In the last few years, I have noticed an ongoing trend (particularly in Children’s and YA fiction): the rise of the strong heroine, aka The Crusader. Gone is the Cinderella-like waif who patiently awaits for her Prince Charming to save her. The 21st century heroine can simultaneously fight several men and is never in need of a handkerchief (much less owns one) to dry her tears. This archetype has emerged with such force that most children’s films in the last year have presented us with the same heroine: Merida in Brave, Snow White in Mirror Mirror (a waif turned crusader after a-week-long boot camp in the cave of the dwarf-thieves), Black Widow in The Avengers, Katniss in The Hunger Games and recently Eep in The Croods—to name a few.
Sure, this fearless adventurer is preferable to the passive heroine who couldn’t fight her way out of a paper bag without breaking into tears, but I sense the fighting heroine is slowly becoming the new cliché. I find myself rolling my eyes every time I go to the movies and see one of these Amazonian women flying through trees and beating up men. (I honestly tried to give The Avengers a chance, but when I saw Scarlett Johansson in a skirt and heels beating four men while tied up to a chair and then walked away while checking her cell phone, I had to pass.)
Perhaps the problem is that the Strong Heroine has become too literal. Strength doesn’t only mean physical prowess. Strength doesn’t mean turning into men. Strength means not giving up in the face of adversity and taking on challenges in spite of our weaknesses. Historically, women have operated differently than men. Why does fiction insist on changing this fact? (I can already see the list of women fighters coming my way!) But in spite of all the exceptions we can come up with, I can’t help but wonder if we’re creating role models for girls that are impossible to follow. And what about the minor fact that in historical fiction, these female characters are frankly anachronistic? (Yes, I have heard of Joan of Arc and Catalina de Erauso, but these are extraordinary women, that’s why they’re so famous.) My issue here is not having heroines who occasionally engage in fights, the problem is that this archetype seems to be proliferating like an amoeba in a pond of dirty water and overpopulating our books and films—therefore losing the uniqueness and charm this type of heroine once had.
To be fair, Katniss in The Hunger Games is a more believable crusader. This heroine has a specific set of skills which help her survive, but she knows that she would fail in a hand-to-hand combat with her male rivals, who are bigger and stronger than her. Her intelligence and strategic abilities are what ultimately let her prevail.
Strength in women (and men)* can take many forms. It can mean dealing with economic hardship, illness, orphanhood, or having a dream and not giving up until you achieve it. There are several examples of strong heroines in fiction who, I believe, display more realistic traits. Perhaps my all-time favorite is Xica, the protagonist of Brazilian soap opera Xica da Silva, the story of an 18th century slave who becomes the object of obsession of the new Commander in town. With her newfound power, charm, cleverness and a touch of cruelty, she changes the lives of both aristocrats and slaves in the small town of El Tijuco. Strong, but never one to impart violence with her own hands, Xica—together with her nemesis Violante Cabral—become puppeteers and history makers by outwitting each other with their own armies of friends and allies.
Another powerful woman without superhuman strength is Manuela Saenz in Our Lives are the Rivers. Although based on a real historical character (Simon Bolivar’s lover) Jaime Manrique has fictionalized her life and turned her into an admirable, passionate, yet vulnerable and flawed character. Sure, she dresses up like a man and fights alongside Bolivar in a battle (I haven’t been able to corroborate if this is fiction or fact) but this is a short portion of the book and for most of the novel, Manuelita has to face the true hardships of being a married woman in love with another man during the 19th century, fighting for her ideals and having to share Bolivar with the Revolution (and other women).
And talking about wars, how about Melanie Wilkes and Scarlett O’Hara in Gone with the Wind? These women really surprise us throughout the book. Scarlett, once a naïve debutante who only thought about her good looks and her crush on Ashley Wilkes, proves her strength when she helps deliver Melanie’s baby, escapes Atlanta during the Yankee invasion and resurrects her father’s plantation (true, her methods are not always honest or selfless, but her strength is undeniable.) Melanie also surprises us. An apparently frail woman who Scarlett initially diminishes, Melanie rises up to the occasion when she shoots a soldier who tries to take advantage of Scarlett. She’s also someone who, in spite of her bad health, is not afraid to bear children, someone who defends her friend from nasty rumors, and the only one who can give Rhett the will to live after the death of his small daughter. This is an example of a woman using violence in a way that is not anachronistic or unbelievable.
