(no subject)
Feb. 12th, 2012 10:10 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ann_leckieI've got slush to read, and a novel synopsis to revise, so of course I'm sitting here plotting an LJ entry.
Various things rumbling around have me pondering the historical basis (or lack thereof) of the kind of fantasy that's based on a sort of chewed and regurgitated medieval Europe. Now, writers are free to set their novels where they like, free to design whatever worlds to set them in that catch their fancy. But I'm interested just now in the kinds of comments writers and fans make to defend those cod-medieval settings, when criticism arises. Or sometimes not even when criticism arises, just when they're talking about their work.
The specific sort of criticism I'm thinking of is the position and treatment of women in a given fictional world, though strongly related is the question of race and ethnicity. Women have no prominent role in certain stories--or only appear as prostitutes or dutiful/horribly oppressed wives and daughters--because that's how history really was. These authors are just giving us an authentic Middle Ages, can't help it, it's just these stories are Too Real. Women just weren't allowed to take part in the important stuff, they were all horribly oppressed, the line for the daily rapes formed on the left and hey, at least the whores were smart enough to get paid for it! (And there were only white people in Europe, all of Europe, for all of the medieval period, amirite?)
So, see, these authors just did their research and all.
Except they didn't. In fact, they don't seem to have done even cursory research. History is littered with remarkable women who ruled nations, led armies, wrote books, led prestigious schools...on and on. Oh, of course, those are exceptions. But here's the thing. That "exception proves the rule" saying doesn't mean what you think it does. "Prove" here isn't "shows that it's absolutely true." No, this is prove like "a knight proven in battle." It means "tests." The exception tests the rule. And the rule might not stand after the test.
If your society is producing women like Eleanor of Aquitaine, it can hardly be impossible for women to do anything remarkable in that culture. Probably the women who didn't inherit kingdoms or marry kings were equally intelligent, remarkable, and resourceful in the face of the difficulties their culture raised for them. That's really only common sense.
And in fact, if you look closer, you see the helpless, uneducated woman sitting home in the castle while the brave, manly knights got all the interesting action just doesn't hold true. First off, it's a commonplace of history class that during the middle ages quite a lot of music and literature was very likely produced for and commissioned by women. I mean, seriously, this is something that has never failed to get mentioned in any Western Civ class--let alone music history or lit class dealing with the period--I've ever taken. So, in case anyone was sleeping through that particular lecture, a little reminder. Wealthy women of the high middle ages were literate. They were patrons of the arts. They were an audience for a whole boatload of artists. And they were themselves artists.
So, we've got wealthy medieval women as sophisticated consumers (and sometimes producers) of music and literature. What about the women who weren't wealthy? Well. Literacy rates likely weren't high. And yes, the culture was in many ways inimical to women. But there's no reason an uneducated woman can't be intelligent and resourceful. No reason a woman can't look at her situation and figure out ways to deal with it, ways to get what she can out of it.
Back when I wrote "The Snake's Wife," I put it up on OWW for critique. And a couple of the comments I got complained that the main character didn't fight hard enough, didn't struggle enough against his imprisonment, against the limitations imposed on him. Those were all from guys, going by names. I found that really interesting. It's widely assumed that throughout history, women living in oppressive regimes will just, you know, be oppressed and not appear except in their preordained roles of Wife, Daughter, or Whore (the only escape is whoredom!). And yet, put a man in that same situation and someone asks, why doesn't he fight back?
Look, throughout history, women have fought back. Legions of women. Women who looked at the limitations their society placed on them and either said "screw that" or found ways to use those very limitations to their advantage. Often both at the same time. Many of them are unremembered, but many of them show up in even elementary school history lessons and yet writers who claim to have done research and to know the true nature of history tell us they do not exist. Oh, and men! Sure, a lot of men held women in contempt, or didn't even consider them worth thinking about--but. You have daughters, you worry about their future. You have smart, strong daughters, maybe you begin to resent the fact they can't inherit, or distinguish themselves. And in fact--and I wish I could remember the title of the book I found this in--it turns out there's evidence some men did resent the fact their daughters were treated differently from their sons by society. Ages ago I read a book that was an anthology of primary source type readings, translations of various medieval documents, letters and such. And one of them was a letter from a man to his daughters explaining that he'd done his best to manipulate his will so that they would inherit as equally with their brothers as he could manage. It was, he explained, completely wrong and unfair that women were considered lesser, he knew damn good and well his daughters deserved to be treated equally, and it angered him that the law made it impossible to do what he believed was right, to treat all his children equally.
