RSS Feed
Tuesday, 11 March 2008
Misogynist? Moi?
Came back from a few days away down in Bath to an interesting pair of posts from King Rat. It all began as a diffusely positive review of Before They are Hanged (though of course, nothing like as positive as I'd like), and then ended up accusing me of hardcore sexism. Perhaps I exaggerate. You be the judge. If you are minded to read on, beware of some very minor spoilers for the series:"I do have something to say about the female characters in the book though. The word that comes to mind when I think about them is misogynistic. I know it's a loaded word to throw out there, but I can't think of anything else."
Ouch. Misogynistic? Woman-hating? Bringing to mind as it does images of bible-thumping pro-lifers, hardcore sharia law and brutalist rappers, yes, that certainly is a pretty loaded--
"The vast majority of the characters in the book are male. Contrast that with Lois McMaster Bujold's Paladin of Souls which I didn't like all that much, but which included many female characters. I can think of only four in this book, three of them minor."
Well, true, there aren't that many women. The First Law was an attempt to do a retake on the classic fantasy trilogy, and epic fantasy, taking its cue from Tolkien, does tend to focus heavily on men, the women often restricted to the love interests of said men. Perhaps that makes it, in some ways, a fundamentally sexist genre, but it's not unlike war films or westerns in that sense, or romances in the opposite direction, I guess, and I'd argue it's more about the treatment of the individuals involved than the numbers. But by all means let's have a look at the female characters one by--
"The one to get the second most screen time is Cathil, who serves little purpose except as a semen receptacle. One of the big parts of Ferro's character is similar, she's a former slave/prostitute who must shut out a life of being used sexually and uses that to fuel her rage. Female character three is West's sister Ardee. While not a bimbo, she spends the entire book waiting for her male saviors. Practical Vitari is a pain-loving torturer list her co-workers. But, minor and unimportant spoiler here, she's revealed to have a soft spot for her multiple children. All four women defined by very stereotypical attributes."
Ouch. Granted, Ferro and Cathil both have histories of sexual oppression. Cathil suffers some during the second book. But if you're going to look at the experience of female slaves, or of female convicts in penal colonies, or of women caught up in war, unless you want to avoid any sexual element whatsoever (which seems to me cowardly in an adult book) there's really nowhere else to go and remain (to my mind) honest and convincing, which is always my prime aim. What is the alternative here that would make these characters "non-misogynistic"? That Ferro should be a well-adjusted, unmolested escaped slave? That Cathil should have been through incarceration equivalent to the Siberian Gulag without any event, then walked among a gang of sex-starved barbarians for a few weeks without it ever coming up that there's a woman in their midst?
Ardee is forced to wait for male saviors because of her position in society. That may be stereotyped, but I don't know that she's necessarily "defined by that stereotypical position". Could the same not be said for every female character in Pride and Prejudice? Are they, therefore, misogynist stereotypes? The argument seems particularly weak when used about Vitari. What, she's got children that she cares for, so she must be a female stereotype, even if she's a hard-bitten torturer? Mr. Rat doesn't mention Carlot dan Eider at all, incidentally, who's probably the most important woman besides Ferro in Before They are Hanged, and the only significant female in the books with considerable temporal power. Perhaps she should be considered stereotyped because she was once forced into an arranged marriage, though, I don't know?
"An argument can be made that anything modeled on Medieval times should follow Medieval culture, a very patriarchal one. But if we get to build a fantastic world, one with majic and invented geographies and societies created from the mind, could we not discard the typical female roles for a while?"
Perhaps we could, but if we do, I think there's a price to be paid in the relevance and realism of the invented world. I wanted to do something that was honest, that was truthful, that was firmly rooted in historical reality, becuase for me those are the fantasy worlds that I find most convincing, most concrete. I don't personally have much use for the argument, "this is fantasy, so we can do anything we like." I think it encourages some of the genre's most lazy, shoddy, unimaginative excesses. Since I wanted The First Law in a way to be a re-examination of classic epic fantasy, and classic epic fantasy takes place in a pre-industrial, patriarchal world, that's the backdrop I went for. And I would point out, as Scott Bakker has often done in response to similar accusations, that examination is by no means endorsement.
It's funny. I haven't read Scott Lynch's Red Seas Under Red Skies, but I have noticed him getting quite a lot of stick for the exact opposite treatment of women (though one presumes from a different section of the readership) - he has a pretty 'equal opportunities' fantasy world in which there are a lot of woman soldiers, bodyguards, pirates, and so on. He's been taken to task by a fair few readers for this being unrealistic, unconvincing, an imposition of PC modern values onto a medieval/rennaisance fantasy world. I guess this is one issue, as with so many in writing, where you're pretty much damned in someone's eyes whatever you do. Unless your world and characters are utterly bland and hence of interest to no-one, you'll always be offending someone's sensibilities.
If you're a man, in general, it's harder to write female characters than male ones. Fact. The book I'm currently writing has a woman in the central role, and I don't mind admitting it's a challenge. You can say - you should approach the women just like you do the men - and by and large that's what I try to do, but men and women aren't identical, physically or socially, and there will always be elements of the female experience that you're guessing at. That tends to make you tentative, perhaps, especially when you know you'll never get accused of being sexist in relation to your male characters, but you almost certainly will at some point in relation to your female ones. Back to Mr. Rat, who's been thorough enough to post some additional thoughts:
"When a writer falls back on typical whore roles such as Joe Abercrombie or female as victim as Lauren Weisberger did, I think it reflects either laziness or a lack of imagination. Even if the character is a strong one such as Ferro is, when her strength is based on a reaction to common abused roles of women, there isn't much stretching involved. Sometimes there's a point needing to be made about women, their roles, or abuse, and sometimes these roles just work best in a story. But too often it just feels like a paint-by-numbers scene. That irritates me, especially in these cases. Do I know that's what Joe Abercrombie did? No. Another reader might easily have a different take on these characters."
The First Law is a series, like most epic fantasy, mostly about men, and so the women tend to be seen in terms of their relationships with those men. Perhaps a certain theme of sexual oppression did creep in without my noticing. Perhaps the women weren't my deepest or most succesful characters, that's not for me to say, and I think it's always a risk for a male writer. But "misogynist"? "Typical whore roles"? "Semen receptacle"? Seriously? That's strong, man, that's pretty damn strong. "Another reader might easily have a different take on these characters," apparently. Pray God that is the case. Answers below, please...
Comments:
<< Home
This is always a contentious discussion, so I'll respond quickly without carefully considering my comments.
I think Mr. Rat is missing the point, which Mr. Abercrombie so ably makes above. The books depict a world that is patriarchal and that world limits the options of both men and women. I did not find the depictions of female characters to be misogynist. Quite the opposite, actually.
As a sociologist, I found the depictions of gender, race, and class to be very interesting. Although I rather like Mr. Lynch's books, I find his everything goes approach to gender a bit facile. His world is both patriarchal AND gender equal, which doesn't quite make sense.
On the other hand, Mr. Abercrombie's world is quite firmly patriarchal, and the characters act in accordance with their cultures.
On another note, I appreciate the use of racial distinctions, while avoiding our own cultural terms of 'white' and 'black'. 'Pink' is a great racial insult, that refers to our own patterns of racism but also recontextualizes it, being countered with 'brown'. Stupid pinks.
I also like the contrast between the violent meritocracy of the North and the rigid class stratification of the Union.
