This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Becoming Radicalized by the Hugos
A Very Culture Warrish Review of A Half-Built Garden, by Ruthanna Emrys
In which my fellow nerds will recognize the battlefield and everyone else will roll their eyes and not know who the fuck these people are.
Wordy Pretentious Preamble About My Reading Habits
Everyone remembers the Sad Puppies affair (and the sequel, the Rabids), right? It's been covered here (well, at the old place) before. At the time, I admit to some schadenfreude at the wailing and gnashing of teeth, but I thought Vox Day and Larry Correia were making entirely too much of the fact that phallic rocketship stories don't win Hugos anymore. I actually read some of Vox Day's "Hugo Nominated" fiction. He is… not a good writer. I enjoy Larry Correia, but it's bubblegum bang-bang shoot'em up wish fulfillment, which is all well and good, but the same caliber as Ian Fleming's writing – entertaining and marketable and would make for great movies, but not really, well, whatever the Hugos used to represent. Ditto Brad Torgerson; serviceable prose, but fanzine-level execution.
As for the three Johns (Kratman, Ringo, and Wright), I've read all of them, and Kratman and Ringo tell rippin' good yarns with execrable prose and plotting. Only John C. Wright is actually a really good writer (though he does get a bit up his own ass, especially since his conversion to Catholicism).
I'm just saying, if the right wants to reclaim any creative spaces, they need to find better creatives.
Conversely, I used to really like John Scalzi. I watched Vox Day beat him like a pinata online, and though I hadn't gone full anti-SJW yet, I started to think…. "VD is right." His cruel but accurate takedowns were intensely petty, spiteful, and personal, and yet he had the squishy little man pegged.
Scalzi has since become ever more pretentious, ever more virtue signaling, ever more… well, VD would say "effeminate," I'd just say I started to recognize the sight of someone rolling over to show his belly, someone desperate to stay in the good graces of a clique where being a straight white male who cites Heinlein as an inspiration means he's always one bad Tweet away from being consigned to the outer darkness. My fondness for his books curdled, as I started to see his smarmy potato face in all his characters.
As went Scalzi, so went the Hugos, where for the past few years it seems like there's a little bit of straight white guy affirmative action so that John Scalzi and Clarkesworld can stay relevant, but basically it's a women's fiction award now, and if there's ever a white dude-dominated slate again (yet alone a white dude-dominated winners' list), Worldcon will burn.
And ya know, I don't hate women's fiction, or women in SF. I really am an omnivorous reader. But over time, some things have become hard not to notice. Like the fact that N.K. Jemisin is a fanfic-level hack who's fawned over and feted and cooed adoringly as the next Octavia Butler (she's not). Like how Kameron Hurley and Seanan McGuire and Ann Leckie are all decent writers but such insufferably hateful harpies that, like Scalzi, I can't stand to read them anymore.
Vox Day and the alt-right say "Don't give money to people who hate you," but I am not alt-right and have remained determinedly apolitical in my media consumption. But gods help me I'm becoming one of those guys who side-eyes anything written post Great-Awokening by a chick.
Which brings me to…
A Half-Built Garden, by Ruthanna Emrys
A literary descendent of Ursula K. Le Guin, Ruthanna Emrys crafts a novel of extra-terrestrial diplomacy and urgent climate repair bursting with quiet, tenuous hope and an underlying warmth. A Half-Built Garden depicts a world worth building towards, a humanity worth saving from itself, and an alien community worth entering with open arms. It's not the easiest future to build, but it's one that just might be in reach.
I know, I know, I should have paid more attention to that blurb.
I picked this up because it's a First Contact story that got batted around as some new hotness in SF, and I like alien stories with a modern perspective that are more original than "How will we repel the invaders?"
(I like alien invasion and other MilSF stories too, but like I said, I am an omnivorous reader.)
A Half-Built Garden is very likely going to wind up on the Hugo shortlist this year, and probably has a decent chance of winning. It's a well-written, creative story that brings some interesting ideas to the table, it's innovative science fiction…
.. and it's also a meandering, actionless piece of women's fiction dwelling on pronouns, interstellar consent culture, lactating breasts, and internal monologues that all but drowned me in estrogen.
I've seen this book compared to Becky Chambers. I haven't read any of Becky Chambers's books, but they sound exactly like the kind of story I am not interested in (people go to space, have problems which they solve by talking them out in a civilized fashion, the end?).
A Half-Built Garden is "Aliens arrive, people have problems which they solve by talking them out in a civilized fashion, the end."
(1/3)
(2/3)
The Bitter Review I Would Not Post on Amazon
The year is 2083. Earth's climate has suffered and we're not out of the woods yet, but the world is finally getting its shit together enough to undo some of the damage.
