Sci-Fi & Fantasy Girlz discussion

Discuss!
Please don't forget the spoiler tag.

Great choice. I loved this book.

I had such high expectations for this book but I ended up abandoning it. I know I'm in the minority, but apparently it wasn't written for me.

I'm really looking forward to discussing this book.

The mind of a spaceship trapped in the body of a human sounds like an interesting concept – I’m looking forward to reading this book!

Louisa wrote: "The mind of a spaceship trapped in the body of a human sounds like an interesting concept – I’m looking forward to reading this book!"

So the opposite of "The Ship who Sang"? That could be ... interesting.

I’ve finished the book now. It had a slow and rather confusing start, but by the end I was enthralled by the story and the intricate world which the author had created. I especially liked the AI characters.

One interesting feature of the world is that everyone is referred to as ‘she’ regardless of whether they are biologically male or female (the language of the Radch makes no distinction between genders). Furthermore, the viewpoint character finds it hard to distinguish between men and women, provoking anger in those who do care about such things.

After a while I stopped trying to figure out who was male and who was female, and just saw everyone as a combination of both, which I imagine was what the author intended. However, I did find it hard to believe that anyone would fail to notice the physical differences.

On her Goodreads profile, Leckie argues that these differences are not as great as we believe – they are simply perceptions programmed into us by our culture. I’m not entirely convinced, but I have been thinking about it.

It can be hard to tell a person’s gender when they have androgynous features and baggy clothes, some women do grow facial hair, and sometimes I find it hard to tell whether a singer is male or female when I hear them on the radio.

What do others think?

Louise,
I agree with Leckie that gender norms are programmed into us by our culture. At first, I also found it hard to believe that Breq couldn't distinguish between males and females. But I think that that in itself is a result of our social conditioning.

In our world, almost everything is gendered-- social roles, family responsibilities and expectations, etc. Then there's items like clothing, hygiene products, toys, which reinforce the gender norms. And it starts so young too! (My two-year old cousin loves traditionally "feminine" things painting his nails, Elsa from Frozen, princess tutus etc. while his six-year old sister complains that "he's a boy! He shouldn't like girly things"). Of course we laugh off some gendered things like "Bic pens for her" but overall I think this is the norm for the average person. Growing up in this way, it was hard, at first, for me to imagine Breq's POV, being unable to distinguish the genders.

In Breq's world, I imagine that none of this gender division exists. It helps that citizens probably have access to body modifications, with future tech and all. So women who don't want to have breasts or men who want hairless bodies, can most likely have it done. Then the markers that we use to identify males and females is essentially useless in Radch society. The more I thought about the Radch society in this way, I understood Breq's difficulty. The concept of gender isn't programmed into her like it is for most of us.

So, aside from whatever biological limitations we have, I don't think there's much difference between males and females. It's mostly the product of our environment.
I can definitely see our world becoming more gender-neutral a few hundred years from now.

I'm in the minority here, I hated this book. I know hate is a strong word and I rarely use it, but sadly that's the way I felt about this book.

After reading it (well I did abandon it at one point, close to the ending because I couldn't take it anymore) I thought that the story was not that interesting to begin with and if we took away the gender aspect and the fact that Breq was an AI was able to "be in many places at once" I'm not sure the book would have been as successful as it was.

I didn't mind the fact that everyone was female, in fact it was kind of cool because I kept changing the character's genders in my mind every once in a while to see if they were actually male or female. But the fact that everyone was referred to as she didn't really add to the story, so I really didn't see the point, to me it was a gimmick. But my biggest problem with this book was the author's writing style, it was very hard to follow. I don't know if it was a combination of her writing style and the fact that everyone was a she, but it was a boring story.

I was very disappointed because I really wanted to like this book :(

Eliene wrote: "I can definitely see our world becoming more gender-neutral a few hundred years from now..."

I think a few hundred years is too soon. Women are still perceived as lesser human beings in certain areas of the world, I don't think that's changing that "soon".

Yoly wrote: "I'm in the minority here, I hated this book. I know hate is a strong word and I rarely use it, but sadly that's the way I felt about this book.

After reading it (well I did abandon it at one point..."

I suppose a few hundred might be too soon since it's hard to tell how fast society will change. Who knows, we might be living out the latest dystopian novel before we know it!

Eliene wrote: "Louise,
I agree with Leckie that gender norms are programmed into us by our culture. At first, I also found it hard to believe that Breq couldn't distinguish between males and females. But I think ..."

It is true the some specific gender norms are culturally determined. For example, you'll get different answers from different cultures as to whether the concept (and noun) "protector" is masculine, feminine, or genderless.