Anyhow, as someone who gets paid to lecture on patriarchy, I officially deem "The First Law" to be free from misogyny without flinching from depicting misogyny.
For this I went to college.
I think Mr. Rat is missing the point, which Mr. Abercrombie so ably makes above. The books depict a world that is patriarchal and that world limits the options of both men and women. I did not find the depictions of female characters to be misogynist. Quite the opposite, actually.
As a sociologist, I found the depictions of gender, race, and class to be very interesting. Although I rather like Mr. Lynch's books, I find his everything goes approach to gender a bit facile. His world is both patriarchal AND gender equal, which doesn't quite make sense.
On the other hand, Mr. Abercrombie's world is quite firmly patriarchal, and the characters act in accordance with their cultures.
On another note, I appreciate the use of racial distinctions, while avoiding our own cultural terms of 'white' and 'black'. 'Pink' is a great racial insult, that refers to our own patterns of racism but also recontextualizes it, being countered with 'brown'. Stupid pinks.
I also like the contrast between the violent meritocracy of the North and the rigid class stratification of the Union.
Anyhow, as someone who gets paid to lecture on patriarchy, I officially deem "The First Law" to be free from misogyny without flinching from depicting misogyny.
For this I went to college.
You already know my feelings on Ardee. I enjoy that Ferro does not take the victim role, even if her past still defines her. In this day and age of poor pitiful all of us, that attitude alone is refreshing. Mr Rat sounds like he's been brainwashed by the feminist lit department at his university, who read oppression into every interaction between men and women.
So from the point of view of a woman who loves your world, your books, your violence, and your women, no, you don't come across as mysoginistic.
Then again, I have often wondered in the context of the things I dream up to do to my female characters and also just with regard to my feelings toward women in general if I am in fact a mysoginist. If that term can apply to a female. So perhaps I am not the most impartial judge...
So from the point of view of a woman who loves your world, your books, your violence, and your women, no, you don't come across as mysoginistic.
Then again, I have often wondered in the context of the things I dream up to do to my female characters and also just with regard to my feelings toward women in general if I am in fact a mysoginist. If that term can apply to a female. So perhaps I am not the most impartial judge...
Mr Rat sounds like a bit of a male apologist to me. He is taking the whole PC thing too far. It also sounds like he is trying to score brownie points with certain sections of the community.
I think its also telling that he says:-
"Contrast that with Lois McMaster Bujold's Paladin of Souls which I didn't like all that much, but which included many female characters."
There's no point in going out of your way to include lots of female characters, to appease people like Mr Rat, if it affects the quality of the book.
Huzza, Before They Are Hanged has lots of PC characters, but f*ck me its boring.
Who wants to read that? Not me.
I love your characters. They're real, they're gritty and a lot of them are pretty f*cked up.
I think Mr Rat needs to pull his head in and stop slinging emotive labels around.
But, hey what would I know, I'm a white male professional (or is that a professional white male?), so I'm probably a misogynist too. And a rascist to boot. I apologise for my oppression of the world at large.
Rant over.
I think its also telling that he says:-
"Contrast that with Lois McMaster Bujold's Paladin of Souls which I didn't like all that much, but which included many female characters."
There's no point in going out of your way to include lots of female characters, to appease people like Mr Rat, if it affects the quality of the book.
Huzza, Before They Are Hanged has lots of PC characters, but f*ck me its boring.
Who wants to read that? Not me.
I love your characters. They're real, they're gritty and a lot of them are pretty f*cked up.
I think Mr Rat needs to pull his head in and stop slinging emotive labels around.
But, hey what would I know, I'm a white male professional (or is that a professional white male?), so I'm probably a misogynist too. And a rascist to boot. I apologise for my oppression of the world at large.
Rant over.
this comment posted by 
: 12:22 AM, March 12, 2008
: 12:22 AM, March 12, 2008
I've loved the series so far but I have to say KR's criticism seem valid to me (and let's put it into perspective here, he spends most the review praising the book anyway). Ferro aside, who I think goes on an interesting journey, the women in the books don't seem to be treated with the same level of complexity as the men.
One of the things I like most about the series is how you deliberately upend our expectations about character and genre. So, when this didn't happen with characters like Ardee or Cathil, even Carlot to an extent, then that stands out to me.
But if you're going to look at the experience of female slaves, or of female convicts in penal colonies, or of women caught up in war [...] there's really nowhere else to go and remain (to my mind) honest and convincing, which is always my prime aim.
I think the larger point here is the range of female experience which is depicted in the books is so limited. (Obviously a matter of opinion, as Clambeard above argues for the opposite!)
One of the things I like most about the series is how you deliberately upend our expectations about character and genre. So, when this didn't happen with characters like Ardee or Cathil, even Carlot to an extent, then that stands out to me.
But if you're going to look at the experience of female slaves, or of female convicts in penal colonies, or of women caught up in war [...] there's really nowhere else to go and remain (to my mind) honest and convincing, which is always my prime aim.
I think the larger point here is the range of female experience which is depicted in the books is so limited. (Obviously a matter of opinion, as Clambeard above argues for the opposite!)
Hey,
Loved your books and didn't find them misogynistic (well, The Blade Itself I thought had too little female characters but that was rectified enough for my taste in BTAH). However, as far as response to accusations of sexism in literature you can do better :)
Ouch. Misogynistic? Woman-hating? Bringing to mind as it does images of bible-thumping pro-lifers, hardcore sharia law and brutalist rappers, yes, that certainly is a pretty loaded--
No, seriously? What you think that only men who openly and loudly subscribe to the idea that women are lesser being have ever hit a woman, have ever raped? You think it's only because of these men that women still have lesser salaries, are still underrepresented or aknowledged in some fields? (*cough* ever looked up at Hugo price gender balance recently?) Sexism can be horribly banal and unintentionnal. So no, misogynistic doesn't only mean the people you mention. That doesn't mean that Mr Rat is right, just that I don't think you should brush off the criticism of the loaded term that easily just because you don't subscribe to religious female opression or whatever.
book. But if you're going to look at the experience of female slaves, or of female convicts in penal colonies, or of women caught up in war, unless you want to avoid any sexual element whatsoever
You know, I'd like more of those gritty, realistic fantasy type books featuring male characters being raped. Well, Bakker gave us that, at least... but since you were using the slaves and convicts excuse...
And I actually adore Cathil and Ferror because the way they react to it still show them as strong women, mind you.
It's just that so many, many books are doing it and sometimes it becomes complacent. I didn't think you were complacent. But for some readers it all add up to a great feeling of annoyance.
Ardee is forced to wait for male saviors because of her position in society.
I loved that Ardee was so bitter about it actually. But then I also wanted to see characters who are able to be strong without clashing against the narrow female role they had to have. Thankfully we got it with Carlot and Vitari. Part of the reason I liked the treatment of female characters better in BTAH than in TBI.
I think the worst treatment of a female character in BTAH was the one who was a Magus (whose name I forgot because I suck at remembering names), because her sexuality was emphasied in a way that made her sound like the stereotype of the bitter aging slut which can be nasty with a character that's not developped much.
Perhaps we could, but if we do, I think there's a price to be paid in the relevance and realism of the invented world.
That's the kind of issue where the excuse works for individual persons, but not when everone does it. (Much like the Euro-centric setting, actually). So, not something that's your personnal fault, but as one person who chose to do so, you share a part of responsability :p
I guess this is one issue, as with so many in writing, where you're pretty much damned in someone's eyes whatever you do.
