# (Not) writing Manic Pixie Dream Girls



## InstituteMan (Jul 14, 2014)

I have developed a deep dislike for the trope that is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. I am not the first to develop this distaste, I know. I am not opposed to brooding male characters gaining insights through their relationships with women -- hell, I was a brooding male who gained insights through a relationship with a woman, and who continues to do so. So I strive to not write Manic Pixie Dream Girls in my work. Hopefully I mostly succeed, even though as a guy I find writing male characters easier and more believable. Simple enough, I suppose.

My slight concern on this topic, however, is that I have realized that I am subconsciously trying to write the anti-Manic Pixie Dream Girl, a female character who is presented initially as a shallow muse for a guy but who then turns out to be the main or most important character after a few chapters or almost the entire book. 

While it was a television show and after my time, it seems to me that Buffy the Vampire Slayer may be a prior example of one type of an anti-Manic Pixie Dream Girl: she is named "Buffy" for crying out loud, and is bubbly as all hell as far as I can tell, but she also slays the shit out of some vampires and has a well developed personality (I have only seen a few episodes, mind you, because I am older than that . . .).

I don't really even have a question here. I feel like writing the anti-Manic Pixie Dream Girl is a fine ambition, albeit one that is likely to blow up in my face if poorly executed. I am perfectly okay with screwing up, though, so that isn't an issue for me.

I am just curious as to what folks think on the topic of both the Manic Pixie Dream Girl and the anti-Manic Pixie Dream Girl. Any experiences or thoughts?


----------



## BeastlyBeast (Jul 14, 2014)

I am not really too focused on the MPDG, because I don't quite understand what one is, really. However, for me, I find that it's hard to imagine grey areas between male and female characters. You said that you find writing male characters easier than female. I do as well, and maybe that's because of their objectification, or perhaps the stereotyping and objectification of both genders in creative works.

When I think of a male character, especially in genres like romance and fantasy, I imagine tall, built, either handsome or ugly - no in-between - and they are either extremely friendly and likeable, or they are hot-headed s***heads who only have their looks going for them, if that (these are more commonly known as the bad boys). Then we have females... they are either rebellious against their 'nature,' being EXACTLY like male characters (tall, more handsome than pretty, cocky attitude perhaps, etc.) or they are perfectly lady-like, they love flowers and cupcakes and if the story is more of a romantic/sexual nature, they are almost always more of an object than a person capable of growing from the relationship experience.

I have never seen any in-betweens. In fact, even today's great works suffer from the very problems I'm talking about. GRRM's relationship dynamic between Sansa and Arya is: Sansa is super-polite and ladylike, enjoys sewing, obeying those higher without question, and would never pick up a sword if it meant her life. On the other hand we have the snarky soldier-in-training, Arya. While she still maintains a tiny bit of lady-ness about her, she wants to fight, become a knight, is an assassin, not afraid to kill, and will absolutely defy authority if she deems it necessary... The story's still good, but you can probably see my point. Even in a work glorified for having grey, unpredictable characters, the women are still pretty damn extreme and dare I say predictable, personality-wise, either being ladies or tomboys. And, don't even get me started on 1-MC books with a female protagonist! I think this is why female characters are so hard to write for us, while male characters can easily have slightly differing personalities, female characters seem to only go two ways and it has been that way since people wrote about women in fiction.


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 14, 2014)

I once dated a manic pixie dream girl type... there wasn't much 'dreamlike' about that experience. Nowadays when I dream of girls I try to dream of the nice ones.

Anyway, I agree with the general point being made. Not because I don't like the MPDG - because I do - but because it has been close to exhausted at this point. There's only so many variations of the story where the MPDG drags the apathetic male out of his shell or knocks the arrogant bastard down a few pegs to the level of us mere mortals.

It's not a bad story, but it's not an original one.

