Fantasy lit that passes the Bechdel test?

[white wolfpack]

I would really appreciate a discussion on Fantasy series/authors/books that pass the Bechdel test (or, ideally, go beyond that and contain realistically well developed female characters).  I feel like on one level I've always liked fantasy, but I tend to get stalled out when there are just NO women or really one dimensional women because the world doesn't feel very interesting or real or relevant to me.  For example, I really love Tolkien's writing and stories, but I have never been able to actually finish reading them.  Reading ASOIAF kind of made me realize why - there are a variety of female characters to relate to in it, and there's "action" that isn't necessarily all a bunch of guys having sword battles and blowing stuff up (not that there's anything wrong with that sometimes).  I don't mind at all of the main character in a book is male - I just want it to also contain interesting women.  I also tend to like stories that are a little dark. Anything that is really clear cut good vs. evil or that would be approved for reading by a church youth group is just not something I'm likely to be interested by for the long haul. 

If it's helpful to anyone else, here's a brief survey of where I've been wading around in the fantasy world lately while I wait for the next GRRM book, and what I've thought: 

Windhaven (Martin and Tuttle):  I actually really loved this one.  I appreciated that the main character was a woman who lived in a world that had pretty complete equality between men and women, but she didn't have to be 9 feet tall and have superhuman strength.  There aren't really any traditional "battles" but I thought the conflict that it had felt real and relevant to how women engage in conflict. 

Outlander Series:  (Diana Gabaldon):  It's decent beach reading, but I got bogged down somewhere around book 4/5 and just can't bring myself to go on.  I liked the first two books a lot more than the ones after that.  Claire is a good character, and Brianna is OK.  When the plot centered on the history of Scotland I found it interesting.  I don't mind the romance aspect of it, but I think that's part of what I find so unbelievable about it.  I have no problem at all believing that a person can time-travel in a stone circle, but the idea that Claire is sleeping on the ground and is cold, wet, and hungry all the time and still is so into Jamie all the time is a bit hard to believe.  At some point with the books, I sort of feel like the same plot is repeating itself over and over again, and how many times can someone be almost killed and then come back? 

Kushiel series:  (Jacqueline Carey):  I actually was surprised by how much I liked this one.  The romance/erotica/whateveritis aspect of this series wasn't really something that I was necessarily looking for, but it's also not something that's a deal breaker for me... I feel like I can suspend a lot of judgement on what the age of consent is and what the morals around sexuality are in an author's world.  If you get past that (it's a big if but I feel like you'll know after you read the book jacket if it's a deal breaker for you), the world is really well developed, the storylines are relatively complex, and the characters are interesting.  It has battles, but it also has politics and intrigue.  There are several female characters who are relatively complex and in many ways relate-able.  And I have to admit, the character of Joscelin just seems to work for me.  I have no idea why, because he's superhuman and way too perfect, but he's just too easy to root for (and just a tiny bit complex himself).  I haven't read the Naamah series, but I may have to go there if I can't find anything else to keep me going. 

Robin Hobb's assassin series:  Disappointing.  I didn't totally hate it, but I felt frustrated by it.  It passes the Bechdel test but I felt like some opportunities to flesh out female characters (Hod?) were missed, and for no good reason.  I also felt like the books tended to plod along a lot (it just feels like the characters are traveling on some quest forever and never getting to where they're going) until the last 100 pages where all the plot just breaks loose all at once.  I really liked the ending of the third book (really cool dragons!  lots of karma visited on just about everyone!).  Also, it deserves some kudos on this page for doing a man/wolf thing that I feel like Jon Snow would approve of.  But I haven't picked up the Liveship books or the Fitz and the Fool ones.  I just don't know if I can do that to myself again.  Going on feels about as compelling as finishing Outlander.  Maybe someday if I'm at the beach and can't find anything else compelling to read....

The Name of the Wind (Patrick Rothfuss):  I picked this up because I liked the name of the book and it had good reviews.  I really, really like his writing, and he can world-build.  The main character has some flaws as a human being, but that's not really a problem for me.  Unfortunately, I felt like the actual story being told wasn't that compelling.  I felt like there were several elements that were put in there just to have them (the "dragon"), and I felt like women fell into that category too.  One finally showed up and it wasn't clear at all to me who she really was or why she was there.  I ended the book really on the fence about whether I wanted to continue with the other books in that series.  I feel like it could get really good, or I could spend another 1000 pages wondering why this great writing was being wasted on this mediocre story that didn't really interest me.  

