Sign in with Facebook
Katie's Reviews > Ringworld
Ringworld (Ringworld #1)
by
by
A very interesting concept....BUT, I have to get on my soapbox for a minute. After reading a few of his books, I have to say that Larry Niven's attitude towards women, what they are like and what they are capable of, is sadly lacking. Though his male characters seem to be pretty well fleshed out (human--even if they are alien--fallible and interesting), his female characters are sadly one-dimensional. It seems to me that most the female character in his books are either clueless, idiot savants, helpless before the sexual attraction of the main character(s), or all the above. Ok, I'm off my soapbox now.
Though this little issue nearly spoils it for me, the convoluted plot is well thought-out and the concept of the novel is interesting...blah blah blah...I will say that it's still worth reading. With a grain of salt.
In response to all those that say that Niven should be excused for essentially being an old man... and for being born in the first half of the last century...I'd like to point out the following:
A) This book was written in 1970, well after the feminist movement had taken root.
B) There is a vast array of male sci-fi authors, both contemporary with Mr. Niven and writing earlier, that don't have this same issue. **cough cough Tolkien cough Douglas Adams cough Frank Herbert cough**. Excuse me. :)
C) This is my opinion and a warning to other feminist-types (lukewarm or otherwise), not an attack on Mr. Niven's character nor overall ability as an author. Kind of.
D) That being said, it's frustrating that an important character in this interesting novel would be so incredibly (and irritatingly) one-dimensional.
Just saying.
Though this little issue nearly spoils it for me, the convoluted plot is well thought-out and the concept of the novel is interesting...blah blah blah...I will say that it's still worth reading. With a grain of salt.
In response to all those that say that Niven should be excused for essentially being an old man... and for being born in the first half of the last century...I'd like to point out the following:
A) This book was written in 1970, well after the feminist movement had taken root.
B) There is a vast array of male sci-fi authors, both contemporary with Mr. Niven and writing earlier, that don't have this same issue. **cough cough Tolkien cough Douglas Adams cough Frank Herbert cough**. Excuse me. :)
C) This is my opinion and a warning to other feminist-types (lukewarm or otherwise), not an attack on Mr. Niven's character nor overall ability as an author. Kind of.
D) That being said, it's frustrating that an important character in this interesting novel would be so incredibly (and irritatingly) one-dimensional.
Just saying.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Ringworld.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 2008
–
Finished Reading
January 6, 2008
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-50 of 104 (104 new)
EXACTLY! She's a star trek ensign that doesn't get killed off. I didn't get the older man thing, either--unless he's commenting on the sexual freedom and 'lack of prejudice' of the future. No ageism, but sexism is okay. :)
It was also written 30 years ago by a man born in 1938. Shouldn't be too surprised.
David wrote: "It was also written 30 years ago by a man born in 1938. Shouldn't be too surprised.
"
QFT
Not that I like the fact that the one female character is a bit lacking in depth, I do have to agree with David's statement. That said, at least Niven included a woman on the team, and while she wasn't as fleshed out as Louis, neither were any of the other characters, they were all a little one-dimensional. But that's a lot more than can be said about Heinlein's female characters... I really enjoyed this book, reading it for the first time a few weeks ago. I chose not to let my inner feminist get riled.
I don't want to start a war, but I will with my opinion here. I have just looked at this "Good Reads" site and the very first to books I looked up have the exact same theme to the reviews.1. In spite of the book be 30+ or 50+ years old. How dare it not reflect a womens current standing in society.
RingWorld's Female character is supposed to be a not fully developed character by way of her protection from ever having anything bad happen to her by superior luck. It would have been nice to see more development in this character but she was not his main dynamic.
Diane, I appreciate seeing your ability to understand that books written that long ago are not going to be as PC and ones published today. I personally like Heinlein's storys in spite of some parts that I don't agree with. It's still a entertaining story.
I get concerned when I read so many reviews bashing authors of yesteryear about not being liberal enough, or to far from current science fact. I feel that we missing the fact that these help identify how far society has changed in the last 50 years. Don't burn them, enjoy then, and remember just how far we all have come.
