What are some of the best female characters in literature who's NOT (!) a Manic Pixie Dream Girl™ or a shallow...

So it's basically someone who's upbeat and forcing the quirky trait?

I guess that'd get annoying but I think there's probably worse things out there too.

Dorothea Casabaun (anyone from Middlemarch)
That mother from Dubliners
Wife of Bath
Virginia Woolf's characters in general
Philomela

nevermind, i forgot girls don't have weiners

More like a grown woman acting like a teen who's supposed to be perfect in every way, with even her faults just being cute (e.g. shyness). She helps the main character out of his artistic depression by being sweet and perfect.

Check out Rosalind in Shakespeare's As You Like It. Cleopatra, though whorish, doesn't display the whore archtype in his Antony and Cleopatra.

Harold Bloom has interesting things to say about both plays.

Ibsen's Hedda Gabler is also good.

On the non-play front, check out Philip K. Dick's The Transmigration of Timothy Archer (third part of the VALIS trilogy; however, that 'trilogy' is loosely connected, and TToTA stands on its own just fine).

I've been meaning to get into Ibsen so this works great. Thanks!

Anna Karenina
Sue Bridehead from Jude the Obscure

That sounds like lazy writing. I personally think any character needs to have flaws and they shouldn't always be completely likeable/admirable/nicey-nicey.

>I personally think any character needs to have flaws
that sounds like lazy writing too tbqh, only it's a wee bit less lazy writing

Out of curiosity, what do you think makes a good character? I've always found flaws to be interesting to focus on.

sure they are, I just meant that having a rule of thumb that a character needs to have flaws sounds like lazy writing in that you can theoretically take a "perfect" character and just add him some flaw and be done and pat yourself on the back for it and feel all non-lazy and profound

How would you incorporate flaws that wouldn't be lazy character building? I try to consider flaws that would be appropriate to the character, so if a character is someone who works from home or works alone, then I guess I would consider him to be somewhat socially anxious or lonely. I try to consider flaws for a character that would make sense I guess is what I'm trying to say.

>if a character is someone who works from home or works alone, then I guess I would consider him to be somewhat socially anxious or lonely.
By all means he would be, that's the starting point at least. Being socially anxious because you spend most of your time alone is a pretty situational, impersonal thing. So I wouldn't say that that's actually his flaw. His actual character shines through when we see how he deals with that, and that way of dealing could be flawed or it could be pretty perfect. What I'm saying is, I wouldn't automatically disregard any of the two possibilities as a potentially profound story. If you do, then that's a shortcut, ergo lazy writing.

I've always thought that if you were to indicate flaws in a character, it should be implemented in how they tackle obstacles or every day routine (i.e. if a character is socially awkward, then push them into believable scenarios where that's tested, like dealing with his boss or getting the milk from the store). I also find it more interesting if things don't turn out smoothly, or as you indicated, the character's way of dealing with things could be flawed. That's usually what I try to strive for in my own work.

No I get what you're saying, but I'm still opining that having any of those high writing concepts of "what to strive for" is lazy writing. Or rather, it's lazy exactly because it allows one to write from an impersonal standpoint and end up with something that doesn't look completely unbearable at first glance.

But in the end the more honest the story is, the better it is said to have been written.

That's what I have found to be my personal struggle when practicing writing, at least. I might be wildly off the mark.

Anne Shirley
Emily Byrd Starr

When he or she is fun to read.

>if a character is similar to other characters, that's the only trait that matters

Clarice Lispector's characters, particularly the girl in Hour of the Star and The Passion According to GH.

Nora Flood in Djuna Barnes' Nightwood, even though most people focus on a male character there. Robin Vote is interesting too, but in a more mythical kind of way.

All of Cynthia Ozick's women.

I actually think the wife in Delillo's White Noise was interesting, though I feel like people would disagree with me.

And honestly? Alot of Shakespeare's females characters. You can argue that alot of his women are more complex than the men, unless the play has particularly layered villain, the women are usually more well rounded.

youtu.be/XL2ekEeMk0Q
>basically Zoe Deschannel in anything
top kek

Natalya fillipovna
Penelope

>Ibsen's Hedda Gabler is also good.
Hey man, best way to enjoy this? Read, watch? Any filmed version in particular?

Sadly no productions anytime soon in my area.

Ye

Vera pavlovna

Maupassant portrays females well, Hardy too