But that's different from having not gender norms at all. Those will persist as long as humans have sexual dimorphism. So the concept of what a "gender neutral" society is needs to be defined. I find it gimmicky that the author would posit that in a human society, anyone would be unaware of gender or be unable to distinguish it. Even if gender is fluid, it's still perceived as gender.

I seem to recall that in Lois McMaster Bujold's books, there was a discussion of Bel Thorn's gender, and that (according to character) the preferred pronoun was "it". (Bel Thorn is a hermaphrodite.) I always thought it was amusing that she (Lois) made this point of humanizing "it" -- I think she was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek -- rather than picking "he" or "she". I think it's somewhat telling that Ann Leckie elected to refer to everyone as "she" in these books.

Louisa wrote: "On her Goodreads profile, Leckie argues that these differences are not as great as we believe – they are simply perceptions programmed into us by our culture. I’m not entirely convinced, but I have been thinking about it."

The thing from the book that intrigued me about this, was the fact that it was an interstellar universe. The societies were allowed to be starkly different, more different than even the variety we have on Earth. Breq mentions that not only are the gender signifiers confusing, they are different in every culture. Some planets/cultures might have men wear dresses, earrings, makeup, long hair - women not. Good luck trying to figure that out, especially in a room where different cultures, all with different rules, all intermingle. This really hit home for me how easy it is to think of our own separations as "universal". They're not.

Yoly wrote: "But the fact that everyone was referred to as she didn't really add to the story, so I really didn't see the point, to me it was a gimmick."

For me, the gender/AI conundrum was the story - how do we identify, what is identity, what will we do/sacrifice to fight for what we consider to be our true self? The space opera plot was just an add-on, I was actually surprised at how engaging that part was.

Owen wrote: "I always thought it was amusing that she (Lois) made this point of humanizing "it" -- I think she was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek -- rather than picking "he" or "she". I think it's somewhat telling that Ann Leckie elected to refer to everyone as "she" in these books. "

From Ann Leckie's interview here, it sounds like she gave a lot of thought to it, and wasn't sure there was a best choice she could have made. I noticed that in Ancillary Justice, she does use the word "it": to describe the human body with no AI attached. This is from one scene where they lose control of the AI/body insertion. That fascinated me, because it seemed to take the idea of identity to another level: here is this AI struggling to discern gender differences, and she doesn't even consider the bodies to be people.

Owen wrote: "I find it gimmicky that the author would posit that in a human society, anyone would be unaware of gender or be unable to distinguish it. Even if gender is fluid, it's still perceived as gender."

If everyone were pansexual, the only reason you would need to distinguish would be for reproduction (and maybe breast-feeding?) I admit I wasn't sure from the descriptions of Radch society how that would work. Maybe it is discussed more in the sequels? Did anyone have theories on this?

I think puzzling over this is relevant for today's society. As gender becomes more fluid and sex changes more common, I would think there would be a lot more disclosure and negotiating necessary before couples introduced at a bar would leave for a night in someone's bedroom. Unless our sexual orientations become more fluid along with our gender expressions...

Michael wrote: From Ann Leckie's interview here, it sounds like she gave a lot of thought to it, and wasn't sure there was a best choice she could have made. I noticed that in Ancillary Justice, she does use the word "it": to describe the human body with no AI attached...."

Within the limits of English, I agree there is not "best choice" here. Part of the issue is the "alien" thought aspect. I recall writers in the 70s (Piers Anthony was one) trying to write about entities (a giant bird?) that thought in totally different ways -- except of course, they didn't because the author was not a giant bird, not were his readers. If you are going to venture into these waters, and deal with something as fundamental as gender, it's a lot more than who wears what style of clothing or adopts which social role, or what the social "rules" are.

This is (I think) an insuperable problem, really. Praying mantises may have gender, but I don't understand what "male" means to a praying mantis (expect "dinner" to a female after they get frisky). And there isn't much point (IMO) in trying.

The "gimmicky" aspect to me had more to do with her choice, which depended more on current sensibilities than anything else. This in itself is revealing, but Leckie (obviously) wanted to write a book people would find acceptable. Such gimmicks are unavoidable, to an extent,and frequently occur (it's often hard to get readers to identify with a story without some gimmicks or other), but this one didn't work for me.

I think that's interesting about the use of "it". That implies (in the context of the book) that gender is wholly a mental construct. For an AI, that is a reasonable attitude to have, and an intriguing point to raise. Probably more interesting than the whole gender issue.

Michael wrote: "If everyone were pansexual, the only reason you would need to distinguish would be for reproduction..."