I was in college when I read that. It blew my mind. And then I realized it shouldn't have. People are people. Just because your culture says your daughters aren't worth much, your wife is your property, that doesn't mean you don't love your daughters and your wife. That doesn't mean you won't ever get to thinking about things. Questioning. Maybe not as far as we'd like, here in the 21st century, but farther than you'd think if you assumed that everyone in medieval Europe (or the medieval middle east, or ancient Greece, or Rome, or Egypt) was just a drone filled with pre-programmed assumptions that completely match surviving instructional manuals or lists of commandments or proverbs or whatever.
Even in the yes, genuinely oppressive to women European Middle Ages, women traveled widely, ran large estates and even nations, wrote literature and music, painted and sculpted, and contributed to the construction of those cathedrals everyone still admires. Whoredom was not the only escape. If it was an escape at all. The convent (itself the subject of serious misunderstanding and assumption--an abbess was a woman of considerable influence, and a nun could have the time and freedom to travel, to write, to compose music, and so on, and there's plenty of evidence this is exactly what they did), a large enough inheritance, an understanding and supportive father and/or husband--all much more likely to help with that resisting the patriarchy thing. Add in native intelligence and stark determination and you've got those women who were mentioned in your Western Civ class but everyone seems to instantly forget or dismiss as "exceptions." But that's all completely invisible in that Gritty Real Middle Ages fantasy. The one that's supposed to be so realistic.
A related Gritty Realness is the whole "I know he's a king because he doesn't have shit all over him" aspect to some folks' assumptions about the European middle ages. Somewhat recently I heard an interview with a fantasy author--one who in the course of the interview also claimed that most fantasy was stupid and cliché--who asserted that life in the medieval era was just miserable and horrible. If you weren't a noble, you were a peasant, there was nothing else, and you spent your days in miserable drudgery.
What, no nuns or priests? No crafts? No arts? No architects or engineers to build those castles and cathedrals, let alone just plain houses or city walls? No troubadours? No wandering players? No innkeepers? No merchants? No doctors? Really? And you expect me to believe you actually know something about the Real Middle Ages? And I haven't even mentioned the fact that "Europe in the Middle Ages" isn't just one thing, that from region to region, from decade to decade, things changed, sometimes drastically, that if you want "the real middle ages" you have to also specify where and when you're talking about.
Look, I wouldn't trade places with some medieval Ann for any price. I'm quite sure life was often miserable. It's never been fun to be poor or powerless at any point in history, and it's even worse to be poor or powerless without things like vaccinations or transportation systems that make food widely available all year. But that picture of global, unremitting misery--it's too monolithic. People find ways to take joy in their lives. People love their spouses and children. They do now. They did then. And they didn't have our lives to compare theirs to.
So when you say proudly that you're just being realistic and history was just like that, you're not impressing me. You might as well take a paintbrush and write "DID NOT EVEN DO BASIC READING" in big red letters on your forehead.
Various things rumbling around have me pondering the historical basis (or lack thereof) of the kind of fantasy that's based on a sort of chewed and regurgitated medieval Europe. Now, writers are free to set their novels where they like, free to design whatever worlds to set them in that catch their fancy. But I'm interested just now in the kinds of comments writers and fans make to defend those cod-medieval settings, when criticism arises. Or sometimes not even when criticism arises, just when they're talking about their work.
The specific sort of criticism I'm thinking of is the position and treatment of women in a given fictional world, though strongly related is the question of race and ethnicity. Women have no prominent role in certain stories--or only appear as prostitutes or dutiful/horribly oppressed wives and daughters--because that's how history really was. These authors are just giving us an authentic Middle Ages, can't help it, it's just these stories are Too Real. Women just weren't allowed to take part in the important stuff, they were all horribly oppressed, the line for the daily rapes formed on the left and hey, at least the whores were smart enough to get paid for it! (And there were only white people in Europe, all of Europe, for all of the medieval period, amirite?)
So, see, these authors just did their research and all.
Except they didn't. In fact, they don't seem to have done even cursory research. History is littered with remarkable women who ruled nations, led armies, wrote books, led prestigious schools...on and on. Oh, of course, those are exceptions. But here's the thing. That "exception proves the rule" saying doesn't mean what you think it does. "Prove" here isn't "shows that it's absolutely true." No, this is prove like "a knight proven in battle." It means "tests." The exception tests the rule. And the rule might not stand after the test.