Silo series (Hugh Howey):  I typically HATE dystopian future fantasy. I have no idea why people want to fantasize about the end of the world, and I really prefer my stories to occasionally take place outdoors.  But I actually really liked this series anyway.  Jules is a really good female character who skews a little tomboy but in a totally believable way. The world was pretty fascinating, and in many ways it was one of the best characters in the books.  I felt like it was a compelling enough story that it transcended all the stuff I was predisposed to not like about it.  I'm still a little amazed I picked it up in the first place.  I haven't read any of the fan fiction, but I think it's really cool that he basically made up a bunch of other silos about which he says next to nothing and is totally OK with people creating their own stories in all these unexplored little worlds. 

I've got Naomi Novik on my list of authors to try - I read a short story of hers and loved it, but the descriptions of her actual books never really compel me.  So, I'd appreciate being urged on there. 

So please.... share with me your experiences of women in fantasy. 

[Darth Richard II]

I uh, huh. I don't think our taste in book sis going to align much.

My hatred for Outlander is well documented at this point so I'll leave that one alone.

You could try Kate Elliott or Danial Abraham.

[Buckwheat]

I see what you are saying about Hobb's Farseer (being in Fitzy's head is exhausting!) but I think you should give Liveships a try anyway. It is set in the same world, but has a completely new set of characters - and the women make up a big part of them. They are realistic, distinct characters dealing with all sorts of different problems, interacting with each other etc. One part of the story is just about the women of a family staying at home after the men have left/died and their struggle to stick together and to survive in the society.

The series has a different tone than Farseer, it is written in 3rd person and so deals with more characters in detail, and I think it is also more full of action.

[Puntificator]

The Bechdel test is outdated and fallacious. But there are a large number of relatively recent fantasy books that nevertheless "pass it," and go beyond with realistically well-developed (a perhaps unintentionally poor choice of words on your part) females. Just to name a few that I've read: The Fifth Season by N.K. Jemisin; A Crown for Cold Silver by Alex Marshall; The Godless by Ben Peek; The Mirror Empire and Empire Ascendant by Kameron Hurley; City of Stairs by Robert Jackson Bennett; Twelve Kings in Sharakhai by Bradley P. Beaulieu; Six-Gun Snow White by Catherynne M. Valente; Cold Magic (and the rest of the Spiritwalker Trilogy) by Kate Elliott; The Craft Sequence books by Max Gladstone; The Shadow Campaigns series by Django Wexler; The Golden City (and its sequels) by J. Kathleen Cheney; The Library at Mount Char by Scott Hawkins; The Drowning Eyes by Emily Foster; When the Heavens Fall by Marc Turner; The Hanged Man by P.N. Elrod; All the Birds in the Sky by Charlie Jane Anders; etc. This is by no means close to a complete list; I could add tons more. However, I'm not saying these types of books represent a majority (I wouldn't know)—only that I have been fortunate to find that an awful lot of the stuff I like and have bought in the last couple of years fits into this category. I hope this continues to be the case.    

[peterbound]

1 hour ago, white wolfpack said:

Robin Hobb's assassin series:  Disappointing.  I didn't totally hate it, but I felt frustrated by it.  It passes the Bechdel test but I felt like some opportunities to flesh out female characters (Hod?) were missed, and for no good reason.  I also felt like the books tended to plod along a lot (it just feels like the characters are traveling on some quest forever and never getting to where they're going) until the last 100 pages where all the plot just breaks loose all at once.  I really liked the ending of the third book (really cool dragons!  lots of karma visited on just about everyone!).  Also, it deserves some kudos on this page for doing a man/wolf thing that I feel like Jon Snow would approve of.  But I haven't picked up the Liveship books or the Fitz and the Fool ones.  I just don't know if I can do that to myself again.  Going on feels about as compelling as finishing Outlander.  Maybe someday if I'm at the beach and can't find anything else compelling to read....

 

Assassins Apprentice: 1995

A Game of Thrones: 1996

 

Having actually read the books when they were published, I remember thinking to myself, "Hmmm, they are doing something with wolves Fitz would approve of"  Always funny to me that somehow fantasy starts and stops based on ASoIaF for some around these parts.  

