Witches Incorporated, K E Mills
Dec. 22nd, 2012 11:38 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chocolatepotHalfway through a book means of course that I want to write about it, as always.
I think I said it for the first book, I never/very rarely forget that I'm reading for some reason. Which isn't a great thing, even though the plot is done well.
(It's clearly influenced by Pterry. I'm still on the fence if thaumaturgy being a technical branch of magic/"splitting the thaum" count as homage or nefarious theft.)
I think part of what bothers me about the worldbuilding is that it's not anchored. A lot of Melissande's PoV parts are focused on women and feminism/the patriarchy, so I don't feel too bad about getting obsessive over the women's clothes and such. The thing is, there are bustles (1880s), slightly scandalous bobs (late 1910s, early '20s), slightly scandalous ankle-showing ('00s, early '10s), and slightly scandalous trousers ('20s, '30s). So I'm like, okay, whatever, I know this isn't historical fiction, it's fantasy, but I have a hard time believing in a world where women can wear full-on bustles and also pants. The women sniffing because Melissande wears trousers and Bibbie shows her ankles (or was that Mel too?) and firing girls from their businesses because they got all their hair cut off ... it doesn't feel like a deliberate attempt to create a world that's a mix of time periods, it feels like random grabs at ways for people to be stereotypically old-fashioned.
The patriarchy stuff started with Bibbie and Monk's great-uncle leaving Monk his money and houses and specifying in his will that none of it could be used to set women up in their own establishments. Which was weirdly intentionally sexist, but okay, Bibbie's like, he sucks and is so old-fashioned. But then as they meet more people it starts seeming like either Bibbie and Melissande are too far ahead in their goals or Mills is just throwing nasty people at them - and that's the thing, it doesn't have the feel of a society that's grown that way, it's just like everyone happens to suck.
I think the deal is that it needs fewer instances of showing people being shitty to women and more instances showing how women in that world cope with it. There are witches as well as wizards, there are some wizards (or at least one) who seem to think women "disturb the thaumatological ether", are witches generally not accepted as proper magic users? Thought of as frauds, or accomplished ladies, or limited? Thus far into the trilogy there haven't really been any other witches. Pratchett did a very good job of paralleling the historical medical establishment, with wizards being self-important and dismissive of witchcraft and urban, while the witches are rural and earthy and operating in the background but also respected. In the society being shown in the book, I would expect to see how witches have their own channels and hierarchy, but they're just ... not there. Witch hierarchy >>> arguments where everyone gets accused of being sexist, even if they're women showing concern for other women, ffs.
I just came across an instance where Mel is sneaking in the airship family's house (don't ask) and she notices an old photo that shows the patriarch named an airship "Ambrose" after his son but there isn't one called "Parmelia" for his daughter, and she's like "oh, it's because she's a gel, how sad," (using "gel" for girl to imply that someone's dismissive and posh was good the first couple of times but it's been going on and on and on) and my only reaction (besides that parenthetical before) is "that makes no sense, ships are often named after women." It just looks like shoehorning oppressions in.
And some of this is just poor continuity. (The world in general in the first book seemed a lot more modern, for one thing.) In the first book, Melissande was the stereotypical "unattractive princess" ... but then it was revealed that she looks good in the right clothes and with her hair/makeup done well, and she deliberately tried to be frumpy and overweight to keep from being married off, and didn't like it. Now in the second she still dresses badly and is frumpy, and she's insecure because Bibbie's so pretty and elegant. I'm pretty sure this is because now she's more of a main character and Mills wanted to be able to do more of a character arc, but it just doesn't fit. The Melissande from the end of the first book would have tamed her hair and bought some decent new clothes, or had someone magic them up for her, and used being a princess to her advantage.
I think I said it for the first book, I never/very rarely forget that I'm reading for some reason. Which isn't a great thing, even though the plot is done well.
(It's clearly influenced by Pterry. I'm still on the fence if thaumaturgy being a technical branch of magic/"splitting the thaum" count as homage or nefarious theft.)
I think part of what bothers me about the worldbuilding is that it's not anchored. A lot of Melissande's PoV parts are focused on women and feminism/the patriarchy, so I don't feel too bad about getting obsessive over the women's clothes and such. The thing is, there are bustles (1880s), slightly scandalous bobs (late 1910s, early '20s), slightly scandalous ankle-showing ('00s, early '10s), and slightly scandalous trousers ('20s, '30s). So I'm like, okay, whatever, I know this isn't historical fiction, it's fantasy, but I have a hard time believing in a world where women can wear full-on bustles and also pants. The women sniffing because Melissande wears trousers and Bibbie shows her ankles (or was that Mel too?) and firing girls from their businesses because they got all their hair cut off ... it doesn't feel like a deliberate attempt to create a world that's a mix of time periods, it feels like random grabs at ways for people to be stereotypically old-fashioned.