If your society is producing women like Eleanor of Aquitaine, it can hardly be impossible for women to do anything remarkable in that culture. Probably the women who didn't inherit kingdoms or marry kings were equally intelligent, remarkable, and resourceful in the face of the difficulties their culture raised for them. That's really only common sense.
And in fact, if you look closer, you see the helpless, uneducated woman sitting home in the castle while the brave, manly knights got all the interesting action just doesn't hold true. First off, it's a commonplace of history class that during the middle ages quite a lot of music and literature was very likely produced for and commissioned by women. I mean, seriously, this is something that has never failed to get mentioned in any Western Civ class--let alone music history or lit class dealing with the period--I've ever taken. So, in case anyone was sleeping through that particular lecture, a little reminder. Wealthy women of the high middle ages were literate. They were patrons of the arts. They were an audience for a whole boatload of artists. And they were themselves artists.
So, we've got wealthy medieval women as sophisticated consumers (and sometimes producers) of music and literature. What about the women who weren't wealthy? Well. Literacy rates likely weren't high. And yes, the culture was in many ways inimical to women. But there's no reason an uneducated woman can't be intelligent and resourceful. No reason a woman can't look at her situation and figure out ways to deal with it, ways to get what she can out of it.
Back when I wrote "The Snake's Wife," I put it up on OWW for critique. And a couple of the comments I got complained that the main character didn't fight hard enough, didn't struggle enough against his imprisonment, against the limitations imposed on him. Those were all from guys, going by names. I found that really interesting. It's widely assumed that throughout history, women living in oppressive regimes will just, you know, be oppressed and not appear except in their preordained roles of Wife, Daughter, or Whore (the only escape is whoredom!). And yet, put a man in that same situation and someone asks, why doesn't he fight back?
Look, throughout history, women have fought back. Legions of women. Women who looked at the limitations their society placed on them and either said "screw that" or found ways to use those very limitations to their advantage. Often both at the same time. Many of them are unremembered, but many of them show up in even elementary school history lessons and yet writers who claim to have done research and to know the true nature of history tell us they do not exist. Oh, and men! Sure, a lot of men held women in contempt, or didn't even consider them worth thinking about--but. You have daughters, you worry about their future. You have smart, strong daughters, maybe you begin to resent the fact they can't inherit, or distinguish themselves. And in fact--and I wish I could remember the title of the book I found this in--it turns out there's evidence some men did resent the fact their daughters were treated differently from their sons by society. Ages ago I read a book that was an anthology of primary source type readings, translations of various medieval documents, letters and such. And one of them was a letter from a man to his daughters explaining that he'd done his best to manipulate his will so that they would inherit as equally with their brothers as he could manage. It was, he explained, completely wrong and unfair that women were considered lesser, he knew damn good and well his daughters deserved to be treated equally, and it angered him that the law made it impossible to do what he believed was right, to treat all his children equally.
I was in college when I read that. It blew my mind. And then I realized it shouldn't have. People are people. Just because your culture says your daughters aren't worth much, your wife is your property, that doesn't mean you don't love your daughters and your wife. That doesn't mean you won't ever get to thinking about things. Questioning. Maybe not as far as we'd like, here in the 21st century, but farther than you'd think if you assumed that everyone in medieval Europe (or the medieval middle east, or ancient Greece, or Rome, or Egypt) was just a drone filled with pre-programmed assumptions that completely match surviving instructional manuals or lists of commandments or proverbs or whatever.
Even in the yes, genuinely oppressive to women European Middle Ages, women traveled widely, ran large estates and even nations, wrote literature and music, painted and sculpted, and contributed to the construction of those cathedrals everyone still admires. Whoredom was not the only escape. If it was an escape at all. The convent (itself the subject of serious misunderstanding and assumption--an abbess was a woman of considerable influence, and a nun could have the time and freedom to travel, to write, to compose music, and so on, and there's plenty of evidence this is exactly what they did), a large enough inheritance, an understanding and supportive father and/or husband--all much more likely to help with that resisting the patriarchy thing. Add in native intelligence and stark determination and you've got those women who were mentioned in your Western Civ class but everyone seems to instantly forget or dismiss as "exceptions." But that's all completely invisible in that Gritty Real Middle Ages fantasy. The one that's supposed to be so realistic.
A related Gritty Realness is the whole "I know he's a king because he doesn't have shit all over him" aspect to some folks' assumptions about the European middle ages. Somewhat recently I heard an interview with a fantasy author--one who in the course of the interview also claimed that most fantasy was stupid and cliché--who asserted that life in the medieval era was just miserable and horrible. If you weren't a noble, you were a peasant, there was nothing else, and you spent your days in miserable drudgery.