At the moment I'm right into the damaged-but-doesn't-show-it girl. Those are good.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jul 14, 2014)

I have a hard time even believing that this is an possible in any other realm except fantasy or fiction.  Maybe I am just a caveman but the whole concept eludes me.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 14, 2014)

BeastlyBeast said:


> In fact, even today's great works suffer from the very problems I'm talking about. GRRM's relationship dynamic between Sansa and Arya is: Sansa is super-polite and ladylike, enjoys sewing, obeying those higher without question, and would never pick up a sword if it meant her life. On the other hand we have the snarky soldier-in-training, Arya. While she still maintains a tiny bit of lady-ness about her, she wants to fight, become a knight, is an assassin, not afraid to kill, and will absolutely defy authority if she deems it necessary... The story's still good, but you can probably see my point. Even in a work glorified for having grey, unpredictable characters, the women are still pretty damn extreme, personality-wise, either being ladies or tomboys. And, don't even get me started on 1-MC books with a female protagonist! I think this is why female characters are so hard to write for us, while male characters can easily have slightly differing personalities, female characters seem to only go two ways and it has been that way since people wrote about women in fiction.



While I think that a few of the other women in GRRM's books are interesting commentaries on women in traditional society (like Cersei, who everyone loves to hate, and Danny, who had the huge advantage of having dragons), the dichotomy you note tends to exist pretty strongly in the SoIaF books. I hadn't considered that -- excellent point.



popsprocket said:


> I once dated a manic pixie dream girl type... there wasn't much 'dreamlike' about that experience. Nowadays when I dream of girls I try to dream of the nice ones.
> 
> Anyway, I agree with the general point being made. Not because I don't like the MPDG - because I do - but because it has been close to exhausted at this point. There's only so many variations of the story where the MPDG drags the apathetic male out of his shell or knocks the arrogant bastard down a few pegs to the level of us mere mortals.
> 
> ...



True, all around. My main issue is the current lack of originality. I really don't know who wrote the first MPDG, but there are some decent to good stories in that vein; it is just overdone. 



Plasticweld said:


> I have a hard time even believing that this is an possible in any other realm except fantasy or fiction.  Maybe I am just a caveman but the whole concept eludes me.



Yet another good point. Not every story has to be realistic to be good, but MPDGs are certainly a fantasy. Beyond that, they are a fantasy of a variety probably wouldn't be all that great even if it could be realized.


----------



## BeastlyBeast (Jul 14, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> While I think that a few of the other women in GRRM's books are interesting commentaries on women in traditional society (like Cersei, who everyone loves to hate, and Danny, who had the huge advantage of having dragons), the dichotomy you note tends to exist pretty strongly in the SoIaF books. I hadn't considered that -- excellent point.



I honestly wonder if anyone could find a book where a female is the  protagonist, or at least a primary character, but she doesn't go to  either extreme. I honestly can't think of a _single_ female  character in any kind of book like that. Honestly, I think that if a  female character didn't go to either extreme, readers would just say  she's boring. At first I was thinking Lizzie from Pride and Prejudice as  a female character who's kinda on the fence as for being tomboyish or  ladylike, and she really does go to show great mixes of both. She knows  her place and _accepts_ it, but at the same time she's not afraid to _rise above_  it or go farther than one would argue she should. I guess if I had  to say there were any interesting female characters that weren't  typical ladies or typical tomboys, it would be Lizzie, but that would be  the only female character like that whom I could think of.


----------



## Mutimir (Jul 14, 2014)

It's an interesting concept. It does make yourself look at your characters and see if they are MPDG. I think it is a good test.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 14, 2014)

BeastlyBeast said:


> I honestly wonder if anyone could find a book where a female is the  protagonist, or at least a primary character, but she doesn't go to  either extreme. I honestly can't think of a _single_ female  character in any kind of book like that. Honestly, I think that if a  female character didn't go to either extreme, readers would just say  she's boring. At first I was thinking Lizzie from Pride and Prejudice as  a female character who's kinda on the fence as for being tomboyish or  ladylike, and she really does go to show great mixes of both. She knows  her place and _accepts_ it, but at the same time she's not afraid to _rise above_  it or go farther than one would argue she should. I guess if I had  to say there were any interesting female characters that weren't  typical ladies or typical tomboys, it would be Lizzie, but that would be  the only female character like that whom I could think of.



