Response to Vorquellyn's "Beasts And Angels"
This was too long fit in the comment box so I'm posting it here. It's in response to this essay by vorquellyn
“Men are beasts and women are angels” is one of the Victorian ideas we can’t seem to shake as a culture and Goodkind’s work embraces it. Men are instinctively violent, desiring to subjugate and dominate. Women are instinctively nurturing, desiring to be compassionate and merciful.
I'm having trouble understanding the whole "men are beasts, women are angels" thing. I don't study literature so I've never heard it before, and I tried googling it but I couldn't find any good explanation. I think that not really understanding it is what's making it difficult for me to agree with your points. If it's exactly what is sounds like, that all women are by nature good, and all men are by nature savages, that sounds like misandry rather than misogynistic to me, so I must be misunderstanding something. At worst, calling all women nurturing is stereotypical, but not misogynistic.
Also, I think there are plenty of characters of both genders that don't fit into these descriptions. Richard is plenty nurturing, compassionate, and often merciful, so is Warren and a couple of other "good guy" male characters. As far as women go, the Sisters of the Dark and the Mord-Sith are anything but compassionate and nurturing (although the Mord-Sith are a special case, I suppose). So I don't understand how exactly the books promote that Victorian idea.
I don’t know Terry Goodkind personally so I can’t speak for what he was thinking when he wrote the Sword of Truth novels but when I read them, there are views being expressed. Whether those views are intended to be there, an extended Freudian slip, or an accident is not for me to say.
I really don't think Goodkind is a misogynist. I don't think a misogynist could ever write a character like Kahlan. He's mentioned that he came up with the whole story starting with her, and she's one of the most amazing female characters I've ever read about. I don't think anyone who hates women, even a little bit, could come up with a character like her.
A great deal is made over Richard fighting his instincts unlike Those Other Men.
I think Richard’s case is special. He’s actually kind of a Gary-Stu. Goodkind doesn’t make a big deal over other good guys, like Zedd for example, not being like Those Other Men.
Richard’s rage issues and desire to slice and dice are frequently described. Zedd blames the Sword but Richard shows signs of having those rages from the first few pages.
I don’t remember that. They way I remember it, we hear about how gentle Richard is, and how he never gets angry ever.
He responds very angrily that any man who isn’t under a glamour can control himself. Of course, he’s right. That Goodkind felt it needed to be said is where I see the problem. That underlying theme plays out in every sexual relationship in the books.
One thing that I really, really loved about Richard, his relationship with Kahlan, and the point the Goodkind seemed to be trying to make is his assertion that it’s not okay to give into that temptation, no matter the circumstances. I don’t understand why it’s bad for Goodkind to say that. I feel like it’s something that needs to be said, because sometimes the opposite is asserted. I’m not a huge fan of The Notebook for that reason. Noah’s supposed to be madly in love with Allie, restoring that house just the way she wanted because he believes that in the end they’ll be together, yet meanwhile he’s sleeping with other women? Plenty of other stories seem to be of the opinion that regardless of how much the guy loves the girl, it’s okay for him to “fulfill his needs” with someone else. That’s wrong, and I am very glad that Goodkind wanted to assert that in his series.
In the books, the arch villains are both male.
Yes, but there are plenty of very, very evil women. Six, the Sisters of the Dark, sometimes the Mord-Sith, Queen Milena and violet…just because the two big baddies are males doesn’t mean Goodkind is stereotyping women as compassionate.
This is designed to be in contrast with Richard and his refusal to have sex with anyone but Kahlan.
Definitely agree with you there. Goodkind’s obviously saying that good guys fall in love, not lust, but, again, I don’t see the problem there. Love is beautiful and selfess, lust is dirty and selfish. I don’t see the problem.
Complimenting her on her rear is a sign of being a rapist because it takes the admiration of her figure from discussing her role as baby maker to lust. Lusting after women is the first step in wanting to dominate them, pointing out how good they would be with babies is a compliment.
