More Thoughts On Angry Chicks In Leather
It’s officially a Winter Storm Warning out here, so everyone is home and likely to stay home. The morning commute wouldn’t be that bad, but the one coming home in the evening will be sheer chaos. Best just to stay and wait for it to clear. It’s not the Muffin I worry about on the roads–it’s the other drivers and the creaking van.
So, the Angry Chicks In Leather post got a few comments. The anonymous/troll comments fell into two categories: one, that I was a Bad Feminist (in several senses at once, from “shrill harpy” to “traitor to femininity”) and that smaller, more delicate women couldn’t kick ass; and two, that authors like Charles de Lint and Emma Bull and Jim Butcher were true Urban Fantasy and the stuff I was talking about was just lowbrow schlock.
Thanks for making my point for me on both counts, trolls.
I actually consider Charles de Lint and Emma Bull magical realists, not urban fantasists. (And China Mieville I consider steampunk fantasy, but that’s just me.) They also published a lot earlier than the current spike of titles I consider urban fantasy, and in any case I defined my terms pretty thoroughly–urban fantasy as the chicks-in-leather flood we’re having right now. There are exceptions like Jim Butcher’s Harry Dresden (which to me seems more straight fantasy than urban fantasy, cityscape notwithstanding, for a variety of reasons).
The borders between urban fantasy, steampunk fantasy, straight fantasy with urban elements, some brands of magical realism, and paranormal romance are FLUID. They are not SOLID. Genre is more an ad hoc designation by bookstores than anything else, because you have to be able to find a book to sell it to the person who wants it. Genre is also something for fans to argue about, because let’s face it, fandom isn’t fun without feuds[1]. Genre is also a set of conventions that give a writer some shape to aim for, somewhere to aim the arrow.
What genre isn’t is this: a straitjacket. Or a way to denigrate someone else’s experience.
I made it pretty clear I was talking about the current wave of books designated urban fantasy. I gave my definitions and some of the reasons why I think this type of book is so “hot” right now. I also passionately defended it, because I think this genre is important and I do think there’s a lot of social conversation going on under the surface in these books–conversations about sex, violence, justice, gender, expectations, identity, a whole kit and caboodle of issues. These issues are not the story.
Part of telling a good story (to answer the concern trolls who bleated “what happened to just telling a good stoooory?”) is telling a relevant story. These are issues we’re thinking about now, as a society. Just like Star Trek and hard sci-fi took on issues relevant to their day (and hard sci-fi still does) and high fantasy took (and takes) on issues relevant to their day through the lens and filter of genre, so too does urban fantasy. Only we’re not supposed to analyze or talk about it, either because these are scary taboo subjects…or because we’re getting Too Big For Our Britches, because we only write schlock, dontcha know.
Yeah. Sure.
A lot of commenters also scoffed, saying that chicks kicking ass wasn’t a recent invention in Litrachur. Sure, there have been strong female protagonists in fiction for a long time. But the scale of the examination of women, violence, and guilt (or lack of it) urban fantasy engages in is a new bag, I think, because the women aren’t portrayed as Bad or as Guilt-Racked over using violence. These female protagonists who are using violence are also not getting what I call the Bad Girls In Movies treatment–this is the principle that any sexually active (or perceived to be sexually active) woman in the movies will either be killed, redeemed (translated: her sexuality co-opted) by the (male) hero, or horribly disfigured. Strong female protagonists in fiction have overwhelmingly been seen through the lens of the male.[2] (I know I’m simplifying the problem here for the sake of argument. Bear with me–not least because litrachur has overwhelmingly been a male pursuit in Western history, mmmkay?)
Urban fantasy seems to be examining these questions of power, violence, sex, and gender through the lens of the female, or at the very least not penalizing the female protagonists for utilizing violence. This creates spaces of ambiguity, which is why I think so many urban fantasy novels feel “noir”.[3]
This is also why plenty of urban fantasy novels have explanations of how a female protag gets jacked-up/superhuman strength or speed, or how they’re arranged with the protag out-thinking/outsmarting the bad guys. This is a problem every UF author with a female protag has wrestled with and solved with varying degrees of finesse and success. It is the methods of wrestling and solving, I think, that make UF so cool. Those methods also show a lot about attitudes toward violence and justice, and allow the writer (consciously or unconsciously) to slip in a theme or two.
This is no different than, say, Thackeray showing attitudes about social climbing or hypocrisy by picking the type of protagonist and structure that he did. Or Dickens showing attitudes toward poverty, criminality, and morality by picking the protagonists and plots that he did. Or Heinlein showing attitudes toward sexuality, intelligence, and social organization by–you get the idea. All writers do this with varying degrees of relevance and success. Telling a good story doesn’t mean your work has to be free of thought or themes. Themes will creep up and insert themselves in your work without you knowing. It’s the nature of the beast.
