Thoughts on gender roles in high fantasy, based on Book 1 and Book 2 of ACOTAR

Contains spoilers for Book 1 and Book 2

Let me start off by saying that ACOTAR is extremely well written and enjoyable. And it makes a great effort at creating a female heroine. Now we will go about discussing the finer points of what works and what doesn't work with the female heroine, in my opinion.

Book 1 starts off as an adaptation of Beauty and the Beast. I find that the original Beauty and the Beast is not too bad – the Beast does not abduct Beauty or hold her captive, he happens to have her in captivity because of an offense committed by her father. But I find that most adaptations do have a guilty beast, who either abducts or locks or abuses the woman in some way – but the woman still ends up falling in love with him. I call it a romanticizing of the Stockholm syndrome, something like what Highway did.

Anyway, ACOTAR also starts off as Beauty and the Beast. And it is problematic in some ways. But in most ways, it is a good story – the man is nice enough, doesn't really hold the heroine Feyre captive, and the woman falls in love with him in a natural and spontaneous way, more so after he frees her.

I had read the book a few years ago. And I remember that I got put off because of the ultra-masculine heroism of the heroine.

I mean, yes, we want heroines. Not just heroes. And yes, Feyre is a charming heroine. The young one forced to hunt and feed her family. But, despite that, she retains some measure of joy in her. She paints when she has the money to buy paint. She smiles when her sisters, for whom she is the sole breadwinner, banter.

Of late, maybe because of the criticism that writers have been getting for making only male heroes, there have been more female heroines who are out to prove that women can do anything. Like badass Katniss in Hunger Games. All these female heroines – I love them. But in some measure, their construction is based on giving up some part of femininity. By femininity I mean things traditionally associated with women, like beauty, clothes, makeup, jewelry, flirting, etc. The trend goes back to Jo March, who shows that only a woman who is not feminine, not like other women, is worthy of the male world. And look at Katniss, so joyless, so unable to have girlfriends.

And look at Feyre, joyful and feminine in the beginning, but still there is some giving up of femininity on her part. For example, she hates the tulle of her wedding gowns. Not that tulle is exclusively feminine and all women should love it, but the tone in the book is that Feyre is above such girlishness. In book 1, the most masculine construction of her comes in the end, when she attains victory due to her physical feat. I don’t know why it's more convincing in Hunger Games and simply tiring in ACOTAR. I guess I shouldn't be saying that. The male heroes go and do one more and more impossible feats, and they are all so credible….. But on first reading, it was just a bit like, trying too hard. Too incredible… too yucky also.

So Feyre has to be strong, and powerful, and cunning and just, but also beat up people, to attain that victory in the end. I mean, this is just more of the hero, isn't it? We don't have a heroine winning by just being a woman. No, she has to be a man. The gender roles are reversed here, and how. It is the hero who is imprisoned, and who sits around doing nothing, and it is the heroine who must rescue him by being brave. I mean, yes, we need heroines. But does the gender role reversal have to be so obvious and so complete? Aren't there other ways to have female heroines?

Things change a bit and the weird dynamics fall into place with Book 2. Here, we see what was going on behind the scenes in Book 1, and why people were acting the way they were.

In Book 2, the series goes from being a regular epic fantasy to something totally different, meriting a discussion on the evolution of the female heroine. There is so much to love about this book, and so much to hate.

Things I like in Book 2

I will start with the love.

Limiting married life

I love that Feyre is frustrated with her life and her lover. I would have said married life, because she almost got married, she is as good as married. But then, she is not exactly married, so we will stick to 'romantic commitment'. But yes, Feyre is as good as married, and she is frustrated with her life and love. Because her life is limited, compared to what it was before she got married. Now she needs her partner's permission to go outside the palace. And because he deems it unsafe, she cannot go outside. I cannot tell how much I related to this portrayal of a limited life after marriage. Not that my husband doesn't let me go out because of safety concerns (But he does act that way where the baby is concerned.) But the simple fact that everything has to be negotiated, even the simple everyday activities which I used to take for granted, especially when it concerns a child, is very, very limiting.

