strong heroes are strong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alright, I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume this is a serious inquiry, despite the unsettlingly, passively angry example provided by the OP (the example sounds more like a villain or at the very least anti-hero than otherwise).
So: how to make a strong heroine character:
Create a strong, heroic character.
Then give the character breasts and a vagina, with appropriate other organs and hormones to match.
I realize I am oversimplifying things -- of course there are nuances between male and female personalities and ways of thinking, even if however very broadly and generally (with many exceptions to the rule). And of course, an individual of a discernible physical gender may still not be cis-gender... and it can all get very complex.
But in simple terms...
If you set out to write "a strong woman" with the goal of making her the strongiest womaniest strong woman ever, with a big tattoo on her face that reads LOOK I MADE A STRONG WOMAN, you will fail.
If you set out to write a real, compelling human being with driving goals, and relatable interests, and genuine flaws, and along the way one of the details that shapes that character is that she is a woman, then you will have written a good heroine.
A well-written hero, male or female, will make those who follow their stories feel empowered, like they too can accomplish what their heroes achieve.
A small few examples in action, fantasy, and science-fiction I can think of off the top of my head:
Wonder Woman
Jaime Sommers the Bionic Woman (the 1970s original)
Buffy Summers
Xena: Warrior Princess
Gabrielle
Barbara Gordon
Black Canary
Storm
Rogue
Morgaine from the C.J. Cherryh gate series
Catherine and Elizabeth from the Naomi Novik Temeraire series
Laura Roslin from BSG
Caprica Six from BSG
Ripley from Alien
Sarah Connor from the Terminator movies
The list could go on endlessly, and all the moreso if you include other genres, back to the dawn of literature and popular culture itself.
And even in the small list above, there is a wide array of personalities and archetypes... the cool yet internally powerful diplomatic Roslin... the conflicted warrior searching for redemption that Xena is... reluctant Chosen One turned great leader Buffy... Mama Bear Sarah Connor... compassionate Jaime Sommers who always tried to avoid using her incredible strength to directly harm someone... the superheroes who used their great strengths directly against their foes because they were so awful someone had to, and everywhere and moreso and so on.
And note that to the best of my knowledge, not one is a man hater.
OK this is your opportunity to throw in ideas as to what makes for a strong female lead in fiction.
1. A willingness to leave the men to die and go off and build her own civilization?
pretty much what jrk and deathquaker said. qualifying a female as "strong" simply in relation to her male counterparts generally reflects more on the writer's ill-conceived view of gender roles, rather than strength of the actual character. the character becomes a joke or a stereotype.
anyway, create a strong character, whether that be physical strength, strength of personality,strength of will, or a combination of all, then say its female and further flesh the character out. the gender's influences should only be seen in subtle ways.as a side note, i find your example to be...somewhat trollish.
Really, the easiest way to write a strong female character is to focus on just writing a strong character in general that happens to be female. There's no specific reason that many of the strong male characters in fiction couldn't have been women instead.
A more challenging approach would be what I call the Wonder Woman approach. When the character of Wonder Woman was created, it was an attempt by William Moulton Marston to show women that the feminine qualities that were looked down upon in that time period could be positives. Whether Wonder Woman succeeded in that goal is up to debate, but I've always been kind of interested in female characters that take traditionally feminine traits, such as compassion and a maternal instinct, and turn them into the key to success in a story.
(Note: the doesn't include a woman just using sex appeal to get by, since that turns her less into a strong female character and more into an object of desire for male audiences.)
|
A small few examples in action, fantasy, and science-fiction I can think of off the top of my head:
Wonder Woman
Jaime Sommers the Bionic Woman (the 1970s original)
Buffy Summers
Xena: Warrior Princess
Gabrielle
Barbara Gordon
Black Canary
Storm
Rogue
Morgaine from the C.J. Cherryh gate series
Catherine and Elizabeth from the Naomi Novik Temeraire series
Laura Roslin from BSG
Caprica Six from BSG
Ripley from Alien
Sarah Connor from the Terminator moviesThe list could go on endlessly, and all the moreso if you include other genres, back to the dawn of literature and popular culture itself.
And even...
I wouldn't have gone with any from that list. Even Laura Roslin from BSG needs emotional validation that she is right from Starbuck, from Adama, and always to prove she isn't a ruthless cruel Tyrant. Even Xena is seeking validation in the eyes of others.
Apparently 'Strength' is the lack of need to validate ones existence or actions in the approval of others.