NOTE: Please feel free to pick apart my spelling grammer and anything else you like. My opinions are my own, and are not ment to offend, but to express a different point of view which may shed a new perspective on an old idea.
George, I couldn't have said it better myself. I too have seen many a review that sounds like it was written by a reader confounded by the concept of change over time.
katie--i haven't read it. but, i'll agree with every word you said. and, now that it's brought about such a stimulating exchange--i might just give it a whirl:-)
I have the same problem with Roger Zelazny. His male characters are interesting and well-developed, but the females are stereotypical tropes that tend to be damsels in distress, wise old crones, and scheming whores. Blech.
I think you should read the other books in the series. The character in question becomes thoroughly flesh out.
Read his Smoke Ring Series
YES! Thank you so much for perfectly expressing what I couldn't articulate well, but which I experienced intensely!
Hmm now that I've read the other comments, I feel that I should add one more thing. From my perspective, it's not just that Niven's writing in this book is dated and not "PC". It's that the character in question is not well written. She is not believable to the point of getting in the way of the story for me, and the reviewer and for many friends who have read the book. That's worth talking about and I really appreciate that the reviewer took the time to explain and lay out her experience.
As a writer, that is very useful information from a reader. As a science fiction fan, I think it's an extremely important discussion to have as the genre often gets a bad name because of older works like this. If WE aren't allowed to talk about where he went wrong, then who should?
Also, the reviewer did say that she finished the book and did enjoy parts of it. Sometimes the fly does spoil the soup and that's a personal thing, but I'm sure that's happened to all of us.
She's 18, seen through the eyes of someone over 100.Second, the entire point of Teela is that EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENED was the result of her, to bring her to her destiny. All the males in the story end up being mere puppets to that.
You're not seriously suggesting that Tolkien is a good example for multi-dimensional real-life women as opposed to token trophies for the (inevitably male) protagonists ?
Sort of. Prill was actually a prostitute so there's only so much characterization there. The Puppeteers' females were non-sentient if I remember correctly. And Teela was the most fleshed-out of the bunch and was really the center point of the novel. You have to remember too when these books were written. Women have advanced these stereotypes themselves so don't put all the blame on the male authors! Just sayin.
To those who criticize her argument based on the age of the book, remember this book was not written in 1940, or 1950 or even 1960. They were published in 1970, two years AFTER The Left Hand of Darkness won the Hugo. Sexism rife, but Highly criticized by much of society. Thus I feel this is a fair comment and a good warning. Imagine watching Birth of a Nation without being warned about the racism.
Liked the review till the last two words. "just saying".
Teela is probably the most important character in the novel... and smarter than Louis plenty of times.Also if you read the book you'll find out that Louis might be 200 years old but he has the body of a 20 year old... in a world like that it wouldn't be weird to have people of all ages mixing up sexually
I was actually happier with Nevin's females in this book than in the first book of his I read, Fleet of Worlds. In this book we see the woman through the eyes of a 200 year old man, which aloud me to imagine there was more to them. In Fleet he wrote from a females point of view. She was a major character with a strong roll, but she didn't seem to me at all like a complete woman and I found seeing the world through her eyes very frustrating. Anyway, I think he does not understand women and therefore appreciated that he at least did not speak from a woman's point of view in this book.
I have met Mr. Niven on numerous occasions and yes your opinion of him is valid. He's a right wing warmongering anti feminist and at least when I met him an alcoholic ( I assume he's changed some in the last 15+ years) but I still love his story's in much the same way as I love Starship Troopers event if it's fascist propaganda from a nazi. I guess I just love Kewl aliens.
lol Heinlein a nazi...
lol Heinlein a nazi... It bears repeating.
Sircar's Corollary of Godwin's Law states that once Heinlein is brought up during online debates, "Nazis or Hitler are mentioned within three days."
As opposed to socialist or leftist propagandist sci fi. Libertarian writers are commonly viewed as right wing / or nazi writers. Oh well.
Diane knows what's up.
@James: "Prill was actually a prostitute so there's only so much characterization there." WTF? I didn't realize that prostitutes were blowup dolls without personalities, motives, and emotions. All this time I thought they were human beings (or in this case, humanoid). Silly me. Clearly you've never watched Firefly.
