The Sword and Laser discussion

I adore this book. I will continue promoting it to the skies to any and everyone who will stand still long enough. However, I'm not entirely blind:

The role of women in this book is fairly problematic. Yes, it stems from a period when the sexual revolution and PC movements were still relatively recent, yes it's based on an historic period in which women had few paths to political, economic, and social voice. Nevetheless, the women in this book fall into the two classic categories of the most sexist pulp fiction: demure sexpots and vicious harridans.

Semi-coverage of this issue has appeared elsewhere, but it merits discussion here. I think it's an issue largely overcome in both the second and third books in the series, which offer much wider roles for women. And I still love the hell out of this book. But I still think it's worth noting.

Thought?

Part of me wants to point out Bright Star as an exception. Granted she's a dancing girl, but she's skilled enough in the sword dance to force a draw with a "very famous swordsman".

Except Bright Star's value, too, is as a prize, to be bought, married off, snuck around with, and eventually murdered by another woman due to petty jealousy. I don't think her story necessarily sheds much light on the roles available to women in this novel.

If you've read the sequels, I think much stronger cases can be made with the primary female characters of those works.

P. Aaron wrote: "If you've read the sequels, I think much stronger cases can be made with the primary female characters of those works. "

Only about four chapters into the next book of the series, and so far the only memorable female I've met isn't really all that much of an improvement.

I am so glad this book was suggested. I truly enjoyed it.
I agree that the female characters were limited, however since it seemed like the majority of the story came directly from Chinese myths, where was he supposed to go? I read a lot of manga and a similar problem exists and I think it stems from their (Asian) history and culture.
In my opinion it's hard for a male writer to come up with a decent female character, they either try to hard and that makes her unbelievable or they fall back on existing literary conventions.
In the case of Bridge of Birds, I think it was hard to create well rounded, believable female character and still stay true to the source literature. Ultimately this was a gigantic fairy tale and in true fairy tale form females are either the ones needing rescued or they are evil witches that need to be destroyed. Self rescuing princesses are a relatively new concept in the fable world and while it would have been refreshing to see some of that tenacity in the female characters in the this book, I think it would have felt false.

There could have been strong female characters in this setting (Tang Dynasty China). Under Heaven is a perfect example of this.

To blame this on history or culture seems misguided. Tang history has strong women in it, especially when compared to other dynasties. Plus, justifying bad authorial choices by citing stereotypes just seems to compound the problem.

The depiction of women in Bridge of Birds seems to have more in common with Ian Fleming’s writing, creating a type of male centered fantasy where women are things to be conquered and exist to service (or oppose) the male libido and associated plot points, than any fairy tale.

Not to mention, this is subtitled as "A novel of ancient China that never was," so any decision about the role of women in this world is the author's. Fuyumi Ono's Twelve Kingdoms series has the same sort of pseudo-historical Chinese setting, but she had no problem filling the story with bad-ass women. No one complained about Michelle Yeoh's role in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. So what it comes down to is Hughart chose to tell a story like this.

I'm so glad someone raised this, as I am finding this aspect of the book really off-putting! I was really enjoying the book for the first few chapters, but now I'm reluctant to read on. It's not just the limited sex object/harpy female characters, but the way I keep tripping up over denigrating references to women in general (e.g. one character's troubles start when he had the 'misfortune to get married').

I agree with Nathan and Sean here - to displace the blame for the attitude here onto the 'source' material underplays the choices made in using it.

It's a shame, because I love the wry, sardonic style, (and I want to know whether the kids get saved or not!), but I think I'm going to struggle to finish this one.

I was doubly disappointed by this because initially it looked like things were going another way. Early on, One-Eyed Wong's wife, Fat Fu, seemed as shrewd and tough a negotiator as her husband, and was an eager participant in Li Kao's schemes. Plus, those two were hysterical. Sadly, we never seen them again. A stable, happy couple in a work of fiction? We can't have that, can we? It's a shame not a single other "good" female character had a fraction of the agency of Fat Fu.

