Sign in with Facebook
Ferdy's Reviews > The Silkworm
The Silkworm (Cormoran Strike, #2)
by
by
Ferdy's review
bookshelves: boring-main-characters, crime, daddy-issues-mummy-issues, detective-detecting, disappointing, doormat-heroine, poor-female-characters, mystery, dual-pov
Jun 25, 2014
bookshelves: boring-main-characters, crime, daddy-issues-mummy-issues, detective-detecting, disappointing, doormat-heroine, poor-female-characters, mystery, dual-pov
2.5 stars - Spoilers
Disappointing, it wasn't awful but it wasn't good either. It was all rather predictable and generic, I wouldn't have minded the cliches and obviousness of it all if the main characters (Strike and Robin) had stood out in some way. Sadly, they didn't. I didn't care about either of them… I actually kind of hated both.
-I wasn't a fan of the writing, there were a number of times where I came across sentences that didn't flow very well. Some of the more 'difficult' words seemed to be added in just to make the writing seem more impressive but it only ended up doing the opposite.
-There was nothing actually impressive or genius about Strike's detective skills or intelligence, the only reason he came across as half competent was because most of the people around him were completely thick. I mean, literally everybody on the police force were thickos… Yea, I could maybe buy a few of them being dim or lazy or something but not all of them. Most police officers have years of experience and various training/qualifications, not to mention all of them have access to countless resources and other experts (criminal psychologists and the like). I very much doubt Strike could compete with that — so yea, the only way to make his character come out on top and solve everything was by making everyone else dumb, which was plain lazy writing.
-I didn't like the heavy handed portrayal of Robin and Matthew's relationship. It's so obvious they'll end up splitting up because of Matthew not supporting Robin's quest to be an investigator, the amount of times he was shown as not understanding Robin or her work was ridiculous. It kept cropping up over and over, it was like Rowling was trying to make extra sure that her readers knew how unsuitable Robin and Matthew were for each other whilst simultaneously not-so-subtly showing how us perfect Strike was for Robin and how he understood her. Ugh, it made for nauseating reading.
-What was with Robin being all submissive and servant-like when it came to Strike? Yea, he was her boss but she went above and beyond her work duties… She acted more like a downtrodden, dutiful wife the way she fetched things for him and made him tea and coffee. Of course, Strike loved her meek, submissive wifey behaviour and thought she was such a good little girl whenever she was quiet and did all his bidding. Ugh, it was all rather misogynistic and cringey.
-It was laughable that so many beautiful and successful women (like Nina) kept throwing themselves at overweight, hairy, unsuccessful, middle aged, bland Strike. Yea, bloody right.
It was disgusting and off putting when Strike called Nina desperate and needy for wanting to sleep with him straight away… Yet he didn't think any badly of himself for sleeping with her when he didn't even like her, at least Nina slept with him because she for some reason fancied him… Whereas he basically slept with her just because and as a thanks for the information she provided on his case (though she didn't know that), his behaviour was rather prostitute-like… He had no right to be casting judgement on anyone else. The prick.
-There were so many stereotypes of women, they were either some variation of a Mary Sue or they were shallow, desperate losers who threw themselves at Strike or were completely messed up. None of the women came across as real people.
-What was with all the female characters eating/drinking things like soups/salads/water whist Strike was chugging down pints and having steak and chips? It was irritating to read the females always eating such healthy/little food whilst Strike stuffed his face with all sorts. Has Rowling never met any women who eats takeaways or desserts or something?!
-I actually think I would have enjoyed reading Bombyx Mori (the much talked about manuscript in the book) more than this — it sounded wonderfully bonkers.
-I did really love some of the side characters, they were infinitely more interesting than Strike and Robin. I also enjoyed the setting and descriptions of London - it was captured really well.
All in all, this was just a run of the mill mystery novel — the main characters were so blah and it was obvious who the bad guy was as soon as they were introduced. Yea, I expected more from Rowling.
Disappointing, it wasn't awful but it wasn't good either. It was all rather predictable and generic, I wouldn't have minded the cliches and obviousness of it all if the main characters (Strike and Robin) had stood out in some way. Sadly, they didn't. I didn't care about either of them… I actually kind of hated both.
-I wasn't a fan of the writing, there were a number of times where I came across sentences that didn't flow very well. Some of the more 'difficult' words seemed to be added in just to make the writing seem more impressive but it only ended up doing the opposite.
-There was nothing actually impressive or genius about Strike's detective skills or intelligence, the only reason he came across as half competent was because most of the people around him were completely thick. I mean, literally everybody on the police force were thickos… Yea, I could maybe buy a few of them being dim or lazy or something but not all of them. Most police officers have years of experience and various training/qualifications, not to mention all of them have access to countless resources and other experts (criminal psychologists and the like). I very much doubt Strike could compete with that — so yea, the only way to make his character come out on top and solve everything was by making everyone else dumb, which was plain lazy writing.
-I didn't like the heavy handed portrayal of Robin and Matthew's relationship. It's so obvious they'll end up splitting up because of Matthew not supporting Robin's quest to be an investigator, the amount of times he was shown as not understanding Robin or her work was ridiculous. It kept cropping up over and over, it was like Rowling was trying to make extra sure that her readers knew how unsuitable Robin and Matthew were for each other whilst simultaneously not-so-subtly showing how us perfect Strike was for Robin and how he understood her. Ugh, it made for nauseating reading.
-What was with Robin being all submissive and servant-like when it came to Strike? Yea, he was her boss but she went above and beyond her work duties… She acted more like a downtrodden, dutiful wife the way she fetched things for him and made him tea and coffee. Of course, Strike loved her meek, submissive wifey behaviour and thought she was such a good little girl whenever she was quiet and did all his bidding. Ugh, it was all rather misogynistic and cringey.
-It was laughable that so many beautiful and successful women (like Nina) kept throwing themselves at overweight, hairy, unsuccessful, middle aged, bland Strike. Yea, bloody right.
It was disgusting and off putting when Strike called Nina desperate and needy for wanting to sleep with him straight away… Yet he didn't think any badly of himself for sleeping with her when he didn't even like her, at least Nina slept with him because she for some reason fancied him… Whereas he basically slept with her just because and as a thanks for the information she provided on his case (though she didn't know that), his behaviour was rather prostitute-like… He had no right to be casting judgement on anyone else. The prick.
