SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
This topic is about
The Gate to Women's Country
Group Reads Discussions 2022
>
"Gate to Women's Country" Discuss Everything *Spoilers*
date
newest »
newest »
Hey all, I just finished this, and I found it to be a quite powerful and provocative read. Glad to have read it, and glad that it’s on our group shelf. To answer the questions:
1. I think the inclusion of the play was quite brilliant. It depicted in strong relief the effects of the ancient and damning history of men’s violence toward women and one another. And it became a potent vehicle for demonstrating the ways in which Stavia (and all of the Council members and Servitors) had to subsume their true selves in order to be the public selves they deemed necessary for the continuation of their society.
2. I think it’s a very interesting idea to consider how selective breeding might influence human behavior. There’s certainly tremendous evidence to support behavioral changes through breeding in livestock and other animal breeding programs. As complicated as human beings are (and like to think we are), we are also members of the animal kingdom, so it very well might work. At any rate, I found Margot’s explication to Michael of the history of Women’s Country to be compellingly argued, and I thought Tepper did an excellent job of showing the benefits and costs of that history.
3. The idea of a society breeding humans is pretty shocking in and of itself, of course, but the idea of doing so without sharing the true information of people’s parentage with the individuals involved, is extraordinarily shocking. Taking away choice and autonomy is always shocking. I understood how those rules came to be in this society, but it’s still shocking.
4. This book is certainly interrogating the origins of violence, and exploring how (almost always short-sighted, overt, messy) violence for its own sake, or for the sake of ownership or power — is almost always enacted by men. But it doesn’t shy away from the idea that women could also use violence as a long-term solution when necessary. It also interrogates the idea that men could ever believe that they could own women, and that some women could grow to believe that themselves.
5. I’m very glad to have read it. I enjoy being captivated by provocative, complex stories that are well-crafted and deal with deep and profound questions of the human condition. I strongly believe that if this novel were written today, it would require acknowledgment and exploration of how trans and queer people fit into this society, but I give it a slight pass on that, given the era in which it was written.
1. What did you think of the inclusion of the play?For me personally, I found the play more of a distraction. That may have been because I listened to the book rather than eye read.
2. What did you think about how the societies were formed?
I understand wanting to build a society completely different from one that had destroyed most of the world, but the society continued to share many of the same characteristics of power and control. One gender had more control over another, decided who was worthy of being apart of the society, who was not, and despite wanting to irradiate violence, participated in violence/allowed violence to happen because it would benefit the “greater good.”
A small group of educated women were the ones with all the power to decide the trajectory of everyone else, behind closed doors, in secret.
3. What rule shocked/dismayed you most and why?
I do not know anything of Tepper aside from what is written on her GR page. I purposely wanted to answer these questions before I google her.
This is a society that is built on eugenics. Here in the U.S. many Black, Brown, Indigenous, people living in poverty, people living with mental illness, and people living with different abilities were forced to undergo sterilization without their consent. This was justified by eugenics. (Side note-still happening to many immigrants in detention centers here in US).
I found it disturbing that in Gate’s Country the women were not informed, thus could not consent to who fathered their children, the forced sterilization without knowledge or disguising it as due to another health issue requiring a hysterectomy. The society is built in a way that places biological as the only determinant of carrying violent tendencies. If we think about Erikson’s Stages of Development, the boys are sent off to train with warriors at two pivotal stages of development:
Stage 4 School Age Period: Industry vs Inferiority
-At this stage, children typically expand their social interactions, start to take pride in their accomplish, and seek out praise from the adults around them.
Stage 5 Adolescence Period: Identity vs Identity Confusion
-At this stage, youth typically start to develop a sense of self and explore their independence.
At both of these stages, the environment has great influence on development. I felt that Tepper chose to ignore any environmental factors at play. Women’s Gate also had no space for those who were not seen as useful, those who participated in sex work, or basically anyone seen as unworthy.
4. What do you think this book was exploring in terms of gender roles?
The book presented very defined binary gender roles and stereotypes. Homosexuality was presented as “the gay syndrome” caused by a hormones during pregnancy and the “syndrome” could be easily cured. This was written at a time when HIV/AIDS epidemic was in the public, and the LGBTQIA community was experiencing a lot of added harm to the community. I'm not sure why Tepper felt the need to include her "gay syndrome" paragraph into the story at all, except to let her readers know that this society would not have any representation in Women's Country.