The people criticizing aren't always the same ones. Also you can do both criticisms, for different reasons and that can be perfectly legit. There's more than two options. (I haven't read Red Seas either, but judging from Lies one of the problem with Lynch may also be his reliance on stereotypes like the happy whores...)
I don't think of the two Firt Law books I've read so far as horribly misogynistic books, but neither are they shining examples of anti-sexist, you know. There's enough female characters I can like for my taste, and while there's a theme of opression which might not be as much examined as it may be should have been, neither was it used complacently. I guess my point as, when such criticism are made, even if unwarranted (or not entirely warranted), they shouldn't be too easily brushed. I already see comments along the way "lolz, silly feminist" to your entry, and that pisses me off. I don't think you should encourage that.
Loved your books and didn't find them misogynistic (well, The Blade Itself I thought had too little female characters but that was rectified enough for my taste in BTAH). However, as far as response to accusations of sexism in literature you can do better :)
Ouch. Misogynistic? Woman-hating? Bringing to mind as it does images of bible-thumping pro-lifers, hardcore sharia law and brutalist rappers, yes, that certainly is a pretty loaded--
No, seriously? What you think that only men who openly and loudly subscribe to the idea that women are lesser being have ever hit a woman, have ever raped? You think it's only because of these men that women still have lesser salaries, are still underrepresented or aknowledged in some fields? (*cough* ever looked up at Hugo price gender balance recently?) Sexism can be horribly banal and unintentionnal. So no, misogynistic doesn't only mean the people you mention. That doesn't mean that Mr Rat is right, just that I don't think you should brush off the criticism of the loaded term that easily just because you don't subscribe to religious female opression or whatever.
book. But if you're going to look at the experience of female slaves, or of female convicts in penal colonies, or of women caught up in war, unless you want to avoid any sexual element whatsoever
You know, I'd like more of those gritty, realistic fantasy type books featuring male characters being raped. Well, Bakker gave us that, at least... but since you were using the slaves and convicts excuse...
And I actually adore Cathil and Ferror because the way they react to it still show them as strong women, mind you.
It's just that so many, many books are doing it and sometimes it becomes complacent. I didn't think you were complacent. But for some readers it all add up to a great feeling of annoyance.
Ardee is forced to wait for male saviors because of her position in society.
I loved that Ardee was so bitter about it actually. But then I also wanted to see characters who are able to be strong without clashing against the narrow female role they had to have. Thankfully we got it with Carlot and Vitari. Part of the reason I liked the treatment of female characters better in BTAH than in TBI.
I think the worst treatment of a female character in BTAH was the one who was a Magus (whose name I forgot because I suck at remembering names), because her sexuality was emphasied in a way that made her sound like the stereotype of the bitter aging slut which can be nasty with a character that's not developped much.
Perhaps we could, but if we do, I think there's a price to be paid in the relevance and realism of the invented world.
That's the kind of issue where the excuse works for individual persons, but not when everone does it. (Much like the Euro-centric setting, actually). So, not something that's your personnal fault, but as one person who chose to do so, you share a part of responsability :p
I guess this is one issue, as with so many in writing, where you're pretty much damned in someone's eyes whatever you do.
The people criticizing aren't always the same ones. Also you can do both criticisms, for different reasons and that can be perfectly legit. There's more than two options. (I haven't read Red Seas either, but judging from Lies one of the problem with Lynch may also be his reliance on stereotypes like the happy whores...)
I don't think of the two Firt Law books I've read so far as horribly misogynistic books, but neither are they shining examples of anti-sexist, you know. There's enough female characters I can like for my taste, and while there's a theme of opression which might not be as much examined as it may be should have been, neither was it used complacently. I guess my point as, when such criticism are made, even if unwarranted (or not entirely warranted), they shouldn't be too easily brushed. I already see comments along the way "lolz, silly feminist" to your entry, and that pisses me off. I don't think you should encourage that.
Etrangere raises some good points in her response, especially about not being immediately dismissive about accusations/claims of sexism (and other discriminatory -isms).
Her comments about the banality of sexism are worth taking another look at as well. All too often we fail to notice patterns of discrimination because we take them for granted. We can say, "That's just how it is", and avoid participating in a critique of our own viewpoint and/or culture.
I think Allison raises another good issue of the relative complexity of female and male characters. I would argue that Ferro (the only major female character) is at least as complex as anyone, and that Ardee and the female Practical are as complex as other supporting characters. It might be asked why is there only 1 major female character?
One response, if I may be so bold, might be that the patriarchal setting doesn't allow for women to act in powerful ways, such that drives a heroic story.
If I read Etrangere correctly, she would respond by asking about the motives in creating a patriarchal setting. This is a legitimate point, and one that should not be brushed off.
And on a slightly different tack, I would like to thank Joe for privileging storytelling over world building. Too many fantasy authors seem to think that a map, a cosmology and a bunch of made-up words that substitute for perfectly good existing words make a fantasy novel.
Also, thanks for not giving characters extended interior monologues in which they debate the relative merits of one course of action over another. When did this convention take over the genre?
Her comments about the banality of sexism are worth taking another look at as well. All too often we fail to notice patterns of discrimination because we take them for granted. We can say, "That's just how it is", and avoid participating in a critique of our own viewpoint and/or culture.
I think Allison raises another good issue of the relative complexity of female and male characters. I would argue that Ferro (the only major female character) is at least as complex as anyone, and that Ardee and the female Practical are as complex as other supporting characters. It might be asked why is there only 1 major female character?
One response, if I may be so bold, might be that the patriarchal setting doesn't allow for women to act in powerful ways, such that drives a heroic story.
If I read Etrangere correctly, she would respond by asking about the motives in creating a patriarchal setting. This is a legitimate point, and one that should not be brushed off.
And on a slightly different tack, I would like to thank Joe for privileging storytelling over world building. Too many fantasy authors seem to think that a map, a cosmology and a bunch of made-up words that substitute for perfectly good existing words make a fantasy novel.
Also, thanks for not giving characters extended interior monologues in which they debate the relative merits of one course of action over another. When did this convention take over the genre?
My criticism isn't so much with the number of women, or with the patriarchal society. Those factors were additive. It was the "whore knows only whoring" aspect to the two female characters with the largest amount of "screen time." It really reduces the women down to their genitals in a way that the male characters don't experience things (30 seconds of Ladisla excepted). Not that things need to be balanced, but sometimes you just notice when they aren't.
That whore character type just sticks out at me. I can never read such without cringing. "There it is again." Maybe that makes me a male apologist. I dunno. I'm just reading along, not really noticing that it's a really patriarchal society, not really noticing that it's mostly male characters, fully into suspension of disbelief, enjoying the ride, and BAM! Hey there's a former whore! And she's screwing someone! And BAM! There's another one! Doing the exact same thing!
I read an e-book by a female author last fall that had the same character type in it (though nowhere near as well written as yours), so it's not just male authors.
I did like the sex scenes though. That's classic satire! The beautiful fairy women from Tolkien needed a scene like that.
I kind of feel bad now. That's the second time I've provoked you to defend yourself in your blog. I feel bad because it's an interesting and fun series, and I seem to be criticizing it far more harshly than I really want to do. I tend to do that. But you can't really expect a whole lot of quality reviewing from an amateur reviewer. That's my excuse anyway.