I guess i'm bad at this.  I don't give a fuck if the book is filled with women, men, or dragons and shit.  I just want the story to be good, the writing to be sufficient, and the cover to look nice.*

Also, the world not being real, interesting, or relevant shouldn't have anything to do with it's female characters.  It would just suck as a book.  

 

However, some authors that come to mind that seem to represent your interests:

Jo Walton

connie willis

Octavia Butler

Atwood

Cherie Priest

Stanek*

Racheal Aaron

Elizabeth Bear

and although I can't stand her personally: Mira Grant

 

*alright, so maybe i'm joking about that. 

 

 

 

[HexMachina]

5 hours ago, peterbound said:

Assassins Apprentice: 1995

A Game of Thrones: 1996

 

Having actually read the books when they were published, I remember thinking to myself, "Hmmm, they are doing something with wolves Fitz would approve of"  Always funny to me that somehow fantasy starts and stops based on ASoIaF for some around these parts.  

I guess i'm bad at this.  I don't give a fuck if the book is filled with women, men, or dragons and shit.  I just want the story to be good, the writing to be sufficient, and the cover to look nice.*

Also, the world not being real, interesting, or relevant shouldn't have anything to do with it's female characters.  It would just suck as a book.  

 

However, some authors that come to mind that seem to represent your interests:

Jo Walton

connie willis

Octavia Butler

Atwood

Cherie Priest

Stanek*

Racheal Aaron

Elizabeth Bear

and although I can't stand her personally: Mira Grant

 

*alright, so maybe i'm joking about that. 

 

 

 

Could even say it's more like

Assassin's Apprentice 1995

A Dance with Dragons 2011 (since this is the book that gives rise to the idea)

I will second Buckwheat's recommendation of Liveships. The majority of those characters are female, and all very well thought out and distinct.

eta; also not sure why OP focuses on Hod from Farseer, who is only ever intended as a side character, as opposed to other much more central characters like Kettricken, Patience, Lacey, Statling, Molly and Kettle

Ian Tregillis' The Mechanical has some very interesting female characters, one of whom I found extremely loathsome.

 

[Darth Richard II]

Oh yeah, Rachel Aaron. +100

[Bjornbert]

Nk Jemisin is probably the best bet. For something different from the others in the thread I suggest Lauren Beukes

[The Marquis de Leech]

The difficulty with applying the Bechdel test to literature is that if you are dealing with a male protagonist, either in first person or third person limited, the only way to pass it is to have two female characters having a conversation in front of your protagonist, but not about him. Reducing your POV character to simple observer status is problematic in itself.

[Corvinus85]

The Wheel of Time, despite being plagued by sexist views, actually passes the Bechdel test.

[Darth Richard II]

16 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

The Wheel of Time, despite being plagued by sexist views, actually passes the Bechdel test.

Haha!

[Rhom]

43 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

The Wheel of Time, despite being plagued by sexist views, actually passes the Bechdel test.

As does Stormlight Archives.

[TrackerNeil]

5 hours ago, Puntificator said:

The Bechdel test is outdated and fallacious. 

Not to many, including me. It's a nice snapshot of the way female characters are sidelined in stories, and I think it's as relevant now as it ever was.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah people who complain it's outdated usually do so because their favorite series doesn't pass it.

[Puntificator]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Not to many, including me. It's a nice snapshot of the way female characters are sidelined in stories, and I think it's as relevant now as it ever was.

It's about as relevant as using gender to decide whether someone is a feminist. It's as outdated as a binary gender paradigm. It's a simple-minded criterion. A work can be extremely sexist and yet pass because of a single irrelevant conversation. As you presumably know, the test was originally introduced to judge films. Among the movies that pass the test are American Pie 2, The Stepford Wives, and How to Marry a Millionaire. According to TV Tropes: "...the infamously bad Manos: The Hands of Fate passes the test, but its treatment of women is incredibly squicky. So does The Bikini Carwash Company, which is little more than tasteless pandering." 

I care about diversity and dislike stereotypes, including gender stereotypes. But I prefer to use my brain to analyze and synthesize a work of fiction, rather than an unscientific and artificial rule that was intended to make a point satirically, not to replace thinking.

