Gender Value in Fantasy

I rarely ever start a post with a disclaimer, but it's important to establish right out of the gate that this particular consideration in fiction is highly optional. Through the way your society mirrors an existing culture or through the way characters and environments interact, your readers will both decide if there's a gendered bias or if it's even personally important for them to observe one at all. What I'm going to cover here is a consideration, an analysis, of the many ways we can exhibit this in action on a conscious level. It's not 'woke' or any attempt to establish superiority and inferiority, just techniques in exhibiting it on many levels.

The broader you go, the less you need to think about it. An entire world is rarely on the same page when it comes to gender roles, so we tend to skip an unified norm there. It tends to narrow down perceptibly within a country, and more so as you whittle down to maybe tribes or clans, communities-- but where it gets trickier to maneuver is where it comes to occupation and, most difficult of all, the individual.

What do I mean by occupation? Well, let's take it to the current stories I'm reading, Andrzej Sapkowski's The Witcher. 

If you haven't read them but would like to, you may want to avoid this post. I don't like to spoil things for people and it's unavoidable since I'm using some pretty prominent plots to form the examples.

Sorceresses/Sorcerors, as well as Witchers, tend to carry their own priorities on gender value, due to the limitations and advantages occupation places on them. In this case, it's not a simple as a career or job role; this one is partially a genetic or altered genetic state that chooses their job for them, but before I go into that... Purely occupation being the consideration, then you're probably personally familiar with the term 'work culture' where certain attitudes and ways of life become normalized, often outside of the influence of standard cultural norms. What is appropriate and inappropriate in male and female interaction tends to be a matter of what is enabled or shut down. Despite laws considering sexual harassment, for instance, if there's an air of permission that no one challenges, it tends to be allowed until opposition is made. Even then, the flow is sometimes so hard to divert that even higher managers and human resources personnel caught in it may deny that the problem exists rather than risk being accused of enabling it. You then have to find someone outside of that culture, who also feels the situation is inappropriate, to alter it. However, once you become a 'problem', you're better off working elsewhere because you will be shunned from that culture even once you've changed it. This is no longer a gender value concern because the champion of the cause is often simply avoided by all people involved. This is often why certain gender-related bigotry is simply suffered. The isolation in an environment you can't readily leave is damning. In some ways, to be a champion of a cause is often the luxury of those who already have an escape plan.

I realize I did a bit of wiggling, but occupation is often a 'destined' element in fantasy, and one with a more important context. So past the real world parallel that I jumped over to, we consider how gender is valued in the series I mentioned. Early on, it is mentioned that most sorceresses and witchers are sterile. Though how the sorceresses are only *sometimes* sterile is a bit vague, but the way that their vanity is fed by potions to erase their physical flaws and appear younger so they can charm people, while male sorcerors tend to aim to gain respect by looking older, it's very likely that the female's unique use of magic comes at the cost of a working womb. Now this is a bit of a complexity that whittles down to an individual character's dilemma--Yennifer of Vengerburg.

In different stories throughout, we learn small details of her mysterious past. In one, Geralt (the main character and Witcher, as well as her lover) suspects that her ministrations to become more beautiful were more of a trial than most. He is trained to observe the minute details of movement and anatomy and, when she is speaking to him while applying make-up at her dressing table one morning, he observes an odd gesture of shame that is characteristic to people born with a hunchback. In another instance, she wistfully talks about what it would be like to have a child, to be able to share her knowledge with a creature of her own making. While Geralt, in his usual practical matter of dismissing what can't be had comes to play, we see the bitterness lingers--it's clear she would never give up the mastery of her occupation, but the nurturing instinct most common in women still lingers uselessly, looking for a place to go.

