Women, women! And darnit, my only complaint about Jeremiah

[I'm Murrin]

Yeah, that particular bit of hyperbole is pretty ridiculous. (I would have listed James Tiptree, too, just because, well, it's James Tiptree. Oddly, I've never heard of Marge Piercy.)

Donaldson does okay with female characters in the Gap, and with Linden, but there's questionable stuff too, particularly the First Chrons.

Perhaps Ron meant male fantasy writers, but I think you could do better there, too.

[Shaun das Schaf]

Perhaps Ron meant male fantasy writers, but I think you could do better there, too.

Fair call Murrin. Just an off-the-cuff response I knew would be pounced on

FWIW, I couldn't make it far enough into the Gap, because as far as I got, as far as I was concerned, he wasn't doing okay with his female characters.

I fully accept you can't criticise something you haven't read completely. I also accept many others here love the series and the characters with whom I was having trouble in the beginning, may have developed for the good.
That said, life is too short to read stuff that doesn't do it for you.

I'm just not sure I agree Donaldson makes it to any feminist list, let alone the top of one. This is of course a subjective reading of mine, but a reading nonetheless.

I'd be more detailed but I'm ill and off to bed.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I'm sorry, but it is simply not possible to read TCTC as anything other than an act of feminist penance. We have been subjected to the unrelenting emotional weight of the uncensored internal monologue of a neurotic female protagonist for 6 books now, with the apparent authorial expectation that such an enterprise might be viewed sympathetically. The books themselves seem to posit a reality where the veneration and wisdom of Gaia as embodied by The Land occupies the highest paragon. We have been asked to to accept the complete gender neutrality of the Warward from its inception. The giants -- who represent most closely the emotional and spiritual ideals of The Land -- are a matriarchal race led by female warriors. Within the plot, innumerable examples of gender subversion, indeed inversion abound. Women are portrayed as powerful, heroic, wise, resolute, intrepid, and often more masuline than men. Masculine energies and characters, moreover, are routinely denigrated as destructive, horrible, simplistic, or simply contemptible. Even the haruchai, perhaps the single largest exception to the feminist trend, are ultimately treated as fanatics who, while dutiful, have become warped with their excessively simplistic male minds. I do not believe that a series of fantasy books has ever realized in depth a more a more thoroughgoing feminism than Donaldson has achieved here. If a series of books has completely inverted or eliminated any notion of gender, I submit that it is not fiction worth reading or writing, because it is lying about what it is to be human.

The chief complaints against TCTC seems to be that -- gasp! -- bad things happen to some women, other women need assistance from men on occassion, and still other women are portrayed in a negative light. Well, yes, I'm afraid that Z is absolutely correct that a novel without either antagonism or danger would be a thoroughly boring read. Part of the reason women are occasionally put at hazard is because the reader cares about women put at hazard. When men are put at hazard we react differently: 'well, he'd better find a way out of that jam if he is going to make it.' In fact, what's so feminist about the idea that women cannot be placed at risk? Are they supposed to remain safely on the sidelines, well away from the action? And why is it demeaning to women to suggest that female characters are less than completely unstoppable superbeings that never need support from anyone? Despair, both male and female (though more often male) is a ubiquitous motif of TCTC. Because it is a ubiquitous motif of life. It's not the job of the novelist to cheerlead an exposition of empowering PC slogans and catchphrases. Bad things happen to people, and some people overcome it, while others do not. Of both genders.

Get a grip, people. Stephen R. Donaldson is not your enemy, he's your ally. And he's doing his damnedest to reform the male neanderthals in your midst.

[I'm Murrin]

The argument, Ron, was about you saying he was the most feminist. Which is frankly ridiculous. He has good parts, and problematic parts, and he's improved since his first novels. We're not saying he's misogynist, at all. We're saying there are better feminist writers. It's a scale, not an "if you're not the best, you're terrible".

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

The argument, Ron, was about you saying he was the most feminist. Which is frankly ridiculous. He has good parts, and problematic parts, and he's improved since his first novels. We're not saying he's misogynist, at all. We're saying there are better feminist writers. It's a scale, not an "if you're not the best, you're terrible".

I do not believe that a series of fantasy books has ever realized in depth a more a more thoroughgoing feminism than Donaldson has achieved here.

I've never been the retiring type when it comes to making assertions. Call it ridiculous if you wish. I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder anyway.