Kat wrote: "@James: "Prill was actually a prostitute so there's only so much characterization there." WTF? I didn't realize that prostitutes were blowup dolls without personalities, motives, and emotions. All ..."I have watched it, which is quite the non-sequiter comment, having nothing to do with Ringworld. Let's stick to topic, OK?
I wrote that comment two years ago but see nothing wrong with it, since I did read the book soon before that comment.
It's not unusual for authors of the time period to reflect the prejudices of their time. I don't fault Niven for it at all. I meant the prostitute was NOT a main character and thus was not fleshed out, as Niven had done with the other characters.
Don't be so damn PC!
Read the book, see the character, then come back. Then you'll have some foundation if you disagree. Otherwise it's hot air.
i love when the only criticism of a book one has is that it isnt feminist enough or that it's too misogynistic.. People differ in their perspectives of the world. Some view women or men differently in their roles in society. I think any good reader can acknowledge moral and political flaws of an author and still enjoy the story that he/she tells. Then again, maybe i am wrong and being an author means you must be a far left, social activist.
Oliver wrote: "i love when the only criticism of a book one has is that it isnt feminist enough or that it's too misogynistic.. People differ in their perspectives of the world. Some view women or men differently..."Agreed. To add, it's such a minor point and has little to do with what Niven was saying and doing in this novel.
As the reviewer, I do agree that people DO differ in their perspectives of the world, which is something that I believe that many of the commenters on this review forget. The point of delivering a 'review' is to give an opinion. And, as a female reader, my opinion was that the imbalance of Niven's portayal between men and women affected my enjoyment of the book--it took what could have been a higher review and lowered it...it was a fly in the ointment, so to speak, that Niven didn't bother to make his females believable when he obviously could have--regardless of his time period, age, or political leanings. If that didn't bother you, then it didn't bother you. It did bother me (quite a bit), and it has bothered others. Hence the review.Now, about the responses to this review: I just went and did some research and read a bunch of the other Goodreads reviews for this book, and noted that many of the comments on these reviews were nowhere so dismissive....which is interesting as the reviewers said essentially the same thing--that (among a few other things) Ringworld describes an interesting concept but has a terrible portrayal of women. The main difference being that these other reviewers were men using the word "sexist" rather than "feminist", which does tend to be a scary word to many. For many, it appears that the fly in the ointment is the word "feminist" written by a woman. (!?!) Now isn't that interesting?
I had a really long reply typed up, but i found it to be rude and deleted it. I will just say this.
Take some time away from good reads. Nebula awards arent awarded by goodreads users... these people on here... they're crazy... that is why the hunger games has a higher rating than any of Shakespeare's, Keat's, Poe's, Byron's, Dante's, Steinbeck's, Capote's, Dumas', etc. etc.'s works.
and i dont understand your second paragraph at all, as it doesnt have anything to do with my criticism of your review. I am simply defending one of the greatest works of sci-fi created.
Wow. I respond to all these comments for the first time in 6 years, and Oliver tells me to take a break...!? All I'm saying in the second paragraph (which is a blanket response to many of these comments) is that I'm curious as to what it is in my review that brings the vitriol. Many of the commentors on this thread seem to believe that the reviewer (me) is wrong, which is weird, since it's an opinion. You're certainly allowed to disagree, but it seems odd to then tell me I'm being overly sensitive to something that bothers me. I found it distracting from the story and distracting enough to write a review about it. Why not write your own review of it instead of disparaging mine?
Haha do you forget that you just used Goodreads as support to your claims? Tis why i say such things. I didn't say you were wrong, i just said it is funny when that (poor female characters) is someone's only problem with a work of fiction...
and uh.. your review is on the first page of reviews so yeah, people will see it over others. Come on, that is common sense right there -_-
i'll stop now though. Forgive the intrusion.
Katie wrote: "Wow. I respond to all these comments for the first time in 6 years, and Oliver tells me to take a break...!? All I'm saying in the second paragraph (which is a blanket response to many of thes..."