Perhaps it's due to Yennifer's influence then, an empathy for the woman he loves (albeit questionably, given he tethered himself to her to save her from a genie), that Geralt, who seems immune to any kind of nurturing instinct, begins to take to the clever little Ciri and her resolute stance that they are destined to walk the same path. While he never seems resentful of the inability to father children, he also seems uninterested in children at all. He isn't unkind to them but, like with cats, they seem to naturally be repelled by him anyway; another reason why Ciri's fascination with him, her choosing to trust and be around him, unbalances him as it does. He seems so opposed to the idea of destiny, so opposite this starry-eyed girl, that it shakes his own sense of value. Rather than resigning his existence as a necessary evil, Geralt begins to accept his worth in the eyes of the women around him. It doesn't visibly soften his heart, but his actions begin to reflect their significance in his value. In most instances, he pulls back for self-preservation yet is still willing to die if he is inadequate. Where they are concerned, he never removes himself as their shield--except in the case where their strengths outweigh his own. He has the most brilliantly flexible ego, ready to always concede to the best possible weapon. And never afraid for a woman to wield it.

Back on the sensitive subject of fertility, it is a privilege that no Witcher enjoys because their genes are altered, pushed to their limits, and they are no longer essentially human. Geralt expresses that they have no emotions, that only fear is preserved as useful. Witchers are never anything but male and are usually recruited through the law of surprise, an odd favor asked of someone they save without payment, claiming in return 'the thing that they did not expect to see on returning home'. Which is usually a fated child, coincidentally always a male. In this brutal world though, female fighters are fairly rare and short-lived (in human societies at least) and females are still pegged as emotional creatures, an attribute less than desirable in a warrior hoping to survive. So in a world where the alpha male reins, for anyone to think Geralt has emotions at all could be catastrophic. Despite Yennifer's suspicions that he is just good at masking his emotions, he lies that it simply isn't possible; that's how they were made to survive. In this world, the gender values are suitably shaky. Women are valued as abstractly as men and always with divisions considerate of culture, occupation, but most moving of all, in the individual. As with Yen's sensitivity about not having a child, this also means that she is not selective of its sex or the sex of any child determining its worth, a persistent trauma that actually does her credit in removing a gendered value. Which smoothly transitions into someone who wasn't so compassionate...

Geralt's birth mother, a sorceress. This is part of the reason why Yennifer is stunned that he knows only some sorceresses are sterile. It's knowledge they are rather keen on protecting, and largely because it appears that society is particularly against sorcerers and sorceresses breeding. It's unclear where Geralt falls in this, but we get the impression that his insistence that the 'law of surprise' is the only way to recruit young boys is bullshit and that his mother even willingly gave him up because she didn't want a son. I haven't read enough to know how accurate this assumption is or what it could mean about why she gave him up, but it is clear that Yennifer doesn't care what his mother's reasons were, simply hates the woman on principle because she was both able to have a child at all and was so quick to throw that away. For some reason, sorceresses seem to be more revered than their male counterparts, so I suspect that to be a factor. There tend to be a great deal more sorceresses than sorcerers floating around as well, even though sorceresses were persecuted en masse in the game I played. So it's possible women are simply naturally possessed of immense magical ability... or perhaps less guarded in having it to begin with.

While I'm straying from the gender value points only a bit here, one interesting feature of magic seems to be its tendency to 'skip a generation' when passed through a matrilineal line. It seems that females more readily genetically pass on powers, which makes them more frightening to ordinary humans. There seems to be a common belief that magic is simply learned, so I don't think it's common knowledge that there is a genetic thread or inherited gift at all. In fact, in one short story, the princess who discovers she inherited her grandmother's power not only is more powerful but when her power presents, it is dangerous and uncontrollable. It is also highly suspect that blood inherited powers are a sign of latent elven blood. It would explain the fear-based but long-buried persecution of both elves and sorceresses at least. This doesn't necessarily state a value or preference for females, especially since they aren't also given a societal advantage to put males at a further disadvantage. In terms of inheritance in human societies, women are not even considered. So race also bleeds into the factoring of male/female value.

