What makes for a good female protagonist in SF?

[Gillianren]

To me, 'strong character' is the wrong way to go. What I want to produce is a character who engages you, for good or ill. A protagonist does not have to be competent; a somewhat incompetent one may just gather more reader sympathy. So that when you kill her off it really jerks the reader.

I think "strong character" is about more than, well, strength of character. It's a character who can support a story, even if they're physically or emotionally weak.

[Solfe]

Here's a flowchart that points out a lot of the common female character stereotypes. Some language warnings apply. Some favorite characters are used as examples of the stereotypes.

I love that Harley Quinn and the Golden Girls appear on the same web page, however, they missed Betty White's character.

[Swift]

Here's a flowchart that points out a lot of the common female character stereotypes. Some language warnings apply. Some favorite characters are used as examples of the stereotypes.

Wow, that's amazing. I'm not going to critique it, but nice going. I find it funny the Lois Griffin and Eve (from Wall-E) are closely related.

[Ara Pacis]

I like that graph. I don't write to formulae, but I can see the appeal. The problem with higher dimensional characters is motivating them to do something. Of course, even multidimensional characters can seem to have lots of those single traits. That must be what makes them complex... and in need of therapy.

The problem with fiction is that it needs to make sense, unlike reality, but sometimes "stuff happens" randomly, which is hard to pull off,unless you need to foreshadow it. On the other hand, too much cause and effect starts to resemble determinism. I paused after outlining a scene that might be kinda gross. But on reflection I'll just plow through and leave any decision to change it for later.

[Disinfo Agent]

Here's a flowchart that points out a lot of the common female character stereotypes.

Ripley is in the wrong place. She's definitely a strong female character — and, more important than that, a good female character and protagonist.

[Buttercup]

Ripley is in the wrong place. She's definitely a strong female character — and, more important than that, a good female character and protagonist.

I totally agree. She is my absolute favorite. Calm, cool, smart, self-respecting.

[KaiYeves]

What exactly do they mean by "represent(ing) an idea"? I wasn't sure about that.

[Solfe]

What exactly do they mean by "represent(ing) an idea"? I wasn't sure about that.

Most of the end results have characters that can be defined with a single phrase. The character is a personified idea.

I don't actually agree with many of characterizations or in some cases the placement, but there it is.

Ripley is the one that jumps out to me as does Sarah Connor, however it is kind of hard to deny Harley Quinn's placement.

[KaiYeves]

Most of the end results have characters that can be defined with a single phrase. The character is a personified idea.

I don't actually agree with many of characterizations or in some cases the placement, but there it is.

Ripley is the one that jumps out to me as does Sarah Connor, however it is kind of hard to deny Harley Quinn's placement.

Oh, so it's not in the sense of a superhero fighting for an idea or that sort of thing.

[blueshift]

I think a good female character would be one who brings something new to science. I am the program director for my astronomy club and my job is to bring speakers to our lectures. I have used women and one is Krysti O'Mara Scotti. She studies nano-structured micro-foams in zero gravity for NASA and spent last summer preparing for her experiment that she took aboard her 30 parabolic flights. If successful the experiment will be moved into the ISS. She will be reporting to us next April.

For those confused as to what a nano-structured micro-foam is just think of those 4th of July snakes that you ignite and watch them grow. Its application will be in medicine, generating cell growth, in aerosol pollutant cleaning along with recharging lithium ion auto batteries to 98% in just a few minutes. It has many other applications as well. Medicine is her interest. She is a student at Northwestern and NASA has given her a post grad scholarship based on her experiment.

Another speaker and a friend of mine is Michelle Nichols from Adler Planetarium. She does outreaches for NASA. She will be speaking at our club for a second time next March. You can look both women up on the web.

The story behind Krysti that is of interest is that she nearly went to jail. They (Krysti and her husband) left their NASA badges and several beakers and their apparatus in the hotel room where they had been experimenting. They simply went out to dinner. Meanwhile, the maid entered the room and saw all this strange looking equipment and their badges. The thought of terrorists went through her mind. She called the F.B.I. and both they and Homeland Security came out and cross-examined them. After showing them several of her correspondences with NASA, they contacted Houston and found out they were not only legit, but needed to be flown there right away. The feds caved in.

