Gender equality in fantasy

Lhun said:

And extraordinary things require explanation to seem natural to a world. Wether that's done by infodumping, exposition, show-not-tell or characters arguing about it doesn't matter. Important is to give an explanation when the issue requiring explanation becomes important. There's no reason to explain how your fantasy world's two moons phases work. If they're just scenery, because scenery doesn't matter. But if the main character is werewolf we're talking about a major story element.

Click to expand...

God no, unless you are talking about SciFi and not fantasy. Some of the best fantasy works out there leave nearly every extraordinary matter unexplained and intentionally ambiguous. I don't think I need to give examples.
Expose the reader and let them add twos and twos together. Don't chew it out for them, let their imagination build on what you've provided.

I think there are readers who are fine with that, and many others who are not. I am one of the second. Have characters doing impossible things with no explanation, and I am not reading it.

We are probably talking about different levels of exposure/explanation here.

Gandalf killing Balrog is fine because Gandalf is a wizard.
Frodo killing Balrog is not fine because nowhere did it say he was a wizard.

Melisandre magically murdering Renly is fine because she is a witch.
Catelyn magically murdering Renly is not fine because nowhere did it say she was a witch.

Above is, I think fairly obvious.

What's not obvious is the level to which the author should explain how the extraordinary deed is done. Melisandre's magic can take out key people here and there but it doesn't take out everybody (even her final magic only creates new opponents). Martin gives no rules why she can't just do the shadow thingy on everyone who opposes her. But as readers we can assume that certain something is required. It may or may not be explained later, and until then, as reader, it's fun to guess.

You'll have to excuse me at being jumpy - I just hate all kinds of rules and guidelines to about anything in writing. As I'm sure there are a thousand counter examples one could offer against my argument.

We are probably talking about different levels of exposure/explanation here.

Click to expand...

You could be right

Gandalf killing Balrog is fine because Gandalf is a wizard.

Click to expand...

Gandalf is a wizard but we're only given hints as to what his powers actually are, how he uses them etc.

The ring obviously gives more power to him. But ...He uses a 'word of power(iirc)' which is? How does it work? Why is he knackered after - where does his magical strength come from ( apart from the extra from the ring) He is a 'servant of the secret fire'. Which explains a lot - not lol

Tolkien doesn't sit you down and say, 'Well, you see, what happened is, he collects toenail clippings and uses them for his power and then...'

Gandalf has his powers, the whys and wherefores are hinted at but ( again iirc, correct me if I'm wrong here) it's not spelled out in LOTR. It's enough to know that he has a lot of magical power and comes 'from the West'.

That's what I meant by giving your readers credit for having a braincell or two. Most readers don't want everything spelled out, they don't want to be treated like kids who can't understand - that would be boring and patronising. They want to have enough hints they can make their own hypothesis.

Hence the (very) general rule of thumb for worldbuilding - only about 10% of what the writer knows makes it explicitly onto the page. The rest is implied by the actions / attitudes / thoughts etc of the characters, or just sits in the writer's brain and influences things, unseen. The reader doesn't need to see your worldbuilding, the thousand years of history that led to this point - they do need to see the results of it.

IdiotsRUs said:

You could be right

Gandalf is a wizard but we're only given hints as to what his powers actually are, how he uses them etc.

The ring obviously gives more power to him. But ...He uses a 'word of power(iirc)' which is? How does it work? Why is he knackered after - where does his magical strength come from ( apart from the extra from the ring) He is a 'servant of the secret fire'. Which explains a lot - not lol

Tolkien doesn't sit you down and say, 'Well, you see, what happened is, he collects toenail clippings and uses them for his power and then...'

Gandalf has his powers, the whys and wherefores are hinted at but ( again iirc, correct me if I'm wrong here) it's not spelled out in LOTR. It's enough to know that he has a lot of magical power and comes 'from the West'.

That's what I meant by giving your readers credit for having a braincell or two. Most readers don't want everything spelled out, they don't want to be treated like kids who can't understand - that would be boring and patronising. They want to have enough hints they can make their own hypothesis.