I think that there *are* female protagonists who don't track to either extreme, but I don't think they get mainstream attention . . . which is a different, related, and large topic. Most of those female protagonists are written by women, and therefore the books are called "chick lit" and (often unfairly) given short shrift. An oldish moderately successful book that I read because of the author coming to town a while back was _A Girl's Guide to Hunting and Fishing_, by Melissa Bank. Though it has been a while, I don't think the protagonist (Jane) falls on either extreme. I am sure there are many others, but they typically don't get shelved as simply "fiction" at the book store.

Two characters who are not quite protagonists who aren't at either extreme are Hermione in the Harry Potter books and (even better, IMO) Molly in _Neuromancer_. Honestly, I liked Molly a whole lot more than Case in that book, and I found her more relatable.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 14, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> It's an interesting concept. It does make yourself look at your characters and see if they are MPDG. I think it is a good test.



I can't say that no one should ever write a MPDG, but I have a really hard time seeing why I shouldn't try to avoid them. I think that it is really part of the larger notion to avoid writing flat and boring characters. No matter how bubbly you make her, a MPDG is two dimensional.


----------



## Mutimir (Jul 14, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I can't say that no one should ever write a MPDG, but I have a really hard time seeing why I shouldn't try to avoid them. I think that it is really part of the larger notion to avoid writing flat and boring characters. No matter how bubbly you make her, a MPDG is two dimensional.



Agreed, I think avoiding them would be the preferred strategy. I think if I try to create an anti MPDG I might go overboard and create some other undesirable creation. Sometimes I get caught up in the story and forget to ask myself, what have I created? Furthermore, is this even worth reading?


----------



## LeeC (Jul 14, 2014)

I may be way of track (don't even understand most of the initials), but maybe aren't you talking about over emphasizing and distorting gender. There are distinctions (AAAmen), and role differences (more striking in some cultures than others), but what about bringing out the human aspects in both.

When we're young hormones have an undue influence clouding our thinking, with both genders making good and bad decisions. Alright, maybe females (if I can generalize) have the potential of an upper hand in youth, but the situation reverses (still generalizing) in later life (in my experience). 

At the grocery store recently, I was looking at the yogurt when a like aged women stepped next to me saying "Oh, key-lime, I'd do anything for key-lime." Out of the corner of my eye I saw a relatively younger women smiling broadly. I pretended I didn't hear, which is easily done at my age.

Anyway, how would writers like Margaret Atwood and Virginia Woolf (off the top of my head) fit into what you're talking about. Gender is part of character, but that's only the silhouette, a starting point. That alone hardly makes for a character in a story, and there are many perspectives that overlap gender.

Am I making any sense, I'm tired


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 14, 2014)

Mutimir said:


> Agreed, I think avoiding them would be the preferred strategy. I think if I try to create an anti MPDG I might go overboard and create some other undesirable creation. Sometimes I get caught up in the story and forget to ask myself, what have I created? Furthermore, is this even worth reading?



Yeah, I think I may have to be understated with the anti-MPDG, if I do it at all. Probably the best idea is to simply write a good character.


----------



## popsprocket (Jul 14, 2014)

LeeC said:


> Gender is part of character, but that's only the silhouette, a starting point. That alone hardly makes for a character in a story, and there are many perspectives that overlap gender.



That's sort of the point. The Magic Pixie Dream Girl is a character that is largely wish-fulfilment for the main character and while they can be done right and done well, at this point there's so little diversity that the character can't really be considered to have any real traits.


----------



## Mutimir (Jul 14, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> That's sort of the point. The Magic Pixie Dream Girl is a character that is largely wish-fulfilment for the main character and while they can be done right and done well, at this point there's so little diversity that the character can't really be considered to have any real traits.



At this point I can only see them as an unpaid prostitute.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 14, 2014)

LeeC said:


> I may be way of track (don't even understand most of the initials), but maybe aren't you talking about over emphasizing and distorting gender. There are distinctions (AAAmen), and role differences (more striking in some cultures than others), but what about bringing out the human aspects in both.
> 
> When we're young hormones have an undue influence clouding our thinking, with both genders making good and bad decisions. Alright, maybe females (if I can generalize) have the potential of an upper hand in youth, but the situation reverses (still generalizing) in later life (in my experience).
> 
> ...



