In my reading of Glen Cook’s Chronicles of the Black Company I was, of course, confronted with scenes of violence and rapine such as one might expect of a company of mercenaries fighting on the side of an undead evil. However, I was also struck by the difference between the depiction of this aspect of the story and it’s depiction in, for example, the tv adaptation of A Game of Thrones, about which I have complained previously.
Taking A Game of Thrones as an example, we see a modern “gritty” fantasy writer’s view of the behavior we might expect of men and soldiers in a world where women have few rights, war has no laws, and the all moral decisions are supposedly painted in shades of grey. In Martin’s depiction, men are constantly spouting venomous, misogynist language, sex work is ubiquitous and glamorized, women are under constant threat of rape and rape culture is omnipresent and accepted. There is very little sense that men even see rape as wrong (except perhaps as a property crime), or that soldiers and victors should (or even could) be expected to act with any decency. We also don’t see any evidence that gender inequality might be differently constructed in a world of magic and dragons. Instead we have a vision of a world that you can’t help but think of as a misogynist teenager’s daydreams.
In Cook’s Chronicles of the Black Company we see the same setting, of gender inequality and war with no laws, but instead of reading the tale of men who have to make hard moral decisions to win, we find ourselves squarely on the side of a bunch of famously bad-arsed mercenaries fighting on behalf of an ancient and powerful evil. This is an evil that takes no prisoners and allows it’s favorites to commit any crime. So how is this setting depicted?
First of all, we see that our soldiers take no prisoners – they often kill their captives, and torture is done wherever necessary. They also use rape as both a tool of war and a reward. But neither activity is dwelt on in the text at all, and there is not really any point in the story where the plot takes a turn such as to make these unsavoury activities necessary to the story or to bring them to the fore in the narrative. Furthermore, although we get the impression that some of the main characters may be capable of it or may have done it – certainly Croaker orders or condones the murder of both military and civilian prisoners, including the elderly – we don’t see it as necessarily pleasant for them, and we don’t get the impression they think it is not wrong. In general rape is seen as a crime that soldiers can get away with, those who don’t want to are respected for it, and men who commit acts of violence to protect e.g. children are even given extra leniency in considering their punishments. There is no revelling in rape culture here, but a kind of guilty acceptance of it as one of the many bad things that happen in war. The Black Company is composed of exiles and criminals and held together only by it’s own internal honor and allegiances, so it is generally expected that soldiers don’t turn on their own over external moral principles, but this doesn’t stop them from condemning the crimes their members commit, and it certainly doesn’t require that the author revel in them, or enable his readers to. This is rape culture with a context, not stripped of its historical and social meaning and presented to the reader as a kind of warporn.
We also see a very different depiction of female characters in this story. Being a story about a company of male soldiers, most characters are male, but two characters in particular are women, and some are of indeterminate gender for much of the story. The women come from both sides, and both wield great power. One is perhaps supernatural and both are magical. Both expect equality as a consequence of their temporal power and the men around them give it without question. These women, like most of the characters in the story, have human flaws, but their flaws are not the usual kind of gender-specific hysterics and weaknesses one expects of a fantasy story. Indeed, one of these women is a rape survivor, but it’s not particularly relevant to her character and she has no obvious weaknesses or flaws as a consequence of it. Certainly her character and narrative role remain largely unrelated to this, so she is not defined by the acts of men. Indeed, although both characters enter the story initially in relation to the evil acts of the men around them, they soon define their own place in the world and supplant the men whose shadow they might otherwise have been expected to remain within. And there is certainly no way you can claim, as some do in relation to Martin’s work, that only a terrible fate befalls powerful and successful women.
Another aspect of this story that I really liked was the ability of these women to form non-sexual relationships with men. There is one relationship particularly that would surely be expected to become sexual under the standard fantasy conventions, but in this story it remains a friendship, and neither member of the friendship seems challenged by this. These are real human relations as we might imagine them in a medieval world where gender inequality is commonplace.
This book offers us examples of how we should expect modern writers to provide us a realistic view of a dark and vicious fantasy world, without either sugar-coating the bad stuff or revelling in it. Cook manages to present a world of gender inequality where vile deeds are commonplace without making us think that he admires it or we should enjoy it. He also asks questions about how women’s role might change in the presence of magic, and assumes that essentially our relations would retain their fundamental humanity in such a world. This is very different from what I saw in A Game of Thrones, and, I submit, a far more mature approach to the sub-genre and to fantasy writer’s interpretation of misogyny and violence in the medieval world.