Hence the (very) general rule of thumb for worldbuilding - only about 10% of what the writer knows makes it explicitly onto the page. The rest is implied by the actions / attitudes / thoughts etc of the characters, or just sits in the writer's brain and influences things, unseen. The reader doesn't need to see your worldbuilding, the thousand years of history that led to this point - they do need to see the results of it.

Click to expand...

Those are examples where the author does give enough hints. I don't need an author to explain every detail, just make it believable. The fact that Gandalf is known to be a wizard and that he has clear limitations on what he can do is enough to make him believable. I have no liking for stories where characters can do impossible things with no explanation.

I don't need an author to explain every detail, just make it believable.

Click to expand...

I thought you said...

Anyway, hints are all you need to make it believable - but apparently, this isn't enough and readers should get a long history of the world if the writer has the temerity to have a female warrior, because it's not believable, even if they have existed... because of course things that actually have happened aren't realistic.

*headdesk*

knight_tour said:

I have no liking for stories where characters can do impossible things with no explanation.

Click to expand...

Neither have I but that's not what we're talking about.

IdiotsRUs said:

Is it? Not really. The whole point of the discussion is whether equality is realistic. And if created believable then yes, it would be realistic. That you don't agree that equality has occured in history is ignoring the whole discussion

Click to expand...

Don't you notice how you're arguing circularly here? Saying that equality is realistic when created believably is redundant. It's like saying tautologies are tautological. The question is what makes equality realistic. (which is nothing but a different word for believable) And saying it's realistic if it's created realistic doesn't help.

In virtually all historical cultures the equality doesn't go across the board, maybe ( i never said it did.). But some will have equality of education, but not employment, Some will have equality of oppurtunity, but not status. Etc.

Just like real life.

However saying that any gender equality will render a book unbelieveable is ridicululous.

Click to expand...

As i said, all people have said in this thread is that gender equality is, up front, hard to believe and requires a good justification. If i missed where someone said that any gender equality is unbelievable, please point out the post to me.

Having the whole world believe the same thing is ridiculous. Having varied cultures and all their weird beliefs is not.

Click to expand...

Sure. But just as having a peasant boy be friends with a prince in a feudal society is completely unrealistic (and worse, cliché) so are other things, depending on the world. People are influenced by the world they live in, and some influences are stronger than others. While a world at a medieval level might only be slightly favourable towards feudal systems, making them more likely but not guaranteed, it sure as hell won't have modern style democracies. It could have a greek or roman style democracy instead.

Yes YOU are saying that. However, this discussion started with a 'oh well women joining the army / beatig a man is ridicululous' and swiftky moved on when histirical examples were given.

Click to expand...

No, actually the discussion started with the question "do you find it ridiculous" which was answered with "depends on the reason for it" by many.

Many cultures in history had forms of equality, even if it wasn't across the board. Some women could own property and divorce husbands - an equality many women today would kil for.

Saying you think this is unrealistic is..unbelieable. Because it's true.

Click to expand...

I really have no idea how you managed to read that into my posts.

Who skipped it? I've given my viewpoint quite thoroughly. So thoroughly I'm pretty damn bored of the whole discussion.

Click to expand...

You did. See my first paragraph again. Saying it's believable if it's believable is not really an answer.

Your world should have varying cultures. Each should have their own attiutudes towards equality. Some will go further towards total equality than others. This is realistic because it is not only human nature, but has happened in history.

Click to expand...

Yes, and what also was the case in history was that cultures with gender equality, especially when it comes to fighting, are extremely rare and had unusual reasons for it.

deeming a book/culture unbelievable just because there is some form of equality in it is, frankly ridiculous. If badly done, I'll agree it's crap - but many people have done it well, and believably.

Click to expand...

Again, i'm quite curious how you arrive at this interpretation of my statements.

IMO, obviously not in yours

Click to expand...

Obviously not in my what?

How about we agree to disagree here too?

Click to expand...

Agree to disagree about what? That gender equality was extraordinarily rare in history? That there are more ways than infodump to give an explanation? That extraordinary things should be explained? That things important to the story require an explanation? All of those?