As always, Lee, there is a lot of wisdom to what you say. Excellent call on Atwood and Woolf. Perhaps the obnoxious (to me) aspect of the Manic Pixie Dream Girl character is how they were such shallow characters in works (typically movies, to be fair) hailed as being deep and profound. The MPDG seems to squish all of the femaleness of a character into the only salient aspect of the person, avoiding all the complexity you note. 

Oh, I don't much like yogurt, but your key-lime experience gives me hope for my future!


----------



## LeeC (Jul 14, 2014)

Thanks popsprocket,



> That's sort of the point. The Magic Pixie Dream Girl is a character that is largely wish-fulfilment for the main character and while they can be done right and done well, at this point there's so little diversity that the character can't really be considered to have any real traits.



Kinda like in my dreams uh 

And that is what I was trying to say. Why not think about building the characters, whatever gender, to fit the story. One of the reasons I give up on many stories, is because the characters are so flat. It's not the genre of the story, but rather how the authors fail to give the characters believable life.

Take Plur's better stories — you can be immersed in the devilish action because there's enough in the characters for the mind's eye. Even in IM's last fantasy, the characters could have been switched gender wise, yet they would have come through (at least in my mind's eye). 

Hey, maybe that's a way to approach it. As a test swap the genders to see if the story can still work, though admittedly not workable when gender perspective is a key aspect.

I've wasted enough of your time, I gotta get to bed 


PS: IM, I wouldn't hope too much, as the tide changed in my case after I ran out of steam ;-)


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 14, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> I have developed a deep dislike for the trope that is the Manic Pixie Dream Girl. I am not the first to develop this distaste, I know. I am not opposed to brooding male characters gaining insights through their relationships with women -- hell, I was a brooding male who gained insights through a relationship with a woman, and who continues to do so. So I strive to not write Manic Pixie Dream Girls in my work. Hopefully I mostly succeed, even though as a guy I find writing male characters easier and more believable. Simple enough, I suppose.
> 
> My slight concern on this topic, however, is that I have realized that I am subconsciously trying to write the anti-Manic Pixie Dream Girl, a female character who is presented initially as a shallow muse for a guy but who then turns out to be the main or most important character after a few chapters or almost the entire book.
> 
> ...



Huh. I learn something new every day here.

I never even knew about that "typical" style of female character.

Even so, there is a female character in my novel who is not going to be that type. She may wind up with minor elements of the MPDG, but she isn't a direct characterization.

I didn't do that consciously. She just wound up showing up in the story, having been "sent". Of course, she has ulterior motives..but doesn't everyone???


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 15, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> I didn't do that consciously. She just wound up showing up in the story, having been "sent". Of course, she has ulterior motives..but doesn't everyone???



Well, a MPDG doesn't have ulterior motives, but that is kind of the problem. She is mere fantasy, and not in the goblins and wizards way.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Jul 15, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> Well, a MPDG doesn't have ulterior motives, but that is kind of the problem. She is mere fantasy, and not in the goblins and wizards way.



That would be why I said she has elements of being one. 

I think, subconsciously, that kind of female character actually bothers me as well. I'm pretty sure that's why she is developing the way she is.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 15, 2014)

InstituteMan said:


> .... Any experiences or thoughts?



Bad characters are bad.

I happen to think that Archetypes can be useful tools, so I can't really throw poo at MPDGs. But, a badly written archetype, who's only purpose is to be an archetype, is just plainly badly written. Han Solo is the Loveable Rogue, but wasn't badly written for "Star Wars." So, he turned out just fine, nothing wrong with him at all, even though every single audience member likely recognized the archetype as soon as he was introduced... 

So, if you want MPDGs in your story, go for it. Just don't make 'em suck.  That's my two coppers on it.