Strong is not the same as "always 100% sure of herself in every situation and an emotionless robot killing machine".
Many writers make that mistake, but they are not the same thing.
Generally a strong character doesn't need to be bailed out by other characters, but rather is the one that do the rescue. Think of what strong male characters interact with other characters, female strong characters have the same general interaction, they just happen to be female.
I wouldn't have gone with any from that list. Even Laura Roslin from BSG needs emotional validation that she is right from Starbuck, from Adama, and always to prove she isn't a ruthless cruel Tyrant. Even Xena is seeking validation in the eyes of others.
Apparently 'Strength' is the lack of need to validate ones existence or actions in the approval of others.
No that isn't strength in a character, strength is more being the one people rely on to get them out of a sticky situation, one able to survive and even strive in adversity without needing to be "rescued". However every character needs some traits or other that makes them human.
Look at Ripley, she she is the surviver (yes I know she dies in alien 3, but she choose to do this, she isn't killed), whom several times takes command and bails people out, go off on her own and face down uverwhelming odds and survive.
Xena might look for approval fromothers for her actions, but she certainly don't need to be rescued in any sense of the word, she enters take control and stand victorious by the end, if we removed Gabriel and other characters whom she value the opinion of, she would be a ruthlessless coldhearted killer, they are her humanity.
|
|
So a 'Strong' Character is one who:
So Strength has an aspect of Social Approval. An Acceptable limited Strength as opposed to an inhuman Strength. That frankly says more about our needs than the needs of the Character. It says we need to be able to exert some influence on the Character...because we cower in their shadow and are incapable of being what they are - able to walk off and leave the rest of us to perish.
There is an aspect of that in a Male character named Artax in an old Scifi called 'Out of the Silence' by Erle Cox where Artax is so isolated by his intellect that he doesn't really need his own people so he is busily creating a new life form that will ride out the cataclysm that has come for their civilization - one that will evolve into Humans - or some future life form. He is 'God' - Alien and not in anyway requiring societal consent or validation of the People around him who scurry to save the remains of their civilization in 'Arks'.
So a 'Strong' Character is one who:
can drag others out of trouble.
Doesn't need to be rescued from Adversity.
doesn't need emotional validation.
isn't so cut off from the rest of us that the distance is alienating to us.
isn't beyond our capacity to impose 'our needs' on the individual. So Strength has an aspect of Social Approval. An Acceptable limited Strength as opposed to an inhuman Strength. That frankly says more about our needs than the needs of the Character. It says we need to be able to exert some influence on the Character...because we cower in their shadow and are incapable of being what they are - able to walk off and leave the rest of us to perish.
There is an aspect of that in a Male character named Artax in an old Scifi called 'Out of the Silence' by Erle Cox where Artax is so isolated by his intellect that he doesn't really need his own people so he is busily creating a new life form that will ride out the cataclysm that has come for their civilization - one that will evolve into Humans - or some future life form. He is 'God' - Alien and not in anyway requiring societal consent or validation of the People around him who scurry to save the remains of their civilization in 'Arks'.
Your original post only mentions strength but your heading mentions a "heroine". A character who walks off and leaves others to die when they could do something about it is not a hero or heroine. The audience for this type of lead character is probably quite small regardless of gender.
Every human being needs emotional validation. We are social creatures and rely on others as much of ourselves as a compass for where we are in the world.
Absolutely, we should love ourselves and and be true to ourselves, and behaving true to our ideals and our convictions is one of the truest strengths there is. But that is not exclusive from also looking to people whom we admire for guidance and want them to affirm us at times.
Someone who is afraid to admit that need for affirmation, and someone who is afraid to ask for help when they need it---that to me is the greatest weakling there is.
Someone who knows who they are and respectful of themselves, but also reaches out to others if and when needed, is a great individual to emulate.
Also, there is a difference between being strong and being tough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is an aspect of that in a Male character named Artax in an old Scifi called 'Out of the Silence' by Erle Cox where Artax is so isolated by his intellect that he doesn't really need his own people so he is busily creating a new life form that will ride out the cataclysm that has come for their civilization - one that will evolve into Humans - or some future life form. He is 'God' - Alien and not in anyway requiring societal consent or validation of the People around him who scurry to save the remains of their civilization in 'Arks'.
Another common mistake is confusing "protagonist" or "viewpoint character" with "hero".