I've got to agree with Lhun on this one.

*sigh*

What part of agree to disagree didn't you get?

Agree to disagree about what? That gender equality was extraordinarily rare in history? That there are more ways than infodump to give an explanation? That extraordinary things should be explained? That things important to the story require an explanation? All of those?

Click to expand...

All apart from the infodump part. There are more ways, but in this thread someone ( was it you? can't remember, cba to look) that yes, an infodump about how it came about was ok. Um, not really. It's boring.

Extraordinarily rare? Nope, I can name you quite a few cultures where, say, female warriors ( and so the level of equality that requires) weren't anything out of the ordinary. Some have been mentioned quite often in this thread. Unusual, maybe. Extraordinarily rare? No. And unusual crops up often in books with no need for an explanation. Like, I don't know, natural redheads lol. Does that need an explanation? No. Just because something is unusual doesn't mean it needs explanation.

Many things that are extraordinary in a book need not be explained - only if the workings of it are vital to the understanding of the story. So as per the above Gandalf example - his magic is extraordinary, but is never really explained. Barely even hinted at tbh. Even if it is vital to the story, you only need to explain as much as needed to make the story make sense. Sometimes an enigma is better though.

Megalomaniacs trying to take over Europe doesn't happen often - doesn't make it unrealistic OR unbelievable ( BTW realistic and believable have different definitions. Magic isn't realistic - but it's believable in the context of many books) Godwin's Law! I haz it!

I really have no idea how you managed to read that into my posts.

Click to expand...

Because I read them? Because you've stated that forms of equality are 'unrealistic' and need a 'good explanation'?




Forms of equality ( not total perhaps, but forms of, some with more equality than some cultures have today) have existed in many cultures throughout history. For no particular reason other than it was their culture, because that's how they've always done it. It doesn't always need a 'good explanation' because sometimes it just is.

All I'm saying ( again) is that as long as your equality ripples through your whole society and isn't just 'there' in isolation, then that's a good step towards believable. (<--- See, this is where I've repeated how to make it believable) If you then show it in peoples actions and thoughts, it doesn't really need much ( if any) explanation. Readers have brains. Really.

Subtlety works wonders.

If you want to clog your book with explanations fine ( layered or dumped or whatever), go for it, more power to you. I would rather read a story.


BTW:

Obviously not in my what?

Click to expand...

IMO means In My Opinion. So IMO, but not in yours would mean In my opinion, not in yours


Seriously - if that's how you want it and want to write it, go for it. I've not got a problem with it, tbh, though I probably wouldn't read it. It's just that...I don't. And so you probably wouldn't want to read mine. This is fine. We write for different audiences, and let's face it - however you write it someone's going to have a problem with it! This is also fine.

I do like a good old fashioned discussion though.

IdiotsRUs said:

Forms of equality ( not total perhaps, but forms of, some with more equality than some cultures have today) have existed in many cultures throughout history. For no particular reason other than it was their culture, because that's how they've always done it. It doesn't always need a 'good explanation' because sometimes it just is.

Click to expand...

Yet you felt the need to justify it through a historical issue...(I think you mentioned that about one of your books?) There's something called cause and effect, see, and you don't get an effect without a cause. There are in fact explanations for why all those cultures have more gender equality (which is a silly way to phrase it; either you've got equality or you don't). Now, please consider this part of the response in relation to the second part.

All I'm saying ( again) is that as long as your equality ripples through your whole society and isn't just 'there' in isolation, then that's a good step towards believable. (<--- See, this is where I've repeated how to make it believable) If you then show it in peoples actions and thoughts, it doesn't really need much ( if any) explanation. Readers have brains. Really.

Subtlety works wonders.

Click to expand...

This is very true. The more it seems to fit seamlessly with the est of society, and shows other effects, themore likely a reader is t let it pass without comment. An infodump of some sort is not necessarily necessary, although depending on the story it may be more or less acceptable.

Liosse de Velishaf said:

Yet you felt the need to justify it through a historical issue...(I think you mentioned that about one of your books?) There's something called cause and effect, see, and you don't get an effect without a cause. There are in fact explanations for why all those cultures have more gender equality (which is a silly way to phrase it; either you've got equality or you don't). Now, please consider this part of the response in relation to the second part.

