Tag: Trope Tuesday

Trope Tuesday: Chaotic Evil

If a character in a story scares the hell out of you, chances are he’s a Chaotic Evil.  From ax-crazy psychopaths to nightmarish clowns, from cold-hearted monsters to eldritch abominations, these guys are known for their complete lack of empathy, their nihilistic outlook on life, and their sick sense of humor.

From the easydamus character alignment page:

A chaotic evil character does whatever his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is hot-tempered, vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse…it represents the destruction not only of beauty and life but also of the order on which beauty and life depend.

According to tvtropes, characters who fall under this alignment can be categorized by five types, in decreasing order of redeemability:

  • A Chaotic Good who took things a little too far and inadvertently fell into evil.  Can usually be brought back with a heel realization if they haven’t already crossed the moral event horizon.  Scar from Fullmetal Alchemist is a good example of this type (incidentally, he’s also my favorite character from that series).
  • A character with a very feral nature who believes that everyone is out to get him and thus ends up killing everyone in order to protect himself.  Often manipulated by the Big Bad to do his dirty work.  He doesn’t really kill out of malice, though, so there may still be a possibility of redemption.
  • Committed to chaos before evil.  Can be convinced to team up with the heroes, if only because they happen to share the same enemy.  For these characters, their freedom is the most important thing–though don’t trust them too much, or else you’re liable to end up with a knife in your back.
  • Committed to evil before chaos.  These guys will never team up with the heroes, but they may team up with the Big Bad, even becoming one of his mooks if it gives them more opportunities to unleash fiery mayhem of death on the world.
  • True Chaotic Evil.  These are the most dangerous, because they have absolutely no loyalties and absolutely no compunction.  The best you can hope for is to kill them before they wipe out your entire civilization.

Fortunately, the Chaotic Evil’s weakness is his inability to put together a competent organization. If he has any plans, they’ll usually fizzle out because they’re too haphazard.  When the Chaotic Evil overlaps with the Chessmaster, however, things can get really, really dangerous.

My favorite Chaotic Evil is definitely the Joker from the Dark Knight.  He is, without a doubt, the most dangerous incarnation of this trope that I’ve ever seen.  Running a close second is Kefka from Final Fantasy VI.  Best final fantasy villain of all time, hands down–he totally owns Sephiroth.

I have to admit, I haven’t used this trope much in my own work yet.  Gazan from Bringing Stella Home probably falls under this character alignment, but he’s more of the third type than a true Chaotic Evil.  As a race, the Hameji initially fall under this trope, but they have reasons for everything they do, so once they overthrow the established order, they shift more to Chaotic Neutral.

One day, though, I’m going to write a character with this alignment.  One day…

Trope Tuesday: Chaotic Good

A pox on the phony king of England!

Wherever you find the evil empire, dirty cops, or a misguided crusade, chances are there’s a Chaotic Good somewhere in the shadows fighting against it.  From barbarian heroes to freedom fighters, rebellious princesses to ethical sluts, these free-spirited, noble-minded rebels are constantly at war with the man, robbing the rich to give to the poor.

From the easydamus character alignment page:

A chaotic good character acts as his conscience directs him with little regard for what others expect of him. He makes his own way, but he’s kind and benevolent. He believes in goodness and right but has little use for laws and regulations. He hates it when people try to intimidate others and tell them what to do. He follows his own moral compass, which, although good, may not agree with that of society.

Interestingly, once the evil bad guys are gone, the balance between Good and Chaotic is even more difficult to keep than the line between Good and Lawful.  For that reason, Chaotic Goods often make extremely poor rulers after the war is over.  When they win, they usually do one of the following:

Of all the character alignments, this one is my favorite.  It fits my own sensibilities almost perfectly.  Whenever a character of this type has to give up their old life to accept their new responsibilities, I can’t help but feel a little wistful and sad (maybe that’s why I haven’t settled down and married yet…hmm…).

This trope is extremely prevalent in manga and anime, with Edward Elric from Fullmetal Alchemist my personal favorite.  Agatha and Gil from Girl Genius are also really awesome–it’s going to be interesting to see how Gil shifts now that his father is out of the picture.  In science fiction, Captain Kirk is probably the most beloved character of this type, though almost all of Heinlein’s protagonists also fit the bill.