-There were so many stereotypes of women, they were either some variation of a Mary Sue or they were shallow, desperate losers who threw themselves at Strike or were completely messed up. None of the women came across as real people.
-What was with all the female characters eating/drinking things like soups/salads/water whist Strike was chugging down pints and having steak and chips? It was irritating to read the females always eating such healthy/little food whilst Strike stuffed his face with all sorts. Has Rowling never met any women who eats takeaways or desserts or something?!
-I actually think I would have enjoyed reading Bombyx Mori (the much talked about manuscript in the book) more than this — it sounded wonderfully bonkers.
-I did really love some of the side characters, they were infinitely more interesting than Strike and Robin. I also enjoyed the setting and descriptions of London - it was captured really well.
All in all, this was just a run of the mill mystery novel — the main characters were so blah and it was obvious who the bad guy was as soon as they were introduced. Yea, I expected more from Rowling.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
The Silkworm.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
June 25, 2014
–
Started Reading
June 25, 2014
– Shelved
June 30, 2014
–
Finished Reading
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
boring-main-characters
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
crime
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
daddy-issues-mummy-issues
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
detective-detecting
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
disappointing
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
doormat-heroine
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
poor-female-characters
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
mystery
July 27, 2014
– Shelved as:
dual-pov
Comments Showing 1-50 of 220 (220 new)
message 1:
by
Mizuki
(new)
Jul 19, 2014 08:42AM
Can't wait to see your review on this one, I mean if there'll be a review.
reply
|
flag
Mizuki wrote: "Can't wait to see your review on this one, I mean if there'll be a review."I'll be writing a rather ranty review for it, I wrote a fair amounts of notes for it whilst reading but I need to make them more coherent and whatnot. Hopefully, in the next couple of weeks I'll have one up :)
Ferdy wrote: "Mizuki wrote: "I'll be writing a rather ranty review for it, I wrote a fair amounts of notes for it whilst reading but I need to make them more coherent and whatnot. Hopefully, in the next couple of weeks I'll have one up :) "I will totally look forward for it, given the fact that other reviewers are praising this book to high heaven!
Good review. I haven't--and will not--read her detective novels. I can't understand why the media and readers fawn over Rowling. She's not a good writer of adult books. The HP books were excellent creations of an imaginary world, but she doesn't do the real, "adult" world very well at all. Her one adult novel that I tried to read (forget the name of it) was terrible--wooden writing, ghastly characters, unrealistic dialogue. Ugh. There's no shame in having your abilities lie in creating fantasy worlds. Rowling should go back to what she does best--teenage wizards.
She acted more like a downtrodden, dutiful wife the way she fetched things for him and made him tea and coffee. I see it as a typical Rowlings's move to assign women/girls to the role of supporter of man, she was the same in the Harry Potter series despite of all the claims about her being such a feminist. For the life in me I can't remember a single female in HP who's in charge and is being presented in the positive light.
All in all, this was just a run of the mill mystery novel — the main characters were so blah and it was obvious who the bad guy was as soon as they were introduced. Yea, I expected more from Rowling.
Hell no! Then would someone humbly ask Rowling to keep her hands off the field of mystery novel?
Mizuki wrote: "She acted more like a downtrodden, dutiful wife the way she fetched things for him and made him tea and coffee. I see it as a typical Rowlings's move to assign women/girls to the role of supporter..."
What about some of the professors? What's her face, Dumbledore's next in command, was a strong female presence. Although I do think you're right, that her novels skewed more towards a male heroic presence with females playing a supporting role.
No one will tell Rowling to not write a detective novel. Nor should anyone. She's free to write whatever genre she wants to try. However, it'd be nice if the media and so-called book critics would stop acting as if she's brilliant and everything she writes is gold. It's not.
@Kristina:(1)I have little memory about the professors you had mentioned, but I remember one of them is just a stereotyped 'crazy auntie' type who acts feeble-minded and is pretty much useless.
(2)Plus after Dumbledore is removed from his position, we have that female what's-her-name school president who is evil and feeble-minded and cruel to HP to take over Dumbledore's position. Oh hell, so when a woman gets to be in charge, her performance has to be worse than a guy's. How insulting.
(3)Not to mention in book 4 of the series, there's this Rita-what's-her-family-name paparazzi character, whose purpose of existence is to tell horrible lies about HP and Co, then sells those lies to the public; a character whom we're supposed to dislike. There you go for Rowling's version of woman with a job.
(4)not to mention the example of good woman in the series is Molly, a full time housewife.
Fuck. This. Shit.
Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% okay with women being housewives, but when (1) to (4) all adding together, I find it rather hilarious to claim Rowling is oh-so pro-feminism.
Perhaps I'm being biased, but I honestly can't recall an example of woman being in charge in HP whilst being present in a good light.
that her novels skewed more towards a male heroic presence with females playing a supporting role.
*nod nods* that's more or less just this.
However, it'd be nice if the media and so-called book critics would stop acting as if she's brilliant and everything she writes is gold. It's not.
*nod nods* It's all about marketing and hypers instead of quality now, right?
Mizuki wrote: "I see it as a typical Rowlings's move to assign women/girls to the role of supporter of man, she was the same in the Harry Potter series despite of all the claims about her being such a feminist. For the life in me I can't remember a single female in HP who's in charge and is being presented in the positive light. "Wow, I think you're right. I always thought HP had great female characters and they do (Hermoine, Luna, Ginny, Mcgongall), but all of these good female characters are there just to support the menfolk and play second fiddle to them. There were no female leaders that were strong and clever and good, the only times when the female characters were like that was when they were either following or helping a man, they never had their own arcs, it was all about the guys. Hmm, I'm not impressed.
Although I do think you're right, that her novels skewed more towards a male heroic presence with females playing a supporting role.
Kristina you are so right! She seems to mainly care about the male heroics whilst the 'good' female characters support said male. Looking at what she's written so far maybe she thinks a male story is the only one worth telling.
I noticed in this book that ALL the quotes at the beginning of each chapter were taken from books written by male authors. She couldn't find one suitable quite from the many great female authors from past and present. Ugh.