But strong women are not limited to historical protagonists. Sally Field’s character in Steel Magnolias show us a different face of strength. M’Lynn Eatenton is so collected that in spite of all the craziness that always surrounds her, she remains the voice of reason and a steady port for all to land. And who can forget the stoicism and determination she displays when her daughter falls into a coma?
In conclusion, a woman doesn’t have to be as physically powerful as a man in order to be considered strong. I believe it takes a combination of resourcefulness, persistence and intelligence. There are women with these traits all around us. Do we really need special effects to show us how interesting they are?
Can you think of other remarkable women in fiction who are more realistic and complex than some characters populating our books and screens nowadays? Do you think that this archetype is losing its appeal due to its quick proliferation?
*Herculean, unbelievable characters are not only limited to females. Just take a look at your local movie listings to find the latest action hero with abilities far beyond the realm of human capabilities.
Xena, the mother of the 21st century heroine |
Sure, this fearless adventurer is preferable to the passive heroine who couldn’t fight her way out of a paper bag without breaking into tears, but I sense the fighting heroine is slowly becoming the new cliché. I find myself rolling my eyes every time I go to the movies and see one of these Amazonian women flying through trees and beating up men. (I honestly tried to give The Avengers a chance, but when I saw Scarlett Johansson in a skirt and heels beating four men while tied up to a chair and then walked away while checking her cell phone, I had to pass.)
Perhaps the problem is that the Strong Heroine has become too literal. Strength doesn’t only mean physical prowess. Strength doesn’t mean turning into men. Strength means not giving up in the face of adversity and taking on challenges in spite of our weaknesses. Historically, women have operated differently than men. Why does fiction insist on changing this fact? (I can already see the list of women fighters coming my way!) But in spite of all the exceptions we can come up with, I can’t help but wonder if we’re creating role models for girls that are impossible to follow. And what about the minor fact that in historical fiction, these female characters are frankly anachronistic? (Yes, I have heard of Joan of Arc and Catalina de Erauso, but these are extraordinary women, that’s why they’re so famous.) My issue here is not having heroines who occasionally engage in fights, the problem is that this archetype seems to be proliferating like an amoeba in a pond of dirty water and overpopulating our books and films—therefore losing the uniqueness and charm this type of heroine once had.
To be fair, Katniss in The Hunger Games is a more believable crusader. This heroine has a specific set of skills which help her survive, but she knows that she would fail in a hand-to-hand combat with her male rivals, who are bigger and stronger than her. Her intelligence and strategic abilities are what ultimately let her prevail.
Strength in women (and men)* can take many forms. It can mean dealing with economic hardship, illness, orphanhood, or having a dream and not giving up until you achieve it. There are several examples of strong heroines in fiction who, I believe, display more realistic traits. Perhaps my all-time favorite is Xica, the protagonist of Brazilian soap opera Xica da Silva, the story of an 18th century slave who becomes the object of obsession of the new Commander in town. With her newfound power, charm, cleverness and a touch of cruelty, she changes the lives of both aristocrats and slaves in the small town of El Tijuco. Strong, but never one to impart violence with her own hands, Xica—together with her nemesis Violante Cabral—become puppeteers and history makers by outwitting each other with their own armies of friends and allies.
The rivalry between Violante (left) and Xica (right) kept Brazil and the rest of Latin America glued to their TV screens for 231 episodes |
Another powerful woman without superhuman strength is Manuela Saenz in Our Lives are the Rivers. Although based on a real historical character (Simon Bolivar’s lover) Jaime Manrique has fictionalized her life and turned her into an admirable, passionate, yet vulnerable and flawed character. Sure, she dresses up like a man and fights alongside Bolivar in a battle (I haven’t been able to corroborate if this is fiction or fact) but this is a short portion of the book and for most of the novel, Manuelita has to face the true hardships of being a married woman in love with another man during the 19th century, fighting for her ideals and having to share Bolivar with the Revolution (and other women).
Portrait of Manuela Saenz, known as "The Liberator of the Liberator" for saving Bolivar's life |
But strong women are not limited to historical protagonists. Sally Field’s character in Steel Magnolias show us a different face of strength. M’Lynn Eatenton is so collected that in spite of all the craziness that always surrounds her, she remains the voice of reason and a steady port for all to land. And who can forget the stoicism and determination she displays when her daughter falls into a coma?
In conclusion, a woman doesn’t have to be as physically powerful as a man in order to be considered strong. I believe it takes a combination of resourcefulness, persistence and intelligence. There are women with these traits all around us. Do we really need special effects to show us how interesting they are?