I don’t think this can be considered misogyny or even stereotypic women as mothering because it’s a cultural thing specific to this group of people. Since they’re Noble Savages, their men hunt and their women raise children, so it’s normal for them to consider telling a woman that she would be a good mother is compliment.
Since those are all evil men I’ve seen, it argued that what Goodkind is saying is that Rape Is Bad. This is true but that Goodkind seems to think it necessary to state that emphatically and often troubles me.
Now that I am confused about, too. I don’t get the rape thing, at all. I don’t understand why rape is such a recurring theme in the books, or what the hell Goodkind is trying to say. Everyone knows rape is bad…
Many times throughout the books, we are told that women are compassionate and nurturing. Dozens of Nice Guy essays have stated it better than I can, this is a very pretty way of saying women are stupid and weak.
I have never read one of these essays, but I think that is only that case when someone actually considers being compassionate as equivalent to being weak. But those two things aren’t equivalent automatically, naturally, and I don’t see that in the books. Kahlan is very compassionate and nurturing, and she is anything but weak and stupid. Richard teaches Verna to be more compassionate to animals at least, and that makes her smarter rather than more stupid.
While men have to fight their instincts to be good, women who fight their instincts are evil or defective.
This definitely makes an appearance sometimes, like with the Mord-Sith, but hardly in every case. Most of the Sisters of the Dark don’t seem to be fighting any “goodness” instinct, for example. And like I said before, I do not think that it is misogyny to say that women are naturally good.
In the rules of the world, Goodkind codified that women are weaker than men are. A woman might be stronger than a man but there will always be men who are stronger than she is.
Do you mean physically and magically? If so, I agree that we see this. However, that is often how it is in real life. Men are naturally physically stronger than women, usually, so I do not think that is misogyny.
Women who want to be stronger than men are are portrayed as evil. The Sisters of the Dark care only about power and skin men, boys and male babies alive to get it.
If I remember correctly, the Sisters of the Dark just want to be as powerful as possible, not just stronger than men. What makes them evil is their hunger for power that makes them ruthless, a desire to be stronger than men.
The Mord’Sith take the most empathetic, kind girls to make into Mord’Sith. They subvert the girls’ “natural” tendencies to turn them into Lord Rahl’s servants.
They subvert the natural tendencies of the girls they pick to change them. That is very important, because Goodkind is NOT saying all girls are nurturing. He’s clearly saying here that NOT all women can be Mord-Sith because they do not have enough compassion. Mord-Sith are unnatural because they enjoy hurting people, which is an unnatural thing to enjoy, whether you are a woman or a man.
I find it telling that the only instances of anything other than heterosexuality are found among the Mord’Sith.
I agree the series is lacking in non-heterosexual relationships, but it might be a sign of the “time period” within the books. It feels like a book set in the past where homosexuals are discriminated against. That’s never explained really hinted at, but that’s often the case in some fantasy books.
I don’t think long hair being a sign of femininity in our world is something that should be tossed out when reading it.
Maybe. Or maybe Goodkind just really likes hair?
D’Haran women seem to be able to grow out their hair but we never really see them besides the Mord’Sith who keep theirs back in a braid.
So are women in the Old World. Nicci has long hair.
The second biggest difference is that Nadine enjoys sex with men she doesn’t plan to marry. She had sex with Michael and arranged for Richard to walk in on her because she thought Richard would give in to his urges and join them.
It’s not just that. She wanted Richard, so she has sex with Michael to try to seduce Richard into having sex with her? There’s clearly something wrong with that. She also thought she would end up marrying Michael if her plan backfired. We never hear about Nadine having sex with other men, so it’s not like Goodkind is saying that sluts are bad.
Therefore, women who don’t want babies are evil or defective because they’re defying the natural order of the universe.
