# Epic fantasy = male fantasy?



## Brian G Turner (May 22, 2014)

_Note - this is not intended as an argument about gender politics!_

I was talking to someone last night, and mentioned about the dominance of male writers in epic fantasy. 

She replied that this is not surprising - that epic fantasy is all about male heroic ideals. And that women writers are unlikely to be interested in focusing on those for too long.

That certainly got me thinking! 

Especially as it sounds like a relatively simple explanation, that doesn't automatically require gender discrimination, or a special conspiracy between publishers and readers.

I know "epic fantasy" as a genre is difficult to define, and I know we have big name women writers in there. 

It's just that it's been a discussion topic before, so I just wondered what other members thought about the suggestion that - traditionally, at least - epic fantasy has been defined by ideals of "male heroism"? Especially one drawn from a historical context, hence why fantasy tends to be faux-mediaevial - the age of chivalry?


----------



## chopper (May 22, 2014)

which makes work by the likes of, say, Kate Elliott & Juliet McKenna all the more interesting as they aren't really about the "ideal" male-centric epic fantasy. especially since Juliet McKenna's world stands at 15 novels and counting... (see also Janny Wurts)

having had a drink tonight i can't argue any more cogently than that, but i'd blame the Arthurians and the early 20th century S&S authors like Howard for the focus on "male heroism".


----------



## svalbard (May 22, 2014)

At one stage you would have being correct, I Brian, but we now have an abundance of female authors in the Fantasy genre. I was reading Janny Wurts 20 years ago, Katherine Kurtz and Katherine Kerr 25 years ago. I did find their themes more nuanced than the likes of Feist, especially Kerr's works.


----------



## j d worthington (May 23, 2014)

chopper said:


> but i'd blame the Arthurians and the early 20th century S&S authors like Howard for the focus on "male heroism".




Some truth to that (particularly with the Arthurians, etc. But Howard had his share of heroic women as well, and even had a brief series which had a female protagonist (Agnes d'Chastillon, to give it Howard's own spelling), and even his share of strong, non-heroic (in the usual sense) women... which is one reason why people like Catherine L. Moore and Leigh Brackett had such a regard for Howard. 

I've tended to shy away from most "epic" fantasy for quite some time, but even so, I would say that such a view of the entire genre as expressed in the opening post is, at best, a rather broad generalization these days....


----------



## hopewrites (May 23, 2014)

I said:


> She replied that this is not surprising - that epic fantasy is all about male heroic ideals. And that women writers are unlikely to be interested in focusing on those for too long.


I never looked at it that way. 
I mean, I never saw heroic ideals separated into gender classes.
I just asked my flatmate what "Male heroic ideals" were and he said: the idea that risk will be reworded, the progress from apprentice to master, the hope that at the end of the quest the hero will get the girl and the kingdom and all that. 
Which made me wonder, because I had always seen those as human heroic ideals.
I'm sorry to have to bring up my ignorance on the matter, but I must ask again; what are male heroic ideals and how do they differ from female heroic ideals? I'm not looking to insight a gender war ether, but I'm confused enough that I have to ask.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 23, 2014)

chopper said:


> which makes work by the likes of, say, Kate Elliott & Juliet McKenna all the more interesting as they aren't really about the "ideal" male-centric epic fantasy. especially since Juliet McKenna's world stands at 15 novels and counting... (see also Janny Wurts)
> 
> having had a drink tonight i can't argue any more cogently than that, but i'd blame the Arthurians and the early 20th century S&S authors like Howard for the focus on "male heroism".



Juliet McKenna does constantly post about gender imbalance in fantasy:
http://www.julietemckenna.com/



hopewrites said:


> I never looked at it that way.
> I mean, I never saw heroic ideals separated into gender classes.
> I just asked my flatmate what "Male heroic ideals" were and he said: the idea that risk will be reworded, the progress from apprentice to master, the hope that at the end of the quest the hero will get the girl and the kingdom and all that.
> Which made me wonder, because I had always seen those as human heroic ideals.
> I'm sorry to have to bring up my ignorance on the matter, but I must ask again; what are male heroic ideals and how do they differ from female heroic ideals? I'm not looking to insight a gender war ether, but I'm confused enough that I have to ask.



