There is a sub-genre in fantasy that focuses mainly on female protagonists. Robin Mckinley. Patrica McKillip. Julliet Marillier. Sharon Shinn. Ellen Kushner. They each feature a feminine prospective in a genre that is usually riddled with long lost kings and brutal battle scenes. What is interesting is the different prospectives they give and the subtle ways they show them.
Robin Mckinley's protagonists are usually very straight forward female heroes. They wield swords along side men and stand up for their gender in the face of oppression. Her heroines are proud of being women and make sure everybody knows it. This used to annoy me. A lot. When I was young and didn't realize that gender equality wasn't self evident to everyone in the world. Now I sometimes wish her heroines would relax and just be without having to prove their independence to everybody all the time but I also understand that, especially in the context of a pseudo medieval society, that isn't always an option.
Patrica McKillip is almost the opposite. I have never encountered anything resembling gender inequality in her books. She has equal female and male characters who fight battles and rule kingdoms and play music together without ever thinking anything of it. Rather than fighting against oppression her heroines serve as an example simply by living in an idyllic world where no one has ever suggested that one gender is more important or able than the other. There might be certain social expectations but even those are seldom strongly enforced.
Julliet Marillier's characters are feminists in a way that took me a book or two before I recognized it as such. Rather than fight against expectations or live in a world where they don't exist, Marillier's characters are content to be domestic and nurturing. These skills are painted, however, in such a way that they are revered rather than looked down on. Her characters recognize that their roles are just as important as the "great deeds" performed by the men and are able to unlock secrets and magic everyone else might over look.
Ellen Kushner takes yet another approach. Her male and female characters tear down the constrains of both gender roles. Within the context of a very strict society her male and female characters fuss over silk and wield swords simultaneously.
I know that over all good characterization is more important than a "positive" feminine --or male --image but when I'm working with a historical society that enforces unfair expectations I am reluctant to allow them to get away with it. On the other hand I want the setting to remain authentic without too much modern thinking infiltrating its way into my characters' heads. I strive for a balance but I think I ere on the side too much modern thinking more often than too much accuracy.
What about you? Do you ever wonder about how you are representing gender in your manuscripts? Have you noticed any other ways authors deal with it? Or do you only worry about character and let any gender issues that arise take care of themselves?
Showing posts with label Robin McKinnley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Robin McKinnley. Show all posts
Monday, May 9, 2011
Monday, January 11, 2010
Deerskin: an analysis
Beauty --by Robin McKinnley = perfect in every particular
Spindle's End -by Robin McKinnley = fabulous for the most part, though a bit frustrating in format and a bit vague towards the end
The Blue Sword - by Robin McKinnley = fascinating and exciting, if a little heavy on the feminism
The Hero and the Crown -by Robin McKinnley = long and tedious, with a few interesting side characters but an annoying protagonist and no particular point to the adventure as a whole
The Door in the Hedge - by Robin McKinnley = Enchanting. Tantalizing. A perfect collection of fairy stories.
The Outlaws of Sherwood -by Robin McKinnley = Dry and lifeless, laced with more feminism than I can handle for a story about men camping out in the woods
Deerskin -by Robin McKinnley = Distinctly McKinnley in a way that reminded me why I used to love her books
I must refrain myself from getting into another rant about her treatment of Robin Hood in his own legend and her insistence that all her protagonists must be women running out to prove that they are every bit as though as the men --that they always end up bigger than life in a way that the reader can't really feel triumphant when they win because it turned out to be no contest. I am going to talk about Deerskin, and Deerskin I liked.
Deerskin is based off of Charles Parault's story Donkeyskin. If I ever read the original I don't remember it (I went through a stage where I read volume after volume of fairy stories and one princess in disguise wearing a dress as silver as the moon blended in with all the rest) so I don't know how closely she followed it. I do know that she seems to do better with Fairy Tales and usually follows them pretty closely (though I'm still afraid to try Rose Daughter in fear of it somehow taking away from Beauty).