That whore character type just sticks out at me. I can never read such without cringing. "There it is again." Maybe that makes me a male apologist. I dunno. I'm just reading along, not really noticing that it's a really patriarchal society, not really noticing that it's mostly male characters, fully into suspension of disbelief, enjoying the ride, and BAM! Hey there's a former whore! And she's screwing someone! And BAM! There's another one! Doing the exact same thing!
I read an e-book by a female author last fall that had the same character type in it (though nowhere near as well written as yours), so it's not just male authors.
I did like the sex scenes though. That's classic satire! The beautiful fairy women from Tolkien needed a scene like that.
I kind of feel bad now. That's the second time I've provoked you to defend yourself in your blog. I feel bad because it's an interesting and fun series, and I seem to be criticizing it far more harshly than I really want to do. I tend to do that. But you can't really expect a whole lot of quality reviewing from an amateur reviewer. That's my excuse anyway.
etranger said: I already see comments along the way "lolz, silly feminist" to your entry, and that pisses me off. I don't think you should encourage that.
I am assuming this is at least partially a reference to my previous post. It was in no way supposed to be a "lolz, silly feminist" entry. It was more a general comment about people throwing around labels inappropriately.
The point is the one etranger makes in the same post, ie: "I don't think of the two Firt Law books I've read so far as horribly misogynistic books, but neither are they shining examples of anti-sexist, you know."
I think clambeard, etranger etc make some very good points and ones that are worth further exploration on the subject generally. But I don't think that you can call Joe a misogynist because he doesn't go to any great lengths to be "anti-sexist".
Sure, he may not be smashing sexual stereotypes, but he's hardly a misogynist.
A comment about the lack of variety in the female characters or the perpetuation of stereotypes may have been appropriate (depending on your views), but calling Joe a misogynist is just sensationalist.
I am assuming this is at least partially a reference to my previous post. It was in no way supposed to be a "lolz, silly feminist" entry. It was more a general comment about people throwing around labels inappropriately.
The point is the one etranger makes in the same post, ie: "I don't think of the two Firt Law books I've read so far as horribly misogynistic books, but neither are they shining examples of anti-sexist, you know."
I think clambeard, etranger etc make some very good points and ones that are worth further exploration on the subject generally. But I don't think that you can call Joe a misogynist because he doesn't go to any great lengths to be "anti-sexist".
Sure, he may not be smashing sexual stereotypes, but he's hardly a misogynist.
A comment about the lack of variety in the female characters or the perpetuation of stereotypes may have been appropriate (depending on your views), but calling Joe a misogynist is just sensationalist.
this comment posted by : 7:37 AM, March 12, 2008
: 7:37 AM, March 12, 2008
Well, as we're on the subject, I'd like to complain about the flagrant racism in BTAH. As it happens, I'm half Gurkish. I'm only half-way through the book at the moment, but I found the heaps of Gurkish dead around Dagoska to be offensive and the anti-Gurkish sentiment that is prevalent amongst almost all the characters to be distasteful in the extreme. I sincerely hope the end of the book changes tack or, rest assured, the Emperor will be hearing about this, Abercrombie (if that is your real name).
On the case of mysogyny(sp?), I have not found the First Law series to be any more or less sexist than any other genre piece I can recall reading. Therefore, unless Rattus Rex levels this complaint at all other fantasy books he reviews, I think this is a little strong.
On the case of mysogyny(sp?), I have not found the First Law series to be any more or less sexist than any other genre piece I can recall reading. Therefore, unless Rattus Rex levels this complaint at all other fantasy books he reviews, I think this is a little strong.
this comment posted by : 9:45 AM, March 12, 2008
: 9:45 AM, March 12, 2008
The thing I interpretated as "lols silly feminists" was elena's comment : "Mr Rat sounds like he's been brainwashed by the feminist lit department at his university, who read oppression into every interaction between men and women."
I'd say "brainwashed by the feminist lit department" is definitly dismissive of feminists, beyond the point where the argument is that the word is used to much.
(and I'm in full nicknames confusion as to whether that's you or not)
I'm curious to know which word you want people to find to describe problems about gender bias and discrimination against women if you think that sexism and misogynism aren't the words to use. What kind of PC word would be better?
But I don't think that you can call Joe a misogynist because he doesn't go to any great lengths to be "anti-sexist".
Would you call the white people who did nothing to fight slavery in pre Civil War US, no racist because it's only that they didn't go to any great length to be anti-racist (even though they profiteed from being able to own slaves)?
That's a loaded comparison, and a very much more extreme situation. I'm only using it to point out that if the whole system is biaised (and while our society isn't that bad, it's still definitly biaised against women), then not going to any length to fight against that prejudice does mean going along with the flow of the prejudice and perpetuating it. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Now that drives us a bit far from Abercrombie (I certainly can't judge what he does or doesn't do for feminism only judging from two books and a blog, ya know), but neither do I think it's right to say that you can't use words like "sexism" and "misogynism" only because someone doesn't go to any great length against it.
I'd say "brainwashed by the feminist lit department" is definitly dismissive of feminists, beyond the point where the argument is that the word is used to much.
(and I'm in full nicknames confusion as to whether that's you or not)
I'm curious to know which word you want people to find to describe problems about gender bias and discrimination against women if you think that sexism and misogynism aren't the words to use. What kind of PC word would be better?
But I don't think that you can call Joe a misogynist because he doesn't go to any great lengths to be "anti-sexist".
Would you call the white people who did nothing to fight slavery in pre Civil War US, no racist because it's only that they didn't go to any great length to be anti-racist (even though they profiteed from being able to own slaves)?
That's a loaded comparison, and a very much more extreme situation. I'm only using it to point out that if the whole system is biaised (and while our society isn't that bad, it's still definitly biaised against women), then not going to any length to fight against that prejudice does mean going along with the flow of the prejudice and perpetuating it. If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Now that drives us a bit far from Abercrombie (I certainly can't judge what he does or doesn't do for feminism only judging from two books and a blog, ya know), but neither do I think it's right to say that you can't use words like "sexism" and "misogynism" only because someone doesn't go to any great length against it.
No, no, no! To your being a misogynist because of your female characters. Sheesh.
I'm not going to enter the debate about the definition and manifestation of sexism or misogyny but one thing wanted out:
reading said: My criticism isn't so much with the number of women, or with the patriarchal society. Those factors were additive. It was the "whore knows only whoring" aspect to the two female characters with the largest amount of "screen time." It really reduces the women down to their genitals
That's what sticks out about Ferro, in your mind? She's "reduced to her genitals" because she has sex? You don't see how much ASS she kicks? That's a shame, that you reacted that way. I think you're missing out.
I'm not going to enter the debate about the definition and manifestation of sexism or misogyny but one thing wanted out:
reading said: My criticism isn't so much with the number of women, or with the patriarchal society. Those factors were additive. It was the "whore knows only whoring" aspect to the two female characters with the largest amount of "screen time." It really reduces the women down to their genitals
That's what sticks out about Ferro, in your mind? She's "reduced to her genitals" because she has sex? You don't see how much ASS she kicks? That's a shame, that you reacted that way. I think you're missing out.