Despite the possibility for a preference or value to be prevalent, I rather like when we, as readers, are informed of the actions and left to assume the reasoning behind them. If it's important enough to the story, it will recur time and again without having to beat the reader over the head with it. Of course, our own biases and imagination will sometimes create plenty of scenarios that were intended. All for the better. It's just important for writers to know that you can very effectively lace a gender value issue into the plot without making it so obvious or central. In fact, if you can make the reader forget about it until it's time to recall it, it can have an even more powerful effect.

So, what did you get out of this analysis? Hopefully, it's the sense that you don't blatantly isolate the male/female value from the elements of the story. If you place barriers on how your readers will perceive that balance, you're losing sight of how fiction weaves many threads. It's possible to explain these concepts without using an example story, but that would only help the non-fiction writer to write a step by step process. For the writer, it's simply more practical to weave in and out with an actual thread, to tell the story and infuse it with the possible reasons behind it.

I hesitate to use this story too freely from this point on. I've only read the two short story collections and played the third Witcher game, so my guesses could be very off. What keeps the story interesting is that the characters rarely wind into exposition about themselves. They're not mysterious just for the sake of dangling out the story, but because it is more than clear that trust, hope, and sharing are things more likely to get you killed than make you all warm and fuzzy about it. What is fed to the reader is slipped through the plots and it's quite the playground for possibility. It's actually the kind of story where it's both rewarding to guess and rewarding to be wrong. 

So if you've already read them and I'm off base, let me be. I'll get around to seeing if my questions are answered. I do, however, find value in analyzing possibilities well before they are revealed. It's good practice as a writer to maintain mental flexibility, even when it's not my own work. Especially when it isn't. I'm not as invested in the development, so it's a finished but verdant playground nonetheless!

Off I go, for now. Miles to go before I sleep, you know.

Choice is Important

I have two topics in mind as I start this one, but they're closely related. To start, I'll go with why I don't actually put 'adult' on my books, despite listing them as such.

It's pretty clear that I'm not a child, everyone's parent or can make a universal decision on what is 'okay' for everyone to read. I've revealed before that my parents never censored what I could read. There were some media that they were more squeamish about, but the main reason I didn't give them cause for concern with books was because I clearly understood that, even if it was labeled non-fiction, I should take every bit of experience and fact with a grain of salt. Nothing is more true as a rule nowadays when the internet is ambiguous with freely shared information that is more likely to be used to collect traffic for a website than actually be informative.

What your child can or should read is for you to decide and I don't scoff at those choices or offer my opinion on how strict or relaxed you might be. I may have a clear judgement, but it's none of my business. However, though I do believe it's important to classify books and possible audiences accurately, I don't think it's my business to plaster my covers. For digital books, the listings are clear and, as of yet, I haven't focused on physical bookstores and libraries. However, the digital listings would easily put these books in the correct locations.

What if potential customers or lax retailers put them somewhere else? Yes, that's bound to happen, but if you aren't prepared for a surprise, there is no shortage of ways to research before you buy. If content is something you are squeamish about, then there are plenty of ways to do so. I don't suppose everyone has smartphones or that they don't just turn their kids loose in a bookstore, but if you make a snap judgement on something you know nothing about or can't say no to your kids until you can research it, don't be the person that blames the bookstore or the author.

Why don't I just put 'adult' on there? Well, because I wasn't an adult and I'm not going to shame my potential audience. The adult rating is rarely used for just violence. It is almost always used for explicit sex and ambiguous or taboo themes. Even adults can be judged for this. Even the most free-spirited among us don't necessarily want to advertise that we're having adult toys or books or movies delivered to our homes and we don't want every nosy motherfucker passing judgement based on that word. I leave a wide trail of exactly what I'm writing. When I write for general audiences, that will be clear, but I'm sure as hell not going to bubble-wrap or pre-judge my audience. Even to cover my bases.

Books are the way we see how people think, not the way the world immovably is. Leading into my second topic, 'the way things are' is a phrase that we need to know is never a safety net for things staying that way.

