Total posts:  2
I just realized most of my characters are female.:
Obsidian ProboscideanMost of the characters in a lot of my original stories are female. But they don't act like the stereotypical, overly-emotional female that everyone hates. They're not in stereotypical women's plots either. In fact, I could probably make them male and the story would be the same (except for a few differences), but I don't really want to do that. Sometimes I worry that this may put people off (the fact that they're mostly female, that is), considering some of my works are fantasy, and I know that's a male-biased field. What I'm trying to ask is, are people really going to think of something as a "girly book" just because a lot of the characters are female?
I'm an elephant. Rurr.
vigilantly taxonomishPossibly, but fuck those people. No reason why the genre should be dominated by a particular gender.
I am deeply, deeply disturbed that you feel the need to ask this (I'm also disturbed by some of the other statements made here, but that's a little off-topic). Quite simply, I don't see how this would put off anyone you'd want as a reader.
vigilantly taxonomishA lot of readers are idiots, and some publishers evidently do care about their readership or we wouldn't see women writers using male/gender neutral noms de plume to appeal to male readers (e.g. J.K. Rowling). It's kind of like white kids who will only listen to Eminem, I guess. I don't see any reason to put up with or encourage that, though.
I said anyone you would want as a reader.
vigilantly taxonomishOh, I know, I'm just saying, I understand that it's evidently something some authors (or more likely, some publishers) find concerning.
What I'm trying to ask is, are people really going to think of something as a "girly book" just because a lot of the characters are female?I tend to think not, but I'm struggling for an example here. This in itself worries me.
I'd question the definition of "girly" here - from what I've seen, books that have a largely female cast are considered to be more appealing to female readers then books that don't, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that they're less appealing to men.
vigilantly taxonomish^ I think it depends on the portrayal, but there certainly are books targeted primarily at women readers that I seldom see men reading (e.g. Mills & Boon novels).
Ahr riverDammit, now I want to make a thread complaining about how most of my characters are male. Bluh. I am annoyingly feminist, yet I can't even make my own books be properly equal. And by that, I am referring to what I consider "awesome" characters (characters I love), they are almost entirely all male, with no females.
Obsidian ProboscideanWell, I didn't mean to complain. I just wondered what people would think, considering the male-bias in published writing.
I'm an elephant. Rurr.
Ahr riverI know. I just don't want to snow clone even though I now really want to because of the title of this thread. Not directed towards you, I am posting in a sorta off topic manner.
NemesisI don't think you should worry about it. I think you're doing the "writer neurosis" thing and fretting about things that don't matter too much. I recognize it because I do it. Wouldn't hurt to try and include a few more male characters in later things you write, though.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Also known as KatzWith any luck, if enough people write good books with majority female characters, the perception that you're jeopardizing yourself by doing so will disappear.
Congratulations, OP. You are Tamora Pierce.
Except that she tends to write explicitly feminist fantasy, while the gender of the OP's characters is apparently largely irrelevant to the work.
I don't really know what kind of women you're writing about, though. Overly-emotional women? that's not the stereotype anymore in many genres. The stereotype is more someone like Katniss from The Hunger Games now. Which isn't really that great either. However, subtle female characters are often the most entertaining to read about. Also, if your books only attract female readers, it's not like that's a bad thing. Remember, men don't read.
"Beware of the wolves. They were raised by wolves." Wattpad
^^But that's the second thing people will think of when they hear "female-dominated cast".
edited 12th Mar '12 6:06:23 PM by Leradny
I do hope you're joking, cats. Also: 'second'?
The first one is whatever media which happens to have a female heroine and which the reader has previously consumed.
Trolling SwordsmanMore often than not, the main character of a work is assumed to represent the its target audience. If the main character is a teenaged girl, they market it to teenaged girls. That isn't the end-all-be-all, though. I just finished reading The Girl of Fire and Thorns. The main character is a sixteen-year-old fat Latina girl with low self esteem. I am a 20-year-old skinny black guy who's accepted his weirdness and revels in it.
Eye'm the cutest!Personally when it comes to character gender balance, I don't give a damn about the subject. I'm an equal opportunity
Endless Conflict: Every war ends in time, even supposedly this one.
I'd say that an unnecessarily mono-male cast is at least mildly poor writing on its own.
K-11-2That unnecessarily is a bit of a snapper, though. Does it mean "not for a valid story reason" or "because the author wanted it that way"? I'd argue for the second form personally, simply because if you assign such things at random it's entirely possible to end up with an all-one-gender cast, even if it's unlikely.
Not quite sure I follow.
Total posts: 35
TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from firstname.lastname@example.org.