Gender

[Lacedaemonian]

There is a whole cast of strong female characters in A Crown of Stars, does this work? Do you feel that all of the female characters are credible? Lastly do you feel that the various sucessions amongst the nobility are made insanely confusing by the attempted preference of women?

[Blue Mythril]

I hadn't really noticed anything... But let me ask you Lace, if our culture was strongly steeped in maternal succession, would you have the same difficulty and confusion adjusting to paternal succession? I mean, at least if the chick's given birth you know its hers, imagine trying to explain the logic behind paternal succession to someone who had known only maternal... "well, you just have to take his word and trust his honour that he knocked that chick up. Yes I know there's rumors that she was sleeping with a stablehand, but she's his wife. her sole responsibility is to give him heirs... what? Of course she respects that responsibility!"

[AryaUnderfoot]

Originally Posted by Blue Mythril

"well, you just have to take his word and trust his honour that he knocked that chick up. Yes I know there's rumors that she was sleeping with a stablehand, but she's his wife. her sole responsibility is to give him heirs... what? Of course she respects that responsibility!"

Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha! Very funny, Blue Mythril!

Lace, I think that the female characters are credible- after all, it's not like they're all Xena types. They all have realistic strengths and weaknesses.

[Earos]

I think Ms. Elliot did an excellent job on her female characters... Then again I love strong women... I hate dramatic, prissy little girls and I cant stand snobby ladies... Give me Hanna or Rosvita any day.... Even margrave judith is better then one like Tallia....

As for weather they are realistic.... I could swear Ms. Elliot wrote Hanna with my wife in mind... My cousin could easily be confused for Sepantia and an ex of mine could pass for Judith... LOL, I have been blessed(cursed) with amazingly strong women throughout my life... Too bad they are all psycho!!! he he

The male characters however... Hugh? doesnt rationalize his actions enough or she skipped over that part, which is good for me cause I hate Hugh enough already... Baldwin too much the sniveling little whiner, Ivar or one of the Lions would have dented his skull by now.... It's not that the characters are all that unbelieveable it's that thier interactions with other men are slightly unrealistic... In some cases there is too much bonding or passiveness and in others there is too much aggression, but nothing is over the top or unrealistic...

[Lacedaemonian]

I was just posing the questions, not giving my views. Discluding the main female characters, is the 'Female' overly represented, and does this over representation not clash with the authors own perception of male/female roles? Or is this clash just a natural development with the author not wishing to disgard 'male' aggression and physical supremacy to the 'female'?

Now to my views. As a young person today the concept of maternal succession is not difficult to comprehend. I too am surrounded by a lot of strong women who have and are pillars of strength in my life. The concept of maternal succession is an excellent idea and the author justifies the concept with an explanation. The problem with a maternal succession is simple. Men preferably follow men into battle. Before you fire historical examples of female war leaders at me, I know them all and they are all exceptional women living in perculiar times. Boudicca, Jean Arc, Elizabeth I of England etc etc etc.
So does Fantasy literature have to conform to our own culture and concepts? No, it doesn't but there is of course a limit to which we can suspend our belief. Also you have to ask yourself is this truly a question of our concepts and our culture? I don't think it is. I think it is a question of human nature. Stripping humans down to their base, 'Males' dominate with physical strength. You can not lose sight of this, and this for me is the main reason why the 'maternal' succession does not work and there is much confusion when ever a succession is to take place. Not my confusion, but a confusion within the story.

PS I love women.

[AryaUnderfoot]

Originally Posted by Lacedaemonian

Stripping humans down to their base, 'Males' dominate with physical strength. You can not lose sight of this, and this for me is the main reason why the 'maternal' succession does not work and there is much confusion when ever a succession is to take place. Not my confusion, but a confusion within the story.

PS I love women.

I'm wondering, though, where physical strength comes into succession. (And I'll spare you the whole "you try giving birth sometime" rant, because although it popped into my head I don't want to open that can of worms just yet.) Anyway, what I'm getting at is simply that bloodlines are bloodlines, regardless of the physical prowess of the carrier. You mentioned Elizabeth I- well, her half brother Edward was by no means a healthy, robust male who would be able to lead other men into battle, but he was still considered to have what counted as far as inheritence went. The same goes for Queen Elizabeth. I don't think strength or gender matters as much in the case of war as the simple ability to inspire love and trust in one's followers. The going into battle business, well- that's what generals are for.

Personally, I think that's part of what seperates man from beast. We don't need the Alpha male/silverback type as much as we need intelligence and passion. And most importantly, we need to be convinced, or bought. Think about it this way- the biggest player on the field (rugby, football, you name it), isn't the leader. The leader is the coach, the thinker, the one who gets everyone all fired up before the big game with cheesy speeches.

[Alia]

Men preferably follow men into battle.

Also you have to ask yourself is this truly a question of our concepts and our culture? I don't think it is. I think it is a question of human nature. Stripping humans down to their base, 'Males' dominate with physical strength. You can not lose sight of this, and this for me is the main reason why the 'maternal' succession does not work and there is much confusion when ever a succession is to take place.

I'm going to stick my neck out here, but I actually have to disagree with you, Lacey. Your right about men following men into battle, but I don't think it's in our human nature. If we were raised or our culture dictated to us that women were just as strong, physically and mentally as men, an equal, then it wouldn't matter the gender of the leader who lead an army into battle. I think it's how we have been raised that women are soft and delicate, while men are tough and rugged... look at the different ways our culture views girls verses boys. It's frown upon for boys to play with dolls and you'll never catch a girl wearing anything but pink dresses when she's first born. I don't think it's our nature at all to force such a seperation of gender...

