I happened to read something recently that got me thinking. There's some discussion in gaming culture about the nature of character design and that oftentimes female characters are just male skeletons with 'feminine' attributes, such as Ms Pacman (Pacman with a bow basically). It reminded me a lot about our discussions of how to build a female puppet because quite often the recommendations are similar: build a normal puppet but add breasts, or eyelashes, or makeup. Sometimes people will do hourglass bodies but rarely do we see discussion of character design to extend beyond that.

Puppetry bring what it is, of course there are wider options that get used all the time but it occurs to me that in an effort to make a character concept instantly understood in a visual manner, nuance can go out the window. For instance when I needed to make a male doctor character I went with a KISS approach and put him in a lab coat, even though most docs don't wear one. Women too are more than breasts and shapely figures, but my guess is we purposely use a lot of stereotypes because visually they create a shorthand for us. An evil wizard with a gruff voice implies a certain image, but unless we intend it, an evil wizard with a high-pitched voice portrays a different kind of character and potentially breaks suspension of belief.

I don't know if there's any solution to this, or even if it's a problem, but thought it worthy of discussion. What do you all think?

An evil wizard with a gruff voice implies a certain image, but unless we intend it, an evil wizard with a high-pitched voice portrays a different kind of character and potentially breaks suspension of belief.

I don't know if there's any solution to this, or even if it's a problem, but thought it worthy of discussion. What do you all think?

I think it a problem, depending on what level of sophistication is intended with the character and show. Charicatures can be quite successful with simplicity and stereotypes. These especially lend themselves to comedy.

For more dramatic settings, then greater nuance may be required. With that, a great deal may be required. Your example of an evil wizard with a high-pitched voice is a good example. To avoid losing that suspension  of disbelief, work must be done to make the character more believable. This can make for a more interesting character, though. Perhaps it is from being teased throughout adolescence and the anger and bitterness over being brilliant, but never taken seriously isvwhat turned the wizard toward evil. This adds dimension to the character, and can create motive for all kinds of despicable acts.

I'm not saying this won't work for comedy as well. I have a rod puppet that I coldn't use for several years because of my lack of imagination. It is a flower puppet that looks rather delicate. At first, I only envisioned it as having a higher pitched voice, which I am physically incapable of producing.

Suddenly inspiration hit, and the flower suddenly developed a deep booming voice because I decided that the incongruity of appearance and sound was funny. A character was born!

Taking the time to build the character's physical appearance more carefully can demonstrate a sense of attention that will have an effect on an audience, whether they recognize it conciously or not. This seems desireable to me.

You can have versatile puppets like the what-nots, but they are rather bland. You could put a gray wig and whiskers on it, and have an old man. That would not be nearly as effective as crafting in wrinkles and long earlobes along with the whiskers and hair.

If you are building an adult, female puppet, maybe hourglass is not what you want. Such a figure tends to imply youth. Maybe then, a pear-shaped body would communicate the character more effectively.

I think the more thinking and effort that goes into such planning and creating, the better the production will be. Audiences may not be able to put a finger on why they liked the production so much, but they will know that they just watched something of high quality.

That's an interesting thought Na. I had a discussion with my daughter recently, on this topic. She is very good at reducing things to basic cartoon drawing. She's good with color too. I tend to do things too realistically in our animations, so I try to run everything past her, and she usually says I overdid it again and need to reduce it more. We had that with a sheep puppet I did recently. The first one was terrible, and the second one a bit better, after discussing what people perceive as a sheep rather than what an actual sheep looks like. A cartoon sheep actually looks nothing like a real sheep, but that is the art in the character design, knowing what people (often erroneously )interpret a character to be. And... choosing simple, reduced elements, which suggest the character, based on people's  stereotypical views of what a character should look like. I confess I am not a good character designer. It requires one to discard detail while retaining the most important minimum, which I find hard to do. I don't know what to throw away .

