As usual, I deliver something other than what I thought I was going to post. This rant grew quite long, so I'm splitting it into two parts (which is why it ends somewhat abruptly). Also, I've edited the summary of this essay somewhat to clarify what it isn't. No, I'm not trying to lure flies, with honey or otherwise because flies don't do me any good and I'm not Renfield, sorry. These are rants, not gentle how-to guides to convert people by means of sweet and gentle persuasion. They're my opinions, and questions I wish were asked more often.

No, I don't hate fantasy as a genre. I just dislike bad writing and I lament that most people writing in the genre are unambitious and content only to churn out cookie-cutter crud.

Gender issues are delicate—most writers are, if not familiar with actual feminist theories, at least concerned with the appearance of supporting gender equality. Hence, in more fantasy than I can count, there will be one or two or maybe an entire order of women who are meant to carry the torch of feminism. Perhaps it’s an organization of female magic-users or an elite cadre of all-female assassins. There’s the average token girl in an adventuring party (who’s often also the only girl; somehow having more than one woman is antithesis to a certain breed of writers). There’s the Galadriel-type figures functioning either as the Wise Woman in the Woods or the Benevolent Lady of the Silver City.

All well and good. But, and there’s always a but, because gender issues are delicate, they are hard to balance. Some writers don’t try. Some writers choose the most obvious venues and yet they fail. Martial abilities or even being able to call lightning down to strike enemies don’t make a character strong in personality. They are, by themselves, meaningless trappings and should never, ever be mistaken as the be-all, end-all measure of strength.

To bastardize Jacqueline Carey: That which bends does not always yield; that which yields does not always break. In other words, what may seem “weak” to you doesn’t always constitute a lack of spine, spirit, or will.

For example: here’s a little quiz—if you, as an ordinary human who is not the Super Special Awesome Chosen One and lacks the wherewithal to squash powerful beings like bugs, are stuck as the concubine of an absolutely omniscient God-King who slaughtered your family and erased the name of your homeland from the pages of history, do you…

a) constantly, obviously defy him to his face and in public

b) pretend submission to survive

c) pretend submission to survive while secretly plotting against him

d) use your position and influence to alleviate the suffering of his subjects

e) make hilariously futile attempts to assassinate him?

Options a and e are usually the ways of authors who think being in-your-face and bratty is the same as being strong-willed (if they can even bear putting their precious flowers in such a compromised position in the first place, which isn’t often: she always has a way out). Options a and e should also get the character drawn and quartered or tortured in other creative and amusing ways, but such authors tend to make this defiant, spirited girl an author’s darling: her cutting wit will awe all, her remonstrations will silence the villain and make him pause, regretting the error of his ways. Maybe she will even manifest magical powers that allow her to melt his face and walk away whistling.

Unusually few authors take into consideration the fact that a, b, c, and d take much more patience, restraint, maturity, intelligence and, oh yes, will. The will to survive and cope without breaking down, the intelligence to find ways to retaliate that are not bloody stupid, and the compassion to use whatever at your disposal to better the lives of others. That is strength. Flailing like an angry child isn’t.

There are also a great deal of potential in negative relationships, or at least relationships that aren’t perfectly beautiful and mutually enriching. I don’t, personally, enjoy romance (or fantasy masquerading as romance) and I don’t read books for the sake of it—and romances covered in Fabio and voluptuous heroines tend to be ultimately happy. There’re several breeds of this: there’s the usual empowered heroine—with guns or otherwise, usually found in “urban fantasy” (I call it paranormal chick lit)—who may have boy problems but ultimately find Mr. Right who will accept her as she is, applauding her choice to be a Liberated Femme and acquiescing to her every wish. Then there’s the quivering virgins who submit to the alpha male’s great sex skills and let her libido melt away her brain. Both are presented as wonderful and ideal. But seen from a more objective perspective, these are actually quite problematic relationships—the first demands that the man be adjunct to her whims and discard his own goals and personality; the second demands that the woman be spirited but never inside the bedroom and ultimately, she doesn’t have much power and is addicted to sex. Presented and dealt with realistically, I can rally behind such concepts. Exploring relationships that are screwed up is fun, with all the damage they could cause and the character development they could induce. Sexual addiction could be interesting and might go both ways, making it mutually unhealthy. Conflict. Tension. A bitter ending. All these are far more intriguing than simply regurgitating chick lit clichés and making them out to be good things.