In my own work, Tiera Al-Najmi from Desert Stars is probably the best example of this trope.  She stands alone against the restrictive norms and hypocrisy of her society, urging Mira to do what’s right instead of what’s expected.  In Bringing Stella Home, James McCoy fits this trope too, though you could also make an argument that he’s more of a Neutral Good.  In Heart of the Nebula, however, he’s definitely Chaotic Good, which puts him squarely at odds with Lars, a Lawful Good who appears in all of the Gaia Nova novels thus far.

Trope Tuesday: Lawful Good

Lawful Good is the character alignment that is the most unambiguously heroic.  These are the white hats, the caped crusaders, the knights in shining armor who fight for Truth, Justice, and the American way.  They might not always be smart, and they might not always be nice, but you can always count on them to do the right thing…always.

From the easydamus character alignment page:

A lawful good character acts as a good person is expected or required to act. He combines a commitment to oppose evil with the discipline to fight relentlessly. He tells the truth, keeps his word, helps those in need, and speaks out against injustice. A lawful good character hates to see the guilty go unpunished.

Although most Lawful Good characters are unambiguous, their conflicts are often quite complicated.  This is because their dedication to the moral code is itself a weakness which an intelligent villain can exploit.  Typically, this is done by putting them in a situation where they have to choose between being lawful (catching the bad guys) or being good (saving all the innocent people who will die in the process).  A smart Lawful Good character, however, will come up with a third option that turns the ethical dilemma on its head, though it might require a heroic sacrifice.

Very often, these kinds of characters appeal to us because they represent some higher ideal which we wish we could follow.  However, that’s not always the case, especially in more cynical works like A Game of Thrones, where the most lawful good characters also tend to be the most stupid.  Ultimately, it all comes down to the bias of the writer; even when you’re trying not to be didactic, it’s hard not to use the Lawful Good character as a vehicle for some sort of message.

A shallow Lawful Good will be little more than a paragon for whatever virtue they’re meant to represent.  A more nuanced Lawful Good will have some sort of a flaw (besides the backhanded ones), or some sort of internal conflict connected with their moral code to make them more human and relatable.

My favorite Lawful Good would probably be Sir Galahad from Le Morte d’Arthur, but mostly because of the sharp counterpoint he provides next to all the thugs and criminals other Knights of the Round Table.  Carter from Halo: Reach is a pretty cool Lawful Good, though he wasn’t my favorite (that would be Jorge).  And even though he’s a complete idiot, Ned Stark is still the only adult character from A Game of Thrones that I found remotely likable.

In my own work, Jalil from Desert Stars starts out as Lawful Good, though he shifts to Lawful Neutral in the middle and up to Neutral Good by the end.  In Bringing Stella Home / Sholpan, Lars and Narju definitely fall under this alignment, putting a lot of pressure on Stella to live up to their ideals.  I explore Lars’s idealistic character a bit further in Heart of the Nebula, a direct sequel to Bringing Stella Home which I hope to release later this year.  And in Star Wanderers, Noemi tends to fall under this alignment–though the story is not so much about saving the world as it is about saving each other.

Trope Tuesday: Character Alignment

Alternate versions put 20th Century Fox in the Lawful Evil slot.

I love personality tests.  There’s something immensely satisfying about putting yourself on a grid that tells you something new and insightful about yourself and the people around you.  My personal favorite is the Meyers-Briggs test (I’m an ENTP), but I like playing around with others as well.

Character alignment is what you get when you combine fictional characters with the role they’re supposed to play in the story.  It’s a way to categorize the different ways they react to problems and ethical dilemmas, and to see which are inclined to be enemies and  which are inclined to be allies.

These systems initially arose out of RPG systems like Dungeons and Dragons, which use numbers, charts, and statistics to turn a story into a playable game.  There are many different kinds of alignments, but the most well-known is probably the one used by D&D, which charts characters along a good-evil axis and a lawful-chaotic axis.  In practice, the result looks a little like this:

Of course, that’s a very simplified version.  The tvtropes page goes into much greater depth, but I’ve personally found that this page right here does a much better job explaining the concepts behind the chart.

The horizontal axis, law vs. chaos, describes how much the character values order and authority vs. their own independence and freedom.  Lawful characters value honor and obedience, while chaotic characters value innovation and rebelliousness.  Characters who are neutral with regards to law and chaos generally respect authority, but put their own interests first and go against the established norms when that’s the best way to further their own ends.

