Women in Abercrombie

[Poobah]

Bayaz may be a Villain Sue but characters like Glokta, Logen, West, etc. have plenty of competence and could well have defeated Bayaz if he didn't benefit from authorial fiat.

See I think this sentence tells me that you just don't like Abercrombie's work, and this isn't a specific problem with the portrayal of women. I mean I certainly won't judge your taste, but I'm trying to say that it's more an underlying problem with the whole thing, than a specific 'women in TFL' problem that you have with the novels. Personally, I would say it's pretty reasonable to present the majority of women in a medieval setting as lacking in agency, especially in a series one of whose themes is, as other people have pointed out, that noone really has any agency and everyone is ultimately being manipulated by the people up the ladder from them.

-Poobs

[Galactus]

See I think this sentence tells me that you just don't like Abercrombie's work, and this isn't a specific problem with the portrayal of women. I mean I certainly won't judge your taste, but I'm trying to say that it's more an underlying problem with the whole thing, than a specific 'women in TFL' problem that you have with the novels. Personally, I would say it's pretty reasonable to present the majority of women in a medieval setting as lacking in agency, especially in a series one of whose themes is, as other people have pointed out, that noone really has any agency and everyone is ultimately being manipulated by the people up the ladder from them.

-Poobs

I think there is a difference between agency and *action* in a sense: Having read a lot of medieval stuff I sincerely doubt woman in the middle-ages lacked agency (agency is kind of a function of being human) they just lacked *power*.

[Nerdanel]

See I think this sentence tells me that you just don't like Abercrombie's work, and this isn't a specific problem with the portrayal of women. I mean I certainly won't judge your taste, but I'm trying to say that it's more an underlying problem with the whole thing, than a specific 'women in TFL' problem that you have with the novels. Personally, I would say it's pretty reasonable to present the majority of women in a medieval setting as lacking in agency, especially in a series one of whose themes is, as other people have pointed out, that noone really has any agency and everyone is ultimately being manipulated by the people up the ladder from them.

-Poobs

The women are only one of the reasons I found The First Law ultimately highly disappointing. The other two (conjoined) reasons are Bayaz's Villain Sue status and the pointless nihilism of it all that went beyond what would be realistic in my opinion. It's just like a contrived and implausible happy ending, but in reverse.

It is important to remember that Abercrombie's world isn't the same as Medieval Europe and the status of women is much better there. Women can own and inherit property and do business. Women can get formalized political power by getting to lead a guild. Women can become warriors and there is apparently nothing particularly weird about a woman Practical. Women can learn magic. Nevertheless, the women in Abercrombie's world aren't up to becoming strong characters, implying that the fault is with them.

[Poobah]

It is important to remember that Abercrombie's world isn't the same as Medieval Europe and the status of women is much better there. Women can own and inherit property and do business. Women can get formalized political power by getting to lead a guild. Women can become warriors and there is apparently nothing particularly weird about a woman Practical. Women can learn magic. Nevertheless, the women in Abercrombie's world aren't up to becoming strong characters, implying that the fault is with them.

Fair enough. I see what you're getting at. I do think women are better represented in the later novels though.

[Arthmail]

Fuck. I have never come to hate a word as much as the word agency.

So many people throwing it around, it loses meaning after awhile.

[Returned]

Fuck. I have never come to hate a word as much as the word agency.

So many people throwing it around, it loses meaning after awhile.

This. I feel a weird urge to giggle everytime I see it mentioned.

Oh, and Vitari is definitely a token in The First Law. That doesn't change even if she develops past that in the sequels.

Vitari's children are threatened, so wether or not she has enough "agency" is not really the question with the situation she's in. She's perfectly fine as how she's portrayed in TFL and her development is considerable in BSC, with an eye on the story progress.

Esmenet is the strongest female character in The Prince of Nothing. She is capable of taking care of herself and making hard decisions. She is also capable of taking care of Kellhus's secret police. She is so competent Kellhus wants to have babies with her, and Esmenet agrees to marry him in big part because he treats her as the intelligent person that she is. Abercrombie has nothing like her at least in the trilogy being under discussion. Ardee's big dream in life is marrying a rich man, and when she ends up alone without men living in her house, Glokta has to intervene to save her.

What are you talking about? Esmenet is definitely not the strongest female in PoN, you yourself just made a strong case for Istriya, and I'm gonna go for her.

About Esmenet; she herself has acknowledged that she knew all along that Kellhus didn't love her, that's she's just a breeding tool. He doesn't treat her like an intelligent person, he treats her just like how his Dunyain training says she should be treated. She would have fucking been stoned in the first village she came upon after she left the brothel, if the consult wasn't keeping an eye upon her. She got manipulated by one consult agent after the other, after which of all these manipulations she still felt as a rock for Kellhus' dunyain training.

