|
The article linked in the OP is nothing like I thought it was going to be, given the nature and volume of the posts here.
We can discard the title: "shockingly offensive", it's obviously only to grab your attention. The author of the article admits to having read some of these books previously, so they knew what was coming. There was nothing shocking about it. There is also tendency to go looking for offence: the author of the article seems to think Thomas Covenant was a character the reader was supposed to like, which misses the point of the character and the story.
But there is at least some aspects of the article I can relate to, although I found the choice of references a bit puzzling: picking on fantasy worlds - more often than not in some semblance of medieval times - where the society and norms must be adhered to for the story work.
Having re-read quite a lot of science fiction lately, it was disappointing to realise how little thought went into the social elements of some of the stories. A recent re-read, "Lucifer's Hammer", I found particularly obvious in this regard: within hours of the disaster the women are all looking for the strongest male to protect them. That's a 1977 book, it doesn't have the excuses we might give some of the older ones. Indeed some of the older ones handle it better, if only by omission.
I think the biggest mistake the author of the article makes is to suggest that a look through the 100 best fantasy books is indicative of what was written. It's not. It's only indicative of what became popular; it doesn't tell us what was available. If there is offence to be had, it is to realise that the audience still prefers the books that author of the article finds offensive.
|