Carrie Vaughn on Urban Fantasy
I’ve already forgotten where I saw this linked from because I was running through my Google Reader so quickly this morning*, but Carrie Vaughn has an excellent series of posts on Urban Fantasy.
From the second post, “When Things Go Wrong”:
6. The book has a strong woman character. But only one. You’d think a genre that supposedly celebrates kick-ass women ought to be able to have more than one per series. You’d think a genre that’s supposed to be all about empowering women would be able to pass the Bechdel Test more often. The test: The story in question has 1) at least two women, 2) who talk to each other, 3) about something other than men.
Word. Not all of my pet peeves match Vaughn’s, but that is one I’m noticing more and more (or I would, if I was reading enough.)
*As soon as I remember, I’ll give proper credit. And, it was Literary Escapism. Of course.
That is a good point. I haven’t read much Urban Fantasy, but I know I’ll be looking for two strong women talking to each other about things other than men from now on.
@Karin: I also like that she doesn’t say the women have to be friends. I see that as another criticism of UF/Paranormal … but sometimes, it just doesn’t fit the characters to have friends/to be friendly with one another.
But to have at least two female characters who are strong, well-developed characters — even if they can’t agree on anything/can’t stand the sight of each other (and the “something other than men” means that they just aren’t fighting over the guy, which usually puts one of the females into a “Evil Woman” role) — well, I’m all over that.
The more kick ass strong women the better I say! And let them save the man for once.
@katiebabs: In romance, I’m always a fan of the mutual saving (which is partially why I end up with a few different threads running through my books — so that both the hero/heroine can “win” something (and whatever it is, it needs to be related to their flaws/character arc)).
But in UF series, definitely — let the chicks kick ass and save the dude in distress.
Actually, I guess a lot of the time it’s more “equal opportunity saving-the-world/saving-each-other” than “mutual saving.”
I agree fiercely with a lot of what she says.
And omg, no wonder her books are so amazing! She’s brilliant without being overly sesquipedalian.