[Zarathustra]

I'm sorry, but it is simply not possible to read TCTC as anything other than an act of feminist penance. We have been subjected to the unrelenting emotional weight of the uncensored internal monologue of a neurotic female protagonist for 6 books now, with the apparent authorial expectation that such an enterprise might be viewed sympathetically. The books themselves seem to posit a reality where the veneration and wisdom of Gaia as embodied by The Land occupies the highest paragon. We have been asked to to accept the complete gender neutrality of the Warward from its inception. The giants -- who represent most closely the emotional and spiritual ideals of The Land -- are a matriarchal race led by female warriors. Within the plot, innumerable examples of gender subversion, indeed inversion abound. Women are portrayed as powerful, heroic, wise, resolute, intrepid, and often more masuline than men. Masculine energies and characters, moreover, are routinely denigrated as destructive, horrible, simplistic, or simply contemptible. Even the haruchai, perhaps the single largest exception to the feminist trend, are ultimately treated as fanatics who, while dutiful, have become warped with their excessively simplistic male minds. I do not believe that a series of fantasy books has ever realized in depth a more a more thoroughgoing feminism than Donaldson has achieved here. If a series of books has completely inverted or eliminated any notion of gender, I submit that it is not fiction worth reading or writing, because it is lying about what it is to be human.

Wow, I never thought of the Chronicles that way. You make an excellent argument.

Shaun, how far did you make it into the Gap? I don't want to spoil anything for you, but if women saving the entire human race isn't giving women enough credit, then the feminist ideal is impossible to achieve in fiction.

Also, regarding Joan (I don't know why people equate her with a real woman in SRD's life ... that seems rather unflattering in itself), are you saying that there is no room in feminism for any negative depiction of any woman? A woman can't be unintelligent, boring, impotent, etc. in a feminist work, and if she is it disqualifies that work as "feminist?" If so, we're talking about a specialized genre of fiction that is even more "fairy tale" than fairy tales.

Tefazipipo, you seem passionate on this issue, and Ron is right that you might enjoy expressing these views in the Tank, where the discussion isn't constrained by its relevance to AATE.

I will concede the point that I might have gone too far to equate complaining about Mad Men with white washing the history of the Nazis and Jews ... it was an exaggeration, hyperbole. But that also means that my point is off the mark only by a difference of degree, not a difference in kind. The underlying comparison remains the same: bad stuff happens in reality. Our fiction can either depict this, or it can deny it and cover it up.

The point I neglected was how there are different kinds of depictions. The depiction itself can take a stand either for or against what it is depicting .... largely by how the situation is resolved later. For instance, a rape scene in a horror movie is entirely different from the rape scene in TCTC, where the rapist is forced to confront his crime and the severe consequences it has on his victim. No one comes away from TCTC feeling that SRD tried to make rape look sexy or acceptable.

But if I failed to make this distinction, I believe that feminists also fail to make the very same distinction, in the opposite direction. Where I implied that all such depictions are acceptable because rape happens in reality, feminists seem to imply that all such depictions are unacceptable, because they could cause rape to happen in reality. Perhaps there is ground in the middle for agreement?

[Ananda]

SRD is definitely not the most feminist writer out there. I don't read much fantasy, but his handling of female characters is not always so good. Maybe if you are a guy you might think it is good, though.

[Zarathustra]

SRD is definitely not the most feminist writer out there. I don't read much fantasy, but his handling of female characters is not always so good. Maybe if you are a guy you might think it is good, though.

If men aren't qualified to decide if the handling of female characters good or bad, then women aren't qualified to decide if male characters are chauvinistic or misogynistic. Honestly, I don't mind cracks at guys for being guys, but in a discussion about feminism (in literature), it seems odd for a woman to make a judgment about someone's opinion based on his sex. Isn't that exactly the kind of judgmentalism that feminism is supposed to oppose? This double standard seems apparent all over these kinds of discussions: it's always okay to stereotype and judge white men based on their race/sex, but it's forbidden for this kind of judgment to go the other way. That's the thing that pisses me off the most about feminism.

[I'm Murrin]

You're right, it's not wrong to depict these things at all, and they can be handled in ways that do it justice. The problem is not depictions of rape in itself, but how the victim is treated. When Steven Erikson, for example, has a rape victim who is, because of the rape, turned (almost literally) into an empty vessel, capable of nothing but mindless destruction, that is a problematic portrayal, because it shows a situation where a rape robs the victim of all agency, permanently. The rapist, even though he dies in the act, is given the power to define her entire life from that point.