I’m excited about these themes being examined in these ways, and I think it’s important. Yes, there’s drek in UF. There’s also drek in Litrachur. Sturgeon’s Law applies equally to both. But even pulp, schlock, and Bad Trashy Lowbrow stuff can tell us oodles about our social attitudes, what we consider important, and how those attitudes are shifting and changing over time. Genre fiction is valuable even if you and I disagree over it being lowbrow, and who the fuck cares if it’s lowbrow anyway? People are reading it because it resonates with them, and the treatment of violence and gender expectations in UF is one of the big reasons why I think so MANY people are reading it now. It’s “hot” right now for Reasons. I’ve explained one of those reasons, to my way of thing.
The floor’s open for you to explain yours. *grin*
[1] If you can’t tell that’s tongue in cheek, this is the wrong blog for you.
[2] Like I said yesterday, don’t even f!cking pull up the straw man about how I must “obviously” hate men. I LIKE men. I’ve dated quite a few, married one, gave birth to one, and am raising two. I like men a lot. That doesn’t mean I can’t analyze gender roles and pressures in my own goddamn culture. Any comment dragging up that straw man in whatever form will be nuked without warning. Nuff said.
[3] My analysis of “noir” as characterized largely but not exclusively by moral and ethical ambiguity is known. In the interests of space conservation, I will pass over making that case in-depth.
Related posts:
December 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
One issue i have with UF or PR books is when the girl no matter how tough she is – she still picks the “bad” boy (or boys depending on the series) or the Alpha male. That’s why i have enjoyed your Kiss books so much – as she is WITH the good guy. He supports her decisions, no matter what. There are very few books that find it acceptable for the female to play the alpha role vs the beta. MM’s wicked lovely and ink exchange are examples as well where the girl either ends up with a beta male or alone…not bowing to an alpha male (thru HER choice).
I have enjoyed the debate.
December 17th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
I grew up reading books where the hero HAD to be male. I am thrilled to be able to read books now where the hero can and often will be a woman. I spend more money on books now than I have for years. Why, because I love reading women who kick bad guy butt, clean their weapons and go on to face another day.
Whatever the genre, I am happy to read the book if the women are real, strong and capable.
Enough with weeping women waiting to be rescued.
December 17th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I think the whole concept of literature being “better” than UF (or any other genre for that matter) is BS. I love to read and will pick up almost anything but I had a literature class recently that went through books that were mostly from Oprah’s book club. I have nothing against her or whatever but those books were (on a general whole) horrible. They hosted a variety of problems, not in the least being a glaringly dry narrative voice. I don’t see how reading/writing UF is so bad. It’s liberating to be pulled into a story where the heroine is smart, strong, funny and just generally kicks a**. People need to chill out. UF isn’t for everyone but that doesn’t mean it’s less than any of the other genre (or overall literature).
December 17th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
I have found this whole debate to be fascinating. First of all, the issue of what books are literature and which are lowbrow is moot. Either one enjoys a book or not and arguing about it doesn’t prove much. The definition of “literature” changes with the ages – Dickens wrote serials in newspapers. Was that considered literature at the time? There are many books that are “well written” and educational but not terribly enjoyable. And certainly many others that are badly written and exploitive. So, IMHO, if someone enjoys reading a book for whatever reason, it has value. I happen to enjoy the genre of urban fantasy (current connotation). As gaylin says, enough with the weeping women waiting to get rescued. Let them rescue themselves! I find this theme empowering and enjoyable. So if others do not, let them read other books and enjoy them. I also find the issue LS was addressing in her essays was that the current onslaught of UF novels on the shelves says something about what is going on with women in our culture and that it could be an interesting thing to look at this phenomenon and wonder why it is happening. So let’s do that and leave the trolls to guard bridges or something!
December 18th, 2008 at 4:00 am
I apologize if my comment on Pat’s blog came off as rude, I read your statement about “Urban fantasy is angry chicks kicking arse” as a definition of urban fantasy, and not just a subset of it, but yeah, I can see what you’re getting at. (And well, english isn’t my first language anyway)
You did forget what I think is the most common/closest genré to Urban fantasy (and with the most crossover, arguably even moreso than paranormal romance): Paranormal detective stories and mysteries. The first time I saw the term “Urban Fantasy” it was in regards to Zimmer-Bradley’s detective novels (err… They all ended in “-light”, there was Ghostlight and Witchlight and a few more, but I only read one and don’t know which one :p)
And I’d actually argue that if what you want is a peek into the social attitudes of a society lowbrow stuff IS much better an avenue than “Literature”. What gets lauded as literature tends to be stuff that is often pretty avant-garde (in the literal sense) of social attitudes (or perhaps arrier-garde in some sense, in any rate it tends to talk about exceptional and not normative attitudes, in a sense it is what makes it “noteworthy literature”) popular fiction, OTOH tends to be jammed straight into the brain of their respective audience, and more likely to reflect (for good AND bad) their tastes and ideas.
December 18th, 2008 at 7:42 am
[...] [read here] [...]
December 18th, 2008 at 9:15 am
I saw your article, read it and loved it. So, I was very surprised to continue reading and see the harsh comments. Seemingly from all men. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, but I didn’t realize how much these ass-kicking heroine UFs were looked down on these days.