I wonder if it's more to do with a focus on the ideal of "male power" in society. 

I mean, Extollager recently posted a thread, where he explored the idea that Tolkien had effectively created the fantasy genre. 

I replied that, no, it had been in existence much longer - we have mediaeval literature extolling chivalry, not least Morte D'Arthur, and could probably include the Iliad in there.

Which has me thinking now that at least some part of epic fantasy may be following the same ideal raised by these books. Surely these are not simply epic stories - but arguably more about how to become the perfect man? Which always involves martial skill and courage tempered by spiritual humility? Else be struck down!

Perhaps it's simply my own gender biases that are being challenged, as when I think "epic fantasy" I think Tolkien, Jordan, Goodkind, Martin, Erikson, (also, Hobb). Because I read so much discussion online about the male domination of epic fantasy, I presume I'm not the only one who thinks that these names dominate the genre.

Hence why I thought it was interesting to have it suggested that an ideal of male heroism might lie at the heart of it.

I'm not suggesting answers here, I just thought the exploration might be interesting.


----------



## chopper (May 23, 2014)

Fair point, JD - & perhaps telling that i know of Conan but not Agnes...


----------



## hopewrites (May 23, 2014)

Ah! Well there's my gender bias exposed as well then  as when I read epics I am applying those masculine heroes actions to my own life. I may not have to beat down beastly opponents with a sword, or grapple with death with only my strength of arms (who does now a days  ) but the psychology is applicable. I'll often identify more with a masculine hero than with a feminine one, but I always assumed it was to do with what the characters were facing rather than their pluming. The feminine heroes plights I find easy to overcome and therefor ether dont identify with their struggle or find more enjoyment in catching the perspective of her counterparts, seeing myself from the other side kind of thing.

I'll stand by my original thought that the heroic themes are human, and not as gender bias as they appear on the surface. But I guess I could concede that they might get to appear that way through the type casting that they are often expressed through. I forget sometimes (ok alot of times) that few people take the dichotomy of the human condition into consideration when reading gender rolls in fiction. Because I believe that the need to express strength and prove one's worth is felt by all those stuck in the human condition, not just half of it. I also believe that the need to nurture, and express love is felt by all, not just half. 
Because of these beliefs I take the masculation of certian needs to be as simbolic as the dragons and bridges they must cross to achieve their goals. I assumed that men were chosen as symbolic heroes because it was easier for people to identify with bulging muscles as a visualization of strength, not because women were ever excluded from the strength expressed, or that the pitfalls of relying only on one's strengths was not a warning for those with non-visualized strengths as well.

I'm glad you posed this question Brian, it's made me take a longer look at how impersonally I've taken the gender of my heroes, placing myself in their shoes (capes, furs, hats, ect) with little regard for established societal gender rolls, because somewhere inside me I was aware that they were less the point than the vehicle.

Which is why it will probably be argued that there are plenty of women who address the heroic themes with or without masculine characters to express them. Or that their approach to these themes is from a different angle and so they employ different means to achieve the same ends.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 23, 2014)

hopewrites said:


> I'll stand by my original thought that the heroic themes are human, and not as gender bias as they appear on the surface.



I won't disagree with it, because I don't know any better. It's simply an issue I've thought about a lot.

Not least because I keep hearing complaints - often from women authors - about men dominating the "epic fantasy" subgenre. 

But the comment I reported from the original post I found interesting. 

Saying that epic fantasy is all about male power and values may not be accepted as a description of the genre by chronicles members, probably because they are generally well-read around the fantasy genre.

But it certainly suggests to me an expectation, to some degree, among other readers.


----------



## j d worthington (May 24, 2014)

I said:


> But it certainly suggests to me an expectation, to some degree, among other readers.




Unfortunately, this may be right. However, I fear I view this very much as I do the common perception of science fiction as either "that Buck Rogers stuff" or all technobabble. Both are, of course, a part of the spectrum, but in each case it is a rather small one.... 

Frankly, I'd say this has at least as much to do with advertising and the media as it does with the literature itself; and it's an easy handle to grab onto... so it sticks with them....