I am definitely not the same person as Cutsnake, and I am not surprised you found my comment dismissive of feminists. In my experience and observation, which is limited and of course focused on myself, the whole movement of empowering women has today become empowering women at the expense of men. Which violates entirely my principles of succeeding on merit. This is not to say I don't value the efforts of earlier feminist movements. I appreciate a great deal the ability to vote, to fight for my country if I choose, to hold a job, to not get married and leech off some man for the rest of my life, etc. Never once in my life have I felt belittled or taken less than seriously because of my gender. But I do find women's lit studies that talk about the Wife of Bath as the first feminist (anachronistic and imposing modern values onto a medieaval society, to quote an argument used against Lynch's writing) to be riduculous. And I find man-hating feminists (which a lot of them are) to be PC nazis more concerned about putting men down than actually advancing the cause of women, which is why I and a lot of other people now don't take them seriously. They have marginalized themselves.
This is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with whether Abercrombie is or not a misogynist, or whether he gives a flying fuck about my opinion.
And as a general observation, misogynist is a much more loaded term than sexist. Extreme form vs. the weak version often overlooked because an entire culture buys into it. Just saying.
This is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with whether Abercrombie is or not a misogynist, or whether he gives a flying fuck about my opinion.
And as a general observation, misogynist is a much more loaded term than sexist. Extreme form vs. the weak version often overlooked because an entire culture buys into it. Just saying.
Thanks all for your well-thought out comments on this. Quite a response already, so sorry that I don't necessarily have the time to respond to everyone individually.
I'm certainly not brushing aside an accusation of sexism. In fact I think it's been demonstrated, pretty clearly, that there's a case to answer, perhaps not in respect to all the female characters, but certainly to some of them. If I seem defensive, then it's because there are definitely some patterns there which I'd never noticed, and certainly never intended to include, which, as someone who's always thought of himself as left wing and progressive, I find quite uncomfortable reading.
The first reaction is something like putting one's hand in the box of muesli one happily eats from every day and finding the bottom of it is crawling with maggots. Oh my god, how the fuck did THAT get in there?
I'm certainly forced to concede that the books are far from shining examples of anti-sexism. Maybe that's because I imitated some of the gender roles from classic fantasy and failed to do enough with them. Maybe it's because I went for a patriarchal world. More likely it's that there are a few sexist corners of my psyche I'm smugly unaware of, and would rather not admit to owning. Probably we all have such corners, but in writing they find an unconscious expression that we'd never allow in everyday life. Certainly something to think about, going forward.
As a writer, I do think words are important though, and one has to weigh very carefully the words one uses in this context. There are different degrees of gender bias, just as there are different degrees of violent crime. None of them are good things, all must be addressed and discouraged, but some are decidedly worse than others, and the term has to fit the offence or it becomes meaningless. In terms of the words, prejudice < sexism < mysogyny lie on a scale in maybe the same way that ill-advised < wrong < evil do. If you scream "Fire!" every time someone lights a candle you only scare everyone, make yourself look ridiculous, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the next such warning you give. Incidentally, I'm not saying that King Rat did any such thing in his review, he just tried to honestly express his reaction to the book, which he has a perfect right to do, of course. But I think I also have a right to dispute the language he's used in doing so, and explore the degree to which such a criticism is a fair one.
I think so far the comments have been as adult and relevant as one can hope for on the internet, no-one's anywhere near "lolz silly feminists," and I certainly don't want to encourage anything of the kind. Of course people have strongly held opinions here, so let's keep it clean and respectful going forward, shall we, folks, and be careful about the words we use...
I'm certainly not brushing aside an accusation of sexism. In fact I think it's been demonstrated, pretty clearly, that there's a case to answer, perhaps not in respect to all the female characters, but certainly to some of them. If I seem defensive, then it's because there are definitely some patterns there which I'd never noticed, and certainly never intended to include, which, as someone who's always thought of himself as left wing and progressive, I find quite uncomfortable reading.
The first reaction is something like putting one's hand in the box of muesli one happily eats from every day and finding the bottom of it is crawling with maggots. Oh my god, how the fuck did THAT get in there?
I'm certainly forced to concede that the books are far from shining examples of anti-sexism. Maybe that's because I imitated some of the gender roles from classic fantasy and failed to do enough with them. Maybe it's because I went for a patriarchal world. More likely it's that there are a few sexist corners of my psyche I'm smugly unaware of, and would rather not admit to owning. Probably we all have such corners, but in writing they find an unconscious expression that we'd never allow in everyday life. Certainly something to think about, going forward.
As a writer, I do think words are important though, and one has to weigh very carefully the words one uses in this context. There are different degrees of gender bias, just as there are different degrees of violent crime. None of them are good things, all must be addressed and discouraged, but some are decidedly worse than others, and the term has to fit the offence or it becomes meaningless. In terms of the words, prejudice < sexism < mysogyny lie on a scale in maybe the same way that ill-advised < wrong < evil do. If you scream "Fire!" every time someone lights a candle you only scare everyone, make yourself look ridiculous, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the next such warning you give. Incidentally, I'm not saying that King Rat did any such thing in his review, he just tried to honestly express his reaction to the book, which he has a perfect right to do, of course. But I think I also have a right to dispute the language he's used in doing so, and explore the degree to which such a criticism is a fair one.
I think so far the comments have been as adult and relevant as one can hope for on the internet, no-one's anywhere near "lolz silly feminists," and I certainly don't want to encourage anything of the kind. Of course people have strongly held opinions here, so let's keep it clean and respectful going forward, shall we, folks, and be careful about the words we use...
I'd like to take you up on another important prejudice: you have a barbarian character who is a large, luggish lout and who kills huge swathes of people in a blind blood-frenzied fury. What is it with this stereotypical portrail of barbarians as the aggressor? I mean, I understand that the fantasy genre sets the precedent that barbarians are brutal killing machines, but sticking to this is just laziness. Had you even bothered to consider the barbarian as a rampaging flower arranger? Or perhaps a furious, raging chess genius. Sticking to the 'barbarian as ruthless fighter' convention is disappointing, and an insult to barbarians everwhere; just because that particular character in your book happens to warrant being a ruthless dealer of death, because that's the story you want to tell, is no excuse for such barbarian based bigotry!
this comment posted by : 4:14 PM, March 12, 2008
: 4:14 PM, March 12, 2008
I would imagine that it is very difficult to write a book containing men and women and not have the sex issue crop up. And however you write the characters in your world there is going to be sexual abuse somewhere along the way. Ferro's character works because she controls the sex, her feral nature had to be formed somehow, and to get such hatred and mistrust you need that sort of abuse. Cathil didn't serve a huge purpose really except to provide some humour with the sex and to show Dogman's compassion.
Ardee I liked because she was in society in one way, so helpless, but excluded because she wasn't well bred so fated to not fit in whatever she did. And she wins because she likes Glokta for who he is inside.
I'm a simple soul and for me your books aren't there to analyse and think deeply about (no offence meant by that) they are fun books to escape into and to entertain me.
I didn't read the books and think damn he's sexist. You have some powerful women, ok there could be more but I'm not that interested in whether or not you sterotype the female or male characters. I'm interested in the story being told and whether or not it grabs my attention. If all the women were weak feeble stay at home while the men go off and fight I'd think it was crap but they aren't so I don't.
Ardee I liked because she was in society in one way, so helpless, but excluded because she wasn't well bred so fated to not fit in whatever she did. And she wins because she likes Glokta for who he is inside.
I'm a simple soul and for me your books aren't there to analyse and think deeply about (no offence meant by that) they are fun books to escape into and to entertain me.
