Who do you think is King's best female protagonist? Doesn't have to be a major protagonist, just not any villian. We can talk about those here, too, but I'd really like to hear what each of you think about positive depictions of women from SK.
PLEASE MARK ANY REAL SPOILERS
great minds and all that, path. I've been thinking that next year we will have to add this category to the The Constant Reader Awards, because nobody ever nominates a female characters in Best Protagonist; this thread fits perfectly into this plan!
my favorite female protagonist - the one who comes to mind first - is Susannah
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, it's a subject which I've thought about often. However, I happened to be inspired to start this at this time when SynysterSaint mentioned recently on a The Stand thread that he doesn't much care for Frannie from that book, or for Susannah (from TDT, of course). Hopefully, he will also show up here soon and tell us who he does like. ...AND, I'm hoping that we'll also get plenty of nominations from everyone else!
Last edited by pathoftheturtle; 05-05-2010 at 02:12 PM.
Reason: phraseology
Well done starting this thread, path I'm glad to hear I was an inspiration!
I'm glad to see I've made myself very clear in my feelings for Susannah and Frannie; I wouldn't want any miscommunication on the matter
I absolutely loved Susan from 'Salem's Lot as well as Margaret Eisenhart and Zalia Jeffords from Wolves of the Calla.
I initially liked Susan from Wizard & Glass, but I think after reading The Stand I would feel the same way about her that I feel about Frannie, unfortunately.
Finished The Dark Tower at 6:03AM on December 21, 2009.
The man in black fled across the desert,
and the gunslinger followed.
my favorite female protagonist - the one who comes to mind first - is Susannah
I still don't understand why she's one of your favorites. Odetta and Detta, especially, got on my nerves so much!
DTV-DTVII
I had a hard time getting over how angry I was at Sai King for placing the emphasis of the story onto Susannah during the end of the fifth book through the seventh. Not to mention, of all the worthy gunslingers, she made it to the end! Jake and Eddie were better people than Susannah could ever have wished to be; hell, even Oy was a better person than Susannah, and he was a bumbler.
Jake, Eddie, and Oy all died tragic deaths while in service to Roland and the White. Susannah gave up and left Roland so she could go live with alternate versions of Jake, Eddie, and Oy while throwing away Roland's gun!
I cannot find anything redeeming in her character. Jake, Eddie, and Oy all went through some sort of great personal redemption throughout the story; Susannah simply sat back and let Roland and the other real gunslingers take care of her.
Finished The Dark Tower at 6:03AM on December 21, 2009.
The man in black fled across the desert,
and the gunslinger followed.
Well although I didn't really love the book as a whole, My favorite female protagonist is probably Dolores Claiborne. I just saw her as a no nonsense, tough woman, who saw what had to be done, and methodically carried it out without fear.
Path, you will looooooovvee my runner up nomination. I'll let you guess.
I want to venture a guess that the only female protagonist King has created who won't raise much difference in opinions here is Elizabeth Eastlake from Duma Key.
Ask not what bears can do for you, but what you can do for bears. (razz)
When one is in agreement with bears one is always correct. (mae)
bears are back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to venture a guess that the only female protagonist King has created who won't raise much difference in opinions here is Elizabeth Eastlake from Duma Key.
Good call. Also, good point. I'll bet that you, for example, would take exception to Lisey Landon. And I'm not exactly a big fan of Rose Madder, myself. I'd pick Carol Gerber, Hearts in Atlantis, though I expect there'll be plenty of differences of opinon over her, too! Many people would, I think, similarly discount Trisha McFarland, The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon and Stephanie McCann, The Colorado Kid.
Originally Posted by BROWNINGS CHILDE
...I liked Dolores Claiborne a lot. ...Jessie from Gerald's Game. ... I also loved Beverly Marsh...
Interesting how often King employs victims of abuse in some form. Rose Daniels, Wendy Torrance, Carrie White, etc. ... Oh, but wait, Odetta, --
Spoiler:
What you said was Rose Madder, not Daniels, wasn't it?
Fascinating stuff, already! Thanks for posting, folken.
Well, anway, here's a few more honorable mentions: Polly Chalmers, Needful Things Sophie and Judy Marshall, Black House Charlie McGee, Firestarter
Interesting how often King employs victims of abuse in some form. Rose Daniels, Wendy Torrance, Carrie White, etc. ...
