The Doc
Administrator
Guardian Of Gallifrey
Favourite Doctor: Eleven
Favourite Companion: Donna Noble
Posts: 7316
@TardisSpoilers
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« on: September 05, 2010, 12:41:24 am » |
|
One of Sleekituk's posts just gave me the idea for this thread. There is a lot of talk lately about what constitutes a good female character, in SciFi or otherwise, and a lot of talk about the annoyance of Mary Sue's, so here is a chance to list your favourites, tell us what makes them great and why they work etc.
|
Now and then, every once in a very long while, every day in a million days, when the wind stands fair and The Doctor comes to call, everybody lives.
|
|
|
MandyDuchovney
The Other Side Of Light
Timelord
Favourite Doctor: 10
Favourite Companion: Donna
Posts: 3159
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 05, 2010, 01:49:23 pm » |
|
It would help if I knew what constitutes a 'Mary Sue ' ? Who in godsname comes up with these stupid names for things??
|
Sarah Jane Smith: No.The universe has to move forward. Pain and loss, they define us as much as happiness or love. Whether it's a world, or a relationship. Everything has its time. And everything ends.
|
|
|
|
BlueRose
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 05, 2010, 02:41:43 pm » |
|
This may help: http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htmAs for brilliant female chars in scifi, I'll name some: Buffy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) Willow (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) Susan Ivanova (Babylon 5) Lyta Alexander (Babylon 5) Fred (Angel) Delenn (Babylon 5) River Tam (Firefly) Zoe (Firefly) Jadzia Dax (Star Trek: DS9) Kira Nerys (Star Trek: DS9) Tosh (Torchwood) When Joss Whedon was asked why he kept creating such strong female characters, his response was "Because you keep asking that question." I didn't name any from Dollhouse because there were too many, to be honest, but the one that stands out in my mind is Bennett, also played by Summer Glau, same gal who played River Tam. Strong female characters are strong when you can remember them and think, "I never thought of them as being a good female character...I thought of them as being a good character, period." Unfortunately they aren't common in scifi. I've been a panelist a few times on the issue of women and science fiction, and it was brought up that a single scifi manuscript written by a woman whose name was spelled out on there was rejected. Resubmitted under a gender neutral or male name...accepted. People who think there isn't sexism in scifi has their heads in the sand.
|
|
|
|
TheDoctorDonna
Timelord
Favourite Doctor: Eleven/Two
Favourite Companion: Donna/Barbara
Posts: 3116
Whatchoo Lookin' At?
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 05, 2010, 03:06:30 pm » |
|
Laura Roslin - BSG Fred Burkle - Angel Lauren - Misfits Willow - Buffy
just a couple listed above, but all brilliantly written anddiverse characters that don't fit into the idealist view of how female characters should be. I agree with the comment above. So much sexism in scifi and it's just going around in circles because so few writers will break the chain
|
One! One word! Shake, milk-shake, milk! Milk! No? Not milk! Um, shake, shake, shake! Cocktail shake! What, d'you want a Harvey Wallbanger?
|
|
|
BlueRose
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 05, 2010, 03:09:20 pm » |
|
Laura Roslin - BSG Fred Burkle - Angel Lauren - Misfits Willow - Buffy
just a couple listed above, but all brilliantly written anddiverse characters that don't fit into the idealist view of how female characters should be. I agree with the comment above. So much sexism in scifi and it's just going around in circles because so few writers will break the chain
It's why I speak highly of J Michael Straczynski, Joss Whedon, and RTD. I wish they could be put into a room along with JJ Abrams and Neil Gaiman and emerge with something so extraordinarily geekgasmic that the universe would attain instant enlightenment.
|
|
|
|
DAK
TARDIS Traveller
Favourite Doctor: Eleven!
Favourite Companion: River!
Posts: 608
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 06, 2010, 07:05:30 am » |
|
This may help: http://www.springhole.net/quizzes/marysue.htmAs for brilliant female chars in scifi, I'll name some: Buffy (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) Willow (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) Susan Ivanova (Babylon 5) Lyta Alexander (Babylon 5) Fred (Angel) Delenn (Babylon 5) River Tam (Firefly) Zoe (Firefly) Jadzia Dax (Star Trek: DS9) Kira Nerys (Star Trek: DS9) Tosh (Torchwood) Agree with these, except for Buffy, which I never watched so can't comment. Strong female characters are strong when you can remember them and think, "I never thought of them as being a good female character...I thought of them as being a good character, period." River Song fits this definition. In addition to River, I would add Donna Noble, and Aeryn Sun, Zaan, and Chiana from Farscape.
|
|
|
|
BlueRose
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2010, 02:57:11 pm » |
|
River Song fits this definition. I honestly and truly don't. For starters, she's had no development as a character. The nature of why she's reportedly "cool" is because of her so-called mysterious link to the Doctor. Being this mysterious link to the Doctor is the only thing that has given her any definition. Why does a female character have to be bitchy to be considered "feisty" and connected to a man in order to have any importance? Or worse yet...have stupid wifey jokes made like that's the best a woman can achieve is to be wed to a man? I'm sorry...but River is the epitome of why I loath Moffat's portrayal of women. She's not strong, she's not well developed, she just smirks and simpers about "spoilers". As for the rest...I've said my piece on the "Dislike of River Song" thread.
|
|
|
|
DAK
TARDIS Traveller
Favourite Doctor: Eleven!
Favourite Companion: River!
Posts: 608
Badges: (View All)
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 06, 2010, 06:37:28 pm » |
|
I'm sorry...but River is the epitome of why I loath Moffat's portrayal of women. She's not strong, she's not well developed, she just smirks and simpers about "spoilers". She's not well developed - yet. We know as much about her as the Doctor does at this point (although why he doesn't just google her in the 51st century and find out all he wants to know is beyond me). We don't know that she is his wife, but she is obviously someone the Doctor loves and values, so much so that he ensures her essence will survive in the Library when her physical body dies. IMO, that says a lot about her character. She's his intellectual equal, often being the only person who can understand what he's talking about. From what little we've been told it seems she does have a life and career independent of the Doctor, but that he keeps coming back periodically for visits, which he doesn't do for any of his former companions. As for "spoilers", she's probably doing it as payback to him for doing it to her, which he does to her because she did it to him, etc. Timey-wimey antagonism.
|
|
|
|
BlueRose
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2010, 03:39:04 pm » |
|
She's not well developed - yet.
Um...she's had MANY episodes to become well developed, and frankly we're at the what you see is what you get point. We've had one shot, single episode chars more developed than her. Harriet Jones was a more developed char.
|
|
|
|
|