Kristina wrote: "Good review. I haven't--and will not--read her detective novels. I can't understand why the media and readers fawn over Rowling. She's not a good writer of adult books. The HP books were excellent ..."
You're not missing out on much with her adult novels. I'll always love HP because it had a world that was easy to escape into and because I grew up with it, but her adult novels just aren't that good. I think there are moments in her adult works that do shine but they're few and far between. She's much better at creating fantasy worlds, she must be bored of that though.
Ferdy wrote: "Mizuki wrote: "Wow, I think you're right. I always thought HP had great female characters and they do (Hermoine, Luna, Ginny, Mcgongall), but all of these good female characters are there just to support the menfolk and play second fiddle to them. There were no female leaders that were strong and clever and good, the only times when the female characters were like that was when they were either following or helping a man, they never had their own arcs, it was all about the guys. Hmm, I'm not impressed."Thanks for agreeing, folks. No one believed me when I mention how none of the the 'good women' in HP manage to be leader and they act merely as helpers of the menfolk.
Even Hermoine, one of the few saving grace of the series, is being presented as an annoying know-it-all at times and her effort of trying to free the House Elves being treated like a joke in book 4. Damn! I'm not impressed neither.
Professor McGonall(?) was who I was trying to think of. All I could remember is that Maggie Smith played her in the movies (ha). But yeah, I never really thought about it that much (how shocking!) but the HP books are all about the men doing things and the women helping. Although Hermione does take action on her own and often saves Harry and Co.'s collective ass, you're right, Mizuki. She is portrayed as a pain-in-the-ass know-it-all and the guys (her friends) are often visibly annoyed with her. Hmmm...I wonder if anyone has every pointed this out to Rowling? It's too bad the reading public/general culture (all cultures apparently since we represent 3 different areas of the world) is so used to the male being the hero and women being the supportive presence. That does suck. Men are quite often wrong. I mean, look at all the conflict in the world now. I'm not saying it would all be avoided if women were in charge but I don't think it would be this bad.
Anyway...Rowling may be irritated by this, but she's going to be remembered for Harry Potter, not her mediocre "adult" novels.
Kristina wrote: "Professor McGonall(?) was who I was trying to think of. All I could remember is that Maggie Smith played her in the movies (ha). But yeah, I never really thought about it that much (how shocking!) ..."I never know how to spell Mcgonagall, it was always looks wrong. Anyway, Hermoine's know-it-all-ness was fine when she was young but she really should have out grown it since she's so smart and aware of how annoying it could be. But again, Rowling even made Hermoine's 'smarts' a joke by making her so insufferable at times.
I'm really seeing Rowling in a different light now, her female characters could be so much better - especially when her male characters are leaders and heroes and treated seriously unlike the females. It really showed in The Silkworm how Rowling wrote her male/female characters - I was so put off by how sexist some of the dynamics, attitudes, and relationships.
Mizuki wrote: "Even Hermoine, one of the few saving grace of the series, is being presented as an annoying know-it-all at times and her effort of trying to free the House Elves being treated like a joke in book 4. Damn! I'm not impressed neither. "
I didn't like how Hermoine's mission to free the house elves was treated as a joke - she was super smart and could have done anything yet she was just given a plot that was shown to be silly. The house elves were slaves, it could have easily been treated as seriously but instead Hermoine and her stance was treated poorly.
Kristina wrote: " But yeah, I never really thought about it that much (how shocking!) but the HP books are all about the men doing things and the women helping. Although Hermione does take action on her own and often saves Harry and Co.'s collective ass, "I don't think Hermione got enough credits for her effort and the boys didn't seem to thank her enough, at least it's that way in the first four HP books I'd read.
Hmmm...I wonder if anyone has every pointed this out to Rowling? It's too bad the reading public/general culture (all cultures apparently since we represent 3 different areas of the world) is so used to the male being the hero and women being the supportive presence.
Yes, sad isn't it? Rowling never lifts a finger to work on a likable and capable female leader. According to her, when a woman is put to be in charge, she's either bad or incapable, plus women with powerful magic are always the evil women, what a shame.
Or in Cassandra Clare's case, yes she did write female leaders and supposedly strong females, but sadly those female characters never actually act like a leader nor a strong woman, that also is a shame.
@Ferdy: . Anyway, Hermoine's know-it-all-ness was fine when she was young but she really should have out grown it since she's so smart and aware of how annoying it could be.
I don't know, it seems like Harry's and Ron's flaws are always forgiven and put-up-with, but not Hermoine's, instead her flaws are being made fun of or highlighted.
I'm really seeing Rowling in a different light now
Glad to hear that, a gay net friend of mine has already been pissed by Rowling's half-ass 'support' for LGTB right (e.g. she never 'outs' Dumbledore in her books)
I didn't like how Hermoine's mission to free the house elves was treated as a joke
I have to give a small credit to Harry for being the only one who shows up to support Hermoine's mission...but still it's not because he supports the mission itself, it's only because Hermoine is his friend.
The house elves were slaves, it could have easily been treated as seriously but instead Hermoine and her stance was treated poorly.
Yes, it would have been better for Harry and Ron also seeing how wrong slavery of the House Elves really is, instead of the boys just laughing it off.
Yea, Hermoine's flaws were always exaggerated and made fun of. Her smarts could have been taken seriously and respected but instead her genius was used as and when it suited the story line and the rest of the time she was made out to be an insufferable know it all. She's still a good character but she could have been written in a way that didn't make out smart girls were insufferable instead of someone to be respected.
Ferdy wrote: "Yea, Hermoine's flaws were always exaggerated and made fun of.So it's not just me, it's Hermoine being treated poorly by her creator.
Her smarts could have been taken seriously and respected but instead her genius was used as and when it suited the story line and the rest of the time she was made out to be an insufferable know it all. "
I have nothing against Hermoine, but it's upsetting to see Rowling having double standards when it comes to how she treated Hermoine and Harry. She always highlighted Hermoine's flaws, but at the same time she always made sure Harry's flaws are overlooked and forgiven by the readers. =__=
in a way that didn't make out smart girls were insufferable instead of someone to be respected.