We already talked about the Kahlan issue here, but in addition, it’s not like every good female character in the series has babies or wants them. Verna never expresses any desire to have children, not when she is single or after she is with Warren. Annalina never expresses any regret that she doesn’t have children.
Women want men because sperm allows them to achieve their ultimate purpose. Women are allowed to enjoy sex with men they truly love but if they enjoy it with anyone else, they’re sluts.
Well, I can’t really think of a promiscuous woman besides Nadine, who, as I said above, isn’t exactly promiscuous per se. There is also Theresa, I guess, but, again, she’s not promiscuous. What she did was wrong because she was married and supposedly loved her husband.
Children should be created by two loving parents but when they’re created through rape the mother should set aside anything else, she might want to do in order to raise the baby
We also discussed this. Like I said, it’s not about choice, it’s about Richard’s complex. The woman can choose whatever she wants, but Richard sees himself in a child conceived as a result of a rape and that is why he begs women in that situation to keep the baby. Goodkind might be saying here that women should make this choice, but I don’t think that would be misogyny either, just him believing that the baby is not at fault and deserves to live. It’s not about women being nurturing, because I think both Richard and Goodkind understand why a woman would not want to keep a baby conceived under those circumstances.
If she’s in love with a man, events conspire to make her have sex with another man in order to save the world, and she enjoys it, then she has betrayed her love.
Yeah, but then Richard meets Kahlan’s mom in the Temple of Winds, she explains to him why he’s overreacting, and he realizes that he was wrong and apologizes to Kahlan for his behavior!
Several women experience lust. They rarely last the book. If it’s described as love then she likely survives.
Like I said before, I don’t see the problem with calling Lust a bad thing.
Oba’s mother was raped by Darken Rahl and she repeatedly tells him that she should have had an abortion, slaps him, and otherwise is completely unsuited to caring for a child.
The issue here is not Oba’s mother wanting him or not, it’s how terribly she treats him. Whether she wanted him or not, it’s not his fault, and she’s taking it out on him. That’s why she is a terrible mother, not just because she didn’t want to keep him.
Goodkind demonstrates that a good woman will love her child no matter who the father is and a good man will love his wife’s child no matter who the father is. Only enemies of moral clarity believe it might be more ambiguous than that.
Yes, but I have to agree with him there. A woman not wanting to have a child that was conceived as a result of a rape is understandable, even, in my opinion, to be expected, but to keep the child, and then not love it because of that is bad, and terrible parenting. If the mother chooses to have the child, she cannot punish it for a crime it didn’t commit.
The situation with Oba and Jennsen had the fun side subtext that a single mother raising a daughter did just fine while a single mother raising a son did a terrible job.
I’m pretty sure that’s just coincidence.
Throughout the books, Richard is only ever in love with Kahlan and she is only ever love with him. In spite of this, many, many men attempt to rape Kahlan and other women try to seduce Richard.
Yeah, women try to seduce Richard because he’s a Gary-Stu and like every woman is in love with him. Men try to rape Kahlan because she’s beautiful, and Goodkind has that very weird thing with rape.
The women who try to woo Richard are depicted as stupid.
Pasha and Nadine are kind of stupid, Pasha moreso than Nadine. But you mentioned Nicci, and Shota sort of makes passes at Richard, and neither of them are stupid.
Like ivanolix said, I think you are too quick to apply your points. They make sense in some places, but mostly I disagree with a lot of the examples you use to support your argument. It might just be that I'm biased, because Richard and Kahlan have a love that Goodkind clearly thinks is the Truest Love Ever, and I definitely think that, too, so I must agree with the way he sees certain things. Anyway, like I said before, I don't think Goodkind or the series can be misogynistic because they are just too many awesome female characters for it to be somehow implying that women are not as good as men or something of the sort.
Also, sorry if I am completely off on some of your more major points because of my lack of knowledge of the "Men are beasts, women are angels" thing. I haven't read any Nice Guy essays either, so please excuse me if I totally misunderstood what you were trying to say in some parts.
