|
Ornamented Death posted:I never meant to imply it was, I just don't think it really counters the claim that she's had a great career. Sure, it all happened after adopting the pen name but...does that really matter? I haven't read any of her works, but to me it sounds like you're saying, "She's had a great career if you ignore all of the portions of her career which weren't great." I don't know what portion of her career that consists of, so it comes off as disingenuous. For all I know she may have done 30 mediocre books under her old name and 5 good ones under her new name, in which case I'd argue that her career hadn't been great.
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
I'm like a page late but it bugs the living poo poo out of me when people talk about "turning your brain off" during an action movie because it's super disrespectful to good action movies. Just because a story doesn't try to make you ruminate on the human condition doesn't make it dumb. Engaging action is just as dependent on intelligent narrative construction as any other piece of storytelling and it doesn't excuse lovely hackwork
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:No, Hobb isn't that. There's no excitement of pulp in it. Hobb just doesn't even have the decency to engage properly what is the principal subject of the book: how a child becomes a royal assassin. When it comes to telling a story about assassination and political intrigue, she throws in a few lines about how FitzChivalry poisoned some aristo. There's pages and pages wasted on nonsense like telepathy instead of the meat of the story, which is violence and intrigue. I guess I'm misusing the word "pulp" then. What I mean is - it's a very simple story, of fundamentally nice people being forced into strenuous circumstances and trying to make the best of it. There's none of the deeper meaning or allusion I'd expect from "proper" literature, but there is a character who is easy to root for, who gets put through the wringer (and how!) and is easy to root for. I'd call it a cosy catastrophe, except a) she isn't british, and b)it's not 1950. So I guess it's the [insert sub-par action movie] to Le Guin's [insert well-executed action movie] which is still a heck of a lot better than Rothfuss' [insert execrable action movie]
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:It's not good, and it's keeping with thewhole fabrication of Kvothe being "morally clever." It makes sense _in the larger purview of Kvothe/Rothfuss not understanding simple things. If the coffers aren't going to match the ledgers either way, why does TM need to partner with Kvothe at all? Why not just... pocket some cash from the university funds without making this strange deal with Kvothe? Why is it in TM's interests to pay Kvothe, increasing the amount of money missing but not increasing TM's own cut, to fail his exams? TM's actions only make sense if you assume TM isn't actually taking a cut himself, and TM's objective is to maximize the net amount of money received by the university, for no personal gain, in a manner in violation of university policy, and at great personal risk of firing and prosecution if he's caught. But that just leads to the obvious follow-up question: what is TM's motivation for pursuing this bizarre objective? Why did Kvothe, who knows virtually nothing about TM, expect TM to agree to this plot that doesn't benefit TM in any way? I agree that the point is for Kvothe to be oh-so-clever and smugly outwit those who have "wronged" him. The problem is that his plan doesn't actually work, because Rothfuss is not oh-so-clever and didn't bother to think it through. Nakar posted:I think your exhaustiveness helps throw a wrench into the most common objection that tends to be raised to this sort of criticism: "If it doesn't matter, why are you trying to force some characters to be [insert non-heterosexual white male trait]?" Viewed in aggregate over the entire cast over a long period of time and controlling for characters whose identity must be fixed by necessity of the plot (i.e. we're not even addressing the issue of what the book would be like if Denna were a dude or what have you), there is a trend toward exactly as you describe it: a default. And defaults are kind of weird in general, except in instances where they are thematically relevant (such as every person in a book having some weird shallow quirk when that shallowness is part of the message of the work). There's no particular thematic reason why everyone Kvothe meets who isn't somehow into him in some way is male, it just turns out that way when you analyze it. There's definitely a failure of imagination there, but I think the real problem is it shows what Rothfuss thinks of women. If every woman he writes over a large sample size is a man's love interest, mother, or prostitutes -- if the only place for women in Rothfuss's universe is as men's love interests, mothers, or prostitutes -- then the only reasonable conclusion is that Rothfuss only thinks of women as men's love interests, mothers, or prostitutes. We see this all the time in politics, the first recent example that comes to mind being the anger the right used to push bathroom bills: "Transwomen are a threat to our wives and daughters!" Setting aside the bullshit transphobia for now (which is awful but not directly relevant to my point), they always use that specific phrasing: wives and daughters. The reason these women deserve protection (from an imagined manufactured threat) isn't that they're people, it's that they are relatives of men. Because that's what really gives women value, right? Women are like moons, and their pale fire they snatch from the suns that are nearby men? Rothfuss has spent two thousand pages saying "Wives and daughters" over and over again. He didn't mean to, one assumes. But he did. And that's very much antifeminist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:46