Heroes are inherently human. It's why they are who they are. If they were emotionally cut off from the rest of the world, they simply wouldn't give a f~@+ enough to BE heroes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a 'strong' character (male or female) is someone who is willing to make a hard decision and live with the consequences--'emotional courage'. A person who is heroic wants that decision to have the best impact for the most stakeholders, so seeks their input/validation, but is willing to do something that might be unpopular if it is for the greater good (in the hero's opinion). And the hero still grieves any tragic consequences of those decisions.
A weak character just takes the easy way out, follows the path of least resistance, or waffles so much between positions that nothing is accomplished.
|
|
Your original post only mentions strength but your heading mentions a "heroine". A character who walks off and leaves others to die when they could do something about it is not a hero or heroine. The audience for this type of lead character is probably quite small regardless of gender.So a 'Strong' Character is one who:
can drag others out of trouble.
Doesn't need to be rescued from Adversity.
doesn't need emotional validation.
isn't so cut off from the rest of us that the distance is alienating to us.
isn't beyond our capacity to impose 'our needs' on the individual. So Strength has an aspect of Social Approval. An Acceptable limited Strength as opposed to an inhuman Strength. That frankly says more about our needs than the needs of the Character. It says we need to be able to exert some influence on the Character...because we cower in their shadow and are incapable of being what they are - able to walk off and leave the rest of us to perish.
There is an aspect of that in a Male character named Artax in an old Scifi called 'Out of the Silence' by Erle Cox where Artax is so isolated by his intellect that he doesn't really need his own people so he is busily creating a new life form that will ride out the cataclysm that has come for their civilization - one that will evolve into Humans - or some future life form. He is 'God' - Alien and not in anyway requiring societal consent or validation of the People around him who scurry to save the remains of their civilization in 'Arks'.
I Asked: "what makes for a strong female lead in fiction?"
Here is one: Kara works at a mine. She is harassed by her male co-workers who constantly need to involve her in their lives. She is walking along the edge of an Acid storage tank with a co-worker behind her who she knows will pat her on the bumm so right when she expects it, she sidesteps - and as a consequence the coworker falls off balance into the acid vat.
The Co-worker is screaming in pain for help.
Question 1: Does she (a) sound the alarm and watch the co-worker die or (b) sound the alarm and try and pull the co-worker out?
Question 2: Is Kara (a)guilty of Murder for contributing to the Death of her inappropriate co-worker and thus alien to what we consider acceptable or (b) awesome for resisting the inappropriate advances of a co-worker no matter the consequences and thus an acceptably strong character?
B + A
If she's a hero she'll try to save him. Likewise, if she's a hero she'll realize that contributing to this game of grabass while messing around in yon factory with No OSHA Compliance is a dumb thing to do, and she's as much to blame as his dumbass self for falling in.
Now, if she moved to the side and he slammed into a railing and busted through it wouldn't be her fault. If she's a hero, she'll still THINK it was her fault, but it wouldn't be.
A + B if she's a strong anti-hero, because she'd realize it was his fault for initiating a game of grabass in said cartoonishly unsafe circumstances and her heroic tendencies don't outweigh her self-preservatory instincts when it comes to accidents brought upon by the victim's own boundless stupidity.
|
|
B + A
If she's a hero she'll try to save him. Likewise, if she's a hero she'll realize that contributing to this game of grabass while messing around in yon factory with No OSHA Compliance is a dumb thing to do, and she's as much to blame as his dumbass self for falling in.
Now, if she moved to the side and he slammed into a railing and busted through it wouldn't be her fault. If she's a hero, she'll still THINK it was her fault, but it wouldn't be.
A + B if she's a strong anti-hero, because she'd realize it was his fault for initiating a game of grabass in said cartoonishly unsafe circumstances and her heroic tendencies don't outweigh her self-preservatory instincts when it comes to accidents brought upon by the victim's own boundless stupidity.
So once again we come to her humanity being an aspect of strength expected of the character by society.
So Is there at any point a strength of character that doesn't require the consent and validation of the rest of the Populace? Can a Character walk off and leave humanity to die and still be considered Strong for making that choice?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No.
Because walking away from humanity and leaving them to die is neither strong nor heroic. It is the coward's way out, and completely giving up is not a characteristic of strength.
If the person were leaving to SAVE humanity (or was leaving because he believed that was the best course of action), and that was the only way to do it (by extension leaving his family/friends/world) then that would be a hard choice that showed strength of character.