Click to expand...

I know it - my reader doesn't need to, because I just show it in action. And I explained it with an historical issue because it's been repeatedly stated there is little historical basis for it, when that isn't actually true. I didn't need an historical basis to put it in a second world fantasy because it isn't this world*shrug* But that's just my view. ETA: Oh wait you meant historical as in history in my world? It all came part and parcel with a lot of other stuff to be honest, and then I wondered what effect that would have on different roles and ....yeah it kinda snowballed. Probably the Celts had reasons for their women having the freedoms they did. Or then again maybe not. Who knows? I doubt the later Celts even knew why. Point is it's not necessary IRL to know why, but as a writer it helps ( though not essential, it depends on what sort of writer you are). I had a historical event shape it because it helped ME get to grips with it. If it doesn't help the reader understand the story though, it doesn't go in.

This is very true. The more it seems to fit seamlessly with the est of society, and shows other effects, themore likely a reader is t let it pass without comment. An infodump of some sort is not necessarily necessary, although depending on the story it may be more or less acceptable.

Click to expand...

Indeedy, which is what I've been saying.

Think of it like this:

Do you explain why you have magic in your story?

I don’t mean how the magic works, I mean why it exists. No? But that’s so unrealistic!


Or do you just show it there? Or dragons, or vampires or whatever else. Probably you don’t explain, unless how magic came to exist in your world is part of the story. It’s just there, shown by wizards doing wizardy things.You might have a little explanation of how it works, if it's relevant. You might not. But how it came to be there? Very rare to see that in any book ( in fact I can't think of any off teh top of my hed, except one, and that was only implied).



I would posit that if you don’t need to explain why magic exists, you don’t need to explain why your culture is as it is (except as said above, unless it’s vital to this story).If you explain everything that's not the same as some historical period in this world, then really, you'll end up explaining more than you tell the story!


You just show it working, and if you show this well enough, the reader will believe it. And, before I am asked, when I say show it working I mean let the fact (gender equality, lack thereof, wizards, magic, peas, whatever) that it exists permeate the whole world, let it subtly colour everything, every thought and perception. Characters won’t think ‘Ohh look! A woman owning her own property. Houston, we have equality!’ any more than they might think ‘Magic, how unlikely is that?’ It’ll be a part of their existence. Show that existence, let it seep into your characters, the way their world is different from ours, and it’ll be believable.



Show it living and breathing in your world, let your reader experience it for themselves, and like on a trip to a foreign contry, the experience is worth a thousand explanations.

Well, magic is a common convention in fantasy. If you had something that looked like magic in another genre, you would be required to explain it. Gender equality is not a commonly accepted convention of fantasy, so your analogy is somewhat flawed.

That said, I don't have an issue with gender equality as long as it doesn't look tacked on or assumed, without regards to how it would effect other aspects of society.

Different cultues are fairly standard though

As I mentioned, I love a "real" society. One that actually feels living and breathing, as opposed to constructed, even if it is in a fantasy novel. That's what I loved so much about the Dune series. Even though it wasn't what I'd call "hard" science fiction, the intrigue and politicking made the characters and the settings feel so real that the characters responded in really natural ways.

I'd like to see more fantasy go in that direction. The gender equality that I see so often, is just a part of that picture, but I think that culturally speaking the fantasy society that you create should be consistent. If women are equal why are they equal? As I mentioned earlier, without rule of law, women have almost never (with a few exceptions) been equals to men. In a fantasy setting taking place in the middle ages there should be an explanation (ideally through some sort of constructed social rules) that drive this. Is it a religious edict that is more words than reality, is it the fact that women are sole carriers of magical bloodlines, so courtesy towards females is due just as much out politeness as it is self preservation, etc.

Even with magic it should be consistent within the story. Otherwise you lead the way deus ex machina types of situations, and it further creates a sense of realism in that even with sophisticated technology there's still things we in real life can't do. Full metal alchemist was always interesting in this way. The laws of equivalent exchange. To make something you had to give something up. I loved that aspect of the show, because that very self consistency actually drove a lot of the plot points.