----------



## stormageddon (Jul 15, 2014)

BeastlyBeast said:


> I have never seen any in-betweens. In fact, even today's great works suffer from the very problems I'm talking about. GRRM's relationship dynamic between Sansa and Arya is: Sansa is super-polite and ladylike, enjoys sewing, obeying those higher without question, and would never pick up a sword if it meant her life. On the other hand we have the snarky soldier-in-training, Arya. While she still maintains a tiny bit of lady-ness about her, she wants to fight, become a knight, is an assassin, not afraid to kill, and will absolutely defy authority if she deems it necessary... The story's still good, but you can probably see my point. Even in a work glorified for having grey, unpredictable characters, the women are still pretty damn extreme and dare I say predictable, personality-wise, either being ladies or tomboys. And, don't even get me started on 1-MC books with a female protagonist! I think this is why female characters are so hard to write for us, while male characters can easily have slightly differing personalities, female characters seem to only go two ways and it has been that way since people wrote about women in fiction.


I see the point you're trying to make Beasty, but at the same time can't agree with it. My problem here is that almost every female alive could be made to fit into either group of tomboys/ladies - both are very broad categories, and as such, cannot be labelled as extremes (there isn't really much in-between). That also assumes that gender is the primary defining aspect of a character, a notion I don't much care for.

I would likely be labelled a tomboy, but I wouldn't see myself as an extreme of one kind or another. I'm just a person.

Perhaps it's the feminist in me speaking, perhaps it's just that I've never seen gender as something that defines me/has any influence on me beyond certain aspects of my physiology, but I like to apply that same belief to all the characters I create[/discover]. They're just people. When I get an idea for a character, it begins at the personality level. I only have one character whose gender was defined _before _his personality, and that was because I needed him to be male for the sake of my polemic 

Back to the subject of anti-MPDGs, I really like the idea. Or, it could be that feminist resurfacing. A sort of two-finger salute to the patri- ahem...I think it's a good idea, and could make for an interesting character, BUT. Remember, even when using an archetypal character, she/he/it is still _just a person_, and people are, as you say I-Man, three-dimensional. Good luck ^-^


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 15, 2014)

stormageddon said:


> Perhaps it's the feminist in me speaking, perhaps it's just that I've never seen gender as something that defines me/has any influence on me beyond certain aspects of my physiology, but I like to apply that same belief to all the characters I create[/discover]. They're just people. When I get an idea for a character, it begins at the personality level. I only have one character whose gender was defined _before _his personality, and that was because I needed him to be male for the sake of my polemic
> 
> Back to the subject of anti-MPDGs, I really like the idea. Or, it could be that feminist resurfacing. A sort of two-finger salute to the patri- ahem...I think it's a good idea, and could make for an interesting character, BUT. Remember, even when using an archetypal character, she/he/it is still _just a person_, and people are, as you say I-Man, three-dimensional. Good luck ^-^



Thanks, storm!

This topic is a bit fraught, because while I generally agree with you, there certainly are _some_ people I know who feel quite defined by their gender, often happily, and that is cool and all if it works for them. 

This all came into my head because I realized that I was actually writing an anti-MPDG without realizing it. I'm not sure that it will work, but it has a better chance as an intentional effort than an inadvertent thing.

BTW, ain't nothing wrong with being a feminist, and in fact quite a lot right, so no need to try to keep that feminist from surfacing. :eagerness:


----------



## Nickleby (Jul 16, 2014)

popsprocket said:


> That's sort of the point. The Magic Pixie Dream Girl is a character that is largely wish-fulfilment for the main character and while they can be done right and done well, at this point there's so little diversity that the character can't really be considered to have any real traits.



That's my sense of the MPDG. The way to subvert the trope would be to introduce such a character, but gradually show traits that distinguish her from the fantasy, i.e. as a real person. The MC would either ignore those distinctions and live the fantasy (making the story about her), or he'd break through the dissonance and learn how to conduct a real relationship (making the story about both of them). The trick would be to foreshadow the conflict in some way so that the reader doesn't say, "Oh no, another Magic Pixie Dream Girl story!" and toss the book aside.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 16, 2014)

Nickleby said:


> That's my sense of the MPDG. The way to subvert the trope would be to introduce such a character, but gradually show traits that distinguish her from the fantasy, i.e. as a real person. The MC would either ignore those distinctions and live the fantasy (making the story about her), or he'd break through the dissonance and learn how to conduct a real relationship (making the story about both of them). *The trick would be to foreshadow the conflict in some way so that the reader doesn't say, "Oh no, another Magic Pixie Dream Girl story!" and toss the book aside*.



