there's a voice, deep and low in our collective psyche, that tells us when it's time to do laundry.

[lagilman]

Still busy, in a good way. This time, I give you my updated schedule for Dragon*Con (September 4-7)

Panels

What Women Want in Their SF-F role Sat 11:30 am
Plenty of panels discuss what women's roles are, have been, and will be in science fiction, but what do women really want when they read? [on the surface this panel sounds sexist -- don't we want what all readers want? -- but we should be able to own the topic within a few seconds, and make it actually useful for readers and writers -- and publishers]

Writing Paranormal Fiction Sun 11:30 am
Join Bob Blackwood and Gail Martin as they moderate a discussion with paranormal fiction writers. Bring popcorn and betting sheets.

Strong Female Protagonists: Sun 01:00 pm
How do you write strong female protagonists who are still vulnerable enough to seem real? The pros tell how to develop believable heroines. [again, the topic feels... odddly sexist. A female must be vulnerable to be real? I intend to mix this one up a little, if I can get the audience behind me...]

Other
Reading = Friday at 2:30pm
Autographing = Monday, 11:30am

I will also be signing at The Missing Volume (Exhibitor Hall 2, booth 614/615) on Saturday, 3pm

Hope to see some familiar faces (or phosphors) there!


EtA: and this, yes. The Stages of Book Love via jimhines

Comments

[michael-b-lee.livejournal.com]

All of these sound really interesting to me, but I have to agree that the summary of Strong Female Protagonists really had me scratching my head. Why must female characters be more "vulnerable" in order to make them properly "female"? Seems sexist to me.

I actually considered talking to Nancy about volunteering to sit on this panel, but in retrospect, I can't say that any of my books feature strong female protagonists. Supporting characters and antagonists, definitely, but that's it. Such is the curse of tie-in work.

If I'm able to attend the panel, I guarantee you'll have at least one person in the audience in your corner. :)

[lagilman]

Why must female characters be more "vulnerable" in order to make them properly "female"? Seems sexist to me.

Truthfully, any well-written character needs to be vulnerable, because an invulnerable character isn't a lot of fun to write (or read about) after the first big fight scene.

But tagging it to "female" and "real" is.. yeah. I'm trying to find a kinder word than sexist, and there isn't one (even if the topic was set up to give us something to gnaw on, it's still a sexist assumption)

[michael-b-lee.livejournal.com]

Truthfully, any well-written character needs to be vulnerable, because an invulnerable character isn't a lot of fun to write (or read about) after the first big fight scene.

Yes, absolutely. It's a big problem with the series I'm working on now, in fact. The main character is EEEEEEVILLLL. And that's about it. Very, very little depth. I'm having way more fun with the supporting characters, where I've got more freedom to create.

[booraven22.livejournal.com]

Will DEFINITELY be at the writing Paranormal Fiction panel and will DEFINITELY be seeing you off panel, as well. :)

:)

[squirrel-monkey.livejournal.com]

RE: the female protagonist panel. I think the single best thing the writers can do is to write a female heroine in the world where she is NOT THE ONLY WOMAN around.

[anisosynchronic.livejournal.com]

That leaves out the original Star Wars film....

[xmurphyjacobsx.livejournal.com]

All summer I've been reading about female novelists, starting out with Fanny Burney's autobiography and ending up with A New Species" Gender and Science in Science Fiction. I didn't INTEND to read on this subject when I started (and I'm glad I can get books from the university library).

I haven't attended panels at D*C in years. Now I have to go to all three. I'm doomed.

[anisosynchronic.livejournal.com]

I think that the preponderance of paranormal romance stories full of romance tropes is a preponderance influence as assuptions/assertions on those panels. That is,there is the pernicious influence of all that alpha male bs with the male lead having bad manners and offensive chip on the shoulder, and the female lead being the person who causes him to go all mushy and protective and civilized for her and perhaps maybe occasionally for other people.

Pah. I want more male leads like Hallan Meras, as opposed to gorfs with gorgeous bodies who make trolls living under bridges look socially elegant and polite

Getting to the female leads, they're there supposedly in balancing developing relationships with the male leads. And if the males are oversized social louts, that tend to put the onus on the female leads to be "civilizing" influences as opposed to the badass males. It also put them into power balance situations where there have got to be reasons for the romance to occur and the leads to notice one another as more than Interesting Meat for sex play (particularly if posing the female lead as pure or purer than the male, who often is a character with if not an outright sexually promiscuous history, then one which is far from virgin before marriage), and to get into them being involved with one another. Having the female be weaker/in need of rescuing/less experienced-and-needing-guidance/ etc., is one of the paths of least resistance for plotting, I think, in terms of stock willing suspension of disbelief/reader buy-in or rather, assumptions of what those ose.

With Wren and Sergei, Wren's is the one with the greater non-lawful orientation, Sergei is the one full of elegance. That is not compliant to the particular paranormal/UF romance trope of badass male and sweeter (in disposition) female that usually rules.

Being a social clueless wonder and female myself, I have never had an appreciation for all the social rules that assume or declared that females are supposed to be the civiling and gentling influence and have the responsibility for doing socialization in the culture. (And the "socialator in Battlestar Galatica the original series.... yarst.)