And if you want strong women, remember this: immaturity, a short temper and being obnoxious do not make you “empowered”. Nor does the ability to fight, the willingness to kill, or otherwise being able to “play with the boys” and hey, are you sure that’s not disguised misogyny?

Lashing out and jumping into fights at the drop of a hat (such as, perhaps, at a passing remark that you are less than an independent, indomitable woman who’s an example all women should aspire to emulate) does not mean you are an empowered woman. No, not even if the fight in question (verbal or physical) pits you against a man. No, not even if it’s a chauvinistic man. It just means you are easy to rile, have little self-control, and are emotionally twelve. Not to mention that someone who goes out of her way to such extent to prove something is incredibly insecure.

Ironically, deluded authors who write deluded propaganda tend to rely—of all things—on masculine support. Aggression, physical violence, and so forth are most often characterized as “masculine” in many settings and made objective by an omniscient narrator. The heroine will be praised for being able to “play with the boys.” She is almost always the one girl in the team, or the one girl in the cast, such that all male attention is lavished upon her and her alone (since none of the men could possibly be gay or bi, but that’s neither here nor there). And she will have a chip on her shoulder the size of a supercontinent—as related above, she will get into arguments and she will never be wrong. Anyone who opposes her will be tarred with the brush of misogyny. Her acts of heroism, courage and defiance will be remarked upon by men.

Huh?

It’s frightening how common this is. Fantasy is liberally honeycombed with such women: the author, and other characters (mostly, again, male), will tell you that she is admirable, self-assertive, and made of steel. Only… she spends nearly all her time winning and garnering the approval of men. “Playing with the boys” itself implies that she seeks acceptance into an in-group (adventurers, warriors, the police force, the military) that’s dominated by men—and her attempts to become the manliest of them all will stop at nothing, which leads to…

I’m less womanly than you, so I win! A certain breed of quote Strong Female Characters unquote vilify anything with a vagina that isn’t herself, for she is the Tomboy and Tomboyism is the One True Way. Any woman who wears makeup is submitting to the patriarchy by making herself an object of the male gaze (also, she’s a whore); any woman who’s a housewife is “setting back the women’s rights movement” by decades; any woman with less sexual experience (or different sexual tastes, more “vanilla”) than the Tomboy is a prude. In fact, just about any woman that appears will be there to make the Tomboy look better. None of them will be as capable, attract as many men (looks are not important here: often the peripheral females are more beautiful than the Tomboy, but all the men around the Tomboy of course see past appearance; also, all the pretty girls are airheads), or be as generally awesome as she is. She rarely, if ever, has female friends (because they have cooties and their girliness might rub off on her, the tragedy!). See also: Anita Blake.

The opposite, I’m more womanly than you, so I win! is just another extreme, and equally silly. The girly breed of quote Strong Female Characters unquote will also tout their way as the One True Way—being nurturing, motherly, excellent with children, and a temple for their men. Their reaction to the Tomboy isn’t as vehement, but they will do it in a passive-aggressive, condescending way; any woman who isn’t clothed from head to toe in frills and lace is silly; any woman who doesn’t marry and pop out a litter of children is “immature” and needs to grow up (see: David Eddings, particularly Polgara and her clones; see also Mormonism creeping into Orson Scott Card’s fiction—ala “see, even super-geniuses recognize that the best thing ever for women to do is to birth and care for children!”). For an extra helping of in-your-face propaganda, any female character who has an abortion will be painted as the ultimate evil (because abortion is murder!!); any single woman will be miserable for the rest of her life, because woman cannot be complete without a man and marriage (always with motherhood) is the most fulfilling experience ever. Oh, they will often boss men around to show that they are empowered, but it’s always done with the implicit consent of men who are mostly just—patronizingly—humoring them. Girly Girl often surrounds herself with plenty of female company, all the better to gossip with and commiserate on what boneheads those men of theirs are and how oh-so-cleverly they manipulate their men—sorry, guide, see:

My informal “ladies’ academy” produced quite a few women who had a significant impact on Wacite political and social life. Women instinctively know how to gently guide and direct their husbands, and my little school educating the young women of the Wacite court subtly modified some things I heartily disapproved of. (David Eddings, Polgara the Sorceress.)

Not coincidentally, by the way, the young women Polgara says are “the best and brightest” also happen to be some of the prettiest. And they know how to deal with men! It’s instinctive, you see. The whole of womankind, quite clearly, are born with the ability and the inclination to be manipulative harpies who have no faith in their spouses because boys mean well enough but really, compared to girls, they’re so dim, you know? They think with their penises! Oooh, what wonderful femynyst message! Thank you, David Eddings.

Alternatively, or maybe even in the same go, these women will also make self-satisfied, smug remarks about what senseless, childish those tomboys are (their definition of tomboy being: any woman who isn’t as aggressively “feminine”; any woman who doesn’t share their way of life). Girly Girl holds the belief that childbirth, child-rearing and being the angel in the house are the ultimate proof of their strength and power as women. The common ground shared by Girly Girl and Tomboy is, ultimately, this: they will make a point of shouting from the rooftops about their virtues. They are never quietly and calmly satisfied with what they think are their strengths. They always, always have to prove a point and trumpet their virtues (either by winning a fight against a man, or “converting” other women to their way of thinking), making sure the world know they are right, preferably in as public a manner as possible.

Both of these miss the point, which is: the idea of feminism is about choice and there is no one single True Way to go about it—no one ideal woman, no one ideal form of power. Imposing your choice on others isn’t empowering; if anything, it robs others of choices. It makes you a twat, okay? Polgara, Blake, by the way, you are both twats. To wit: you are not a bigger woman because you give birth and you are not a bigger woman because you can kill monsters. No, “fulfilling your biology” is not particularly noble (and it’s frankly insulting that anyone would think fulfilling a biological function is the epitome of feminism and, yes, some people do think like that. In real life, not just in pseudo-medieval Fantasia Generica). By all means, have women who fight and women who are maternal—but when you start putting one as blatantly “superior” to the other, or in Eddings’ case, make everybody and their sister marry off and have loads of kids (where are all the happily single women?), something is wrong. No, stop that, nobody gives a damn about your opinions on abortion or the family unit. Tell it to somebody who cares. That somebody is, generally, not going to be your faceless reader. Pay someone to listen. I am coughing up cash to buy your book and be entertained.

And contrary to popular belief, a “reversal” of roles introduces more problems than it solves, and misandry is not clever. In fiction which aims for mimesis to some extent or another, there should be strong and weak characters alike: some men and women have more in them to cope with bad situations, and some have less. That’s fine and expected. But don’t ever believe, not for a minute, that it’s “feminist” or “original” or “edgy” when you have a pair of lovers and the man is a doormat who lets the woman walk all over him. A society where men are treated like scum and women exalted in all roles is not feminist (why hello thar, drow) for the same reason that John Norman’s Gorean tripe promotes nobody’s rights. A story that can be summarized as “women are sweet and wonderful and nurturing and everything goes wrong when men take over” is frankly retarded and no, it’s not feminist either (see Marion Zimmer Bradley again—Firebrand and Mists of Avalon are good examples; see also Lynn Flewelling’s The Bone Doll’s Twin, which takes place in a country where… only queens can rule well and make the nation prosperous. When men take the throne, disasters happen).

When you can’t handle gender issues well, don’t. Please write more about sexless aliens or an entire species of hermaphrodites.