The vertical axis, good vs. evil, describes how well (or poorly) characters tend to treat other people.  Good characters are altruistic and make sacrifices to protect the defenseless, whereas evil characters will kill, rob, or torture the innocent simply for the evulz.  Characters who are neutral with regards to good and evil don’t like to hurt others, but are not above pursuing questionable means to achieve their own goals.

Put together, the alignments create a 9-square chart, like the one at the top of the post.  While it’s certainly not obligatory to fill every slot, doing so can add a greater degree of depth to your story, as it certainly did with Firefly.

As with any formula, however, there is danger in holding too closely to the chart and becoming inflexible.  In real life, people switch alignments all the time, just as personalities can change and evolve (in high school, for example, I was an INTP).  Not only that, but some characters even fulfill all the possible roles, depending on the incarnation and the story.

Because I'm BATMAN!

The point is, character alignment is just a tool, not a hard-and-fast rule that needs to be used with every story.  If it’s a helpful way to think about your characters and set them up with interesting conflicts, great.  If not, don’t sweat it; Homer and Shakespeare were telling great stories long before this chart.

I’m going to be going overseas soon, so I expect my internet access is going to be spotty for the next couple of months.  Because of that, I’m going to write up a bunch of Trope Tuesday posts on each of the nine alignments and schedule them to post automatically.  So stay tuned for more!

Trope Tuesday: Big Damn Heroes

You know the drill.  The clock is ticking down to zero, the evil hordes are swarming through the gates, the virgins are about to be sacrificed and the damsel in distress is about to be lost forever–and then the  heroes show up in all their glory to save the day.

This happens all the freaking time, which means that if you want to make a living telling stories, this is not a trope that you should ignore.  And with good reason.  Not only does it give the writer ample opportunity to play with suspense and action, but it arguably lies at the very core of what makes a hero a hero:

David Gemmell, according to this interview with Ian Graham, defined a hero simply as “someone who does heroic things.” They might not always take the right side, or they might not even care about doing what is right, but when the universe conspires to bring them to a moment of decision, they make the choice that all of us would like to think that we would take and do something extraordinary.

I like this definition of a hero.  It strikes me as a lot more honest than the perpetual do-gooder whose only motivation is Truth, Justice and the American Way (though those characters can–and do–have Big Damn Hero moments of their own).  Also, it means that true heroism is not contingent upon actually winning.  History may be written by the victors, but that doesn’t cheapen the experience of those who actually lived it.

Of course, if the heroes don’t save the day, it’s pretty hard to pull off a crowning moment of awesome without bringing in the Bolivian Army.  Either the heroes find out that they’re too late, or they make things worse, or (as is so common with Othar Tryggvasson of Girl Genius) they just prove that their ego is too big for its own good.  When taken to the extreme, the heroes may even be in danger of turning to the dark side.

The biggest danger with this trope is turning it into a Deus Ex Machina.  The thing that makes Big Damn Heroes so incredibly satisfying is the sense of climax when they show up to save the day.  Thus, proper foreshadowing is key.  Yes, the rule of cool still applies, but if that’s all you rely on, you’re not going to be able to pull it off to maximum effect.

One of my favorite examples of this trope is Liam Neeson in Taken.  Plenty of action movies are more violent, but few are more satisfying.  It’s the perfect pick-me-up after a long crappy day at the office–not that I work in an office anymore.  I wonder why…

In any case, this is a great trope to look out for, and definitely one to master, especially if you’re writing any sort of action-adventure story.

Trope Tuesday: Xanatos Speed Chess

Well, I can’t say any of this mess was part of my original plan, but it’s all working out so beautifully that I can’t complain.

Tarvek, Girl Genius.

The Xanatos Gambit is when a character plans out a scheme such that all possible outcomes (including abject failure) ultimately benefit that character.  Named after David Xanatos from Gargoyles, it is most often used by villains who are very good at evading karma.

Xanatos Speed Chess, on the other hand, is when the character relies not on setting up an only-win scenario from the beginning, but on being able to adapt and change their plans quickly enough to pull off a victory even after their first few attempts inevitably fail.  For this character, the important thing is not to keep everything from falling apart, but to outsmart their opponent even after everything already has.