The patriarchy stuff started with Bibbie and Monk's great-uncle leaving Monk his money and houses and specifying in his will that none of it could be used to set women up in their own establishments. Which was weirdly intentionally sexist, but okay, Bibbie's like, he sucks and is so old-fashioned. But then as they meet more people it starts seeming like either Bibbie and Melissande are too far ahead in their goals or Mills is just throwing nasty people at them - and that's the thing, it doesn't have the feel of a society that's grown that way, it's just like everyone happens to suck.
I think the deal is that it needs fewer instances of showing people being shitty to women and more instances showing how women in that world cope with it. There are witches as well as wizards, there are some wizards (or at least one) who seem to think women "disturb the thaumatological ether", are witches generally not accepted as proper magic users? Thought of as frauds, or accomplished ladies, or limited? Thus far into the trilogy there haven't really been any other witches. Pratchett did a very good job of paralleling the historical medical establishment, with wizards being self-important and dismissive of witchcraft and urban, while the witches are rural and earthy and operating in the background but also respected. In the society being shown in the book, I would expect to see how witches have their own channels and hierarchy, but they're just ... not there. Witch hierarchy >>> arguments where everyone gets accused of being sexist, even if they're women showing concern for other women, ffs.
I just came across an instance where Mel is sneaking in the airship family's house (don't ask) and she notices an old photo that shows the patriarch named an airship "Ambrose" after his son but there isn't one called "Parmelia" for his daughter, and she's like "oh, it's because she's a gel, how sad," (using "gel" for girl to imply that someone's dismissive and posh was good the first couple of times but it's been going on and on and on) and my only reaction (besides that parenthetical before) is "that makes no sense, ships are often named after women." It just looks like shoehorning oppressions in.
And some of this is just poor continuity. (The world in general in the first book seemed a lot more modern, for one thing.) In the first book, Melissande was the stereotypical "unattractive princess" ... but then it was revealed that she looks good in the right clothes and with her hair/makeup done well, and she deliberately tried to be frumpy and overweight to keep from being married off, and didn't like it. Now in the second she still dresses badly and is frumpy, and she's insecure because Bibbie's so pretty and elegant. I'm pretty sure this is because now she's more of a main character and Mills wanted to be able to do more of a character arc, but it just doesn't fit. The Melissande from the end of the first book would have tamed her hair and bought some decent new clothes, or had someone magic them up for her, and used being a princess to her advantage.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-22 10:21 pm (UTC)The ship-name thing makes no sense at all. Like, the father didn't even love his daughter because she was a girl? That sounds more like, I dunno, an ancient Athenian thing. Not a pseudo-Victorian/Edwardianish Steampunk mishmash.
I like fantasy that takes on the partiarchy in our world by critiquing it in a made-up world. I do not like fantasy that is simply OH WOE THE WOMEN. And I think you've nailed it saying you want to see how women act in this society. Portraying them as solely victims not only hurts my feminist sensibilities, it's dull.
no subject
Date: 2012-12-23 12:20 am (UTC)I think what Mills was trying to say was that the father was just not going to name his airship after *gasp* a girl, not quite that he doesn't love her at all, but it's closeish. More like he doesn't have any regard/respect for her? But - I can't articulate this - it doesn't make sense to me to assume he named it after his son instead of his daughter because of misogyny unless he's supposed to be a really hardcore misogynist. And that's just a few paragraphs before she decides that a sister who lives with her brother and looks after the house is a glorified housekeeper, when it's really more like she's a stand-in for his wife. (Which, I mean, if she wanted to make the point that wives were often treated like glorified housekeepers, that'd be one thing, but she's not.) She'd be controlling the money, all the household expenses!
It is kind of dull. The female characters, the main ones, are great (esp. Reg, who was turned into a bird centuries ago) and they pass the Bechdel test, which is great, but when they keep meeting men who are individually shitty to women or sometimes women who buy into it and become hardasses to other women so they can at least have a little power.
The witches in Discworld really are such a great example of how to do it - yes, wizards are really obnoxious to/about them, and occasionally they run into problems re: lack of respect, but for the most part they are respected and have their own network. There are supposed to be witches here, I want to see them, and I want them to be roughly equivalent to midwives!