'King Rat' and the abuse of women in Gene Wolfe's stories

On 08/03/11 22:39, Daniel Petersen wrote: On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html <http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html> DOJP _______________________________________________

On 3/8/2011 7:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote: Sorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be top-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get confusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time. Hard to believe that there are still peeps out there who will admit in public that they have mistaken the writer's depiction of his/her characters/world for that writer's own personal view on whatever subject. It's fiction. GW has created worlds with certain societal norms; given the world we see in BOTNS it's not at all surprising to me that women get something of a raw deal in that world. It's kind of a might is right, chivalry duhhhh? what's that? universe. Despite this GW gives us strong, independent female characters who are obviously up against it in their world but who survive and pursue their goals none the less: Agia of course; and Dorcas, a real tough cookie who despite looking like a teenage girl and despite her internal disarray none the less makes her way back from Thrax to Nessus unmolested in time (we are led to assume) to be reunited with her son. Actually a happy ending, if an obliquely signalled one. (I'd love to have more information about what happened to Cyriaca, who attempted to do much the same thing, but we'll never know). Oh I could go on, but I do think that the idea that GW is a dyed in the wool mysogynist is very, very silly. jd On 08/03/11 22:39, Daniel Petersen wrote:

On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html <http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html> DOJP _______________________________________________

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> wrote: On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html

On 3/8/2011 9:57 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Petersen <danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> wrote: On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html A couple of flaws stand out from the others. First, the author of the essay writes: "Wolfe generally avoids using his protagonists or narrators to proclaim his own beliefs". If this is true it is incumbent on the essayist to find other means of defending Wolfe from these charges of misogyny. He does not, but picks a single character (Silk) in a single scene to make his point. The essayist provides inadequate reasons to accept his initial point (after all, there are plenty of good novelists that use their protagonist to proclaim the author's beliefs) and no reasons to accept his example as an exception in Wolfe. To further muddy the water, in regards to the story under question (King Rat), the essayist provides an excellent example of where the actions in the story are both misogynist and rewarding. The moral of the story would seem to be "misogyny pays", regardless of any (nonexistent in this case) protestations to the contrary by the protagonist (whom, after all, we cannot trust to reflect the author's intentions). And second, the essayist writes: "We are /meant/ to be horrified by the sordid nature of this man...". No contextual evidence is provided to support this reading. This despite an earlier section titled "DEPICTING THE ABUSE OF WOMEN: TEXT AND CONTEXT". DOJP _______________________________________________

On 3/8/2011 6:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote: Sorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be top-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get confusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time.

On 3/8/2011 8:39 PM, David Stockhoff wrote: It was Catholics who threw fake blood on ICBM silos in the 1970s. Now they picket clinics. But Wolfe is no extremist, just a farm boy and an ex-Marine.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 3:06 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: A little bit of analysis is all that is needed on your second point. Accepting that the moral of King Rat is that "misogyny pays" ... OK, so what? (So does dramatically entertaining torture and execution, for an expert at the trade, in a certain other fictional world resembling medieval Europe.) Well, look that the world King Rat lives in, in which "misogyny pays." Do you like it? Point made. Wolfe does not support misogyny. On 3/8/2011 9:57 PM, Thomas Bitterman wrote:

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 5:39 PM, Daniel Petersen < danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com>> wrote: On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html A couple of flaws stand out from the others. First, the author of the essay writes: "Wolfe generally avoids using his protagonists or narrators to proclaim his own beliefs". If this is true it is incumbent on the essayist to find other means of defending Wolfe from these charges of misogyny. He does not, but picks a single character (Silk) in a single scene to make his point. The essayist provides inadequate reasons to accept his initial point (after all, there are plenty of good novelists that use their protagonist to proclaim the author's beliefs) and no reasons to accept his example as an exception in Wolfe. To further muddy the water, in regards to the story under question (King Rat), the essayist provides an excellent example of where the actions in the story are both misogynist and rewarding. The moral of the story would seem to be "misogyny pays", regardless of any (nonexistent in this case) protestations to the contrary by the protagonist (whom, after all, we cannot trust to reflect the author's intentions). And second, the essayist writes: "We are /meant/ to be horrified by the sordid nature of this man...". No contextual evidence is provided to support this reading. This despite an earlier section titled "DEPICTING THE ABUSE OF WOMEN: TEXT AND CONTEXT". DOJP _______________________________________________

On 3/8/2011 7:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote: Despite this GW gives us strong, independent female characters who are obviously up against it in their world but who survive and pursue their goals none the less: Agia of course; and Dorcas, a real tough cookie who despite looking like a teenage girl and despite her internal disarray none the less makes her way back from Thrax to Nessus unmolested in time (we are led to assume) to be reunited with her son.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:39 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: And of course there are those who believe Wolfe is a right-winger, when he is plainly just an American Catholic of his times. Such people used to be considered "liberal," at least in the old sense of the word---no different from anyone else.