Both heroes and villains can play at this game, but the heroes generally tend to be better at it.  Part of the reason for this is that try-fail cycles are much more conducive to Xanatos speed chess than the Xanatos gambit.  The heroes might lose a pawn or two, or even the queen, but that doesn’t stop them from turning defeat into victory.  In fact, depending on the story, it may provide exactly the sort of dramatic tension that makes the ending so awesome.

A good example of this in recent cinema would probably be the new Mission: Impossible movie.  Over and over, the mission falls apart–and the characters respond either by changing the mission or by crafting a new one.  It’s one of the things that makes it such a great spy thriller: the tension is always high, because you never know how they’re going to pull it off.

The opposite of this trope is the Indy Ploy.  This is because Xanatos speed chess is still chess; even though the plans are dynamic, they are still plans, and involve a large degree of calculation and forethought.  With the Indy ploy, the character is just wingin’ it, jumping into the thick of things and making it up as they go along.

The main reason I’m interested in this trope is because my current project, Stars of Blood and Glory, has a strong military plot, and I want one of the characters to be a magnificent bastard.  Let’s just say that if Bringing Stella Home is the Mongol conquests in space, Stars of Blood and Glory is the Battle of Ayn Jalut.  It’s going to be challenging to pull it off, but that’s part of what makes writing so much fun…

Trope Tuesday: New Year Has Come

Just like a story, every year has a beginning and an end.  For this reason, New Years has become a time to celebrate change, renewal, and the setting of impossible goals which we will all probably break by March.  Over time, this tradition has become so ingrained in our culture that it’s only natural for it to pop up in our fiction.

Most stories that feature a New Year subplot are episodic, such as cartoons, comics, anime/manga, and television shows.  They usually reflect real-world holiday traditions, such as the practice of setting New Year’s resolutions.  Because all stories need conflict (but also because fiction sometimes reflects reality), the characters in these stories are often just setting themselves up for failure in some hilarious way.

At first glance, this might seem depressing.  After all, if most of us will never reach our goals, why do we even bother setting them?  Why torture ourselves with guilt when, in all likelihood, we’re just setting ourselves up for failure?

In some ways, I think it comes down to this quote from David Gemmell:

May all your dreams come true save one; for what is life without a dream?

One of the things that makes us human is that we all need to have some impossible dream to strive for, some sense of hope for the future.  Through our New Year’s resolutions, we tap into that sense that anything is possible, and that we can change who we are and become better people.

For some of us, those resolutions are an effective tool to turn their lives around.  For those of us who lack that kind of will or self-discipline, the act of setting resolutions still helps us reflect on our lives and change in ways that perhaps we don’t immediately perceive.  After all, the truest measure of success isn’t whether you’ve accomplished all your goals, but how much you’ve changed through striving to meet them.

That’s my take on it, anyway.  In any case, a New Year’s story is a great way to give your characters some time for reflection, since it’s probably the most introspective holiday in our Western culture.  It’s a time for beginnings, endings, and chasing impossible dreams.

Happy New Year!

Trope Tuesday: Celibate Hero vs. The Fettered

Yes, there are still good men out there...and they tend to know who's boss.

I’m mashing up two tropes this week because I’m not satisfied with the one.  There are a bazillion tropes about characters who are sexually active, but very few about sexually chaste characters that don’t portray them as weak, clueless, or socially inept.

According to tvtropes, a celibate hero is a main character who “doesn’t do the romance thing.” Unlike the chaste hero, who is just clueless, the celibate hero has made a conscious decision not to engage in sexual relations or get tied down in a relationship.  There may be any number of reasons for this, but it usually comes down to some combination of Love is a Weakness, Love Hurts, and It’s Not You, It’s My Enemies.

(As a hilarious example of this: TESLA!!!)

But what about the character who isn’t necessarily opposed to romance, but feels that they should wait until marriage to have sex?  Unfortunately, this trope is pretty rare nowadays.  I can only think of two mainstream examples: Edward from Twilight and Reverend Theo from Schlock Mercenary.

Theo in particular is a great example of this, because he’s not clueless, he’s not weak, and he not only gets the girl, he gets the girl that everyone wants.  The only reason he holds out is because his religious order forbids sex before marriage.  It does permit priests to marry, however, so Theo does manage to balance the two.

So why are characters like this so rare?  Unfortunately, I think it comes down to the widespread notion that a true man isn’t a virgin, and that sex makes people cool.  If we accept these tropes as true, then that means that men who exercise self-restraint are actually weak and pitiful, and couples who choose to wait are pathetic losers.