September 20, 2011 at 5:40 pm
I think you’re being a little unfair here – Cook and Martin take exactly the same approach to rape, by and large. Maybe the Game of Thrones TV series is different, but I’d suggest reading the books to get a more full impression. They’re not perfect, by any means, but a lot more subtle than the TV series apparently is (I haven’t seen it).
In particular, this sentence in your post struck me: We also don’t see any evidence that gender inequality might be differently constructed in a world of magic and dragons.
We actually precisely DO see that. At the beginning of the series magic is considered to have disappeared from the world and dragons are extinct. So of course, the notion that we might see gender inequality being “differently constructed in a world of magic and dragons” is a nonsense – there are no magic and dragons.
Over the course of the books both magic and dragons return, and, hey presto! we begin to see gender inequality becoming differently constructed and women taking a more dominant role.
September 21, 2011 at 2:22 am
We also don’t see any evidence that gender inequality might be differently constructed in a world of magic and dragons.
That one struck me the same way. Just off the top of my head I thought there are at least five examples in the series of major female characters to greater and lesser extent challenging gender roles: Arya (who totally cuts loose of all her social roles, Danerys (though she is certainly a victim of those roles in the first book), Cersei, Melisandre, and Catelyn.
September 21, 2011 at 2:30 am
It’s good to see other people have read this series. Fair point about the development of gender equality in A Game of Thrones, I should have made clear that I am basing my judgment of it on the tv show. I am writing my posts on plane trips on an iPad so some nuance gets a bit lost.
Having said that ( and responding to nick’s opinion on this too) I don’t think rape is handled the same way in the tv show of ‘Thrones and in these books. It’s an omnipresent threat and “do what you can get away with” is a common theme, while the women are seen in terms first and foremost of their sex. It’s not really present as a theme in Cook’s novels at all – women are present first as characters and second as women, while in the tv show their representation is more the opposite. Obviously this is an impression, rather than an objectively defensible position, but I’ve made my broader discomfort about this clear elsewhere and there’s no point in going over it here if we disagree. I just think Cook manages to present female characters without continually reminding us that they’re women and at risk of rape every time we encounter them ( or indeed that this is a general problem in their world). For me, this is a better and I believe more realistic as well as more readable interpretation of the medieval world.
I’m off to see the aurora in a few hours!
September 21, 2011 at 2:41 am
Again talking about the tv show here, ckutalik, those characters are all good but they remain stuck in some pretty common tropes. Arya throws off social mores by becoming like a boy; cersei ( a character I like a lot) is your classic lady mcbeth figure, the poisonous sexual manipulator behind the throne; catelyn is the protective mother who makes rash decisions when her children are involved (eg abducting the dwarf); danerys is better but she’s also highly fraught with a really cheap colonialist narrative of whitey pacifying the natives (and e.g. Only she can teach them that rape is wrong). Meanwhile arya’s older sister basically serves as a metaphor for women’s vulnerability throughout the story.
They may be all good characters but they remain gendered stereotypes. The two main female characters in the Black Company don’t strike me as gender stereotypes at all. One is a rebel leader who happens to be a woman; one is an ancient evil out to take over the world, who makes sure everyone sees her as beautiful but doesn’t trade on her beauty or sex at all.
And noises is right, I should read the books before I go too deeply down this path.
September 21, 2011 at 7:29 am
For me, this is a better and I believe more realistic as well as more readable interpretation of the medieval world.
I dunno – we know rape happens an awful lot during wartime, especially during civil wars, and as much of the narrative of the book series takes place during an all-out civil war I think the depiction of rape as a constant threat (in some circumstances) is probably (sadly) fairly accurate.
Again talking about the tv show here, ckutalik, those characters are all good but they remain stuck in some pretty common tropes.
You could make this criticism of the male characters too. Why read “gender stereotyping” into what is, basically, just a fairly normal set of genre cliches? Sometimes politics just isn’t there, no matter how much you want to look for it.
And you know what? Sometimes women do use their sexuality to manipulate men, sometimes girls do throw off their social constraints by becoming like boys, and sometimes protective mothers do make rash decisions. I’m sick to death, quite frankly, of the much more unrealistic and supposedly “subversive” cliches about women which have become popular in recent years in fantasy circles, such as the girl who is lithe and sexy and has great breasts but is able to fight just as well as a man, etc. Martin’s work is refreshingly free of that particularly idiotic and sexist trope, and his main female warrior character, Brienne of Tarth, is genuinely believable and interesting for it.
September 21, 2011 at 11:52 pm
Although yeah, I do think Martin can be accused of pretty casual racial stereotyping at times (East Asians don’t value human life, black people are all sexual libertines, etc.)