whose line will forever be one of my favorites
greatest show ever.
whose line will forever be one of my favorites
greatest show ever.
DANGER, WILL ROBINSON. THIS QUESTION IS A TRAP.
I mean, look, it’s not your fault that it’s a trap; don’t feel bad. You didn’t build the trap. You may not even know you’re in there — god knows I didn’t, in the years I spent asking myself and others this question and questions like it. It’s a good trap. It’s tricky. It gets almost everyone, at some point or another. There are a lot of people who never actually find their way out.
But, hey, don’t take my word for it. A trap is easiest to identify in action, after all. Let me show you how it works.
You should write strong women — but not too strong, because then you’re saying that only strong women are valuable, and that’s wrong, and you’re writing women wrong. So you should write weak women — but not too weak, because then you’re saying that all women are weak, and that’s wrong, and you’re writing women wrong. So you should write women who are both strong and weak — but only in the right ways, of course, because if you write women who show strength and weakness in the wrong ways then you’re only enforcing the idea that women can’t handle themselves, which is wrong, and you’re writing women wrong. Make sure you write women with flaws, because that’s how you develop interesting characters — but not too many flaws, and definitely not the wrong ones, because then you’re saying that all women are inherently flawed, and that’s wrong, and you’re writing women wrong. But don’t write them without flaws, because then they’re too perfect, and that makes them a Mary Sue, and that’s wrong, and you’re writing women wrong. HOW DARE YOU WRITE WOMEN WRONG. Don’t you think it would be better not to write women at all?
See? It’s a trap. And it’s not even a trap in the way you think, either, because the issue here isn’t that you can nitpick out in any direction and then yell HERE IS AN ARBITRARY REASON YOU ARE DOING WOMEN WRONG — that’s a problem, don’t get me wrong, and its own trap to boot, but it’s not what we’re talking about right now. Like, it definitely sucks, but that happens all the time about all kinds of things (Women shouldn’t sleep with too many people, BUT ALSO NOT TOO FEW; women shouldn’t compromise themselves for their spouses, BUT HOW DARE THEY NOT DO THAT; I could go on but, like, why), and it doesn’t have shit to do with how you tell a story unless you let it.
Naw, friend, the trap here is the idea that you are writing women. You’re not. You’re writing a woman. One person. Every time you write a female character, that’s what you’re writing — just that one. She’s not an archetype, she’s not a statement on All Women Ever, she’s just a person. Singular. Solo. The same way (I hope?) you don’t think, “What is this male character saying about every single dude who has ever walked this earth?” whenever you write guys, so you should avoid thinking that when you write ladies. They’re just people. They don’t have to Be Everything — the idea that women have to Be Everything is enough of a drag in day to day life, you know? It doesn’t need to be given any room to strut around in your writing.
Build her, and not who you think she’s supposed to be: that’s how I do it. What’s she afraid of? What does she believe in? What’s the most embarrassing thing to ever happen to her? The best meal she’s ever had? How would she describe herself if she had only five words to do it? What makes her laugh? What makes her cry? What does she think people want her to be, and what does she want to be, and is there a space between those things, and how does she fill it, if there is?
Nadia, one of the main characters in my novel — she’s a chef, because she likes the simplicity of food, the fact that it’s incredibly difficult to disappoint it, that its nuance is in physical construction as opposed to conceptual tone. She’s spent so much of her life desperately trying and cataclysmically failing to be the person her parents want her to be that she projects a certain amount of hostility towards everyone else, almost daring them to demand anything of her at all. She is hesitant to trust, because she has regretted trusting in the past, and she’s the sort of person who takes regret as a sign that she, herself, has done something wrong, something she should resist repeating in the future. She sneers because she’s used to being sneered at. She smiles when she feels someone has earned it, because that’s more or less the only way she’s ever received that reaction herself. And the thing is, for all I know this now? When I first thought about her, all I knew was her name and her profession. But I built her out out from that, thinking about how she, personally, came to be where she was, as opposed to how women, in general, might come to be in that place. It’s a much more effective strategy, in my experience. Less anxiety-producing, too.
Whoever your female character is, the more you know about her as a person — the more real she feels to you — the less you will feel like that other shit, the what-if-I’m-writing-women-wrong-shit, matters. Because it doesn’t; the truth is the trick, the really important thing to remember in writing women, is to write them one at a time. To write them into individuals, as opposed to into boxes. I hope that helps <3
There are some genres more plagued than others of women not written as people, but as objects or goals to obtain, where the (male) narrator never hints that they exist as anything other than the Virgin or the Whore, and the writer never seems to realize the women in their books need to be characters too. I’ve had people declare to me - on this blog! - that they don’t write women characters (or gay characters, or people of color) because they don’t understand them, and therefore they might as well be some alien race, a box to check off rather than a character to flesh out. It does depend entirely on what you read and about who - the Woman as Thing to Fuck/Obtain/Control/Be a Reward is exhaustingly common, anywhere from detective books to literary ‘gems,’ from big budget movies to reality TV.
Ultimately the key to writing people is to treat them as if they’re people, whether they share your gender, race, or orientation. If you fuck it up, you fuck it up, and you’re in a position where you can learn from your mistakes and try again. That’s what writing is all about! But the next person who says they can’t write a person who is _________ is wasting everyone’s goddamn time, because it’s pretty damn clear they haven’t even tried. And if you try and feel like you’re fucking it up, great! That means you know you need to improve, and you can keep trying to get there.
The Good News: I finished the longest research paper I’ve ever had to write (18 pages) about an hour ago. I’ve been researching and basically working all semester on it, so this is a massive relief.
The Bad News: I have another paper due tomorrow, shorter, but something I still have to put some effort into before I turn it in after I spent a bunch of time already today finishing up the other paper, which I was far more into anyway in terms of topic.
So at the end of Titanic, Rose escapes dying of exposure, avoids the gaze of her fiancee on the ship so she (ostensibly) never sees him or her mother ever again, gives a new name, Rose Dawson, to the guy taking names on the Carpathia, and she becomes an actress…
Wait a second…
If she became an actress, in a time when celebrity culture surrounding actors and actresses was gaining full force, how did neither Cal nor her mother ever see or hear of her again? Even a dye job wouldn’t change her looks all that much, she’d still probably be recognizable to both of them. A dye job probably wouldn’t matter much in terms of black and white photography/film anyway. And she was extremely pretty, too, so she’d probably be pegged as a 20’s glamour girl and be all over everything back then, particularly if she was in silent film. Hell, she’d probably still be involved in high society, and even if she didn’t meet up with her mother again, there’d still be a risk of running into Cal at a party or a restaurant or something. How did they not maybe make the connection that this Rose Dawson, who looked a whole awful lot like their daughter/fiancee, maybe was her? And if Cal was so concerned about the diamond, and if he put two and two together, why didn’t he go after her?
Watch the entire “Let It Go” scene from Frozen featuring Idina Menzel performing as Elsa.
Not an “I Want” song but a “Fuck this, I’m doing what I want” song.
I like it!
TGWTG is lame-o.