It’s worth pointing out that both Edward and Reverent Theo were created by writers who are practicing Mormons–people who belong to a religious community where it’s still the norm to wait until marriage.  If literature is the way that the culture speaks to itself, then this goes to show just how unrestrained the rest of Western society has become.

This is why I think that the better trope for this kind of character is The Fettered.  Unlike the celibate hero, who usually gives up sex for some kind of external reason, the fettered gives it up as a matter of principle.  Living by his ideals isn’t easy, and he’s constantly tempted to give in and break his moral code.  However, by resisting these temptations, the fettered gains great strength, and can stand like a beacon of light in an otherwise disillusioned world.

This is actually something that I tried to do with my latest novel, Desert Stars.  The main character, Jalil, is a man who believes in honor, and follows a code of abstinence before marriage.  However, to manipulate him into staying at the camp, his father charges Mira, the female protagonist, to seduce him.  Since the fettered’s strength is also his greatest weakness, if Mira can get Jalil to sully her honor, then out of shame he will return and marry her.

The catch?  She actually has feelings for him, and doesn’t want to manipulate him in this way.  In this way, merely persuading him to have sex isn’t a win condition–in fact, if done in the wrong way, it could be a very serious “game over.”

Whether or not I actually pulled it off well is up to the readers to judge.  But one thing I was definitely shooting for was to write a character who fulfills this trope in an unconventional yet powerful way.  And if you’ll permit me to step onto my soapbox for a little bit, I think our culture desperately needs more heroes like this–heroes who show that real men are capable of self-restraint, and that following a moral code is still cool, even if it means waiting to consummate a relationship.

Trope Tuesday: Space pirates with Kindal Debenham

For today’s Trope Tuesday post, I thought it would be fun to bring on my friend Kindal Debenham to speak about one of the tropes in his new book, Wolfhound.

Kindal and I were in the same writing group in college, and attended Brandon Sanderson’s English 318 class together.  I just picked up a copy of his book, and it’s pretty good–definitely the kind of science fiction that I love.  You can currently find Wolfhound on Amazon, as well as Kindal’s self-publishing site.

So anyhow, here’s Kindal’s discussion of space pirates in Wolfhound.

==============================

Space pirates are kind of a staple in science fiction. We’ve seen them in all sorts of different forms since the genre came into being. As the trope states, though, there are basically two main classes. The first class is basically a bunch of violent criminals on a spaceship, kind of mirroring the behavior of modern day pirates in Somalia or Southeast Asia. The second are a corny recycled in space variant of the eighteenth century Caribbean pirate with robotic peg legs and a space parrot. Obviously one is a bit more realistic than the other. 🙂

The version I went for leans a lot more heavily on the first class of space pirates rather than the second. I wanted a smaller scale conflict in order to introduce my main character, and pirates seemed to be a good opponent to use for that purpose. Since the ship that Jacob Hull is on was partially based on the USS Constitution, I decided that I could use some of the pirates that ship fought during its history: the Barbary pirates.

These pirates weren’t your clichéd corsairs with parrots and a desire for plunder. The Barbary pirates were a collection of raiders that operated out of northern Africa. Their motivation was to support their nations by taking ships and capturing crews, which they then added to their fleet and put to work as slaves. In addition to raiding ships, the Barbary pirates also went on slave raids throughout southern Europe. They would accept tribute to ignore the ships of certain countries (think ‘protection money’ for a mob equivalent). The US had to pay about a fifth of the early national budget in tribute to these pirates until the politicians decided that guns were cheaper to buy—which led directly to the creation of the USS Constitution.

Building off of those ideas, I created the Telosian pirates. Vicious, more interested in valuable ransom for prisoners and well armed ships than simple cargo, and willing to do just about anything to satisfy their greed. With an utter ruthlessness only matched by their subtle plots, they made quite a good enemy for Jacob Hull and the rest of Wolfhound’s crew, and they were a much more interesting enemy to fight than a stereotypical Pirate-with-an-Eyepatch would have been. In my opinion at least, though I’m a little biased.

So those are the bad guys of Wolfhound—at least, they’re the majority of the bad guys—and believe me, they live up to their reputation as nasty pieces of work. Hope you guys enojoyed the background, and I hope I didn’t get too history nerd on you guys. See you around!