5. Overall thoughts?
I found that Tepper did a great job with world-building, and I could imagine the world in which she wrote. It would not be one I would want to participate in. I did not like this book, but I do not regret reading it because I think a lot of thoughtful discussions can take place.
I have a lot more thoughts on this book, but would need to organize them better to sound coherent in this thread.
1. What did you think of the inclusion of the play?I initially thought it would take me out of the 'actual' story, and found it irritating. As the story progressed, I could see how the play revealed more and more of the Women's Country culture within its words and characters. I began to look forward to it, particularly once I knew more about the characters playing the characters in the play.
2. What did you think about how the societies were formed?
It was quite different. There was certainly a suggestion that the the militant men were generally somewhat less intelligent than the returnees - or perhaps limited due to their lack of education.
The religious society reminded me of the world of The Handmaid's Tale. They were also ignorant, and clearly limited by lack of education.
The Women's society valued education highly. It was a theme throughout the story.
3. What rule shocked/dismayed you most and why?
The reproductive rules. Despite the story portraying them as a huge reason that the society of Women's country surviving and perpetuating itself, realistically, I wondered how this would work in real terms. Is it yet another method of control? I think yes.
Clearly the story had reasons why. But reasons don't always make things right.
The 'gay syndrome' I think, is a product of the times in which the story was written.
4. What do you think this book was exploring in terms of gender roles?
I think the story was exploring gendered power struggles. But from a perspective that would have been very provocative at the time the book was written.
5. Overall thoughts?
I liked the book. I could see the 'dating' in some of the ways things were written, but the concept was fascinating, and well written. I think I may have actually read it before. But possibly when I was too young to appreciate some of the nuances. There were bits and pieces that seemed familiar.
1. The use of the play as commentary on the plot/world building was fascinating. I liked that it seems to be a retelling of The Trojan Women but unless I read the "director notes" in the interlude incorrectly, these women view it as a farce. Baffling but very interesting.2. Based on Morgot's discussion with Michael, the development of Women's Country seems mostly logical. But it seems like there should be remnants of the older world. This does seem like a post-apocalyptic America, so older place names, other cultures and different ethnicities should remain somehow.
3. The eugenics rules were the most shocking part of this, but all the reproductive rules were surprising in some way. Oh, and that they were all willing to kill so many to keep their way of life. But the consequences of doing nothing were far more dire.
4. I loved that their world view about men boiled down to keeping them oppressed. Rightly so here! It's not nuanced but the character motives made sense. The play reinforces those ideas.
5. I liked this a lot. Sheri Tepper created some beautiful worlds in both this and Grass. While I think the investigative nature of Grass made for a more solid plot, the political bent of this novel still makes for a satisfying story. Last, I think the most interesting character in this novel is Chernon. Sheri really gets into his head as he reckons his lack of agency with his growing antagonism towards women. He's a despicable d*-head but you do feel his strangely entitled antagonism. Still, I'm glad the good citizens of Women's Country win. Wish it were like this in our world. Please let me know if I haven't read this correctly.
I love how thoughtfully everyone is engaging with this novel. It’s clearly provoking some deeply-felt responses in all of us. A true testament to Tepper’s achievement.
Mod
I really like everyone's thoughts! I think they're all quite analytical and well conveyed.
The eugenics bit was surprising to me, but also I keep thinking of how it was practiced through the 70s (and likely today). The original idea was of course racist and otherwise prejudiced in the extreme, but the often touted benefit of eugenics was that it would "end crime." I wonder if instead of promoting eugenics, Tepper was asking us to think which of all the bad things here were crimes, and which were moral?
Regarding the eugenics question Tepper was dealing with, I’m mindful of a study I read about involving foxes, in which biologists discovered very clearly that among a group of foxes, the docile foxes produced more docile offspring than their less docile brethren. And these docile foxes also showed signs of other domesticating adaptations, at a rate that greatly surprised the biologists. In the case of the novel, the aspect of humanity the Council was trying to breed away was what they saw to be a masculine tendency toward violence. So on that level I didn’t see it as being a racist reasoning. Certainly it was a bioessentialist reasoning. But there’s no doubt that eugenics in general are historically founded in racist and white supremacist ideas.
