Who is YOUR Sarah?

Well, while Frea is away, I guess I'll effort to do something to, well, draw attention to myself. Heh.

So I was bored and tooling around the interwebs (read: femslash communities) when I came upon something I thought could definitely serve to help the fanfic writers that frequent the blog. Specifically those that like to write Sarah-centric stories.

It kind of goes back to Frea's post about "The Vulnerable Female that Can Still Break You In Half," but there was this neat little flowchart I found that can kind of guide you in making sure your Sarah (or any female character, for that matter) doesn't fall into a classic stereotype. So, yeah, enjoy!

Flowchart: Know Your Female Character Stereotype


  1. Heh, to everybody: take this flowchart with a grain of salt. I was considering an article about it for the Roundup where the comments actually went into pretty good detail about strong female characters. So often we get tied up in the concept that a "strong" female character denotes physical strength (Buffy, Sarah Walker, Sydney Bristow, Diana Prince), but really, and the comments of this article and mxpw have been quick to point out to me, the thing you're looking for is a "dynamic" female character. With the proper writers behind her, Ellie Bartowski could be just as "strong" a character as Sarah Walker, and I've yet to see Ellie punch the (bastard) son of a king. Your characters must undergo change, they must have downfalls and flaws and screw up and have reason for us to cheer them on.

    And man, you know what would be so awesome now to back up my facts? A link to that article. It's on my desktop at home...over 1200 miles away.

    So, yes, it's an amusing flowchart, but realize that your character can fall into these categories and still be dynamic. Man, I would LOVE it if Fates Sarah ended up in the same category as Rue McLanahan. I know Betty White is all the rage right now, but Rue was always my favorite Golden Girl. Here's to you, Rue.

  2. Ayefah27.10.10

    Yeah, plenty of those "stereotypes" lead to some pretty kick-ass characters. Sarah easily falls into the "action girlfriend" slot, and you know what? I like EVE, Azula, and Tracy Flick. So there. Dani Reese does "wild card" with style. Same goes for Lacey Thornfield the "ditz", and Hero the literal "psycho feminist lesbian Amazon".

    That said, the thought of Ellie-as-Angelica makes me laugh my ass off, so the exercise wasn't totally useless. :P (And what fool is saying Ellie isn't strong? The woman did more by the time she hit the age of majority than plenty of people do by the time they're forty.)

  3. Anonymous27.10.10

    Well, when you think about it, every one of the characters in Chuck is an archetype. Each and every one of them, not just Sarah. They are more like comic books characters than like real people. So as such, they have to be very stereotypical. Since it extends to every characters, I think this stereotypical portrayal of them is actually part of what makes Chuck good.

    That said, I wonder how much Freud and Jung the writers have read because sometimes watching the show is like reading psychoanalytic textbook (the hero's journey (Chuck's), the shadow and the persona (Shaw vs Chuck), the anima and animus (the entire Chuck-Sarah dynamic), the Madonna (Ellie) and whore (Sarah) complex, the oedipal conflict (Mary-Chuck-Sarah. Chuck totally wants to marry his mother in Sarah)...) So Chuck is kinda like Star Wars in that way. I don't think there is anything wrong with that. Freud and Jung make for terrible psychologists, really terrible, but they are great for T.V.



Please remember to be courteous to all other Castle Inanity commenters.