The depiction of Lena suffers from this, to a much lesser extent. But the thing there is that many of the characters in the First Chronicles exist to provoke Covenant, rather than for themselves. (Yes, there's a positive aspect in the "your actions have consequences" message.)

To get off the subject of rape, Joan is a character who is defined by one thing: guilt. She actually drives herself insane because of the guilt she feels for abandoning her husband. She, too, has no agency, because she is defined by her relationship to Covenant and becomes unable to function after she leaves him. And the reason for it is purely to hurt Covenant.

Lena in The Power That Preserves, and Joan in The Wounded Land and AAtE, are women who Donaldson broke just to make Thomas Covenant suffer.

This does not detract from all the positive things in the novels! Sometimes it's necessary to use characters as plot devices; it's just unfortunate that it is vulnerable women that were chosen in both of these cases, and that they were broken to such an extreme degree.

[Zarathustra]

Murrin, good points. But weren't there also a lot of men broken in the Chronicles? Trell. Troy. Kevin. Covenant himself.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

SRD is definitely not the most feminist writer out there. I don't read much fantasy, but his handling of female characters is not always so good. Maybe if you are a guy you might think it is good, though.

Let me put it this way. I believe that any epic fantasy (Donaldson's genre) that was more feminist than TCTC could not avoid being facile, and therefore could not properly be called epic fantasy; it would instead fall into the category of politically motivated allegory.

[Ananda]

SRD is definitely not the most feminist writer out there. I don't read much fantasy, but his handling of female characters is not always so good. Maybe if you are a guy you might think it is good, though.

If men aren't qualified to decide if the handling of female characters good or bad, then women aren't qualified to decide if male characters are chauvinistic or misogynistic. Honestly, I don't mind cracks at guys for being guys, but in a discussion about feminism (in literature), it seems odd for a woman to make a judgment about someone's opinion based on his sex. Isn't that exactly the kind of judgmentalism that feminism is supposed to oppose? This double standard seems apparent all over these kinds of discussions: it's always okay to stereotype and judge white men based on their race/sex, but it's forbidden for this kind of judgment to go the other way. That's the thing that pisses me off the most about feminism.

I am thinking entirely with, as a woman, being able to identify with the portrayal. SRD does okay, but not great. I liked it better when I was 14, I would say. And, no, I doubt I could spot a female wriiten male character that doesnt quite ring true. For the record, I am not a feminist, either, so you need to find one to get that opinion. I am of the opinion that we are not the same- we are different and have culturally evolved different tactics at being "successful" at life. Birth control is what really set us free, I think. In a fantasy world with no birth control, women would probably not be the big adveturing explorers, really. And, I was just saying to my husband the other day how all these hollywood films have these kung fu badass women in them now and how it seemed like pandering to a fantasy gone too far.

[Lefdmae Deemalr Effaeldm]

I have a few questions.

What does it mean for the Chronicles that Lord Foul is male, in the light of this thread? That men are insulted because the main negative character is male, that women are insulted because they didn't get the main antagonist to be one of them, that men are insulted because it can mean they're arrogant jerks who think they're above the others, that women are insulted because it can mean they can't be flawless enough to be an embodiment of cold Despite?

What should an author do to be approved in this way? Flip a coin to decide on a gender? Get into psychology and study it until all the ideas on anything else disappear? (Though quite likely staying without a clue about the opposite gender, and likely his/her/its own as well)

In the Chrons there are characters that are great and awesome: Lord Mhoram, Foamfollower, the First of the Search, Stave, Osondrea, Atiaran, Pitchwife, Manethrall Rue, Hollian... There are characters that have flaws and struggle with them to various extent and success, or even don't try, and sometimes don't see how they're wrong: Covenant, Linden, Lena, Trell, Elena, Esmer... And there are characters messed up, hurt to an incredibly horrid extent, put through more than any live being can believably endure: nearly everyone.

Thus come the equal rights, Chrons-style: Are you a Chrons character? Don't worry about the gender much, you screwed regardless. TLD is not out yet though, maybe it may bring some light...

[Ananda]

Effles, I think only one poster wanted to change the sex of a character. The others just reacted to SRD being called the most feminist fantasy writer.

[Ananda]

SRD is definitely not the most feminist writer out there. I don't read much fantasy, but his handling of female characters is not always so good. Maybe if you are a guy you might think it is good, though.