Snapshots are like soundbites—they tend to lack context. As a result, they can be very misleading.

[peterbound]

2 hours ago, Puntificator said:

It's about as relevant as using gender to decide whether someone is a feminist. It's as outdated as a binary gender paradigm. It's a simple-minded criterion. A work can be extremely sexist and yet pass because of a single irrelevant conversation. As you presumably know, the test was originally introduced to judge films. Among the movies that pass the test are American Pie 2, The Stepford Wives, and How to Marry a Millionaire. According to TV Tropes: "...the infamously bad Manos: The Hands of Fate passes the test, but its treatment of women is incredibly squicky. So does The Bikini Carwash Company, which is little more than tasteless pandering." 

I care about diversity and dislike stereotypes, including gender stereotypes. But I prefer to use my brain to analyze and synthesize a work of fiction, rather than an unscientific and artificial rule that was intended to make a point satirically, not to replace thinking.

Snapshots are like soundbites—they tend to lack context. As a result, they can be very misleading.

wait, weren't you the one arguing that we had to create genre stereotypes to fit into your limited worldview?  If anything, most of your arguments centered around not using your brain to analyze work, but wanting others to pigeonhole authors so you could have an easier time shopping.  

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, peterbound said:

wait, weren't you the one arguing that we had to create genre stereotypes to fit into your limited worldview?  If anything, most of your arguments centered around not using your brain to analyze work, but wanting others to pigeonhole authors so you could have an easier time shopping.  

Yes well he also said he never reads YA then proceeded to reccomend things in the YA thread. At this point I think he may be some kind of sock puppet that became self aware and has started modifying its own code.

[TrackerNeil]

7 hours ago, Puntificator said:

It's about as relevant as using gender to decide whether someone is a feminist. It's as outdated as a binary gender paradigm. It's a simple-minded criterion. A work can be extremely sexist and yet pass because of a single irrelevant conversation. As you presumably know, the test was originally introduced to judge films. Among the movies that pass the test are American Pie 2, The Stepford Wives, and How to Marry a Millionaire. According to TV Tropes: "...the infamously bad Manos: The Hands of Fate passes the test, but its treatment of women is incredibly squicky. So does The Bikini Carwash Company, which is little more than tasteless pandering." 

I care about diversity and dislike stereotypes, including gender stereotypes. But I prefer to use my brain to analyze and synthesize a work of fiction, rather than an unscientific and artificial rule that was intended to make a point satirically, not to replace thinking.

Snapshots are like soundbites—they tend to lack context. As a result, they can be very misleading.

I don't recall anyone saying the Bechtel test is the ultimate and sole standard by which all stories should be judged; it is a single criterion of many. It should assist, but not replace, critical analysis. So, yes, if you uses only Bechtel to judge a work of fiction you'll often be mislead. However, I don't understand why anyone would dismiss the test as completely useless.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] OK, enough derail. This thread is not a discussion of the relevance of the Bechtel Test. OP merely asks which books pass it. If you have nothing to add to the latter point of discussion, then this thread is not for you. Thank you. [/mod]

[red snow]

15 hours ago, HelenaExMachina said:

Could even say it's more like

Assassin's Apprentice 1995

A Dance with Dragons 2011 (since this is the book that gives rise to the idea)

I will second Buckwheat's recommendation of Liveships. The majority of those characters are female, and all very well thought out and distinct.

eta; also not sure why OP focuses on Hod from Farseer, who is only ever intended as a side character, as opposed to other much more central characters like Kettricken, Patience, Lacey, Statling, Molly and Kettle

Ian Tregillis' The Mechanical has some very interesting female characters, one of whom I found extremely loathsome.

 

I'd think it's almost impossible to pass the test when the whole book is from a single male POV. There's a couple of instances where the book could have managed it

when Fitz sees other people in his dreamstate so they are unaware of him

. But I'd say the series does really well. There are female soldiers and it's never treated in a tokenistic way it's just a fact that women can be solders too. I also noted in the never-ending quest how out of the troop of companions there was one male, a person of unknown gender and three women. I made a point of thinking "have I read a fantasy book where the gender make-up is slewed in this direction"? I can't think of one - the tendency is the inverse.

Some of the others in the list also suffer from being told in the first person from a male POV as well so I think it's a bit unfair to say they've failed the test when the test shouldn't really be applied.