Most men will take this protector stance after commitment, questioning, second guessing, interrupting, their woman's decision one way or the other, all in the name of safety and protection and 'this is better for you' and 'timrai lagi bhaneko'. And it is never anything but annoying when they refuse to sit down at the table and have a discussion as equal partners, but will insist on mansplaining things that a woman has been doing all her life. I thank Sarah for portraying how and why women are disenchanted and fall out of love after their commitment is finalized.

Sita falls for Ravan

Of course, who doesn't dream of an escape from such limitations? And lucky Feyre, that she gets it. I thank Sarah for portraying a heroine who falls in love twice, breaking the stereotype of a loyal/faithful/true-love-happens-only-once Madonna as a heroine. Feyre is no Madonna. She fell in love once, and she fell in love again, with her first lover's biggest rival. Life is not always so dramatic, and it shouldn't be, but a normal woman does fall in love with more than one person – but heroines in high fantasy, like, say, Arwen, or Galadriel, do not have that luxury. They just have one great love, that’s it. And it is great to see a woman's love lives normalized in high fantasy.

And the new hero is hot. So, so hot. Much more hotter than the old hero.

This feels like a Ramayana. Where Sita loves Ram but is forced to spend time with Ravan. Instead of falling for the handsome and charming and glamorous and magnetic and ahhh so many other things Ravan, Sita decides to go back to Ram. Not her fault, at this point, the decision seems bad only in retrospect. But what if she knew, beforehand, what an ass he was, and how much better Ravan is? ACOTAR tells us what happens.

\

This book reminds me of not just Ramayana but also Wuthering Heights. Sure, there are two loves, but there is not one but two Heathcliffs, and the second one is worst. Hahahaha.

The Sex

In most of literature, sex is portrayed from a male perspective. Things that give a man pleasure – how a woman looks, how a woman feels, etc etc, are described in great detail. The act is portrayed as one of victory for the man, and the woman's consent is not always present, let alone women's pleasure, which is often not even thought of by the writer. Contemporary women writers are retaliating against this, by portraying gratuitous sex scene from the woman's point of view. While it is not necessarily what I want to read all the time, I just like that Sarah J. Mass is adding to the corpus in such a fantastic way. Her sex scenes are extremely graphic. And they tell us a variety of ways in which women would like to have sex – they tell us that women are not always concerned with how women, or even men, look, that penetration is not always the goal, that many women are demisexual – that they would like to have an emotional connection before becoming intimate (or at least, Feyre is.) I thank Maas for portraying that women also have desires and that they are happy to have those desires fulfilled.

There are many other things I like in the book, like the fast pace, the action, the plot twists, the flirting with Rhye, where Rhyse seems healthy and nontoxic and both are enjoying it. Maybe all these things don't need a lot of description. So I'll move on.

Things I don't like in Book 2

Having said how great the book is, and I am sure I missed many ways in which the book is so great, I will now try to talk about the things I don't like. These things made me think a lot, like a loooooooooot, but also, at the end of the day, mean that ACOTAR did not make it to the top of my favorite books forever list. I don't want to sound like I am undermining it. So instead of rambling, I will go right down to the bullet points.

Misogynistic villainising of the promiscuous woman

Let us go back to how the construction of a heroine is based, on some part, on giving up of her femininity. And here, we see it again, not necessarily in Feyre, but in how Ianthe is portrayed. Ianthe is a priestess, and in this world, priestesses are young and hot and luscious and lascivious. So far, so good. But then, if you want to be radical by portraying hot and definitely-not-celibate priestesses, then why, in the page, revile her by villainising her promiscuity?

At first, Ianthe is portrayed as a friend – as a girlfriend that Feyre can talk to in her loneliness at the Spring Court, a girlfriend who helps her pick and choose and make decisions when she is unable to make those decisions by herself. But later, suddenly, we are told that this helpfulness of Ianthe is a bad thing, because Morrigan lets her take her own decisions and tells her to own them. None of these interactions are well thought out and described, they are not shown, we are merely told. So, this is kind of unconvincing – I think we need both kinds of girlfriends, or maybe each person's girlfriend needs are different, but that doesn't mean Ianthe is a bad person. It comes down to the fact that Ianthe is promiscuous person – and tried to seduce Rhyse, which makes her a villain. Which is ridiculous because, the way it is shown, there is nothing wrong with what Ianthe is trying to do – proposing an alliance. And it is hard to believe that someone as refined and skilled as Ianthe would resort to direct nudity as her proposal. Hot women usually don't need to force most men, subtle flirting is enough. The portrayal is just a little bit high-school.

