Women in Fiction

[rowyn]

koogrr and I were talking a few days ago about the gender roles in fiction. I opined that early sf/f mostly had crappy female characters, when they had female characters at all. I think there's something about genre fiction in general that lead to lousy portrayals of women in the 40s-70s. It's not just science fiction & fantasy. I used to consume large quantities of romance novels when I was a teen, and mostly I got them at a used bookstore to keep the costs down. And because the used bookstore charged 50% of cover price, I sometimes would look for older romances because they were cheaper.

And then I noticed that they were also significantly worse. Somewhat more poorly written, but the worst part was the blatant sexism. The women were much more likely to be annoying: clingy, incompetent, whiny, etc. Men were sometimes outright abusive. I gave up on pre-80s titles after a while.

What's interesting about this is that it's not a question of these 'old' books offending my modern sensibilities. I've read much older material with enthusiasm. Jane Austen and Charlotte Bronte, to give two 19th century examples, wrote great female characters. Heck, Shakespeare wrote some good female characters (although most of his female characters are in relatively minor roles and fairly uninteresting, granted.) I'm not sure why much more recent fare would be so much worse. Maybe it's just that the quality of writing overall is much worse -- after all, a whole lot more writing is stil available from 50 years ago than from 200+, and hence a whole lot more schlock is also out there. Still, I'm hard-pressed to name many good female characters from pre-80s sf/f. Tolkein's Galadriel and Asimov's Susan Calvin come to mind. Tolkein's female characters are few and all in minor roles, but to his credit, what little you do see of women in LotR is generally respectful. Even the ones that aren't protagonists show some strength and determination. Remember Lobelia Sackville-Baggins? Contrast that with the cringe-worthy female roles in early Doctor Who episodes. come to think of it, the Heinlein books I've read (which aren't enough to make a good representative sample) have usually had good female characters.

Still, I'm wondering if whiny and incompetent female characters really were more common in popular early to mid-20th century fiction than in previous centuries, or if selection bias has winnowed out more of the crap from earlier periods. I think there's another factor at work in my impression. I'm not looking for egalitarianism or a lack of gender roles -- that is a pretty recent development in fiction. (And comes with its own pitfalls, like the rise of the omnipotent female character, who is not merely capable but excelling at absolutely everything). Rather, I'm thinking of books that treat women as intelligent and capable within whatever role they're assigned. And generally getting a role that's better than 'the victim in need of rescuing.' :P I'm not sure I'm expressing this very well.

Anyway, I'm curious if other people's impressions are similar or different from my own. What do you think the trends with female characters in fiction have been?

Comments

Re: Could that be read....

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

I can sort of see that, although it's more '10% of the people are super-awesome' compared to everyone else who's merely 'normal', and not '90% of people are crap'.

Re: Could that be read....

[rowyn]

I tried thinking about it that way, actually, but still didn't feel as though it matched my experience. Maybe "10% of people are super-awesome at *something* that the other 90% are only average at".

But people have so many variables to them that it's particularly hard to qualify them in this manner. The things I value most in a friend aren't the same things I'd value most in a co-worker or a doctor or an author or whatever. It's very rare for me to meet someone who seems well above average in almost all respects.

Re: Could that be read....

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

No, being good at *something* is different, and a lot more common. And neither necessary nor sufficient. It's really hard to put my finger on why some people are 'better'... harder than it is to point out examples. Which I am *so* not going to do.

Re: Could that be read....

[rowyn]

Bizarrely, that makes sense to me. And, yeah, I don't think pointing out examples would be a good idea.

Re: Could that be read....

[koogrr.livejournal.com]

Well... once in a while I have run into people that were across the board better than me. It was unpleasant. Usually it's a matter of adjusting the scale, "well, he can lift more weight than I can, but I'm a better artist" sort of thing. Except for this particular guy, beat me hands down on everything I could compare. He wasn't playing one-up either, I was desperately looking for some way to feel superior and couldn't find it.

Better engineer, better artist, better writer, more well read, more girlfriends, more boyfriends, partied harder, better athlete, more traveled, richer, geekier, just everything. I did not want to be around him, I just felt like a cheap knock-off. About the only saving grace is it was over 12 years ago and I haven't seen anyone comparable since. So, I accept there are some 'most excellent' people out there, but they're rare. Really rare.

With everyone else it's more trade-offs. I'm better at this, they're better at that.

Re: Could that be read....

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Like the guy who joined at the same time as me, worked longer hours, wrote better code, got promoted over me repeatedly, got married and had kids, and still manages to outdo me in gamer-geek areas like anime knowledge and stuff? And is healthier and more handsome and athletic and... grrrr.

He's also got my temper, though, so at least he's not perfect.

Re: Could that be read....

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

But...did he get to go out with rowyn? ;-) *grin*

I think sometimes I feel fortunate not because of what I'm good at, but because of the experiences I've had and the friends I've made. Other people are better writers and mothers, I'm sure...but they don't get the experience of parenting Daniel and Ellie, or being married to Dave, or creating the exact things I do or having the friends that I have. (Thanks again for your part in that, heh - not just your friendship, although it's very cool, but for all the people I've met through you, too.) Anyway, It's those things that make my life feel wonderful as-is, and I wouldn't trade them for being more capable.

Also, 'better' is such a subjective term when it comes to art; and I also think, with art, you don't realize how good you are.