novel with only male lead characters

BenPanced said:

I've just never had to write anything where the MMC has a complex relationship with a woman, beyond a background character. I'm more interested in exploring relationships between men because that's an area I could be here all day explaining (personal history, growing up, daddy issues, the list goes on). I thought by explaining that I have problems with writing believable female characters because I can't break out of these tropes, and I have tried, believe me, I'd be better off writing to my strengths but instead, I feel I'm being told I have some huge personal bias against women and I'm giving up. Yes, I'm giving up. I don't have very many female characters, if at all, because of previous experience in writing them. Again, I have tried. And I am not pleased with the results. Why can't I say that and why can't I say that I prefer to write stories with a predominantly male cast without feeling like I'm being shamed into admitting I'm some sort of sexist bastard? Jesus Christ, don't make me trot out the hoary old "but some of my best friends are...!" chestnut.

*banninates self from thread*

Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with "I prefer to write stories with all male main characters". The problem is that you seem to have this mental block where it comes to writing believable female characters, like there's some kind of secret special knowledge that you don't have. What I'm trying to say is that you DO have that knowledge, because you're human. That's it. If it's a preference to have all male casts then go for it. Just don't write off your ability to write believable female characters.

Women are extremely diverse and not different enough from men for you to need to write female characters differently to male characters. It seems like you're trying to hard to write a female character, so the results come out weird. Just write them as a human character. IF that's what you want to do. If your books focus mainly on male-male relationships then there's nothing wrong with that at all. There ought to be enough books that focus on female-female relationships and have a mostly female cast and books with an equal gender mix out there to balance it out. If there isn't then that's not your fault as an individual writer.

I dont know man... Usually (well, from what i've read), when a man who cannot write women well tries? It comes out awfully stereotypical and cliche'd, and i dont mean in a good way (Helloooo TV shitcom...). Maybe the OP is underestimating himself, maybe he's not. Personally, if i had such a weakness (and at least a couple others helped identify it as such) i'd drill the shit out of it (thats to say, work on it) until it was a strength. Hell, even if it meant hours of research into a topic i didn't like and then more hours immersing myself in the practice of it... thats what i'd do.

Funny though, stumbling into this thread makes me think back to all those 'old' (not so old) '80's fantasy movies, where you didn't see any female characters at all... unless they were damsels in distress or eye candy. If there WAS a strong female, she was a complete freak (enter Grace Jones). Was watching Krull the other day... fifty-some guys on a grand adventure, saving a damsel in distress. I wonder if you could even make a movie like that these days? Hell (from what i'm told anyways), even Lord of the Rings jacked up the very few female characters the book had to make it more inclusive to today's audience.

Eowyn and Galadriel were not "jacked up" for the movie - they do what they do in the book. Arwen was, but I think that if Tolkien had had one more editing pass, and wasn't seriously sick of the whole thing by the time he finished, he might have written her much like the movie did. Arwen was considered Luthien reborn, and Luthien had no qualms about going with her man on a quest and being just as badass as him (or more).

Ironically, women are more common in Tolkien's less accessible works, such as the Silmarillion, and are much more the action-hero types than in the books published during his lifetime. I wonder if he actually held back a bit from writing them for public consumption, fearing that people just wouldn't appreciate his sword-wielding elf-maidens.

Twick said:

Ironically, women are more common in Tolkien's less accessible works, such as the Silmarillion, and are much more the action-hero types than in the books published during his lifetime. I wonder if he actually held back a bit from writing them for public consumption, fearing that people just wouldn't appreciate his sword-wielding elf-maidens.

Click to expand...

Sword-wielding elf-maidens were not uncommon in fantasy before Lord of the Rings. I think the idea that back in the day, men didn't want to read about no wimminz in their SF&F is one that's taken hold in the present climate, quite contrary of what was actually written back in the day.

I'm curious to know why writing women is difficult. And this is actually an honest question. I want to know because the thought is so alien to me. I feel like men and women are pretty much the same in the sense that both have equal amounts of strengths and weaknesses even though they are also somewhat different.

I have no difficulty writing men, and I'm a woman. I just write people who interest me. They can be tough bitches, or gentle souls. They can be fighters, or geniuses who figure their way out of anything, or both. All possibilities open, anything and everything. So this is why it's so weird to me that someone would think that women can only be caricatures or stereotypes.


Hahah, Eowyn was my hero, growing up.

Twick said:

Ironically, women are more common in Tolkien's less accessible works, such as the Silmarillion, and are much more the action-hero types than in the books published during his lifetime. I wonder if he actually held back a bit from writing them for public consumption, fearing that people just wouldn't appreciate his sword-wielding elf-maidens.