For me, I did write a review. Also for me, you're not wrong, I just felt your concentration on the sexism (for use of a better word) of Niven was (a) not even noticed by me and (b) was not important to the overall theme the author communicated.
Read the latest book Ancillary Justice for some great themes on feminism, betrayal and an evil empire on its way out.
Katie wrote: "Wow. I respond to all these comments for the first time in 6 years, and Oliver tells me to take a break...!? All I'm saying in the second paragraph (which is a blanket response to many of thes..."
Have you read the other Ringworld books? Was the character involved better fleshed out then? (It's been years for me).
As for your review being over six years old is immaterial, since I did not read it six years ago! Yikes.
I found the female characters incredibly irritating, but then, I am a woman so I'm probably more sensitive to that particular malady than your average man? I did still enjoy parts of the book. Thanks, James--I'll check out Ancillary Justice.
Oliver, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
Katie wrote: "I found the female characters incredibly irritating, but then, I am a woman so I'm probably more sensitive to that particular malady than your average man? I did still enjoy parts of the book. ..."
OK. In reading other reviews I see where Niven is criticized in what you're saying. Everybody's different. I enjoyed the Puppeteer and his manipulation of the human race, Teela's luck gene and the crazy Louis Wu. I really must read the rest of the series; never did.
Bye.
If a man intentionally wrote a book whose female characters were shallow and ignorant, would that be illegal?
Don't sweat it, Katie. Oliver is 21...you remember what it was like to know everything don't you? Man, I miss those days.
There is no need ever to be tentative, to apologise, or to qualify your views where sex politics is at issue. People hoping to improve the even now unequal lot of women have been browbeaten enough. To stigmatise something for either valid or specious reasons by the use of ridicule is extremely easy. Re: the validity of the feminist cause, consider every statistic out there in areas of human endeavour. Consider also how likely a campaign of 'invalidation' by ridicule is to gain momentum when the vested interest group is half the population, and they don't like losing their historic advantage. So we have to get back on the horse and bring the fight back- in their faces.
Let that be your outer feminist, and be riled. All she has is sexiness and luck. The anthropcentricism is annoying too. Diane wrote: "Not that I like the fact that the one female character is a bit lacking in depth, I do have to agree with David's statement. That said, at least Niven included a woman on the team, and while she wa..."
Remember, this was written in the 1970's.
What in a Finagle does it matter what gender character is well-developed or not. Seriously, Teela Brown was supposed to be that way. I don't see any puppeteers complaining about Nessus being insane.
It's maddening when people writing half a century ago didn't consider our modern, enlightened, morally-superior values when producing their art.Trigger Warning: 3/5
"helpless before the sexual attraction of the main character(s"Literally neither of the female characters are this at any point. You clearly have an agenda and are making shit up to support it.
Personally I think Teela at least would be a fine character on her own. She is clearly described as intelligent and all the weird things she does are justified by her unique situation.
I do agree that the book is somewhat sexist though, I just don't agree that Teela as a character is a problem. Prill is much more questionable, as is the general nature of Ringworld society and how it's presented. Seeker just deciding that Teela must be an escaped slave, implying that literally all women he encountered in his hundreds of years of adventuring were slaves, in particular made me go wtf.
Wex wrote: "Literally neither..."
I think that says it all really though, 2 female characters and how many male characters?
Although I agree that the female character in this novel is awful, I feel like it's excusable given that it was written before 1970. I feel like being unable to detach yourself from modern ideas while reading a book published in a different time period is an unforgivable setback as a reader.
Sid wrote: "Although I agree that the female character in this novel is awful, I feel like it's excusable given that it was written before 1970. I feel like being unable to detach yourself from modern ideas wh..."I understand that it was written in a different time but that doesn't mean I'm obliged to ignore any racist/sexist/classist undertones and enjoy a book. I don't need to be forgiven by anyone for finding sexism behaviour offensive.
I find feminism to be an offensive, destructive product of outside globalists.
and the archetypal older male (genius, hero, adventurer) with whom she is, OF COURSE, sleeping with even though he is her grandpa 10 times over.
sadly, 13 year old boys are the target audience for most sci-fi because its easy for writers to puke out self-insertion fantasies without complicated "realism" getting in the way.