I really don't think Hermoine gets enough respect from neither her friends and Rowling. As we had already discussed, she is only there to help the male heroes. *big sighs*
Mizuki wrote: "She always highlighted Hermoine's flaws, but at the same time she always made sure Harry's flaws are overlooked and forgiven by the readers. =__="
Yep, I can't believe I never noticed it before. Rowling needs to stop writing such poor female characters, it's especially noticeable in The Silkworm.
Ferdy wrote: "Yep, I can't believe I never noticed it before. Rowling needs to stop writing such poor female characters, it's especially noticeable in The Silkworm. "I know some female authors are more comfortable writing men/boys as their main characters, but there's still no excuse to write off women as mere helpers of male. *sighs*
Rowling needs to stop writing such poor female characters, it's especially noticeable in The Silkworm
As to Hermoine being written into a know-it-all part, I suspect Rowling always tries too hard to mock some certain groups/types of people she doesn't like, like the paparazzi, the snotty rich people...so I guess she doesn't like smart people and/or know-it-alls much? That she tried to make fun of them by highlighting Hermoine's flaws but it comes off looking mean spirited?
PS: another famous author had commented that she found the story of Harry Potter is mean spirited, which I agree.
I think what's interesting about this discussion is how much I never paid attention to this aspect of storytelling before--that most adventures are for the boys/men to have, even if the books are written by women. The girls/women are there to assist/stand by their man, and gently point out their errors (without taking any of the glory for themselves). What's so shocking about this is how we (women) accept this storytelling without noticing. Or how we do initially until it's pointed out to us by someone else. For me, I grew up in time when (for the most part) men had the adventures and women sat around and waited for Prince Charming. I never thought about how sexist the stories are (or, at least, how male-oriented they are) until lately. I would cut Rowling some slack because she is older than I am and probably never even thought about it when she was writing the books. She probably thinks of Hermione and Prof. McGonall (sp????) as strong female characters. And they sort of are...to a point. They are limited because they can't overshadow the men (Harry and Dumbledore). As you both agree, Hermione is ill-used by Rowling because she is the smart girl, and no one likes the smart girl (she is supposed to be pretty and keep her mouth shut) and so even though Rowling created her as smart and brave, she felt the need to counteract that by also making her a goody-two-shoes, a know-it-all, and often annoying...then marries her off to Ron Weasley, not always the brightest of the bunch. I would like to think that younger women and MALE writers (surely men get tired of the "man as hero" trope as much as women) will write better stories in which the women are more than just assistants and can carry a story on their own. However, much of the YA fiction I've read (not all, but most) is the same kind of crap. In some ways, it's worse because these YA writers know that young girls like the lovey-dovey shit and so they create female characters who are strong and bad ass UNTIL the strong, cute badass loner boy walks into the room. I mean, wtf. I mean, there is nothing worse than a heroine who is bad ass until she falls in wuv. Christ. Give me a break with that nonsense. If it can be done so that the woman/girl doesn't turn into a friggin idiot, that's fine, but usually all sense leaves her pretty little head once the hot boy shows up. That is way worse than the "girl as hero's assistant" stuff in HP (and other books).
So there's two trends writers need to stop: 1) women who are strong only enough to help the men and 2) women who are bad ass until they fall in wuv with the cute rebel guy. Then they become his badass woman-helper. Gag.
Also, I was COMPLETELY disgusted with Rowling when she announced that Dumbledore was gay. That really pissed me off. I understand she was trying to support the gay community and that's great and all but again, it was completely arbitrary. It's like she decided, oh, a character has to be gay NOW, after the books are written, so I'll pick...hmmm....Dumbledore! One, there was never a hint of Dumbledore's sexuality in any of the books, I didn't care what he did in his leisure time and I certainly didn't want to know that Rowling had decided he had to be gay. Two, if you want to show diversity and all that, then put that in the books right from the beginning. Don't announce a character as being gay AFTER all the books are published. It makes you look like you're insincere and trying to cause a media stir WITHOUT jeopardizing your book sales...because kids have already bought the books and seen the movies, haven't they? I was so irritated by that. Grrr....Rowling. Stupid move.
I totally agree about Dumbledore, it was weak of Rowling to reveal his sexuality well after the series was complete and released. Why didn't she have the guts to write it in the actual books? Ugh, there were plenty of straight couples in the series, it couldn't have been that hard to include a non-straight couple.I never before noticed the portrayal of female characters in HP until this discussion either. I thought most of the female characters were awesome but they were only ever awesome in limited ways that still made clear that the men were the true heroes and power. Like you said, Hermoine and Mcgonagall are good characters, but they never overshadow the menfolk, they're just their to support and nag them. It's sad we never noticed this before, we've been conditioned to accept men being the heroes, having the important stories, and the 'good' females just being there for the men in some way.
I also agree about these so called strong YA heroines who end up falling in love with the mystery manslut. Give me a break. The story is less about the heroines and more about their romance. Because women can't be complete without being married off as soon as possible? Ugh, how about a badarse heroine who stays a badarse, she can have love interests, but they should be in the very background and they shouldn't be included in the HEA. Let the story occasionally just be about the girl being a hero and growing and whatnot, not about who she fancies.
@Kristina+Ferdy"" if you want to show diversity and all that, then put that in the books right from the beginning. Don't announce a character as being gay AFTER all the books are published. It makes you look like you're insincere and trying to cause a media stir WITHOUT jeopardizing your book sales..."
Yes, you pointed out the very reason why my gay net friend is so very angry about this 'outing' of Dumbledore business.
Plus if Rowling really wants to do something supportive to the LGTB communities, she should have put the sexuality issues *within* her books. For example, she could have written about how the students react to/deal with sexist jokes and the stupid rumors about who and who are gay (I noticed that children and teens always immaturely use "You're gay! You're being gay together with this other boy!" accusation to attack other children/teens). If Rowling ever wrote about how teenagers deal with sexism and prejudice against homosexuals in their daily lives, it would be a wonderful way to support the LGTB teenagers.
But I don't think she has done any of these things, as far as I know, not a single teenager in her books is having issues with their sexuality, nor did any of them having underage sex, etc. They're pretty much safely kept away from the topic of sex.
As to the rest of YA heroines.............*sighs* Have to agree most of the YA female authors are doing a much, much worse job than Rowling. So it's really upsetting to see Hermoine ends up married off to Ron, because Hermoine, one of the few likable strong female YA characters, didn't getting any better treatment from her creator.