As a teenager, nearly every girl I knew was suckered into the Girl Talk series. There was a popular board game as well. The entire package was loaded with questions geared only towards straight girls, how female bodies were supposed to be, and many dangerous ideals for what a girl was expected to experience to validate herself. I remember, as a 12 year old girl with a newly blooming body, nothing was more damning than the part of the book that told me that if I stood against the wall with my shoulders, heels and butt pressed against it, my back should touch as well. No matter how I tried to suck in or contort, it was impossible. I had a butt and couldn't do it so I was fat. Only I wasn't. I was always on the low side of a normal weight range and athletic.

The worst part of these books was that it was always worded as if the books were on our side, looking out for our best interests, but in truth, they were shaming us for being different. Not just our bodies, but our style, our hair, our interests and preferences. If we weren't all about make-up and boys, what the hell was wrong with us?

Even for the damage done, I'd quickly learned the dangers of blind belief. It wasn't the books' fault necessarily but the danger lay in the fact that there was a time when this was societally acceptable. If you want to know why women my age are so adamant about campaigns that tell people to stop talking about how women should view their bodies or reproductive systems, you can tell us things have gotten better, but we damn well know they could get worse. Men are still trying to tell women what they should do with their bodies, trying to pass laws even. Here's the thing: men do not get to have an opinion on women's bodies. Other women do not get to have an opinion on every woman's body either. Your husband, father, brother, king or president, male or female, do not get to have an opinion. Our bodies are our decision. Our health is our decision. Even now, the laws are more concerned with our reproductive capabilities than our overall health and this is a problem--one even claiming women's lives when they are ignored. So when we want to nitpick about our hair, weight, pimples, self-image, this is our personal struggle, not permission to weigh in. Whether it's petty or pivotal, the right to decide our personal fate should never be something anyone can bully us out of. 

Non-fiction books should absolutely be pulled when they can be dangerous to society, especially when targeting children. However, you can't apply this to all literature in all genres. The ultimate responsibility goes to the consumer. 

We can't and shouldn't child-proof the world and we can't and shouldn't penalize adults for responsible curiosity either. There will be times when we haven't prepared our children for everything they come into contact first, but we can't protect them from every lesson and sometimes pain has to be the teacher. I know what it's like, to want to protect children from pain, but it does them a disservice. It breaks my heart when my nephews learn the hard way, but those lessons are also the ones that stick, the ones they won't have to trip onto softly again and again because there are never consequences that deter them. They don't learn caution or wisdom without pain. While I never want them to hurt as I do, I also never want them to make them so dependent on me being that there that the world will crush them the minute they stray.

I try to be thorough with my arguments for and against my topics, but it's always possible I haven't considered something. If you disagree with me, why do you think 'adult' is a necessary label? Why do you think fiction-based media should be as responsible as non-fiction? I'm happy to defend my answer or change my mind.

Why Write Fantasy?

For some people, this is probably an easier answer. Maybe it's always been your favorite genre or it's how you think. In my case, most of the entertainment I consume isn't fantasy. Video games, yes, but aside from my love of superheroes, I'm not someone that looks for fantasy shows or movies first. My tastes tend to lead me to comedy, dramas, medical and crime, even documentaries. So when I ask myself 'why write fantasy?', I had to do some digging. I'll have to jump around a bit, but there are a lot of layers to this.

I've come into adult concepts since childhood that I've struggled to understand even as an adult. When we struggle to understand, sometimes we give up and end up either accepting it unexplained or developing a stance of ignorance. There's even a lot of ego in our youth that tells us it's tolerance that makes it acceptable to just let our emotions lead, but as we grow up, we look for logical ways to be at peace with the unknown. We start to accept that the good and bad in people is subjective and variable and that we often say things that don't match our actions. For example, while people might generally see as tolerant, we often say something before we've thought it out that twists that. I watched an old video where Kelly Osbourne slipped up and said "If you kick Latinos out of your country, who will be cleaning your toilets, Donald Trump?" And most of us winced but at the same time, we knew what she bungled at trying to simplify too quickly. In this country, immigrants, legal or no, have a reputation for a work ethic that most entitled citizens, including Trump himself, would never touch. Kick out the people who are grateful to do thankless jobs and what good is it for any of us?