I think as a rule in puppetry you are working with caricatures rather then reality. That is one of the things that is appealing about using puppets. Often there is not time to establish a back story for you character so you let the audience know who the puppet is visually.

I think it depends on what the intent of the puppet is. Let's say it is a children's show. Most of the puppets are most likely going to be stereotypes. Like your example of a doctor, if you are teaching then about how to brush their teeth with a dentist puppet then you more then likely going to put the puppet in a white lab coat, but if you want to teach them about acceptance of those who are unique then your puppet may be a girl puppet that is more male looking to establish that being a tom boy is ok and that girls don't have to wear pink dresses.  Not the best example but hopefully that get's my point across.

I think you can also break stereotypes when puppets are used in more complex stories. Again in that case you have the luxury of telling the back story in other ways.

While this is not puppets, I think it kind of relates and adds to this conversation.  I've been watching "Defiance" which is on SyFy here in the states.  It has a lot of "aliens" in it and one of the main characters is a very strong female role.  Visually here make up has always had a very sharp look. This season her attitude has changed and she is not as "shoot em up". She is questioning here violent side.  I swear that they have softened the lines in her makeup even styling her hair softer. It is subtle but I really think they are trying to visually help the storyline along.

Ok, before replying to anyone, I first need to say: I think I conflated two different ideas in my head, it being late at night.

One was a thought of female characters not being more than "male +". This comes from a concept provoked from reading game-design discussion.

The second issue was the stereotyping of characters due to the need to use shorthand for visual cues.

I don't think it helps to combine the two together so my apologies for that. I have probably confused a lot of the discussion because of it... (and now to read what you all wrote)

Sorry about the length. Ah hell, you guys know me well enough by now that you probably expect it.  

For more dramatic settings, then greater nuance may be required. With that, a great deal may be required. Your example of an evil wizard with a high-pitched voice is a good example. To avoid losing that suspension  of disbelief, work must be done to make the character more believable. This can make for a more interesting character, though. Perhaps it is from being teased throughout adolescence and the anger and bitterness over being brilliant, but never taken seriously isvwhat turned the wizard toward evil. This adds dimension to the character, and can create motive for all kinds of despicable acts.

You make a great point. Part of the problem with my original post is that it separates the build (aka character design) from the actual character, and of course in the real world, the build is not created in a vacuum - it's made in light of story, dialogue, action, voice, etc. The whole character can be quite complex despite the use of simple visual cues and stereotypical aesthetics.

You can have versatile puppets like the what-nots, but they are rather bland. You could put a gray wig and whiskers on it, and have an old man. That would not be nearly as effective as crafting in wrinkles and long earlobes along with the whiskers and hair.

If we're talking about issue #1 ("male +" characters), this is what I was getting at a bit. The concept is thus: we build a basic skeleton puppet, like a Whatnot. Ignoring vocal qualities, the only way we might know it was a female puppet is if we add feminine characteristics - like lipstick or a dress. The only way we might know it was a male puppet is to do nothing: male is the default. The only way we know it's an *old* man is to add a wig and wrinkles and whiskers. ... Does that make sense?

If we're talking about issue #2 (stereotypes) then again we come back to using shorthand cues. Whether you use more complicated building techniques or not, subtle facial features on not, you're still using shorthand for what makes an old man an old man. An old man could just as easily be one who is bald and clean-shaven. Even wrinkles are shorthand. So yeah it could be done more subtly from a building perspective but we're still using visual cues that are universal across cultures as stereotypically representing a certain aspect of life. Ie. you don't build a cat puppet by using a poodle-based design. And I'm not sure there's any way that can be avoided, but it's an interesting thing to think about because it challenges us to think more about character design and the theory behind it.

This is again, assuming that the aesthetics are in a vacuum...

I think the more thinking and effort that goes into such planning and creating, the better the production will be. Audiences may not be able to put a finger on why they liked the production so much, but they will know that they just watched something of high quality.

Very true!