@Kristina:
that most adventures are for the boys/men to have, even if the books are written by women. The girls/women are there to assist/stand by their man, and gently point out their errors (without taking any of the glory for themselves).
I really want to quote your lines from above in my Harry Potter review! May I do this?
Hermione is ill-used by Rowling because she is the smart girl, and no one likes the smart girl (she is supposed to be pretty and keep her mouth shut) and so even though Rowling created her as smart and brave, she felt the need to counteract that by also making her a goody-two-shoes, a know-it-all, and often annoying...then marries her off to Ron Weasley, not always the brightest of the bunch.
Yes, in a nutshell Hermoine is ill used by her creator, and as a smart girl she has to be goody-two-shoes whilst her flaws always being highlighted, she also mostly only assigned to help the male hero; all to make sure Hermoine could never outshine Harry Potter, the male hero, whom we are supposed to adore despite of all his flaws.
Ferdy wrote: "I totally agree about Dumbledore, it was weak of Rowling to reveal his sexuality well after the series was complete and released. Why didn't she have the guts to write it in the actual books? Ugh, ..."Did Rowling even say that she had thought of Dumbledore as gay while writing the books? Or did she just decide afterwards to make him gay? I can understand her not wanting to address sexuality or any deep issues in her books--if she wanted them to be basic fantasy, "boys (and girls) growing up" novels, that's fine. But don't muddy the water with this "Dumbledore is gay" nonsense. It's a mixed message--"Oh, he was gay all along, but I kept it a secret." What the hell message does that send kids who are in the closet? Stay hidden? Not helpful, Rowling.
I think we don't (didn't) notice the secondary role women played in HP because it's not overt. Many of the women are strong characters and act heroically, but the focus is always on Harry and his relationship with Dumbledore. And I think you're right, we are conditioned to accept men in the leading roles--look at the fairy tales we're read as children. Men save the day, women swoon and wait to be rescued. Of course this whole discussion can go into how girls/women are expected to be quiet, respectful, etc. and boys/men are supposed to be loud, swaggering--a man who leads with confidence is called a leader. A woman who leads with confidence is called bossy. Hmmmm.....yeah. So it's not surprising we wouldn't pick up on this trend in literature. We're used to it in our every day lives.
The romances--yes, it's very annoying that all these popular books with so-called "strong" female characters also have romances that overshadow the heroine's brave deeds. Again, why is it necessary for the woman to full in love and have a man? That's not usually how it goes in man adventures. He doesn't have to have a romance along the way to make the story better. So why do the women? I'd rather have a love'em and leave'em woman.
Mizuki wrote: "@Kristina+Ferdy"" if you want to show diversity and all that, then put that in the books right from the beginning. Don't announce a character as being gay AFTER all the books are published. It ma..."
You're right. She didn't want to address these issues in her books, and that's fine. But her after-the-fact half-assed support of the gay community is ridiculous. Plus--out of all the characters in her books, Dumbledore is the ONLY gay character? She totally did not think this through. She just opened her mouth and said something dumb.
Sure, you can quote my lines. No prob.
The romances--that's one of the reasons why I get so irritated with John Green's TFIOS book. He claims it's about dealing with cancer, but really it's a romance. He's basically made cancer sexy with this doomed romance between two young, hot characters. The book isn't about a teenage girl dealing bravely with her cancer. It's about her romance with a hipster hot boy. And that's all I can say without going into a rage. John Green pisses me off so much.
@Kristina: f she wanted them to be basic fantasy, "boys (and girls) growing up" novels, that's fine.
I didn't ask for every YA book to deal with issues of sexuality, underage sex, politics, racism and gay right, and if Rowling only wants her books to be basic fantasy with a few strong female characters thrown in. That's perfectly fine with me. But what made me unable to suppress my disbelief is how Rowling has been getting praises for being oh-so pro-feminism and , god helps me, progressive. So 'men taking actions and being in charge whilst women tagging along to help' is now counted as progressive. Dear me!
But don't muddy the water with this "Dumbledore is gay" nonsense. It's a mixed message--"Oh, he was gay all along, but I kept it a secret." What the hell message does that send kids who are in the closet? Stay hidden?
Really messed up, isn't it?
That is one of the examples of how Rowling isn't able to handle serious issues with grace and insight---at least it's how it looks like to me. I always makes a face when I read Rowling's less than successful attempts to address issues such as the racism among wizards, slavery of the House Elves and THE ALL EVIL PAPARAZZI.
I think that's part of the reason why I can't stand book 4 of the Harry Potter series. The first three books play nicely within the basic children fantasy realm, but starting from book 4 Rowling tried to address 'serious issues' in the books, and she didn't do an impressive job on that.
Sure, you can quote my lines. No prob.
Thanks!
He claims it's about dealing with cancer, but really it's a romance.
I don't have issue with how TFIOS turns out to be 'a book about romance' as you put it. In fact I have never heard about John Green saying it's a book about cancer before I read it. I went into the book and found it's a story about a girl with cancer, we see how she gets on with her life, making friends and then falls in love with a boy. Some of these are cliches and I know it, but I have no problem with that two cancer kids falling in love part. And it's showed in the book that having cancer isn't pretty or sexy, nap. Although I would agree Green didn't get us more details of how painful having cancer is and how it eats away your loved ones.
Did Rowling even say that she had thought of Dumbledore as gay while writing the books? Or did she just decide afterwards to make him gay?I'm not sure, but either way it comes across as bad - if she knew he was gay whilst writing then why not include it there and then instead of announcing it much later? They were plenty of confirmed straight characters so for her to ignore the SINGLE gay character just shows that she/her publishers thought there was something wrong with being gay. If she decided after the books then she was just trying to get credit for something she doesn't deserve credit for.
I hate how women who lead are thought of as bossy, but if men do it's natural and normal. Also, if women get angry or pissed she's hysterical but angry guys are just angry for valid reasons. Then there's women who are loud and funny who are called attention seekers or annoying whilst loud/funny guys are sociable and outgoing. Ugh, I hate how women who don't behave in ways that are meant to be traditionally female are called all sorts and judged harshly whilst men who do the same are usually thought highly of.