There are basically three factions in the late 21st century:
Environmental Cooperatives, sort of NGOs on steroids who have vaguely-defined authority over most environmental concerns and are doing the actual work of repairing the environment. How exactly they obtained their authority is never really explained, but presumably it's something like "Everyone finally realized we're all going to die if we don't listen to the environmentalists." Okay. They have lots of virtual meetings and talk about species and ecology preservation, carbon emissions, virus containment, and weather forecasting. They invented this whole new kind of networking called the "dandelion networks" which are kind of like Twitter except very peaceful and everyone reaches a consensus and they are resilient against disinformation and wrongthink.
Governments. The old nation-states (including the USA) are still around, creaky old dinosaurs who are kind of obsolete except they still have armies and nukes so you can't exactly ignore them. When the aliens arrive, NASA is ecstatic to become relevant again.
Corporations. When the environmental cooperatives effectively took over the world (it's never put this way, but it seems like basically they run everything and the governments with… armies and nukes just… let them) the corporations had the choice of getting with the program or fucking off to their own micronations. They decided to fuck off to literal and/or figurative islands. So the remnants of late-stage capitalism now exist in little "aisland" enclaves of their own where everyone plays status-seeking corporate reindeer games while trying to stay relevant by offering goods and services to the environmental cooperatives and governments. They aren't literally given black hats but the author's voice heavily implies they are bad guys who want to go back to the bad old days of despoiling the Earth. (Spoiler: They are the bad guys and they want to go back to the bad old days of despoiling the Earth.)
Aliens Arrive!
They land on the Maryland shore, just outside of Washington, D.C., and are stumbled upon by our first person POV protagonist Judy Wallach-Stevens, a Jewish lesbian who lives in a large manor house with her polycule, including her wife and their infant daughter, a they/them, and a transman (who have a they/them toddler of their own whose gender is pointedly never specified). Judy does ecology stuff for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Network, but mostly she cooks. She seems like a really interesting and original char-
… okay, well, Larry Correia writes himself as his MC too, so anyway.
Judy and her wife happen to be carrying their infant daughter while out for a stroll, and this turns out to be significant, as the aliens are matriarchal and bringing your children to diplomatic negotiations is a sign of good faith. So by sheer coincidence, while baby and hir two mommies are staring at the spaceship that landed on their front lawn, they have initiated peaceful contact with their visitors, who respond in kind by sending out one of their own with her children.
Or Hor or Its or Zis… this book was full of neopronouns, though actually the humans were more varied than the aliens.
The "Ringers" are actually two species, who made contact with each other ages ago. Since then, they have searched the galaxy for other intelligent races, and found mostly dead worlds where civilizations once existed. It turns out that most races fall into an industrial death spiral: their technological advancement outpaces their ability to manage their environment, and they all wind up making themselves extinct. The Ringers avoided this by going into space, treating their homeworlds as mere raw materials, and have thus concluded that intelligent species are not meant to be planet-bound. When they picked up radio signals from Earth, they sent an expedition to save us.
This is the central "conflict" of the story: the Ringers believe that humanity has to leave Earth or die. Judy and her eco-coops insist they're actually fixing their world (yes, the whole book is literally a Tikkun Olam meme), but the Ringers claim that Earth is already doomed.
I put "conflict" in scare quotes because it's implied that the Ringers might try to force humans to leave Earth. Except.. other than a few tense conversations where Judy says "What if we don't want to?" and the Ringers say "But you have to!" there's never really any kind of threat. The Ringers sent a diplomatic mission, not a warship, and while there's some talk of nanotechnology and how the Ringers could conceivably start disassembling Earth right out from under us (they are apparently advanced enough to have started building a Dyson sphere back home), there's never any indication that this was actually something they had in mind. They just sort of assumed they'd explain the situation to us in a reasonable manner, and humanity would agree that their solution makes sense.
So all that is interesting enough as a setup. The rest of the book is mostly about the nation-states and the corps and the coops all jockeying to influence the aliens, while the aliens are playing politics in return. Eventually Judy and her wife and child and some corp reps go to the alien home system, there is a bit of nefariousness, but nothing that can't be solved with impassioned speeches inspired by Star Trek (literally).
And that's pretty much it. There is a lot of talking and soapboxing. Every conflict is solved by talking and being more empathetic.
The first is when Judy is invited to visit one of the corporate "aislands" with her new alien friends (who insist on Judy coming along because having made the proper initial diplomatic overtures, they consider her to be Earth's spokeswoman, more or less), and she brings along a weapon that will DDoS the corporate networks. See, the coops' computer network was almost taken down by a virus, which they are pretty sure was caused by the corporations, so Judy's activist parents from a radical Jewish commune cook up a poorly thought-out plan to stick it to the corps. But the whole time Judy is carrying the device around in her pocket she's feeling really bad about using it and feeling sorry for all these capitalist planet-rapers who are, after all, still people just like her. Then one of the capitalist planet-rapers detects the device in her pocket and they talk it out and Judy hands over the device. Then they go to a party and eat lots of food and Judy and the aliens go back to Maryland.
