First thing I need to point out is that I consider myself a feminist, even as far as to take an active role is such matters. Previously, I have written articles on Feministing and I honestly think so many of these issues are still very important in today's world. However you look at it, the battle for equality has not been won and has, in fact, become rather dormant.

On that note, I love reading fiction by feminist writers, Atwood never fails to deliver and The Handmaid's Tale is one of my favourite books of all time. Similarly with Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, except Woolf's writing can make you want to slit your wrists at times. The point of me saying this is that when I heard Graceling called 'feminist propaganda', rather than being repelled, I was intrigued. I love modern stories with strong heroines who can stand up for themselves and don't need to wait for prince charming to swoop in and save them. Katsa fit this in many ways, true, but I have so many issues with the feminist ideals in this novel that I don't know where to begin.

I am constantly faced with the irritating irony of radical feminists. The irony being that their favourite passtime is telling women what to do. Real feminism (as in the one that actually cares about women) is about choice, not about having to follow strict guidelines in order to banish the image of feminity. It's people like Kristin Cashore who make the term 'feminism' seem like a dirty word. Being strong and capable of making your own decisions is one thing... but the extremes of having to prove that you don't care about your looks or refusing to wear a dress is ridiculous. I wear dresses, I wear make-up, I like to make the effort to look nice... but in Cashore's world that means I'm a weak, pathetic wannabe-housewife.

For me, the main mistake that Cashore makes is to assume that anything 'girly' is bad. It's an ongoing debate about women and feminism. For example, take the stereotype that women are more emotional and are therefore more weak than men. The argument is: Is this wrong and women are not more emotional? Or does what's wrong lie in the idea that emotions are a weakness because they are a feminine trait? Radical feminism continues to try and spit on traditional aspects of what it means to be feminine. Of course, it is arguable that the idea of 'feminine' is created through socialisation (e.g. dressing babies in either pink or blue depending on gender), but it has long been my opinion that if you take the colour pink (a worldwide symbol of the female gender) and make it into something that should be disgusting, then that's about as anti-woman as you can get.

Margaret Atwood understood the dangers of radicalism and wrote the novel to go with it. In the same way that extreme socialism becomes the mirror of totalitarianism, radical feminism begins to mirror sexism. And that's why I had issues with a great deal of Graceling.

But... what I did like was the love story between Katsa and Po, once Katsa got over the idea that he would somehow take possession of her after sex. Po was a sweetheart and an all-round likeable character. And, don't get me wrong, I never really disliked Katsa because the fact that she refuses to wear a dress and doesn't want children is entirely her choice and that's what's important. I liked her strength and at many times I felt her frustration... particularly with regards to the girls throughout the kingdoms who were never taught to protect themselves because their fathers and brothers were expected to do it. I completely agree with the idea that the girls should have been taught self-defence and self-sufficiency.

The whole backdrop of magical kingdoms and whatnot was alright. It fit nicely around the main characters but I found the love story to hold most of my attention and that's why I've decided that I don't want to read Fire. The reviews of it tell me that romance comes far behind the whole fantasy aspect and I still have Tolkien nightmares. Yeah so, not a bad story but so many things disagreed with what I stand for.