“Men are beasts and women are angels” is one of the Victorian ideas we can’t seem to shake as a culture and Goodkind’s work embraces it. Men are instinctively violent, desiring to subjugate and dominate. Women are instinctively nurturing, desiring to be compassionate and merciful.
I'm having trouble understanding the whole "men are beasts, women are angels" thing. I don't study literature so I've never heard it before, and I tried googling it but I couldn't find any good explanation. I think that not really understanding it is what's making it difficult for me to agree with your points. If it's exactly what is sounds like, that all women are by nature good, and all men are by nature savages, that sounds like misandry rather than misogynistic to me, so I must be misunderstanding something. At worst, calling all women nurturing is stereotypical, but not misogynistic.
Also, I think there are plenty of characters of both genders that don't fit into these descriptions. Richard is plenty nurturing, compassionate, and often merciful, so is Warren and a couple of other "good guy" male characters. As far as women go, the Sisters of the Dark and the Mord-Sith are anything but compassionate and nurturing (although the Mord-Sith are a special case, I suppose). So I don't understand how exactly the books promote that Victorian idea.
I don’t know Terry Goodkind personally so I can’t speak for what he was thinking when he wrote the Sword of Truth novels but when I read them, there are views being expressed. Whether those views are intended to be there, an extended Freudian slip, or an accident is not for me to say.
I really don't think Goodkind is a misogynist. I don't think a misogynist could ever write a character like Kahlan. He's mentioned that he came up with the whole story starting with her, and she's one of the most amazing female characters I've ever read about. I don't think anyone who hates women, even a little bit, could come up with a character like her.
A great deal is made over Richard fighting his instincts unlike Those Other Men.
I think Richard’s case is special. He’s actually kind of a Gary-Stu. Goodkind doesn’t make a big deal over other good guys, like Zedd for example, not being like Those Other Men.
Richard’s rage issues and desire to slice and dice are frequently described. Zedd blames the Sword but Richard shows signs of having those rages from the first few pages.
I don’t remember that. They way I remember it, we hear about how gentle Richard is, and how he never gets angry ever.
He responds very angrily that any man who isn’t under a glamour can control himself. Of course, he’s right. That Goodkind felt it needed to be said is where I see the problem. That underlying theme plays out in every sexual relationship in the books.
One thing that I really, really loved about Richard, his relationship with Kahlan, and the point the Goodkind seemed to be trying to make is his assertion that it’s not okay to give into that temptation, no matter the circumstances. I don’t understand why it’s bad for Goodkind to say that. I feel like it’s something that needs to be said, because sometimes the opposite is asserted. I’m not a huge fan of The Notebook for that reason. Noah’s supposed to be madly in love with Allie, restoring that house just the way she wanted because he believes that in the end they’ll be together, yet meanwhile he’s sleeping with other women? Plenty of other stories seem to be of the opinion that regardless of how much the guy loves the girl, it’s okay for him to “fulfill his needs” with someone else. That’s wrong, and I am very glad that Goodkind wanted to assert that in his series.
In the books, the arch villains are both male.
Yes, but there are plenty of very, very evil women. Six, the Sisters of the Dark, sometimes the Mord-Sith, Queen Milena and violet…just because the two big baddies are males doesn’t mean Goodkind is stereotyping women as compassionate.
This is designed to be in contrast with Richard and his refusal to have sex with anyone but Kahlan.
Definitely agree with you there. Goodkind’s obviously saying that good guys fall in love, not lust, but, again, I don’t see the problem there. Love is beautiful and selfess, lust is dirty and selfish. I don’t see the problem.
Complimenting her on her rear is a sign of being a rapist because it takes the admiration of her figure from discussing her role as baby maker to lust. Lusting after women is the first step in wanting to dominate them, pointing out how good they would be with babies is a compliment.