----------



## Nerds_feather (May 25, 2014)

There are TONS of female writers of epic fantasy: Elizabeth Bear, Trudi Canavan, Kate Elliot, Karen Miller, KJ Parker--just a small sample, and these writers are all quite popular too.

(And from the older generation, you have Marion Zimmer Bradley. Katherine Kurtz, Katheryn Kerr, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, CJ Cherryh, Melanie Rawn, Mercedes Lackey, etc.)


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 25, 2014)

Nerds_feather said:


> There are TONS of female writers of epic fantasy: Elizabeth Bear, Trudi Canavan, Kate Elliot, Karen Miller, KJ Parker--just a small sample, and these writers are all quite popular too.
> 
> (And from the older generation, you have Marion Zimmer Bradley. Katherine Kurtz, Katheryn Kerr, Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman, CJ Cherryh, Melanie Rawn, Mercedes Lackey, etc.)



So when you personally think of which authors define epic fantasy, you think of these names first?

You don't agree with Juliet McKenna that women writers are actively unrepresented in the epic fantasy subgenre?


----------



## Ransonwrites (May 25, 2014)

I said:


> ... Extollager recently posted a thread, where he explored the idea that Tolkien had effectively created the fantasy genre.
> 
> I replied that, no, it had been in existence much longer - we have mediaeval literature extolling chivalry, not least Morte D'Arthur, and could probably include the Iliad in there.
> 
> ...



Beowulf. Add that to your list. What better example of masculine martial prowess portrayed  as a panacea? The common assertion that Tolkien invented the genre may  have a lot to do with his work as a Beowulf scholar, and the influences  it had on his own writing.


----------



## Nerds_feather (May 25, 2014)

I said:


> So when you personally think of which authors define epic fantasy, you think of these names first?
> 
> You don't agree with Juliet McKenna that women writers are actively unrepresented in the epic fantasy subgenre?



As much as anyone else. And no, I don't agree with that. 

I might agree with related statements, for example that marketing dynamics are highly gendered in a screwed up way (see, for example, book covers). Or perhaps that the gritty/grimdark style is associated with male writers (to the point where gritty female writers are overlooked in discussions of the style). But I see no shortage of female authors of epic fantasy.

I'd suggest that if one does see a shortage, it's because one is reading primarily male authors. And then I'd say the more pertinent question is _why_. 

Here I see (generalized) tastes and marketing as intertwined: marketing responds to perceptions of tastes predominant among segments of the market; yet it also hardens and shapes perceptions, leading to further segmentation.  

So we end up with BOOKS FOR WOMEN and BOOKS FOR MEN and a lot of people (myself included until relatively recently) who aren't aware how fuzzy and malleable the categories really are.


----------



## hopewrites (May 25, 2014)

I agree NF that marketing has a larger influence than it should, in more areas than it's aware of (God help us if they ever find out). 
I had a friend who was taking a class on women in literature and one day she came home from class to talk to us about the ROMANTICISM of women having to use male pseudonyms to get taken seriously in the publishing world. 
I'm not going to argue that such things never happened, or that they are not still happening (JK Rowling once said she wanted to keep hidden that she was a she so that young men could enjoy her writing), I'll join my voice to those saying it shouldn't be happening and add a pointed finger at marketing at large segregating EVERYTHING into a situation where there is a Gender that might or might not be human rather than a Human thing that may or may not have a gender issue.

I mean, I know women who buy razors marketed for men because they believe they are better. I know people who will only buy the razor marketed for their gender. I've used both kinds and they are the same blade in a different colored handle. Oil of Olay now has a Masculine line, because they were missing out on half the population because of the hyper genderization mind job marketing has done on humanity over the generations.


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2014)

hopewrites: BINGO!

I won't argue that there is a strong tendency among publishers and marketers to present things this way, either -- Joanna Russ's *How to Suppress Women's Writing* is still quite valid in a number of ways... but it is this _perception_ that is fostered (whether or not the person putting it forth genuinely believes it; some do, some are merely fomenting tensions for their own agendas), from _both_ sides much of the time, that is the actual problem more than the degree or differences in merit offered by either sex here.