All the "McKinnleyness" that usually gets on my nerves just worked for the storyline. Yes, Lissar started out as a girl smothered in silks, trapped in what everyone else conceived as her proper life, expected to live up to ridiculous standards --but, well so much more literally 'smothered' and 'trapped' that I didn't think she was being mellow-dramatic for one minute. I won't deny that her 'animal-following' didn't bother me --just a little --but it did make sense. It was more like living with the wolves than the usual parade of adoring animals that follow McKnnley's heroines. Even the laser-light like show at then end in her final confrontation, though a bit bizarre, made sense because --especially after the long chapters of struggling for the very simplest of survival --you understand that she NEEDS super-human strength to do what she has to do. The prince was cute too --even though he was described as pretty homely and non-prince-like.
Part of the reason I didn't read this one way back when I went through my McKinnley stage (before I got too frustrated to go on) was because of a review I read from a reviewer that I usually agreed with --at that point anyways. It's been awhile. But I seem to remember (and here's where the heavy spoilers come in, just to warm you) that their main problems with it were. 1)In the beginning Lissar is weak and shuts herself in her room, almost waiting to be raped. 2) A large portion of the book is her wondering around in the wilderness, feeling miserable and sorry for herself and 3) when she miscarries she doesn't seem to have maternal grief. As for 1) --that really is the point isn't it? She is a princess. Beautiful. Neglected. Penned up. Innocent. She doesn't think of running away (for one thing she doesn't know where the garden door is) because the empty-halled palace is the only place she's ever known and she doesn't have anywhere to run to. as for 2) --as much as I'm for skipping to the exciting parts of a story and as much as I was craving human contact by the time those portions were done with, because so much of the book has to do with her physiological and emotional journey we NEED to see those bits so we understand her and really see what her parents have done to her --not just her father but her being so unprepared and then running around in the wild, trying to escape -to survive. yes, we are hearing every particular about her sweeping the floor and trying to take a bath, but in the state she is in those are impossible feats that help her to accomplish truly impossible feats later on. As for the third complaint --that's just plain ridiculous, as she shuts out the acknowledgment of ever having a father, let alone his child even as it is being miscarried BECAUSE it is too much for her to handle and she is certainly not void of maternal instincts, as shown later when she rescues the doomed puppy litter. Perhaps because of the lost child even if she doesn't dare remember why.
I think what enchanted me most about the book was the style. The plot wasn't perfect. There were a few extra things I wanted resolved at the end and the bizarre magic that came from nowhere in particular did get on my nerves. But the prose was . . . distinct. It was itself without adhering to the modern rules of writing. Maybe that is because it was written over ten years ago and the standards were different back then. There was much less 'showing as apposed to telling', very long periods of narrative summery rather than direct scenes and not everything was told in chronological order. I find this intriguing, for now that I think of it Beauty was much the same. I am almost tempted to read her new Dragonsbane --or even Sunshine even though I've never been partial to vampire stories --to see if this is her personal style or more of a late eighties/early nineties trend. Perhaps a stage in her writing development. I say "almost" tempted though and I mean almost because I have to many other things on my to-read list and Dragonsbane looks far too much like an "Eragon the McKinnley version" to me. And I'm sick of vampires.
I remain inconclusive about the author as a whole.
I promised you a Megan Whelan Turner shrine for the next couple of months didn't I? Rest assured I will be picking up Instead of Three Wishes at the library tomorrow and will begin posting reviews. We still have 58 days left.
Spindle's End -by Robin McKinnley = fabulous for the most part, though a bit frustrating in format and a bit vague towards the end
The Blue Sword - by Robin McKinnley = fascinating and exciting, if a little heavy on the feminism
The Hero and the Crown -by Robin McKinnley = long and tedious, with a few interesting side characters but an annoying protagonist and no particular point to the adventure as a whole
The Door in the Hedge - by Robin McKinnley = Enchanting. Tantalizing. A perfect collection of fairy stories.
The Outlaws of Sherwood -by Robin McKinnley = Dry and lifeless, laced with more feminism than I can handle for a story about men camping out in the woods
Deerskin -by Robin McKinnley = Distinctly McKinnley in a way that reminded me why I used to love her books
I must refrain myself from getting into another rant about her treatment of Robin Hood in his own legend and her insistence that all her protagonists must be women running out to prove that they are every bit as though as the men --that they always end up bigger than life in a way that the reader can't really feel triumphant when they win because it turned out to be no contest. I am going to talk about Deerskin, and Deerskin I liked.
