So...what's everyone reading?

[Mistress of Darkness]

Yes, EUOL, but what would she do? This is mostly a SF/F argument, since contemporary fiction has different definitions for its heros. In SF/F heros usually have to save something.

I think you have a good point, but I don't know what the answer would be.

[Entsuropi]

I do : be boring. And talk boring crap. And whine about non-issues.

[EUOL]

I've tried to answer this question in my own writing, since I believe that there should be ways to have conflict, climax, and heroism without simply resorting to 'man A hits man B with a sword.'

Usually, this resorts to the concept of control, especially with women.  They learn to control their surroundings, and the people in them, without resorting to physical violence themselves.  However, I wonder if this is a feminine trait or not.  Is this the sort of thing a woman would do, or that other women would admire?

[fuzzyoctopus]

Women and female society is based on control.  Women who know how other people think and can outthink them or predict how they will react do best in fantasy books.  Women have a tendency to network in a way that sword-bashing heroes often don't

So I think that's a fair assessment, EUOL.

[Mistress of Darkness]

Being a control freak myself, I can honestly say that it is something that women do. The saying, "Behind every great man is a great woman" or however that goes is kind of rooted in it. The idea is that woman control men, who in turn go around hitting As and Bs with swords.

I don't know that it is an admirable trait, however. Free agency is a very important thing, and I think it is a weakness when one person attempts to quash another person's free agency.

But then again, maybe it's a pendulum. One the one side you have the manipulative, controlling villianess (Morag's tea story comes to mind). On the other hand, you have a woman who wins the respect, and therefore loyality, of her people and those around her, thus accomplishing great things by motivating others. In effect "controlling her surroundings." But that still seems a little boring to read about if all the hero does is go around and inspire people.

[EUOL]

But you could say something similar about our sword-wielding hero.  A truly honorable hero is made that way because of who he hits with his sword and why he does it.  A woman hero, therefore, could be judged by who she manipulates and why she does it.

[Fellfrosch]

In my current book, it's usually "man A hits man B with lute."

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

In my current book, it's usually "man A hits man B with lute."

Would this book be about Sir Carl?

[EUOL]

SE, didn't you write an honors thesis on heroism in literature?  Did you cover differences between heroism for the genders?

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I didn't look at gender. For three main reasons:
1) i was trying for archetypal lit, and there aren't that many women in archetypal literature as heroes (Yes, there are exceptions, you could argue Sheharezade, for example)
2) length: I only had 10 works to use, since I had the above emphasis, I had to REALLY narrow down the field.
3) my thesis was the hero as an embodiment of cultural values which meant that what I was really saying was that you define what the culture's values were by their archetypal hero's values. An argument partially come up with because of the cultural conflict theme of the Iliad.

However, now that I think about it, this wouldn't have been a good argument for not including women, although I would have had to do it deliberately, and ignore the length requirements -- i've already observed that given enough length, you could find enough archetypal literature to write something about. In a campbell-esque book I could write TONS using example of how the cultural values are different for men and women, and how being heroes would therefore make different requirements. hrm.... time to expand the paper by another 20 pages or more.

[stacer]

One of the biggest argument against Campbell's archetypal theory is exactly that--his hero in the hero's journey is most definitely ALWAYS male. I believe he might have stated once or twice that it works for female heros, too, but then half his theory is thrown off if you plug in a female protagonist. Maybe he ran into the same problem you did--few female stories. But I would question what you mean by few female heros in archetypal lit. Folk tales are full of them. And if you look especially at the folk tales that the Grimms and Perrault overlooked, you'll find female protagonists doing very female things: valuing community rather than hierarchy, focusing on family relationships rather than the prize of riches, etc. Maybe they just don't fit the archetypal mode because that mode is based on what the male-focused tales typify.

So I would love to hear what you might have to say on the female version of the hero's journey, or at least a revised version of the hero's journey including women. I think archetypal is my favorite school of critical thought, yet it irks me sometimes.