I didn't read the books and think damn he's sexist. You have some powerful women, ok there could be more but I'm not that interested in whether or not you sterotype the female or male characters. I'm interested in the story being told and whether or not it grabs my attention. If all the women were weak feeble stay at home while the men go off and fight I'd think it was crap but they aren't so I don't.
this comment posted by : 8:55 PM, March 12, 2008
: 8:55 PM, March 12, 2008
...seems this simple soul can't spell her own name either! D'oh ;)
this comment posted by : 8:57 PM, March 12, 2008
: 8:57 PM, March 12, 2008
I think you nailed the "rooted in historical reality" bit. A real strength of The First Law books for me is the realism of the setting, if that's not a contradiction in terms for fantasy. The familiarity of many elements, from either Proper History or classic epic fantasy (or both), make the subtle twists all the more effective (maybe something to do with Freud's concept of Unheimliche, The Uncanny. Or maybe not, I'm just making it up as I go along here.) Just because it's possible to come up with a radically different society doesn't mean it's "laziness or a lack of imagination" not to. So the setting might be inherently patriarchal and sexist, but then Glokta's a sympathetic character and I don't take that as a pro-torture stance. Even taking the setting into account, though, "misogynistic" is way over the top, really bad choice of word.
Why should a work of fiction have to reflect some perfect utopian state? To be honest, if you worked that hard to be politically correct in your novels they would probably be boring as hell.
Also, if you analyse anything enough, you can pretty much make it mean whatever you want to think it means - trust me - I've done it.
Don't take that review to heart, Joe. Even if your novels were a bit sexist in terms of characters (they're not), it doesn't matter. Why should it matter? I just had fun reading the books and if a fictional character is being unfairly oppressed then I don't lose an awful lot of sleep over it.
Also, if you analyse anything enough, you can pretty much make it mean whatever you want to think it means - trust me - I've done it.
Don't take that review to heart, Joe. Even if your novels were a bit sexist in terms of characters (they're not), it doesn't matter. Why should it matter? I just had fun reading the books and if a fictional character is being unfairly oppressed then I don't lose an awful lot of sleep over it.
this comment posted by : 9:20 PM, March 12, 2008
: 9:20 PM, March 12, 2008
Also, there was much more to Cathil than being a 'semen receptacle', in my opinion. If the reader saw her as only that, then maybe that has more to do with the mindset of the reader than the writer.
this comment posted by : 9:26 PM, March 12, 2008
: 9:26 PM, March 12, 2008
Ah, Pandora's box...thank you, Joe, for getting us back onto more civilized ground. Or in the case of all this barbarian discrimination, uncivilized. :)
I think one of the hardest things for any writer to do while maintaining realism or relevance, is to write characters (male or female) who rise above the sum of what they are taught to be by their experience and by their society. If they don't rise far enough they are stereotypes, but if they rise too far it becomes unrealistic. I guess the scale of how far is far enough/too far is different for everyone, like Aristotle's perfect mean of all the vices/virtues. As has been said, you may never satisfy everyone. So just go with disrepdog's style and settle for entertaining us.
For at least some (most?? but I dare not make that assertion) of us, nothing glared out as being overly anything. Steretyped, sexist, racist, etc. Perhaps it's there, but...I don't go out of my way to find it. And I think most people who read for fun don't either. If you're worried about it, soul-search. We're just your fan club. :)
I think one of the hardest things for any writer to do while maintaining realism or relevance, is to write characters (male or female) who rise above the sum of what they are taught to be by their experience and by their society. If they don't rise far enough they are stereotypes, but if they rise too far it becomes unrealistic. I guess the scale of how far is far enough/too far is different for everyone, like Aristotle's perfect mean of all the vices/virtues. As has been said, you may never satisfy everyone. So just go with disrepdog's style and settle for entertaining us.
For at least some (most?? but I dare not make that assertion) of us, nothing glared out as being overly anything. Steretyped, sexist, racist, etc. Perhaps it's there, but...I don't go out of my way to find it. And I think most people who read for fun don't either. If you're worried about it, soul-search. We're just your fan club. :)
etrangere:
Would you call the white people who did nothing to fight slavery in pre Civil War US, no racist because it's only that they didn't go to any great length to be anti-racist (even though they profiteed from being able to own slaves)?
That's a loaded comparison, and a very much more extreme situation.
Point taken. What I was trying to get across (albeit inelegantly) was that in this case the use of the term misogynist was inappropriate. Obviously, there are degrees to all these things and a large grey area between the black and white. Each situation needs to be examined on its merits. I think the whole "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem" is a bit of an oversimplification.
Another point that someone else has made, with which I agree, is that if you bandy around terms like misogynist or rascist or nazi or whatever when they are unwarrated then they tend to lose their impact and people stop taking notice.
PS I'm am not Elena and my assumption that you were referring to my post was incorrect. I was obviously feeling a bit defensive about my post.
Would you call the white people who did nothing to fight slavery in pre Civil War US, no racist because it's only that they didn't go to any great length to be anti-racist (even though they profiteed from being able to own slaves)?
That's a loaded comparison, and a very much more extreme situation.
Point taken. What I was trying to get across (albeit inelegantly) was that in this case the use of the term misogynist was inappropriate. Obviously, there are degrees to all these things and a large grey area between the black and white. Each situation needs to be examined on its merits. I think the whole "If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem" is a bit of an oversimplification.
Another point that someone else has made, with which I agree, is that if you bandy around terms like misogynist or rascist or nazi or whatever when they are unwarrated then they tend to lose their impact and people stop taking notice.
PS I'm am not Elena and my assumption that you were referring to my post was incorrect. I was obviously feeling a bit defensive about my post.
this comment posted by : 11:11 PM, March 12, 2008
: 11:11 PM, March 12, 2008
Elena,
Thanks for the clarification. I deeply disagree with you on feminism, but this is not the place to talk about it so let's leave it at that. I agree with you (and Joe, and cutsnake) that "misogynist" is a much stronger word than "sexist" and shouldn't be used in quite the same way.
Joe,
Thanks for the clarification of your response as well. I feel much more comfortable with how you've said it now.
If you scream "Fire!" every time someone lights a candle you only scare everyone, make yourself look ridiculous, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the next such warning you give.
That's a good point, which is true for a lot of prejudices, and I'm not quite sure what's the best way to deal with it and with its interaction with issues of priviledges. Maybe we should have less of a gut reaction to those kinds of words in the first place? It's a complicated issue.
I think so far the comments have been as adult and relevant as one can hope for on the internet, no-one's anywhere near "lolz silly feminists," and I certainly don't want to encourage anything of the kind.
Yes, I overreacted to elena's comments and I appologize for that.
PS I'm am not Elena and my assumption that you were referring to my post was incorrect.
Yeah, I had lost track of your first comment so I was confused by your reaction afterwhile :) Agreed with the two points you make that Joe and Elena also made.
Thanks for the clarification. I deeply disagree with you on feminism, but this is not the place to talk about it so let's leave it at that. I agree with you (and Joe, and cutsnake) that "misogynist" is a much stronger word than "sexist" and shouldn't be used in quite the same way.
Joe,
Thanks for the clarification of your response as well. I feel much more comfortable with how you've said it now.
If you scream "Fire!" every time someone lights a candle you only scare everyone, make yourself look ridiculous, and greatly reduce the effectiveness of the next such warning you give.
That's a good point, which is true for a lot of prejudices, and I'm not quite sure what's the best way to deal with it and with its interaction with issues of priviledges. Maybe we should have less of a gut reaction to those kinds of words in the first place? It's a complicated issue.