|
|
|
I see the thread has gone full circle again. I was enjoying the lull in BotL posts. Ahahaha, I'm glad I watched it to the end.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
I'm sorry, please remove Elodin from the list I posted. His gender might be relevant:NotW Chapter 68 posted:Fela bought me a drink and we chatted for a while about small things. I was surprised to learn that she’d been working with Elodin for the last several months. She did some sculpting for him, and in exchange he occasionally tried to teach her. She rolled her eyes. He woke her in the middle of the night and took her to an abandoned quarry north of town. He put wet clay in her shoes and made her spend the entire day walking around in them. He even…she flushed and shook her head, breaking off the story. Curious, but not wanting to make her uncomfortable, I didn’t pursue it any further and we agreed between the two of us that he was more than half mad. It's ambiguous and plausibly deniable but whatever happened I guarantee it would piss me off.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Ha! Elodin raped Fela. Why not. I can't wait for Kvothe to rename himself so this entire series loops around and starts back at the beginning just like The Outsiders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
Why the gently caress is that line even there? The previous sentences already make what Elodin's doing as a trickster mentor type clear, there's zero reason to then heavily implying he did something sexual to Fela unless Rothfuss found the idea hot. And Rothfuss, a professor, should really not be writing about how sexy it is for a male professor to molest a female student. Obviously the line can be redeemed by completing it to read "He even... smoked a bowl with me, 420 learn the name of stoned every day"
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
I hope it's merely hinting that he made her strip to feel the stone while his back was turned. But this is Rothfuss, so who the gently caress knows.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 01:09
|
|
|
Speaking of male fantasy writers and unconsciously writing men as the default/writing women characters really badly: that was something that always bugged me about The Lies of Locke Lamora and Joe Abercrombie’s first two books. When I was reading The Lies of Locke Lamora I kept waiting for the lady thief that they kept talking about and hyping up to show up and maybe even save the day, then I found out that apparently she doesn’t enter the story until the third book. Also, Lies and The First Law trilogy both had really blatant Women in Refrigerator scenes. I was kind of stunned when I read those and kept waiting for a twist or something. Of course Abercrombie actually took the criticism about writing female characters to heart, and later wrote a novel with a pretty amazing and three-dimensional female protagonist (in my opinion at least.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Should I be reading The First Law? I've been meaning to, but haven't gotten around to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
https://www.citizenaudit.org/organization/900618018/WORLDBUILDERS%20INC/ At first I wanted to know if there was a record of how many hours Rothfuss spent on the charity per week. There was, and that number is supposedly 23 (how very, oddly specific). Just because, ya know, if he was spending 60 hours a week on Wordlbuilders, that might be cause for a huge delay in books. But then I started looking at financials and stuff. This charity exists only to forward money to other charities while funding itself. It's basically a skimming operation, right? I mean, as far as I could tell, Rothfuss doesn't pay himself a salary, but there are other ways a guy can use tax free cash flow. He's getting tons of gains by pedaling his books right alongside heifer international, and building a sterling bleeding heart public image in the process. This guy should run for president.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Hahahaha oh my god I'd be pissed if I was more invested in this guy
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Should I be reading The First Law? I've been meaning to, but haven't gotten around to it. I’d recommend it, with the big caveat that the first book is a bit rough and Abercrombie doesn’t really hit his stride until the second one. Also, a lot of people tend to describe the First Law books as grim, but I always saw them as a gleefully schlocky and cynical black comedy. Abercrombie’s prose is also a lot better than Rothfuss’, especially when you get to his stand-alone novels, and especially in The Heroes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Well I found my Clinton Victory Fanfare, thanks. Yeah, about that