And in Book 3, when Feyre goes on to punish Ianthe for laying hands on a man against his will, I don't know whether or laugh or cry. The real life is full of men who abuse men, violently, and get away with it, and here we are in fiction, the same old misogyny of portraying beautiful and sexual women as lascivious and immoral, and inflicting physical punishment for it, beating her into submission. Sigh.

Abusive heroes

In Book 2, there is a fair amount of romanticizing of the Stockholm syndrome going on. In Book 1, Tamlin is mildly abusive, and Rhyse is highly abusive. So abusive that I hadn't even realized he was a love interest. But then, gradually, the tables are tuned in Book 2, and we realize that Rhyse is the bigger love interest. And then gradually, Rhyse goes on to normalize every abusive thing that he did to her in the past.

It's great that when they are together, Rhyse lets her be, doesn't force anything on her, and starts by getting her to learn to read, etc etc. But then, do we have to be told that it was a good thing that he dressed her up in slips of fabrics, made her dance in an embarrassing way, and made her drink? I mean, couldn't it all have been – either consensual, or not so bad, like just taking her to parties as an escort in clothes that Feyre would have liked, and asking her to drink and enjoy so that she could forget the horrors she was facing? No, it has to be that he forces her to come, gets her dressed in slips, and makes her do embarrassing dances, and then later says that those were good things because. Hey, do we even need a reason, to justify misogyny? No, we don't. Heroes get to be misogynous. And then come back and mansplain about what a great thing it was. (And it rankled with me that she seemed to have kind of lost her agency with the drink, drinking despite herself. But now I think, ok, maybe she wanted to forget the horrors she was facing, and drinking was her decision).

In the end, let us not forget that both of Feyre's love interests are abusive. The one who seemed more abusive before seems less abusive now, and is practically loving. The book takes pains to portray how Rhyse is better than Tamlin – he doesn't censor her movements, he is proud of her powers and accomplishments rather than trying to limit her. And this is all a dream. What woman doesn't dream of a man like that? But then, it is also unrealistic, the lengths the book goes to portray how Rhyse is better – that Feyre once blocks him out in the middle of the battle to focus better on her task, and any person would go berserk, or at least act concerned, when your partner blocks you out. Do what you want, but at least keep the lines of communication open, no? But then Rhyse is like, naw, you do what you want, luv. Hahahaha. I don't want a mate like that, thank you, who is unconcerned if I block him out in the midst of the biggest battle in my life.

But then, let's not forget that, both of these men want to use Feyre, in their own ways. And the way Rhyse wants to use Feyre is even more dangerous, and even less informed and consensual than Tamlin. For example, sending her to steal the ring. Asking her to be a spy for him at the Spring Court. She hated Tamlin for asking her to spy on the Nigh Court, but she will do it for her beloved Rhyse. Hah. And again, this is heartbreaking for me, because, ok, you ditched him because you found your true love, but at least, can you leave it at that? Do you have to be worse than everyone by spying on the man who did so much for you?

And let us not forget that Feyre hates Tamlin for pursuing her after she quits him, but is proud that Rhyse would do the same for her. She asks him what he would do if she leaves him for the Spring Court, and he's like, I'll accept it if you want to go, but if it is against your will, I will fight a war for it. Just a few pages ago, he had snorted at Tamlin doing the same, asking, is that a grand gesture that will win your love back? But now, he is determined to do the same, and Feyre is proud because she knows Rhyse is more powerful and will win. So yeah, this is just a power game where Feyre's love is based on showing how weak her former love is, compared to how much more powerful Rhyse is. Everything Tamlin does is bad and Rhyse does is good, in Book 3 I just came across this story where Rhyse risked his entire legion to free Miryam, and Feyre is again proud of him. How is that different from Tamlin waging a war for her? She accuses Tamlin of whoring them out, but is supports Rhyse in his sadness and debasement when he had whored himself out. Sigh.