That's an interesting thought Na. I had a discussion with my daughter recently, on this topic. She is very good at reducing things to basic cartoon drawing. She's good with color too. I tend to do things too realistically in our animations, so I try to run everything past her, and she usually says I overdid it again and need to reduce it more. We had that with a sheep puppet I did recently. The first one was terrible, and the second one a bit better, after discussing what people perceive as a sheep rather than what an actual sheep looks like.

So maybe there's another thing being conflated with character design and that's KISS: minimalist characters are 'better' because quite often it means, as Chris pointed out, that more attention and care has gone into the design. Too often messy characters are the ones that simply have every feature you can include on them, because the creator hasn't edited. This is true of any creative medium, whether it be cake decoration or whatever. *However* that doesn't mean that a design has to be reduced to the most basic stereotype, it just means that you should limit yourself on what kinds of features are presented visually.

A cartoon sheep actually looks nothing like a real sheep, but that is the art in the character design, knowing what people (often erroneously )interpret a character to be. And... choosing simple, reduced elements, which suggest the character, based on people's  stereotypical views of what a character should look like. I confess I am not a good character designer. It requires one to discard detail while retaining the most important minimum, which I find hard to do. I don't know what to throw away .

If you don't mind me saying, perhaps this will help you: I find that if I make a list of features I want to include and then go through it and find all the ones that are absolutely necessary for understanding the character, then you can discard the rest. Ie. a sheep = something with wool. All the rest is kind of unnecessary.

But to get back to the topic, then what do you do when you want to challenge stereotypes? If we're talking about a kid's show that's focused around diversity then one obvious part of that is getting kids to think past the "don't judge a book by its cover" concept. If you want to challenge kids to ignore stereotypes (ie. scientists and doctors are men in lab coats, which is quite an important stereotype to break if we want to get more women interested in STEM or at least represented in media) then you also need to use characters that break that stereotypical design. Following with the doctor example, it brings me back to issue #1, which is that female characters are often talked about (here anyway) in terms of "male +".

If we're talking about character design that's done with thought, attention and care, then it might be an idea to encourage designers to talk about female characters being built as female characters from the ground up, rather than as an afterthought of which you attach to a default male base***. Because then you're concerned about who the character is and how they should be portrayed with nuance, rather than just going for whatever happens to be considered the 'done thing'.

I think as a rule in puppetry you are working with caricatures rather then reality. That is one of the things that is appealing about using puppets. Often there is not time to establish a back story for you character so you let the audience know who the puppet is visually. (snip) I think you can also break stereotypes when puppets are used in more complex stories. Again in that case you have the luxury of telling the back story in other ways.  

This is kind of my point; that the visuals are shorthand. You are right though, and maybe that's more to do with how puppetry is used than the medium itself. If we're talking about a show for adults we're most likely going to include a backstory and character development. If we're talking about a show for kids, that stuff goes out the window and the focus instead is on the message of the play. So Ronnie Burkett's character design will be far different from Sesame Street by pure nature of the target audience rather than any specific way of approaching the aesthetics. (Hope that sentence made sense) Kids have a shorter attention span and understand less nuance so visually we can get away with less when designing for them.

So yeah we're on the same page there.

I think it depends on what the intent of the puppet is. Let's say it is a children's show. Most of the puppets are most likely going to be stereotypes. Like your example of a doctor, if you are teaching then about how to brush their teeth with a dentist puppet then you more then likely going to put the puppet in a white lab coat, but if you want to teach them about acceptance of those who are unique then your puppet may be a girl puppet that is more male looking to establish that being a tom boy is ok and that girls don't have to wear pink dresses.  Not the best example but hopefully that get's my point across.