I think so far the comments have been as adult and relevant as one can hope for on the internet, no-one's anywhere near "lolz silly feminists," and I certainly don't want to encourage anything of the kind.
Yes, I overreacted to elena's comments and I appologize for that.
PS I'm am not Elena and my assumption that you were referring to my post was incorrect.
Yeah, I had lost track of your first comment so I was confused by your reaction afterwhile :) Agreed with the two points you make that Joe and Elena also made.
Estrangere, you couldn't have said it better: this is not the place! I hope I did not offend you (or anyone else!), that was not my intent. It is a subject we all have "strong feelings on" to quote I think Joe, and thus easy to come off too harshly on one side or the other. Perhaps I am too quick to ignore the proverbial cry of fire these days. Thanks for putting in your perspective, too. It is probably for the best my opinion is not the majority...:)
I'm amazed and impressed to see that it is still possible for people to discuss such things on the interweb in a civilsed and dignified manner.
*sigh*
Yes, except you, Jebus.
*sigh*
Yes, except you, Jebus.
I have been known, from time to time, to raise the feminist flag if I felt it was needed. But nothing I've read by Joe so far pings anything on my misogyny radar.
That said, I don't mind King Rat staying sensitive to the subject. I'm old enough to have worked in the 'old-school' working environment where the boss calls you babe and wants to talk to you about his sex-life and whether or not we should do that after work over drinks. *sigh*
So while we do live in an environment in which you can't even point out Barak Obama is black without someone gasping and covering their mouth while pointing a shaking finger at you and calling you racist. At least people are paying attention to whether or not there are race or gender biases out there. It's better than the alternative. IMHO.
That said, I don't mind King Rat staying sensitive to the subject. I'm old enough to have worked in the 'old-school' working environment where the boss calls you babe and wants to talk to you about his sex-life and whether or not we should do that after work over drinks. *sigh*
So while we do live in an environment in which you can't even point out Barak Obama is black without someone gasping and covering their mouth while pointing a shaking finger at you and calling you racist. At least people are paying attention to whether or not there are race or gender biases out there. It's better than the alternative. IMHO.
Always happy to oblige in the puerile stakes.
I find this discussion, like many that I have read over the past year on various boards and blogs, just sort of bizarre really. It's a book series and you wrote it how you wanted to write it - does it actually matter that many female characters are not lifted onto a lofty pedestal to be loved and admired by all?
This series, and many of its ilk, are written in pseudo-medieval settings, and as part of that sometimes women aren't treated so well. What is it with people nitpicking novels and comparing them to modern sensibilities these days anyway?
Read the damn thing - if you're entertained brilliant, if not then bugger off!
I find this discussion, like many that I have read over the past year on various boards and blogs, just sort of bizarre really. It's a book series and you wrote it how you wanted to write it - does it actually matter that many female characters are not lifted onto a lofty pedestal to be loved and admired by all?
This series, and many of its ilk, are written in pseudo-medieval settings, and as part of that sometimes women aren't treated so well. What is it with people nitpicking novels and comparing them to modern sensibilities these days anyway?
Read the damn thing - if you're entertained brilliant, if not then bugger off!
I've enjoyed Mr. Abercrombie's series for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is a hard but logical view of how characters, both male and female, in a medieval (i.e. muscled powered) world might operate. It doesn't mean that woman are incapable of being strong characters who wield significant power and are capable of achieving personal and/or political goals, its that they'd clearly be at a disadvantage in a "man's" world. I would have been disappointed if women as a class (as opposed to occassional exceptional individuals) had been depicted as wearing platemail and crashing into the enemy's line and/or leading cavalry charges. After all, even in our "PC" modern world, sport competitions largely separate the sexes for good reason, in addition to the various militaries providing different physical tests for each sex. Despite this, Mr. Abercrombie does depict strong women, whether explicitly physical (Ferro) or emotional, even laboring under the disadvantages their gender might impose on them in a muscle powered world, and he can hardly be labeled misongystic for doing so.
Maybe he could have avoided the accusation by inserting a pseudo- Eleanor of Aquitaine (who wielded considerable power, both personally and through manipulation of her husbands and sons, especially Richard I) or Elizbeth I (who exploited the potential that she might marry as a political tool). Of course, it would have been a different series then, so who knows how it would've worked out. All I know is that his final product has been across the board excellent.
Maybe he could have avoided the accusation by inserting a pseudo- Eleanor of Aquitaine (who wielded considerable power, both personally and through manipulation of her husbands and sons, especially Richard I) or Elizbeth I (who exploited the potential that she might marry as a political tool). Of course, it would have been a different series then, so who knows how it would've worked out. All I know is that his final product has been across the board excellent.
this comment posted by : 1:35 AM, March 20, 2008
: 1:35 AM, March 20, 2008
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
this comment posted by : 12:41 PM, March 20, 2008
: 12:41 PM, March 20, 2008
SQT,
I don't mind him being sensitive, and I totally agree it's better than the alternative. To be fair I think he's got a point, up to a point, I just think if there's a failing here its a lot closer to bad writing than misogyny. Bad writing I'll happily hold my hands up to.
Jebus,
I think it's important to look at both sides of it, which is what I'm trying (probably ham-fistedly) to do. Probably I've come down far too heavily on the side of self-justification, but then it's a charge I take pretty seriously. And I'd rather your last line read, "read the damn thing, if you're entertained, brilliant, if not then continue to buy Joe's books anyway."
1st Anon,
My aim with the female characters, as with all the others, was to try and make people, regardless of their history and position in society, who are interesting, deep and surprising. I'm glad that it worked with you, anyway.
2nd Anon,
That one crossed the line and I've had to delete it. Clean and respectful, please, and especially if you're anonymous. Opinions, yes, abuse, no.
I don't mind him being sensitive, and I totally agree it's better than the alternative. To be fair I think he's got a point, up to a point, I just think if there's a failing here its a lot closer to bad writing than misogyny. Bad writing I'll happily hold my hands up to.
Jebus,
I think it's important to look at both sides of it, which is what I'm trying (probably ham-fistedly) to do. Probably I've come down far too heavily on the side of self-justification, but then it's a charge I take pretty seriously. And I'd rather your last line read, "read the damn thing, if you're entertained, brilliant, if not then continue to buy Joe's books anyway."
1st Anon,
My aim with the female characters, as with all the others, was to try and make people, regardless of their history and position in society, who are interesting, deep and surprising. I'm glad that it worked with you, anyway.
2nd Anon,
That one crossed the line and I've had to delete it. Clean and respectful, please, and especially if you're anonymous. Opinions, yes, abuse, no.
I was deeply surprised and a bit confused about the critism of Joe Abercrombies female characters. Of all the fantasy-authors out there, why pick HIM?! I feel there is more correct to just call the whole fantasy-genre mysogonistic, than to put the label on one of the few writers in this genre that really know how to make deep and interesting characters, both male and female.
Ok, there are more male than female characters in this series. And the male charaters are more deeply portraited than the female.
But, what to you expect when the writer is male? Shall we expect of him to know as much about the female world as the male? I have seen enough of examples of male fantasywriters trying to be politcal correct. They usually fail miserably, and make female characters that talk, think and act like men. I really don`t enjoy to read about men with breasts and female names. I`d rather prefer they don`t have any females in the book at all if they don`t know how to portrait them.
