So. Hello, blog. We haven’t spoken in a while. How are you? How are things? How’s life in your corner of the internet? I’m so sorry for treating you like that friend I speak to once every six months only when I have something exciting I want to share, but it’s a little hard to maintain close friendships when you’re so far away, you know? Besides, I’m been keeping busy in my internet life with Tumblr, and yeah, things are going really well between us.
Anyway, I wanted to come and talk to you about a problem I’ve been having. All around the internets you’ll find discussions about Mary Sues and while I certainly agree with many of the points various authors bring up, I have a problem of a different sort. You see, the term “Mary Sue” is something given to a female character by an audience, and I feel a lot of readers’ (especially female readers) problems with female characters has much more to do with societal baggage and internalized misogyny than poor writing or poor characterization.
My problem, you see, isn’t with Mary Sues. My problem is with the Plague of Perfect Boys in fiction.
Because nobody's perfect. Unless he's David Tennant. (Obligatory image of Sexy Person included in post to drive up traffic. I am transparently shallow that way.)
I don’t understand the flak many writers get for their female characters, because most of the time, I’m fine with female characters in books. (Unless she becomes a satellite to a male character in her own goddamn narrative, but I digress. Or if she’s presented as idealized in some way, but that’s a topic for another day.) The poor female character has to dig herself out of a pit before she arrives at level ground when it comes to audience appreciation, but not with me.
On the other hand, I’ve become extremely wary of male characters in fiction. I see people cry “badly written female characters!” all the time, but never have I come across someone say, “Hang on, a minute, this male character is too perfect to exist. He must be terribly written!”
So I’m going to do it now.
BADLY WRITTEN MALE CHARACTERS!
There, I’ve shouted it. I’ve confessed it. 9 times out of 10, I’m going to find your perfect male character irritating, obnoxious, annoying, unrealistic, bland, and every other thing you’ve accused female “Mary Sues” of being. What I don’t understand is why no one is turning a critical lens on how cardboard, stock, and utterly un-nuanced male characters are when we will scrutinize everything “wrong” with a lady.
Oh, male characters can come in a rainbow of Perfect shades: Perfect Bad Boy Loner, Perfect Mysterious Hot Boy with a Deadly Secret, Perfect Boy Next Door, Perfect Angel-Demon-Vampire-Werewolf-Fae Hybrid, etc. They can have a dazzling array of perfunctory “quirks”: speaks French, has a British accent, is impeccably dressed, volunteers at the animal shelter on weekends, etc. The problem here is not an issue of using every colour in the Personality Traits Crayon Box, but an issue of drawing the same goddamn thing over and over with a different colour crayon.
The problem with the Perfect Boy is that he never fucks up. Ever. He’s always perfectly good-looking, perfectly the best at whatever it is he’s does, perfectly sensitive and attuned to the female character’s emotional needs, perfectly considerate (even when he’s been an asshole, he is SECRETLY perfectly considerate–really! he just loves you so much he needs to hide his good side!), perfectly mannered, perfectly smooth and suave, perfectly ANNOYING. That’s not attractive; that’s grotesque. It’s like someone cobbled together a Frankenstein monster of attractiveness traits, but this monster isn’t just scary–he’s also SCARILY BORING.
Look, it’s pretty easy to make a male character interesting to me: make him a little dinged about the edges. Make him well-intentioned but a little thoughtless. Make him so much a genius and wrapped up in his own head he’s totally socially awkward. Make him cocky but also make him eat his words. Make him an obnoxious little shit who likes to fuck with people’s heads–JUST BECAUSE. Make him so totally selfish he’d sell his own grandma to get ahead in life. Something.
Most importantly: MAKE HIM FUCK UP OCCASIONALLY. It doesn’t have to be on the world-destroying scale, it can be something small and domestic. One of my favourite things about Ron Weasley from Harry Potter is that he fucks up CONSTANTLY. He’s not always a perfect friend, he can be insensitive, and he can be a teeny bit of a skirt-chaser, but his flaws don’t make him a bad person or unattractive; they make him a real boy.