Darn, I was starting g to get a feeling this was going to be an issue, was hoping I was wrong. I'm also struggling with this book because of the depiction of women, I'm hoping I don't find it so off putting that I can't finish the book. Because I really like fantasy novels set in other cultures other than Medieval Europe.

I'm a woman and I love this book.

I don't care about the depiction of women, I read it for the fun story.

I don't feel that every story I choose to read must have strong positive female role models in it.

I know that I'm not like any of those helpless maiden/evil crones - I can do everything a man can do, backwards, in high heels :)

But I do want to point out that Lotus Cloud is loved because of the pure joy in her smile and her exuberance, despite being a plain peasant with thick legs. Now this is a good message.

Michele wrote: "I don't care about the depiction of women, I read it for the fun story.

I don't feel that every story I choose to read must have strong positive female role models in it."

I'm inclined to agree. While it's great when there is a kickass chick character, I don't get offended by the sexpots or the dingbats. Really the only time my inner feminist kicks in while reading is if the book starts yammering on about how women are strictly property.

It's not so much about feminism or that books need to be all "yay girls!" all the time. It's that Barry Hughart's constant use of the female comedic prop is just poor writing on his part. It's like when an author uses the same adjectives repeatedly and you just want to throw a thesaurus at them. In this case I wanted just one female character that was more than a handy prop or joke.

Michele pointed out the only positive reference to a woman in the entire story and even that is way backhanded. Ultimately Lotus Cloud's mysterious "allure" has little to do with her and everything to do with the actions/reactions of male figures. She's a doll in every single scene. Even so, this one positive doesn't negate the fact that every single time a female is mentioned it is in really negative ways as the butt or prop of a comedic relief scene.

Which is why it took me nearly a week to read a book that should have been finished in a day or two. As funny as the story might have been I kept losing interest every time the author trotted in his favorite dead horse: the female prop piece.

"It's that Barry Hughart's constant use of the female comedic prop is just poor writing on his part"

Is it? Or is he trying to characterize the world and the people in it in a certain way, knowing the reader is likely a 20th/21st century Western person?

I've not read the book yet (this week! Really!) so I can't comment on it, but too often I find people defaulting to the easy criticism that the author is clueless, biased, etc and not considering that in some cases they might be trying to portray a world that deliberately has women as ornaments, etc because it makes a point or provokes a reaction in the audience

My favorite television show of all-time is BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER and that program definitely taught me to look out for your stereotypical damsels in distress, general 2-dimensional female characters, and the faux strong female character. I will fully admit after Pretty Ping (I didn't think it was rape, but I still did not like that scene), the Ancestress, and her fainting granddaughter, I was ready to throw the book against the wall.

Bright Star's story came along at the perfect time for me. Granted, she is fairly 2-dimensional, but nonetheless her story is one of my favorite parts of the book. Partly because swords(!!!), but also she's as good as any man at the sword dance, and because her story really starts to introduce the fantasy elements into the story (with the ghost shadow). I also like that she gets offended by Ox essentially desecrating her art form in his attempt to save her. And as I type this, I'm realizing she's technically a damsel in distress... But I didn't really think about that while reading it.

The one other moment involving female characters that I found powerful was the handmaidens (view spoiler)[ fighting the Duke's curse in order to allow Ox and Master Li to escape. Of course, they also are the reason the whole quest to save the Princess of Birds is necessary, so that kinda negates that one powerful moment for them. (hide spoiler)]

I would pose a question to those who have big issues with the portrayal of women in this book, would you have felt better if any of the supporting male characters had been female instead? If you gender-swapped Henpecked Ho, Miser Chen, Doctor Death, Key Rabbit, or the Old Man of the Mountain, would they have made for compelling female characters?

I asked that to myself when I first saw this thread pop up, and I felt like all of those characters are just so deeply flawed in their own weird ways, that I might've been just as turned off by a female equivalent of them as I was by the Ancestress.