This is a topic of great interest to me, but I'm leery off "wandering of the reservation" here in thread that is about a particular book. But here's the key thing about the whole issue (which is a culturally determined preconception): Why would anyone think gender is determined by, or subject to, reason?

For an AI, that might (sort of) make sense. It depends on what you think an "AI" is. (If anyone gets me started on AI, that probably needs to move to a new thread, and I apologize in advance for bring it up.)

But people are not AI's. I agree that it's worth thinking about, but it's the "disconnect" that is the most important part.

Owen wrote: "The "gimmicky" aspect to me had more to do with her choice, which depended more on current sensibilities than anything else. This in itself is revealing, but Leckie (obviously) wanted to write a book people would find acceptable. Such gimmicks are unavoidable, to an extent,and frequently occur (it's often hard to get readers to identify with a story without some gimmicks or other), but this one didn't work for me. "

I'm curious what (if any) option would have worked better for you? I recently read The Left Hand of Darkness - the one that Le Guin says she regrets choosing the male pronoun for in a similar situation. I see that the choice of "he" or "she" in those two books were products of their times, and tend to date the books in a particular literary history. And yet, the effect was very similar for me personally: after enough pages of reading, the pronoun isn't at the forefront; instead, it is the conundrum of realizing my conceptions of gender don't apply to this world. I think both authors were effective in establishing that: readers end up thinking about gender no matter how they felt about the pronoun.

I am not sure I am with you on the praying mantis analogy. I don't expect my brain pattern to remotely compare to an insect. I do expect it to compare to people in other cultures who have different expectations about sex roles and presentation, though. The fact that we are both human, but have different gender expression, allows me to critique the validity of my own ideas about gender expression. Yes, some organisms may be completely alien to us, but I don't think that is true about the Radsch in this book (the AI excepted).

I see that the problem may be insuperable on a grammar level - our language is too enmeshed in gendered expectations. But I don't think the problem is insuperable as a science fiction idea - I think if we spend enough time on it, we could imagine a society where men and women are not distinguished by appearance and behavior. And I don't mind the author struggling with the language to try to get me there. It's a difficult proposition - but why limit ourselves by believing it impossible? That was also one of the things I liked about the world in this one - the Radsch seem alien, but they actually aren't. She even includes actual aliens in the storyline to emphasize the point.

Michael wrote: "I'm curious what (if any) option would have worked better for you? ..."

I don't think there is one. Underlying the entire precept are assumptions that I have no reason to believe, and considerable reason to conclude are fundamentally flawed. So while this is a topic I'm interested in, this aspect of the book does not work for me. (Nor does the AI thing -- I lump any discussion of AI in with zombies and werewolves at this point.)

Michael wrote: "I see that the problem may be insuperable on a grammar level - our language is too enmeshed in gendered expectations. ..."

But why is that? Until one has a firm grasp of that, a true examination of the issue isn't possible. Please understand I don't mean that as a dig at you, the author, or anyone. But for me personally, if an author wants to open this can of worms, they ought to know how deep the water is before they go whole hog (so to speak). Otherwise, I don't find it enjoyable and I might get annoyed.

I'm afraid I never could finish "The Left Hand of Darkness." I admire the book and what she tried to do, and I like LeGuin as an author, even a lot of her work does not excite me. Based on the recollection of what I did read, I think "The Left Hand of Darkness" was a somewhat better attempt at addressing this issue, though I can't say it was more "successful" as I wasn't able to finish either book.

Apologies for the thread necromancy, but I didn't try this one back in the day, and having recently given it a shot, I figured I'd chime in.

I'm going to side with the folks who found the pronoun usage more gimmicky and strained than meaningful. It reads like there was some sort of early thematic purpose there, but it got lost not just in the course of the story, but in the methodology in practice. That is, rather than resulting in a sort of forward thinking gender equanimity, it wound up feeling like a petty misgendering process for the sake of form over function. It got so in my reading every pronoun became a tiresome little meaningless signifier that required connecting up to the particular character every time, and tracked like it would have been easier to just give the characters their names rather than use pronouns in the first place. Either would have been as awkward:

"My name is Gary," Gary said.

Versus

"My name is Gary," she said.

There's also an issue with whether that made the reading experience less enjoyable/more trouble, or whether the actual plot itself was something of a slog. I rather think the latter. The actual plotting/storytelling has a lot of flashbacks, and much of the contemporary stuff is conversations in a room. That can work. Frankenstein and Heart of Darkness, after all, entirely take place on boats as narrative flashback. However, I couldn't help but think that had the story been more linear it would have made better sense, and the structure just served as affectation again. In combination with the pronoun use, I found the whole thing a real muddle.