"F~** this I'm leaving" without a good purpose behind it does not a strong person make, and it ESPECIALLY doesn't fit with a hero.
Of course strength is defined by the populace. The populace is what makes the definition of strength.
Moral strength means you stand up for what you believe in (not necessarily that you stand for a heroic cause; evil characters are not necessarily weak).
Physical strength is exactly what it says on the tin.
Strength of character is on a sliding scale of altruism vs selfishness. People with great strength of character are generally altruistic, or THINK they are altruistic. The "bad guy" that stands for a cause he believes will do the greatest good has strength of character, likewise the "good guy" that opposes him can show strength of character by altruistically trying to defend the rest of the populace from the other guy.
Strength is always dependent on the populace as a whole. Not the populace's APPROVAL, but with your big picture relationship to it.
Moral/physical strength maybe fits with your scenario, but strength of character certainly does not. A character can have the first two and be strong. The character MUST have the third to be a heroic figure by the modern definition.
So what are you looking for here? You've given me a list of variations on the same scenario and then one oddball. Tell me your input on this.
|
|
Write a strong character. When placing pronouns use female ones.
Grrr! it isnt always possible to write like that - men think different from women so instincts are going to be different. Men might not think - hey I'll put My Sons on a bus to see their grandparents and get on a different bus with my daughter because we are fleeing the totalitarian state of Saudi Arabia for a life free of rule by men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Finally, context. Was that so damn hard?
So a mother fleeing with her children from an oppressive anti-feminist state.
Moral Strength (stands for what she believes in by abandoning a country that cannot and will not accept her as a full human being): Check.
Physical strength: Non-issue, irrelevant
Strength of character (altruistic for taking her children away from a terrible place, somewhat selfish for ONLY taking her family members): Semi-check without more context.
Strength of intelligence (complete Amazonian rule with no men; how do you breed?): Not-check without further context.
|
|
No.
Because walking away from humanity and leaving them to die is neither strong nor heroic. It is the coward's way out, and completely giving up is not a characteristic of strength.
If the person were leaving to SAVE humanity, and that was the only way to do it (by extension leaving his family/friends/world) then that would be a hard choice that showed strength of character.
"F~$! this I'm leaving" without a good purpose behind it does not a strong person make, and it ESPECIALLY doesn't fit with a hero.
Of course strength is defined by the populace. The populace is what makes the definition of strength.
Moral strength means you stand up for what you believe in (not necessarily that you stand for a heroic cause; evil characters are not necessarily weak).
Physical strength is exactly what it says on the tin.
Strength of character is on a sliding scale of altruism vs selfishness. People with great strength of character are generally altruistic, or THINK they are altruistic. The "bad guy" that stands for a cause he believes will do the greatest good has strength of character, likewise the "good guy" that opposes him can show strength of character by altruistically trying to defend the rest of the populace from the other guy.
How is a willingness to abandon those whose belief system will assure extinction to that certain extinction cowardice?
Strength is always dependent on the populace as a whole. Not the populace's APPROVAL, but with your big picture relationship to it.
Moral/physical strength maybe fits with your scenario, but strength of character certainly does not. A character can have the first two and be strong. The character MUST have the third to be a heroic figure by the modern definition.
See that need for a 'relationship' with humanity is as much a need as any weakness. It isn't strength to need humanity and it isn't cowardice to be willing to abandon humanity to its fate and walk away. In both cases it continues to be a what the populace expect as an 'acceptable strength'.
We need there to be limits on the strong characters so they don't abandon us - and once again it is about us.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is a willingness to abandon those whose belief system will assure extinction to that certain extinction cowardice?
There may be some confusion here.
I'M NOT A MIND READER.
I don't know your scenario.
I don't know your story.
I don't know who this character is.
So I did not know that's what was happening. But you may realize if you'd read more than the first line, I say right in there leaving is perfectly acceptable if you're doing it FOR A PURPOSE.
See that need for a 'relationship' with humanity is as much a need as any weakness. It isn't strength to need humanity and it isn't cowardice to be willing to abandon humanity to its fate and walk away. In both cases it continues to...
It is strength. It's definitely a strength to realize you're not some immortal god who can do everything by yourself.
That's called "Strength of common sense, or how to not die when you wander out into the middle of a freakin' desert to start your own country."
It is cowardice to abandon humanity. You're running away. You've done nothing to change it. You've made NO EFFORT to do anything about it. You're just leaving. That is the easiest possible route and it changes NOTHING.