Can you think of other remarkable women in fiction who are more realistic and complex than some characters populating our books and screens nowadays? Do you think that this archetype is losing its appeal due to its quick proliferation?
*Herculean, unbelievable characters are not only limited to females. Just take a look at your local movie listings to find the latest action hero with abilities far beyond the realm of human capabilities.
I hadn't thought about it, but yes, you're right. But I do like the way Katniss is presented, knowing her physical weaknesses, but mentally astute which wins the day. Scarlett and Melanie are great examples of how women can find inner strength in times of adversity. There are plenty of examples, and yes, the Scarlett Johansson character defies belief.
ReplyDeleteHi Denise!
DeleteWhen I first started reading The Hunger Games, I was a bit annoyed that yet again I was being presented with the same type of heroine, but halfway through the book I really got into the story (though the premise to me is disturbing, then again, it's meant to be) and I really liked Katniss, particularly her pragmatism and intelligence. I think her character is what made me keep reading. I wonder if the movie presents this side of her or just her skill with the bow and arrow (?) I guess I'll know once I see it. :)
Thanks for stopping by!
We have talked about this subjec so many times off camera, that now it´s a pleasure reading an essay on it. I like brainy heoines, because it´s easy to show a woman being strong and athletic as a man, but when it comes to inteligence and insinct, gender has a saying. It´s why I love Hermione Granger, Harry Potter´s heroine de facto. She is clever, studious, kind, but takes time from books to fight for her friends and causes she believes in. She is a great role model.
ReplyDeleteI thought you would like this subject. I included Xica/Violante and the characters from GWTW in your honor!
DeleteThis has been bothering me for a while too, so thank you for your excellent analysis! The Tough Girl is so predictable, but people still seem to react to every steely heroine as if she were the first one to break the gentle-flower stereotype.
ReplyDeleteI was looking over my other recently-read novels and realize that in literary fiction, you don't really have heroines and heroes per se, but flawed characters just getting through some difficult situation; so you don't really come up against this. Where I really see it is in popular fiction and in movies. Like you, I watch lots of movies with my kids, an in kid-films this is SUPER prevalent and very, very tiresome. We just watched Wreck-It Ralph last night and while it's a sweet movie, Vanellope is totally predictable: the scrappy heroine who does something stereotypically boyish: she drives a racecar! Gosh, how daring of those movie-makers to break out of the box like that, with a strong heroine! I guess my kids have learned now that Girls Can Do Anything! **yawn** :)
Thanks for reminding me of Vanellope! (I knew I was missing someone!) But at least the protagonist was Ralph (a more interesting character, IMO). I was interested in him and his dynamic with the Bob-the-Builder-character (can't remember his name, Fix It-something?) I wonder if these tough girls seem more shallow because they're for kids and they're in movie format (which gives less room for character development). That's why I'm now wondering if Katniss is as annoying as these other characters in the film (as opposed to the book where we get to read her thoughts). I just saw The Croods this weekend and it only reinforced my bad feelings for these heroines. Have you noticed, too, that when they have a super strong heroine, the men become super weak? (annoyingly so) This is definitely the case of The Croods :p
DeleteI just remembered there's another tough female character in Wreck-it-Ralph: the blond with short hair from the action video game! Talk about being heavy handed! BTW, did you see Prometheus? Never thought I'd see a woman perform her own c-section!! (weirdly enough, I liked that film!)
DeleteI'll agree with you on this one, Lorena! Like you stated, the overly strong female is so prevalent in children's films that it drives me crazy. My daughter likes Brave, but quite honestly I don't care for it. If I had to pick a Pixar film that uses the character's inner strengths more so than the outer ones it would have to be the first two Toy Story movies. Woody is such a weak little cowboy, but he realizes there's so much strength in him. Whereas Buzz is all power and authority in the universe, but realizes he can't do it all on his own. Now I'm thinking of Elasti-Girl in The Incredibles. She could do it all, just like Merida. And, yeah, it's just a tad annoying.
ReplyDeleteWe loved Wreck-It-Ralph, but I agree with Vanellope. But I too was glad the story wasn't centered around her. As to the blonde who falls for Felix, I almost felt that was a tongue-in-cheek kind of thing. Her character was created because that's the way women are viewed anymore in films. Almost like they were making a joke of it.
Great topic!