Later, there is another conflict where some of the coop folks want to sabotage the aliens' communications gear. There is some scuffling – someone actually uses a judo throw on someone! Judy lectures everyone about what an immature species we're being. They talk it out.
Finally, they go to the aliens' home system, and the aliens and humans argue a lot, and then the humans demand that they not be "colonized," and the aliens recognize their demand for affirmative consent. They talk it out. The end.
Sigh.
(3/3)
DEI…. in Spaaaace!
You've already picked up all of the major Culture War points, but I cannot emphasize just how very, very much a product of a bonafide card-carrying SJW this book is.
Pretty much everyone is queer and/or genderfluid and/or female, except (you guessed it) the unambiguously villainous corporate types (the ambiguously amoral corporate types are genderqueer, and the sympathetic ones are female) and a few government drones. Oh yeah, and the aliens. The male aliens get to be likeable, because the females are in charge.
There are multiple conversations about pronouns and nametags. A minor plot point is that the aliens are matriarchal and so it matters to them who actually gives birth, and Judy's transman housemate is really upset that she didn't put her foot down when the aliens were asking hurtful questions. We also learn that her transman housemate was (of course) abused and almost driven to suicide by bigoted parents who live in one of those conservative enclaves where people are still technophobic, transphobic, and religious.
The wrong kind of religious, I mean. We get multiple digressions about Judy's Jewishness. Growing up in an ultra-leftist Jewish commune, one of the defining moments of her childhood is that some asshole kids drew swastikas on her schoolbooks. In the 2060s. At the corporate-hosted reception for the aliens, she stands around angsting about whether the food (made out of corp-paste or something) contains shrimp or pork. And there's a long talk with the other human mommy in the book (I'll get to that) about the Holocaust. See, the governments and corps put on a display to summarize Earth's history for the aliens, and Judy is very upset that they didn't mention the Holocaust. Like, very upset, in tears.
I don't care about a lot of the woke shit and the neopronouns. I mean, realistically, transpeople are not going away. A writer who writes a story set in 2083 that isn't post-apocalyptic might try to wave away genderspecials as a fad that died out in the 30s, I guess, but otherwise, sure, they are probably a part of the landscape for the foreseeable future, whether you like it or not.
The character is Jewish and Jewish identity (and anti-Semitism) is still Very Important in 2083 - okay, I'll buy it. Our resident Joo-posters I'm sure will have much fun with this, but I mostly shrugged it off, other than, ahem, noticing it. Yes, I did also notice that no one else gets to be religious and not a backwards technophobic asshole. (The aliens have some sort of "spiritual but not religious" thing going on and they even have what I suppose is supposed to be a touching scene with Judy and her transman housemate. The alien wants to do a ritual, Judy can't because she's afraid it might violate her own religion, so the transman, after carefully questioning the alien about what exactly their beliefs entail, overcomes his childhood religious trauma to participate.)
There's also a sex scene. With an alien. Judy (the lesbian) falls in love with one of the male aliens. He's such a good talker and such a good listener, you see. So she discusses it with her wife and they agree to invite the alien into their polycule. This is before they've decided whether to actually have sex with the other humans in their household. But they have a very serious relationship talk with the alien in which they say hey, we kind of like you, and he says well, I kind of like you too, and then they have a threesome.
So human dick is out of the question, but two lesbians are totally DTF with a headless alien spider-thing who is male enough to make hentai jokes.
Even that didn't really squick me much, though. (Larry Niven was writing about alien sex in the 70s.) What did squick me? What made me want to DNF it? (I did finish it.) The many, many, many fucking mommy moments. Yes, I get it, the author is trying to make mothers important characters, not like groty old white dude engineers. Lactating women (and aliens) will save the world.
Judy and her wife literally change a diaper at the moment of first contact. We are constantly treated to descriptions of Judy nursing, how her breasts are feeling, taking nursing pads out of her gear, checking medications for nursing safety, hey, did I mention yet that the main character is a nursing mother nursing throughout the book? (So is the alien girlboss in charge of their expedition.)
One of the other characters, who is so brilliant and important that she's called back from leave to help talk to the aliens, is a NASA engineer who's also a nursing mother. She and Judy talk to each other about aliens and the sociological ramifications of Star Trek captains (yes, seriously) as they "gently sway in sync" while nursing their babies.
Like, hitting on this once or twice would have been an interesting non-traditional perspective. Hitting it as often as Emrys does, I started expecting the book to lactate.
If a man wrote this, we could probably call it a fetish.