Mod
I am curious about Tepper's view on how much of a dystopia or utopia Women's Country is. For the most part, it seems like a good place to live. Everyone gets mostly what they want. Warriors get barracks, the occasional war, and party sex. Women administer the society and do most of the work and also get party sex. The Servitors are second class citizens, but they are valued and become the fathers of the next generation. And they are ninjas. Being ruled by an oligarchic Council isn't ideal, but it seems to be reasonable and restrained in using power. It's hard to believe that's all there is, but I accept this picture as a golden age in a moment in time. Sooner or later, I imagine that the Council's conspiracy would unravel, and people would become dissatisfied with their roles. Who wouldn't want reasonable people to rule? But agreeing on what's reasonable and what's good is difficult and unlikely to last for long.
I have a feeling she would say that there is a cost to everything that you described, and that she feels very keenly the cost on the Council’s humanity. Whether she’d call it dystopia or utopia, I think she’d call it complicated, and I think she did a brilliant job depicting the complications.
Mod
Enjoying reading the thoughts everyone has about this novel. It definitely brings up a lot of ethical questions.
This discussion is making me seriously consider rereading it, even though I have no time for it right now.
Thank you all for your insightful comments, this book really gave a lot of food for thoughts!The thing that I was most shocked about were the staged wars. And this after the author let us feel the pain of having to give these boys up. Not enough corn - followed by a war. This ruthlessness was quite shocking.
Interestingly, I was not so shocked about the fathers not being the warriors. I could even understand this because the alternative (which I see as a Susannah's world) is just too horrible to contemplate.
In some ways it seems the males are set up for failure. Five year olds ripped from their homes and placed in what appears to be a non-nurturing atmosphere . They only see their mothers and sisters at carnival time . They are also separated from the servitors who are the desired type of males and should be the role models. Instead they are placed with those that actively belittle the servitors. Genetics is a start but environment has a big role. There is also little education and stimulation in the men's garrison. Sports and military training seem to be it. I got the impression that they were bored . Boredom so often leads to trouble. Also the idea of women's work and men's work is continued. Corrig is looked down by the other males for weaving.If rebellions and uprisings keep happening then something is wrong.
The environment and not the gender appears to be a major cause of the difficulties.
The paragraph about the causes of homosexuality is appalling and can be attributed to the times it was written and be called a product of its time. Unfortunately a product that still rears its ugly head.
I thought it was a good story and well written. I like the other Tepper books I've read. Her character development is good (though Myra and Chernon made me want to scream at times).
I thought how the play was woven into the story was beautifully done .
Mod
That is a good question Allison. I need to think about her motives for that.
Environment isn't being ignored. Genetics and environment are being pitted against each other. The males who choose to return to Women's Country do so despite all the environmental pressure to stay in the Garrison. The Servitors' dedication to the values of Women's Country is so overwhelming as to overcome the strong expectations to be a Warrior. Without technology for direct genetic engineering, this pitting of genes vs. environment is the fastest way I can imagine to build a population that makes the desired choices.Of course, there is the twist that violence and war aren't really being eradicated. They are just being practiced in subtler ways.
Mod
I think Tepper wanted her main focus to be on genetics and selection.The children that Joshua fathered had a higher rate of returning to Women's country than the one's sired by Chernon's father.
So when they sent Michael and that part of the garrison to die was it not only as punishment for the rebellion but also to cleanse out products of the undesirable gene pool?
I finished this one yesterday, and there is certainly a lot to think about. To offer a possible answer to Ellen’s question - I think that they sent Michael and the garrison to die to eliminate the contagious ideas that Chernon brought back from the Holylanders. I found it interesting, though, that Chernon seemed to be having second thoughts about that lifestyle right before the garrison is sent out to die. Even though I disliked his character, I also felt like he probably would have developed into a different and better person in a different environment. Here are my thoughts on some of the other questions:
What did you think of the inclusion of the play? At first, I didn’t think much of the play, but by the end, I liked how it worked into the story. I read Madeline Miller’s The Song of Achilles last year, and the story in the play was an interesting complement, looking at Achilles and the Trojan War from the women’s perspective.