If that's not the case, as I've already said, some context would be nice. Give me some context and I'll see if I can give you an informed response, otherwise you're just wasting my time.
I think you should read some Heinlein. He could pull it off.
|
|
How is a willingness to abandon those whose belief system will assure extinction to that certain extinction cowardice?There may be some confusion here.
I'M NOT A MIND READER.
I don't know your scenario.
I don't know your story.
I don't know who this character is.
So I did not know that's what was happening. But you may realize if you'd read more than the first line, I say right in there leaving is perfectly acceptable if you're doing it FOR A PURPOSE.
See that need for a 'relationship' with humanity is as much a need as any weakness. It isn't strength to need humanity and it isn't cowardice to be willing to abandon humanity to its fate and walk away. In both cases it continues to...It is strength. It's definitely a strength to realize you're not some immortal god who can do everything by yourself.
That's called "Strength of common sense, or how to not die when you wander out into the middle of a freakin' desert to start your own country."
It is cowardice to abandon humanity. You're running away. You've done nothing to change it. You've made NO EFFORT to do anything about it. You're just leaving. That is the easiest possible route and it changes NOTHING.
If that's not the case, as I've already said, some context would be nice. Give me some context and I'll see if I can give you an informed response, otherwise you're just wasting my time.
Its not so much a matter of 'my story' as this is supposed to be a collection of idea as to what constitutes a strong heroine character so consider your time wasted. What intrigues me is your stance on what constitutes strength. Why does there need to be a reason for the Heroine to walk away? It is easy enough to harbor such spite for humanity that you would walk away - sharing nothing with it. What really weird me is that you think a woman with the secret to immortality should be obliged to share it. Species go extinct all the time and new life takes its place. How is it weakness to let it die and start your own?
For me what you are suggesting is the lie humanity would tell the Heroine to get her to stay when she really needs to walk away and let it die having shared nothing of her self with it. The Lie of Civilization exists to reduce the chances of the Survival of the Heroine if he/she abandons humanity to perish. We even see that lie in MAD MAX 3.
Basically any character that has to appear real has to have reasons and we as the reader must have some sense of these reasons to empathize/relate with the character otherwise the character will quite easily appear flat and unreal.
Next I see you are using the term heroine (or hero doesn't matter really) and strong, however being a hero and being strong are two vastly different things a heroine is defined as:
Definition of HEROINE
1
a : a mythological or legendary woman having the qualities of a hero
b : a woman admired and emulated for her achievements and qualities
2
a : the principal female character in a literary or dramatic work
b : the central female figure in an event or period
I am assuming and Rynjin as well that by hero you mean the first set of definitions not the second ones.
Alright with this is mind we have someone who your reader is admiring for her achievements and qualities. The achievements is what happens during the story while her qualities she can already have before the story starts or gain them throughout the story. So what happens int he story that makes the achievements admirable? Well basically admirable is about the outside view of the character (by the reader basically) and the achievement must be of a kind that makes it seem something special and not just a everyday act. If the heroine happens to be immortal, doesn't truly give a rats behind about everyone else and already has everything she needs to create a new world full of life, it is neither truly an achievement or admirable, it simply shows she is powerful.
Anyway I recommend "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell if you want to know more about the whole hero thing.
Okay back to strong, to be strong the character must be able to overcome what others cannot, be the mover and shaker, the one that stands up to the impossible odds and overcome them. A strong character is proactive, she is character that do things and she isn't just overwhelmed and swept under the carpet, instead she gets back up again and again and if she is defeated it is rarely meaningless (unless her strength is well established already in the mind of the reader and the fall is needed to emphasize a greater threat a hero needs to overcome).
The character you describe walking away from the falling humanity alone, being immortal and can simply recreate a new race of intelligent life without anyone else, sounds slightly... psychotic. It is because of her lack of elements we can emphasize with and our inability to understand her motivation. So far she reminds me a bit about "Deathwalker" from "Babylon 5", though she frankly was easier to emphasize with as she used a known archtype (mad doctor Mengele), had a "real" motivation (revenge) and a need for validation (she tries to see the traits she admires in others).
You intent doesn't seem to be to create a crazed villain type character, but that is how she seems so far, regardless of gender.
I'm sorry if this has already been said.
It's a bit goofy, but I think of Lyra Belacqua from the His Dark Materials trilogy as a strong heroine. She has her moral compass (both the compass and Pan), she is capable and willing to execute the heroics of the book, and she puts her trust and faith in her friends.