Ravan is better than Ram in some ways, but also worse in other ways. The way Maas portrays it, it is just a power game, where she wins by being with the even more powerful one. That line – Tamlin and his acolytes practiced war, but Rhyse and his acolytes were warriors. Such power games, portraying Tamlin as an apprentice and Rhyse as the real warrior, is a bit unpleasant. I was like, is this simple a social climbing game? She is going to Hyburn now. Is she going to fall for the king of Hybern, because he is obviously the more powerful one, more powerful even than Rhyse.

The portrayal of Rhyse and the Night Court – the hero needs to be justified

There are so many things about the portrayal of Rhyse and the night court that simply do not sit right. Are simply not convincing. For example, that Rhyse can be so good while everything around him is such filth – that he would rescue Morrigan while Morrigan's family is so horrible, that he created a court of Dreams to balance out the court of nightmares.

Most of all, what doesn't sit right with me is the fact that while he says that Tamlin killed his mother and sister, he didn’t want to kill Tamlin because he had had enough of killing. Hahaha. That's a bit too unbelievable, considering he had already killed all of Tamlin's family. So why should Tamlin alone be spared, especially since he was the chief offender? It's like Tamlin had only been spared for the purposes of the plot. Which is ridiculous. Because we know that Rhyse can be horrible when he wants to be, or needs to be. He did horrible things to the Attor. And then, to justify it, he comes and confesses to Feyre that he feels bad about all the torture he wants to inflict. And then, Feyre also tortures Attor, but justifies it preachily by speaking about how horrible the Attor was, he was not even human. So now he hero needs to be horrible because he is the most powerful person out there and needs to inspire fear, but also he doesn’t want to be judged as horrible, so in a very woke way, he needs to be justified. Sigh. I am not sure it works, this spreading of toxic masculinity.

Why we cannot have a non-toxic hero like Aragorn? I guess, because, exactly, that, he is non-toxic. And despite all this gender bending, we have still not let go of our obsession with power and toxicity. And one way for heroes to get away with toxicity is to make the people they torture bad. So bad that it is an act of justice to torture them, like the Attor. And that is quite unrealistic because in real life, there are no blacks and white. Every act of torture takes a little bit from your soul, there is not victory, no laughter, in torture. In that way, the fantasy genre still sucks. At some point, to justify all the atrocities they commit, they will create these completely black characters who MUST be killed for the world to be happy. And actually, that's not how the world works. I am going into a loop here so I will leave it at that.

The abject vilification of the former hero

And why is Tamlin made such a villain, when the first book has portrayed him such a hero? Do we need to have a black and white, and then to be reversed into white and black? Could we not have had a story where everyone is shades of grey? That would have been more convincing, surely. And more heartbreaking.

Already, it is slightly heartbreaking that Feyre left Tamlin so soon, after just two stays with the Night Court. I get her, and I am with her. But at the same time, I don't think I would have been able to be so disloyal, to break the heart of someone who loved me, and who I had professed to love me, despite finding another that I loved more deeply. I guess there is more of Sita in me than I would have thought. Good for Feyre, but I would have thought that in a real world, each court, each lord, would be equally vicious, and there is no guarantee that the man you leave is the bad guy and the new man is the hero. So yeah, the book deceives the reader in this way, but in a very entertaining way. What I am saying is, if Tamlin and Rhyse were both grey instead of being black or white, it would have been more intriguing, more heartbreaking. It would be something like, first love versus mating bond, or loyalty versus rue love. Much more difficult to choose than it was for Feyre, who got to forget about her loyalty and go for her mate because the guy turned out to be a baddie. And that brings me to another thing I dislike about the book, which is the mating bond.

This particular comparison comes to mind. In the beginning, we sympathise for Tamlin because we are told that he never wanted to a high lord, he was thrust into the role and had to perform it. That makes us feel sad for the gentle boy who simply wants to play the fiddle and instead has to go out there and rake people and being with his claws, hunt beings who do not pay the tithe. But then, later, we are told that this was a bad thing, because Rhyse. Rhyse didn't shy away from his role of a high lord, and instead, had a vision for his people, which meant that he was a better leader than Tamlin. Poor Tamlin, for the well to be poisoned so. Sigh. And then in Book 3 we see that everyone hates him or is lying to him – from Lucien to Alis to so many others – it's ridiculous.

