![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
She's a wish fulfilment character
Author Scott Lynch responds to a critic of the character Zamira Drakasha, a black woman pirate in his fantasy book Red Seas Under Red Skies, the second novel of the Gentleman Bastard series.
I'm always little uncomfortable with responses to critiques of women in fantasy which run
critique: Female warriors/whatever in a pseudo-medieval setting are unrealistic
response: So the dragons are fine, but you are worried about the female warrior?
Because even though at one level it makes sense, at another the existence of dragons in fantasy clearly requires a different kind of suspension of disbelief to the existence of emancipated women. It's a really complicated discussion which impinges on an equally complicated discussion about when one is, and isn't able to suspend disbelief which doesn't just apply to gender roles but also to abuses of science and (on one notable occasion) the precise presentation of the minarets in Jerusalem.
So it's really feel refreshing to see a response to this kind of critique which isn't "hey! look! dragons!" but is instead yes of course she's fantasy wish fulfilment. AND WHY NOT?.
I've only read the first of the Gentleman Bastards series which I thought was a truly excellent novel. I haven't read the rest because I heard somewhere that they dropped in quality and I didn't really want to spoil how much I had enjoyed the first. But the above response makes me think I should re-evaluate that decision.
I'm always little uncomfortable with responses to critiques of women in fantasy which run
critique: Female warriors/whatever in a pseudo-medieval setting are unrealistic
response: So the dragons are fine, but you are worried about the female warrior?
Because even though at one level it makes sense, at another the existence of dragons in fantasy clearly requires a different kind of suspension of disbelief to the existence of emancipated women. It's a really complicated discussion which impinges on an equally complicated discussion about when one is, and isn't able to suspend disbelief which doesn't just apply to gender roles but also to abuses of science and (on one notable occasion) the precise presentation of the minarets in Jerusalem.
So it's really feel refreshing to see a response to this kind of critique which isn't "hey! look! dragons!" but is instead yes of course she's fantasy wish fulfilment. AND WHY NOT?.
I've only read the first of the Gentleman Bastards series which I thought was a truly excellent novel. I haven't read the rest because I heard somewhere that they dropped in quality and I didn't really want to spoil how much I had enjoyed the first. But the above response makes me think I should re-evaluate that decision.
Not so much suspension required
Maybe not so much as we commonly think. More and more evidence is coming to light that women have been slitting throats and bashing heads all along, so why shouldn't they do it in fantasies as well?
With more research, I could have dug about a more reputable-looking source, but I came upon this Cracked article very recently, so here it is, Exhibit A.
Re: Not so much suspension required
However my intention with the remark was that the argument ("if you can accept dragons you should be able to accept non-traditional gender roles") seems to make sense on the surface but that actually suspension of disbelief is an awful lot more complicated than that. I certainly don't think its a particularly good argument prime facie for persuading people accept women in a wider range of roles in fantasy fiction without actually unpicking their assumptions about why such roles are unrealistic. If you don't want to get into a big discussion about gender, society and culture then "of course its a wish fulfilment fantasy" covers a lot of the same ground without sounding like a cheap shot.