Rethinking Gender Part 1

I had a lot of these thoughts back when I read Ann Leckie’s Ancillary Justice in December and they resurfaced when I reread my review before posting it this week.  

For those who haven’t read the book, Ancillary Justice deals with an empire that’s subjugated numerous other planets.  The main language has no gendered pronouns (he/she) so the protagonist, an ancillary of a formerly powerful AI, has trouble distinguishing between genders when forced to by other languages.  The character, therefore, calls everyone ‘she’ unless told otherwise.  I want to stress that this is a cultural aspect of the book, rather than the plot (which is about revenge - since some people will read this sentence and avoid the book believing it’s purely didactic), but it was one of the more unusual and therefore thought provoking aspects of the book.

I read an article by Ann Leckie before reading the book about why she chose to use female pronouns for most of the characters.  This section of the article hit me:

I could have gone with the old standby, “the masculine embraces the feminine,” and just called everyone “he.” This is, in fact, the choice made by Ursula K LeGuin when she wrote The Left Hand of Darkness (Which is awesome, and if you haven’t read it, it is my considered opinion that you should.) Years later, she expressed some dissatisfaction with having made that choice. It made the Gethenians seem to be all male, which they were not, and failed to convey their non-binary nature.

There was, as I saw it, one more possibility–I could use “she” for everyone. This would have the same disadvantages as using “he” with the advantage of not being the oh-so-common masculine default.

As I said in my review of the book: 

The use of ‘she’ in the book for everyone made me question my own preoccupation with gender, as I first tried to figure out what gender all the characters were, with some difficulty.  As the book wore on, I finally gave up, even though the correct genders for several characters were stated.  Once I got used to the idea that the character’s gender didn’t matter, I found it oddly liberating not caring about what gender everyone was and simply appreciating the characters for their actions.

I want to elaborate on what I said here.  Western society is very intent on women being women and men being men despite the fact that men and women are spectrums with differences in behaviours, wants, abilities, etc.  It’s easy to generalize and say that all women prefer service oriented jobs, like shopping and want to be thin, just as it’s easy to say all men love sports, drinking and lack commitment.  And while some of those things are true they’re not all true for every person who identifies with those genders.  Reading Ancillary Justice made me realize just how gender oriented I am, because had the author gone with ‘he’ I wouldn’t have questioned it.  I would have pictured every character - every person - in that universe as male and probably not even thought it was odd.  I only questioned it because the idea that everyone was a woman was strange, uncomfortable even.  I wanted to know what gender everyone was so I could picture them in my mind.  But I found that assigning genders based only on the actions of people was hard.  Yes, the one who cries is probably a woman - or is it?  I’ve seen men cry.  Despite how the media likes to portray them, men have ‘softer’ emotions.  And women can be angry, vengeful, brilliant, sad, happy, stupid.  We’re all spectrums and can be different things at different times.

It was liberating when I stopped trying to put a gender on people and let everyone be who they were without that distinction.  We acknowledge that people can be anything they want (or at least pay lip service to this idea) but we still expect, on the whole, that our reflections of the real world (books, movies) obey traditional boundaries. 

I recently saw the film The Last Days on Mars.  There was a female character who reminded me very strongly of Ripley.  Because she was cold in a calm - analytical - way.  Ripley in the original Alien movie isn’t someone I’d want to know in real life.  Because she’s too cool, too concerned with the rules, too concerned with saving herself rather than helping others (she would have left her facehuggered crew member outside the ship).  She’s a survivor, and survivors do what’s necessary, even if it’s not 'morally' right.  She’s in stark contrast in the film with the only other female crew member, who is caring (she lets the others back in against Ripley’s orders, facehugger included) and breaks down under pressure.  

Ripley’s remembered because she’s the original female SF movie badass.  

Ripley’s role was written for a man.  But the scriptwriter had an important disclaimer: “The crew is unisex and all parts are interchangeable for men or women.” (It's a great article about making Ripley's character a woman and some of the politics around the decision.)

