Women, Men, SFF part deux

[Grack21]

Never read a Parker book (well, I lost the first of Engineer trilogy after I'd read a few pages of it). What's wrong with them?

I think he meant that the women in her books are terrible people.

[jurble]

They have the depth of a monomolecular sheet.

[Datepalm]

They have the depth of a monomolecular sheet.

lol, i'm borrowing that.

Sciborg, what do you mean? That not enough female authors get discussed here (I very broadly sort of agree, though one would have to look at the specifics) or that the female authors who do get discussed aren't very good - twilight or what have you?

[Nukelavee]

I do read far more male authors than female, but gender of the writer really has no bearing on whether or not I'll read it. Enjoyment does.

I was going to say quality, but, shit, I happily read a lot of crap.

I do seem to prefer females when it comes to historical fiction, tho. Gimme some more Dunnet! (Found a novel by her a few months ago, a re-telling of MacBeth, which is basically the Norway/Denmark/Britain viking type stuff)

[Galactus]

Heh, I do recall catching wind of that. I actually do wish more female authors would comment when writing of women is utter garbage - some of the stuff that gets discussed is quite frankly trash in that regard.

Enjoyable trash, in the way a porn movie could be considered enjoyable, but nonetheless there is something sad that the forum's name is Literature and then you look at the first page....and it's hard not to think the thoughts of Priest: "Have we lived and fought in vain?"

To be fair, everyone has always lived and fought in vain. That's kind of a contstant in the history of literature :P

[Sci-2]

lol, i'm borrowing that.

Sciborg, what do you mean? That not enough female authors get discussed here (I very broadly sort of agree, though one would have to look at the specifics) or that the female authors who do get discussed aren't very good - twilight or what have you?

Oh, I was speaking to Valente's piece, that if a female were to write the kind of scathing commentary that Priest did they would find themselves beset by a bunch of whiny fanboys crying to the high heavens about how some mediocre but popular work was the highest literature. Oh, that and the "clever" critics who call them "cum dumpsters" or send them rape threats. (As Valente pointed out in the comments, one such person also managed to find her address and let her know.)

Even something has complex and nuanced as Game of Thrones has problems, but I think there people who simply dislike fantasy are drawn to its flaws. From 30,000 feet, yes people run around and escape and fight. Yet what work doesn't seem repetitive from such heights?

That was my overall problem with Sady's piece, that and the fact that women can dedicate themselves to their children and be strong characters with agency. I know women who do this and it felt unfair to dismiss a woman like Catelyn who gives everything she has to save her remaining children.

I think authors should be more free to dissect and interrogate the works of other authors, but only an author like Priest has the, heh, prestige to get away with it in genre and so while Sady's piece has merit there are plenty of authors in genre who might have given a better critique from our fan perspective.

Larry can't review everything after all. ;-)

I do understand that a constant barrage of critiques would likely lead to a messy situation where fledgling authors are trounced, but I'd also like to believe that after a certain point someone like Valente might point out how many Bella Swan quality females exist in SFF.

[Datepalm]

Well, why should she? Is Bella Swan critically well regarded? Is there a lack of voices complaining about her? Is she supposed to be a measure of merit in the genre the way an award is? Priest was taking a whack at something theoretically well regarded - by definition, in fact - he was railing at the shortlist of a fairly prestigeous award. Someone, if only the judges, thought those were good books and Priest came in and called them all quite mean names. Valente is supposed to complain in a properly and acceptably gender neutral fashion if she wants to be heard? Or wants to avoid being called a cunt or whatever? What?

[Grack21]

Well, KJ Parker rocks your socks, and I challenge you to fisticuffs!

[Sci-2]

@Datepalm - I'm a little confused by your reply....I think we're in agreement? I'm saying Valente has as much right to criticize works as Priest does in whatever manner she chooses and not be called a cunt or threatened with rape.

Also, in general, I'd like to think authors could offer critiques of works. Specifically I think if more female authors pointed out the terrible writing of women, however sarcastically, it would be a good thing.

My point about Bella Swan is that people love to shit on Twilight and how disempowered Bella is, but frankly the women in varied fantasy works are just as if not more poorly constructed. but no one ever wants to point this out.

[Kalbear]

Oh, I was speaking to Valente's piece, that if a female were to write the kind of scathing commentary that Priest did they would find themselves beset by a bunch of whiny fanboys crying to the high heavens about how some mediocre but popular work was the highest literature

No, they'd be called bitches or whores or threatened with rape. Or they'd be treated with condescension and paternalism and only given authority when a man validated them.

Which is exactly what happened to Cat Valente in her comments for the post above. She couldn't even state that she'd want to criticize without being criticized in exactly the manner she stated was wrong.

[Datepalm]

Also, in general, I'd like to think authors could offer critiques of works. Specifically I think if more female authors pointed out the terrible writing of women, however sarcastically, it would be a good thing.

But they do. I mean, isn't that like one of the most hackneyed, repetetive debates we ever have? People say this, this and that portrayal of a woman sucks, and others respond that they're just being overly senstitive and hey, some women really are robot whores who like to be raped, so whats the problem?

My point about Bella Swan is that people love to shit on Twilight and how disempowered Bella is, but frankly the women in varied fantasy works are just as if not more poorly constructed. but no one ever wants to point this out.