Because I'm not gifted with impeccable selections of speech on the fly, I tend to be more sympathetic when people, who normally do harmonize with their favorable character, stick their foot in their mouth and realized their attempts to simplify have to be explained with a lot more complexity once they've smeared it. I replay a lot of bungled conversations in my head. Sometimes even when I do well, I'll think of ten better ways to say it later. Words can have a powerful effect on our reactions and emotions, but I agree when free speech, hate speech or not, is protected. Words themselves might incite a lot of strong things, but I believe that the listener, the consumer, is ultimately responsible for their actions, that words are not actions unless they directly threaten to escalate (I'm going to kill you) or incite violence (we will meet here to kill you). I don't know about you, but I want to know who hates me. I don't want these people, disgruntled, silenced, sitting in basements, stirring a bitter stew that will hit me without warning. I think oppressing speech is doing more towards encouraging violence than just being disturbed by vitriol. 

That being said, communication of my ideas is very important to me, not that everyone fall in love with everything I say and do. When we speak out, we must accept that people will react, but the consequences of reacting violently are illegal and a crime and you can't blame words alone-- only your own immaturity towards the manifestation of your reactions. I certainly encourage people to counter hate speech with rebuttals and logic whenever possible-- I envy speakers like Jordan Peterson, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and even comedians like Joe Rogan. Even if you don't like their message or what I'm about to say, it's hard to deny that they deliver their messages brilliantly and with a practiced ease I envy. I struggle to get better at public speaking, but I think I would love to say things that such talented people could deliver with their focus and force of reason. I suppose as a woman, it's taboo to say that I would want a man to speak my words for me. I might also pick Christina Hoff Summers, a choice feminist whose levelheadedness I also envy, would work too. What these people have in common-- they claim responsibility for their words, grow with new information, and don't really lose their cool even when they raise their voice. They survive Q&As without dissolving into incoherent frustration.

Even explaining that, it still seems lacking to sufficiently encompass my choices as a writer. It is difficult to summarize, but words are a responsibility with consequences that can be justified, right or wrong, but how do we choose a medium to explore them?

Again, why fantasy, when I clearly have a love for understanding reality and have a solid basis in it? Well, the whimsical outlet of fantasy allows me to explore the deeper concepts of light and dark through metaphor. Not good and bad, mind you, since moral concepts also have levels of societal acceptability and individual experience. Often, there's a general consensus of what we know we can or can't be punished for, but individual mentality or even mob mentality often kicks against where 'morals' attempt to oppress people concerning even the use of their own bodies. And yes, personally, even when it's widely accepted to be moral or immoral, we come up with logical exceptions that bear consideration. It's extremely difficult for people to voice unpopular opinions, so we all need to find a playing field where we can test those doubts, fears, and curiosities. Non-fiction, where my life is concerned, has too many consequences for being tactlessly earnest.

It would be nice if adulthood was a magical escape from childhood dilemmas, but as an adult, I'm often pulled back into the lessons of my immediate past. I know both what it is like to be a child that had been through hell that some adults have not and to be an adult who is often disregarded as childish (I laugh freely, often and girlishly even at 37). I write adult fiction right now because my childhood just isn't kid friendly. I do use whimsical themes to bridge the gap but these adult themes do resonate with my real battles from adolescence.

Some people could make the argument that it is inappropriate for characters of a certain age to run into certain situations. Unfortunately, it's an uncomfortable truth for some of us. It's not a mark of how little your parents care or love you because it IS a sign of love and trust for them to let you explore the big bad world and hope you come back, alive, when you need a respite. The world does not and cannot protect us from the curiosities of reality. Nor should it. It should definitely have laws to protect against harm and it does, ones that at best will change as the world needs it to. What stands is that a child can and does get beat down by adult things. Telling a child that they can't possibly understand insults, abuses and raises their vitriol when they are certain they are not just living in it, but are one of the new demons who come to poke and ridicule them. Disbelief only reinforces it.