I personally liked her better in Aliens, when she becomes a bit more caring while remaining badass.  That role showed that stereotypically male and female attributes could be combined to create a strong, believable, woman.  One I looked up to as a role model growing up.

On a different note it also annoys me when a strong female character is reduced to an element, especially when that element never really comes into play.  The whole 'team Gale' and 'team Peeta' campaign for The Hunger Games in my opinion missed the point, that Katniss was, if anything, 'team Prim'.  The books aren't about romance but for some reason the marketing around the film reduced it - and her - to that element.

I think the problem with gender is that there are so many MANY expectations of what men and women are (and want from their entertainment) that when someone writes a person without these attributes we cry foul, and when they write someone with too many of them we cry ‘stereotype’ or ‘cliche’.  

The right answer, as I’ve heard from several sources, is to write motivations rather than genders.  We’re all motivated by things in life, and those motivations determine our actions.  What are we willing to do to achieve our goals?  What are we willing to sacrifice?  Men and women have more in common than society sometimes credits.  And people are more complex in their personalities than is generally portrayed.

I think we’re moving in the right direction.  I’ve seen a lot more complex characters in books and movies recently and I’m hoping this trend continues.

Book Review: Ancillary Justice by Ann Leckie

Pros: fascinating premise, thought provoking, hard SF

Cons: Seivarden’s personality changes a lot

Twenty years ago she was Justice of Toren, the artificial intelligence of a Radchaai spaceship with thousands of ancillary units at her command.  Now she is simply Breq, a single ancillary.  Her mission: to destroy the entity that reduced her to her present state.  

This is a fascinating novel.  It’s predominantly told in chapters alternating between Breq’s present and what happened 20 years ago when One Esk was stationed in the newly annexed city of Ors.  

I liked the idea that the Radchaai language had no genderization (he/she), so Breq finds it difficult to determine the genders of people when speaking other languages, often guessing wrong.  The use of ‘she’ in the book for everyone made me question my own preoccupation with gender, as I first tried to figure out what gender all the characters were, with some difficulty.  As the book wore on, I finally gave up, even though the correct genders for several characters were stated.  Once I got used to the idea that the character’s gender didn’t matter, I found it oddly liberating not caring about what gender everyone was and simply appreciating the characters for their actions.

There were several quotes that spoke to me in the book, like this one by Breq about the actions of her ancillaries and officers who participated in a genocide:

“It’s easy to say that if you were there you would have refused, that you would rather die than participate in the slaughter, but it all looks very different when it’s real, when the moment comes to choose.” (p. 114, ebook edition)

The book definitely makes you think about identity and choices.

While there are jump gates to facilitate and speed up space travel, the book is hard SF in that it still takes a long time to get places.  While you won’t find detailed explanations of how the ship and station AIs work, there is enough information about it to create a good backdrop for the rest of the book.

While there is a plot, it’s the character of Breq/One Esk that carries the book.  She’s such a fascinating figure that you read on just to find out more about her and her past.  

I’m not sure I believed the extent of Seivarden’s transformation from highborn snob to what he becomes at the end of the book, but I did appreciate what he went through and could see how such events would change a person a lot. 

The ending was exciting and satisfying given what’s happened in the story.  It’s open enough for the coming sequel but does stand on its own.

I highly recommend this book.

Author Interview: Ann Leckie

Novel: Ancillary Justice

Short Stories: Numerous.  Check out her bibliography.

Website: www.annleckie.com

> What is Ancillary Justice about? 

Ancillary Justice is about a starship that once had thousands of human bodies as part of itself. Treachery has destroyed all but one of those bodies, and she's out for revenge on those who destroyed her.

> Where did you get the idea to write about a warship trapped in a human body?

I started, long ago, with the idea of human bodies as avatars of artificial intelligences.  Of course, one could grow those bodies, but taking them over by force provides extra drama, so I played with that for a while. And then, of course, I began to wonder what would happen if all of such an entity was destroyed except one of those bodies. Who would it be who was left?

> What made you want to be a writer?