----------



## JonH (Jun 1, 2014)

It occurred to me if it's down to marketing you'd expect men writing fiction marketed at women to be using gender-neutral pen names, or initials. I looked it up for Romantic Fiction and that's exactly what happens.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 2, 2014)

Idk, I'd be more inclined to pick up an obviously male-written romance novel just to see what they are up to. If he was good he could use his maleness as a selling point "Candle light, chocolate, and a man who knows what romance is" since there is a lot of marketing directed at masculine abilities (or their lack) in the field of "romance."





*I'm not knocking guys *or* their romantic abilities. I'm saying marketers are*!* I know guys aren't as clueless as society-at-large via marketing paints them. I have facts to back up my knowledge, its not faith based. 
Nor would I ever wish to imply that women have that market cornered (pun totally intended).


----------



## Overread (Jun 2, 2014)

A few random thoughts:

1) Monkey see monkey do. A lot of writers write books heavily influenced by books that they've already read. This might not be a conscious choice and many times it isn't. It's along the line that they are influenced by a series of books about a certain kind of story and then they start to shift from wanting to read about it to wanting to write about it. 
As such themes and ideas can end up spreading through a genre; first being fresh, new ideas and then soon becoming quite solidified staples that move from being unique in the genre to defining the genre itself. 
This tends to get broken when an author writes something that tries something new and manages to get published, it might be a new idea within the staple or a new idea entirely - which will often then spawn its own copies etc...

2) Marketing certainly has a great hold over many things and publishing houses, like many companies, will go with what they know works. Doesn't matter if its a basic copy of a previous idea or concept; they are not always that interested into pushing into new ground; new ground is scary! It requires new marketing methods, investment in unknown possibilities. 
So marketing and larger publishing groups can end up promoting certain trends and themes within a genre, whilst at the same time denying different ideas from entering the market (or getting authors to change key details at the editing stage). 

3) Avoiding modernity in ancient era based fantasy. Like it or not but historically male dominance, especially in areas of combat and politics is a fairly well established element. Thus its trickier to write a strong female lead in a heroic position because it requires more significant social changes to take place. Either the author has to depart from the faux medieval ideal and make something new (more world building pages); or they've got to create a situation that advances their female protagonist. 
The tricky bit there is that its difficult to do that without falling into the trap of making it a story about a modern women/womens rights being transcribed into a historical context. It's something that can throw a story and reader if done badly and might be a reason why even when we have female writers, the heroism is still being undertaken by men for the most part. 




My personal view as a reader is that I don't really care. That is to say a good story is a good story be it with a female lead; a male lead; a human lead; a dragon lead; a wolf lead etc.... The key is the story within. In an ideal world that would happen, though in the real world sometimes you have to force things to get them to change.

I'm reminded of a recent thing in the USA with regard to university applications. A Law was overturned that enforced universities to accept x% of students of a non-white background. The law was brought in to force a greater amount of equality and change and now the law is taken away once society as a greater whole, has accepted and made the change.

Writing and this element might very well be similar in that sometimes you've got to push a few ideals through to get them to stick to balance things out.


Of course what is going to turn this upside down is the removal of publishers as gatekeepers to the published world; with ebooks now basically free to publish which means that the original controls on what is and isn't allowed through are basically gone. Of course the downside is that publishing on your own and without investing heavily in marketing is likely to keep ones book hidden even more than in the past with self publishing (lost in a sea of other books). There's also the fact that many self-publishing also avoid editors or a more formal approach which can lead to a vast increase in basic errors of spelling and grammar that mean a good story gets abandoned due to its lack of readability.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 2, 2014)

Overread, number 2 is a critical point. You can have gender equality or you can have a vaguely realistic approach to an approximately medieval worldview, but you can't have both.

When doing the background work for Kingdom Asunder the first thing I did was focus on female characters because (revolving around a war) I was acutely aware it could easily end up becoming entirely about men and I wanted to ensure there were at least some strong female characters to provide some balance [ironically it feels like I've gone too far that way, perhaps, as most of the best characters seem to be women].