And yes, there are also attention-seeking predators, even children, who see that a tortured soul draws the sort of attention they want and mimics it insincerely. One thing I love about a Jordan Peterson video I watched is that he doesn't believe in 'erring on the side of caution'. (video here -- I encourage you to watch it and form your own impressions. Just taking what I say on faith is like playing a game of telephone. Always go from the source in case my interpretations carry a bias.)When he suspects that a patient is asking him to cater some demand of uniqueness with a privilege that they simply feel entitled to but doesn't stand to help them to pretend, he calls them out on it. He admits that sometimes he is wrong, but shows that it is imperative that we test the resolve of people's demands, to see if they are simply trying to mold others or truly find themselves. As a psychologist, he has seen that entertaining people's delusions does not help them learn how to grow as themselves. It's a very tough topic to discuss and he manages to find the words very eloquently. I even appreciate that he shows his thoughtfulness and consideration as he attempts to arrive at his answer. He's not just reading off of a script or parroting a false ego.

Diverting from the technical sides of my choice, I feel a kinship with harsh realities and the possibilities of fantasy. Life isn't just receiving our scars, but bearing them, even showing them in the sunshine. We can assemble armies or meet magical creatures, attune to our inner child or come to terms with being an adult. Even when we explore ourselves through our work, it doesn't assure hidden agendas, at least not intentionally. I've heard people make rather nefarious leaps of accusation-- underage sexuality? Pedophilia! Women writers detailing sex? Turns men gay (and I'm talking heterosexual sex even; apparently we force male readers to resume the stance of a woman to trick them into lusting for the male body. I couldn't even make this shit up)! Graphic calculated violence? Serial killer in the making!

I've always been a firm believer that saying it/playing it is often enough. Playing the games, watching the movies, reading the books, is often the satisfaction of the curiosity not the catalyst to demand more. When I write controversial topics, it is not done in secret delight, always the representative of my desires. I write things that make me downright uncomfortable. I can write something that titillates me and something that disgusts me in the same day even. Of course, those attention-seeking predators I mentioned before often look to call these the catalysts of their murder sprees, rapes, etc. Why? Because we create excuses for addictions, heinous acts, absolve people as brave for doing bad things and 'redeeming themselves', a culture that CREATES visibility for monstrous acts, encouraging people to abuse themselves and others so they can earn relevance for just doing what decent people do invisibly. Writers see this and make them into believable villains. Whether it humanizes or dehumanizes them, whether it's right or wrong is moot. We should continue to piss each other off, entertain each other, release words in ways that make people become curious, challenged. Do you back people up into a wall and tell them they're not cornered if they climb? Is there a rope, a ladder, a trampoline? Is the wall tall or short? Do you stop your pursuit or do they have to worry you're concealing a knife to drive into their back when they turn away? Presentation is everything.

Fantasy just aligns with the way I want to present my ideas. I'm not writing a book on psychology because it can't always be clinically accurate or documented in studies. There's a lot we don't understand about the brain and how it works. What other place could I bring to life the monsters under the bed, the monsters you mistake for friends, the smiles that hide the villains? It's not the only genre I will use, but right now, I'm in love with the way I can build characters and plots and puzzles and worlds and creatures, to lay color to the concepts and ideas around me? How else can I bridge the muddy transitions of childhood and adulthood with any clarity or understanding? How else can I mystify romance and horrify violence, overblowing it but making it logical to the landscape?

Fantasy is whimsy, fantasy is darkness, fantasy is triumph and tragedy.

On that note, I really can't wait to see this Welcome to Marwen movie. I'm not a very emotional consumer, but I teared up a bit just on the trailer. It does align with themes I work with and even inspired this post. One day, I hope to build up the scale of ways to present my own ideas. It's not unusual for writers to see movies in their head while creating, but I'm also well aware that a screenplay is a different creature than a novel (hey, did I mention I'm a screenplay editor? So it seems like a logical course to try it out someday). You can't dream too big.