So, I just read that article. Yep, THAT one. The review of A Game Of Thrones which slams not only the fantasy genre as a whole but the idea that WOMEN might actually enjoy fantasy. Forgive the rant, but this needs to get out of my system.

I'm sorry, but what part of sword-wielding knights and pseudo-medieval politics is not enjoyable to the female gender (as a massive, generalised whole, since that seems to be the theme here)?

When I was a child of less-than-complex-reading-age, I had an audiobook (on tape, btw - I'm old) of The Hobbit. I loved it. I read the book itself as soon as I could (in fact, I learnt to read very early so I could read, not just The Hobbit, but many other books also). When I was about eight, I went to my Dad one too many times coomplaining of being bored. So he handed me an ENORMOUS book: The Lord Of The Rings. All three books, in one heavy, thin-papered volume, with the stern words, 'Look after it.' Now it took me a long time to read, and there were certainly many parts (especially in the third book) that I skimmed over because it was a hard book to read for an eight-year old. But I read it.

At ten, I had re-read the Earthsea Trilogy (as it was then) about five times, after being gifted it, by my parents, the Christmas before. And my joy when Tehanu came out, turning the Trilogy into a Quartett. Tehanu changed my life. I'm not exaggerating.

First, by the age of eleven or twelve, I had managed to create most of a new language, starting from the few words given in the books (so the fact that the reviewer is suggesting it's stupid that the makers of the Game of Thrones series made up a new language automatically got my hackles up), and secondly, it introduced me to the idea of really strong female characters. That's not to say it was the only book I ever read with female characters that had important roles, but in Tehanu, the title character is so special and important that as an impressionable girl of a similar age, I couldn't help but be fascinated by her. And thirdly, it cemented my insane love for dragons.

Now I KNOW I am not the only girl of older than twenty-five who grew up on these books, and on CS Lewis, David Eddings (I had my school librarian order his books in specially, just for me, which SHE was overjoyed to do), and Anne McCaffrey, so I can only imagine that the author of this review has not met very many women. In fact, I was quite suprised to discover that she IS a woman. The article reads, to me, like the words of a man who is horrified by the idea of an intelligent woman. (I'm not saying all men don't like intelligent women, in my job I seem to come across quite a few who are very patronizing towards women though.)

'While I do not doubt that there are women in the world who read books like Mr. Martin’s, I can honestly say that I have never met a single woman who has stood up in indignation at her book club and refused to read the latest from Lorrie Moore unless everyone agreed to “The Hobbit” first.'

I have no idea who Lorrie Moore is. So, here I go, I'm googling her/him...nope, never even heard of any of her books, sorry. And if that's the kind of fiction one reads in a book club - well, I don't think I'd like to be part of one.

But, since the first paragraph contains the following sentence: 'Keeping track of the principals alone feels as though it requires the focused memory of someone who can play bridge at a Warren Buffett level of adeptness.' I suppose the writer is not used to books that have a complex plot. I'm not trying to brag, but if I read a book that's not that taxing (which I enjoy doing - forensic fiction tend to be my go-to-genre for that) the book is over in three hours. I have just started A Game Of Thrones (I know, I'm a little behind on my fantasy fiction these days, sadly) and I can tell it's going to be the truky worthwhile read that The Belgariad and The Mallorean were to me as a teenager.

The final two sentence of the article made it all clear to me though: 'If you are not averse to the Dungeons & Dragons aesthetic, the series might be worth the effort. If you are nearly anyone else, you will hunger for HBO to get back to the business of languages for which we already have a dictionary.'

The reviewer simply does not like this kind of epic fantasy. And that's fine, everyone has their opinion, obviously. But why she has to suggest
that '“Game of Thrones” is boy fiction patronizingly turned out to reach the population’s other half.' is beyond me.

'The true perversion, though, is the sense you get that all of this illicitness has been tossed in as a little something for the ladies, out of a justifiable fear, perhaps, that no woman alive would watch otherwise.'

Now, I'm pretty sure George RR Martin did not put the 'illicit sex' into his books to make them more appealing to women. If women are going to read
fantasy, they're going to read fantasy - and I don't think these books were written in a gender-specific manner. And seriously, women only watch tv shows with illicit sex in them? What kind of suggestion is that? (That sentence, by the way, is the one that made me think the author was
a man: 'for the ladies'? Really?).

Want to read more responses to the article?
Try this article.
Perhaps this one.
Or this one!
I'm certainly not alone in my opinion on this.

Mostly though, I'm now just even sadder that I, the crazy middle-of-nowhere geek with no TV, will have to wait so long before I get to see the series!
 


Comments




Leave a Reply