Whether or not you’re a fan, you’ve probably heard of the TV show Breaking Bad. Rest assured, I’m not going to divulge any details about the finale or delve into the show’s message (but be warned, there are a few spoilers ahead). What I would like to talk about is the characters—or more specifically one character in the show.
For those of you who don’t watch (or hate) BB, please bear with me. I’m going to talk about something more universal than the show—and it may be of interest to you.
I recently read an article written by actress Anna Gunn about the world-wide hatred of Skyler White, the character she portrays in Breaking Bad. Skyler is the wife of the protagonist, Walter White, a chemistry teacher who after a lung cancer diagnosis decides to cook and sell crystal meth to save money for his pregnant wife and son (who suffers from cerebral palsy) and pay for all his cancer treatments. Throughout the five seasons of the show, Walt experiences a transformation from meek, principled man to hardened criminal. The power, respect and money he gets from the drug world becomes his addiction and by the end of the show, his close family members can no longer recognize him.
Skyler is not perfect either. Initially a supportive wife who assists Walt through his chemotherapy treatments and gets a job late in her pregnancy to help with the expenses, she becomes embittered and unfaithful when she learns the truth about her husband. Not only that, but she eventually helps Walt launder the cash that reproduces in his cellar like a hoard of rabbits in springtime.
Ok, so we have a story full of negative characters (with a few exceptions) but not all crimes are created equal and there are degrees to the wickedness of each character. Every character in the show, it seems, has his/her own set of principles and limits to his/her (bad) behavior. But by the end of the show, Walt has no limits.
The bizarre thing is that the majority of the public, according to Gunn’s article and to some internet research I did, DOES NOT HATE WALT, but Skyler is hated to such an extent that there are clubs/forums/Facebook pages dedicated to insulting the character and “sharing the hate.” The actress even denounced death threats against her.
Some fans brand Walt as a “badass” yet Skyler gets called a “bitch” on a daily basis. How can we explain this phenomenon? Why does a female character inspire so much hatred when she is “less bad” than her husband?
 |
| Skyler and Walter White, an explosive combination |
In an earlier post, I talked about what makes antiheroes appealing to the audience. One of the tricks I mentioned was having to compensate for the characters’ antipathy by showing something admirable about them. Vince Gilligan, the creator of Breaking Bad, gave us Walt’s intelligence. Even his nemesis, his brother-in-law and DEA agent, Hank Schrader admitted a few seconds before dying that Walt was the most intelligent man he’d ever met. However, Skyler is no box of rocks herself. Whereas Walt is brilliant when it comes to chemicals, schemes and outwitting his enemies, he becomes excessive and careless with his profits. Skyler, on the other hand, has a more pragmatic nature. Once she somewhat accepts her husband’s new lifestyle, she figures they have to find a way to justify their earnings and comes up with a clever plan that Walt—in his infinite recklessness—could have never devised. Not to mention the way she saves them and her boss from an IRS audit.
So why doesn’t the audience have the same admiration for her intelligence as they have for Walt’s?
This is not an isolated phenomenon. Look at so many beloved antiheroes in fiction: Vito Corleone, Tony Soprano, Dirty Harry, the vampire Lestat de Lioncourt, Dr. House, Hannibal Lecter, and let’s not forget the infamous Christian Grey. These men have a cult following trailing behind them. I don’t think there’s anti heroines who compare in popularity to these men (Scarlett O’Hara and Lisbeth Salander are the only ones that come to mind).
I recently finished writing my third novel and handed it over to a few friends. Two of my Beta Readers have expressed an intense dislike for my protagonist: a young woman who makes a huge mistake and needs the entire novel to redeem herself. Their biggest gripe is that she’s selfish and self-centered. I asked one of them—who has been known to love antiheroes in the past—if she thought people had less tolerance for negative female characters and her answer was a simple “yes”.
Women, it seems, have low tolerance for other women. Call it jealousy, competition, “cattiness,” but it is seems to me that women have more patience for “bad men” than they do for their own kind. In the case of male Skyler-haters, I have read complaints about her being a “dominant, nagging bitch” to Walt and demanding that he answers to her about his whereabouts at all times. Could it be their own frustration with their spouses that brings about this reaction toward a fictional character? Or is it a matter of gender expectations? Are there traits we cannot tolerate in women but we can in men?
This double standard seems to be an accepted state of affairs in Hollywood. Just take a look at what Diablo Cody (award-winning screenwriter and creator of Juno) had to say on the subject:
“The conventional knowledge in Hollywood is that an unsympathetic female character can tank a movie. I’m hoping that’s not true. I’m knocking on wood really emphatically right now but honestly I have a lot of theories sometimes I wonder if it comes down to mommy issues. The idea of a cold, unlikeable woman or a woman who is not in control of herself is genuinely frightening to people because it threatens civilization itself or threatens the American family. But I don’t know why people are always willing to accept and even like flawed male characters. We’ve seen so many lovable anti-heroes who are curmudgeons or addicts or bad fathers and a lot of those characters have become beloved icons and I don’t see women allowed to play the same parts. So it was really important to me to try and turn that around.”
As writers, we need to understand that this double standard exists. But how can we create anti-heroines that are not despised by all? Is it even possible? Or are we limited to creating antiheroes and good girls? Can you think of negative female characters who have been accepted (and loved) by the public?
And here, a small treat for the Breaking Bad fans.
