The Wise Man's Fear - Patrick Rothfuss and institutional sexism

This is a pretty specific post, but hopefully there's stuff in there even if you haven't read the book. 

I have been listening happily to the audiobook of The Wise Man's Fear, basking in the lilting language of Patrick Rothfuss and trying desperately to ignore a growing feeling of unease.

But no more. I can no longer listen to the life of Kvothe - it is making bile rise in my throat.

There is an insidious, deeply ingrained sexism running through this book that is typical of the male-led, fantasy-for-adults genre. There is a rising number of female fantasy writers and female fantasy writers of colour, but by and large the writers of fantasy are white, heterosexual men (I am not including books about angels, vampires or witches in this statement... more on that in future posts).

So onto The Wise Man's fear and why I turned it off, put it down and will not be continuing to read it despite loving Rothfuss' use of language, incredible world construction and based around a magical premise very appealing to a storyteller.

This is the second in a series of books narrated by Kvothe the Bloodless as he looks back over his life. He is something of a legend with a complex past and has to live in secret. Every small incident of his life has been mythologised by the world at large. To be clear before we go further, the narrator is a grown man talking about himself as a boy. It is not narrated by a hormonal teenager and even if it was, that would not excuse the attitude. At this point in the narrative, he is telling the reader about being a 16 year old with a ridiculously mature, talented and sharp mind. He is able to direct a group of seasoned mercenaries in pursuit of bandits; he is able to woo a grown woman through his poetic penmanship and has not yet found anything (except a form of Tai Chi) that he finds a struggle or a strain. He is also entirely and totally sexist, creating a supporting-supporting cast of sexually objectified eye-candy to orbit the penile desires of Kvothe and his mates.

Ok - to get this out the way early - I don't think Rothfuss is a sexist intentionally, nor consciously, but judging by his blog posts he needs to do some work. He is also in the position now that he has enough fan girls gathered at his feet that he doesn't need to worry about it - someone will always be there to remind him that they are a woman-and-they-don't-mind, fan his ego and sooth his concern.

Now, there's a few of you out there who have read the books and I shall address you first. The depth of sexism in this book is a testament to Rothfuss' intelligence. This is what makes it so irritating. I want a fantasy writer of his calibre to have an imagination that can extend to a representation of women that is not focussed on her level of sexual attraction. It cannot be dismissed as easily as some would like by saying “but Hespe is a strong woman and so is Mola”. Very few new-age sexists think that women cannot be strong (within reason) and certainly no writer who wants success will write about a Princess locked in castle waiting for Kvothe to save her whilst she mournfully sighs and brushes her hair. For one thing, the level of sophistication we expect in a novel's story structure would not allow it. Just as the world has evolved and developed, so has western-world sexism and Rothfuss' second novel demonstrates that it is alive and well within the pages of high quality fantasy fiction.

Fan-created art for Fela - one of the most talented students of naming in the Arcanum.
You can tell because she is wearing glasses.  

The description of Marie was what woke me up - a dim feeling of discomfort became a stab of anger. This is no mere sexist slip or inappropriate comment - there is institutional sexism within this story.

Let's do this step-by-step. This is how she was introduced:

I liked Marie. She was taller than most men, proud as a cat, and spoke at least four languages.... Pants you could do a day’s work in, boots you could use to walk twenty miles. I don’t mean to imply she wore homespun, mind you. She just had no love for fashion or frippery. Her clothes were obviously tailored for her, close fitting and flattering....

The four of us eyed the stage.

“I will admit,” Wilem said quietly, “that I have given Marie a fair amount of consideration.”

Manet gave a low chuckle. “That is a woman and a half,” he said. “Which means she’s five times more woman than any of you know what to do with.”

At a different time, such a statement might have goaded the three of us into swaggering protest. But Manet stated it without a hint of taunt in his voice, so we let it pass. Especially as it was probably true.

“Not for me,” Simmon said. “She always looks like she’s getting ready to wrestle someone. Or go off and break a wild horse.”

 “She does.” Manet chuckled again. “If we were living in a better age they’d build a temple around a woman like that.”

Quick question - don't think too much: In your imagination, is she in her 20s, 30s, 40s or 50s? Bearing that in mind, is it weird that Manet is drooling over her? He is in his 50s. Added to this an opening image of 4 men sitting at a table 'eyeing the stage', I get the sense of a strip club not a musician's bar.