People point that out literally all the time. I'm really not sure what you're getting at. People are constantly complaining that theres not enough strong, interesting women being written and lakes and lakes of pixels have been spilled over trying to define what those would be and why we want them.

[Sci-2]

Hmmm, perhaps we simply have lived and fought in vain then.

I know fans make these complaints, but I think with authors in the genre offering critiques it would result in some greater quality control.

[Spring Bass]

Heh, I do recall catching wind of that. I actually do wish more female authors would comment when writing of women is utter garbage - some of the stuff that gets discussed is quite frankly trash in that regard.

What happened was that when people criticized the numbers, Traviss and her fanboys in the moderation staff at a popular Star Wars forum (TheForce.net) got a bunch of them banned after calling them the "Talifans", and doubled-down on the numbers by writing a short story claiming that higher numbers were a Jedi conspiracy. This naturally pissed some people off, and a few of them went overboard (although the video of Wayne Poe fighting Traviss and a bunch of Mandalorian fanboys was actually funny IMHO).

[Serious Callers Only]

What about when women write terrible women? (KJ Parker).

And how do you know KJ Parker is a woman? Dundundundunnn

[Nukelavee]

Well, personally, why would I take an author's critique of another's work seriously? Of either gender? Or give it greater weight than that of, say, just a reader?

Plus, as Datepalm noted, we can't even define what these characters should be. And if we did, we'd just get endless repeats of that "perfect" depiction.

Also, well written and strong don't have to go together. It's nice when they do, but give me a believable character, that works within the story/narrative, regardless of their attributes, over a "strong" cardboard standup.

It's funny, but I never hear mention of Joan Vinge, or Cherryh, when it comes to discussing fantasy or sci-fi with strong females, but I always think I should see those names.

[Sci-2]

Nuke - true, but people are more likely to take the time to read something on the internet if it's by someone published IRL.

Also, snark helps things get disseminated, and relatively famous snark doubly so.

[Seli]

The different type of reactions to posts by men and women online and the threats the latter get is a recurring discussion. Sadly people are still surprised to hear it and try to find 'explanations' why it happens.

Ormond, there have been some articles on the subject e.g. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/sociss/release.cfm?ArticleID=1273 (general abuse against female names in IRC).

[Callan S.]

Requires Only That You Hate is regularly showered with hatred for her thoughts on science fiction and fantasy–she was called a rabid animal by Peter Watts, a luminary in our field, who received very little public condemnation for his statements. (A rabid animal! Because she thought a book was sexist! I thought humorless feminists were the ones who took things too seriously!)

Well, that's a selective focus - all the ROH post said that she thought the book was sexist? That's all that's remembered? Yeah, Watts name calling is childish, and his motivation is 'well, you were childish, so I will be too!', but I'd assume that was the point - to show what it had boiled down to.

Really, what is this - clinging onto the preferable remnants of non equal treatment of women. Ie, women can call childish names, but you can't call women childish names in return (yep, as said, the whole thing is childish then, but that's the point - to underline that! Rather than enter paternalism towards women and accept their words as if they were children who know no better)? That aught to be condemned, while you open the door for them and change a car tyre for them? The little bits of non equal treatment that are actually handy to hold onto? Or is it that by the internets standards (the internet, which not only invented TL;DR, but has a culture that genuinely condones it apparently?) the ROH piece is considered high intellect (and it's just the 'rabid animal' that's the childish part)? Okay, uphill battle there - to prove it's all childish, one would have to prove what people think of as intellectual is actually childish.

[Grack21]

What happened was that when people criticized the numbers, Traviss and her fanboys in the moderation staff at a popular Star Wars forum (TheForce.net) got a bunch of them banned after calling them the "Talifans", and doubled-down on the numbers by writing a short story claiming that higher numbers were a Jedi conspiracy. This naturally pissed some people off, and a few of them went overboard (although the video of Wayne Poe fighting Traviss and a bunch of Mandalorian fanboys was actually funny IMHO).

I think we already have had this argument, but opinion varies on whether or not the people banned from the forums had it coming. :P

[Grack21]

Well, that's a selective focus - all the ROH post said that she thought the book was sexist? That's all that's remembered? Yeah, Watts name calling is childish, and his motivation is 'well, you were childish, so I will be too!', but I'd assume that was the point - to show what it had boiled down to.

Really, what is this - clinging onto the preferable remnants of non equal treatment of women. Ie, women can call childish names, but you can't call women childish names in return (yep, as said, the whole thing is childish then, but that's the point - to underline that! Rather than enter paternalism towards women and accept their words as if they were children who know no better)? That aught to be condemned, while you open the door for them and change a car tyre for them? The little bits of non equal treatment that are actually handy to hold onto? Or is it that by the internets standards (the internet, which not only invented TL;DR, but has a culture that genuinely condones it apparently?) the ROH piece is considered high intellect (and it's just the 'rabid animal' that's the childish part)? Okay, uphill battle there - to prove it's all childish, one would have to prove what people think of as intellectual is actually childish.

People have selective memories when it comes to ROH.

Edit: I think you hit on the head what bothers me the most about this whole situation. It's OK for a women to throw around degrading names and slurs because its so offensive when the men do it...? It's the whole "I want to be treated equally but I really mean better than you" that really gets under my skin. It's a shame because I;ve been meaning to try out Valentine for a while and now...I don't know. Fuck, I'm still hesitant to try Morgan after that last kerfluffle.