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Yeah, about that Hey it's still a little raw, could we you know, have a modicum of respect? Oh wait, statistically speaking, probably not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:Yeah, about that We can just use the normal version now I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Couple notes, folks -- Moderator hat ON, even though I'm getting to the reports a few pages late. 1) I don't care if you want to yell at JivJov about his horrible taste or opinions but don't use the word "retard," etc., to do it. As he said above, "ableist slurs." This is something I will hand out probations for if it continues. It's a personal pet peeve of mine: On the one hand people with down's syndrome don't deserve to be compared to lovely posters, and on the other hand, it gives the lovely posters ammunition to distract from their lovely opinions and inevitably derails threads. 2) don't loving encourage suicide. That's really a drama bomb I do not want to have to deal with, ok? Thanks. 3) If you do insist on flaming people, do it in an intelligent way and ground it in discussion of some kind of text. Flaming is allowed but not content-free flaming. Make it funny or make it smart. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:06 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Blastedhellscape posted:Speaking of male fantasy writers and unconsciously writing men as the default/writing women characters really badly: that was something that always bugged me about The Lies of Locke Lamora and Joe Abercrombie’s first two books. When I was reading The Lies of Locke Lamora I kept waiting for the lady thief that they kept talking about and hyping up to show up and maybe even save the day, then I found out that apparently she doesn’t enter the story until the third book. anilEhilated fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 12:40
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:I'm not really sure if the author is to blame for your expectations - said thief actually has pretty good reasons for not being there, as you'd find out in the third book; I really don't think that foreshadowing a latter character constitutes "bad writing". I mean, even if you want to have a badass woman quota, doesn't Lies have those two gladiators? Really the only scene out of that book I still remember is them wrestling a shark and killing the city's de facto ruler at the same time. I don't know if you can call the contrarequialla a good example of female characters when there is less than a dozen lines between the two of them and no characterization. They are more of a prop for their brother than characters in their own right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 13:16
|
|
|
As I said, I don't remember the book that much - and find the female character quota thing dubious at best. Besides, no one talked about good characters, just that they were disappointed about the lack of Sabetha (and having read the third book a bit more recently, I do wish she'd have stayed in the backstory) not showing up to save the day and that somehow making for bad writing. I mean, there's not many characters in that book in the first place - you get the two protagonists and that's really it, everyone else just exists to be conned by them. I guess for a better example you could go to the pirates in book 2 or something.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
ulmont posted:In particular, as we all know, anything in D Minor (the saddest of all keys) will make people weep instantly. This was my friends problem with all the music scenes, that he has never seen a song make a crowd of people start crying.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Just watch people cry at a national anthem. It's not out of the realm of feasibility.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
anilEhilated posted:As I said, I don't remember the book that much - and find the female character quota thing dubious at best. Besides, no one talked about good characters, just that they were disappointed about the lack of Sabetha (and having read the third book a bit more recently, I do wish she'd have stayed in the backstory) not showing up to save the day and that somehow making for bad writing. The backstory of the city and the Gentlemen Bastards is explored pretty thoroughly, and so much of the stuff referenced ends up being relevant throughout the book. The introduction of an estranged love interest who is also a conman is pretty much a big flashing sign saying "this person will appear, and in an unexpected place" so it did feel kinda weird that she never did. It's like "drowned mysteriously" or "and the body was never recovered". It sets you up for a reveal that doesn't come.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
The Lies of Locke Lamora also had an old lady who turned out to be the giant spymaster. It’s not nearly as bad about gender as Rothfuss’ books, it was just a little disappointing that there was a really jarring Women in Refrigerators moment i.e. a female character gets killed dramatically in a way that seems purely there to give the protagonist angst and show how villainous the villain is. Also, I was disappointed that Sabetha got built up and then left for the sequel, leaving the cast largely male. It’s not bad writing, it just struck me as a missed opportunity to write a book about a bunch of fantasy swindler-thieves and then make them entirely a group of guys, since there’s nothing in the job description of ‘fantasy-swindler-thief’ that precludes women, and it might actually be advantageous to have some women in your gang.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
I think what redeemed Lies of Locke Lamora, aside from the story and prose itself being genuinely enjoyable, was the author actually admitting he had a representation problem and then actively working to make it better. You see definite improvements as the series progresses and when we finally meet Sabetha he avoids making her some kind of weird wish fulfillment and turns her into an actual character with her own poo poo going on and nothing like the bizarre fantasy Locke has projected. Rothfuss lacks not just the talent for engaging prose and storytelling but the humility and self-awareness to admit he is bad at writing representative stories, while simultaneously claiming the banner of Woke Feminist. Lottery of Babylon wrote a great takedown and I am interested to see jivjov address his points as well, since he is already working on his own effortpost to support the claim that Rothfuss writes women well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