The greatest sin of A Half-Built Garden as science fiction is that it turns the entire saga of mankind's (hah, see what I did there?) first contact with aliens into a bunch of table talks about boundaries and consent. And I mean this literally, in every sense – one of the big table talks is on Earth, where the aliens come to Judy's Seder gathering. There's another on a corporate "aisland" (the one where Judy is worried about whether corp-food is kosher.) The last one is in the Ringers' home system, where besides asserting their right to self-determination, the humans lecture the aliens about their wrongbad gender essentialism and explain that humans aren't actually sexually dimorphic and give a speech about gender fluidity that could have come straight out of a LGBTQ+ DEI session. At the end of this speech, one of the aliens comes out as nonbinary (no, I am not making this up), and then we get the big reveal that Judy's wife is, in fact, a transwoman.
Congratulations Earthlings, you've spread ROGD to the stars!
For all my snark and bitterness, the real crime here is that Emrys is not a bad writer. The aliens are genuinely interesting (and alien), the situation that she sets up is plausible and has plenty of potential for actual conflict (which does not have to be armed), and I have to admit that her prose was above my usual expectations for SF&F. A less hyper-woke writer could have written a pretty good book. Instead, she wrote a Hugo-worthy one.
Best burn I've read in a while.
I... I just can't do fiction written by most female authors. I wrote before how in a mostly male dominated Battletech fiction library, a female author snuck into a short story compilation. It was immediately obvious. I got 4 pages in before I had to thumb back to the table of contents and check the credit.
There are a grab bag obvious tells. Long introspective monologues. Often a touch of female chauvinism around motherhood. And of course all the characters emote like a knitting circle full of menopausal aunts. But undergirding all of it is an undercurrent of neuroticism that utterly stifles anything from actually happening. I'm not even talking about big fancy testosterone boosting action sequences. I mean even simple causality flies out the window. Things happen, characters feel. More things happen, with no one exercising any agency what so ever. More feelings. Something resembling a conclusion occurs, but I can only tell because the book is almost out of pages. Once again, without anyone exercising any agency at all. Some more feelings end the... story? Is that a story? Or was it a therapy journaling session?
I can't do it. I simply cannot do it. I refuse to read fiction by women. Frankenstein gets a pass, and that's about it.
Please stop writing this to what you presumably hope is a sympathetic anti-woman audience who won't laugh you out of the thread, instead go and read Patricia Highsmith, Donna Tartt, Hilary Mantel, Robin Hobb and Gillian Flynn and report back.
Please stop telling people what to write or not to write - and you are engaging in the same kind of consensus-building you accuse him of.
Several people have already said pretty much the same thing you did ("this is a bad opinion" followed by recommendations for women writers) without sounding like someone from reddit coming in to wag their finger.
Oh, I guess I am coming in from Reddit to wag my finger. I did consider fully disguising my feelings beneath a more constructive-sounding comment but I decided it would be dishonest; frankly, I was motivated to respond to the comment by a feeling of strong distaste for the bigotry of the comment, so I wanted that to come through at least a bit. (I am perfectly happy to abandon this forum if such things are taboo'd here? Let me know.)
It's not against the rules to express distaste for bigotry. But you are required to engage civilly with people and avoid unnecessary antagonism (like by going out of your way to express your disgust for someone), even if you do think they hold abhorrent views.
Fair enough, it's your house. I am not sure if you can draw a bright boundary between expressing abhorrent views vs expressing disgust for someone (my disgust for a racist, say, is based on their disgust for others). In my view someone who says they never read female writers is being less civil than someone calling that person a bigot.
Perhaps it's a 'know it when you see it' thing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Expressing "a feeling of strong distaste for the bigotry of [a] comment" is taboo here because it doesn't actually add anything to the discussion. This is an anonymous forum; none of your friends will be outraged that you tried to engage a neo-Nazi/incel/paedo-fascist constructively instead of dismissing them without a second thought.
Realistically, a large proportion of the users and comments here are bigoted by the standards of Reddit. If you're going to post something that amounts to "yikes, sweaty" under one in every 3 or 4 comments, then you should leave, for your sake and ours. But I believe a constructive and mutually beneficial discussion can be had as long as everyone sincerely tries to "be no more antagonistic than is absolutely necessary". If you can do that, I urge you to stay. We could use more ideological diversity.
I mostly agree with the policy as far as it applies to completely informationally empty comments. I would say mine was one part salt and one part recommendations of really good authors, however, and was actually mostly well intended (I wanted to make the poster think, "I have gone too far, I am grossing this other commenter out, maybe I need to go and get some different experiences, such as reading the authors they mentioned."
I suppose one danger of this no-expressions-of-distaste policy is that it could leave posters unaware that they are causing contempt/disgust reactions in others. Though to be honest, in the case of someone given to generalisations of the level 'I will not read books by women', said posters are probably getting that feedback elsewhere in their lives anyway, even if they are unable to receive and act on it constructively.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How do you feel about the Vorkosigan novels? In my experience they have a solid voice, fleshed-out settings, and loads of highly agentic characters. All things which this book seems to lack.
