David Benedictus Gets the "Token Girl" Right
-
- |
-
- |
- |
- 4
In adding a new character, Lottie the Otter, to the Hundred Acre Wood (Winnie-the-Pooh's terrain), author David Benedictus was bound to catch some flak, but he's in keeping with tradition—both good and bad—in updating a male band of buddies with a new girl. The difference is that he managed to get it right. Benedictus was following in the footsteps of A.A. Milne himself, who added new creatures in both of the story collections he published about Pooh: Kanga and Roo in Winnie-the-Pooh and Tigger in The House at Pooh Corner. By making her a girl, Benedictus landed himself smack in the middle of a whole roster of updating writers and producers who've felt compelled to add a token girl to a beloved band of boy creatures. But unlike such television additions as Abby Cadabby and Babs Bunny, Lottie doesn't feel like a token. She's a new character with a part to play, who just happens to be a girl, and that's the way it should be.
Sesame Street has been trying for years to engineer a girl character with the popularity of Elmo and the name recognition of Big Bird, Cookie Monster and Ernie and Bert—trying, and failing. Similarly, every update of the Warner Brothers characters, from Tiny Toons to Baby Looney Toons to Loonatics Unleashed has attempted to add a girl to balance Bugs and Daffy, with varying degrees of success. Even Disney has already tried to add a dose of girly to the world of Pooh with the arrival of Darby in the mediocre My Friends Tigger and Pooh series. In every instance, the harder they try, the bigger the failure. Abby Cadabby looks like nothing so much as a Muppet Disney Princess, and every girl version of Bugs makes me think of the mechanized versions he chased with such delicious political incorrectness across the classic screen.
It's a mistake to believe that girls will only identify with girl characters, and more than a little insulting to suggest that we'd rather be a supporting character than to put ourselves in the shoes of a bunny or bear who just happens to use the pronoun "he." I agree that a lifetime of seeing only boy characters reach iconic status takes its toll, but the answer to that isn't, and never has been, to pop a girl onto the page or screen just to achieve balance. The answer is to create adventuresome, entrancing girl characters that both sexes will love. (Do you hear me, Kate DiCamillo? J.K. Rowling? Pixar?) Meanwhile, it's clear that David Benedictus didn't think "let's get some femininity in there." He set out to add a character in keeping with the time and spirit of the stories, and he created a slightly snotty creature with a high opinion of herself who meshes gracefully with the other flawed denizens of the forest, beloved both because of and in spite of their eccentricities. She doesn't compete with Pooh and Piglet (or strive to), and she may never achieve even the status of Tigger and Eeyore. But she has a place of her own in the updated Pooh cannon, and in a new set of Pooh Adventures (I reviewed them for Xxtra Small here). Benedictus may have added a token girl, but at least he did it well.

Comments
If we're discussing cartoons...
By: auros | Fri, 10/09/2009 - 00:00
...Dot was not a token character -- she was there from her franchise's inception. And she was arguably the best of the three siblings at getting things done.
But the quid pro quo gets old...
By: nagatuki | Thu, 10/08/2009 - 14:10
I have to agree with the first poster - Rowling added several female characters that are strong, likable, and don't feel like they're "added in" as tokens - they just exist because they do.
Potter's mother, one could argue, was the first protagonist that started the entire series - it has always hinged on her love for Harry that Voldemort has battled and lost with the others, and she's mentioned frequently.
But I digress - I also don't buy that most stories revolve around boys - I mean, look at nearly every Disney film! (I love Disney, btw) - every main feature has focused either on a female protagonist or animal characters that involve both male and female (primarily). Yes, there are those that have male leads - Robin Hood, Lion King, Cars - but one can hardly argue that it leaves girls out or means there aren't enough female-focused stories.
Or, for that matter, that girls view those stories as somehow not applying to them (whatever that means in terms of lions or car races).
@ feefifoto
By: TarDan731@aol.com | Thu, 10/08/2009 - 12:41
I agree with you. I think a lot of the female characters in Harry Potter are very strong. However, I think the point the author was trying to make was that instead of (A) throwing a good female character in the middle of a bunch of guys or (B) rehashing some stereotypical female character, it would be nice if more writers, movie executives, directors, etc. just made original, strong female leads. It's awesome to have characters like Hermione, but it would more awesome if characters like that could be the lead once in while instead of just the best friend, sister, or love interest.
Strong Female Characters
By: feefifoto | Thu, 10/08/2009 - 11:50
Hold on -- hold on hold on hold on.
I suspect a mistake has been made in lumping JK Rowling in with authors who should consider adding strong female characters to their stables. Hermione Granger is just about the strongest, most admirable fictional female character out there, aside from Elizabeth Bennet and Scarlett O'Hara. She's smart, courageous, physically daring and capable. For that matter, Luna Lovegood, Professor McGonagall and Mrs. Weasley are also valiant. None of them is a derivative of any male characters in the Potter books, nor could a reader imagine any of them putting herself in the hands of any male character and expecting him to take care of her.