What did you think about how the societies were formed? I think they made sense given the situation. There was some kind of devastating war in the past, possibly nuclear given the “devastations”, so people would want to avoid a repeat of that in the future. I wouldn’t want to live there, though Women’s Country is definitely preferable to the Holylander territory, and the contrast made me have more sympathy for the decisions the Council makes.
What rule shocked/dismayed you most and why? I found that none of the decisions were really shocking to me, but I was definitely disturbed by the enforced selection of fathers. As others have pointed out, the “gay syndrome” part made me cringe. The ninja skills part was kind of laughable to me, though - that would require a consistent level of training that I think would be very hard to keep secret, and it seemed inconsistent with the rest of their world.
Overall thoughts - I’m glad that I read it. It was very interesting, and I’d like to try other books by Tepper, who was a new author for me. I found myself wondering how long this society was really sustainable. It requires so much control and a degree of secrecy that seem unrealistic to keep going long term. I also felt kind of sorry for the men, especially the ones who would have flourished with more education and a non-military childhood environment.
Fascinating discussion, y’all!Gonna answer the questions below.
1. What did you think of the inclusion of the play?
I really liked it. At first I thought it was just a play on the “actor Stavia” vs. “observer Stavia” thing, but the longer the novel took and the more clues I put together, the more significant it became.
I was puzzled for a while by the fact that the people in the novel seem to consider the play a comedy, but I think the ending really drives home that the play isn’t mainly put on for the “common woman”. It’s put on to remind the Council what they keep choosing to do and why. Stavia-as-Iphigenia looking from the stage across the wall and to the garrison and her and Joshua-as-Achilles crying in a way that doesn’t seem to be fully/only in character (which was also hinted at during one of the rehearsals) drove that home for me.
2. What did you think about how the societies were formed?
I can see how women who had just lived through a nuclear war would arrive at “men were the ones who started these wars and who pushed the buttons, therefore they shouldn’t have power anymore”. (Not to mention that some sections of the Women’s Movement and the Anti-War Movement were probably arguing that in the 70s and 80s (though not the most mainstream parts of the movement). So Tepper probably drew from contemporary discourses there.) It’s a very essentialist way of thinking, but I think the novel does a good job of exploring and in some ways exposing that. It mainly does so through Chernon, who we see being manipulated by his Commanders into manipulating Stavia (or at least trying to). There’s several passages where he does or says things that Michael told him to do and then is dismayed when they don’t work. We also watch him get radicalized throughout the novel until he’s just a raging misogynist and it is quite clear that that’s due to him living in the garrison and having no real contact with women. So, it’s not totally surprising that he starts to think what “everyone” at the garrison thinks. And that the Holylanders way of doing things looks so appealing to him. (I also think the novel did a good job of pointing out that he only noticed the old men with multiple wives, not the young and middle-aged men with no wives at all.) The one thing that remained under-explored for me was why some boys decide to go back. I would have liked that explore with more nuance, beyond the one conversation between Chernon and Habby (which was well done) and the “genetics” explanation.
At the same time, we also see Stavia trying to communicate with adutl Chernon and not succeeding because in some ways they do not share the same language. All of which could clearly been avoided if boys weren’t sent away to the garrison as 5-year-olds and got basically no education beyond basic reading, writing, and arithmetics.
So, I think while the leaders think that they can breed violence out of humanity, the book as a whole is telling a narrative that runs counter to the story the Councils in the different cities/the overarching Council are telling themselves. Clearly, violence is still happening - either by planned wars (I loved how the book hinted at those wars being planned during the trip to Susantown), or by curtailing people’s choices about who they’re having children with and even sterilizing people without their consent, or every couple of decades when there’s another rebellion and the Council has to take measures against that.
The fact that no one on the various Councils in the different cities has gone “Hm, maybe this isn’t an ideal way to run society” speaks to how power structures perpetuate themselves and how complicity in atrocities makes it very hard to speak out against them. And also to how powerful “national myths” are.
I think this exploration is driven home further by some of the other cracks we see in how Women’s Country is organized. One example would be when Stavia thinks about Myra and how she would have been happiest if she could have dedicated her life to dance. Generally speaking, the idea that people should have an art, a science, and a craft does not sound terrible. Especially for a society that is basically one or two bad harvests away from falling apart. BUT that does not account for people who maybe are very talented in just one of those three characteristics. So again, by having Stavia notice this I think the narrative is signalling that there are very clear issues with how things are run in Women’s Country, but that even people who see those issues might not act based on them, either cause they don’t see the forest for the trees or because they are complicit in the larger systems. Or both.