(And you know what the ironic thing is? I don’t even like Ron all that much–not compared to Hermione or Luna Lovegood or the Weasley twins.)
I’m going to quote Russell T. Davies again here:
Most people ARE likeable, or go through the world with some construct of character that they hope is likeable. That’s how you get through life. [...] The key with characters is to be HONEST. If a character’s actions are believable, then that character will work. Notions of like or not-like become irrelevant.
These Perfect Boys? I don’t find them believable. I honestly can’t find it in myself to believe that a 17-year-old teenage boy would drop all of his previous engagements to come comfort his female best friend/lady love at 2AM with chocolate cupcakes and poems by Elizabeth Barrett Browning. I have a hard enough time believing 17-year-old boys shower with any regularity. Christ.
I like fantasy as a genre, but I dislike it when physical fantasy turns into emotional fantasy. Perfect Boys? Not only are they generally physical fantasies, they’re complete and utter emotional fantasies as well.
So! That’s my rant of the day. Sorry about that, blog. I know, I know, I should be a better friend and try and update you more frequently about my life–I mean, listen to you talk about yours. Anyway, gotta go. Talk to you soon!
I’d be interested in some more examples of books/male characters that you think are done well!
GILBERT BLYTHE! :) He does veer a little bit into the Perfect territory, but god, I loved him. I love that in his first effort to get Anne’s attention, he yanks her pigtails and insults her. True love! ♥
I really loved Simon in Cassandra Clare’s Mortal Instruments books (not so enamoured of Jace, who is the Perfect Broken Boy), and Eugenides from Megan Whalen Turner’s Attolia books, George Cooper from Tamora Pierce’s Alanna books, and a ton of others. It isn’t that more realistic boys don’t exist in fiction; it’s more that they’re becoming a rarity in the books I’ve been reading lately. :)
Eugenidies is stellar.
I have to admit that I have never read the Anne of Green Gables books! I think it is a leftover from childhood in which my mother recommended them and I automatically declined. It’s been raved over by several people recently, though, so maybe I should change my ways…
And of course David Tennant breaks all the laws of perfection. I assume you’ve watched the “Ballad of Russell and Julie” that’s been conquering the internet?
Of course I have! My Tumblr dash exploded that day. :)
I applaud you. I couldn’t agree more. Nobody is perfect. Flaws are what make characters relatable.
This reminds me of a blogpost I had read recently about keeping monsters, well, monsters. It seems American writers are domesticating the monster and the man. I wholeheartedly agree with you, in that instead of making these characters more appealing it makes them more annoying and unbelievable. True, if they are centuries old, they will have some knowledge gained from experience, but if they are non-human they are going to have non-human traits that interfere with their perfection. Dracula was a perfect example. He was a monster that did not for one second regret drinking blood and did so with delight. Yet, he still showed passion and love. I realize I am slightly ranting on your rant and I apologize for that, but I agree. People are people and they need flaws just like they need lungs.
I love this post. And it shows a) how well I know you and b) how much I love my favorite HP character that as I was reading it I was nodding my head in agreement and saying “THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MAKES RON SUCH A GOOD MALE CHARACTER AND SHE’S TOTALLY GOING TO POINT THAT OUT!” One one one.
Which you did!
But yes. Yes on every level to this post. Unless it’s David Tennant. Becuase he’s David Tennant and above the law. ::swoons::
There exists a David Tennant. Your argument is invalid. ;-)
That’s why all my male characters are grouchy alcoholics who look like Iggy Pop.
Maybe it’s because I don’t come from the fanfiction community where Mary Sues and Marty Stus are popular and popularly hated alike, but I don’t know any authors or readers personally who like generic idealized characters of any sex or gender. Certainly not for the reasons of them being idealized or perfect. Your arguments would have made more sense for me if you’d provided more evidence and examples of books in which you see these folks. Otherwise it’s just hating a notion. I only noticed one “perfect boy” in any book I’ve read this year, and I detested the whole work for him.