More options
Context Copy link
Bujold's Barrayar series does a bit of the female essentialism, especially when
totally not a self-insertLady Vorkorsigan is on the page, but she's very much not going to run into the causality problems: Komarr and Memory in particular are masterpieces in fair-play whodunnits.From the other direction, Diana Wynne Jones's Dark Lord of Derkholm is far more paternal, but there's a reason she got picked up for a Miyazaki movie in Howl's Moving Castle. She very much is against the menopausal neurotic aunt annoyances.
More options
Context Copy link
I will highly recommend Robin Hobb's works. Farseer, Liveship Traders, Tawny Man, Rain Wild, and Fitz and the Fool. I haven't read her other works, but the 16 books over 22 years constitute one of the best fantasy series I've ever read. There are stopping points, and the connections don't show up until the last two groups, so you can take it on in groups of 3 at first.
That said, she's the only female author that comes to mind when I think of books I've enjoyed.
Eh, I tried her books and got a good way into the Farseer series but I had to eventually give it up because it was too talky and emotional and all the flaws about women writers above. It reminded me of Mercedes Lackey's Valdemar books, that same kind of treacly 'outsider saves everyone but is universally despised but never mind we know he's heroic' attitude, and there came a point midway through one book where I was just "No, to hell with this, no. Don't do the big stupid elaborate psychological manipulative scheme, just do the clear practical action thing".
But of course you couldn't do that because then you wouldn't have the maaagic and how unfaaaair it is about Fitz being a bastard and all the rest of the glurge. I mean, look at this bloody synopsis extract from the Fitz and the Fool trilogy:
Do you get it, huh, huh? Do you? It's about racism, see! And homophobia and pretty much any -phobia or -ism you want to slap in. With goddamn racist, exclusionary animals. Because of course we must have the cuddly-wuddly animals that are sentient beings too, and make Victorian Moral Lessons out of them.
My God, and this is only off the Wikipedia article, I think if I had read this book I would have clawed my own eyes out. I dunno who the villains of that set of books were, but I'm already cheering them on to massacre the feckin' heroes with their handy pots of crow feather paint.
I admire the Farseer books, although I found them frustrating as a boy. The weakest parts are, as you say, the hamfisted social commentary. Hobb could not have been more blatant about the analogy between closeted gays and wit-bonders if she tried.
What fascinated me was her anti-fantasy approach. From just the plot synopsis, FitzChilvary seems to have gone on a standard set of fantasy adventures and achieved a standard set of fantasy great deeds. And yet he never gains status. Near the very end of the series, he is the equivalent of the CNA in a group care home. No one knows his name. Those who do have a low opinion of it.
But Hobb doesn't present any wallowing by FitzChivalry as valid. He was acting out of selfless intentions, not for personal glory... right?
I thought her basic take on this was original and good: the royal family needs assassins, but who do you trust? Well, your own family. But if you give them that kind of ability, and trust them with those kind of secrets, what's to stop them from deciding the crown would look as good on their head as on yours? You make sure they can't inherit. Thus you have a line of bastards who can't inherit because they're not legitimate, but they are close enough in blood to be amenable to the demands of the royal role.
That's clever. But the way it worked out was poor - so you need people with the royal blood but not too close to the throne? That's what the minor branches of the family are for, as every noble house knows. Put the poor relations to work this way! You don't need to have bastards. And bastards can be recognised and legitimised, this has also happened historically. The set-up where "okay, main line prince, go out and have a bastard or two for us to have our new pool of assassins" was clunky. It could work in a Machiavellian world, but this world was supposed to be" if you're named after a heroic virtue, you embody that virtue" and that doesn't work well when you have honourable people as royals. Prince YesI'mHorrible can do that, but not Prince Generous or Prince Noble or whatever.
But that didn't suit Hobb, because she wanted the "Alas! 'Tis so tragic, the selfless heroism of the exploited bastard who is never valued or given his proper due!" bit, and after a couple of books it grated on me. Fitz was so groovy he should have been acknowledged as a legitimate royal but that's not going to happen because the main line are so ungrateful and they prefer to cynically use him to get his hands dirty so they can keep their hands technically clean.
But that's okay because Fitz is so noble himself, he only did it for the greater good and not for personal gain, even though he totally could have tricked them all and taken over because he's so smart and capable and and and....
Yeah, I get it, he's Marty Stu.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Have you tried Earthsea?
If you do, stick to the original trilogy. The later books are disappointing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
deleted
I'm not sure if Sir Walter Scott's novels count as romance novels (I imagine that some of them do) and they're usually from a very straight male perspective, though it's true that many women enjoy them, e.g. Waverley, The Bride of Lamermoor, Ivanhoe, The Heart of Mid-Lothian, The Talisman, and Rob Roy. These have non-romantic historical stories in them, but (sexual) romance is ultimately the point, I think.