Now trying to top reality can be a little tricky.

[Tog]

I think that "representing an idea" means that a character exists for no other reason than to give a speech or two that pushes some specific agenda. Malcolm in Jurassic Park comes to mind here. The author wants to say something so he or she needs a mouth in the book/movie/tvshow. If that character is removed, the only thing we lose is that particular point of view. The character has minimal effect on the rest of the story.

[Gillianren]

I think a good female character would be one who brings something new to science.

And those are interesting stories, but why should their stories stand in for all female characters? A good female character can be one who brings something new to science, but if they don't, that doesn't mean they aren't good female characters.

[DoggerDan]

Smart, but not too smart. It's nice to see the character presented with some challenges then bust through them in a burst of inspiration when the going gets touch.

Cute, but not too sexy. You want them to be believable, as in a friend you've had before. Someone who wouldn't immediately be noticed on the street.

Quirky, but not too quirky. Unless it's a comedy, you want them to be quirky enough to raise an eyebrow in surprise every once in a while, but not every scene.

Variable moodiness. I detest flat characters. I'm almost finished reading one book right now that I horribly detest because the characters are the same, with the same glib lines, scene after scene after...

[Solfe]

I think that "representing an idea" means that a character exists for no other reason than to give a speech or two that pushes some specific agenda. Malcolm in Jurassic Park comes to mind here. The author wants to say something so he or she needs a mouth in the book/movie/tvshow. If that character is removed, the only thing we lose is that particular point of view. The character has minimal effect on the rest of the story.

The creator of the spreadsheet doesn't seem to be as subtle as you are. Some of the characters shown are critical to the plots of the stories they are in.

I think characters can fulfill a role without being weak. In X-Files, Mulder is an idealistic, quiet daydreaming, thinke-type while Scully is more rigid, focused, professional, skeptical of situations. To enable Mulder to be so high-minded, Scully also had a second role - gun fighter. Both characters were critical to the story, but the story required roles that were complementary. It would have been a completely different show if they switched up one or more of their roles. When the show first started it was actually amusing how trigger happy she was or how obvious to danger Mulder was; gun play was usually a function of one or both those things. Scully wasn't simply the skeptical half of the team, she was the more realistic.

[Jens]

Cute, but not too sexy. You want them to be believable, as in a friend you've had before. Someone who wouldn't immediately be noticed on the street.

I wouldn't want to categorize like that. It could be a character with some horrible scarring due to an incident that has something to do with the story. I mean it depends on the story. If you're writing 007 type stuff, it's important for the character to be good-looking, but I don't think Hagrid in Harry Potter was supposed to be particularly good looking (though obviously you're talking about Hollywood actors so there are standards). The character in that movie Misery wasn't particularly cute but she is definitely a memorable character.

[Tog]

The creator of the spreadsheet doesn't seem to be as subtle as you are. Some of the characters shown are critical to the plots of the stories they are in.

Agreed. I think of it more as a guide than a rulebook. Some of those characters may be on that chart for other reasons, though. Obviously, Alien would have been much different without Ripley. Removing her from the story means that someone else would need to step up. If that character were male, it would be just another action movie, but without the most of the action. Making Ripley a woman allowed for the tension to take center stage. Not knowing who would make it out alive made it all the better that it was "the girl." The thing is, I don't recall her as having much of a personality in Alien. It wasn't until Aliens that she rounded out as a character.

I think characters can fulfill a role without being weak. In X-Files, Mulder is an idealistic, quiet daydreaming, thinke-type while Scully is more rigid, focused, professional, skeptical of situations. To enable Mulder to be so high-minded, Scully also had a second role - gun fighter. Both characters were critical to the story, but the story required roles that were complementary. It would have been a completely different show if they switched up one or more of their roles. When the show first started it was actually amusing how trigger happy she was or how obvious to danger Mulder was; gun play was usually a function of one or both those things. Scully wasn't simply the skeptical half of the team, she was the more realistic.