See above. Sometimes we want to challenge stereotypes. Maybe I would like to create a play that challenges kids to think about arguments from authority, and that the person in the lab coat isn't always right. We're thinking along the same lines and agree on the main point but you've come right back to the stereotype again: a tomboy is a girl who doesn't wear pink dresses or is more male looking. Visually speaking that plays right back into shorthand again. The 'tomboy' is always the girl who wears pants and plays in mud, or has a boy-haircut, or is more male-looking and made fun of it. A better way of approaching a teachable moment like that is to say that girls come in any shape or form, in dresses or in pants, in pink or in blue - in other words, to show that tomboys can like pink too. Heck, that boys are allowed to like pink, and that a boy can wear a skirt without being laughed at.

The very fact that you've used the "tomboy=not in pink dresses" is the point. Just by avoiding the 'feminine' stereotype you've created a whole 'nother series of (stereotyped) visual cues used as shorthand.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tomboy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TankTopTomboy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AmazonianBeauty

So I guess my question is: ok, we admit we are kind of forced into using certain visual cues because puppetry isn't exactly realistic... but then what?

It's hard to break stereotypes when you're forced into using them. It's hard to create nuance when much of the character and personality comes from those visual cues, and it's even harder when most of the medium is designed for an audience too young to deal with nuance. Is it just a limitation of the medium or is it something that can be worked around?

And that goes for issue #1 as well.

While this is not puppets, I think it kind of relates and adds to this conversation.  I've been watching "Defiance" which is on SyFy here in the states.  It has a lot of "aliens" in it and one of the main characters is a very strong female role.  Visually here make up has always had a very sharp look. This season her attitude has changed and she is not as "shoot em up". She is questioning here violent side.  I swear that they have softened the lines in her makeup even styling her hair softer. It is subtle but I really think they are trying to visually help the storyline along.

  I've been watching Defiance since it came out last year. (Ssshhh, no spoilers, I haven't watched season 3 yet and it's waiting on DVR for me!) It's not amazing but they have some good stuff. At the moment I'm mostly watching for Stahma and Datak as I find their arc to be quite well done. ... Which character are you referencing? Stahma?

To be honest, I think in terms of character design, Defiance suffers a little too much from the old "aliens are just like us" thing. They've obviously spent most of their budget on CGI and can't afford too much by way of alien costumes. If you don't mind the slight sidetrack...

Casti's are quite clearly a visual reference to the Victorian era and their sexist attitudes. It's not so much the monochrome, although that's a fairly unsubtle dig at their tightly-controlled culture, but the waistcoats and fogwatches. The spirit riders are quite clearly a visual reference to Native Americans/Africans, with their tribal attire; also a bit of New Age in there. It's fairly obvious just from their attire that they're the 'free spirits' and one-with-nature types (also seen a lot in Farscape, such as the Jeremiah Crichton episode, there's also been Japanese aesthetics and so on). The rest is just some early Mad Max stuff and some typical leather-jacket-gun-holster-cool-guy stuff (although I always wonder how they've gone from apocalypse/world war with various aliens to rebuilt with proto-businesses and amazing technology in something like 40 years. And LPs. Explain to me the LPs...  \ ). I was disappointed that they didn't really go anywhere with Christie's cross-dressing phase as that in particular was quite an interesting concept about the nature of species-racism, seeing things as others do, culture-swapping, assimilation, etc. I'd also love more on the other aliens, such as the Liberata. Indogenes too.

But at the same time: it's a Western. It's not supposed to be particularly deep, because it's based on the old Western moustache-twirling, gun-toting, saloon-going stereotypes of those movies. With some sci-fi patina to 'update' it.

To get back on topic, visually the characters don't have any particular nuance and in fact it's also a bit stereotyped. It's the rest of it that makes them interesting characters, which is why as I said at the top that it's hard to talk about this as if it's in a vacuum.

(Geez, how good is it to have cable just so I can have intelligent conversation with you Yanks. Normally I'd have to wait 2 years to see the stuff you guys have.   )

... Ok, and after looking at TV Tropes, and in particular, this,
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flanderization, I'm thinking that it isn't puppetry as much as the wider narratives in culture itself; and only that because it's a visual medium and the majority of the target audience are kids, puppetry suffers from visual stereotypes more than you'd think given the infinite nature of character design inherent in this particular medium.