Erik wrote: "If you gender-swapped Henpecked Ho, Miser Chen, Doctor Death, Key Rabbit, or the Old Man of the Mountain, would they have made for compelling female characters? "

What bothers me is the way that women are 2 dimensional. In that they are crafted from some sexist tropes about women, the greedy woman, the spoiled brat, damsel in distress ect. More than that most of the women in this book seem to me to be more pieces of furniture than actual characters. What makes them important is how the men, in particular Number Ten Ox interacts with them. I felt that Bright Star and perhaps the Ancestress are exceptions to this. They at least appear to have some agency and opinions outside of the men. Not that there are not problems with both characters portrayals but at least they appear to have some agency. Of course, the problem could be Number Ten Ox and how he views women, but since that is the only view we have that is how the book presents women.

I don't need for women to be part of the adventure what I want is for them to be portrayed as actual characters not cardboard cutouts. A women who sees through one of Master Li's schemes, or is simply interesting and funny without being a sexist depiction.

Yes, this book portrays a male dominated society where each sex has it's own roles, often strictly enforced. This excuses why women would not be on this adventure, but not why they are portrayed in such a manner. Which is why I don't feel that gender swapping any of the characters would work. I would have found the character frankly unbelievable in the society that this book portrays. I don't need a woman that is magically in a man's role despite how unlikely that is for the portrayal of women to be okay for me. And frankly, it wouldn't have fixed the problems I have with the other women in the book. One good character does not make the other terrible ones suddenly okay and the book any better.

What about (view spoiler)[the three handmaids who suffer agony to set things right? (hide spoiler)] or (view spoiler)[the Queen of Ginseng who consents to being consumed to save the village of children? (hide spoiler)] Neither example makes a big presence, but they both fall outside the two categories of sexpot and fiend.

Mapleson wrote: "What about [spoilers removed] or [spoilers removed] Neither example makes a big presence, but they both fall outside the two categories of sexpot and fiend."

I haven't finished reading yet, and haven't gotten there, yet. However, even if there are good characters at the end of the book it doesn't somehow negate all the badly written women that are in this book.

Honestly, if I was reading this by myself instead of with the group, I'd have already lemmed it. As it is I'm having a very hard time finishing it. In part because of the way women are portrayed and also due to some personnel taste issues. I really don't enjoy this type of humor all that much, but that's just me and I really don't think it's something to complain about. But combine it with the way women are portrayed, or generally portrayed and it makes it very hard for me to finish this book.

And I was really looking forward to it.

Julia, I can't do anything about the humor - that, to me, is much of the charm of Hughart's writing - but if you are getting any joy out of the book at all, consider looking into the two sequels, both of which offer very different - more even-handed - treatments of female characters.

I bought the ebook so I already have them. I'll probably take a break after Bridge of Birds and try them later.

Katrina wrote: "Really the only time my inner feminist kicks in while reading is if the book starts yammering on about how women are strictly property. "

See, it was this rather than the weak female characters that irked me. There was a scene which described a children's game, in which boys try stealing girl's ribbons while hopping on one leg, and girls try to trip the boys up, and the one who loses becomes the slave of the other. It was noted that the girls had the advantage, but that girls would lose on purpose, suggesting, to me, that women submit to being the slaves of men. Shame, because the game had sounded amusing until that statement, but it seems girls weren't really meant to win.

Michele wrote: "But I do want to point out that Lotus Cloud is loved because of the pure joy in her smile and her exuberance, despite being a plain peasant with thick legs. Now this is a good message."

I agree, I do enjoy her character very much.

P. Aaron wrote: "If you've read the sequels, I think much stronger cases can be made with the primary female characters of those works."

Now that I've finished the sequels, I could probably agree with you in regards to the primary female character from Eight Skilled Gentlemen. The primary female character from The Story of the Stone... eh... not so much.

I am finding this book hard to read and one of the reasons is the female characters. I thought it was because they are quite weak and two dimensional. But after reading the comment about switching roles I asked myself is it because of the historical gender roles.

I decided that it wasn't. I have read historical books before where women had had very stereotypical gender roles and I haven't found it a problem. I think the problem I have is that they women do not feel like real people. They're portrayed as being either greedy or stupid.

Plus they are really annoying. I agree that the part about why men like Lotus Cloud is a nice sentiment. However she is so irritating I want to put the book down. The way she manipulates men for her own gain and calls them stupid pet names. It makes her seem as ditsy as the rest.