Click to expand...

I would imagine that he would have, and that would be a shame.

Rebekkamaria said:

I'm curious to know why writing women is difficult. And this is actually an honest question. I want to know because the thought is so alien to me. I feel like men and women are pretty much the same in the sense that both have equal amounts of strengths and weaknesses even though they are also somewhat different.

I have no difficulty writing men, and I'm a woman. I just write people who interest me. They can be tough bitches, or gentle souls. They can be fighters, or geniuses who figure their way out of anything, or both. All possibilities open, anything and everything. So this is why it's so weird to me that someone would think that women can only be caricatures or stereotypes.


Hahah, Eowyn was my hero, growing up.

Click to expand...

Is it not a completely common cliche' that men just do not get women? There are entire entertainment and self-help industries built up around this idea. Comedians have been beating that dead and pulped horse for decades, probably longer. Sure, its a common sentiment for the 'common' man, and sold shamelessly TO the common man (personally, it annoys the shit outta me), and yeah, writers are supposed to be keen observers of the human condition, but still... what i SEE, and HEAR in everyday life? It rings pretty true to me. I think that I do well here, but i know other 'writers' (i'd put quotations around myself too when referring to myself as a writer) that cant even tell when their wives are angry. I've found myself saying, 'man i hope there are no women in your book...'

Interesting though, it does seem like women in general have less trouble 'writing men', than vise-versa. More empathy? More intuition?

Also, on your last point - cariacatures or stereotypes, i'd blame modern media, largely, the great and powerful TV god for that one. I cant even watch TV 'comedy' anymore because its all 'women are crabby controlling bitches and men are log-stupid overgrown children'. The sheer degree of power the TV has over our collective 'reality' is staggering. Maybe you're one of the lucky (smart) ones and dont own a TV. I cant stand it either.

^Hahah, I actually don't have a TV that has channels (I have a TV, though). I choose my shows carefully. I can't wait to see what they'll do with Jessica Jones. I've loved Person of Interest and iZombie lately. Just to name a few.

I don't know... the world is full of awesome characters. I'd love to see more of them being women. And after reading this thread, I now understand better why it isn't so. Women are mysterious creatures who don't speak human.

Adversary said:

Interesting though, it does seem like women in general have less trouble 'writing men', than vise-versa. More empathy? More intuition?
.

Click to expand...

The standard explanation is that women have, for millenia, had to pay attention to and understand men in order to survive/thrive, since men were the ones who generally had the power. And men have been able to ignore women most of the time, since women were powerless.

Some of this probably carries over to the present day, in which male power/attitudes/structures are still the default. Women need to be able to understand a "male" way of thinking because that's how our society is structured and we won't do well if we refuse to learn about. If men refuse to learn how women think, they... won't get laid as much, but then they can just become angry MRA-types and shoot women...

I don't really believe in a "male" or "female" way of thinking, personally. I think if your friend married someone he knows so poorly that he can't even tell when she's angry, your friend is a clueless git. I mean, different women show anger differently, but this particular woman to whom he made a life-long vow? He really should be able to figure her out. That won't mean he's able to understand the (non-existent) female monolith, but it will probably help with that one particular woman.

In terms of whether most male writers can write convincing female characters? I certainly don't think there's anything preventing them from being able to, except for their own preconceptions. But maybe there's nothing forcing them to, either. At least, not yet.

Adversary said:

Is it not a completely common cliche' that men just do not get women? There are entire entertainment and self-help industries built up around this idea. Comedians have been beating that dead and pulped horse for decades, probably longer. Sure, its a common sentiment for the 'common' man, and sold shamelessly TO the common man (personally, it annoys the shit outta me), and yeah, writers are supposed to be keen observers of the human condition, but still... what i SEE, and HEAR in everyday life? It rings pretty true to me.

Click to expand...

I'm a man that doesn't get women. However, I love to write female characters. You don't have to understand women to write women, you just have to understand your female characters. There's no way any female character can represent the complexity of any one woman, but that's also true of male characters.

No writer worth their salt would let not "getting" a certain group of people stop them from writing about them. All you have to do is "get" your character.

i know other 'writers' (i'd put quotations around myself too when referring to myself as a writer) that cant even tell when their wives are angry. I've found myself saying, 'man i hope there are no women in your book...'

Click to expand...

It's an unfair assessment of their writing abilities to judge them by their interactions with their wife. First of all, you're not there 100% of the time, you don't necessarily know what's real between them or not. Also, just because they happen to be clueless about one woman (albeit the most important woman in their life, presumably) doesn't mean they can't portray realistic women in their writing. It's like saying "he can't even run his own family, how could he run the country?" The same is true of the reverse. "Wow, he writes great women, he must a fantastic husband!" There's no reason to believe there's a correlation.