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 2:39 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net>wrote: I've seen published academic articles "proving" Milton was a royalist. And of course there are those who believe Wolfe is a right-winger, when he is plainly just an American Catholic of his times. Such people used to be considered "liberal," at least in the old sense of the word---no different from anyone else. It was Catholics who threw fake blood on ICBM silos in the 1970s. Now they picket clinics. But Wolfe is no extremist, just a farm boy and an ex-Marine. About the only charge he could be found guilty of that I can see is his scarcity of female protagonists/narrators. But it's not that weird in Wolfe's generation---he's a bit older than my own father, fer chrissakes, who was in Korea a few years after hostilities there ended. And he's an SF fanboy. Until a few decades ago, female writers typically used male pseudonyms when wrote male narrators. Male writers rarely wrote female narrators directly. When Cordwainer Smith (under a different but male name) wrote a novel with a female narrator in the 1940s, this was considered "experimental." Even now, not many writers, male or female, successfully cross the gender divide. Margaret Atwood is one who does it with almost chilling precision. On 3/8/2011 7:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:

Sorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be top-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get confusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time. Hard to believe that there are still peeps out there who will admit in public that they have mistaken the writer's depiction of his/her characters/world for that writer's own personal view on whatever subject. It's fiction. GW has created worlds with certain societal norms; given the world we see in BOTNS it's not at all surprising to me that women get something of a raw deal in that world. It's kind of a might is right, chivalry duhhhh? what's that? universe. Despite this GW gives us strong, independent female characters who are obviously up against it in their world but who survive and pursue their goals none the less: Agia of course; and Dorcas, a real tough cookie who despite looking like a teenage girl and despite her internal disarray none the less makes her way back from Thrax to Nessus unmolested in time (we are led to assume) to be reunited with her son. Actually a happy ending, if an obliquely signalled one. (I'd love to have more information about what happened to Cyriaca, who attempted to do much the same thing, but we'll never know). Oh I could go on, but I do think that the idea that GW is a dyed in the wool mysogynist is very, very silly. jd On 08/03/11 22:39, Daniel Petersen wrote:

On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html < http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html

DOJP _______________________________________________

On 3/9/2011 1:31 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: On 3/8/2011 8:39 PM, David Stockhoff wrote:

It was Catholics who threw fake blood on ICBM silos in the 1970s. Now they picket clinics. But Wolfe is no extremist, just a farm boy and an ex-Marine.

Not disagreeing with your message, just wanted to point out that he served in the Army's Seventh Infantry Division rather than the Marines.

On 3/9/2011 9:01 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote: I agree he gets it about right. Wolfe is unlikely to win any awards for feminist SF, but accusations of misogyny are a bit strong, unless misogyny is defined so widely as to be useless for descriptive purposes.. Definitions of misogyny vary from the literal "hatred of women" to "holding a distasteful opinion about women as a group". Clearly anybody holding an opinion about women as a group is at risk of falling into the latter category for someone, even if the opinion might be considered complimentary by many. I think the accusations of misogyny stem from two, perhaps three sources. First, Wolfe's female characters are typically not so much in the forefront or as strongly delineated as the males. This may reasonably be excused on the grounds that Wolfe is male; for most authors, writing one's own gender seems likely to be an easier task. I would not harshly criticise a woman author for writing stronger female characters! Second, Wolfe clearly believes that traditional gender roles reflect certain realities of human nature, and his books tend to reflect that. For many, this belief is so obviously true as to need no debate. For others, to state or imply it is to take a reactionary stance that opposes all that is pure and good according to current progressive thinking. In their view, making such a statement is in itself a thoughtcrime sufficient to warrant the accusation of misogyny, even when the gender roles are just different, without one being intrinsically inferior. The third source is exemplified by rantings such as those of 'Lepton', who asserts in effect that any mistreatment of women depicted in a book demonstrates the author's misogyny, even when equal or greater mistreatment of men is depicted just as prominently. My guess is that Lepton is actually motivated at base by the second sourse above, but does not have the wit to express it in coherent form, so he falls back on this. His argument might have some force if Wolfe were wrining porn, or torture porn, but clearly he is not. Wolfe's sex scenes are not lubricious. The most visceral torture scene is that in which Thea's maidservant has her leg flayed, and I find it hard to believe anyone would read it to enjoy the evocation. - Gerry Quinn From: Daniel Petersen <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html _______________________________________________