I actually like how Kate has the gender roles in her story. I wish it could apply to the real world.

As far as her characters being believable? I'm with Earos on this one. Hugh was built up weakly... But as far as the women, they are pretty much right on. Feelings, growth, depth and rational...

[Earos]

I agree, it is taught to us to follow men... It is taught to us that women are more fragile and have no place in war... I am somewhat guilty of that line of thinking, but not for the usual reasons... I think women belong wherever they want to belong. I dont think the majority of women belong in war, because not many men or women belong in war...

I was going to babble on, but I caught myself before it got too deep in here... he he

The female characters seem fine to me... then again, I am not a woman... so I will yield my opinions to the people that know what they are talking about

[Tsujigiri]

I have trained with women who could tackle 99% of the male population one v one and come out smiling.
I never underestimate women or even children, no one should. The Japanese used to allow some women to train as samurai or Bu Geisha - war women, and there are plenty of historical accounts of children going into battle.

The famous swordsman Miyamoto Musashi joined battle at the age of 13, it was a standard age for Japanese men.

If it were a bet between a drunken 'silverback' and an 8yr old Shaolin apprentice who had been training since 3, my money wouldn't be on the drunk

[Lacedaemonian]

I would put money on the gorilla every time. Also I would beat most women in a fight and I am just an average bloke. You are all kidding yourselves talking about women in the same physical sphere as men. Just look at sport.

[I, Brian]

Originally Posted by Tsujigiri

there are plenty of historical accounts of children going into battle.

Unfortunately, not necessarily positive, though - cf Highlander teens charging at the English canons firing leadshot at Culloden...

[Blue Mythril]

Originally Posted by Lacedaemonian

I would put money on the gorilla every time. Also I would beat most women in a fight and I am just an average bloke. You are all kidding yourselves talking about women in the same physical sphere as men. Just look at sport.

Is that a challenge Lace?
Well we arn't really talking about placing women "in the same physical sphere" as men, though I know a few who could flatten my 6ft9 brother and give him a run for his money in terms of strength. most women are much smaller with a different muscular physique to men. However, that doesn't determine a fight, especially one on one. There's this girl in my club who's barely 5ft, but she understands force and how to use it against opponants twice her size. Plus she has speed and knows how to get the most power out of her slim frame. Never underestimate a female fighter Lace, especially if she's little. We know how to fight, we know our strengths and we know our weaknesses, we can assess your strengths and weaknesses (very important) and can work out ways to adapt to these circumstances and win.
Besides, the outcome of any fight is 90% psychological. If you are hungry to win and determined to throw everything and more into the fight, you'll win hands down against a bigger fighter who doesn't have the same mental ferocity. If they do, well, then you'll be in a run for your money

[dwndrgn]

Pete - just look at sport??? Good grief man, how long has it taken for women to be allowed to play sports on a professional level? If they had been playing as long as men there'd be a true contest but you can't use that as a basis for your argument since there isn't really a comparison, that's apples and oranges. Sure, men have a more physically strong frame, what they do with it is something else. Take, for example, every swordfight you've read about...how often do the combatants think about how to use their personal strengths against their opponent, they weigh physical strength, speed, timing, intelligence and all manner of things most of which don't rely upon the actual strength of the opponent. So your argument doesn't wash.

Before that you said that the concept of a maternal succession was too much to suspend our belief...are you just kidding or what? Maternal succession is more outlandish than the Volgons, a singing sword, dragons that talk, people who can change themselves into birds?? Don't be silly. If an idea works in a book (and it must since you explained that the author gave a plausible construction for it) then it isn't too 'out there'. Nothing is too much really, as long as the author makes it work for their story.

All that aside, your original question was about maternal succession. I don't see a problem with it. As another poster said, it isn't about strength of body, it is about strength of character. Ghandi had followers in the millions. If he told them they needed to fight for their rights, do you think they would? Of course they would, they believed in him and the truths he was opening their minds to. Could I win a fight with Ghandi? Absolutely (discounting the fact that I would never fight him ), I could probably take him out without breaking a sweat.

So Pete, I just think that you are a victim of your upbringing.

[Lacedaemonian]

Originally Posted by Blue Mythril

Besides, the outcome of any fight is 90% psychological. If you are hungry to win and determined to throw everything and more into the fight, you'll win hands down against a bigger fighter who doesn't have the same mental ferocity. If they do, well, then you'll be in a run for your money

Pathologically I could beat any girl in a fight.

[AryaUnderfoot]

Originally Posted by Lacedaemonian

I would put money on the gorilla every time. Also I would beat most women in a fight and I am just an average bloke. You are all kidding yourselves talking about women in the same physical sphere as men. Just look at sport.

I'll look at sport and I'll raise you. My twin sister took out the captain of the rugby team at her college in a fist fight. She's little like me. He was huge. I wouldn't have been able to do it but then I'm not full of seething fury like her. It has more to do with where you are mentally than anything, I think.

I don't care how big a man is, I know some female athletes who could tear them apart. And it's precisely that sexist attitude that they have to go up against that gives them the willpower to succeed. So watch where you step, Lace.