... Lastly, apologies if I've conflated the two issues again, it's hard to separate them in my head.

*** One could just as easily say that the default is actually just androgynous which I'd agree with, except that in most mainstream media of puppets (ie. Muppets/Sesame Street), the default base is male. Bert, Ernie, Kermit, Elmo... the only thing that distinguishes them as male is their voice, not their visuals. To complicate matters further, it seems that visuals may have less to do with the gender of characters than voice does. And yes, I'm aware that this discussion is kind of limiting all of puppet design to muppet-style... it wasn't on purpose but acts as a good starting point.

I think you hit the nail on the head with "One could just as easily say that the default is actually just androgynous". You have to start with a base. Even when I am creating an animal puppet I am starting with the basic shape of the head and building on that. Same with the body. Is it oval, round, square etc.  I don't think you can really get away from that and it is not a bad thing just the basics. So better to say "androgynous +" perhaps. Still not the right word really. I well ask you this, what makes Caitlyn Jenner female? Or Chaz Bono male?   I am talking in the eyes of the public not emotionally here.

I just don't think you can stray to far from what the audience knows. That is why "Defiance" has used our history to define their races. I consider myself a pretty enlightened person who enjoys to be challenged with what I read or watch.  That being said there have been times when the author or writer has strayed so far from "what I know" that I can not connect with the characters or story. Humans must have a point of reference in order to comprehend.  Now as a designer or even writer you may point of reference for what you are doing but you need to ask your self if your audience well have the same. This is oversimplifying it but poor versus rich upbringing.  I've presented a big gap there. If you use either as your base then you miss out on the majority of your audience but if you shoot for the Middle class experiences, you are more likely to have a larger audience. I've chased a squirrel a bit here but in my mind it is all part of the same thing.

Your TV Tropes site really explains all this pretty good. Notice there visual for Tom Boy?  

Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations. On the whole, tropes are not clichés. The word clichéd means "stereotyped and trite." In other words, dull and uninteresting. We are not looking for dull and uninteresting entries.

Defiance:  I know off topic but it is my forum.

I was referring to Irisa Nyrira.  You'll understand once you start watching the third season.

Yep not sure where the LP's came from. Was kind of interesting but not sure they really carried through with that.

I doubt the show well stand the test of time. Perhaps because like the quote form TV Tropes, they are relying too much on clichés. It is a fine line and one easily crossed. 

I think you hit the nail on the head with "One could just as easily say that the default is actually just androgynous". You have to start with a base. Even when I am creating an animal puppet I am starting with the basic shape of the head and building on that. Same with the body. Is it oval, round, square etc.  I don't think you can really get away from that and it is not a bad thing just the basics. So better to say "androgynous +" perhaps. Still not the right word really.

We may be talking across purposes here. There's the build itself, and then there's the language used. Most often here when we see female characters discussed, it is in terms of "male +". The default tends not to be, "make an androgynous base and add on things", but rather "what makes a character more feminine looking", which leads into adding eyelashes and makeup. The "more feminine" bit is what I'm referring to.

I well ask you this, what makes Caitlyn Jenner female? Or Chaz Bono male?   I am talking in the eyes of the public not emotionally here.

You're right, and I guess I'm purposefully limiting myself by talking in binary rather than a spectrum, just because it's a complex topic and I have to start somewhere. I'm aware that I'm not being very representative of the full range of possibilities, and it's a flaw. But it also goes to some of my point, which is that given the actual spectrum, the craft as a medium can and does fall into binary, just as I have.

