books: a woman's estate by roberta gellis

Reading Roberta Gellis' A Woman's Estate, book five in the Heiress series, set during Napolean Mark I.

Okay, overall the series is uneven and not nearly as fantastic and fun as her medieval, but that fifth book is just--and I say this as a Romance novel reader--there is some terrible pre-feminism in here. I don't object at all to anachronistic feminism and anti-racism. Even when it's done awkwardly or badly, I give points for good intentions or making a decent effort because even handled badly, they're trying desperately to handle it in a genre that is not really easy to pull it off in and most people don't even try to integrate it at all, much less make a sincere but awkward effort at it.

IDEK what was going on with this one, but it was really hideously awkward attempts at pre-feminism backed against invisible-to-the-author misogyny that's not used deliberately. Gellis had an earlier book where in her notes, she made reference to blaming women for the fall of women's rights in medieval europe, so haven't read that one again, but her Roselynde books are so strong in women's lives and etc that I can just ignore that one. It was weird and the few good points (noting law that made a woman stop existing when she married; that was genuinely unsettling to read, even though I was aware of it, detailing it out like that was very well done) but then it's offset with the story's supporting the idea that her wanting to not marry again or wanting freedom or etc was all about lacking trust in her husband and a mania, which fuck no.

There was a lot of mixed messaging here, is what I'm saying, and I can't give points for what she did do because the entire thing was based on HEROINE DOES NOT TRUST MEN AND WHY. And later, how she acknowledges her own foolishness, because hello, her goddamn points were valid even in--especially in--a happy marriage. I mean, that's what made it work. EVEN IF YOUR HUSBAND WAS LOVING AND RESPECTFUL, HE COULD AND DID DO THIS SHIT IN THE SPIRIT OF LOVE AND RESPECT AND THAT SHIT WAS STILL WRONG.

(Though it did have a genuinely touching, subtle moment with the hero questioning his mother and her responses were wonderfully drawn of a woman who had a perfectly happy marriage but also the small embarrassments/discomforts of the fact that as a married woman, she was owned by her husband and could own nothing herself; all belonged to her husband on his sufferance.)

I can't figure out why she bothered with the proto-feminism at all when the text itself was arguing against it or fighting it so hard. I think she made a stab at racism, but I won't swear to it because that was just weird and awkward and uncomfortable in a bad way. Your text should not argue for the purpose of proving that feminism is awesome, but with a good husband, not so much necessary.

Stick with the Roselynde series or the Royal Dynasty series, is what I'm saying.

Comments

[green_grrl]

That reminds me of The Handmaid's Tale (book version; I wish it had been in the movie too) when the laws taking away women's rights first get passed. The protagonist's husband says, "It's okay, I'll take care of you," and she feels this utter swell of rage. Even though he's a good, kind, decent, lefty, feminist guy who loves her, IT'S NOT THE SAME. (So that's Atwood, but it would be nice if a romance writer could get it right, too. Being a woman and all.)

[seperis]

*shudders* That sentence just freaks me out so badly.

[out_there]

Your text should not argue for the purpose of proving that feminism is awesome, but with a good husband, not so much necessary.

Feminism: you're doing it wrong. *facepalm*

[seperis]

Yeah, this is one of those times that sentence is so goddamn appropriate it hurts. Oh Roberta.

[malkingrey]

I think a lot of the problems with A Woman's Estate come from trying to make a particular literary form do the kind of heavy lifting it wasn't designed to do -- like trying to write a Prisoner of Zenda-style Ruritanian novel while at the same time dealing with all of its embedded issue of class and empire in a properly modern way. (I've seen a couple of attempts at the latter, and they're mostly pretty dire.)

There's also the sort of problems you get when a writer who isn't by natural gift and inclination a Dealing With Issues kind of writer starts feeling a moral obligation to try and do it anyway. The end result at best is kind of deadly earnest and well-meaning; the failure modes range from annoyingly off-key to complete train wreck.

(A Woman's Estate also, to this writer's eye, has a certain flavor about it of "I've already written all the novels I wanted to in this series, but the contract calls for one more book whether I want to write it or not.")

[seperis]

Nice analysis. I was trying to work out the massive dichotomy, since her Roselynde series is very feminist* and almost invisibly so, especially considering the time period; A Woman's Estate felt like a huge step backward even when--possibly because--she was trying to directly address the issue in a very tell not show method.

Contrasting this one and those just blows my mind because the Roselynde series so effortlessly integrates that into the narrative with excellent (medieval) logic with minimal stretching. I probably on this one would have let it slide as just an author having an off book if that damn trust issue hadn't been so prominent, which in the marriage contracts in the Roselynde it had nothing to do with trust of your husband but simple rights.

I kind of wish she'd stuck to letting the narrative just carry it instead of trying to spell it out and link it up with trust.

The end result at best is kind of deadly earnest and well-meaning; the failure modes range from annoyingly off-key to complete train wreck.

Yeah, this one was a train wreck altogether. And I'm going to guess you're right about it being a contract book; her hero was having character swings of crazy and she's never written a male hero that utterly unsympathetic and plain stupid. OTOH, the series is No Virgins Need Apply, which was refreshing, from Leonie's experiences to Abigail, and it was refreshing to have a whole series of women with no virgin fetish. Somewhat.

* For a medieval romance and even for any Romance.

[fairlyironic.livejournal.com]

I find this a common problem in romance novels, and I think that it's because in our society we're raised with an underlying social belief that a woman is not complete without a man. It's not explicitly pushed anymore, but it's still *there* and even if we don't believe it rationally I think that we can still believe it subconsciously.

We probably retain societies subconscious teaching so well because it meshes with the id, becoming inseparable from it. We naturally *want* a romantic relationship, and society tells us that we *need* a romantic relationship, and after a while it's hard to separate the two. Since romance novels are largely an expression of the id it's not surprising that subconscious belief pops up in them. The writer might not even realize it. What she does realize, or what she tries to do rationally, is include a bit of rational feminism. Of course a thoughtful editor would see the subconscious bit and realize the hypocrisy between that and the feminism, but I doubt that most romance novels have thoughtful editors.

[seperis.livejournal.com]

Nice call on needing a man/relationship; I wonder if she was trying (badly) to integrate the two ideas and just made a mess of it.

The writer might not even realize it. What she does realize, or what she tries to do rationally, is include a bit of rational feminism. Of course a thoughtful editor would see the subconscious bit and realize the hypocrisy between that and the feminism, but I doubt that most romance novels have thoughtful editors.

Roberta's medieval Roselynde series has a surprising amount of feminism as filtered through medieval society (female-only inheritance, very specific marriage contracts, husbands chosen with an eye toward their understanding and acceptance of those rights), but she's also an expert on medieval history; I wonder if part of her stumbling was working with a time period she doesn't know down to the ground well enough to bend it comfortably, so she went more tell tell tell than working it more naturally into the narrative.