I love Toy Story, Sister Mary! (I even cried a little with the third.) And yes, I agree that the characters (and their weaknesses) are what makes those films so enjoyable. I think it's so funny that all the moms here are annoyed with those female characters in children's films. I thought I was the only one! Ha Ha
DeleteP.S. Also loved Wreck-It-Ralph and was utterly annoyed when Brave won the Oscar. :p
I think sometimes balance in very necessary. I love strong -sometimes tomboyish- heroines, as an avid reader of Science Fiction and Fantasy I pretty much grew with them. What really annoys me in the invencible-not-vulnerable-at-all-never kind of type. Let's take Leia Organa from Star Wars, she is smart and strong, leads a rebelion yet is taken prisoner and made a slave to Jabba The Hut when she tries to rescue the man she loves and ends up being rescued herself. She has to swallow her pride several times. Another great example is Eowyn from Lord of the Rings, she is emotionally shattered and still takes care of her people and goes to war. Those girls are strong, but vulnerable at the same time. The problem with steely heroines is that the may be unrealistic: they're never sad, never exhausted o vulnerable. That's just unreal and unrelatable.
ReplyDeleteMerdida in Brave wasn't strong to me, just a spoiled girl trying to probe her mother wrong. Katniss in very lovable and vulnerable in her own way because she is yearning to protect the ones she loves.
Good to see you again, Scarlett! :-)
DeleteI agree with you completely about Merida and Katniss. Leia is a great example of a vulnerable, but strong woman. I think you've hit the nail on the head when you say that the problem with these type of heroines is that they never show weakness or real human emotions. That's one of the things I like about Katniss, she's always hungry, thirsty and/or tired, but she keeps going.
Thanks for stopping by!
Funny, I've wondered the very same thing! I think some of the heroines out there need to be a bit more vulnerable. And as someone up there said, it's always nice to have a balance. But yeah. I do think they are becoming cliché. Not that I haven't enjoyed some--like Katniss. :)
ReplyDeleteDear Monica,
DeleteI read The Hunger Games but haven't seen the film. Do you think they do a good job at depicting her vulnerabilities on screen? I'm just wondering if the reason these heroines (on film) are so annoying is because there is no time to develop them properly, like in a novel.
'a woman doesn’t have to be as physically powerful as a man in order to be considered strong. I believe it takes a combination of resourcefulness, persistence and intelligence. There are women with these traits all around us. Do we really need special effects to show us how interesting they are?'
ReplyDeleteBeautifully put. Not to mention that brawn is not the apex of strength, anyway, no matter what the gender.
"...brawn is not the apex of strength, anyway, no matter what the gender."
DeleteSomeone should tell this to movie producers/directors. :D
Very refreshing essay.
ReplyDeleteAs a male, it is far from fun to endlessly watch female characters quickly and easily beat the snot out of multiple male characters twice their size. It's gotten almost mandatory and knowing exactly what will happen in fiction is the very definition of boring.
I have no problem with strong female characters and even WANT to see them, but the "tough girl" has, in my opinion, become a bitter cliché - one that's demeaning to both sexes, even when it's intended to be comical (perhaps that's even when it's most insulting).
In modern fiction, we are constantly taught that women are just as physically strong as men with no extra effort, but will almost always best a man in a fight. Why? That's a long list to write, but most of it has nothing to do with the story or its universe, but our own reality - and nothing kills a good story for me like reality. Or just because that's the more popular outcome right now.
It shows deep-rooted laziness in writing and a quick-grab for viewers. I don't care for the "just wait and the male protagonist will save me" damsel in distress one bit, but there's got to be a more happy medium than turning women into men. We are a culture of massive overcorrection, that's for sure.
It was nice to read a woman's perspective that would prefer, at least more often, that women be shown as being "strong" for more admirable qualities than being able to hit people over the head like cavemen.
Kudos.
"... knowing exactly what will happen in fiction is the very definition of boring."
DeleteWise words, RikkWolf. I also agree with you in that this is lazy writing or writing by default. It used to be waifs, now it's crusaders. And yes, our culture definitely has a bad case of overcorrection.
Thank you for stopping by and commenting. I'm glad you enjoyed the article!
Can you help me with my character?
ReplyDeleteA good read, I may add just a quick historical point about Joan of Arc. She was a strong woman who inspired the French to relieve the siege of Orleans and turn the tide of the Hundred Years War...but didn't actually get personally involved in the fighting.
ReplyDelete