Oh, they can definitely fill the roll without being weak. I didn't link to the original blog that posted that chart because of the potential for non-BAUT friendly tangents, but one of things it mentioned was that characters can be strong, but still be incomplete in some way. Scully is a great example of that. She was a strong character who brought a great deal to the partnership, but that strength was also a limitation for her.

Mulder wanted the truth about his sister, UFO's and the "the conspiracy." What did Scully want? She was assigned to keep tabs on Mulder. I don't recall her having any other motivation for the first few seasons. If you take her away, Mulder would run off chasing rainbows, but it would still be a show, watching how far over his head he gets. If you took Mulder away, you got, well, that last season. It became just another paranormal show, not too different from Fringe.

[HenrikOlsen]

Agreed. I think of it more as a guide than a rulebook. Some of those characters may be on that chart for other reasons, though. Obviously, Alien would have been much different without Ripley. Removing her from the story means that someone else would need to step up. If that character were male, it would be just another action movie, but without the most of the action. Making Ripley a woman allowed for the tension to take center stage. Not knowing who would make it out alive made it all the better that it was "the girl." The thing is, I don't recall her as having much of a personality in Alien. It wasn't until Aliens that she rounded out as a character.

In Alien the characters were pretty much all set up as archetypes with some filling out, as is formulaic for action movies. One thing I think works for that movie is that in the first part there's no one who stands out as getting special treatment by the scriptwriter, so there's no foreshadowing through greater character development of who is going to survive to the end.

One of the common errors in scripting: if you can't bother developing the secondary characters, the audience can't bother caring that you kill them off.

[Solfe]

I found the women in Thor to be incredibly well defined and as an added bonus, the defining came in the form of non-verbal communication. Jane and Darcy were hilarious not for the thing they said, but for gestures and looks they gave each other while dealing with Thor. It wasn't over the top or anything, it was all very casual.

Then again, Darcy was extremely funny when she did interject a little commentary such as the bit about loosing her iPod or dying for college credit.

[blueshift]

And those are interesting stories, but why should their stories stand in for all female characters? A good female character can be one who brings something new to science, but if they don't, that doesn't mean they aren't good female characters.

There are plenty of good female characters but I was under the impression this was centering around a SF character who is a protagonist? I expect SF to bring something new and I expect both female and male characters in SF to supply that.

Another reason is that from both Krysti and Michelle's view, they feel kind of lonely and want to see more women coming into science. SF has failed to bring them in so it needs to step up from where it presently is. They are always asking me the makeup of our audiences at our star parties and they, and other women in science, have expressed displeasure with what is offered by the SF genre.

[Paul Beardsley]

Another reason is that from both Krysti and Michelle's view, they feel kind of lonely and want to see more women coming into science. SF has failed to bring them in so it needs to step up from where it presently is. They are always asking me the makeup of our audiences at our star parties and they, and other women in science, have expressed displeasure with what is offered by the SF genre.

I'm very curious about what SF they read. In the last couple of decades there has been a huge increase in the number of female SF writers, and a similarly huge increase in the number of female protagonists (whether written by male or female authors). Maybe the female prots are uninteresting because they only exist to explore gender politics issues and not science? (I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud.)

[Jens]

Maybe the female prots are uninteresting because they only exist to explore gender politics issues and not science? (I don't know, I'm just thinking aloud.)

Or maybe the female prots are uninteresting because generally speaking, science fiction writers are unable to create interesting characters in the first place. (ducking for cover)

[Paul Beardsley]

Or maybe the female prots are uninteresting because generally speaking, science fiction writers are unable to create interesting characters in the first place. (ducking for cover)

Flippancy aside, I think that's an interesting and possibly valid point. Science fiction is often primarily about things whereas nearly all other branches of literature are primarily about people.

[Drunk Vegan]

Or maybe the female prots are uninteresting because generally speaking, science fiction writers are unable to create interesting characters in the first place. (ducking for cover)

I can see tongue firmly in cheek there, but actually, I can see that.

