WARNING: SPOILERS LIKELY THROUGHOUT
It's six months since The Goddess Project by Bryan Wigmore, aka our very own HareBrain, was published, and a good many of us here on Chrons have now read it. So I thought it would be a good time for us to have a Virtual Book Club session and start nattering about it. Bring your own wine and nibbles, virtual or otherwise.
One of the issues I raised when I did my review back in March (which is here for those of you who haven't yet read it) was the female energy in the book. We have well-drawn strong female characters in the shape of Cass, Hana, and Vanessa, of course, and while strong isn't an apt word for Thera initially, she's as deftly characterised as the others, and clever writing means that notwithstanding her treachery we have some sympathy for her predicament and her agonising decision to relinquish Sparrow. It's perhaps a pity it takes so long in the book for two women actually to talk together, but it's effectively a 1900s world, after all, where male domination is hardly news.
What worries me a little more is the female energy shown in the psychosphere. Hana regards the Mother as nurturing and Seriuz's wished-for goddess would be an embodiment of justice, but these female aspects are told to us, rather than revealed. What we actually see is: a quasi-demonic entity which wants to keep Orc in the ziggurat, and requires propitiation with human sacrifice; Three-Eyes who is a demon to all intents and purposes; and Skalith who is unspeakably disgusting and destructive. Far from life-giving as Hana would argue, all we see if life-taking by the female entities, and the physical description of Skalith could have been penned by the most virulent misogynist at Bismark or Highcloud.
I appreciate that in effect the female = nature in the book, and nature isn't all cuddly bunnies; it's teeth, claws and lots of blood, and birds frozen to death in ice-storms, small mammals drowned in floods. Yep, death. No problem with that. And nature can't be confined within human views of morality and goodness. I get that, too. But... where is shown the countervailing argument of nature's life and beauty? Did I miss it? Have I forgotten something? Am I being unfair, since the male energy of the psychosphere is hardly warm and welcoming? Does it matter anyway?
NB Although I am raising the issue of female representation in TGP, just a reminder that since the World Affairs debacle we don't discuss wider social issues anywhere on the site, so please no going off on a riff about female protagonists or representation generally within fantasy, whatever your views on the subject.
Right, I'm sitting here with my Danebury Madeleine Angevine** and pack of salted cashews. Anyone want to join me?
** sadly, virtual only
It's six months since The Goddess Project by Bryan Wigmore, aka our very own HareBrain, was published, and a good many of us here on Chrons have now read it. So I thought it would be a good time for us to have a Virtual Book Club session and start nattering about it. Bring your own wine and nibbles, virtual or otherwise.
One of the issues I raised when I did my review back in March (which is here for those of you who haven't yet read it) was the female energy in the book. We have well-drawn strong female characters in the shape of Cass, Hana, and Vanessa, of course, and while strong isn't an apt word for Thera initially, she's as deftly characterised as the others, and clever writing means that notwithstanding her treachery we have some sympathy for her predicament and her agonising decision to relinquish Sparrow. It's perhaps a pity it takes so long in the book for two women actually to talk together, but it's effectively a 1900s world, after all, where male domination is hardly news.
What worries me a little more is the female energy shown in the psychosphere. Hana regards the Mother as nurturing and Seriuz's wished-for goddess would be an embodiment of justice, but these female aspects are told to us, rather than revealed. What we actually see is: a quasi-demonic entity which wants to keep Orc in the ziggurat, and requires propitiation with human sacrifice; Three-Eyes who is a demon to all intents and purposes; and Skalith who is unspeakably disgusting and destructive. Far from life-giving as Hana would argue, all we see if life-taking by the female entities, and the physical description of Skalith could have been penned by the most virulent misogynist at Bismark or Highcloud.
I appreciate that in effect the female = nature in the book, and nature isn't all cuddly bunnies; it's teeth, claws and lots of blood, and birds frozen to death in ice-storms, small mammals drowned in floods. Yep, death. No problem with that. And nature can't be confined within human views of morality and goodness. I get that, too. But... where is shown the countervailing argument of nature's life and beauty? Did I miss it? Have I forgotten something? Am I being unfair, since the male energy of the psychosphere is hardly warm and welcoming? Does it matter anyway?
NB Although I am raising the issue of female representation in TGP, just a reminder that since the World Affairs debacle we don't discuss wider social issues anywhere on the site, so please no going off on a riff about female protagonists or representation generally within fantasy, whatever your views on the subject.
Right, I'm sitting here with my Danebury Madeleine Angevine** and pack of salted cashews. Anyone want to join me?
** sadly, virtual only