Good Women are Hard to Come By

There’s been a trend the past ten years or so for successful male mystery writers to create female protagonists. Since women supposedly read far more books than men, it makes dollars and cents. Some men have a very good grasp of what makes women tick, and create great characters. Others just put a skirt on a male and turn them loose. They just don’t seem to get what makes women different from men.

Michael Connelly, one of my favorite mystery writers, has not yet created a woman character that has seemed real to me. In his Lincoln Lawyer series, the women in them just lack something. They just don’t come alive in a way that defines them. When Connelly writes about Harry Bosch, he’s on home territory and is great.

The problem is probably worse in action movies which have a female lead. The women are all lethal weapons, adept at the martial arts, tough as nails. Hell, some eat nails! I’m bothered by the trend in movies in which some talented young actresses who made sensational acting debuts, were quickly turned into action heroes because they had the “misfortune” to be very attractive (re: hot). Michelle Rodriguez comes to mind. Her debut was in a small, wonderful movie called Girlfight. Her acting was great. She took six months of intensive training at the famed NYC boxing gym, Gleason’s, to land the part. In the movie, she really can box, and being a boxing writer for HBO’s website I think I know what I am talking about.

The plot involves her character falling in love with a male boxer. In a gender blind amateur boxing tournament, she is forced to fight him. She goes through emotional hell. Really poignant stuff. Of course it wasn’t long before her agent got her a big part in the hyper-action flick, “The Fast and the Furious,” and since then she’s been predominantly an action heroine. (BTW, Girlfight is a far better movie about women and boxing then Clint Eastwood’s hokey Oscar winning “Million Dollar Baby).

I’ve been thinking for awhile about writing a mystery with a woman protagonist. I’m told I have a strong feminine side, and while not bragging, I do seem to grasp what makes women different than me. Many years ago, I was in a mixed group therapy, more women than men. It was illuminating to hear how they felt, their thought processes and what kind of men they found attractive. Quite a revelation. And here I had always thought the only difference between the sexes was anatomical. I was most intrigued by the way women sized up potential mates. Most men look at face and body. If it’s good, they’re attracted. If the sex is great, nothing else seems to matter. Don’t have anything in common? Worst possible mates? Who cares, man, the sex is great, I’m in love (re: in lust).

I was guilty of many such “romances” in the past. One gal, we dated nine months, sex was super. But I had no clue who she “was.” This hit home hard when a few months after we broke up, I decided to make her character in a film I was writing. I realized I didn’t know anything about her. So I had to call her and ask her all the questions I had failed to do in the relationship. Pretty ironic. Some would say pathetic.

Women seem more interested in a man’s emotional makeup, his sensitivity, and ability to love and be vulnerable, things like that. And oh yeah, they do like hot men and good sex. But when it comes to long term relationships, sex and looks are not enough. (all you women readers of mine out there, feel free to rip the hell out of me for any misconceptions I might have here)

I think I could pull it off, a woman lead. Problem right now is I am four books into a mystery series, and I would have to put it aside and write what they call in the series industry, a “stand alone.” Lots of mystery writers of both sexes do. Right now I would just miss my characters too much. I guess I am not ready to step away from them for any period of time.

I do have an intriguing young woman character in my fourth book in the series, “Kill and Let Kill.” She is not ready to be a co-lead with my main men, Frank Boff and Danny Cullen. She has a lot of rough edges and growing up to do. I plan in Book 5 to start her growth cycle, and perhaps by Book 6, she’ll blossom. As it is now, she is a court and crime reporter for the Brooklyn Eagle, a graduate of Columbia J school, and the protégée of a retired former star tabloid columnist for the New York Daily News, modeled after the great Jimmy Breslin. He has taught her a lot about investigative reporting, but alas he cannot teach her street smarts. Those are acquired by actually walking them, as Breslin did.

Megan Riley is arrogant, brash, disdainful of the very uneducated people Breslin called his friends, the cops, firemen, sanitation workers and tunnel rats who became his best sources. I plan on putting her through some rough experiences which will gradually enlighten her to the way of the street, and then perhaps even give her a “stand alone” novel. For now, she is a supporting character. In the best mystery series, major and supporting characters constantly evolve and change, and so do the relationships they have with each other. This is what real life is like. Although it should be said I have known many people of both sexes who manage to go through life and never evolve. Sad, makes them very uninteresting.

All right ladies, let’s hear what you have to say on the subject. And don’t spare me the sting of your whips. I can take it. Educate me. I want to learn more about women so I can become a better writer. Writing is a craft you don’t stop learning until the day you die.

I once read an interview with the great actor, Lawrence Olivier. He was 80 at the time, and making a movie. The person doing the interviewing asked him: “You have won every award there is in acting, why do you still do it?” Sir Lawrence replied: “Because there’s still so much to learn.”