Much of the science fiction that I read and find mind-boggingly good, I later find reviews of and others lament the lack of any characterization at all. And this of course spoils it for me because I think back on the story and realize that, yes, it had an amazing plot, but no, there weren't any 3-dimensional characters in it.

For some readers the plot is more than enough. If it's compelling, and the events, rather than the characters, form the center of the story, it can carry the story along. This may not be enough for some readers though.

Same with visualizations. I find myself bored to tears when writers attempt to describe settings, objects, and the physical appearance of people in great detail and appeal to all 5 senses. I just want them to get on with whatever the plot is or whatever message they have to convey. But what appeals to me won't necessarily appeal to the entire audience.

And as science fiction grows to encompass a larger audience (which it quite clearly has in recent decades) it will be more or less a given that you want to create versatile characters.

[Ara Pacis]

There are plenty of good female characters but I was under the impression this was centering around a SF character who is a protagonist? I expect SF to bring something new and I expect both female and male characters in SF to supply that.

Another reason is that from both Krysti and Michelle's view, they feel kind of lonely and want to see more women coming into science. SF has failed to bring them in so it needs to step up from where it presently is. They are always asking me the makeup of our audiences at our star parties and they, and other women in science, have expressed displeasure with what is offered by the SF genre.

Yeah, I'm thinking of Protagonists as well as secondary characters. I'm not sure what you mean by "bring in something new". Do you mean ideas or technology? My understanding is that SF explores how people relate to tech, so you can have different people have different reactions to the same tech. This is different from contemporary drama in that the tech isn't critical or unusual to either the characters or the audience. On the other hand, if you're interested in new tech, then I am bringing new tech that's reality based that I haven't read of in fiction before (although someone may have written about it, I just don't know it). However, the tech is ancillary, the main story is about people and institutions. Oh, and monsters and space princesses, of course.

On a side note, some people I know have complained that every book or movie has to be a series these days. I think that since people are demanding better characterization, that the stories just have to include that much more ink to satisfy the craving. (Why people feel the craving is another issue that goes into socio-politics.)

[Solfe]

Flippancy aside, I think that's an interesting and possibly valid point. Science fiction is often primarily about things whereas nearly all other branches of literature are primarily about people.

I tend to disagree. Science Fiction (or Fantasy) allows the author to place characters in situations where "normal" is on vacation and the author can explore ideas from a completely different point of view. Sometimes trivial events are very upsetting for the reader or viewer, but the sci-fi aspect can cancel that out.

One of my favorite examples is when "normal fiction characters" stand in front of an elevator and press the button repeatedly because going up is critical. Every experiences a twinge of frustration because it is so common. Elevators are simply not sane devices. In Hitchhiker's, the elevators talk to people which takes the insanity to the next level. The machines ARE people too.

Ever have a day where you car wouldn't start? Put Jim Carey or Mr. Bean in that role and you still will remember that stomach dropping "aw, poo!" feeling you get when it happens in real life. In The Empire Strikes Back, we see it happen to a spaceship. If you girlfriend ridiculed you about your lousy car, there would be much screaming, key throwing and tyre kicking going on. But because of the Sci-Fi aspect, that bad feeling goes away and you can REALLY observe the characters from the outside.

[Disinfo Agent]

Making Ripley a woman allowed for the tension to take center stage. Not knowing who would make it out alive made it all the better that it was "the girl." The thing is, I don't recall her as having much of a personality in Alien. It wasn't until Aliens that she rounded out as a character.

In Alien the characters were pretty much all set up as archetypes with some filling out, as is formulaic for action movies. One thing I think works for that movie is that in the first part there's no one who stands out as getting special treatment by the scriptwriter, so there's no foreshadowing through greater character development of who is going to survive to the end.

I agree with the bolded sentences above, but I disagree somewhat with the rest. Obviously, Ripley is not as central in Alien as she is in Aliens, but the first movie still manages to give her a personality. In fact, I find that all characters are better sketched in Alien than in Aliens. This may be because there are fewer of them, and the pacing of the story is slower. Nor do I find the characters in Alien to be overly formulaic, except possibly Parker and Lambert (though on the flip side Lambert makes a valuable female contrast with Ripley...)

