Stereotyping

[alshainofthenorth]

No: HPFGUIDX 84895

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <hpfanmatt at g...> wrote:
>
When folks say, for instance, "I wish
> there were more strong female characters," they are not saying "JKR's
> characters do not fit my image of what women are like"; they are
> instead saying "there is a particular type of female character I would
> like to see portrayed."  You can agree or disagree about their choice
> of words (i.e., what makes a "strong female character").  You can
> agree or disagree about whether the characters in the book really lack
> the characteristics others want to see portrayed more prominently. 
> 
> -- Matt

Alshain:
I believe the OP stated that she used "strong female characters" to
mean "three-dimensionally written, well-rounded female characters".
Nothing to do with if the characters have characteristics that we
happen to admire in real life. The argument that has been stated is
that up to OOP, more female characters have stayed two-dimensional and
under-developed. Molly was The Traditional English Mum, but we didn't
get inside her character until we saw her fears. McGonagall is The
Strict Schoolmistress, Lily The Virgin Mother, Cho The Love Interest,
Lavender and Parvati The Giggly Ones.

Yes, there are male archetypes in the stories as well. Yes, some of
them never develops. Yes, Draco seems to be frozen in his role as
nemesis. That's the point. 
Male character with zero development = boring male character.
Female character with zero development = boring female character.
More female characters with zero development = more boring female
characters. 

I'm choosing to believe that JKR does this deliberately, and that as
Harry starts realising that girls aren't just long-haired cootie
bearers but persons in their own right, the female characters will
start to develop. 

Alshain