I do suspect that there is a certain hypersensitivity about the portrayal of female characters, especially by male authors (but sometimes even by female ones -- look at the criticisms some have made of J.K. Rowling's female characters, for instance).
Perhaps I'm overreading your comment here, but you seem vaguely puzzled by this "hypersensitivity." My point is that this hypersensitivity shouldn't be surprising. It's the product of our culture's legacy of misogyny, particularly the misogyny as expressed through female stereotypes in Western literature.
This historical context is why your counterexamples of Lewis showing the bad sides of his male characters aren't particularly compelling to me. Today's readers are not laboring under five centuries of skewed portrayals of men, whereas the shadows cast of misogynist portrayals of women in literature are long indeed. Yes, stereotypes of men exist, but those haven't been bashed into reader's heads the same way that those of women have been. In other words, male characters have historically received a much more balanced treatment from authors than female ones have. That is why the use of female stereotypes is so much more significant.
Obviously, it would be silly to say that a male author is never allowed to make his female characters do stupid or silly things. But I think it's naive to argue that the decision to make a female character vapid or shallow is no different than the decision to make a male character vapid or shallow. Given the context in which Western literature is written, it's a comparison of apples and oranges.
It sometimes seems to me as though there is simply no way for an author to write any female character in a way that is acceptable to everyone. No, there isn't. Life's not fair. I've written on this subject before (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rilina/166778.html) and it does leave writers between a rock and a hard place. But I think it's better to go into that uncomfortable spot understanding what the significance of some of your choices than to go there in active denial of what sort of cultural baggage an audience will bring to their reading of your writing.
I don't object to the fact that Lewis chose to show that some people would forget about Narnia. But I still believe the choice of Susan and the choice of how she forgot/fell were unfortunate ones. As I remarked on my own blog (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rilina/222472.html), Susan alone would be mildly troubling. But taken against the context of other choices regarding female characters in the Narnia series--and against the even larger context of Lewis's work as a whole (you yourself cited The Shoddy Lands and others have cited That Hideous Strength)--I find it hard to see how Susan's choice doesn't take on a very troubling cast. In other words, had Lewis been more balanced in his treatment of women elsewhere, Susan's choice would have been less coloured by the particular associations of male judgments of female vanity. Unfortunately, he wasn't.
no subject
Perhaps I'm overreading your comment here, but you seem vaguely puzzled by this "hypersensitivity." My point is that this hypersensitivity shouldn't be surprising. It's the product of our culture's legacy of misogyny, particularly the misogyny as expressed through female stereotypes in Western literature.
This historical context is why your counterexamples of Lewis showing the bad sides of his male characters aren't particularly compelling to me. Today's readers are not laboring under five centuries of skewed portrayals of men, whereas the shadows cast of misogynist portrayals of women in literature are long indeed. Yes, stereotypes of men exist, but those haven't been bashed into reader's heads the same way that those of women have been. In other words, male characters have historically received a much more balanced treatment from authors than female ones have. That is why the use of female stereotypes is so much more significant.
Obviously, it would be silly to say that a male author is never allowed to make his female characters do stupid or silly things. But I think it's naive to argue that the decision to make a female character vapid or shallow is no different than the decision to make a male character vapid or shallow. Given the context in which Western literature is written, it's a comparison of apples and oranges.
It sometimes seems to me as though there is simply no way for an author to write any female character in a way that is acceptable to everyone.
No, there isn't. Life's not fair. I've written on this subject before (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rilina/166778.html) and it does leave writers between a rock and a hard place. But I think it's better to go into that uncomfortable spot understanding what the significance of some of your choices than to go there in active denial of what sort of cultural baggage an audience will bring to their reading of your writing.
I don't object to the fact that Lewis chose to show that some people would forget about Narnia. But I still believe the choice of Susan and the choice of how she forgot/fell were unfortunate ones. As I remarked on my own blog (http://www.livejournal.com/users/rilina/222472.html), Susan alone would be mildly troubling. But taken against the context of other choices regarding female characters in the Narnia series--and against the even larger context of Lewis's work as a whole (you yourself cited The Shoddy Lands and others have cited That Hideous Strength)--I find it hard to see how Susan's choice doesn't take on a very troubling cast. In other words, had Lewis been more balanced in his treatment of women elsewhere, Susan's choice would have been less coloured by the particular associations of male judgments of female vanity. Unfortunately, he wasn't.