Gender in Genre IV

[Darth Richard]

Yes, but rape seems to sell, if Outlander is any indication. There has been this recent surge in what I call viking romance books recently that just makes me want to grab the people reading them and SHAKE them.

[Datepalm]

Re first world problem, my post, etc, now that i'm entirely awake:

I kind of feel the term "first world problem" has jumped the shark - dunno, maybe it's just me. I was using it in a sense of "esoteric, overly specific and objectively minor issue" as relating to the subject at large. Representation of women as being strong but not in the right way and too perfect but not perfect enough via terrible poetry is the "first world problem" of fictional character representation in general, not to mean "sexism is not an issue in the developing world." (Plus, I had that sarcastic addendum about Liechtenstein for emphasis...oh, whatever.)

Anyway, I do think this kind of pleased navel gazing at your reading material is frankly a. tedious, b. pretentious and, most importantly, c. useless if not counter productive as a political act, which it proports to be. Usually, you know, I don't give a fuck, but yesterday I was irritated so, response. Carry on.

[Shryke]

Now I kinda wanna see Datepalm's list of "here there be rape" books. Cause I can't think of the last book I read with one in it. If people are saying it's a common dramatic set piece, I'm wondering if it's confined to specific genres or the like.

[Datepalm]

Now I kinda wanna see Datepalm's list of "here there be rape" books. Cause I can't think of the last book I read with one in it. If people are saying it's a common dramatic set piece, I'm wondering if it's confined to specific genres or the like.

? I don't have such a list, and to be honest, I can't think of the last book I read with rape in it either.

(No, wait, I lie, the very last book I read (Prague Cemetary, Umberto Eco) has distinct hints of off-screen rape. But at least its not genre.)

ETA - OOOOOHHHHH. Vikings. Is that what this is about? I've trying to blank that from memory. Yes, that was rapetastic and is a trope in a particular (but not terribly niche) type of romance. I think what was being discussed upthread was more the habit of having 'strong women' raped for character growth, because apparently writers can't come up with anything else that woman might possibly have happen in their lives.

[Shryke]

? I don't have such a list, and to be honest, I can't think of the last book I read with rape in it either.

(No, wait, I lie, the very last book I read (Prague Cemetary, Umberto Eco) has distinct hints of off-screen rape. But at least its not genre.)

ETA - OOOOOHHHHH. Vikings. Is that what this is about? I've trying to blank that from memory. Yes, that was rapetastic and is a trope in a particular (but not terribly niche) type of romance. I think what was being discussed upthread was more the habit of having 'strong women' raped for character growth, because apparently writers can't come up with anything else that woman might possibly have happen in their lives.

Yeah, that's what I was talking about while referencing your post about making a Goodreads list. Looking now, it's from like 2 weeks ago, which explains why you had no idea wtf I was talking about.

I was mostly wondering where the hell said habit is happening?

[Datepalm]

Yeah, that's what I was talking about while referencing your post about making a Goodreads list. Looking now, it's from like 2 weeks ago, which explains why you had no idea wtf I was talking about.

I was mostly wondering where the hell said habit is happening?

Urban Fantasy/Paranormal Romance, I assume. (Someone being annoyed with the lack of rape in Discount Armageddon, which I think is about monster-fighting ballroom dancers, is what set off the debate.)

[Mr. E]

Re first world problem, my post, etc, now that i'm entirely awake:

I kind of feel the term "first world problem" has jumped the shark - dunno, maybe it's just me. I was using it in a sense of "esoteric, overly specific and objectively minor issue" as relating to the subject at large. Representation of women as being strong but not in the right way and too perfect but not perfect enough via terrible poetry is the "first world problem" of fictional character representation in general, not to mean "sexism is not an issue in the developing world." (Plus, I had that sarcastic addendum about Liechtenstein for emphasis...oh, whatever.)

Anyway, I do think this kind of pleased navel gazing at your reading material is frankly a. tedious, b. pretentious and, most importantly, c. useless if not counter productive as a political act, which it proports to be. Usually, you know, I don't give a fuck, but yesterday I was irritated so, response. Carry on.

Yeah, that was the phrase I was referring to. It just makes me wince. I know people can be petty about relatively minor things in developed counties, but like you said, that phrase has long since jumped the shark, since 99.9% of the time it's used it's:

a)reductive

B) dismissive

c)reeks of insecurity

and

d)infinitely arbitrary.

Not to mention it makes people starving in Cambodia appear to be angelic sufferers far beyond the insignificant troubles of the not-completely-miserable human in developed nations.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

What Is Your Consensual Sex & Love Doing In My Epic Fantasy?

http://www.kateelliott.com/wordpress/index.php/2013/03/what-is-your-consensual-sex-love-doing-in-my-epic-fantasy-spiritwalker-monday-16/

On Grittiness & Grimdark

http://fozmeadows.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/on-grittiness-grimdark/

[Sci-2]

What Is Your Consensual Sex & Love Doing In My Epic Fantasy?

http://www.kateellio...lker-monday-16/

On Grittiness & Grimdark

http://fozmeadows.wo...iness-grimdark/

Good articles, thanks! While I'm in agreement with what Foz is saying, I would be curious to see what Abercrombie thinks of her critique of his article.

I actually agree with both of them. I think the key is giving a subject the time and POVs it deserves. So you can have grit and injustice and prejudice, but you should do more with it than use it as a means of passing a grimdark litmus test.