Mizuki & Ferdy:Have either of you read the Kristin Cashore Graceling books? The last one (Bitterblue) was kinda crap, but she's one of the few YA authors that I've read with strong female characters who don't automatically go all wonky around guys. There are romances in the books, but they don't take over the book and the women still kick ass and keep to their mission. Also, in the last one, there is a gay couple. I think the author made a bit too much of a big deal about having a gay couple in her book, but otherwise it was a good addition. I'm hoping she writes another book. I'm also hoping she writes a better book than the last one (which was kinda crap compared with the first two).
Mizuki wrote: "@Kristina: f she wanted them to be basic fantasy, "boys (and girls) growing up" novels, that's fine.
I didn't ask for every YA book to deal with issues of sexuality, underage sex, politics, raci..."
I've never really watched/read interviews with Rowling. I was never all that interested. I just enjoyed (or not) the books and movies. So I am unaware of her calling herself a feminist and etc. So I can't really get all the outraged about the disparity between what she has said personally and what shows up in her books. It's not that the woman as second-class heroine doesn't bother me, I guess it's just that the gay Dumbledore announcement really pissed me off a lot. It just seemed very insincere and calculating (to gain media attention) on her part. Like you (and Ferdy) say, if she were really all that interested in gay rights and having gay characters be mainstream, then she would have included them in her books.
The other serious issues in her books (the Elves as slaves, etc.) I thought were irritating. Some of them may be because Dobby got to be an irritating character for me (although I may be confusing Dobby the book elf with Dobby the movie elf who really annoyed me) but when Rowling put those issues into the books, they seemed to stick out. Like, they weren't a natural part of the story and Rowling added the plot just to show her support for her particular cause. Again, a good idea in theory but if it's done poorly it doesn't go over well. I don't think she's a skilled enough writer to blend social criticism in with her novels.
John "I really can't stand him" Green. Whether I wanted to or not, I have had JG and his deplorable book shoved down my throat due to all the media attention since TFIOS was released as a movie in the States. I've listened to many interviews and he has stated many times he wrote the book specifically as a cancer book in the memory of a girl he knew who had cancer. You are right, he does mention (late in the book) in fairly graphic detail how unpleasant/painful cancer is. But for me that is all overshadowed by how romantic he made it--I (very reluctantly)compare it with Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet: two young lovers who die young. Yes, they choose death, but to me the message is still the same: doomed young love is sexy and hot and endlessly romantic. That, along with lots of other things, is why I detest the book and the man.
Ferdy wrote: "Did Rowling even say that she had thought of Dumbledore as gay while writing the books? Or did she just decide afterwards to make him gay?I'm not sure, but either way it comes across as bad - if ..."
Yeah, the gender biases are stupid and annoying. And we're all guilty of them whether we want to be or not. I guess it helps that we are becoming aware that we have these gender biases and maybe we can change that. I have a book on my to read list about just this topic, how women should view their behavior as being a leader, not as being bossy.
I've read all three Graceling books, like you I enjoyed the first two but not so much Bitterblue, I hated how the heroine let that Saf guy treat her like rubbish. I was really glad they didn't end up together, she deserved better than that douche. Katsa and Fire's story were done well, they weren't perfect but they were decent reads.Yeah, the gender biases are stupid and annoying. And we're all guilty of them whether we want to be or not.
I agree, it's only in the last few years where I've become more aware of what I'm saying and thinking when it comes to female/male behaviour. That sort of mysoginistic attitude is instilled into us from a very young age, at least we're seeing things for what they are now.
Ferdy wrote: "I've read all three Graceling books, like you I enjoyed the first two but not so much Bitterblue, I hated how the heroine let that Saf guy treat her like rubbish. I was really glad they didn't end ..."I try to be aware of when I'm being critical of women--like why am I being critical, am I being fair or am I just being a jerk and sexist. Women are so much harder on their own gender than on men. It's an attitude that is difficult to break out of because you're right, we grew up with it.
Kristina wrote: "I try to be aware of when I'm being critical of women--like why am I being critical, am I being fair or am I just being a jerk and sexist. "YES, I do that all the time now as well. :)
Kristina wrote: "So I am unaware of her calling herself a feminist and etc. So I can't really get all the outraged about the disparity between what she has said personally and what shows up in her books."I only read a few articles about her on newspaper, therefore I can not be sure she claims herself a feminist, but I'm sure in her mind there is nothing wrong with the way she wrote about women in HP, and everyone else is praising her for being pro-girl's power or progressive, when in reality her presentation on female is only...Conservative at best.
if she were really all that interested in gay rights and having gay characters be mainstream, then she would have included them in her books.
It seems like she's only doing that gay right thing for the sake of political correctness, but she wouldn't lift a finger to support gay right when it might anger the parents and damage her book's selling rate; and it's highly upsetting.
Like, they weren't a natural part of the story and Rowling added the plot just to show her support for her particular cause. Again, a good idea in theory but if it's done poorly it doesn't go over well.
I 100% agree. It's as if you had read my thoughts and translated them all in proper English! ^_^
I don't think she's a skilled enough writer to blend social criticism in with her novels.
That's part of the reason why I have problem with her two adult books.
John "I really can't stand him" Green. Whether I wanted to or not, I have had JG and his deplorable book shoved down my throat
I can empathize with that, wouldn't enjoy it if I have to endure the Twilight crazy or the Mortal Instruments BS again. But at least with John Green's TFIOS, I can easily avoid the hyper surrounding the movie (I don't enjoy this hyper any more than you do, trust me) because the hyper around TFIOS isn't as out of hand as Twilight or TMI.
I had only read Fire out of the three Kristin Cashore Graceling books. I enjoy it to an extend and it's a bliss to read about female characters who are actually doing stuff and being in power, but I am not okay with Fire being constantly afraid of her own power.
Mizuki wrote: "but I am not okay with Fire being constantly afraid of her own power."Yes, that bugged me too. It really boring when all these heroines are scared of their powers or think themselves monsters because they're powerful. Whilst male characters are nothing like that. What's wrong with a heroine embracing her powers and being proud of them? Why do they all have to hate being powerful? It just sends the message that it's inherently wrong for women to have power.