My main objections to his writing occur in the passages where Scott is writing a romantic ode to Latin, Scots, or legalese, rather than telling the story. See also Catriona by Robert Louis Stevenson.
More options
Context Copy link
What's the difference between a romance novel for men and a romance novel for women? Is it something like this:
regular novel for men: man wants X, gets X (or Y), gets woman as a bonus;
romance novel for women: woman wants man, ends up doing X to get him;
romance novel for men: man wants woman, ends up doing X to get her?
Another thought. Male-oriented romances do exist in droves, but they tend to be chameleons. One, it's easy to mischaracterize a male-oriented romance ("Man believes he cannot do X, woman sees man's potential and falls in love with him despite not doing X. Inspired, man does X.") as a novel about X. Second, the flipside of the open secret that females are hypergamous is that males want to sleep around, or at least be the sort of man who is able to sleep around but virtuously declines. In male-oriented romances, the protagonist will have one madonna they want to prove themselves to, and a gaggle of discreet admirers.
To give an example, Name of the Wind is secretly male Twilight.
I think male romance novels were Westerns. That's the romantic image of the male heroic lead, and the villains he has to overcome, and the woman he wins along the way.
Look at Louis L'Amour's books - some of them are what in other terms would be called family sagas. To take a snippet from a sniffy critic quoted in the Wikipedia article:
Let's test Cormac McCarthy
All the Pretty Horses? Check
The Crossing? Nope
Cities of the Plain? Check
Blood Meridian? Nopenopenope
Two out of four ain't bad, but I wouldn't say that his books are entirely full of internal monologues, undercurrents of neuroticism, and sweeping character emotions at all.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Whether the male or female lead gets more attention from the author.
Well. Male Gaze alone isn’t enough to make a romance novel; it still has to have the pursuit/conflict of the relationship front and center. But given that a book is about a couple, the character that’s more fully realized is probably the intended interest. In (female-oriented) romance this is usually the man.
This intersects with viewpoint characters in the form of self-inserting. Romance novels are often 1st or close 3rd person, putting the reader in the head of one character. Obviously, that’s a big clue as to the intended sex of the audience!
It’s not foolproof, especially for slash. Consider MDZS, a famous cultivation web novel. The gay main pairing is front and center despite very definitely being marketed to women. Likewise, romance genres like yaoi which use the more distant 3rd person of manga can’t rely on self-inserting. All bets are off when it comes to lesbian romance.
Maybe men are less likely to self-insert, or maybe there’s an author bias against writing accordingly. I can’t say. But there is definitely a style which tells me a book is intended as romance.
More options
Context Copy link
This doesn't feel quite right to me. Women tend to be the objects more than the actors in romance novels geared towards women. I think it's more like:
Woman is irresistible to man for some reason. Man, despite being rich and handsome has awful flaw. Man approaches woman. Woman rejects man. Woman is worried man is gone. But man is still irresistibly attracted. Man pushes through objections (could be kinda rapey at this point). Woman is overcome.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, I've heard it said that The Dresden Files are harlequin romance novels for lonely 20something men. But, women who encounter the books also tend to really really like them.
Similar to The Witcher, which is really just a bodice-ripping sex romp with some fantasy monster-hunting thrown in, and also has a sizable female fan base. Maybe this is more a case of dudes getting tricked into reading romance novels.
Both series are also very Detective Noir, so maybe that's the secret gender fandom crossover element.
I do like the Dresden Files, but Harry's track record with romance? 🤦♀️ Also, the sure-fire way to lure him into a trap is to dangle a damsel in distress before him. By this stage, he should have copped on but no, he keeps rushing to the rescue no questions asked. It is a very sympathetic flaw, but one of these days it will get him into serious, serious trouble.
Only if Butcher writes more, which seems unlikely. And he's already one of the most powerful beings in creation (that we know about), so how much worse can it get? (LOL, don't ask THAT, Harry)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Man believes he cannot do X, woman sees man's potential and falls in love with him despite not doing X. Inspired, man does X.
Man courts woman with low self esteem. Man has severe character flaw or skeletons in closet. Man fixes woman's self esteem, woman fixes man.
Don't forget the: Woman is presented as ugly or non-atractive at the begining but with a plucking of eyebrows and a wardrobe change everyone else finds out she is beautiful. And first sexual encounter between the love interests being nonRape.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you like historical fiction I would consider the Wolf Hall books. Told from the perspective of Henry VIII's Prime minister. Written by a woman but no wokery or historical anachronism in sight.
Uhhhhh...