I don’t think this can be considered misogyny or even stereotypic women as mothering because it’s a cultural thing specific to this group of people. Since they’re Noble Savages, their men hunt and their women raise children, so it’s normal for them to consider telling a woman that she would be a good mother is compliment.
Since those are all evil men I’ve seen, it argued that what Goodkind is saying is that Rape Is Bad. This is true but that Goodkind seems to think it necessary to state that emphatically and often troubles me.
Now that I am confused about, too. I don’t get the rape thing, at all. I don’t understand why rape is such a recurring theme in the books, or what the hell Goodkind is trying to say. Everyone knows rape is bad…
Many times throughout the books, we are told that women are compassionate and nurturing. Dozens of Nice Guy essays have stated it better than I can, this is a very pretty way of saying women are stupid and weak.
I have never read one of these essays, but I think that is only that case when someone actually considers being compassionate as equivalent to being weak. But those two things aren’t equivalent automatically, naturally, and I don’t see that in the books. Kahlan is very compassionate and nurturing, and she is anything but weak and stupid. Richard teaches Verna to be more compassionate to animals at least, and that makes her smarter rather than more stupid.
While men have to fight their instincts to be good, women who fight their instincts are evil or defective.
This definitely makes an appearance sometimes, like with the Mord-Sith, but hardly in every case. Most of the Sisters of the Dark don’t seem to be fighting any “goodness” instinct, for example. And like I said before, I do not think that it is misogyny to say that women are naturally good.
In the rules of the world, Goodkind codified that women are weaker than men are. A woman might be stronger than a man but there will always be men who are stronger than she is.
Do you mean physically and magically? If so, I agree that we see this. However, that is often how it is in real life. Men are naturally physically stronger than women, usually, so I do not think that is misogyny.
Women who want to be stronger than men are are portrayed as evil. The Sisters of the Dark care only about power and skin men, boys and male babies alive to get it.
If I remember correctly, the Sisters of the Dark just want to be as powerful as possible, not just stronger than men. What makes them evil is their hunger for power that makes them ruthless, a desire to be stronger than men.
The Mord’Sith take the most empathetic, kind girls to make into Mord’Sith. They subvert the girls’ “natural” tendencies to turn them into Lord Rahl’s servants.
They subvert the natural tendencies of the girls they pick to change them. That is very important, because Goodkind is NOT saying all girls are nurturing. He’s clearly saying here that NOT all women can be Mord-Sith because they do not have enough compassion. Mord-Sith are unnatural because they enjoy hurting people, which is an unnatural thing to enjoy, whether you are a woman or a man.
I find it telling that the only instances of anything other than heterosexuality are found among the Mord’Sith.
I agree the series is lacking in non-heterosexual relationships, but it might be a sign of the “time period” within the books. It feels like a book set in the past where homosexuals are discriminated against. That’s never explained really hinted at, but that’s often the case in some fantasy books.
I don’t think long hair being a sign of femininity in our world is something that should be tossed out when reading it.
Maybe. Or maybe Goodkind just really likes hair?
D’Haran women seem to be able to grow out their hair but we never really see them besides the Mord’Sith who keep theirs back in a braid.
So are women in the Old World. Nicci has long hair.
The second biggest difference is that Nadine enjoys sex with men she doesn’t plan to marry. She had sex with Michael and arranged for Richard to walk in on her because she thought Richard would give in to his urges and join them.
It’s not just that. She wanted Richard, so she has sex with Michael to try to seduce Richard into having sex with her? There’s clearly something wrong with that. She also thought she would end up marrying Michael if her plan backfired. We never hear about Nadine having sex with other men, so it’s not like Goodkind is saying that sluts are bad.
Therefore, women who don’t want babies are evil or defective because they’re defying the natural order of the universe.
We already talked about the Kahlan issue here, but in addition, it’s not like every good female character in the series has babies or wants them. Verna never expresses any desire to have children, not when she is single or after she is with Warren. Annalina never expresses any regret that she doesn’t have children.