I didn't think Lies was genderist at all when I read it. The third book, if anything, got a little weird, with the Sabetha / Red-head thing. I thought the first book was fine. I think the second book was good too, with the primary non Jean/Locke character being a Mother / Pirate Warlord. I don't know, I think sometimes people get hyper critical about gender issues in fantasy and read a little too deeply into subtexts that aren't there, because there are issues in some popular books, like Name of the Wind. If anyone has well thought out criticism on Lies of LL though, feel free to drop it here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Lies is absolutely gender-skewed (albeit less so than NotW/WMF). The majority of the protagonists are male (though what women do exist in the text are quite good) and the first book does commit the sin of fridging one of the only major female characters in the name of giving the protagonist more tragedy and angst to work against. It's still a good book despite that, but those are fair critiques of the text, and they're critiques that the author has accepted and worked to rectify by making his cast of characters in later books more diverse (and frankly more interesting as a result). I enjoyed how he used Sabetha as a sort of meta-commentary on this in the third book as well when she calls Locke out for behaving in a way that is unconsciously sexist. I mean, I say this as someone who is an absolutely massive Scott Lynch fan. I am just not the sort of reader that believes my favs need to be flawless to be good, and who enjoys subjecting the poo poo I read to that kind of analysis. Not just because I do think it's important to be critical of those works but because lack of representation, or actively bad representation, kind of affects me personally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
So your actual criticisms are: -The majority of the protagonists are male (though what women do exist in the text are quite good) -The first book does commit the sin of fridging one of the only major female characters in the name of giving the protagonist more tragedy and angst to work against Point one is true, but does not make a book intrinsically anti-woman. Every book doesn't need to contain exactly 50% male and 50% female characters. I hope that we can agree on that point. I will allow that it can act as ancillary evidence if a piece of work otherwise appears to be anti-woman. As far as gender-skewed, yes, you're right. There are more major male characters than female. I don't think that's a problem, just like its inverse wouldn't be either, especially in a novel that isn't trying to make any major points about gender (that I can tell). As to point two, I imagine this could be more controversial. Yes, Nazca is brutally murdered and delivered to her father under gross circumstances. But it makes sense within the context of the novel. It's not a recurrent event- women aren't being killed off left and right to add drama. So I don't have an issue with this either. From Locke's perspective, Nazca is a friend, not a love interest, and I think her gender is secondary to her hereditary as the cause of her murder. The interpretation of the woman in a fridge trope is unfortunate, imo. I feel like it's one of those things that has a stigma regardless of the circumstances around it now. The very appearance of 'woman in a fridge' is automatically assumed to be sexist, when I just don't accept that as the case. Finding a woman in a fridge can be great drama. Finding a man in a fridge can be great drama. Avoiding putting a woman in a fridge out of concern for how your audience will interpret it would be as bad as writing a book like NotW, where woman are actually treated as having a lesser role and lesser importance from the main character's POV. Agree? Disagree? Am I just crazy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Lynch does a reasonable job with background characters being women. Random clerks and guards as as often women as they are men. Its something a lot of fantasy tends to overlooks. I really appreciated TFA for having women and minorities peppered through the movie as stormtroopers and pilots. It's nice when the background of a world feels rounded like that. I think stuff like that can be as important as a strong female protagonist succeeding in a man's world. Not that it absolves Lies not having better female characters but it does have a higher batting average than the norm for the genre which unfortunately is more telling about the genre than Lies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:Point one is true, but does not make a book intrinsically anti-woman. Nobody made this assertion in this thread; you are projecting. We said that despite the better-than-average representation the series has shown, Lynch did commit some pretty rookie errors which he admits that are part of an overall trend within the fantasy genre to relegate women in stories to the roles of supporting male protagonists, and the way this is done in a lot of books including LoLL and most certainly in everything Rothfuss has ever written is through inflicting violence and abuse on those women.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