Deerskin is based off of Charles Parault's story Donkeyskin. If I ever read the original I don't remember it (I went through a stage where I read volume after volume of fairy stories and one princess in disguise wearing a dress as silver as the moon blended in with all the rest) so I don't know how closely she followed it. I do know that she seems to do better with Fairy Tales and usually follows them pretty closely (though I'm still afraid to try Rose Daughter in fear of it somehow taking away from Beauty).
All the "McKinnleyness" that usually gets on my nerves just worked for the storyline. Yes, Lissar started out as a girl smothered in silks, trapped in what everyone else conceived as her proper life, expected to live up to ridiculous standards --but, well so much more literally 'smothered' and 'trapped' that I didn't think she was being mellow-dramatic for one minute. I won't deny that her 'animal-following' didn't bother me --just a little --but it did make sense. It was more like living with the wolves than the usual parade of adoring animals that follow McKnnley's heroines. Even the laser-light like show at then end in her final confrontation, though a bit bizarre, made sense because --especially after the long chapters of struggling for the very simplest of survival --you understand that she NEEDS super-human strength to do what she has to do. The prince was cute too --even though he was described as pretty homely and non-prince-like.
Part of the reason I didn't read this one way back when I went through my McKinnley stage (before I got too frustrated to go on) was because of a review I read from a reviewer that I usually agreed with --at that point anyways. It's been awhile. But I seem to remember (and here's where the heavy spoilers come in, just to warm you) that their main problems with it were. 1)In the beginning Lissar is weak and shuts herself in her room, almost waiting to be raped. 2) A large portion of the book is her wondering around in the wilderness, feeling miserable and sorry for herself and 3) when she miscarries she doesn't seem to have maternal grief. As for 1) --that really is the point isn't it? She is a princess. Beautiful. Neglected. Penned up. Innocent. She doesn't think of running away (for one thing she doesn't know where the garden door is) because the empty-halled palace is the only place she's ever known and she doesn't have anywhere to run to. as for 2) --as much as I'm for skipping to the exciting parts of a story and as much as I was craving human contact by the time those portions were done with, because so much of the book has to do with her physiological and emotional journey we NEED to see those bits so we understand her and really see what her parents have done to her --not just her father but her being so unprepared and then running around in the wild, trying to escape -to survive. yes, we are hearing every particular about her sweeping the floor and trying to take a bath, but in the state she is in those are impossible feats that help her to accomplish truly impossible feats later on. As for the third complaint --that's just plain ridiculous, as she shuts out the acknowledgment of ever having a father, let alone his child even as it is being miscarried BECAUSE it is too much for her to handle and she is certainly not void of maternal instincts, as shown later when she rescues the doomed puppy litter. Perhaps because of the lost child even if she doesn't dare remember why.
I think what enchanted me most about the book was the style. The plot wasn't perfect. There were a few extra things I wanted resolved at the end and the bizarre magic that came from nowhere in particular did get on my nerves. But the prose was . . . distinct. It was itself without adhering to the modern rules of writing. Maybe that is because it was written over ten years ago and the standards were different back then. There was much less 'showing as apposed to telling', very long periods of narrative summery rather than direct scenes and not everything was told in chronological order. I find this intriguing, for now that I think of it Beauty was much the same. I am almost tempted to read her new Dragonsbane --or even Sunshine even though I've never been partial to vampire stories --to see if this is her personal style or more of a late eighties/early nineties trend. Perhaps a stage in her writing development. I say "almost" tempted though and I mean almost because I have to many other things on my to-read list and Dragonsbane looks far too much like an "Eragon the McKinnley version" to me. And I'm sick of vampires.
I remain inconclusive about the author as a whole.
I promised you a Megan Whelan Turner shrine for the next couple of months didn't I? Rest assured I will be picking up Instead of Three Wishes at the library tomorrow and will begin posting reviews. We still have 58 days left.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)