I have not much love for Tamlin who keeps his fiancée a prisoner, and I have already spoken about how realistic the suffocation is. I am with Feyre in her escape. And yet, I would find it deeply disloyal and dishonorable to do whatever Feyre is doing in Book 3, pretending to be in love with him, infiltrating his court, and destroying it from within. Just leave him alone, girl. He did a lot for you.

Mating bond

What the hell is a mating bond? And why is it more sacred than any bonds that humans make out of free will? Like, why should Feyre's bond with Rhyse be stronger because they have a 'mating' bond? To me, it seems like such a bond, which comes from nature and is not manmade, is kind of deterministic and takes away your agency. I mean, what if you don't like your mate? What if Feyre had realized that Fhyse was her mate while she was still in love with Tamlin? Or that after she had fallen in love with Rhyse, she realizes that Tamlin is her mate?

From what I can see until now, a mating bond is simply a sexual match. And what if, like Rhyse's parents, you are matched sexually but not in any other way? What use is the mating bond then, in life?

I think the main issue is that the mating bond takes away the agency of the person, like, Rhyse is now much more valid because he is Feyre's mate, and it's ok for her to ditch Tamlin now. I would have liked it more if she had made the decision out of her own free will, rather than be pulled by a force of nature.

Where are the ordinary women and their difficult lives/ When will we have a domestic heroine?

When it comes to the construction of a heroine, I have already talked about the heroine in these new brand books is not necessarily a woman who lives the life of a woman, but a man's body and soul in the skin of a woman. The woman has to be masculine, powerful, beat up people, in order to be the heroine. Some part of her femininity is always missing, and while new books are making up for the missing parts, they are not fully there. They will not take a domestic woman, someone who worries about chores and whose biggest concern is where to buy the tomatoes from and which brand of diaper is better, and make her into a heroine. In other words, we still don't have heroines that respect the women's domestic worlds that are at the center of lives. Of all lives. In that sense, these books are still unrealistic.

That is where the Wheel of Time comes in. It is very rare to see the way real women live, think and banter with men, incorporated into fantasies, and that is what the Wheel of Time. Its women are real – apart from doing everything that men do, they also do everything that women do, which fantasy heroines consider beneath them. Things like sewing and cooking, gardening and in general, planning and taking on the mental load of all lives around them. And the respect that the writer accords to these pursuits is amazing. I am not saying that women should be limited to these household pursuits, but I am saying that women are the mistresses of their households and end up taking most of the mental load for the domestic spheres, no matter what else they do. Nothing has been able to change that because, no matter how far women have ventured into men's worlds, men have simply not returned the favor, not even by a few inches. Hence, a woman is all that a man is, and more, and by saying that I am neither limiting women nor disparaging these duties, nor saying that that is all women are. (I am beginning to think that that is how it will always be, that women will always be more, but that is another book altogether.)

I wish there were more such heroines in fantasies. But I don't want to go and say that WoT has the best heroines or the best representation of gender dynamics, because I am only three books in and I don't know how things will develop.

The reification of magic

Over the years, the portrayal of magic in fantasies has changed – from vague and unknowable, ancient and terrible, mysterious and powerful, to finite, concrete, quantifiable, and wieldable...It is becoming increasingly more like a video game. Think of the forces of magic in Lord of the Rings, and think of how magic is a concrete, tangible force in Wheel of Time – the Dark one can actually reach out and taint the One True Power! Think of how it is subject to spells and incantations in Harry Potter, although still Harry Potter retains some of the unknowable mystery of magic. And then, think of ACOTAR, where the magic that made the world is to be had and wielded by a human being. Or rather, a being, because Feyre is not human any more. They talk of the cauldron as a thing of mysteries, that object of great power which was used to make the world. And then they actually find the cauldron!!!! How believable is that? It is like finding the big bang!!! And then, can any human wield the big bang? No, but this cauldron can be wielded, and, wait for it, actually contains clauses which state that only Feyre can wield it. First of all, there is the ridiculous clause that it must be reunited with its claws. It's so funny that I want to laugh.. And again, another clause that only someone who is unmade and remade can make it work. It is so tailor made, like a video game, that ugh. I don't know if I am making myself clear here, but it seems like, magic, and the working of the world, and what power means, are reduced here. It is not a great thing anymore, it is a simple household tool. And I am not sure I like that.