Sounds good to me :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Strength comes in many forms, really it's in the context of the story.
To use the original example. "A willingness to leave the men to die and go off and build her own civilization?" Leaving a dead culture with the tools to build (and populate) her own civilization because the old one is making socially/morally stupid/suicidal decisions is heroic. Leaving and denying the civilization the tools she's taking from them, no.
Personally I don't see an issue with a strong female character following 'traditional' gender roles. The woman who maintains the home, takes care of the husband, and gives him the spirit to go out again is as much a heroine as the husband. I found Irene, Antonia, and Theodora all strong female characters in An Oblique Approach for example, and few of them saw any active combat or anything. (And when attacked, Antonia uses her knowlege of cooking to attack her foes, something her husband, the Roman General couldn't have done.) So a heroic female (or male) doesn't need to come home spattered in gore to be the hero.
And I do believe men and women are written/perceived differently. That can be used as well. In An Oblique Approach Antonia is strong enough to turn what is seen as a weakness (her past, and the rumors it brings) into a strength. The strength of her love for her husband (and vice versa) is brought into play several times.
So a strong heroine doesn't need to hoist the sword, pump the iron and play Connette to Conan, strength can be shown in other ways too.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Write a strong character. When placing pronouns use female ones.Grrr! it isnt always possible to write like that - men think different from women so instincts are going to be different. Men might not think - hey I'll put My Sons on a bus to see their grandparents and get on a different bus with my daughter because we are fleeing the totalitarian state of Saudi Arabia for a life free of rule by men.
How people think (as far as gender differences go) is primarily contextual -- your example highlights differences in the way a man vs a woman would think because of the differing expectations and limitations placed on them by their society.
So this isn't about how men think vs how women think. It's the character's position in society. If you're writing about an oppressive society, that's going to be deeply tied into gender (people are people, regardless of gender, but their reactions and analysis of situations differ based on their social context). If you're writing about a fairly egalitarian society, write about a person, and any gender differences are going to be seasoning, not meat.
Ripley in Alien, famously, was written as a male character. Her motivations and reactions are unisex.
I think you should read some Heinlein. He could pull it off.Heinlein would have sold your mother a complete library on the grounds you need to read more...
My mother,.......was a pure woman,.....from a noble family,.....
Its not so much a matter of 'my story' as this is supposed to be a collection of idea as to what constitutes a strong heroine character so consider your time wasted. What intrigues me is your stance on what constitutes strength. Why does there need to be a reason for the Heroine to walk away?
Because doing something without reason and for no purpose is not a heroic act.
It's not any kind of act. That's not even a story that's "Random person walks away. The end."
It is easy enough to harbor such spite for humanity that you would walk away - sharing nothing with it.
That's a reason.
However, sheer spite and anger for the sake of sheer spite and anger is not heroic quality. It's not precisely a villainous quality either, but it's a fairly dark neutrality.
What's really weird to me is that you think a woman with the secret to immortality should be obliged to share it.
What.
I...what?
Are you f~*@ing with me right now? Is that it?
Am I on Punked or something? NOWHERE in any of your previous posts have you mentioned a scenario even vaguely like this. WHERE ARE YOU PULLING THIS FROM?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Species go extinct all the time and new life takes its place. How is it weakness to let it die and start your own?
Explain to me, O Wise One, how someone goes off ON THEIR OWN and starts a new species?
Is she some kind of genius bio-engineer? Is she magic? Does "she" reproduce asexually?
WHAT?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY MORE.
You can't see but I'm crying
...
But, assuming it's one of those, it's still not a heroic act, though it is arguably an act of strength. If she, presumably, finds humanity such an unsalvageable mess that she can no longer stand to be around it, I guess it requires a great strength of will to break away from it.
On the other hand, it's still the easiest possible thing she could do if she has that sheer contempt for humanity. After all, if she finds nothing of worth in the whole lot of 'em, why WOULDN'T she leave? What does she give up by leaving? What sacrifice does she make? What moral quandary does she come across?
The answer to all of those is: None.
It requires no strength, moral, mental, or otherwise for her to make the decision to get gone.
For me what you are suggesting is the lie humanity would tell the Heroine to get her to stay when she really needs to walk away and let it die having shared nothing of her self with it. The Lie of Civilization exists to reduce the chances of the Survival of the Heroine if he/she abandons humanity to perish. We even see that lie in MAD MAX 3.
