Timeline for Writing a love interest for my hero
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 10, 2019 at 17:00 | comment | added | user16226 | I don't know about rare pleasure. The beloved older books that I go back to don't seem to indulge in tokenism much (thought whether their portrayals of various people would pass muster with the ideologues du jour is another matter). It may have to do with how much genre fiction you read. Genre fiction, by its nature, depends on stereotypes. That is what allows it to focus on fast paced plotting. Contemporary genre fiction relies on stereotypes just as much, and will seem just as outdated in 50 years. It simply uses stereotypes that suit the current fashion. | |
| Sep 10, 2019 at 16:00 | comment | added | Chris Sunami | @MarkBaker It's still worth the effort to do it right. I love Zelazny's old Amber books, but the female characters in them are wretched to the point that it can make the books difficult to swallow. Conversely, it's a rare pleasure to go back to a beloved older book and find female or minority characters who are more than just tokens. There's so many books I liked as a kid that I can't, in good conscience, share with my own children, because I don't want them growing up with those negative images. | |
| Sep 9, 2019 at 17:06 | comment | added | user16226 | Yes, I'm seeing that on agent web pages as well. But in publishing there is always the aspirational -- the things that people in the biz want to have sell -- and the practical -- the things that actually sell. I interpret the agent wish list to be those things that they would really like to see executed within a novel that will actually sell. I don't take it to mean that they will turn their noses up at salable novels that don't check every item on their wish list. They can be as idealistic as they like in their aspirations, but they still have to eat. Look to what sells to see what sells. | |
| Sep 9, 2019 at 15:17 | history | edited | Chris Sunami | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2019 at 15:11 | history | edited | Chris Sunami | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 15 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2019 at 15:09 | comment | added | Chris Sunami | @MarkBaker In my recent experiences querying agents and publishers, I have found that there is at least a stated preference on the publishing side of the market for more three-dimensional female and minority characters. // That's not to say that stories that don't meet that bar don't continue to be published. But the OP wasn't asking about the market anyway, he was specifically asking about this vein of criticism. // I'd also note that I, at least, as a reader, and therefore a member of the audience, do in fact prefer stories with less generic female characters. | |
| Sep 9, 2019 at 15:03 | comment | added | user16226 | I don't think we should take it as read that this vein of cultural criticism, or any other, reflects actual audience preferences. As much as the manic pixie dream girl may stick in some people's craw, writers keep writing her, readers keep reading her, and viewers keep watching her. The fundamental things that appeal to us in story seem to remain fairly constant despite whatever particular form of cultural criticism is ascendant at the moment. The MPDG may be a fantasy, but then so is the cat suited ninja girl, and so is the love object of every romance novel. | |
| Sep 9, 2019 at 15:02 | history | edited | Chris Sunami | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 722 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2019 at 14:54 | history | edited | Chris Sunami | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 722 characters in body
|
| Sep 9, 2019 at 14:47 | history | answered | Chris Sunami | CC BY-SA 4.0 |