What a great question. I wonder if it has to do with women being supposedly the nicer sex; we expect boys to be bad (they "will be boys," after all) but women are given the entire responsibility of upholding civilization. When a woman is bad, she isn't just letting down her sex, she's letting down humanity! It's a double-standard indeed, and hopefully we'll see it change as rigid gender roles liberalize. Although like you said, this particular aspect doesn't seem to be keeping up with other changes.
ReplyDeleteWhen you asked for negative female characters who have been accepted by the audience, one that sprang to mind was Cersei from Game of Thrones. She is pretty evil. Now, is she "accepted," or is she a character the audience loves to hate? Where is the line between those two? Sometimes audience hatred for a flawed character is a good thing, from the creator's POV.
Some TV critics have noted a rise in anti-heroines like Carrie Mathison of Homeland (played by Claire Danes). Instead of being cold, calculating, and ruthless (like Cersei or Walt) they are shrieking, out-of-control harpies. A troubling trend for fictional females as well, I think.
"But women are given the entire responsibility of upholding civilization. When a woman is bad, she isn't just letting down her sex, she's letting down humanity!"
DeleteI had never made this connection until I read Diablo Cody's quote. Wow, what a big responsibility we have. (gulp!) Can I just say that it sucks?!
"Instead of being cold, calculating, and ruthless (like Cersei or Walt) they are shrieking, out-of-control harpies. A troubling trend for fictional females as well, I think."
This is a huge problem in fiction. It seems like strong women are either a) cold and unfeeling or b) loud and domineering. This is a lot to consider for a writer.
I do think female characters in literary fiction have more leeway than characters in commercial fiction. Characters in commercial fiction are fairly stock: the driver of those stories is more plot than character, so characters tend to be a little bit stereotypical, and readers get itchy if protagonists wander too far from type. I'm thinking of some literary fiction I've read recently with pretty deeply flawed characters who are meant to be ones readers can identify with — not hate. "The Good House" by Ann Leary is one: the MC is a bitchy alcoholic. "The Interestings," by Meg Wollitzer, has a very complicated MC who is pretty unlikeable at times, though she's not an antihero. "Turn of Mind," by Alice LaPlante, "How Should a Person Be," by Sheila Heti, and "Olive Kitteridge," by Elizabeth Strout all have female protagonists who are dark, damaged, and/or spiky in some way, yet don't seem as roundly hated as Skyler. OTOH, those are characters in novels, which may get more leeway than characters on screen.
DeleteYes, the fact that this is TV probably makes a difference on how Skyler is perceived vs. if she was a character from a novel. You know, one of the fascinating things about this series (why I watched it and why I think may have been so successful) is that it's not just plot (although the plot plays a big part because it's so unpredictable and quick-paced) but the characters are extraordinary. There is a definite transformation in the main three characters. They're so multi-layered. it's debatable whether this show is character or plot driven (I would vote for character).
DeleteNot really. There's a definite gender bias out there about who's supposed to do what and when.
ReplyDeleteKitty, I was sort of hoping someone would come up with a long list of exceptions.
DeleteI've actually never watched a Breaking Bad episode, mainly because I hear it takes some gruesome turns at times and I have a hard time watching scenes like that. I think you bring up a fair point though with the double-standard issue. Here's what I'm wondering, particularly when it comes to the two characters you mentioned (Scarlet and Salander) -- the Scarlet most people think of is the one from the movie and she is shown with zero children until the birth of Bonnie (although she has other children in the novel) and Salander isn't even on a child-bearing path. Perhaps there's more tolerance for women who aren't seen as mothers, or wives really.There's no one depending on them, no husband at home (in the film, Scarlet is rarely shown with any of her husbands except for those important scenes with Rhett), no child in their arms. But when a woman like Skyler is shown with a disabled son and pregnant as well, people don't understand how she can be evil at all when kids are involved. Men aren't necessarily seen as the nurturing, stay-at-home type, so they get more leeway. Anyway, that's just what I'm wondering.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point, Sister Mary. I think, in some ways, Salander is seen as heroic (how she stands up to her rapist and saves Mikael) and the same goes for Scarlett when she comes back to Tara to save the plantation and her hopeless family. But you're right, they don't really focus on their maternity (though I did read GWTW and hated how "unmotherly" Scarlett was) whereas Skyler is a stay-at-home mom at the beginning of the series.
DeleteNeither of you has read "Gone Girl," have you? That would be an interesting one to discuss in this context! Hmmm. (nudge, nudge)
Delete:)
Not to worry, Sister Steph, I'm almost done reading it and will make it my next book review. I have a lot to say!
DeleteThere's definitely a double standard - in literature and, frankly, in life.
ReplyDeleteI offer one possible exception: Lady Macbeth. She is far from likeable and yet, she's almost certainly one of the greatest characters in all of literature, male or female.
This is a great example. I wonder if she's not hated because she's so far removed from our contemporary world. I wonder how much the time frame of a piece of fiction affects our perception of the female characters. Do you think it makes a difference?
DeleteYup. My hubby rants about this frequently--the difference in the way we view women vs men. I think we harp on women more though because we expect more of them. We expect ourselves to be the stabilizing, taming, good influence. There's no excuse, but that's the conclusion I've come to.
ReplyDeleteInteresting that your husband complains about it (I like him!) It's usually us women who hate this double standard. Thanks for stopping by! :)
DeleteThis is so true. It's one of the reasons I think Twilight did so well: people like docile female characters. I do hope to see the double standard change in fiction because it's simply a reflection of the cultural double standard.
ReplyDeleteWell, MP, one thing is for sure: writer's lives would be much easier if we all wrote this kind of character (but how boring would it be!) :)
Delete