Kevin's Watch

Book one of the diary of Mary Covernent the unbeliver,
'Lord Fouls Hair'
Mary Covernat a struggling single mother finds out her best friend has been sleeping wih her lover blah blah blah

So she goes to see her ex-husband John Covenant, who it turns out (unbeknownst to her of course) was a vampire.

Hilarity ensues?

SRD or Covenant a girl?

If Covenant were a girl(woman) the whole set of books would have taken a few different turn for sure.

I was about to pitch in with a few soft jokes about kittens loosing the shaving theme etc when I thought - OMG, how much do we men immediately fall into our 'we're tough and serious and women are girly and shallow' moulds at the earliest given opportunity. For that I unreservedly appologise to the 50% of humanity that are women. It isn't clever and it isn't funny.

The serious answer to the question is that the Chronicles could not have been written by a woman - at least not in the form that we have them. The rape of Lena could never have been so lightly tolerated (at least I do not believe so) either by the authoress, or the lands inhabitants had a woman written the novels. Also, I believe, TC would have been a totally different charachter. His intransigence and often inherent stupidity woud have been difficult for a woman to visualise in the same way that SRD manages it without (and this is a big point) making Covenant a truly hatefull charachter. Also I believe that the imagery and essential outlook of the books is essentially masculine - albeit in a way that is difficult to define. These are just a few of my thoughts and I would be interested to hear any others that you guys might have.
ps I don't mind the funny stuff either as long as we realise it is bollocks, and in my case it was in danger of deflecting me from giving thought to what essentially is (or could be) a very interesting topic of debate. Sorry for being such a stuffy bastard - but it's who I am

If Covenant had been a girl, she woulda been a whiney, crying, indecisive, untrusting pain in the ass. And it would have been called:
The Chronicles of Linden Avery, the Ridiculous

peter wrote: The serious answer to the question is that the Chronicles could not have been written by a woman - at least not in the form that we have them. The rape of Lena could never have been so lightly tolerated (at least I do not believe so) either by the authoress, or the lands inhabitants had a woman written the novels. Also, I believe, TC would have been a totally different charachter. His intransigence and often inherent stupidity woud have been difficult for a woman to visualise in the same way that SRD manages it without (and this is a big point) making Covenant a truly hatefull charachter. Also I believe that the imagery and essential outlook of the books is essentially masculine - albeit in a way that is difficult to define. These are just a few of my thoughts and I would be interested to hear any others that you guys might have.

I don't think that's true, entirely.
In a generic way, it is probably less likely that "Sarah R. Donaldson" would write the same story in the same way...but nothing like impossible.
There's quite a long history in all the arts [other areas too...but just staying with the arts] of supposed gender/sex differences in the work. But the topic is complicated: Both men and women sometimes use the expectations for their own purposes [whether with, against, or above them; whether for "author" purposes or "story" purposes, and many others]. And even the best analysts can be fooled pretty easily.
And the role-breakers are often among the best.
What I'm really certain of: the task of getting published, and the critical and reader reactions, at least initially...maybe not thirty years on...would have been much different.
For instance, imagine that SRD was a woman, but she DID write the rape exactly as is. The dynamic seems to change pretty radically when you think about the whole thematic/char. line incited by the event. But is it really because a woman wrote it that it is different? Or is it because the external expectations of how women writers are different influences our interpretation?

peter wrote:For that I unreservedly appologise to the 50% of humanity that are women. It isn't clever and it isn't funny.

Ok, well, I thought maybe I was the only one who felt that way. So thanks for speaking up, peter.

On the one hand, I don't think the Chronicles could have been written by anyone else, man or women. But if SRD was a woman, I think they would have come out very close to the same.

I'm no sexist I like women they smell nice and have holes in all the right places, I even read a book written by a women once, it was a red one.

It's good everyone agrees what's sexist
It's hard to say, I'd think a female writer would have a harder time writing things like SRD, but like Vraith says, that's just a preconception. I mean, I've read some Robin Hobb, and she puts her characters through some gutwrenching, heartbreaking situations.

If SRD was a female, then Harry Potter would have come out 20 years sooner.


Harry Potter meets Lord Foul.
Harry would have to travel to Hogwash to deliver the message.

I read somewhere that Rowling reinforced just about every unpalatable stereotype going in her books; good people are beautiful, bad people are ugly, fat people are stupid and can justifiably have the piss taken out of them, the middle class are mean minded and bigoted, the poor good when they are fawning and serving the needs of the rich - otherwise they are bad and ugly etc..etc.. etc..
Would a female SRD really have written like this?

peter wrote:I read somewhere that Rowling reinforced just about every unpalatable stereotype going in her books; good people are beautiful, bad people are ugly, fat people are stupid and can justifiably have the piss taken out of them, the middle class are mean minded and bigoted, the poor good when they are fawning and serving the needs of the rich - otherwise they are bad and ugly etc..etc.. etc..
Would a female SRD really have written like this?

Re these 'unpalatable stereotypes' I'm just wondering whom in the Chronicles we consider 'beautiful' 'ugly' 'fat' etc..

Drool Rockworm seemed to be an ugly, fat, stupid and corrupt creature.. The Grey Slayer never seemed to be describes as being handsome or good-looking..
Though the beggar / creator didn't seem to attractive an individual either.
I'm not going to comment on the Demondim-Spawn, the Sandgorgons, the Croyel either.. But all other species races in the greater world (including Hauchai, Elohim and Giants) seemed to be described as pleasant-looking, with only one or two individuals (Pitchwife, for example) who seemed unattractive, disfigured or deformed.
I think Lord Hyrim (possibly the wring Lord) was overweight and there were a few jests about that.. However I think he was portrayed as as well as any of the other Lords overall..

However I may well have forgotten a character or two (I am just beginning my re-read) so there may be more who support these stereotypes even in this much respected series..

AS to how the Chronicles would be different if the author was female.. I'm not so sure. I see no reason why a female couldn't write such a deep, moving,, intelligent anti-hero fantasy epic..
Perhaps if that had happened we may have seen a female Haruchai by now.. On that, the only other epic I can think of where an entire gender of one race / species never actually appeared was in Frank Herbert's 'Dune'.. Though they certainly became more important at the end of that series..

ninjaboy wrote:On that, the only other epic I can think of where an entire gender of one race / species never actually appeared was in Frank Herbert's 'Dune'..

What about Tolkien's Dwarves? or Entwives for that matter? Or Orcs?

If Covenant was a girl Linden would have had balls.

ninjaboy wrote:The Grey Slayer never seemed to be describes as being handsome or good-looking..

hmmm...actually, IIRC, when LF is "reduced" to his human-like form, he was described in terms that made him seem quite attractive. I think.

(Pssst....What does IIRC stand for?).

peter wrote:(Pssst....What does IIRC stand for?).

If I recall Correctly

Vraith wrote:

ninjaboy wrote:The Grey Slayer never seemed to be describes as being handsome or good-looking..

hmmm...actually, IIRC, when LF is "reduced" to his human-like form, he was described in terms that made him seem quite attractive. I think.

Foul's human form is very handsome although perhaps somewhat vampirish. (?) He thinks highly of himself, therefore he creates an attractive form.