I just don't think you can stray to far from what the audience knows. That is why "Defiance" has used our history to define their races. I consider myself a pretty enlightened person who enjoys to be challenged with what I read or watch.  That being said there have been times when the author or writer has strayed so far from "what I know" that I can not connect with the characters or story. Humans must have a point of reference in order to comprehend.  Now as a designer or even writer you may point of reference for what you are doing but you need to ask your self if your audience well have the same. This is oversimplifying it but poor versus rich upbringing.  I've presented a big gap there. If you use either as your base then you miss out on the majority of your audience but if you shoot for the Middle class experiences, you are more likely to have a larger audience. I've chased a squirrel a bit here but in my mind it is all part of the same thing.

A big comment that goes around when discussing inclusivity in media is that a certain minority character is 'tokenism'. But the truth is that it's simply being more representative of the true nature of the spectrum of people. What the audience knows may not be actually representative of the people around them. Ie. I live in an affluent suburb of mostly white Europeans (trending towards Asian). That doesn't fully represent the multicultural aspect of my city, nor my country, and if represented on TV, certainly doesn't showcase anyone of Aboriginal descent. One huge issue in Australian TV and film is actually the under-representation of native culture and people.

In your example we can represent the 'majority', which in my case would be middle class Europeans. And that's exactly what we get on TV, to the point where it's almost like Indigenous Australians don't exist. (Fortunately with the advent of digital TV we now have a channel entirely devoted to Indigenous programming, including I think, stuff from other countries/cultures such as Native Americans and Canadians.)

What the audience knows is mostly stereotypes, and the lack of inclusion of people other than the majority means that we get a narrow view of the world. Hence my reference to trying to break stereotypes.

Note that in Defiance we have ethnicities but they've not gone out of their way to have any other skin colour than white, white European, and red (or orange?), and there doesn't seem to be much for people of African descent, or any other continent. Is that likely in the US, even though the globe was completely terraformed, which means global mass diaspora? Or is it just that Syfy caters to a particularly white affluent audience?

Bringing it back to puppetry, we've got a visual storytelling medium, which could easily be used to widen "what we know" but is often discussed in terms of "what we're comfortable and familiar with".

I don't mind referencing common themes or aesthetics, but as my English teacher used to say, if you're going to use a cliche at least find a way to tell it in a new way.

... Ultimately, I don't know. I don't think it's easy to break out of the visual norms we're used to, but at the same time think it's doable with puppetry if given the motivation to try it.

Anyway, it's all just random thoughts at the moment and I'm probably confused and confusing...

Your TV Tropes site really explains all this pretty good. Notice there visual for Tom Boy?  
Defiance:  I know off topic but it is my forum.

Yep, it's a good site. Get stuck there on occasion browsing it.

I was referring to Irisa Nyrira.  You'll understand once you start watching the third season.

Ah ok. I still haven't watched it yet but will pay attention when I do.

Yep not sure where the LP's came from. Was kind of interesting but not sure they really carried through with that.

I doubt the show well stand the test of time. Perhaps because like the quote form TV Tropes, they are relying too much on clichés. It is a fine line and one easily crossed. 

I don't think it will last either, mostly because they've galloped through plot twists and turns instead of giving it time to develop. One episode contains enough of an arc character-wise that it could be spread out over half a season. It's like Doctor Who in that respect, more time spent on plot and action than on character development.

Oddly enough, the show is also a computer game now so I think it may last moreso in other media than it will on TV.

There is plenty of information out there on trans people, and even more on gender non-conformity. At this point, I see no reason to wait for more people to catch up.

In my experience, the same things that I and other trans/non-binary people do in response to other people's expectations. & reactions can be used to express a puppet's gender without any other markers. So basically, state it somewhere. Have another puppet use pronouns. Have the character themself explain.

If there's no relevant reason to bring up a character's gender, but you still want people to know because of representation, even an obviously crammed in approach would be better than nothing. Otherwise, no reason to bring it up; just have the character behave as you would have them behave, and that's that.

When it comes to understanding other people's gender, people do have more adaptability than they are often given credit for.

I agree with you on all of that. Problem with typing out half-formed thoughts on the internet; you often don't know where you're going and how wrong you probably are