And I'm saying unless she finds a way to do these things:
- Reproduce on her own
- Has the capability to feed herself (in the desert since you mention Saudi Arabia)
- Can defend herself from everything
- Never get sick
- Can make her own clothing
- Can find water
- Can build a shelter
And a bunch of other things unless she can magically do without it.
She will need other people for survival. That's a simple fact. People need other people, even if extremely self-sufficient individuals only need them for emergencies.
|
|
Its not so much a matter of 'my story' as this is supposed to be a collection of idea as to what constitutes a strong heroine character so consider your time wasted. What intrigues me is your stance on what constitutes strength. Why does there need to be a reason for the Heroine to walk away?Because doing something without reason and for no purpose is not a heroic act.
It's not any kind of act. That's not even a story that's "Random person walks away. The end."
It is easy enough to harbor such spite for humanity that you would walk away - sharing nothing with it.That's a reason.
However, sheer spite and anger for the sake of sheer spite and anger is not heroic quality. It's not precisely a villainous quality either, but it's a fairly dark neutrality.
What's really weird to me is that you think a woman with the secret to immortality should be obliged to share it.What.
I...what?
Are you f#~$ing with me right now? Is that it?
Am I on Punked or something? NOWHERE in any of your previous posts have you mentioned a scenario even vaguely like this. WHERE ARE YOU PULLING THIS FROM?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Species go extinct all the time and new life takes its place. How is it weakness to let it die and start your own?Explain to me, O Wise One, how someone goes off ON THEIR OWN and starts a new species?
Is she some kind of genius bio-engineer? Is she magic? Does "she" reproduce asexually?
WHAT?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANY MORE.
You can't see but I'm crying
...
But, assuming it's one of those, it's still not a heroic act, though it is arguably an act of strength. If she, presumably, finds humanity such an unsalvageable mess that she can no longer stand to be around it, I guess it requires a great strength of will to break away from it.
On the other hand, it's still the easiest possible thing she could do if she has...
Yellowdingo Walked away from the crowd struggling with all that he had imparted. It was always just meant to be a list of ideas on what constituted a strong female character...the words seemed to whisper over the wind.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention the part where Yellowdingo dismissed any and all suggestions anyone had to offer as wrong since they didn't fit his personal worldview.
If you truly want people to list ideas, then let people list them, and stop arguing.
|
|
Not to mention the part where Yellowdingo dismissed any and all suggestions anyone had to offer as wrong since they didn't fit his personal worldview.
If you truly want people to list ideas, then let people list them, and stop arguing.
See that is where you are wrong. It annoys me that the limits imposed by you on what constitutes strength of the character are limits imposed by society as a strong character would not seek to limit themselves to the expectations of others. A strong character has the ability to go it alone.
Surely you see that expecting a strong character to 'need humanity' is a need of the society to control and limit that character and therefor not a need of the individual character as a measure of strength.
But OK List them and then we can argue over them later...
And we're done here.
Not to mention the part where Yellowdingo dismissed any and all suggestions anyone had to offer as wrong since they didn't fit his personal worldview.
If you truly want people to list ideas, then let people list them, and stop arguing.
See that is where you are wrong. It annoys me that the limits imposed by you on what constitutes strength of the character are limits imposed by society as a strong character would not seek to limit themselves to the expectations of others. A strong character has the ability to go it alone.
Surely you see that expecting a strong character to 'need humanity' is a need of the society to control and limit that character and therefor not a need of the individual character as a measure of strength.
But OK List them and then we can argue over them later...
I personally find it strange that you think your definition of "strength" is the only valid one. I don't think recognizing that you need others makes you weaker (the idea that it does is very Objectivist, but Objectivism is hardly some sort of universally-accepted truth). Rather, I think the idea that you don't need others is a dangerous illusion that makes you weaker.
But that's the thing about philosophy and opinions -- we can hold differing opinions and there's no objective arbiter to tell us which of us is right.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I personally find it strange that you think your definition of "strength" is the only valid one. I don't think recognizing that you need others makes you weaker (the idea that it does is very Objectivist, but Objectivism is hardly some sort of universally-accepted truth). Rather, I think the idea that you don't need others is a dangerous illusion that makes you weaker.
But that's the thing about philosophy and opinions -- we can hold differing opinions and there's no objective arbiter to tell us which of us is right.
It's also a recurrent theme in fiction. Heck in comics, it was joked that both Stephanie Brown and Disck Greyson had that as their superpowers.