Consistency to your world is key, I agree. Explanation isd not - as long as the writer understands it...

Arguing that equality is unrealistic says more about the arguer ( in the way that it's have been posited in this thread at least) than it does about reality

Seriously.

If you can't imagine a new culture with different mores and values...what are you doing in fantasy? Not a lot. You're pandering to your own beliefs and nothing more. Where's the value in that?

Late comer here.

efreysson said:

Do you find it annoyingly 'unrealistic' to see a medieval-esque fantasy with women as more-or-less equal to men, socially and career-wise?

Click to expand...

Oh, no. I love it. There's a whole new world of tension and issues to explore when this happens. Most often, it seems women have just recently become equal. So, you still got your sexist pigs to deal with. Interesting stuff.

efreysson said:

Or do you create a world with a totally modern-day sensibility about this stuff, without any detailed reason for why things are so different in the fantasy world? Or do you indeed make up a detailed reason?

Click to expand...

I don't think a detailed reason is needed. An explanation isn't needed for why men are more dominant, so, I don't see why one would be needed to make equality OK. If you say it exists in your world, then, it does. Simple as that. Seems odd to question that, but not the fact that a dragon is talking. How is that possible? Like, beyond the fact that dragons don't exist--how is it able to form words? Does it have vocal chords?

See, I just made that entirely un-fun. No need to lay it out for me.

On the other hand, if a writer found it important to her or his story to clarify why women were equal, I would accept that as information I need to know to understand something within the plot. Just don't infodump on me.

IdiotsRUs said:

Consistency to your world is key, I agree. Explanation isd not - as long as the writer understands it...

Click to expand...

I agree with this the most.

Would you say that in a universe where women are more *physically* comparable to men, it would be easier to accept them being closer to socially equal despite a medieval technology level? I don't generally have overall gender equality in my books, but I'm just wondering because I often write female MELEE warriors who can make a claim to being top 3 or thereabouts in the nation/region/world at what they do... sometimes top 1!

Edit: And by melee, I do mean in-your-face, smashy, brute force melee. Not ninja tricks.

glutton said:

Would you say that in a universe where women are more *physically* comparable to men, it would be easier to accept them being closer to socially equal despite a medieval technology level?

Click to expand...

I think this has been done with some takes on dwarves, since the women are just as robust as the men. There is still the issue of child birth and child raising though.

I'm not a fan of dwarves, but that's one example that comes to mind.

Yeah, they'd still have to take some time off for pregnancy. But for the child raising, maybe it'd be split between the parents... or in certain special cases (ie. only the baddest chicks need apply), left mainly to the father or others? In a warrior society, I could perhaps see some kind of day care system being formed, with the weak/old taking up most of the responsibilities of child rearing.

Rose actually takes on a fairly traditional motherly role after having children, but when she needs to go adventuring/smashing threats to her family or country, she lets her mom/friends/hired help look after the kids while she wrecks shit (no way her hubby would allow himself to be reduced to a stay-at-home dad).

I can imagine a ton of cultures, but I can assure you there have been more cultures just here on earth than any amount of imagining we do will ever produce. I'm taking a real generalist look at history when I'm making my comments.

A few societies have been matriarchal, but they've neither been dominant (e.g. none formed empires like Rome), nor have they been very numerous. In the thousands of years of human history why is this, and if it's like this here on earth with the hundreds of thousands of unique cultures that have sprung up over the millenia, why wouldn't it likely be the case elsewhere?

Glutton addresses this. Having the women be more physically capable so that it's easier for a female to directly challenge a male in a "Might makes right" type of society is a way to get around this issue. Look at history in general and you can't even come close to debating this point IdiotsRUs, and that's why I emphasize the point that women have only started coming into their own when rule of law transcended the "Might makes right" of history.