That is the trick indeed. Well said.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 16, 2014)

IM,

Is this (nonfiction) an example of what you're talking about?

Some years back, on the road the tire pressure light came on. Locating a gas station at the next exit, another car pulled in just in front of us, directly to the air dispenser, and three men piled out. We waited in the car for what seemed to be a good while, till finally the wife got out and asked them, "How many men does it take to put air in a tire?"


----------



## Nickleby (Jul 24, 2014)

A bit of synchronicity here. I heard an advert for this program yesterday:

http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2014/07/23/manic-pixie-dream-girl/

It's a radio show. There's a link to the audio on this page.

The tl;dl* version: Nathan Rabin, who coined the term "manic pixie dream girl," now wants to ban it.

*Too Long; Didn't Listen


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 24, 2014)

Nickleby said:


> The tl;dr version: Nathan Rabin, who coined the term "manic pixie dream girl," now wants to ban it.



That is funny to me. Sigh, I am always behind the times.


----------



## aj47 (Jul 24, 2014)

It's, I think, a reflection of our culture that women seem to have little difficulty writing male characters while men struggle with female characters.

I say this because one my WIP has two male characters and no females.  And nowhere have I gotten flak about them not being "real men" or however one chooses to express that meme.

I've gotten flak for other issues related to them but not that particular thing.  I hadn't thought about it except my other main WIP has a female character. She's not a _female_ character -- she just happens to be a woman because my muse said so.  But she, I don't think, is any less real than my male characters. 

I think the issue isn't female characters so much as female characters *in a relationship with male Main Characters.* I think you have the relationship dynamic and how our cultures say we're supposed to view women in relationships.  And how we view partnered relationships in general.  We tend to see a top and a bottom, for example.  Or a breadwinner and a homemaker. Or whatever.  The relationship and the expectations of the relationship tend to take over the character if she isn't seen as co-equal to the story.  Because that's her position in the story, not because she's female.

I hope I'm making sense to y'all. _I_ know what I mean.


----------



## InstituteMan (Jul 24, 2014)

astroannie said:


> I think the issue isn't female characters so much as female characters *in a relationship with male Main Characters.* I think you have the relationship dynamic and how our cultures say we're supposed to view women in relationships.  And how we view partnered relationships in general.  We tend to see a top and a bottom, for example.  Or a breadwinner and a homemaker. Or whatever.  The relationship and the expectations of the relationship tend to take over the character if she isn't seen as co-equal to the story.  Because that's her position in the story, not because she's female.
> 
> I hope I'm making sense to y'all. _I_ know what I mean.



This makes a lot of sense. I hadn't thought of it this way, but you are exactly right. So many of the other attributes of the MPDG are just ornamentation, I think you hit on the essence of the trope.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 25, 2014)

astroannie said:


> ...I think the issue isn't female characters so much as female characters *in a relationship with male Main Characters.* I think you have the relationship dynamic and how our cultures say we're supposed to view women in relationships.  And how we view partnered relationships in general.  We tend to see a top and a bottom, for example.  Or a breadwinner and a homemaker. Or whatever.  The relationship and the expectations of the relationship tend to take over the character if she isn't seen as co-equal to the story.  Because that's her position in the story, not because she's female.
> 
> I hope I'm making sense to y'all. _I_ know what I mean.



Absolutely! I agree that "relationships" are the bane of writers of the opposite sex. (Well, at least for me!) Some probably do it well, but I don't read heavily in such genres. However, there's a famous Science-Fiction series that works pretty well, by C.J. Cherryh. (The "Foreigner" series.) Cherryh handles her male-female relationships fairly well... since the human character is fully immersed in "thinking" like a native to the alien culture that he serves and, well, we get nothing much from his love interest in way of "relationship" other than "man’chi", which is a sort of loyalty/love/clannish belongingness, family... some weird alien notion. (Incidentally, I originally used the term "sfik", which she uses to describe a completely alien notion of "a valuable prestige commodity" in an entirely different series of books with, you guessed it, more aliens with weird cultural tendencies that Cherryh has masterfully produced. One of these days, I gotta get her autograph! /love Cherryh)

However, even given the slight role-reversal and reading those books as a man, since I am one, I "grok" the strange relationship between the protagonist and his .. romantic "man'chi-like" interest. I understand it. And, when Cherryh creates threats to man'chi, whether within the clan or between the two lovers, I understand it. (There's another sort of individual, shared, man'chi that went out of cultural fashion generations ago in Cherryh's wonderful Atevi culture. But, I forget the name. It's more appropriately descriptive of the relationship for an Atevi, since man'chi isn't quite as exclusive.)