I'm one of those people who has wished to be a writer since childhood. This may be because my parents always encouraged it--they assumed I would be someday. My mother explained standard manuscript format to me when I was about eight, on the assumption that it was one of those things I would need to know. And it was helpful, actually--even though at the time everyone used typewriters, standard manuscript format has changed very little.

> If you could, would you change places with any of your characters?

Probably not. First of all, I make their lives way too difficult--as difficult as possible. Because that's where stories are, right? But also, when I was in high school and thinking of what a failure I would surely be as an adult and how inadequate I was bound to be at life in general, I had a moment when I was looking in the mirror wishing I were someone else. And then, for some reason, suddenly I realized that if I were someone else, I wouldn't exist--and I found I didn't like that thought. That, whatever my problems, really I wanted to be me. It sounds foolish and adolescent because, you know, it totally was. But it was something that stuck with me, and I've had times when I've had to remind myself of it. 

> What was the hardest scene for you to write?

That would be a massive spoiler! It's the scene where the thing happens that is the reason Breq is doing what she's doing. I knew that if I didn't get that moment right, if the reader didn't completely believe that scene, the whole book would collapse in a heap, because nothing Breq did, throughout the entire rest of the novel, would convince. There was a lot of staring at the monitor and pulling my hair and swearing and panicking, while I worked on it.

> As you write both, beyond the matter of length, do you find it easier writing short stories or novels?

I find novels much easier! If you're trying to write under a word limit, so much awesome has to go! And some of my favorite stuff, not just as a writer but as a reader, is that extra stuff. The cool worldbuilding details or whatever. And I find my ideas tend to be elaborate--cutting them down to short story size can be very frustrating.

I also find myself worrying about length when I'm trying to do short fiction, which adds another layer of anxiety to the process. With a novel there's enough room that I can feel comfortable stretching out and then going back later and paring down if I need to.

> When and where do you write?

I try to write daily--though I don't always succeed. I'm lucky enough to have the house to myself during most days, and I have an office in my basement that my awesome husband built for me. But distractions do arise, more often than I'd like.

> What’s the best/worst thing about writing?

The best thing is that it's so darn fun. I mean, I get to make cool stuff up and put it down on paper! The worst is the uncertainty--there's no way to know if what I'm doing is going to ever be read by anyone else, whether it's going to sell, whether anyone else will like it at all. And the internal critic comes along with that, the little voice that keeps muttering about how I stink, I have no ability, what I'm working on is stupid, etc. I hate that.  

> What is something you didn’t know about the publishing industry before you had your first book published?

So, I actually knew a fair amount going in. My approach to things is generally pretty research-intensive, and so I'd spent some time talking to people and reading blogs and such, and already had a fair idea of the general process.  It's been the little details that have been a discovery for me--the way a certain amount of the advance gets paid at various stages of the process of publishing the book, the work my publisher's (fabulous and awesome) publicist does, the process of designing the cover, of getting to see that in various stages. It's been a lot of fun so far.

> Do you have any advice for hopeful authors?

Yes! Don't worry too much about rules, or about whether what you're working on is salable.  Don't fret over, say, the fact that you've heard editors don't like narrators who are mushrooms, and your story is the first person adventures of Mable the Morel. Don't worry about that. Just make Mabel the best dang fungus that ever graced the written word, do the absolute best you can at what you're doing, and trust the universe for the rest. The universe may or may not come through--but you'll know you did your best, and over time I've found that's incredibly important.

Learn techniques, not rules. Look for effects various techniques have (or don't) and use them (or not) in your own work depending on the effects you want (or want to avoid). There are no rules, and worrying about rules and about superficial things editors may or may not like will only hamper you. Don't start out by limiting yourself. Be ambitious. Reach for the stars! If you fail, no biggie. Pick yourself up and dust yourself off and try again.  

> Any tips against writers block?

My approach, I've found, is idiosyncratic. But I'll offer it, in case anyone reading this may find it helpful. When I'm stuck, I read. Sometimes fiction, and often nonfiction. I go to the library and start scanning the shelves--usually history or anthropology, but sometimes other areas, sometimes at random--and pull out any book that seems to intrigue me. Usually, after I've read a bit, I find something that clicks, and then I can go forward.