What, no nuns or priests? No crafts? No arts? No architects or engineers to build those castles and cathedrals, let alone just plain houses or city walls? No troubadours? No wandering players? No innkeepers? No merchants? No doctors? Really? And you expect me to believe you actually know something about the Real Middle Ages? And I haven't even mentioned the fact that "Europe in the Middle Ages" isn't just one thing, that from region to region, from decade to decade, things changed, sometimes drastically, that if you want "the real middle ages" you have to also specify where and when you're talking about.
Look, I wouldn't trade places with some medieval Ann for any price. I'm quite sure life was often miserable. It's never been fun to be poor or powerless at any point in history, and it's even worse to be poor or powerless without things like vaccinations or transportation systems that make food widely available all year. But that picture of global, unremitting misery--it's too monolithic. People find ways to take joy in their lives. People love their spouses and children. They do now. They did then. And they didn't have our lives to compare theirs to.
So when you say proudly that you're just being realistic and history was just like that, you're not impressing me. You might as well take a paintbrush and write "DID NOT EVEN DO BASIC READING" in big red letters on your forehead.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 04:28 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 04:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 04:44 pm (UTC)Writers who lack both scholarship and imagination routinely depict a medieval Europe that is a homogenized stereotype that comes from reading other uninformed hackeries. As you point out, women traveled (the peregrinations of Chaucer's Wife of Bath), they could freely select their second husband, they ran their own businesses and, in several eras and cultures, they owned property outright (Sigrid Undset's Kristin Lavransdatter -- Tiina Nunnally's translation, not the earlier faux-Victorian one; also Barbara Tuchman's outstanding history, A Distant Mirror).
Additionally, there were at least two very different cultures co-habiting Europe during the middle ages that get either totally ignored or forced to fit preconceptions ("Well, they were sophisticated but cruel and/or decadent"). One was Moorish Spain; the other was Byzantium. I wrote a bit about the latter in The Songs of the Byzantine Border Guards. There were other briefer but equally important outliers, like the Kingdom of Sicily under Roger, Wales and Ireland before they were subsumed into English rule, Aquitaine before it became part of France...
no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 08:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-12 08:32 pm (UTC)And I haven't even mentioned the fact that "Europe in the Middle Ages" isn't just one thing, that from region to region, from decade to decade, things changed, sometimes drastically, THIS is so true. Spain, guys. Spain prior to the Reconquista, anyone? Just to pick one place.
And YES, to all those other things that needed doing, besides tilling the fields, going into battle, and sitting in a castle!
But most basically, what you say here: It blew my mind. And then I realized it shouldn't have. People are people. Just because your culture says your daughters aren't worth much, your wife is your property, that doesn't mean you don't love your daughters and your wife.
So, so true. And I wish people would remember that **today** about cultures **today** that are considered oppressive for women. While not defending them, I just always want to remind people that people are people, and people love one another, even when society is set up so that they shouldn't, or shouldn't as much. I remember hearing a story about a month ago about someplace in rural Pakistan where a bereaved father did some work for/with/in support of a clinic after his daughter died in childbirth. Gah, actually, I wish I remembered the actual details, because the actual story was even more interesting than this, but in in any case, it was absolutely NOT a case of "my worthless daughter; I couldn't care less about her."
no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 07:16 pm (UTC)Yep. With you a hundred percent.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 01:31 am (UTC)I wouldn't want to trade places with some medieval Ann, but I also wouldn't want to trade places with some medieval Anthony, either. I wonder if part of the reason modern people assume folks prior to the modern era were miserable is pure projection. "I would be miserable without regular baths and easy transportation and supermarkets and telephones, therefore the folks who lived before those things must have been miserable."
no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 01:40 am (UTC)When I was a little girl my mother let me read her old, old book called a Child's Illustrated Guide to English History or something or other. The ones I still remember to this day were the entries for Lady Jane Grey (how sad!) and Boadicea (how awesome!) and Elizabeth I (how extraordinary!). I never understood why novels, even novels written by women, continued to perpetuate this weak women trope.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 09:36 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 07:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 09:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 09:20 pm (UTC)And of course magic throws a wrench in all sorts of things. A world where magic exists is not our world and must be very different from our world. But it seems to me writers are often using magic as a way to prop up things they want to be true or assume to be true, rather than thinking through its ramifications.
no subject
Date: 2012-02-13 10:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-19 12:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-02-19 12:13 am (UTC)