Wow, I never really thought about that, even though it was staring me in the face. I guess that the abused female is King's version of the "damsel in distress". I am surprised that I have never thought about it from that perspective.
I have always enjoyed SKs protrayal of woman
even in the face of so called abuse...they seem
to mostly get tough and deal with the situation
at hand...and often overcome with us all cheering on!
My fav? Darn, so very many.....I cant choose one.
P.S.
Tho' while googling some names , it seems
Sai Kings protrayal of the female has gotten
quite alot of others attention as seen here:
...it seems
Sai Kings protrayal of the female has gotten
quite alot of others attention as seen here:
Thanks. Very interesting.
Originally Posted by alinda
...so called abuse...
Why do you put it that way? Think that there’s sexism in my characterizing them as such? Or perhaps you think that I’m mischaracterizing Sai King? If I have a problem with tendency to cast women as battered, it is just that this apparently defines them in relation to men. Even if they are defiant, it still is a reactive focus. It might be true that struggles to escape oppression make interesting stories, but is it true that without one there is no story? It’s not that hard to imagine how a woman would feel in context of mistreatment, but ask what she would want after being liberated and fewer plots suddenly appear. It seems to me that King has relied on character hooks of that sort because it is not easy for us guys to understand women. Maybe the fact that he has so often published in men’s magazines really fits the kind of writing that he does. On the other hand, he might be justified in that 1.) actual statistics sadly show that the proportion I’ve noted is not unrealistic, and 2.) males in his stories, generally, are also persecuted horribly. Furthermore, if it’s true that King didn’t really “get” female thinking, well, that too could be viewed as less of a personal fault than as a fair reflection of social problems. Fiction from any author showing females prominently, and not as underdogs, is all too rare. Still, if any of you think that all this reveals subconscious sexism mostly in ME, you could be right. There seems to be an idea that if men don’t appreciate a certain elusive character, then it’s really just our own values that we project, and that there’s really nothing wrong with valuing relationships. All that I can say is that I cannot help but wish that I could comprehend. But, eh; maybe I just take things too seriously.
So we were discussing this character from The Stand before this thread was started.
Spoiler:
Some people admire the fact that she wanted to raise her child without help from the father. Others complain that she’d just been using him, and that she just used Harold in turn.
Is she a good character? Was King stereotyping women with her?
In a primitive environment, human males in general have physical advantages over females. It’s an important question where technological civilization has nullified that factor whether there’s any factual basis in the philosophy that females also have innate psychological tendencies to traditional roles. A book like The Stand has to consider what experience would be like in the case of a backward transition.
I doubt that I’ve clearly expressed my thoughts on this whole topic. I’m not sure that any human, male or female, really can or should be totally independent. I don’t think it’s true of every woman that she’s more dependent on others than any man is. However, in my experience, some women do embody this generalization, if only because they haven’t seen that they don’t have to act like people expect. Thus, it might be called fair if an author showed a female with such personality traits. It’s not clear whether all have a responsibility to constantly question cultural trends. To me, it’s not even clear whether SK has or has not always done so. Sometimes I think that, really, he tries too hard on this issue.
It has actually been my observation that, when stressed, women can actually be more independent then men. Especially given the situation of raising children alone. Most men would absolutely fall apart in that situation. I have twin daughters, and I am POSITIVE that my wife would fair better alone with them than I would, and I think that this is true of most couples. I see more young men these days that are still dependent on their parents in their early twenties compared to young women. It is no secret that women tend to mature faster than men. ( And I'm not talking about puberty, but rather that psychological maturity that is usually a much more lengthy process) I see many more young ladies that handle responsibility better than their male peers. (School, work, children etc.)
I don't think this has always been the case, however. My personal experience with this topic 50 years ago is zero, as I am only 33 years old. But, at least how women have been portrayed from this era, and from stories told by my elders, it seems that women in the 50's were much more dependent on there husbands, parents etc. But I think times have changed in this regard.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think Frannie's character is a somewhat outdated portrayal of women.
So we were discussing this character from The Stand before this thread was started.
Spoiler:
Some people admire the fact that she wanted to raise her child without help from the father. Others complain that she’d just been using him, and that she just used Harold in turn.
Is she a good character? Was King stereotyping women with her?
In a primitive environment, human males in general have physical advantages over females. It’s an important question where technological civilization has nullified that factor whether there’s any factual basis in the philosophy that females also have innate psychological tendencies to traditional roles. A book like The Stand has to consider what experience would be like in the case of a backward transition.