In one of the final issues of Batgirl, she's facing off against one of the bad guys and is outclassed. She yells "Shazam!" The bad guy pauses for a moment then sneers 'YOu're not Captain Marvel.'
Then Supergirl, Wonder Girl, Bombshell, Raven etc all show up. :-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's one of the things I liked about Buffy. The idea that strength is independence is something deeply tied to the Western idea of proper masculinity -- take, for example, the lone heroic cowboy who wanders in, saves the settlement, but must ride off into the sunset at the end of the day and is denied participation in the very community he fights to protect, which, I think, was one of the inspirations for the similar theme in comic books, to the point where it becomes satire in things like Watchmen (the hero is denied membership in the community because "heroism" is actually psychopathy, and not actually all that heroic).
Buffy neatly subverted that trope into something that married classic masculine heroism with classic feminine heroism -- working within the community, and the strength that comes from relationships. Buffy's at her strongest when she is working with her friends -- when she rejects them and tries to go it alone (as we saw in the last few seasons), she becomes brittle, and ultimately weaker.
In the immortal words of Spike, "That's your, watchamacallit, variable. The Slayer's got pals." No romanticization of the lone hero here -- Buffy is an unusually long-lived and successful Slayer because she refuses to devote her entire existence to it, and insists on having friends, having a life outside her heroic calling, and participating in her community. In other words, her heroism comes from her humanity, not in spite of it.
|
|
Not to mention the part where Yellowdingo dismissed any and all suggestions anyone had to offer as wrong since they didn't fit his personal worldview.
If you truly want people to list ideas, then let people list them, and stop arguing.
See that is where you are wrong. It annoys me that the limits imposed by you on what constitutes strength of the character are limits imposed by society as a strong character would not seek to limit themselves to the expectations of others. A strong character has the ability to go it alone.
Surely you see that expecting a strong character to 'need humanity' is a need of the society to control and limit that character and therefor not a need of the individual character as a measure of strength.
But OK List them and then we can argue over them later...
I personally find it strange that you think your definition of "strength" is the only valid one. I don't think recognizing that you need others makes you weaker (the idea that it does is very Objectivist, but Objectivism is hardly some sort of universally-accepted truth). Rather, I think the idea that you don't need others is a dangerous illusion that makes you weaker.
But that's the thing about philosophy and opinions -- we can hold differing opinions and there's no objective arbiter to tell us which of us is right.
And that's where we differ - I see the idea that a Heroine needs society is a belief imposed by society and not a requirement for the Heroine to qualify as 'strong'. You quote Buffy quite well - but in the end we must accept that the Slayer requires the support of her Watcher during 'daylight hours' and is therefor not a character capable of independence from Society - the 'need for others' is built into the rules of the character.
Any more?
|
|
Apparently 'Strength' is the lack of need to validate ones existence or actions in the approval of others.
So you're looking to carve up goblins and nuns with Ayn Rand?
Full disclosure, I neither consider Ayn Rand heroic, nor strong of character. As far as her books were concerned. The last thing Humanity needs are more urgings to act selfishly.
That would be a shackle imposed on the character by society - not an individual requirement.
OK this is your opportunity to throw in ideas as to what makes for a strong female lead in fiction.
1. A willingness to leave the men to die and go off and build her own civilization?
2. A willingness to master the internal dissonance which is forcing her to rationalize her wish to "run away" from everything she is afraid of by convincing herself that "the need to stand and fight for things which are right is really just a manifestation of society trying to trick me into believing I need its validation. So, I'm NOT really running away from all my problems. I'm being a heroic pioneering type...." long enough for her to face her real fears instead of tricking herself into being a coward, which if she runs away now, she will ultimately realize, far too late for her to foster enough self respect to come back from the brink of oblivion?
3. Write what you know.
Dingo, this is an honest question: Do you think the attributes that make a strong female character differ from the ones that would make strong male character?
It's been said before in this very thread, but if you're trying to create a engaging character, you're much better off thinking about the qualities of the individual rather than a list of character tropes from the internet.
But that's the thing about philosophy and opinions -- we can hold differing opinions and there's no objective arbiter to tell us which of us is right.And that's where we differ - I see the idea that a Heroine needs society is a belief imposed by society and not a requirement for the Heroine to qualify as 'strong'.
You appear to have missed the entire point of my post, which is that your opinion, just like mine, is only opinion and not objective truth. I'm quite clear that we disagree.