Ferdy wrote: "Yes, that bugged me too. It really boring when all these heroines are scared of their powers or think themselves monsters because they're powerful. Whilst male characters are nothing like that. What's wrong with a heroine embracing her powers and being proud of them? Why do they all have to hate being powerful? "Yes,there's the problem exactly.
Mizuki wrote: "Ferdy wrote: "Yes, that bugged me too. It really boring when all these heroines are scared of their powers or think themselves monsters because they're powerful. Whilst male characters are nothing ..."I would say that is true to the nature of men and women. Generally, most men would use their powers without thinking of how dangerous they could be, who they could harm. They'd just go for it. Women, on the other hand, would be more cautious about their power for those very reasons. I have no problem with a "getting to know my superpowers" phase, but eventually I do want the heroine to step up and use them. It's been a while since I read Fire so I don't remember what happens.
@Kristina:What you are saying is the idea that women are more compassionate than men so they would think before using their power. I can't say you are wrong.
But I lean more to the idea that we women are culturally conditioned into believing we don't, and shouldn't have power, even when women are allowed to possess some amount of power, but they are still not supposed to be as powerful as men, and certainly not more powerful than men.
One of my favorite horror novelist Clive Barker had summed up the problem nicely in his short novel Jacqueline Ess: Her Will and Testament; he said something similar to "The idea of women possessing power is alien to most men, expects when said power takes the form of a male infant."
Not his exact wording, but he said it beautifully.
Back to Fire. By the end of the book Fire did overcome her fear, and I actually enjoy the romance between her and that what's-his-name prince, but I just don't like how Fire spends most of the book feeling guilty about herself and being afraid of her power. I just don't like it.
In most books I've read the males are hardly ever afraid of their powers and no-one ever judges them or thinks they're evil for being so powerful. But when it comes to the woman it's the exact opposite, and she has to prove herself to others and clutch her pearls every 5 seconds because it's juts not right for a woman to be powerful. That's the message I get from books like that. In Fire the heroine gives up the chance to ever have her own children because she basically sees herself as a monster even though IMO she's not. So yea, she never ever stops punishing herself for powers she was born with.
Ferdy wrote: "In most books I've read the males are hardly ever afraid of their powers and no-one ever judges them or thinks they're evil for being so powerful. But when it comes to the woman it's the exact opposite, and she has to prove herself to others and clutch her pears every 5 seconds because it's juts not right for a woman to be powerful. You are so correct Ferdy! This kind of BS makes me want to cry! And men are never being afraid of their power and no one would ever judge them for being powerful!!! >___<
Off topic, it feels the same like how we are still supposed to be compassionate toward Harry Potter despite of his flaws, whilst Heromine's flaws are being viewed as jokes and stuff.
In Fire the heroine gives up the chance to ever have her own children because she basically sees herself as a monster even though IMO she's not. So yea, she never ever stops punishing herself for powers she was born with. "
I don't care if Fire doesn't want to have kids, but I absolutely hate how she keeps blaming herself for the powers she was born with, that's a horrible message to the teens. And I absolutely hate woe-is-me self blaming people, both male and female.
Mizuki wrote: "Ferdy wrote: "In most books I've read the males are hardly ever afraid of their powers and no-one ever judges them or thinks they're evil for being so powerful. But when it comes to the woman it's ..."That's just it Fire did want children but decided not to because of her powers, she saw her powers as evil and wrong and didn't want her kids to have them. Heroines who don't want children is fine but ones who do want them but decide not to because they think they're powers are monstrous just grate on me, especially when the heroine has turned out fine - who's to say the kids won't turn out fine too? So yea, Fire's whole reason to not have kids was BS.
Mizuki wrote: "@Kristina:What you are saying is the idea that women are more compassionate than men so they would think before using their power. I can't say you are wrong.
But I lean more to the idea that we..."
I actually wasn't thinking compassionate, I was thinking more on the lines of women consider the consequences of their actions, men don't. But I agree with your interpretation.
I think you (and Clive Barker) are correct. Women are culturally conditioned to not have power, to feel odd (or bad) about exercising it, and have to be told that it's okay to be leaders, use power, be confident, etc. I mean, when women still have to be told that it's okay to ask for a raise at work, to go for a promotion, to demand their husbands help with housework and raising the kids you know our society (worldwide) still has problems. I don't see it going away anytime soon because women themselves perpetuate the problem. YA fiction (or fiction in general) doesn't help when heroines are still stuck in that "oh my, oh dear, should I use my powers or wait for a big strapping man to help me?" mode of story-telling. Romances are all good and fine, but they don't necessarily have to make the woman weak. However, romances (and no matter how paranormal many YA characters are, they are very often STILL traditional romances)sell, and traditional "woman is strong but man is stronger still" romances sell very well. Soo....
Ferdy wrote: "In most books I've read the males are hardly ever afraid of their powers and no-one ever judges them or thinks they're evil for being so powerful. But when it comes to the woman it's the exact oppo...""Clutching her pearls" ha ha ha ha
I won't comment on Fire and her not having kids thing because again it's been a while. I mean, I know her father was a monster and her concerns that her children may inherit her powers and use them for evil and very real concerns. So as to that, I think her concerns are more of power being used as evil as opposed to the idea of just having power as a bad thing. And there is the very basic (and true, I think) idea that ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
So much for my not commenting on Fire and her no kid policy. Duh.
Sorry to interrupt/ break up your three way fascinating debate but I just wanted to say great review again Ferdy. I have struggled to finish The Silkworm and so agree with you on JKR's disdain for her female characters. The big reveal scene had me wanting to castrate/ I mean cause pain to Strike for his taunting remarks at the killer. Arrrgh. Your debate here has made me rethink JKR's treatment of Hermione and other smart girls in her books as well. Great discussion ladies.
@Kristina: In too many cases men are not called out for using their power without thinking, whilst women are being judged just by possessing or merely wanting to use their power.
It sucks.
And Clive Barker misses something out: The idea of women possessing power is alien not only to men, this idea is also alien to many women. But still you have to wonder why Barker, a gay author can be more progressive and compassionate toward women than many other female authors.
@Elvan:
Thanks for the comment! You wouldn't believe so many people are fiercely defending JRK whenever I brought the issue of her treatment toward female characters out. Usually the defenders would say: "It's just there are bad people among female characters", which I'm not buying.