Edited extra bit: although, having written that, I slightly disagree with myself. 2/3 of the major countries in the world I've written are basically medieval kingdoms, with magic. The third, the Kuhrland, is more original and has gender equality (more or less), as well as practically no taxation and no central authority.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 2, 2014)

Even if women are living in a patriarchal society, though, it doesn't excuse writing bad women characters--or not writing them at all.

And even if fantasy second-worlds are inspired by medieval Europe, they don't take place in medieval Europe. Besides: magic, dragons, etc. Epic fantasy is thus at best selectively realistic, which of course means authors can select freely what they'd like to be realistic about. So nothing, really, is stopping an author from deviating from things they find in history.


----------



## Overread (Jun 2, 2014)

Nerds yes and no. 

Remember whilst they can pick and choose sometimes you want to give a book an ambiance. It's very hard to give a book a proper ambiance of being different if you just transcribe modern social standings into the fantasy world. Indeed nothing makes a fantasy world feel more fake than if the characters feel like they are just modern people with modern values and ideals.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 2, 2014)

Overread said:


> Nerds yes and no.
> 
> Remember whilst they can pick and choose sometimes you want to give a book an ambiance. It's very hard to give a book a proper ambiance of being different if you just transcribe modern social standings into the fantasy world. Indeed nothing makes a fantasy world feel more fake than if the characters feel like they are just modern people with modern values and ideals.


I agree! I had this problem a few times reading Earths Children. The characters sometimes felt all too "Present Day" with their ideals, thoughts, aspirations or actions to be "Dawn of Man" kind of beings.
A lack of evolution allowed that discredited its claim that we evolved from said peoples.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 2, 2014)

Overread said:


> Nerds yes and no.
> 
> Remember whilst they can pick and choose sometimes you want to give a book an ambiance. It's very hard to give a book a proper ambiance of being different if you just transcribe modern social standings into the fantasy world. Indeed nothing makes a fantasy world feel more fake than if the characters feel like they are just modern people with modern values and ideals.



So you can have magic that breaks all known laws of physics (i.e. the foundation of everything) but you can't change the social norms of a distinct historical period in a distinct part of the world, as understood by the author? I fail to see the logic in that 

Fantasy is called "fantasy" for a reason--it's literature of the fantastic. I understand why authors might choose to hew closely to their understanding of medieval society (patriarchal, feudal, etc.)--and this is a valid choice. But it's by no means a rule. And as an alleged rule, it's incredibly odd and creativity-stifling. Fantasy could take a page from science fiction here, as I've argued elsewhere. 

But also, ftr, I wasn't talking about necessarily modern social standards, but ones that deviate from what we understand to be the social standards of the medieval period.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Jun 2, 2014)

There is a logic in it.

We suspend disbelief for stuff we know cannot and does not exist, but if someone behaves incredibly then it still sticks out like a sore thumb.

It might even be argued that the presence of magic and dragons and so forth means that we need to have characters that are as credible as possible, to help keep some semblance of realism. It's the opposite of James Bond, which has a real world setting but a man who is clearly about as realistic as a dragon.


----------



## Overread (Jun 2, 2014)

Nerds you can certainly do that; but you've got to world build a lot more to get away with that. And you've got to build it in convincingly so that I can understand, as a reader, why the people of that world hold the values that they do. The difference between that and an ancient period with modern day people is that the author makes no attempt to explain to the reader why those people are differing from the expected/the norm for their period and indeed why they are like modern people.


You have to do this for any setting you use, although the more you stick to the "norms" of fantasy the less world building you need. 

Consider creatures - if you say "elf" in a story most readers know that you mean someone typically thin bodied, able, healthy, long to infinite lived and very pretty with pointy ears; and a potential strong link to nature (and likely living in woodland). So you don't need to world build what an elf is for an average reader, only what and where it differs from that general concept; although its typically good to present a well rounded description, but common elements can at least be mentioned without as much need to go into detail.


----------



## Overread (Jun 2, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> It might even be argued that the presence of magic and dragons and so forth means that we need to have characters that are as credible as possible, to help keep some semblance of realism.