As for manipulation and control, EUOL, watch out that you don't end up using it in a Robert Jordan-esque way, if that's the route you take rather than sword-wielding women. I can't tell you how annoyed I get with those women (and the men, too, but more so the women) trying to manipulate everyone and everything, especially with lack of communication. I still say all the good guys needed was a good correlation meeting once a week, and they wouldn't have had half the problems they had. Of course, I must admit that I am a control freak, too, and (much as I hate to admit it) RJ's got a point--the female half of the source is controlled by surrendering control. Sometimes women focus so much on control that we have to remember that we can't control everything.

I think it's good for female characters to be free to be physically strong, able to wield a sword or whatever if needed, but also that it's important to have them be able to embrace the things that make them feminine.

And MoD, I don't remember any love triangle in Hero and the Crown.    Have you ever read any of McKinley's retellings of fairy tales? She wrote Beauty in 1978, and retold it as Rose Daughter just a couple years ago. She also did a Sleeping Beauty called Spindle's End. All very good.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

well, i don't really throw in with the "hero's journey" completely. I think it's a nice archetype, but I think Campbell goes too far with how universally applicable it is. To make it so applicable, I feel that too much of each step is watered down.

Instead I think that each culture embodies it's heroes with different values. Achilles, for example, is amazingly good at fighting, and he has little else in him but a strong drive for revenge.
Contrast this to Odysseus, who embodies a later Greece: who still conquers, but can do it by his wiles. He's still capable in battle, but he can also orate, he's pious, and has a very strong family drive.

I guess mostly I don't think of the cycle as a useful tool for analysis. It's kinda nifty to see when it fits (and not because you forced it to fit), but I don't feel it tells you much about what's going on in the story or the culture.

[Mistress of Darkness]

stacer: I'm referring to the triangle between Aerin, Tor and Luthe. I thought it was depressing.

I've read Spindle's End (loved it!), but neither of her Beauty and the Beast books. (I love this topic, it gives me so many good books to read).

I agree with stacer. RJ women are stupid and I don't want to read about them. (Not that I can really say anything, since I haven't read any of his books, just heard other people complain about them).

There is nothing heroic or admirable, imo, in someone who lies for their own amusement, or their own screwed up sense of what the world should be like.

[EUOL]

The RJ women aren't problematic in the first book.  They're just mildly annoying at times, but hardly a reason not to read it.  They only get really disfunctional later in the series.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I just finished Robin Hobb's newest, Fool's Fate, the ninth in the series that starts with Assassin's Apprentice. Actually it's three trilogies, but anyway I've no idea if it will be the last book in this universe. The US version doesn't come out until February, so I had the British version given to me for Christmas (via amazon.co.jp to eliminate shipping charges).

The book itself is HUGE. 9 1/2 inches tall, 6 1/2 inches wide, and a bit over 2 1/2 inches thick. A little over 800 pages. I only read the US versions of the other books, but I'm pretty confident this is the longest book in the series.

Anyway it's a great book. It ties up this trilogy very well and has a good happy ending. That always matters for me. It also doesn't do the one thing I had feared about this series.

The only thing I'm dubious about in the series is that when the first book was being written, I don't think Robin Hobb had completely thought through explanations of how several things happened. When they were given in the third book, they didn't quite account for everything--I'm speaking mostly of the white ships. The explanation for the Forged didn't quite work for me either until I read this ninth book.

I really liked this book, but I think I liked the second trilogy better. I believe it's mostly because the first and third trilogies are in first person so we can see things only through one person's perception. The second trilogy is in third person and has a much larger cast of characters with many things going on at once, giving it a truly epic feel. It also allows for great character growth among many characters, including several I didn't expect growth from. Oh well, I mentioned the books earlier in this thread even...

But anyway this book is good, so go read them all. I'm very glad that Brandon and Dan told me they were going to read the first book and that I should too. I don't know if they ever actually did.