The comments only confirmed one of the points in your article–that this genre is considered lowbrow and apparently trashy romance only to be enjoyed by females wanting wish-fulfillment fantasies.
And that’s just silly.
I was also amused by how many of the commenters admitted to not having read a single UF title yet they were perfectly fine with tearing it down.
December 18th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Lilith:
I liked reading your essay, and also reading the reactions to it. Something that blurs the lines always engenders controversy, and especially when you are setting up male/female comparisons. Whatev. I agree that UF, as you write it, comes from noir, not romance or paranormal. Maybe that’s why I like it so much? Imagine if Chandler or Cain or god, Thompson had written paranormal noir. Cool beans. Good food for thought (not the beans).
December 18th, 2008 at 11:49 am
I read your essay and thought it rocked. It was an examination of the underlying social issues/problems that the books investigate and its place in our current society. Scifi and fantasy – and especially the urban fantasy that you discussed – can truly examine these issues in a thought-provoking and entertaining way; their popularity and the cultural backlash demonstrates this clearly, as do the comments in your original essay. I was quite surprised at the vehemence with which some made their clearly ad hominim attacks against you. Argue the full point, not the essayist. It’s so frustrating, but as you said, they made your point clearly. Thanks for your work.
December 18th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Interesting ideas.
One thing I want to ask is genre fiction’s ability to show Truth. Many have speak of how genre fiction can be a place for dialogue, a place for discussion, and a place for brand new ideas to emerge.
But do these ideas have merit, do they show us some Truth about ourselves as citizens of our society or as human beings? Where we are, where we should be going? Are they trying to remove barriers between men and women, or trying to define what it means to be a woman, alone, in relation to, and in relationships with, men?
Do genre books, and films for that matter, simply give us questions to come up with our own ideas or stake a claim about a certain Truth? Either way, we are left to decide our own answers, but the first gives you nothing but the question you already came with.
On the question of gender, I must say that I’m a fan of feisty girls, but one must always wonder what certain authors are trying to do. Is the purpose of a given author to show that women are no different from men? What a horrible thing to say! Women have their own nature which distinguish them from men, otherwise what does it mean to be a woman?
While I think he gets blurry on certain matters, Joss Whedon’s Buffy is a perfect example of a woman trying to be a woman. There is no “I’m no different from you.” She is a woman succeeding in being a hero, which is a whole different thing to say.
Thoughts, comments, bashings?
December 18th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Oh yeah, one thing that might be considered with this new wave is that, well, morally ambigious women kicking ass really isn’t new.
It’s been around *at least* since Frank (whoreswhoreswhores… Eh, sorry, can’t resist making fun of him…) Miller. And probably earlier than that. It’s even become something of a cliché in itself. (not that clichés aren’t neccessarily good things)
If anything the bigger problem is something that people at girl-wonder.org is keen on: Namely that while women can kick ass nowadays, they can only do so as long as they are also sexy. (hence why “hot chicks in leather kicking ass” is kind of bothersome) there’s still a big double-standard there.
December 18th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Like many of those commenting here, I thought your essay was spot on and was surprised by the vehement reaction by mostly male readers [who hadn't even read a UF novel and are probably threatened by any strong female]. As a writer and reader of this genre, I love the direction it’s going. For years I’ve written and closeted novels with strong female voices because agents told me they couldn’t be categorized (and thus marketed/sold). They weren’t horror or romance, so what were they?
Yes, there have been strong female voices in novels in the past, but always they seemed to be standing in for or supporting “their man.” Now they stand on their own. A woman doesn’t need a man to define or defend her, and like a man, she should bear the full weight of her mistakes, as well as her triumphs, which is what the protags of UF do.
I was a single mother who went into the military in a traditionally-male career field at a time when it wasn’t widely accepted. I put myself through college, raised three sons by myself, and have stood on my own two feet my entire life. And yes, I’d kick anyone’s ass who threatened my family, so these women SPEAK to me.
As for UF not being “literature,” well, call it what you want. Like someone else here said, I’ve spent more money on books in recent years than ever before because I LIKE what’s being written now and believe in supporting the writers who do it.
December 19th, 2008 at 4:17 am
“[2] Like I said yesterday, don’t even f!cking pull up the straw man about how I must “obviously” hate men. I LIKE men. I’ve dated quite a few, married one, gave birth to one, and am raising two. I like men a lot.”
I think what you’re doing here is handing your enemies the means to destroy you.
Okay, slight exaggeration. What I mean is that while I don’t think you’re sexist, if I *did* this passage would reinforce that belief. Because it reads a lot like, “Some of my best friends are black.”
Which is unfortunate, and only serves to distract from your argument.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am
[...] women in paranormal fiction. Lilith Saintcrow talks about Angry Chicks in Leather, with a follow up. Posted by carriev Filed in urban fantasy [...]
January 13th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
[...] Lilith Saintcrow, underdefining the genre in a recent guest column at Pat’s Hotlist (with a followup at her own site): Chicks kicking ass. Well, leather-clad chicks kicking ass. Leather-clad chicks kicking ass in an [...]