It didn't stand out to me on first viewing, but after rewatching Alien a few times I've noticed hints that Ripley was not the "last one" completely by chance (though chance obviously plays a role, as no one knew where the alien was hiding). Remember the scene where Ash breaks the quarantine against the regulations, and against Ripley's express orders? If he had respected the quarantine as Ripley had told him, the alien would never have been set loose on the ship and killed so many people. Or the fact that Ripley went back to the alien transmission, and managed to decipher it nearly in time to save the team that was exploring the alien ship?... Ripley is the first to become suspicious of Ash. It's subtle, but from the very beginning she is noticeably one of the smartest and most responsible crewmembers.

A good comparison with Alien is John Carpenter's The Thing, produced and premiered at about the same time, and with a similar premise, but with an all-male cast. While both are gripping movies, the characters are better developed in the former.

[swampyankee]

Or maybe the female prots are uninteresting because generally speaking, science fiction writers are unable to create interesting characters in the first place. (ducking for cover)

This is, alas, too frequently true.

[Paul Beardsley]

I tend to disagree. Science Fiction (or Fantasy) allows the author to place characters in situations where "normal" is on vacation and the author can explore ideas from a completely different point of view. Sometimes trivial events are very upsetting for the reader or viewer, but the sci-fi aspect can cancel that out.

One of my favorite examples is when "normal fiction characters" stand in front of an elevator and press the button repeatedly because going up is critical. Every experiences a twinge of frustration because it is so common. Elevators are simply not sane devices. In Hitchhiker's, the elevators talk to people which takes the insanity to the next level. The machines ARE people too.

Ever have a day where you car wouldn't start? Put Jim Carey or Mr. Bean in that role and you still will remember that stomach dropping "aw, poo!" feeling you get when it happens in real life. In The Empire Strikes Back, we see it happen to a spaceship. If you girlfriend ridiculed you about your lousy car, there would be much screaming, key throwing and tyre kicking going on. But because of the Sci-Fi aspect, that bad feeling goes away and you can REALLY observe the characters from the outside.

What you say does happen, but note that I said SF is often, not always, about things.

Until the 1960s, very little attention was paid to characterisation in the genre, which is why the New Wave happened. I remember reading a collection of the best short stories of (I think) 1968, and they were all very exciting pieces about human interactions and emotions and dangerous sexuality in richly imagined worlds... and then there was one by Isaac Asimov called "The Billiard Ball" which was about physicists doing physics experiments. It was a very good story, unsurprisingly, but it was basically about speculative physics (for some reason that made sense at the time, the eponymous sphere got accelerated to light speed), and the characters and relationships of the physicists was purely functional to showcase the idea. (I think there was a love triangle, and a deniable murder involved.)

Characterisation is a much higher priority these days, but a lot of old SF novels are enjoyable precisely because you can insert yourself into the prot's position, confident that he (it was usually a male) would do the things you would do in the given situation.

I think SF is valuable because it allows us to look back at our world from an outsider's point of view, which is what I think you are saying.

I think it was Stephen Baxter (at a convention 20 years ago) who said that potentially the best SF stories could be the ones that explore how well-realised characters are affected by scientific and societal changes.

[Gillianren]

Put Jim Carey or Mr. Bean in that role and you still will remember that stomach dropping "aw, poo!" feeling you get when it happens in real life.

I'm too busy cringing over the appearance of Jim Carrey or Mr. Bean.

[Paul Beardsley]

I'm too busy cringing over the appearance of Jim Carrey or Mr. Bean.

I thought about quoting "Put Jim Carey or Mr. Bean in that role" with a line through "Jim Carey or" and saying, "Fixed it for you!" But I decided the "deleting things you don't think someone else should have said" joke is stale now. Nevertheless, I have time for Mr Bean as a character, not just because I have a secret fondness for him, but also because I've witnessed the shining, unalloyed delight in the eyes of my students when they watch his films.