Let me put it this way. I believe that any epic fantasy (Donaldson's genre) that was more feminist than TCTC could not avoid being facile, and therefore could not properly be called epic fantasy; it would instead fall into the category of politically motivated allegory.

You wont find me arguing for more ninja badass women in fantasy. As I said in response to Zed, I commented how overboard they have gotten in hollywood films in making kung fu badasses everywhere. Is it really needed? Then again, I think hollywood currently focuses too much on action and special effects and not enough on stories for both sexes.

I will give you the point that SRD did better female characters than Tolkien, though. And some female writers have problems with women, too. Anne Rice stands out in that regard.

[Lefdmae Deemalr Effaeldm]

I meant exactly the general question - how fine the Chrons are from the gender equality point of view.

As for writing the characters of different genders - maybe you're reading better writers, because I've seen women writing men horribly. Though this may be also a matter of expectations - what you yourself think of as fitting, ringing true or not. And of paying attention to that at all.

[Vraith]

there are lots of women, successful and not and a mix, sexy and not and a mix, good and not and a mix, "typed" and not and a mix...the same goes for men characters. The trick is: do they succeed or fail or mix based SOLELY on a sex specific characteristic [or on an absurd anomaly which is almost as bad unless it's REALLY well done in creation...ninja badass human women is, as usually "told" stupid...but giant's women being warriors...it's a bit transparent...but not horrid cuz the giants are so cool otherwise...and they're not "humans"], or MOSTLY due to character specific characteristics?
If nothing else, SRD does [and all fantastic/speculative fiction should at least take into account] deal with extremities. Hence rape and the threat/possibility of rape recurring...because it is AWFUL [unlike some in the genre, where it is just "how things are"...that doesn't make the world more "real" necessarily...it makes most of the people f09king a98h9oles. There are equivalents for the men...at least the important ones.]
I don't know that I'd say SRD is the BEST...but he is pretty damn good. [especially if you take into account Eff's point about horrible...even offensive and sexist...men characters. [primarily by women writers in this case...but hell, bad writers create bad characters of all sexes/genders as the best they can do...that's part of why they're bad.]]

[Tefazipipo]

*goes back and re-reads how she began the thread* I'm also halfway through re-reading TPTP.

Effaeldm, which came first. THOOLAH or Linden's Army? Was one a response to the other or were they decreed independently? Is there a THOOLFH?

Ananda, it was more pondering than wanting to change the sex.

I read through all of the Chronicles that have been published so far without ever once thinking "Why didn't he make that character the opposite sex?" I did not have any issue with Anele being the last hope of the Land. I wanted him healed and able. Jeremiah's gift is also really fine! Now, though, Anele's passed his last-hope-status to Jeremiah. So, it was sort of cumulative me. All of this is starting to hinge on Jeremiah. I am deeply excited about the last book!

[Lefdmae Deemalr Effaeldm]

...
Effaeldm, which came first. THOOLAH or Linden's Army? Was one a response to the other or were they decreed independently?
...

Well, I'll give you as good an answer as I have: no idea. Of course, I could go and search, but what for? I don't think such information can give good reason for any conclusions.

...
Is there a THOOLFH?
...

Whaaat!? First you start hating negative characters, then you may start trusting politicians, and then you may even turn into a normal human!

Also THOOLFH sounds pretty much like some other word Lord Foul himself could easily use on people from such a group

And have you seen this thread?) kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=9080

...
Now, though, Anele's passed his last-hope-status to Jeremiah. So, it was sort of cumulative me. All of this is starting to hinge on Jeremiah.
...

And how is Jeremiah alone less female than Anele + Jeremiah?)

...
I am deeply excited about the last book!

On this I can definitely agree))

[Ananda]

[especially if you take into account Eff's point about horrible...even offensive and sexist...men characters. [primarily by women writers in this case...but hell, bad writers create bad characters of all sexes/genders as the best they can do...that's part of why they're bad.]]

What?? I dont think a female writer ever got male characters wrong. Take Anne Rice for example. All men are essentially attracted primarily to other men. Her male characters all appreciate the sensuality of each other both on a mental and physical level. Isnt that pretty much perfectly of how men are?

Actually, I think there is something to it and how men and women really are, but not quite as she puts it! But social pressures evolved and the bisexuality scale that most people swing on are repressed.