Personally I would rather not be specific about books I dislike, and in this instance, the majority of it comes from the manuscripts I read, which are not yet published.
Nobody likes the idea of idealized characters, but they crop up with astonishing regularity. People’s mileage may vary, of course, and what trips my wire may go completely unnoticed by the world at large. I have used specific examples from things I’ve read, but I’d rather not out specific books.
I want to agree with this, but I’m finding it hard to. It seems that there are only a miniscule amount of these ‘perfect’ males (Tennant being an obvious exception to any rule other than needing to be in everything all the time), and the only ones I can think of smack of ‘let’s make this super-great dude that dotes on the female character, chicks dig that.’ Like, some intrinsic belief that all people want is a partner of the opposite sex that is a slave to them (because that’s how it comes across in the doting-woman genre as well). But, the key difference is, the guy is usually happy w/the woman with no agency, while the woman-so impossible to please-usually dumps the perfect dude to be with the loser man-child and take care of him and fulfill his needs. The rare instance where a woman chooses Mr. Wonderful, it’s still that ‘rescuing’ dynamic that indicates that at least one person in a relationship shouldn’t have agency. It just seems that, for every Too-Perfect dude, there are a thousand bad boys/flawed man-children/goofy sidekicks/rude men/etc. and about the opposite in ratio on the opposite gender.
As I’ve mentioned in an above comment, your mileage may vary. I come across a lot of idealized male characters in the books I read (and the manuscripts I read for work) which strike me as incredibly unrealistic. Idealism can happen even when the male character is a bad boy/wangst puppy–in fact, I feel it happens a lot. Because he fucks up everywhere EXCEPT with regards to the female around which he acts as a narrative satellite.
There are plenty of novels with wonderful, well-written male characters, as there are many novels with wonderful, well-written female characters. Yet I feel female characters are always on the chopping block (warranted or not), whereas I see so many examples of unrealistic and poor-written male characters that seem to get a pass from the world at large. But that could be the view from where I’m sitting, of course.
I think I’m equally hard on female vs. male characters, but I agree that the general public does not seem to be. I definitely knock points off a book for having a perfect male love interest, for all the reasons that you state, but most importantly b/c it’s neither realistic nor particularly interesting.
(UNLESS the book shows how that perfect guy ISN’T interesting, so the girl falls in love with someone else. Then they’ve taken the trope and turned it on its head, and that’s fine by me.)
Does it say something about us that we don’t want to read about “perfect” guys, lol?
Mmm . . . David Tennant.
But! Though DT is perfect, even the 10th Doctor has his moments of wild-eyed megalomania and selfishness. It’s what makes him such a great character.
Well, that, and the fact that he’s friggin’ beautiful.
I love all the Doctors. All of them. I think they are all wonderful characters. (My problem with the 10th Doctor is that he has a tendency to get Jesus-y, or at least, the narrative has a tendency to treat him that way.)
Meee too (& agree about the narrative tendency to treat ten with kid gloves; would have liked to see more critique of his behavior there). Seriously, I don’t know how anyone could choose just one. Though right now Paul McGann is at the top of my list, because I’ve been listening to the audio dramas and they’re just so well-written. There was, in fact, a speech about this in one I just listened to, about how the Doctor’s not a superhero but a man and . . . oh dear, it seems I’m just using this as an excuse to gush about Doctor Who. Sorry! Wonderful post. :)
Gushing about Doctor Who is always welcome on my blog! Huge Whovian here.
Ten is actually my favourite of the Doctors, and I think it’s because he’s the most human. (Weird, if you think about it.) He’s the emotional Doctor, much more than the others, and that vulnerability makes him very endearing to me. Of the Classic Who Doctors, my favourite is the Third Doctor, Jon Pertwee.
Ironically, I tend to love the more alien Doctors more. One and four and eleven . . . but I still haven’t watched Pertwee! Time to rectify that, I think.
