Inefficient use of language? Questionable instincts for metaphor?
Anyhow shil... so far you've focused on representation, let's talk about characterization. What if a male DM creates plenty of female NPC's, but they all seem like men in drag? --this is common problem in adventure stories since adventure stories tend to showcase certain stereotypically male behaviors, such as the 'hitting first and discussing later, if at all'.
Good question. It's something I've considered earlier, but I figured I'd consider it for a bit so I didn't respond immediately when I saw your post yesterday (yesterday in India, that is).
(note that I tend to include characters in various kinds drag in my D&D campaigns... that can't be accidental, can it?).
Really? I thought it was utterly, purely coincidental. Really
Is it enough to include female characters? Don't we have to write them well, too? At least 'well enough'?And what does 'well enough' look like -- one example would be Kara Thrace from nBSG, but I'm hesitant to try and explain how that character works... she kinda shouldn't.
(this could explain why create more male characters --it's not that I so confident in my ability to write them, but I'm less concerned about writing men as painful caricatures -- in fact, one might argue that's one of my goals...).
My thought on it is that writing female characters well would be a definite bonus, but that's not something which I think of as a necessity. I should add that I think the same for male characters as well. Most people don't write/roleplay characters better than adequately, and I think that's okay. I've seen lots of men roleplay men poorly (i.e. using stereotypes and not very creatively), just as I've seen women roleplay women poorly. So I'd emphasize representation first, with good characterization being a second (and preferable, but not required) element. After all, if you don't have representation you can't have characterization at all, and if you have a good deal of representation then you have a better chance of achieving at least some good characterization.
Which brings me to the question of what good characterization means - and I'll use your example of Kara Thrace and BSG in general, which is my personal high point among TV shows for good female characterization. And I think it also provides a good example of the advantages of representation. Kara Thrace, I think, would be an example of lousy characterization if she appeared in, say, the new Star Trek movie. Why? Because she would be the only major female character there and would stick out as a woman who's written using mostly conventionally masculine traits (and raise the question of whether the writer(s) can write a woman differently than they can write men). But in BSG she works, since she's not the only major female character. You also have Laura Roslin, multiple characters played by Grace Park, Dualla, multiple characters played by Tricia Helfer, Cally, multiple characters played by Lucy Lawless, etc. And lots of minor female characters. Even if these characters were not well-written and well-acted, as most are, their very presence and the fact that they differ from each other would make Kara Thrace acceptable, since "she who has masculine traits" becomes only one among an entire gamut of female characters. This works with both genders, of course. Saul Tigh is largely a stereotype. But he works since he's not the only man on the show. Characterization works very well on BSG, but representation is a hugely important factor therein.
As an addendum, I'll add something about how I think writing a character well can work, as done by BSG. Give the character motivation(s), strength(s), weakness(es), and don't worry about whether these are stereotypically masculine or feminine. And then consider a couple of places where the character's gender might affect things, and add it in. Voila! The majority of BSG's characters could work just fine if you changed their sex. I could totally buy Kara as male, Adama (either of them) as female, Helo as female, Roslin as male, etc. And that actually makes them better and more interesting characters, in my estimation, since they are all mediated somewhat by their gender but not defined by it.
In short, I think more equitable representation is a necessary first step and not only enables but is absolutely necessary for good characterization (which is a bonus, but not as important).
I think people worry about this more than they should. Having female characters behave exactly like male characters can mean ignoring certain nuances of male/female relations, but overall it's not a big deal. Certainly it beats hell out of female NPCs (or PCs) as obnoxious stereotypes or adolescent sex fantasies.
Agreed. I have, unsurprisingly, certain issues with people writing females (or males, for that matter) as "obnoxious stereotypes or adolescent sex fantasies", but as long as one avoids that I'm not going to fault someone running a D&D campaign or a PC for not writing a character as a compelling and well-rounded example of their gender.