One example to illustrate my feelings: I newer felt offended that Tolkien didn`t have any female main characters, and just a very few female side characters. The story was good, so I never thought about it.
On the other side: Reading the books of Robert Jordan did really hurt. I gave up after book four. All his female characters shared the same personality. I often forgot which of them I was reading about if I hadn`t seen the name for a while, because they where too much alike. I`d much prefered if he had just sticked to have just one female character, or even better, none at all.
I am a female, and I see myself as a feminist. But I don`t agree with those who thinks that everything we do have to be actively "anti-sexistic". I read literature for the reason of entertainment. I like it when the author uses his talents to its maximum. I don`t want a good story to be ruined by a badly placed "political correctness".
When it comes to "The first Law" I think the books could have been "sexist" if the female characters had been happy with their place in that patriarchal world. Bur they aren`t. Neither are most of the men if you look at it.
Ok, there are more male than female characters in this series. And the male charaters are more deeply portraited than the female.
But, what to you expect when the writer is male? Shall we expect of him to know as much about the female world as the male? I have seen enough of examples of male fantasywriters trying to be politcal correct. They usually fail miserably, and make female characters that talk, think and act like men. I really don`t enjoy to read about men with breasts and female names. I`d rather prefer they don`t have any females in the book at all if they don`t know how to portrait them.
One example to illustrate my feelings: I newer felt offended that Tolkien didn`t have any female main characters, and just a very few female side characters. The story was good, so I never thought about it.
On the other side: Reading the books of Robert Jordan did really hurt. I gave up after book four. All his female characters shared the same personality. I often forgot which of them I was reading about if I hadn`t seen the name for a while, because they where too much alike. I`d much prefered if he had just sticked to have just one female character, or even better, none at all.
I am a female, and I see myself as a feminist. But I don`t agree with those who thinks that everything we do have to be actively "anti-sexistic". I read literature for the reason of entertainment. I like it when the author uses his talents to its maximum. I don`t want a good story to be ruined by a badly placed "political correctness".
When it comes to "The first Law" I think the books could have been "sexist" if the female characters had been happy with their place in that patriarchal world. Bur they aren`t. Neither are most of the men if you look at it.
this comment posted by : 3:07 PM, March 20, 2008
: 3:07 PM, March 20, 2008
First, my deepest apologies to you, Joe. Yep, I was the rude Anon2 whose post you deleted rightfully.
I was quite angry when I saw the post on Pat's Hotlist and, to be completely honest, I haven't read King Rat's original post and your post I've only skipped through. Mea culpa!
However, such branding as King Rat deployed in your case is just unbearable. Congratulations at maintaining decency. I wouldn't be able to do so. It looks to me that some people are very quick with pinning etiquettes like "fascist", "sexist", "homophobic", etc., to anyone and anywhere. Instead of proving you guilty, he just pinned a misogynist label on you and forced you to defend yourself.
The same thing happened few months ago when Jonathan McAlmont pinned the "authoritarian" label on GRRM. In King Rat's case he even admitted that he used the label for lack of better (softer) words. Can you see the point here?
Sorry once again for being "unclean" and "disrespectful".
I was quite angry when I saw the post on Pat's Hotlist and, to be completely honest, I haven't read King Rat's original post and your post I've only skipped through. Mea culpa!
However, such branding as King Rat deployed in your case is just unbearable. Congratulations at maintaining decency. I wouldn't be able to do so. It looks to me that some people are very quick with pinning etiquettes like "fascist", "sexist", "homophobic", etc., to anyone and anywhere. Instead of proving you guilty, he just pinned a misogynist label on you and forced you to defend yourself.
The same thing happened few months ago when Jonathan McAlmont pinned the "authoritarian" label on GRRM. In King Rat's case he even admitted that he used the label for lack of better (softer) words. Can you see the point here?
Sorry once again for being "unclean" and "disrespectful".
this comment posted by : 8:25 PM, March 21, 2008
: 8:25 PM, March 21, 2008
"I am a female, and I see myself as a feminist. I read literature for the reason of entertainment. I like it when the author uses his talents to its maximum."
Do you like RAPINGS??????
Do you like RAPINGS??????
this comment posted by : 10:32 PM, March 23, 2008
: 10:32 PM, March 23, 2008
3rd Anonymous,
Without some qualification I'm not completely sure what this post is supposed to mean...
Without some qualification I'm not completely sure what this post is supposed to mean...
For the record, if anyone wants to call me names or be disrespectful or drop into an ad hominem attack, I am perfectly fine with it over at my site. I'm fine with it in comments here or anywhere else too.
Without some qualification I'm not completely sure what this post is supposed to mean...
--->>>
I read literature for the reason of entertainment.
reading about sex slaves is entertaining?
--->>>
I read literature for the reason of entertainment.
reading about sex slaves is entertaining?
this comment posted by : 3:34 PM, March 25, 2008
: 3:34 PM, March 25, 2008
Hm, I really should have made me an bloggerid, it`s getting confusing with all this "Anonymous" posts :P
To avoid more confusion, I`m the "female feminist"-poster.
And to that other anonymous:
Reading about rapings, torture, murder and sex slaves is something I do every day; in the newspapers...
For some reason I prefer to read about such things when I know they are fiction and did never really happen to real people.
As fiction it is entertainment. In newspapers it is just sad and terribel.
To avoid more confusion, I`m the "female feminist"-poster.
And to that other anonymous:
Reading about rapings, torture, murder and sex slaves is something I do every day; in the newspapers...
For some reason I prefer to read about such things when I know they are fiction and did never really happen to real people.
As fiction it is entertainment. In newspapers it is just sad and terribel.
this comment posted by : 7:12 PM, April 01, 2008
: 7:12 PM, April 01, 2008
I see that there is a struggle within fantasy literature to deal with female characterization. On the one hand, the most convincing fantasy mirrors history somewhat, in which women were oppressed, but on the other hand, no one wants to imply that women *should* be oppressed or victimized in this way. The only fantasy I've read that seems to take a satisfying middle-of-the-road approach to this is Sherwood Smith's Inda trilogy (http://www.sherwoodsmith.net/inda.html). In her work, Smith writes women as believably female-like -- they are not physically stronger than men nor are they victimized by men. The reason she can get away with this is, in her world, female mages long ago made it so that women are naturally infertile. In order to become pregnant, a woman has to drink a particular kind of tea. It is obviously therefore easier to impregnate a woman if she is willing. This takes out most of the advantage of dominating women. Other factors, such as open sexuality, make it less likely for rape to occur. In the society Smith portrays in the books I mentioned above, the land is a frontier land, so that the aid of both men and women working in harmony is required for survival. I must again stress that men and women are not the same - there is gender segregation in all things. But neither women, nor men for that matter, are specifically oppressed.
To answer your specific question, I don't feel like the women in your First Law trilogy suggest that you are a mysogynist. They simply seem realistic to me. On the other hand, as a female reader, it does get tiresome to constantly read about women getting raped and being victims. It would be nice to read a believable, honest story of a strong woman, from time to time, just to remember that they do exist.
Post a Comment
To answer your specific question, I don't feel like the women in your First Law trilogy suggest that you are a mysogynist. They simply seem realistic to me. On the other hand, as a female reader, it does get tiresome to constantly read about women getting raped and being victims. It would be nice to read a believable, honest story of a strong woman, from time to time, just to remember that they do exist.
<< Home