You don't have to have a woman or girl in your story, but it is good to have some variety so that you get different perspectives in your book. The world is split between men and women so most likely unless your setting is specifically all male, a female should be in there. I am a girl and go feminism and all that, but if it won't fit, don't force it. Use your own judgement to determine if it will better the story.

Adversary said:

Hell (from what i'm told anyways), even Lord of the Rings jacked up the very few female characters the book had to make it more inclusive to today's audience.

Click to expand...

I think you were told wrong. Only Arwen's role was increased. We do hear a little more from Galadriel, but her role between book and film is essentially the same. And Eowyn is just as she was written.

MythMonger said:

No writer worth their salt would let not "getting" a certain group of people stop them from writing about them. All you have to do is "get" your character.

Click to expand...

Yes, thank you. This is exactly what's been so baffling to me. If I find a weakness in my writing I'll work on it until it's my strength. I don't know any pirates and I certainly am not a pirate. It doesn't stop me from trying to understand how pirates work.

Of course if one thinks women are boring as a whole gender then it's a different matter. Then it's just a huge bias/prejudice. That happens as well, I guess.


Also, why is it that female characters represent all women, but male characters represent only themselves. You are not writing all women when you write a female character.

Rebekkamaria said:

Also, why is it that female characters represent all women, but male characters represent only themselves. You are not writing all women when you write a female character.

Click to expand...

I think this arises from the Smurfette situation, where writers create a whole cast of fully realised male characters ... plus a token female character. If you (hypothetical you) only have one female character among dozens of male characters, she kind of does end up representing all women. The obvious fix being to write dozens of female characters among your dozens of male characters.

BenPanced said:

I've just never had to write anything where the MMC has a complex relationship with a woman, beyond a background character. I'm more interested in exploring relationships between men because that's an area I could be here all day explaining (personal history, growing up, daddy issues, the list goes on). I thought by explaining that I have problems with writing believable female characters because I can't break out of these tropes, and I have tried, believe me, I'd be better off writing to my strengths but instead, I feel I'm being told I have some huge personal bias against women and I'm giving up. Yes, I'm giving up. I don't have very many female characters, if at all, because of previous experience in writing them. Again, I have tried. And I am not pleased with the results. Why can't I say that and why can't I say that I prefer to write stories with a predominantly male cast without feeling like I'm being shamed into admitting I'm some sort of sexist bastard? Jesus Christ, don't make me trot out the hoary old "but some of my best friends are...!" chestnut.

*banninates self from thread*

Click to expand...

You CAN say these things. You CAN.

Parametric said:

I think this arises from the Smurfette situation, where writers create a whole cast of fully realised male characters ... plus a token female character. If you (hypothetical you) only have one female character among dozens of male characters, she kind of does end up representing all women. The obvious fix being to write dozens of female characters among your dozens of male characters.

Click to expand...

This is true. How many times has there been only one woman in an otherwise all male cast. Too many. Of course it warps the way people see things.

BethS said:

I think you were told wrong. Only Arwen's role was increased. We do hear a little more from Galadriel, but her role between book and film is essentially the same. And Eowyn is just as she was written.

Click to expand...

Again, only what i was told from my fantasy fan friends. I'll probably never ever get around to reading that series. Did they actually add to Arwen's character? as in, doing stuff she never did in the books?

Adversary said:

Again, only what i was told from my fantasy fan friends. I'll probably never ever get around to reading that series. Did they actually add to Arwen's character? as in, doing stuff she never did in the books?

Click to expand...

A little. The scene where she rescues Frodo, the conversations between herself and Aragorn, and between her and Elrond. But they fit in, as if they could have happened. For the most part, they don't change the story, only deepen it. The exception would be the plot thread about the jewel she wears. That was a complete invention, and not a very coherent one.

Adversary said:

Again, only what i was told from my fantasy fan friends. I'll probably never ever get around to reading that series. Did they actually add to Arwen's character? as in, doing stuff she never did in the books?

Click to expand...

LoTR is not a series, not as we would think of a series at least. None of the stories stand alone like in modern series, though the first book is the worst at this. You could in theory pick up Return of The King or Two Towers and be satisfied by reading just one of them, but that's only in theory. In reality you meed to read all three in order to understand the story because it is actually a narrative broken into serialized parts in order to be more accessable to readers.

Put into the story whatever character you like, but I understand how you feel. I get nervous if I don't have a certain character within my stories now because I don't want to be seen as non-inclusive.