Trope Tuesday: The Bechdel Test

The Bechdel Test is a way to measure how prominently women figure in a story.  It mostly comes up in discussions of TV and film, but can also be applied to works of literature.  To pass the test, the story must have

  1. at least two named female characters
  2. who talk to each other
  3. about something other than men.

The surprising thing, as you can see in this discussion of the trope, is that so few stories actually pass this test. Even in literature, works like The Odyssey, Romeo & Juliet, and even War & Peace fail to pass or only barely pass this test.

Closely related to the Bechdel Test is the Smurfette Principle, where only one of the major characters is female–the token chick.  Stories that fail to pass the first part of the test fall into this category.

So why does this happen?  It may be because most writers are male, but that isn’t necessarily true of books and literature.  Novel writing, after all, was originally considered a womanly pursuit, and the English major was created in the so that women could have something to study while they were in college.  Not surprisingly, 19th century works by female writers like the Bronte sisters tend to pass…

…or do they?  It’s been a while since I read Jane Eyre or Pride and Prejudice, but the impression I got was that the women in those books spend only really talk with each other about men.  And when you look to contemporary writers like Dickens and Tolstoy, the trend holds.  After all, how many female characters are there in A Christmas Carol?  Do any of them ever even talk to each other?

This isn’t necessarily a measure of how good or bad a story is, or even of how feminist it is (Aliens, after all, technically passes), but it is a measure of how independent and well rounded the female characters really are.  If the story doesn’t pass, it’s a sign that the women only play a role in relation to the men, or that the male characters are the ones who advance the plot.

I don’t usually like to bring up my own stories in relation to these tropes, but I thought it would be useful to apply this test to my own books and see how they shape up.  As a writer, I think it’s a good idea to do this periodically, to make sure my work isn’t slipping into a rut.  So here we go:

Genesis Earth

Point 1: Yes, there are two named female characters: Terra and Stella.

Points 2 & 3: No, they never talk.  However, when you apply the reverse Bechdel test (two men who talk to each other about something other than women), Genesis Earth only barely passes.  Michael talks with Tom in the first chapter, mostly about Terra, and for the rest of the book he and Terra are alone.

Bringing Stella Home

Point 1: Yes, it passes.  Named female characters include: Stella McCoy, Danica Nova, Anya Sikorsky, Tamu, Lady Borta, Lady Zeline, Sergeant Maria.

Point 2: Yes; in most of Stella’s scenes, she’s talking with Tamu or Borta or one of the other Hameji women.  Also, since Danica is the captain of the Tajji Flame and Anya is the chief pilot, they interact quite a bit.

Point 3: Yes, but just barely.  In most of their scenes together, Stella and Tamu are talking about Qasar or the harem or sex.  There are a couple where they talk about each other and their past, but it all relates back to their captivity under the Hameji.  At one point later in the book, Anya goes AWOL and Danica has to talk her down, which is probably the scene that makes the book pass, but a hardcore feminist might argue that that conversation is indirectly about a man.  Still, I’m counting it.

Desert Stars

Point 1: Yes, there are plenty of women.  In fact, as you can see from this list of non-minor characters, there are almost as many women as there are men:

Female Male
Mira Jalil
Shira Sathi
Zayne Hamza
Tiera Rumiya
Lena Gregor
Surayya Kariym
Amina Ashraf
Rina Ibrahim
Sarah Lars
Michelle Nash
Mark
Will

Point 2: Yes, plenty of these women talk to each other.  Surayya and Amina are practically joined at the hip, Tiera, Shira, and Lena all have private conversations with Mira, and the only time Rina even talks is when she and Mira are alone.

Point 3: While most of the conversations between the female characters revolve around men and marriage, Tiera talks with Mira about honor, and Rina talks with Mira about leaving home.  Without spoiling too much, there are other conversations that have nothing to do with men, though they happen off-stage and only get reported second-hand.  Either way, I’d say this book passes.

None of this is to say that a good story must pass the Bechdel test.  Lawrence of Arabia, for example, doesn’t have a single female actress–not one single actress!–and it’s an amazing film.  As a counterpoint, I’m sure there are plenty of good stories out there (most of them probably anime or manga) that do not pass the reverse Bechdel test.

However, it is a good measure of female presence and how much the story is driven by men.  And as a lens through which to view the wider culture, it offers a surprising and somewhat disturbing perspective on male-domination in fiction.