For example, in an outline I'm working on for a fantasy novel I'd like to start, women are as they are now, with the exception that they are far more likely to be mages then men. While a male mage might be far more powerful, the inability to control their power during their formative years(e.g. while they're kids/young) typically kills off almost all of the men that are capable of magic (perhaps one in fifty men survive to adulthood with magical ability). Those that remain are either extremely weak mages (who can do little more than generate light, or light candles), or they're absurdly powerful ones(that can literally burn cities to the ground. Women on the other hand while never achieving the raw power of a male mage, outnumber them 10 or 20 to one, and are perfectly able to have children unlike magical males. Hence the kingdoms are largely ruled by the Matriarchs of different mage dynasties.

Typically the males born(those that aren't stillbirths) of these noble houses are tested for magical ability as infants. Those with magical ability are immediately culled (the destructive abilities make even a male child uncontrollable and dangerous, and one who does manage to survive to adulthood could be threat to the chain of succession), and those without are either made eunuchs if there are a sufficient number of male breeders, or they're placed into the "stud farm". Women can pass along magical ability to an offspring (1/10 chance), however the likelihood of a magical offspring is improved if the male is also of a magic bloodline (some males can basically guarantee a magical offspring), and those males who prove to be particularly fertile in this regard can become quite powerful, as they've got the ability to turn any family into a magical one and are jealously guarded by the matriarchs.

Men still are dominant at the lower rungs of society(e.g. the laborers/soldiers and the like), but they are ruled by a female mageocracy. The fact that women occasionally unlock their magical ability in fits of emotional exertion(be it rage, love, terror, etc.) also makes it so that men are in general cautious and courteous towards them regardless of station. With perhaps a tenth of women having some magical ability it pays to be cautious, and another tenth who might become temporarily magical in a state of pissed off rage, it's not all that uncommon for a man to be killed by his wife or other female family member.

These are sort of the ideas I'm running down where it's sort of a reverse of the typical fantasy situation.

It's only an issue if you make it one

Like your culture though, sounds good. You won't be explaining it like that in the book though, right?

There are times when a little explanation is required ( my heroine turns up in a new community as says 'WTF, why can none of the men talk' - 'Because all the non-magical males have their tongues ripped out at birth')

All I'm saying is it should all be done / shown through your characters experience. And that way you only need explain what is unusual to them , and that will make it seamless. So the reader can't see the join.

If equality (or whatever) isn't unusual to them why would you explain it?

ETA: rather than post again

So if I have a young girl protag in a culture based on Celts...at what point do I stop the story to explain that? Or, indeed, why do I need to? My protag probably doesn't know why she can become a warrior if she wants. She just knows she can.

So I explain because....my readers are thick? Because I assume they can't handle it without an explanation?

No. I just show that culture in action and give my readers the credit for 'getting it'. And if they don't 'get it' because they think it's not realistic, or it's not possible or likely...well I don't write for [censored] um, people like that

For me it's all about plausibility and consistency. In the culture I'm creating, men aren't exactly second class citizens because the "wimminz are evil" but because the destructive nature of surviving male mages created great social upheaval in the past.

The idea is sort of an exploration on a bigger theme I think that exists in real life, and it's that us men really don't have as much of purpose now as we used to. For 99% of human history we conquered, we plundered, we raped, we murdered, we enslaved and that was considered good (in fact historically speaking, only about 40% of males that ever existed still have genes surviving, compared to something like 90% of females, which definitely suggests warfare and high risk were the norm for men, and those who kicked ass were the ones who were able to breed). To be a barbarian, and to do those things IS to be a man. It's what we are built do, and it's what we've been bred to do(since the majority of our ancestor males are made up from the conquerors rather than the conquered). However there comes a point when the endless cycle of violence, either destroys everything, or is moderated. That's kind of the central theme of the book, and I think it's reflected in the reality we have now, and where I think power is going to go in the longer run. I think a hundred years from now women will probably be the predominant power bloc, because a society that favors the rule of law favors those who aren't instinctively trying to undermine it (not to say that all men are against it, or that all women are for it, just that a lot more men are attacking the foundations of society then women). Heck with modern reproductive technologies men are even in danger of being redundant for procreation(in theory you could just share 50% of your genes with another female, and *build* an embryo without any male assistance).