So, Joe Abercrombie's fantasy series. I've been intending to read it for a while, because I've heard that it's reasonably good.

Now, though, I may not.

A review of the series' second book was posted, containing criticism of Abercrombie's female characters. The word "misogynist" was used, along with the phrase "semen receptacle" to describe one character. Apparently "the vast majority of the characters in the book are male. ... I can think of only four in this book, three of them minor." The reviewer goes on to criticise the weakness of each female character.

Abercrombie posted a response.

Now, I've not read the books, so I can't really take issue with the reviewer's criticisms. Anyone who has read the books is free to pitch in with disagreements or agreements.

But some of the things Abercrombie says in his post make me, well, angry.

"Well, true, there aren't that many women. The First Law was an attempt to do a retake on the classic fantasy trilogy, and epic fantasy, taking its cue from Tolkien, does tend to focus heavily on men, the women often restricted to the love interests of said men. Perhaps that makes it, in some ways, a fundamentally sexist genre..."

"Ardee is forced to wait for male saviors because of her position in society. That may be stereotyped, but I don't know that she's necessarily "defined by that stereotypical position". Could the same not be said for every female character in Pride and Prejudice?"

"I don't personally have much use for the argument, "this is fantasy, so we can do anything we like." I think it encourages some of the genre's most lazy, shoddy, unimaginative excesses. Since I wanted The First Law in a way to be a re-examination of classic epic fantasy, and classic epic fantasy takes place in a pre-industrial, patriarchal world, that's the backdrop I went for."

I feel I should also mention his line: "And I would point out ... that examination is by no means endorsement."

It's not that I think Abercrombie is a misogynist. I have no way of knowing what his personal thoughts on women are. My problem, then, is with his attitude to fiction.

He says: "I wanted to do something that was honest, that was truthful, that was firmly rooted in historical reality, becuase for me those are the fantasy worlds that I find most convincing, most concrete." This, for him, meant putting women in a position realistic to the time period in our history that he was drawing from.

I haven't read the books, so I can't comment on these female characters. But I certainly know that it's possible to write women in restricted roles who are nonetheless strong people. Who have learnt how to work within the boundaries of their role. Or who fight the boundaries of their role, either subtly or not. Not every woman has to be like this, because not every person in the world is strong. But surely there's room for one or two strong women. The reviewer has the opinion that Abercrombie is not doing this.

And as for Abercrombie's use of the line "I don't personally have much use for the argument, "this is fantasy, so we can do anything we like." I think it encourages some of the genre's most lazy, shoddy, unimaginative excesses" as an excuse for not including strong women, well, I have some things I would like to say to that, and they involve phrases like "you fuckface."

Rather than this post breaking down into a bunch of cussing, I would like to direct readers to Catherynne M Valente's Orphan's Tales books, which are filled with strong women, and which IMO are wonderful books. Don't like those? Try out KJ Bishop's The Etched City, in which the society seems to treat men and women equally. Or books by China Mieville, also featuring female characters (PSS and TS have main female characters).

All of these are secondary world fantasies in which women are strong and important in their various ways. And there are so, so many more out there.

Or what about Elizabeth Bear's New Amsterdam. This one is even set in a period where women aren't yet equal to men (although not as inequal as in medieval times). One of the main characters? A very strong woman. In Joanne Harris' Sleep, Pale Sister, also historical, one of the women is very weak but still manages a little bit of agency, while another woman drives the plot to a huge degree. Even in Kij Johnson's The Fox Woman, where the human wife is incredibly limited by her society, she still has this inner strength that makes her into a fascinating, real person. I would never call her a semen receptacle.

Are these books I've listed not good? Well, that opinion will differ from reader to reader. But I really don't think these authors' desire to do something different from what's been done before -- and I know Valente, Bishop and Bear actively want to break gender stereotypes, and it wouldn't surprise me if the others are the same -- has resulted in "some of the genre's most lazy, shoddy, unimaginative excesses." I'd venture to say Valente, Bishop and Bear are some of the best writers working at the moment, but that's just my opinion.

I hope the reviewer of Abercrombie's book has exaggerated the weakness/stereotypical nature of the women. Because I think there is no excuse not to include at least some women who are strong in some (non-stereotypical) fashion. No excuse at all.

Portraying all the women in a novel as weak or as stereotypes is damaging. I don't need to explain why, surely?

Tags: ranting