Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Well, this all goes back to what I was saying before. It seems to me that, for whatever reason (under-representation, maybe?) female characters, I think particularly in SF, tend to be seen as Woman rather than women, and therefore have a quite different set of demands made of them from that made of male characters. You often get the impression that writers ask themselves not “is this character in any way likeable, interesting or even believable?”, but “can she be passed off as an Ideal Female Role Model (while remaining palatable to the male audience)"?
|
Right. I guess that while many can stomach a Tauriel, the bigger issue seems to be TauriElle.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nerwen
Okay. That’s one aspect... but this thread demonstrates another. Would everybody be carrying on nearly so much at the addition of “a shallow desperate fighter” who was a male? (Note that technically the “shallowness” is still an assumption, though probably a safe one.)
|
Hmmm... I don't suppose so. Because there's three points against Taurielle - the addition, the shallowness, and the Elle. The first two points could apply to a male as well, but the third is there only because it's just waaay too overly un-sexist, to the point that it makes one even more conscious of that aspect. I already ranted about that one, so I won't repeat it.