My favorite male character is Han Solo. Okay, so he might be a Perfect Bad Boy, but he has enough selfish SOB marks against him. At least in my head. And he’s a skirt-chaser, so. And he does the “What do you mean you have problems with my character, aren’t I attractive enough that that shouldn’t matter?” face so well.
But Han Solo DOES screw up occasionally, which in my definition doesn’t make him Perfect. He walks out on the Rebellion in the first movie (although he comes back), he shoots aliens in the face to get out of a bounty on his head (I don’t care–HE SHOT GREEDO FIRST), and apparently he can’t say “I love you” unless he’s being kind of jokey about it. Also, he’s kind of a dick. But a softie where it counts, apparently.
And he walks out on the Rebellion again in the second movie just because Leia won’t admit she likes him. (I cite the the Hoth hallway scene.) Talk about petty.
Or wait, I guess he had to pay that bounty…
I like to think his walking out on the Rebellion on Hoth is at least PARTIALLY motivated by “The girl I like refuses to admit she likes me? Well I’ll show her!” ;-)
Haha, and why not? But yeah, as soon as she says, “Han we need you,” he’s all, “What about you need?” and won’t drop it. :D It’s pretty obvious to me that, although she’s not the reason he’s leaving, if she had asked him in the right way he would have finagled his schedule a bit.
He’s overconfident, but his overconfidence occasionally pays off. He’s a lot of bluster, but not all bluster. That’s why I like him, anyway.
This is a perfect post and you should feel perfect for posting it. I’ve been thinking this for weeks, and the more I get back in the swing of reading current YA the more it sticks out to me. Like you, I’m hesitant to publicly name & shame books because, you know, it’s just not nice. But this is a huge trend and it drives me bonkers.
I don’t know if I give female characters a lot more leeway or if I just find it easier to forgive so-called “perfectness” when I find a character voice that speaks to me, but I think part of the problem comes from authors trying to pin down an authentic YA male voice for these characters and failing. They become two-dimensional embodiments of wish-fulfillment.
Holly Black’s Curseworker series is one of the few I’ve seen that doesn’t just surpass this hurdle; it soars over it. Cassel nails the authentic teen male voice, to me, AND is deeply flawed to boot. He’s a great character! … and I would never want to hang out with him in real life.
A thousand agreements on Cassel and the Curseworker series in general. A flawed character, a deeply flawed family, and despite (because of) those flaws, I care so much for them!
This post makes me think of your series on Magnificent Bastards as male leads. Perfect boys do not become Magnificent Bastards; you need a little bit of a mess for them to marinate in, first. I like a little bit of damage, egomania, and cluelessness myself.
I seem to really fond of the clueless/socially awkward due to brilliance/unintentionally thoughtless type. :-) But yes, you are right, Perfect Boys do not become Magnificent Bastards.
The Plague of Perfect Boys is such an apt name! There’s nothing worse than the “perfect” boy in YA fiction. Without the complexities of a real person — character faults, strengths AND weaknesses, even an unawareness of the importance of personal hygiene — their character falls flat. Plus, it makes me question the female protagonist. Is she seriously going to fall for the jerk just because he tells her she’s pretty and he has great hair?
With uber-perfect boys, I am constantly wondering when the other shoe will drop — when will he turn into some type of monster and try to rip out her throat/betray her/turn out to be her long-lost brother/be super-scary in some way?
In general, reading a book with a Perfect Boy (Perfect Anybody, really), kicks me out of the story. It makes me question the other characters and the story itself. And that’s the worst!
I read a great post recently from Copil Yanez (a dude! a dude who writes YA!) on the YA Confidential blog. It’s an awesome read for any YA writer struggling to write an authentic male character. Here’s a link: http://yaconfidential.blogspot.com/2011/10/how-to-write-like-man.html.
Great post!
OMG, thanks! For a moment I thought I was the only one thinking that. Why book boyfriends have to be perfect? Not only gorgeous and rich, but perfect. Oh, and smelling like rain and forest and chocolate. Really?
I loved you example with Ron. I think real characters is one of the things I liked more about the Harry Potter books. Nobody was perfect.