The Fatal Flaw

Literature, for me, is a reaffirmation of the fact that minds such as mine do exist. Lying as I am in the throes of adolescent confusion, I find it a solace to read about and identify with people like me. I am especially attracted to the conflicted characters, because they allow me to see myself in a less negative light. They become my role models, in a way. But I regret to say that most of these role models are quite unfortunately male. Be it Larry Underwood, or Hank Rearden, or Andrei Taganov. Why?

The fault lies with male and female writers both. Literature has always been written from the point of view of men. Even feminist writers tend to adopt a feminist approach, which is in direct negation of a masculine approach. For men, women embody a mysterious integrity, and in most books, there is a single, token female character representing in herself all aspects of feminity, while there is a male character for every shade of human attribute. Unfair. Because women have ideological conflicts and inconsistencies, just as men do and it is unfair that we should have to bear the cross of perfection, at least in literature, while men get away with being real and confused.

Now, I’m not talking about the token vamp. Because the token vamp too, has integrity in the sense that she is wholly evil. I am talking about the flawed character, the imperfect diamond, or the average, but not uninteresting, person. If men can have shades and nuances of character, why can’t women?
For a woman, her conflict becomes directly related to her feminity, and not, to her humanity. So you have a woman who is torn between domesticity and professional success, between her husband and her lover, but not, between ideals. Are women THAT one-dimensional?

Example- any of Ayn Rand’s central female characters. In all her novels, she has multiple male characters, hovering around centrality. In Atlas Shrugged, in fact, she has more than the usual two. However, in all her novels, she has one, and just one, central female character. She is beautiful, successful, feminine, and ultimately, secondary to the male central character (with the possible exception of Kira in We the Living, and even her life was shaped by her love for Leo). These characters are perfect in all respects. Even when they DO make mistakes, they are not mistakes born out of character flaws, but just mistakes in understanding, in perception.


There are examples to the contrary, but few and far in between. And more often than not, your token “strong” female characters are also, surprise surprise, heartbreakingly beautiful. Which is such a painful cliché. If she isn’t heartbreakingly beautiful, then she has a moustache, and is the ruthless CEO of some company, otherwise, she’s just virtuous, which is such a bore.

Literature, and its accompanying media, i.e., television and cinema, are very potent forces when it comes to socialization. Our ideas, principles, and self-expression (language, trends, habits, fashion, etc) are largely influenced by them. But if they portray only stereotypes, then we begin to think in those stereotypes. I am not a rabid bra-burning feminist, but I DO believe that true equality lies in diversity. Diversity of choices, diversity of personas, and diversity of mistakes. And for that, I believe that women should be treated in literature as human beings, pliable, versatile, flawed, confused human beings, and not as embodiments of perfection, positive or negative. I may be a woman, but I was born human to begin with.