And then again, what is power? The portrayal of power in high fantasies is changing too. Power was something that you earned, with study and learning and practice and sadhana, it was something you accumulated. That was how it was in Lord of the Rings, and in Harry Potter. But here, power is simply something you are born with. Which means, again, loss of agency, and I find nothing to be proud of or attractive about that. For example, there is the scene where Rhyse walks in and Feyre says something like, power was leaking out of him, like shadows. And, ugh. Power also has become so quantifiable, and so vast. Not even Gandalf had so much power, like keeping an entire city hidden, modifying the memories of the whole world so that they forget that Velaris ever existed, and still having power leftover after being imprisoned by Amarantha. Phew. Oh, and let's not forget, keeping the northernmost kingdom warm at all times despite the latitude, even in an open, wall-less palace that stands only on pillars and has swaying curtains for walls. I know I am being silly when I ask for believability, credulity, because this is epic high fantasy, but still. What are the costs of this kind of magic? Who has such kind magic, how is this operated?

The modernizing of worlds

I go into this book thinking it is some kind of medieval world, but then, increasingly, I am finding that modern elements are creeping into this and this kind of books. In the beginning, the book will be set into some kind of medieval world, people wear tunics and gowns, breeches and linen smallclothes. But then, it is becoming increasingly the trend to have libraries and scholars, books and records, in these kinds of world. I think of creating that kind of world in the South Asian subcontinent, and think of how rare that kind of records, books and libraries would be. And yet, now, in these books it is easy to get information because, books, libraries, scholars, schools, guilds, universities, what not. I am thinking of Shadow and Bone, the Witcher, etc. And the depiction of cities, the technologies available there, are also becoming increasingly modern. For example Velaris, where there are cafes, for god's sake! Cafes! And discos! And Morrigan and her pals spend their free nights dancing, warriors older than 500 years they are! I can see how the brothels and drinking and carousing fit into a medieval world in Game of Thrones, but then, I simply do not see Velaris' discos, cafes, and multi-colored lights fitting into a medieval world. Besides that, there are inns and there are bathrooms, there are shops and taxes, signboards and I will not be surprised to see neons there now. And guess what Feyre wears? After suffering through silk and lace gowns, discarding tulle and gossamer, and feeling comfy in the Night Court attire of crop top and harem pants, she gets comfy in sweaters, leggings, and fleece lined socks, and tops it off with a sky blue coat. Uff. I can't even.

High fantasy and the female sexuality

After going through all that I like and dislike, I just want to come to the conclusion of this piece, which is gender roles. The gender roles have drifted far away from Lord of the Rings, where there are literally only three women, and only one of them has any kind of active role. But then, Lord of the Rings is so warm and full of love, so comfy and cozy, like the best thing to comfort you. I read that article which said that according to all polls, Lord of the Rings is the most beloved fiction in English language, and the results are always the same, no matter how many times you repeat the poll. I find it sad that a book which doesn’t even have women is that beloved, although I love it as much and I might be one of the voters. But then, it is sad that including female sexuality makes high fantasies so complicated that they lose that soothing quality. For example, ACOTAR, which I overflowing with female sexuality and it creates the plot holes that prevent it from becoming so beloved. I was reading an article which was about Tolkien's inspirations for his female characters, and he said how the book itself has many Christian themes, and the women are all drawn from Mary, the mother of Jesus. And of course, Mary is the Virgin mother, the pure, the unsullied, the one who is far away from such base thoughts and actions as sexuality. It makes for glowing, admirable, worshippable, divine, female characters, but they lack the life and blood and spirit of real life women. But then, having such female characters makes for the most beloved English book of all time, while having real flesh and blood women who love and lust and betray and scheme and spy makes for….. not the most beloved book of all time. Sigh. This is a very, very sad state of affairs because it upholds women to the same old standards of purity and asexuality, which does nothing for women, only straitjackets them into unhappy lives.