Okay, admission of bias time up front: I am a St. Thomas More stan and Catherine of Aragon stan, so a novel which is a love letter to Thomas Cromwell is going to have a hard time winning me over from the start.
The trilogy is good, and it's a great primer in the absolute snake-pit that the Tudor court was (I was going to say "under Henry VIII" but I think that during the War of the Roses and when his father, Henry VII, was the last man standing, things were not too peachy either). It deals with the religious upheaval and the rise and fall of great families, as well as Henry's marital travails and why these mattered, and it's all from the viewpoint of Thomas Cromwell, one of Henry's New Men who came from humble beginnings, rose to the heights and - like his patron Wolsey - fell at the moment his influence and power was at its zenith.
Mantel is a Cromwell stan, there's no denying that; she's half in love with her character (you can always tell when an author fell in love with their character). He was genuinely smart and capable, but she makes him omnicompetent, he's a Marty Stu. The one good trait she gives him that I can appreciate is his loyalty to his old master, Wolsey.
It's very good on how Cromwell both was an innovator, who updated the bureaucracy and laid the foundations for the modern parliamentary system, and how he bent the laws around to serve Henry's purposes in a very nasty way, so that it's satisfying (if you're like me) to see him hoist with his own petard. Bills of Attainder are a lovely little legal device where we don't need to give you a trial, we've already decided you're guilty, now just confess like a good chap (or lady).
Mantel tends to slide over the nasty implications of what her boy is doing; she dislikes More (being a Cromwell stan, and for the same reasons I dislike Cromwell, being a More stan) so he gets to be a bigot fanatic torturer etc. etc. etc. while Cromwell, well gosh gee he just sort of had to do these things, you know? Seemingly she's ex-Catholic so that explains a lot of her attitudes to "bad old church, bad old pope, Reformation great, we'll just pretend it was all about now you can read the Gospels in English and be vaguely uplifted spiritually".
I would recommend the trilogy but with the caveat that Mantel thinks Cromwell was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
EDIT: I'd recommend, as non-fiction, the biography by Diarmaid Macculloch; a 1523 letter shows that politics hasn't changed much in 500 years 😁
I completely agree with your assessment. Mantell definitely seemed like she was trying to rehabilitate Cromwell, and her depiction of Moore was cartoonish.
In particular, the (not) torture of Mark Smeaton before he confessed to adultery with Anne Boleyn was absurd. The idea that he would confess to a crime that guaranteed his death due to being put in a scary cellar wasn't exactly convincing.
The BBC miniseries was also fantastic. They really went all in on the historical realism, including things like not having any artificial lighting, and even refusing to use modern candles in place of historically accurate tallow candles.
I might give Macculloch's biography a read, the reviews on Amazon seem positive.
It is good, and I say that as someone who is probably on the exact opposite of Macculloch in every way (he's English of Scottish descent, former Anglican, Unionist etc.) It's fair to Cromwell and also shows the environment he was working in, the changes going on not just in England but in Europe, and the reasons both for his success and his fall. It does show his flaws, too. And he was ruthless, there's no two ways about that. Throughout his career, he was a fixer for a lot of people, he was lobbied by people for that purpose, and he worked as Henry's fixer and his downfall came when he made missteps and could no longer provide the 'fixes' Henry wanted.
Henry VIII really is a fascinating character and despite reading a couple of biographies, I can't really get a handle on his character because nobody seems to be able to do that; one writer will describe him as a man's man, impatient of the world of women, while another will write him as brought up in a woman's world and thus being less sure of his position in the all-male world of the court. Nobody could really claim to know him, or be able to control him. And whatever one's opinions on their merits, I think More made a better end by standing up for his principles even though he knew this would probably end in his death eventually, as against Cromwell who went with the king on everything he asked and still ended up begging for mercy in one last, pathetic letter because his downfall, too, was assured.
I don't have much sympathy for Anne Boleyn because she did a lot to get herself into the position she ended up in (whatever about family pressure, and all the highborn families were dangling their daughters in front of Henry for hopes of getting advancement, she was - if we believe her supporters - smart and capable, so she was not some delicate blossom forced into chasing the king, she went for it too with her full consent). But her end was miserable, and the list of ridiculous charges was just Henry's ego at work. Smeaton is a victim, too; a bit of a cocky idiot who liked the idea of chasing the queen, did too much bragging, and ended up being used by men much cleverer and more powerful than him because he was a weak link who could be used for their purposes. I don't think anyone really believed that Smeaton was Anne's lover, but he could be portrayed as such, and coerced into a confession about it all, and that was what they wanted: the excuse to prosecute her.
Yes, I don't think it's at all credible that "we'll just sit him in a spooky cellar" was as far as Cromwell went, because (1) he was fighting for his survival against Anne himself and (2) he was not the kind of man to be squeamish about what needed to be done to get what he wanted.