On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:41 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote: Ah, yes---our old friend Lepton. I suggest we read him to find out what NOT to think. As a side note, it is of course exactly that "different, without one being intrinsically inferior" that is contested. But yes, I think the criticism is classic kneejerkism. Wolfe is more interested in moral explorations than social ones, to the extent that they can be separated, and he's no Octavia Butler. There Are Doors postulates a society that is arguably more female-dominated than our own in some ways, and it's clearly a dystopia. But it's hardly worse than our world, and if it is worse, it's only in the same ways, or analogous/reversed ones, that our world is bad. It's a projection based on misogynist male fears, but not on misogyny per se. It incorporates rules that are false here, but very familiar (being Faery-like). Neither world is fair; both worlds are run by compassionately depicted flawed humans who do the best they can under the rules. On 3/9/2011 9:01 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

I agree he gets it about right. Wolfe is unlikely to win any awards for feminist SF, but accusations of misogyny are a bit strong, unless misogyny is defined so widely as to be useless for descriptive purposes.. Definitions of misogyny vary from the literal "hatred of women" to "holding a distasteful opinion about women as a group". Clearly anybody holding an opinion about women as a group is at risk of falling into the latter category for someone, even if the opinion might be considered complimentary by many. I think the accusations of misogyny stem from two, perhaps three sources. First, Wolfe's female characters are typically not so much in the forefront or as strongly delineated as the males. This may reasonably be excused on the grounds that Wolfe is male; for most authors, writing one's own gender seems likely to be an easier task. I would not harshly criticise a woman author for writing stronger female characters! Second, Wolfe clearly believes that traditional gender roles reflect certain realities of human nature, and his books tend to reflect that. For many, this belief is so obviously true as to need no debate. For others, to state or imply it is to take a reactionary stance that opposes all that is pure and good according to current progressive thinking. In their view, making such a statement is in itself a thoughtcrime sufficient to warrant the accusation of misogyny, even when the gender roles are just different, without one being intrinsically inferior. The third source is exemplified by rantings such as those of 'Lepton', who asserts in effect that any mistreatment of women depicted in a book demonstrates the author's misogyny, even when equal or greater mistreatment of men is depicted just as prominently. My guess is that Lepton is actually motivated at base by the second sourse above, but does not have the wit to express it in coherent form, so he falls back on this. His argument might have some force if Wolfe were wrining porn, or torture porn, but clearly he is not. Wolfe's sex scenes are not lubricious. The most visceral torture scene is that in which Thea's maidservant has her leg flayed, and I find it hard to believe anyone would read it to enjoy the evocation. - Gerry Quinn From: Daniel Petersen <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe: http://silk4calde.blogspot.com/2011/03/king-rat-and-abuse-of-women-in-gene.html _______________________________________________

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:01 AM, Ryan Dunn <ryan at liftingfaces.com> wrote: And yet, when interviewed about An Evil Guest, Gene became strongly emotional and choked up when expressing how Cassie stole the book out from under Chase and proclaimed,"This is MY story!" He said the hardest part about finishing that book was not being able to write her character anymore. Hardly a misogynistic emotion, I would say. More likely Wolfe is simply more prone to story concepts built around men, no? Not to the express exclusion of writing a female protag, but these gender selections do trend toward matching the gender of the author. As an aside, whenever a story pops into my head, the hero is usually a troubled young man or boy. I have to force him to be anyone else more often than not. Any writers on this list have a similar experience with their muse? ...ryan On Mar 9, 2011, at 9:41 AM, David Stockhoff <dstockhoff at verizon.net> wrote:

Ah, yes---our old friend Lepton. I suggest we read him to find out what NOT to think. As a side note, it is of course exactly that "different, without one being intrinsically inferior" that is contested. But yes, I think the criticism is classic kneejerkism. Wolfe is more interested in moral explorations than social ones, to the extent that they can be separated, and he's no Octavia Butler. There Are Doors postulates a society that is arguably more female-dominated than our own in some ways, and it's clearly a dystopia. But it's hardly worse than our world, and if it is worse, it's only in the same ways, or analogous/reversed ones, that our world is bad. It's a projection based on misogynist male fears, but not on misogyny per se. It incorporates rules that are false here, but very familiar (being Faery-like). Neither world is fair; both worlds are run by compassionately depicted flawed humans who do the best they can under the rules. On 3/9/2011 9:01 AM, Gerry Quinn wrote:

I agree he gets it about right. Wolfe is unlikely to win any awards for feminist SF, but accusations of misogyny are a bit strong, unless misogyny is defined so widely as to be useless for descriptive purposes.. Definitions of misogyny vary from the literal "hatred of women" to "holding a distasteful opinion about women as a group". Clearly anybody holding an opinion about women as a group is at risk of falling into the latter category for someone, even if the opinion might be considered complimentary by many. I think the accusations of misogyny stem from two, perhaps three sources. First, Wolfe's female characters are typically not so much in the forefront or as strongly delineated as the males. This may reasonably be excused on the grounds that Wolfe is male; for most authors, writing one's own gender seems likely to be an easier task. I would not harshly criticise a woman author for writing stronger female characters! Second, Wolfe clearly believes that traditional gender roles reflect certain realities of human nature, and his books tend to reflect that. For many, this belief is so obviously true as to need no debate. For others, to state or imply it is to take a reactionary stance that opposes all that is pure and good according to current progressive thinking. In their view, making such a statement is in itself a thoughtcrime sufficient to warrant the accusation of misogyny, even when the gender roles are just different, without one being intrinsically inferior. The third source is exemplified by rantings such as those of 'Lepton', who asserts in effect that any mistreatment of women depicted in a book demonstrates the author's misogyny, even when equal or greater mistreatment of men is depicted just as prominently. My guess is that Lepton is actually motivated at base by the second sourse above, but does not have the wit to express it in coherent form, so he falls back on this. His argument might have some force if Wolfe were wrining porn, or torture porn, but clearly he is not. Wolfe's sex scenes are not lubricious. The most visceral torture scene is that in which Thea's maidservant has her leg flayed, and I find it hard to believe anyone would read it to enjoy the evocation. - Gerry Quinn From: Daniel Petersen <mailto:danielottojackpetersen at gmail.com> On a wholly different note, have you all read the latest Silk for Calde blog post on Wolfe? A really well reasoned article on this issue of misogyny in Wolfe:

_______________________________________________

Lane Haygood wrote: I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators. Because I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being female.

On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:58 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote: Lane Haygood wrote:

I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators. Because I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being female.

But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female character, how can you write an alien? -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote: I don't write aliens or elves or dwarves or any of that. Although it does raise some questions. Is there a universal male or female experience across different species or worlds? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:58 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Lane Haygood wrote:

I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators. Because I am male. “I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being female.

But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female character, how can you write an alien” -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________

From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> Lane Haygood wrote:

I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators. Because I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being female.

But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female character, how can you write an alien?

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:06 AM, Dan'l Danehy-Oakes <danldo at gmail.com>wrote: Okay, you don't write any of that. But are all your characters exactly like you? That's the logical consequence of not writing what you don't have "direct, subjective experience of." On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Lane Haygood <lhaygood at gmail.com> wrote:

I don't write aliens or elves or dwarves or any of that. Although it does raise some questions. Is there a universal male or female experience across different species or worlds? Sent from my iPhone On Mar 9, 2011, at 10:58 AM, "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" <danldo at gmail.com> wrote:

Lane Haygood wrote:

I tend to write (almost exclusively) male protagonists and narrators. Because I am male. I don't have any direct, subjective experience of being female.

But SF is all about writing the Other. If you can't write a female character, how can you write an alien? -- Dan'l Danehy-Oakes _______________________________________________

On 3/9/2011 12:20 AM, Jeff Wilson wrote: On 3/8/2011 6:39 PM, Jane Delawney wrote:

Sorry can't remember as of this moment if I'm supposed to be top-posting, bottom-posting or interlining, these mailing lists get confusing they all have different rules and I don't have much time.

Skipping bathroom trips and not bothering to dress might help you get back on schedule.