The only way you could have told me she was strong was if she resisted Kellhus on just ONE level or if she would have told Achamian about her clashes with the consult right after she met up with him. She prefered to keep her shame of being seduced by the consult to herself rather than tell Akka about the important events and possibly lessening the danger. She's the most selfish being in the book, that chose the easiest path. She's incompetent, she can't handle any of her children, she can't handle the people in the city and she surely can't handle Kellhus.

EDIT: She can make hard decisions? Her husband is a god and her brother in law is the fucking pope, I don't think anyone would have difficulty making "hard decisions" in that situation. I'd say she's even gotten pretty good at it too. Ordering executions and beheadings that make her feel like she's not in the brothel anymore while she still thinks about it everyday.

She hasn't built up anything, nothing or noone belongs to her. She's just using the tools that belong to her husband.

[aimlessgun]

Everyone seems to be dodging the really difficult question, the elephant in the room.

Between Abercrombie and Bakker, who has the hotter women?

:leaving:

[Grack21]

Could someone maybe put SPOILERS in the topic or at least label the damn things. I just had most of Bakker ruined for me.

[Cantabile]

I've grown very weary of seeing the word 'agency' flung around constantly in these misogyny arguments as well. Especially since I've still yet to fully grasp what is even meant by it. If we're going to argue about a term, it'd be nice to have a clear definition we're in agreement on in the first place.

[Galactus]

I've grown very weary of seeing the word 'agency' flung around constantly in these misogyny arguments as well. Especially since I've still yet to fully grasp what is even meant by it. If we're going to argue about a term, it'd be nice to have a clear definition we're in agreement on in the first place.

It's a bit difficult to explain, but I'd define agency as the quality of having desires, goals and motivations of one's own that is not under the control of someone else r the story.

Whether one has capacity to *act* on these is a different matter entirely (and a question of *power*) Agency is what differentiates a character from a plot device.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

I've grown very weary of seeing the word 'agency' flung around constantly in these misogyny arguments as well. Especially since I've still yet to fully grasp what is even meant by it. If we're going to argue about a term, it'd be nice to have a clear definition we're in agreement on in the first place.

Since in my native language "agency" is an euphemism for brothel, I also find it very hard not to giggle every time I see this word.

[Lyanna Stark]

It's a bit difficult to explain, but I'd define agency as the quality of having desires, goals and motivations of one's own that is not under the control of someone else r the story.

Whether one has capacity to *act* on these is a different matter entirely (and a question of *power*) Agency is what differentiates a character from a plot device.

Very well put.

Nerdanel:

I guess if you find no fault in Bakker, but does find fault with Abercrombie's writing, you may just not like him at all. Frankly, I have no idea why people bandy about Esmenet as a strong character since I can't recall her doing anything I would categorise as "strong" exactly. During the entire three first novels, the only thing I can remember that gave her a bit of personal motivation was when she left the town she lived in. Since she has been a follower.

[MinDonner]

Esmenet, much like Serwe, had the chief plot role as prize to be won - the fact that she was "clever" just made her a better prize, not so much a better character. Few of Abercrombie's women were that much of a cipher; they all had agendas of their own, which often conflicted with or had no bearing on those of the men, so I'm finding it hard to see the comparison.

[trio]

I've never read any Bakker (and thank God, as as someone else said, it would all have been spoiled!) but is this now just a Bakker vs. Abercrombie thread? Can't it be a bit broader?

I have issues with Abercrombies women for one reason only. They're all (with the exception of poor Aliz) very similar.

They're all people who have a sneer in their smile. They're all people who are openly contemptuous. They're all people who are irritable. They're all people who are defensive. They're all ultimately practical people who are, in the words of our friend, "realistic about these things". They're all people who fantasise about slitting the throat of whatever person happens to be annoying them at that particular moment. And EVERYONE annoys them.

Sure, they have vague differences. But they're only shading.

And then we have poor, poor Aliz. She was a totally different type. And she got short shrift, didn't she? There wasn't even an attempt at characterisation there! She was just this bimbo who served solely as a contrast to Finree, to make us realise how sensible Finree was by comparison.

Now don't get me wrong - as a woman I have a pretty good radar for misogyny and I think that's ludicrous to throw at Abercrombie. He obviously really digs women as protagonists and enjoys writing them. And they aren't tragic figures.

It's just that I feel that he's having so much fun writing a certain type of woman that he has little interest in exploring the other types that can exist. And when there's only one or two female characters per book, he has the freedom to use that type. And I also think it's neccessary to say that I don't think it's neccessarily a "female type", but rather a specific character type. For example, I think Glokta is very much in the same vein as his female characters.

But when he has a vast array of male characters in each book, he's forced to try different characterisations on for size with them. So they end up much more varied.

[kungtotte]

Aliz was always presented as the airhead good-for-nothing trophy wife material ever since her first introduction in The First Law. If anything I would have been more upset if in The Heroes we learn that she's actually a super-genius just pretending to be vapid in order to steer men the way she wants. So even if the character is bad, there's at least internal consistency.