This is also a very sound point. Magic is magic, but people are still people and if you make the people unbelievable its harder to follow the rest of the story.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 2, 2014)

thaddeus6th said:


> There is a logic in it.
> 
> We suspend disbelief for stuff we know cannot and does not exist, but if someone behaves incredibly then it still sticks out like a sore thumb.
> 
> It might even be argued that the presence of magic and dragons and so  forth means that we need to have characters that are as credible as  possible, to help keep some semblance of realism. It's the opposite of  James Bond, which has a real world setting but a man who is clearly  about as realistic as a dragon.



By practicing magic, one is already behaving incredibly. 

And in history you can find massive disparities in social structures and norms. You have a significant number of historical matriarchies, for example. You have some societies where homosexuality has been par for the course, as well as those where it has been tacitly tolerated or severely repressed. There is real-world precedent for all of those. 

And magic--or more precisely, the ability to wield magic--is a mechanism through which authors can challenge nearly any social norm in our world. 

What if, for example, only women can wield magic--and can only do so prior to childbirth? How does that change things? Just a single simple example that shows that we are by no means tied to our understanding of how things were done in a relatively small area at a relatively short time in the past. 

If we _do_ choose to model our fantasy societies after that small area and at that short time, this is of course a perfectly fine way of doing things. There's precedent, people understand it and it's still completely viable. All good things. But it's hardly the only valid or imaginable way of doing things, and I'd argue fantasy could use more authors who explore other avenues. 

And as for being able to suspend disbelief, I'd say that this is not in any way predicated upon adhering to historical social norms of medieval Europe (since second-world fantasy doesn't actually take place in medieval Europe). Rather, it's predicated upon internal consistency. Take Iain M. Banks' SF novel *The Player of Games*, for example--lots of incredibly weird stuff going on, but it works because it's internally consistent. Or Gene Wolfe's *Book of the New Sun*. 

Back to fantasy, I had the pleasure of reading an advance copy of Robert Jackson Bennett's *City of Stairs*. Not only is it one of the best new fantasies I've read in ages, but it's also expectation-defying in these and other ways. I see that as a source of strength--the book is pushing fantasy to places it hasn't gone before. 

However, I'll also note that loving what Bennett is doing does not lessen my feelings for *A Song of Ice and Fire*. There's room for multiple approaches. 

So I'd say there are _compelling reasons _to stick to medieval social standards/norms, but there are no rules stipulating that you _must_ or even _should_, unless of course, you _want_ to.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 2, 2014)

The thing about gender in the mediaeval period is that it's very easy to focus on the patriarchal nature of rule, but overlook matriarchal roles in society.

Ken Follet's _Pillars of the Earth_ as a great story in itself, but despite being based in the early mediaeval period, it does have plenty of strong women characters, not least Aliena and Ellen.

Most fantasy fiction isn't really based in the mediaeval period - something I bang on alot.  At best most is inspired by romanticised elements of European history, but rarely aims to recreate any realistic portrayal of the actual social realities of the period.

From my own experience, it's is incredibly easy to fall into a comfort zone of expectation and presumption, not least with gender roles. I think challenging these can only lead to better writing - not least, perhaps, men writing strong women characters who are not obsessed with their own boobs, but also women authors being able to write female characters who don't think like post-suffragettes. 

History is a rich resource.


----------



## Nerds_feather (Jun 4, 2014)

I said:


> The thing about gender in the mediaeval period is that it's very easy to focus on the patriarchal nature of rule, but overlook matriarchal roles in society.
> 
> Ken Follet's _Pillars of the Earth_ as a great story in itself, but despite being based in the early mediaeval period, it does have plenty of strong women characters, not least Aliena and Ellen.
> 
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## Mirannan (Jun 5, 2014)

One reason for patriarchy is the simple fact of superior male strength (and to a lesser extent hand-eye coordination and the like) which matters a lot when weapons are powered by muscle and also (possibly) heavy armour is worn in battle.

Personally, I think that significant amounts of magic that isn't gender-specific and is useful in combat (whether directly or not) might change gender power relationships significantly. Because that woman you're insulting or treating as an inferior, because she's female, might just be able to turn you into a frog...


----------