I doubt that I’ve clearly expressed my thoughts on this whole topic. I’m not sure that any human, male or female, really can or should be totally independent. I don’t think it’s true of every woman that she’s more dependent on others than any man is. However, in my experience, some women do embody this generalization, if only because they haven’t seen that they don’t have to act like people expect. Thus, it might be called fair if an author showed a female with such personality traits. It’s not clear whether all have a responsibility to constantly question cultural trends. To me, it’s not even clear whether SK has or has not always done so. Sometimes I think that, really, he tries too hard on this issue.
What does everyone think about Fran?
i actually really liked Fran for her independence and her strength, in fact the times she annoyed me where when she seemed to lose the focus that she had for 90% of the novel.
The time after she met
Spoiler:
stuart
and they actually became a couple, she still retained some of her strength of character, but there were odd times when she became a little too reliant on the men folks, and that didn't ring true in my mind of the kind of person that she was.
It has actually been my observation that, when stressed, women can actually be more independent then men. Especially given the situation of raising children alone. Most men would absolutely fall apart in that situation. ... I see many more young ladies that handle responsibility better than their male peers. (School, work, children etc.)
...
I think it's true what you said about men (speaking generally) and single parenting, but I kind of think that it is just because of the masculine character which I was referring to that males have such trouble in our changing civilization. Are responsibility and independence synonymous? Maybe it's truer to say that men tend to be more uncooperative than to say that they tend to be more independent.
Originally Posted by BROWNINGS CHILDE
...it seems that women in the 50's were much more dependent on there husbands, parents etc. But I think times have changed in this regard.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think Frannie's character is a somewhat outdated portrayal of women.
Good point. Perhaps so.
Originally Posted by candy
Originally Posted by pathoftheturtle
So we were discussing this character from The Stand before this thread was started.
Spoiler:
Some people admire the fact that she wanted to raise her child without help from the father. Others complain that she’d just been using him, and that she just used Harold in turn.
Is she a good character? Was King stereotyping women with her?
In a primitive environment, human males in general have physical advantages over females. It’s an important question where technological civilization has nullified that factor whether there’s any factual basis in the philosophy that females also have innate psychological tendencies to traditional roles. A book like The Stand has to consider what experience would be like in the case of a backward transition.
I doubt that I’ve clearly expressed my thoughts on this whole topic. I’m not sure that any human, male or female, really can or should be totally independent. I don’t think it’s true of every woman that she’s more dependent on others than any man is. However, in my experience, some women do embody this generalization, if only because they haven’t seen that they don’t have to act like people expect. Thus, it might be called fair if an author showed a female with such personality traits. It’s not clear whether all have a responsibility to constantly question cultural trends. To me, it’s not even clear whether SK has or has not always done so. Sometimes I think that, really, he tries too hard on this issue.
What does everyone think about Fran?
i actually really liked Fran for her independence and her strength, in fact the times she annoyed me where when she seemed to lose the focus that she had for 90% of the novel.
The time after she met
Spoiler:
stuart
and they actually became a couple, she still retained some of her strength of character, but there were odd times when she became a little too reliant on the men folks, and that didn't ring true in my mind of the kind of person that she was.
just me though
Thank you, that's just what I was talking about. The question, though, is which is the “real” Frannie?
Women's issues are quite pronounced in The Stand, but even so, I don't think it's especially key to that novel; other themes at play there basically eclipse it. However, I do think that The Standis particularly key to the subject of gender in SK's work, which is why I continue to discuss this here rather than on a Stand thread. Gender in fiction is a big subject.
I never thought of this before, before this topic. Stephen King doesn't write really strong female characters. They are usually abused or troubled or somehow hampered. I guess Susannah would be the strongest, but I never liked her. I don't think I really like any of his female characters. Except maybe Lilly Cavanaugh, and I'm not sure I really like her either.
My favourite is Audrey Wyler from The Regulators. I don't think a character's strength is lessened by their being a victim of abuse and I don't think King intends his female character's to be lessened by it - you can hardly say that his male protagonists have all had happy childhoods and carefree lives. I think his point is to show how people's good points, strengths and compassion come to the fore in dire circumstances - and it provides a more stark contrast to the antagonists whose corresponding bad points are exploited by the same events.