There's a good video about the Holbein Tudor portraits here. I didn't see the BBC series, but I did read somewhere that the visual of Cromwell was, ironically, based more on the More portrait than the Cromwell portrait. It is fascinating to compare the two pictures, the one of More seems a lot more detailed and realistic than the one of Cromwell which is a lot flatter and old-fashioned. Does that mean Holbein preferred More to Cromwell, or that Cromwell made sure the painting would not reveal more than the surface he wanted to present?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Come on, this is ridiculous. Are there books that meet that description? Unfortunately, yes. But there are many quality female authors, both classic and modern, who are perfectly capable of writing competent plots and characters with agency. I've read romances that defeat your description in detail. Random example--no exploration of the mystery genre is complete without hitting Agatha Christie.
I can't guarantee you'd like any book or author I'd recommend, but your tastes are extremely narrow if no female author would qualify.
I was once five books into a series of police procedural mysteries with a sci-fi setting when the librarian checking out number six informed me I was reading Nora Roberts.
I quickly switched to self-checkout kiosks, which respect my desire to read male authors like Robert Galbraith or C.J. Cherryh.
I've heard good things about this new guy, James Tiptree Jr., as well 😁
More options
Context Copy link
You should try Deanna Dwyer, Danielle Brown, and Madeleine Brent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have limited free time, or reading time for that matter. If I grab a random female authored SF or Fantasy book that comes "highly recommended" or has won a bunch of awards to get it in front of my eyes, what do you think are the odds it affirms all the terrible and odious stereotypes I've come to loath? Greater than 50%? Greater than 80%?
This isn't the trite old talking about about the bowl full of M&M's with a few poison ones sprinkled in. It's a bowl of poison with a few... mediocre candies. The juice simply isn't worth the squeeze.
Motte, meet bailey. This is a very much narrower and more defensible claim--yes, the awards are owned by woke activists. "Hugo-winning" is still an unmistakeable mark of quality, but not good quality. But even if we narrow to SF/Fantasy--you originally made claims about fiction written by women generally--there are still female published authors who are not woke, or are even anti-woke. Baen is the obvious place to start; Sarah Hoyt is one example. (No promises that you'll like her writing, but if you don't, it won't be for woke reasons, and she actually likes men!)
There's also good stuff to be found outside traditional publishing, both indie and web serial, though as always, a random grab will not serve you well. The Wandering Inn is a web serial with a pseudonymous author (though I have high confidence she's female), and it's excellent. Unfortunately, "The Wandering Inn" and "limited reading time" are not concepts that work well together.
My complaints about what I perceive to be the female writing style are orthogonal to complaints about wokeness. You'll notice I didn't mention politics at all.
I also didn't say it's all trash, or terrible, or that women can't write. I laid out a list of characteristics I've found endemic in women's writing, and said I can't do it. I simply cannot. I'm not sure how well you digested my tastes, since you went off about "wokeness" instead of addressing my specific dislikes.
Already addressed.
I'm not saying you should like or even tolerate a lack of plot or agency--I agree that any work meeting your original description (or even close to it) is crap. The common modern failing is to replace the missing plot and agency with wokeness, which is why I brought it up. But you are painting with too broad a brush to say there aren't any female authors in SF/Fantasy worth reading, which is exactly what you did here:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I was going to bring Madeline L'Engle up as a counterexample, but she's a fantasy author with a few (very few) sciency-themes; no more of a sci-fi author than Susan Cooper.
For me, this is a things/ideas vs. people interest problem. If I want very acute novels about people's personalities and interactions, I can read classic literature and get something far beyond what a sci-fi author will manage. I go to sci-fi for either descriptions of cool stuff (paradigmatically, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) or explorations of ideas (paradigmatically, Frank Herbert or Isaac Asimov).
EDIT: For kid's sci-fi, I suppose some of Gillian Cross's work is good in every respect, though even it tends to be more fantasy e.g. the Demon Headmaster books have a lot of sci-fi, but the Headmaster himself is fundamentally a fantasy figure, since there's no scientific reason for his powers.
I agree that Madeline L'Engle is more of a fantasy author than a sci -fi author, but to be fair the statement wasn't "I refuse to read sci -fi written by women", it was all fiction written by women. So L'Engle is a good counterexample here.
Good point. Say what you like about L'Engle novels, but plenty of stuff happens in them, and in my opinion it's often (bizarre) fun stuff. It's hard to say what L'Engle is interested in most of the time, which is part of the joy of her books, but she's definitely interested in something other than just people and their inner lives.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is funny, because I didn't like Frankenstein very much, precisely because it was so full of histrionic monologues and Dr. Frankenstein acting like a dude written by a woman.
Frankenstein is about as Romantic as it comes, but it should be understood that this was the prevailing style of the time - overwrought and emotional. Men wrote this way back then too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link