But at least he didn't write a scene where the hero feels up victims of sex slavery and congratulate himself on his feminism.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Reene posted:Nobody made this assertion in this thread; you are projecting. We said that despite the better-than-average representation the series has shown, Lynch did commit some pretty rookie errors which he admits that are part of an overall trend within the fantasy genre to relegate women in stories to the roles of supporting male protagonists, and the way this is done in a lot of books including LoLL and most certainly in everything Rothfuss has ever written is through inflicting violence and abuse on those women. You didn't really respond to the content of what I wrote. You just copy and pasted the first line and paraphrased yourself after telling me I was projecting. If you had read on you may have seen I was genuinely curious to discuss the success and failings present in the book in relation to gender, as well as associated tropes and their validity in the craft. But gently caress me, am I right? Edit: Man I have a lot of grammatical errors when I try to respond on my phone. Benson Cunningham fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
I'm responding to exactly what you wrote by elaborating on what the problem with the way female characters in LoLL/fantasy in general are written and by elaborating on what specifically the problem with using fridging as a plot device is in response to the rebuttal "well I just don't think that's sexist." Sorry you didn't like my response I guess, but I don't know what to tell you in that case. I explained the problem with it; you can take it or leave it or come back with something else instead of chastising people for not discussing poo poo the way you like. Reene fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Reene posted:I'm responding to exactly what you wrote by elaborating on what the problem with the way female characters in LoLL/fantasy in general are written and by elaborating on what specifically the problem with using fridging as a plot device is in response to the rebuttal "well I just don't think that's sexist." Based on what you've said, you should just never kill a woman in a fantasy novel, because har har har woman in a fridge. All male characters will die violent deaths and all female characters will die of old age, or not even that. That's really how you sound to me. Because at no point are you taking into account the specific circumstances presented in the novel for that situation, the narrative importance of that character's death, or anything else that is an argument towards this specific instance rather than a broad 'woman in a fridge' umbra. I don't consider a cast that has more male characters than female characters to be an issue. I don't consider the opposite a problem either. If that alone is enough to rile you, you're right, we just aren't going to see eye to eye. An author shouldn't be afraid to kill a female character, or a male character, because of the perceived gender politics of the situation. That's loving idiotic. Even combining the two ideas, a predominantly male cast and a female character death, shouldn't be worth even commenting on. Which is why I brought up anti-woman, because I could not at any point believe that the simple presence of more men than women in LoLL was worth discussing in isolation. Whatever point you're trying to make is lost on me, because the presence of these two elements doesn't create a problem in my mind given the specific circumstances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 04:20
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:Based on what you've said, you should just never kill a woman in a fantasy novel, because har har har woman in a fridge. All male characters will die violent deaths and all female characters will die of old age, or not even that. That's really how you sound to me. Because at no point are you taking into account the specific circumstances presented in the novel for that situation, the narrative importance of that character's death, or anything else that is an argument towards this specific instance rather than a broad 'woman in a fridge' umbra. The thing is, when it comes to the idea of "women in refrigerators," specifics don't matter. It's a statistical issue -- you look at major works of fantasy, science fiction, honestly most forms of fiction, and women exist predominantly as wives or girlfriends who are killed to motivate the main character. That pattern is repeated over and over again, to the point where it becomes absurd. It's not necessarily about being anti-woman (although certainly sometimes it is) but again that idea of bias towards men as default. That's the whole reason the concept exists in the first place: women reading comics noticed how female characters were used as plot devices, and labelled it. I know that I was personally disappointed with Lies of Locke Lamora when I read it, because I had heard a lot about what an incredible book it was, and so when the only female character in that book died in a pretty textbook case of a fridged female character (woman beloved by male characters; brutally murdered; body presented to characters in a disgusting fashion; death then motivates male anger), I pretty much just put the book down. It may be good "except" for that, but for me personally, it's a dealbreaker. When your only female character is killed to motivate men, that's a plot device that is used so many times that it's a good idea to step back and think, "Is there some personal bias going into this? Why aren't there any more female characters in this work? What's going on here?" You don't necessarily have to decide not to kill off any women ever again -- it's just, have enough well-developed female characters that killing one doesn't mean killing every female character in your book. Apparently Scott Lynch did do that, which may make me take a second look at his books. That may not change your mind, but I hope it at least gives you a better understanding of the idea and why it's important, and that you don't dismiss it out of hand. Maybe for you the concept isn't a problem, but for a lot of people it is.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 08:56