Women want men because sperm allows them to achieve their ultimate purpose. Women are allowed to enjoy sex with men they truly love but if they enjoy it with anyone else, they’re sluts.
Well, I can’t really think of a promiscuous woman besides Nadine, who, as I said above, isn’t exactly promiscuous per se. There is also Theresa, I guess, but, again, she’s not promiscuous. What she did was wrong because she was married and supposedly loved her husband.
Children should be created by two loving parents but when they’re created through rape the mother should set aside anything else, she might want to do in order to raise the baby
We also discussed this. Like I said, it’s not about choice, it’s about Richard’s complex. The woman can choose whatever she wants, but Richard sees himself in a child conceived as a result of a rape and that is why he begs women in that situation to keep the baby. Goodkind might be saying here that women should make this choice, but I don’t think that would be misogyny either, just him believing that the baby is not at fault and deserves to live. It’s not about women being nurturing, because I think both Richard and Goodkind understand why a woman would not want to keep a baby conceived under those circumstances.
If she’s in love with a man, events conspire to make her have sex with another man in order to save the world, and she enjoys it, then she has betrayed her love.
Yeah, but then Richard meets Kahlan’s mom in the Temple of Winds, she explains to him why he’s overreacting, and he realizes that he was wrong and apologizes to Kahlan for his behavior!
Several women experience lust. They rarely last the book. If it’s described as love then she likely survives.
Like I said before, I don’t see the problem with calling Lust a bad thing.
Oba’s mother was raped by Darken Rahl and she repeatedly tells him that she should have had an abortion, slaps him, and otherwise is completely unsuited to caring for a child.
The issue here is not Oba’s mother wanting him or not, it’s how terribly she treats him. Whether she wanted him or not, it’s not his fault, and she’s taking it out on him. That’s why she is a terrible mother, not just because she didn’t want to keep him.
Goodkind demonstrates that a good woman will love her child no matter who the father is and a good man will love his wife’s child no matter who the father is. Only enemies of moral clarity believe it might be more ambiguous than that.
Yes, but I have to agree with him there. A woman not wanting to have a child that was conceived as a result of a rape is understandable, even, in my opinion, to be expected, but to keep the child, and then not love it because of that is bad, and terrible parenting. If the mother chooses to have the child, she cannot punish it for a crime it didn’t commit.
The situation with Oba and Jennsen had the fun side subtext that a single mother raising a daughter did just fine while a single mother raising a son did a terrible job.
I’m pretty sure that’s just coincidence.
Throughout the books, Richard is only ever in love with Kahlan and she is only ever love with him. In spite of this, many, many men attempt to rape Kahlan and other women try to seduce Richard.
Yeah, women try to seduce Richard because he’s a Gary-Stu and like every woman is in love with him. Men try to rape Kahlan because she’s beautiful, and Goodkind has that very weird thing with rape.
The women who try to woo Richard are depicted as stupid.
Pasha and Nadine are kind of stupid, Pasha moreso than Nadine. But you mentioned Nicci, and Shota sort of makes passes at Richard, and neither of them are stupid.
Like ivanolix said, I think you are too quick to apply your points. They make sense in some places, but mostly I disagree with a lot of the examples you use to support your argument. It might just be that I'm biased, because Richard and Kahlan have a love that Goodkind clearly thinks is the Truest Love Ever, and I definitely think that, too, so I must agree with the way he sees certain things. Anyway, like I said before, I don't think Goodkind or the series can be misogynistic because they are just too many awesome female characters for it to be somehow implying that women are not as good as men or something of the sort.
Also, sorry if I am completely off on some of your more major points because of my lack of knowledge of the "Men are beasts, women are angels" thing. I haven't read any Nice Guy essays either, so please excuse me if I totally misunderstood what you were trying to say in some parts.