[Galactus]

From what I saw the critique doesen't really hold much water, it seems to miss the point of Abercrombie's piece really.

[Sci-2]

Can you elaborate?

[David Selig]

From what I saw the critique doesen't really hold much water, it seems to miss the point of Abercrombie's piece really.

Abercrombie himself said in the comments "Great post. I’d entirely concur, believe it or not". :cool4:

[Sci-2]

Well it's not exactly a critique of his post so much an expansion on an omission. Not a huge point, but I see what Galactus is saying as I wasn't sure if the word critique was the right one but settled on it being close enough...

[Lyanna Stark]

Well it's not exactly a critique of his post so much an expansion on an omission. Not a huge point, but I see what Galactus is saying as I wasn't sure if the word critique was the right one but settled on it being close enough...

Before I got to the end I thought it was a critique of Abercrombie's novels, but that's not the case. If it had been, then yes I think it would have been totally barking up the wrong tree, but as it stands, I think it as you say expands and addresses an omission.

This bit made me think of Bakker though ;)

If your idea of ‘grittiness’ includes misogyny (for instance), it’s more or less inevitable that your female characters will not only encounter systematic sexism, but necessarily be scarred by it, because if it were possible for them to remain unscathed by such an integral aspect of your preordained notion of grittiness, then by the rubric of gritty = honest, they would be unrealistic characters. Which means that, with the best will in the world, you’ve committed from the outset to writing women whose lives and selves are damaged by men – and while, as a female reader, I don’t object to encountering such characters, I do object to the assumption that these are the only female characters you can realistically write.

*runs for the hills before it turns into another Bakker thread*

[Seli]

Can you elaborate?

I would say that while Joe was writing about what grit adds to the genre, and what it strengths are Foz was writing about the issues that appear in gritty fiction that is already being published and what it is likely to do wrong. Slightly ignoring that the issues she is mentioning are not inherent to the style, and permeate all of genre and culture in general.

The point of Foz's argument is important of course, but it almost would have worked better as a proper caveat.

[Shryke]

Before I got to the end I thought it was a critique of Abercrombie's novels, but that's not the case. If it had been, then yes I think it would have been totally barking up the wrong tree, but as it stands, I think it as you say expands and addresses an omission.

This bit made me think of Bakker though ;)

*runs for the hills before it turns into another Bakker thread*

Made me think of that too, but perhaps not in the same way it made you think of it.

I agree with her point there in that paragraph that you can't exclude alternative depictions as unrealistic. I just don't think that implies much of anything for writing, unless the writing or writer specifically sets out to say the alternatives are unrealistic. (which they aren't)

It's a good point for writing but I think a limited one for critique.

[Sci-2]

Foz expands on sins of omission in this other post.

...if I pick up a novel and learn in the first chapter that the heroine is being pressured into marriage by her father, I don’t need to ask why, and chances are the author won’t bother to tell me. Certainly, the chances of the actual plot involving a push for social justice – a sort of SFF suffragettism, if you will – are slim to none. All I’m meant to infer that sexism exists, that the female characters will be hindered accordingly, and that otherwise I should just get on with the story.

And most of the time, the author takes it no further. We are left with sexism as a background detail: one which is used to justify the plight or origins of particular female characters and the total absence of others, but which is never actually addressed....

I think the idea here goes back to the question of how much default sexism is just laziness, where assumptions reinforce historical/present misconceptions and add little in terms of critical examination.

Of course, no novel can do everything but what I think would help is some discussion on books that do the dystopian aspect of grimdark well. Also, criticisms feel way too general now -> If Author X is relying on cliches, what could (s?)he have done better?

[Shryke]

I surprisingly quite liked that post. I think you missed the most important part:

We are left with sexism as a background detail: one which is used to justify the plight or origins of particular female characters and the total absence of others, but which is never actually addressed. Which, in instances where the protagonist is male, or where the majority of the cast is male, leaves us instantly with a screaming, red-faced anachronism: where are the actual sexists? Why, if sexism in this society is so deep-seated, are the heroes so unusually enlightened?

This is one of my big problems with alot of fantasies. I think ASOIAF is bad for it. For all the sexism in the world, there seem few people actually perpetuating it.

I remember having this discussion ages ago in a thread about anachronisms in how writers portray characters in fantasy. They are always extremely enlightened for living in such sexist societies.

I like her general point that sexism in a society can't just be a background. It has to be part of the social fabric and part of the characters and there thoughts and lives.

[Shryke]

On that note, I'm wondering if anyone here who's done more reading knows:

How much do we know about the extent to which women in sexist societies (like those throughout history for instance) internalized the messages of their societies? Did they feel themselves oppressed or justifiably inferior or did they just not think about it?

[Galactus]

Can you elaborate?

Abercrombie: "Grit means widening the palette, you don't have to do grit, but it's now one more thing you can do."

Response: "Grit isn't all of reality!"

Which to me, seemed to kind of be the point of Joe's article in the first place.

IE: It's not that the response is saying anything wrong per se, it's just that as a critique of Abercrombie it's kind of weak, since he's saying similar things (albeit as hedging rather than the centrepiece)

IE: Abercrombie agreeing with the post makes perfect sense, it's what he said in the first place. It's just that as a response to Abercrombie it makes no sense.