|
|
|
Gluten Freeman posted:... Wanted to start by saying I think I do understand (to some degree) the frustration that readers, especially female readers, would have at being underrepresented, utilized primarily as macguffins, and not given the chance to shine as significant players in novels, comics, and other media. I understand how if women in a narrative serve no purpose beyond being sacrificed to add drama, it would be bad (and is bad where that occurs). But a number of other characters who act as primary antagonists or foils are also female and serve alternative purposes in this specific story. In addition, it's just grim dark- most of the main characters die. Spoilers abound below: Locke - Protag Jean - Protag The Don Jean's Weapon Trainer Father Chains - Dead Calo and Galdo - Killed to motivate the plot Capa - Killed to motivate the plot Bug - Killed to motivate the plot The Falconer - Tortured and purposefully left alive in a brutal fashion The Gray King - Killed by protags Sabetha - Absent (which is in itself an interesting topic. I would argue she is still a major character even given her absence from most of the text) The Spider, Doña Vorchenza The Don's Wife Nazca - Killed to motivate the plot Berengias Sisters - Killed by protags To my knowledge, that's every main and primary supporting character. I guess The Don Family guard could be another. So you have 6/10 male deaths and 3/6 female deaths. Of those, 5/10 male deaths are directly plot related (I think Chains just dies of old age off screen), and 3/6 female deaths are directly plot related. So even looking at it 'statistically' I don't think this specific story has a big issue with the 'woman in a fridge' trope. I also don't think drawing a mathematical line in the sand benefits anyone really. Yes the cast is gender imbalanced with more roles going to males than females. I'm fine with that, the opposite slant, and most things inbetween. If the only fantasy available to me was entirely male dominated, this would piss me off. But even just this year, I've read The Library at Mount Char, A Darker Shade of Magic, Uprooted, The Night Circus, A Gathering of Shadows, City of Stairs, Aurora, Death's End, Children of Dune, The Fifth Season, Slade House, Six of Crows (Don't judge me), The Water Knife, and Sleeping Giants- all of which feature leading female protagonists who kick rear end. I understand that the repeated abuse of this trope in previous generations dominated by male heroes and male heroes only has made people especially aware of this situation and tender to it. I think it would be interesting to look at just the last 5-10 years though across the most popular fantasy novels and see if it still holds up. It's obviously pervasive in Name of the Wind, but when I do a quick scan of Hugo nominees and winners, I don't see it as much at all. If I look at my comic collection, admittedly small and likely unrepresentative of everyones, I think most of them have gone away from this trope. Rat Queens, Saga, K6BD, Ava's Demon, Wytches, Monstress, I don't see that trend at all. I guess it helps that I don't read much Marvel or DC though. Maybe I just live in a bubble and haven't engaged with fantasy fans who pander to the trope. TL;DR - I would just ask you look at individual cases, authorial intent, and the surrounding circumstances when a dead lady shows up in a barrel before deciding if the woman in a fridge trope actually applies beyond the surface level.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Benson Cunningham posted:TL;DR - I would just ask you look at individual cases, authorial intent, and the surrounding circumstances when a dead lady shows up in a barrel before deciding if the woman in a fridge trope actually applies beyond the surface level. We do, and it absolutely does in this case. Nazca is just about a textbook example of fridging. Additionally, most of the female characters you mention are not fleshed out, or themselves serve as hollow props for male characters (the Berengias Sisters). The Spider might be the exception; the paragraph or two of Sofia we're given is interesting, but clearly not interesting enough for you to call her by her name instead of "The Don's Wife," though I suspect we'll see more of her in later books. You've already asserted that isn't a numbers game and that treating it like one is inappropriate, so I'm a little confused as to why you're attempting to treat it like one by tallying up all the dead ladies vs. dead guys in the text. Authorial intent does not really matter all that much, but it's funny you bring it up about an author that has admitted that's what he did and apologized for it. An author can still do something lovely even if he never intended to because these biases are frequently unconscious ones that largely stem from the aforementioned treatment of male as the default, as already explained. Now, if Lynch had done what you said and simply washed his hands of it by saying "well I never meant it like that and it makes perfect sense in the context of the book" he never would have grown as an author and, I think, his later works would have all suffered for it. He accepted it as a valid critique and was made a better writer for it because it is now something he actively watches for and attempts to address. Reene fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Nov 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
I personally just zone out whenever I see the word "trope".
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 15:51 |
|
|
So we have shown that Lynch is a pretty cool dude that can admit when he fucks up. Meanwhile, Rothfuss splits his beard and rolls it into his ears, ignoring all criticism. Point - Lynch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2016 18:52
|
|