The point is this - I don't know if Cherryh feels comfortable writing "relationships" from a male point of view. (I've read Cyteen and other stories, but that's an entirely different matter.) However, she does a bang-up job with writing about relationships between humans and aliens!

So, astroannie, there's your solution! Stop worrying about intraspecies relationships and accurate portrayals and go over to the dark side of alien romance! 

Men are aliens. You are not. OK, so, what do these aliens do and what unique characteristic do they share in their psyche that makes good fodder for the imagination?

In other words, there are things you can focus on other than writing about males and their thoughts or emotional interactions when it comes down to romantic/loving relationships. "He loved her" is good enough. Then, write about the little stuff a man does to show you he loves you that makes you all googly-eyed. You don't think we remember to take out the trash because we remembered to take out the trash, do you? We don't help with the chores because we want them to get done faster. We don't mow the lawn because we actually _like_ mowing the lawn. And, we don't smile and hug our mother-in-laws because we really think they're wonderful people and we should be thankful they're in our lives...  See, we, us men, are aliens! We have an alien culture! It's very strange... Everything a man does that involves you, he does for the_ sake_ _of you_. (Or, so the theme goes. We're sneaky like that!) So, there's your alien reasoning for your weird "man creature" sort of character.  And, using that, what is a man thinking when he is actively engaged in the "bread winner" role and loves his spouse? What about when he helps with the dishes? Takes the kids to school so you don't have to? Puts gas in your car? Does the laundry on Saturdays? Builds the Taj Mahal?


----------



## aj47 (Jul 25, 2014)

Mork, I <3 you.

Seriously, I have a relationship of nearly a quarter of a century with my partner so yes, I understand y'all are aliens.


----------



## Nickleby (Jul 25, 2014)

astroannie said:


> It's, I think, a reflection of our culture that women seem to have little difficulty writing male characters while men struggle with female characters.



My theory is that men are simple creatures. Women can write about men because they're observant and there's not much to understand. Men can't write about women because they're not observant and there's a lot to understand. Also, they're lazy when it comes to the subtle cues in a relationship. Too often men (and the characters they write) simply throw up their hands and complain that it's not possible.



astroannie said:


> I think the issue isn't female characters so much as female characters *in a relationship with male Main Characters.* I think you have the relationship dynamic and how our cultures say we're supposed to view women in relationships.  And how we view partnered relationships in general.  We tend to see a top and a bottom, for example.  Or a breadwinner and a homemaker. Or whatever.  The relationship and the expectations of the relationship tend to take over the character if she isn't seen as co-equal to the story.  Because that's her position in the story, not because she's female.



To rerail the thread, the MPDG seems to be a logical extension of your point. She has no true existence outside her relationship with the protagonist. In a Jungian sense, she might be seen as the anima personified, the female principle from the subconscious writ large, a true "dream girl." Her only function is to resolve whatever problem the protagonist happens to be experiencing. He can't resolve the problem himself because he's (you guessed it) lazy when it comes to personal growth. Her "manic" behavior offsets this laziness. Often she's seen dragging him out of his solitary life into a social situation. Finally, if she were a true "pixie," this Tinkerbell would use some magic dust to arrange a private meeting between Peter Pan and Wendy, instead of filling that role herself. No real woman could sustain that level of ethereality.


----------



## Morkonan (Jul 26, 2014)

astroannie said:


> Mork, I <3 you.
> 
> Seriously, I have a relationship of nearly a quarter of a century with my partner so yes, I understand y'all are aliens.






Just remember that we're not as stupid as we want you to think we are stupid not are... Uh. Yeah. Meatloaf?


----------