Elvan wrote: "Sorry to interrupt/ break up your three way fascinating debate but I just wanted to say great review again Ferdy. I have struggled to finish The Silkworm and so agree with you on JKR's disdain for ..."Don't apologize--jump in! This is a pretty good discussion. I've been enjoying it.
Mizuki wrote: "@Kristina: In too many cases men are not called out for using their power without thinking, whilst women are being judged just by possessing or merely wanting to use their power.
It sucks.
And ..."
Again, it's natural for men to have power or want power. But it's considered somehow "unnatural" for women to want the same thing. Maybe this is slowly starting to change (except in YA novels).
Women are always harder on their own sex than men are. We really are our own worst enemies. Who knows why. Maybe it's evolutionary (competition for mates).
Kristina wrote: "Don't apologize--jump in! This is a pretty good discussion. I've been enjoying it. I'm Canadian. We apologize for everything. :)
Elvan wrote: "Sorry to interrupt/ break up your three way fascinating debate but I just wanted to say great review again Ferdy. I have struggled to finish The Silkworm and so agree with you on JKR's disdain for ..."I'm glad that I wasn't the only one that noticed JKR's disdain for her female characters in this. I was really surprised because I'd never really noticed it any of her other books. I've now realised that her female characters (especially in comparison to her male ones) aren't all that great. In The Silkworm they were bloody awful - Strike was such a prick whenever he was judging the women in his life. He only likes women when they're submissive and deferential.
Kristina wrote:So as to that, I think her concerns are more of power being used as evil as opposed to the idea of just having power as a bad thing.
Yea, those were her concerns but I found her reasoning too simple/black and white. Anybody can turn out bad regardless of power - her dad wasn't evil because of his powers, he just was. She had the same power and turned out fine, her kids could have turned out okay too with her guidance.
The whole thing just annoyed me - for the author to basically deny the heroine kids because of her powers was to me another case of the woman not being able to have everything. Her love interest got to have everything - power from his position, love, a child yet the heroine as usual had to sacrifice something major.
It's irritating having to read so many heroines for one reason or another not being able to have it all, especially when the hero ends up with everything. It just reminds me of the 'career women can't have love/family' nonsense. Men and women end up believing that - they're taught that to have a good marriage the woman must earn less, must be at home a lot, must be the main carer for the children, and that if women work long hours and aren't there for their kids all the time then something's wrong with them. Ugh.
And there is the very basic (and true, I think) idea that ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
It's a shame that that only seems to apply to most heroines and not heroes. The hero hardly ever feels guilty/self loathing about his epic powers or immortality.
Elvan wrote: " Kristina wrote: "Don't apologize--jump in! This is a pretty good discussion. I've been enjoying it. I'm Canadian. We apologize for everything. :)"
That does seem to be true. When I'm in Canada (Toronto--I'm in Niagara Falls a lot too but that's so close to the border and jammed with tourists it doesn't count) everyone is very polite. Although Ontario drivers are crazy. Whenever we see a car with an Ontario plate in Pennsylvania we get out of the way. Crazy driving.
Canadian actors (celebrities) are usually credited with being the kindest, most polite (Nathan Fillion! Yum!)...except for Justin Bieber. He's completely ruining the awesome rep of Canadian celebs. Ha.
Kristina wrote: "Mizuki wrote: "Women are always harder on their own sex than men are. We really are our own worst enemies. Who knows why. Maybe it's evolutionary (competition for mates). "Men have to compete against other men for women too, but they are rarely so hard on the members of the same sex. =__=
Ferdy wrote: "Elvan wrote: "Sorry to interrupt/ break up your three way fascinating debate but I just wanted to say great review again Ferdy. I have struggled to finish The Silkworm and so agree with you on JKR'..."I'd have to read the book again (and I would be okay with that since I liked it). Perhaps the author should have made it clear that although Fire wanted children, for her the risk was too great because DESPITE a good upbringing, the potential is still there for the kids to use their powers for evil. Because power, particularly great power, does corrupt. (I think you see this in the real world in politics and business--money and influence over people being the power.) Her father was evil right from the beginning so to compare them (as I think the author did and as Fire did) is not helpful--it doesn't support Fire's worries that evil may be genetic.
It many ways, Fire (and other YA) does to some extent mirror real life. It's not terrible to say, that yes, there are differences between the genders and I think one of them is that men don't think about the consequences of their actions. They just assume they are always right, they want what they want and don't apologize, etc. Women are (for the most part) the opposite. Now, you can debate how much of it is genetic (hormones--testosterone vs. estrogen), evolutionary or learned/cultural behavior, but it is true. I don't think it's a bad thing for a woman to be more thoughtful and make sacrifices--the problem comes when women are expected to make the sacrifices but men aren't. The whole world would run much more smoothly if both men and women had equal chances to "have it all." Why should women always have to sacrifice their professional advancement because they also want to be mothers? Society (in the form of government assistance and employers) should provide onsite day care so that both mom and dad can still go to work but have the kids nearby. Or more flexible work schedules or allow employees to work from home.
I guess (in summary of my long-winded soap box speech) that the problem isn't that men/women have different approaches to possessing/exercising power. It's that men are usually applauded for their actions (no matter how impetuous and idiotic) while women are punished. This holds true for fiction and life. Perhaps writers should show more heroes being punished (in that their adventures aren't successful) when they act boldly without thought while heroines shouldn't be portrayed necessarily as afraid to use powers, but more thoughtful about it, more concerned about the consequences. Because while I don't like my heroines to be scaredy-cats, I do want them to have some sense. And (I'm getting long-winded again!) perhaps the GENDER of the character doesn't matter as much as how power is handled. Misuse of great power or impetuous/rash actions should have negative consequences for the main character, no matter hero/heroine. And great power does have the ability to corrupt even the kindest, least power-crazy person. There's a great episode of Star Trek: TNG that demonstrates just that idea--ultimate power corrupts ultimately. Because even though you (as the kind person who now has all this power) may think you are doing good things with it, you quite possibly are not. And that's what ??? (a male character from that ST ep) learned. So...whew!
I'm done now.
I just previewed this to make sure my comments were semi-coherent and thought, damn, this topic would make a great thesis/dissertation. Hmmm....if I ever have the time/money to finish my master's degree, maybe this would be a great topic.