I think the reason most women are of the same general archetype is that in the First Lawniverse, much like our own, women who go out and get some are seen as oddballs. Hence the tomboys are the ones who get included in the adventures in these books, and as such are quite similar to each other.

In other words the issue isn't so much that all women are of the same type, but rather that the books are all of the same type :). There's no instances of ASOIAF-level politicking and intrigue for example, which would allow greater room for female characters in the vein of Cersei.

[Gabriele]

Bakker's women are the most powerful. They manage to invade and take over pretty much every thread in this sub-forum. :P

[Returned]

I've never read any Bakker (and thank God, as as someone else said, it would all have been spoiled!) but is this now just a Bakker vs. Abercrombie thread? Can't it be a bit broader?

I have issues with Abercrombies women for one reason only. They're all (with the exception of poor Aliz) very similar.

They're all people who have a sneer in their smile. They're all people who are openly contemptuous. They're all people who are irritable. They're all people who are defensive. They're all ultimately practical people who are, in the words of our friend, "realistic about these things". They're all people who fantasise about slitting the throat of whatever person happens to be annoying them at that particular moment. And EVERYONE annoys them.

I recognize this, to be quite fair. Ardee, Finree, Monza, Vitari all share this in some way or another. But I think Wonderful was a great female character, and I think Abercrombie genuinely tried to create something else with her, since we've never really seen a northern female warrior, and I think he succeeded in it. Let us hope he continues with this diversity in his following works.

[Guest Raids]

I think we've already had this thread before, actually, only the prevailing opinion then was that Abercrombie tossed out fangirl stereotypes in a pandering attempt to appeal to female audiences. And this thesis was put forth by men, who argued that Monza and Ferro were basically the same character, and not a developed character at that.

I love Abercrombie and his portrayal of women does not bother me. I don't think he's got a hot Kiera Knightly Guinevere all of sudden fighting with bow and arrow next to Arthur or anything like that, and I don't think he has women who are constantly victimized for our titilation. It's true that the original trilogy was a bit weak on female characters from a totally critical perspective, but even if - were it a movie - there would be no possible "best actress" nomination, there'd be room for a few Oscars for supporting roles played by excellent character actors.

In Best Served Cold, Monza is *the* lead character. In The Heroes, it's true, we're back to supporting, although Finree could easily be trumped up into a main role.

Finree did leave me a little cold. I found the character a little stereotypical and without the creativity that we generally get from Joe's characterization. Manipulative noble woman married to honorable husband uses brains and people skills to advance her own position through her husband is hardly a novel idea in life or fiction. Even when I was reading the "someone to work on" stuff I was kind of like, yeah, yeah, been here before.

[Lyanna Stark]

In Best Served Cold, Monza is *the* lead character. In The Heroes, it's true, we're back to supporting, although Finree could easily be trumped up into a main role.

Plus, Monza gets to succeed although she is a "bad" and "fallen" woman in many ways. She's not at all morally squeeky clean, far from it. She's after revenge for someone she knew wasn't squeeky clean either. She's brutal, she uses people and it doesn't particularly bother her all that much.

I think in that regard, she is almost as unusual as it gets for a female character.

EDIT: Oh and she's also not really pretty or magnificently beautiful either. I think Monza is in many ways an anti-Sue, in that she's not a particularly nice and pleasant person and you can't really sympathise with her pure, moral motives either, really. And she has no superpowers! In essence, she is not spechul at all, just bloody minded and set up as a political pawn to destabilise the area.

[Nerdanel]

There are quite a few replies, but I'll try to give some general comments.

I brought up Bakker because he is often accused of misogyny on this board while Abercrombie isn't. Nevertheless, I think Bakker's women are stronger than Abercrombie's. Note that I'm talking of The First Law only since that's all that I've read. It's well possible that Abercrombie indeed improved his act in his later books.

Bayaz gets brought up, but Kellhus is several orders of magnitude better at manipulating people. Abercrombie's characters should be the ones with the advantage in making their own decisions. Indeed, someone like Glokta or West achieves quite a bit and shows a lot of autonomy even though they are ultimately serving Bayaz's ends. Women don't get to do the same. At best they get to fail miserably and get defeated by men, like Tolomei failing at getting the Seed and the merchant lady failing at brokering a surrender, at worst they are utterly passive characters like Cawneil who sit at home doing nothing in particular. The ones in between like Ferro and Vitari get to be simple cogs in men's plans, although I'm sure Ferro would object to that description.

Anyway, I do think Abercrombie probably tried to pander to someone by including women like Ferro and Vitari, although I'm not sure if it's men or women or himself. Ferro in particular reads like Abercrombie "rolled a natural one" (i.e. failed dismally) at creating a heroine that appeals to feminists. Ferro is all "attitude" and supernatural fighting ability attached to zero emotional depth and no notable intelligence. Just compare her to the other supernatural fighter, Logen.