I’ll dive straight into the immediate sexual objectification by the assembled ‘main’ characters. This is one example but happens perpetually throughout the novel. If we move past her introduction as being 'proud as a cat' in tight fitting clothes (this is one of the less sycophantic descriptions of women in the book), what angers me more is the male character's immediate, chronicled response. Wilem ponders Marie as one might the idea of buying a new car. She has been "considered" a few times. There is no sense that she may or may not be interested in him, no mutual interaction or interest, merely something that he has considered taking out for a test drive. Then Simmon rejects her as a sexual partner because she presents as being strong. It is unclear whether he is referring to strength of character or physical strength, but either way it is distasteful. As the icing on the penis-cake, Manet, the grizzled 50 yr old student, describes her as something they need to “know what to do with”. Do we have the impression of a sentient equal being or do we have the impression of Marie as the wild horse not the breaker as Simmon weakly suggests? Rothfuss has admitted that there are strong, unusual women with talent in his universe, but that is irrelevant. Do the men admire her talent? No. Just discuss whether or not they would take a turn trying out this wild and unusual creature as a sexual partner.

An artist's interpretation of Manet from Wiki - love interest for Marie. At least he believes
that he is skilled enough to 'know what to do with her'.
I'm sure he means her intellect.

And then the worst bit - the pedestal - the phrase that many men now trot out as a panacea to feminist “I’m not a sexist – I love women” before composing a poem to our breasts. The one thing as bad (sometimes worse) as women being regarded as less-than-human is when we are regarded as more-than-human. "Celestial, goddess, divine!"

Higher you climb, the harder they get.

But why wouldn't we want this? Why wouldn't we want songs praising our bottom and eyes? Why wouldn't we want to be regarded higher than any other woman, any other creature, more than life itself??? A woman put on a pedestal and called a goddess will never be able to live up to the beliefs and aspirations placed upon one so divine. Does a Goddess get mad when she's hungry? Does a Goddess of love and beauty turn down sex because she is not in the mood? NO! Would Felurian turn it down? Would Felurian have a headache?

Perceiving any woman (that includes your Mums) as more than human is not helpful. Degredation and inflation both prevent a woman from being considered an average human being with talents and flaws. A human is capable of mistakes; a goddess isn't. A human being has power and intelligence; a creature does not. Consider me a goddess and I can only disappoint you. This is the latest incarnation of sexism and allows those men, who need to take a long hard look at themselves and their attitudes, to claim their position as a feminist because  “Women are AMAZING! I wrote a worship ode to the breast. Women are incredible, sacred beings.”

No.

We are not.

We are just people.

Sometimes we are particularly impressive people like Rosa Parks or particularly sexy people like Marilyn Monroe, but we are still just people and scream, shit and cry like anyone else.

A woman is just as sacred as a man. There are differences in the physical manifestation of that sacredness, but in all cases it is a human, not more than human, beauty that you are seeing. Don't allow a love of the female form, character or sexual appeal to get in the way of seeing the rest of her!

The most irritating aspect of ‘goddessing’ women (real or fictional) is that it is quite nice to be worshipped a bit and to have our bits praised. Stay alert, women of the world! There is a difference between being told you are beautiful by someone who loves you and being put on a pedestal – watch out for the difference.

Back to the book. I've read some bloggers who make the excuse “this isn’t Rothfuss it's a young Kvothe who is objectifying women with the confident tone of the thoroughly well-sexed”. Come on people – he is the author, he created Kvothe and then chose to write the book purely from his point of view. Rothfuss has crafted an inherently sexist world – a world with sexism all the way through the Fey. Yes. The Fey. This character's love nest and tutelage of Kvothe lasts several chapters in the book. She just can't help but turn men on; to love men to death is her entire existence.

Thanks to Deviant Art. Google Felurian yourself for ruder images.

She has a childish intellect and enthusiasm and cannot stop shagging. She is a literal embodiment of the manic-pixie-dream-girl trope without the inconvenience of having a whimsical fancies... or clothes. In fact, thanks to Felurian, Kvothe almost forces himself upon a woman in the human world when he is returned from his epic man-making session in the Fey world. Silly boy - dealing with real women is more complicated because they have the wit to grasp the concept of consent. With Felurian you need to neither get or give consent, if you are a man you will be having sex with the naked writhing lady. In fact, doesn't this count as some sort of rape?

Rothfuss created a universe that is incredibly detailed and real with fairies and demons and magical spells. But he couldn’t create one where women were anything more to the main characters than something to f**k.

Men reading this – if you have, repeatedly and endlessly been judged as whether or not you may be worth taking a turn on, then please express an opinion. If you have not, try to put yourself in our shoes for one moment and then re-read Rothfuss’ words. We’ve been living this for thousands of years. Enough is enough.

The reality is I'm not just irritated, as I would be if a man in the street made an objectifying comment or a male teacher talked down to me ; I'm upset. I'm upset that a man with the imagination to create such a fantastic and real world of myth, magic and story does not have the imagination to create a world where women are more than love-objects.