3. What rule shocked/dismayed you most and why?
Absolutely the Eugenics, but the planned wars and the blatant anti-sex work stuff was also terrible. (Made me think of the Comstock laws and white, middle-class women’s complicity in those. I wonder if those were one of the historic inspirations Tepper drew from.)
4. What do you think this book was exploring in terms of gender roles?
I agree with Allison that this book takes essentialist ideas about gender roles à la "girls are from Venus, boys are from Mars" and turbocharges them.
And I think it is also very much exploring the fact that just by putting women in charge instead of men doesn’t guarantee a utopia in which everyone is equal, safe, and never threatened with violence.
In addition, (and I feel like a lot of what I posted with regard to question 2 could also go here) it clearly is centrally about “nature” vs. “nurture”, but I would argue that it very much drives home how important nurture is, mostly through the Chernon sections.
5. Overall thoughts?
I really, really liked how multi-layered and nuanced this novel was. And also the structure! The structure is, ultimately, what makes it so powerful and compelling. Because we see the things that happen to the younger Stavia (some of which are truly horrifying), but we also see the long-term effect this has on her. And because the novel opens with the older Stavia and with hints about “what had happened with Chernon”, there’s a really good suspense arc and some truly well done foreshadowing.
Speaking of foreshadowing, I really like how we as readers get all the clues to what is going on “behind the scenes” that Stavia gets as well. I’ll mention two: the fact that they have a form of birth control and are artificially inseminating women is hinted at, for example, during Myra’s courtship with Barten. There’s several mentions of her getting an implant “for viatmins” and then a that conversation about how she hopes her child will look like Barten AND the detail that she was left on the examination table for a while at the check-up after her first carnival assignation. That, in connection with the “we can ‘prevent’ queer people” bit made me go “Wait a minute! At the very least they’re controlling how many babies are born each year, but they’re probably also lying about who the father’s of these children are.”
The other example is the trip to Susantown and the half-asleep Stavia overhearing Morgot saying “… we can manage if it’s reduced by one third, at least,”. On the surface, that just sounds like negotiations about trade. But then the war against Susantown starts up very shortly after. So, yeah, that was another moment that made me go “Well, hang on.” and gave me a bit of a sinking feeling in my stomach.
I’ve also been thinking a lot about the bit about them “preventing” queer people from being born. I wonder if Tepper was basing the bit about hormone levels on theories that were going around in the 80s, but I’m not a historian of medicine, so this is speculation. It seems to me that this was both one of the hints she put into the text and probably a way for her to very quickly explain why there are no queer people in Women’s Country. Though it’s a terrible explanation and the fact that it never comes up again and that there are also no queer people anywhere else in this world (except maybe amongst the warriors and there it is conflated with pedophilia, which yikes), not even amongst the “itinerants” doesn’t make it better. It indicates to me, that Tepper either didn’t think about how queer people would live in the world she created or she didn’t want to think about it, neither of which are good explanations.
That being said, I was wondering once or twice, whether Beneda may have had a crush on Stavia and her attempts to get Stavia and Chernon to be together and have a child together were a way to “keep” Stavia in her family. Which is to say, maybe the “science” the Women’s Country doctors use isn’t actually accurate, but the queer people that do exist sublimate their desires because they are taught from quite an early age that they cannot exist. BUT that’s a very far reach. Beneda could also just be a slightly dramatic teen and her declarations of friendship, etc. towards Stavia are just that.
I also noticed that everyone in the book seems to be white and the twins who have a very accurate sense of clairvoyance are described as blonde and beautiful, IIRC. Though they also have a warrior father, which in some way makes them another counter-example to the Council’s theory. This lack of people of color - especially in a fictional Pacific Northwest - is probably also due to when the book was written, but it is unfortunate.
To Ellen’s question: I think sending that entire garrison to their deaths wasn’t to “cleanse” the gene pool because we know the warriors aren’t fathers. I think it was partly because Michael’s and Chernon’s ideas had spread so widely and to send a message to the other garrisons. They clearly knew that the conspiracy had gone beyond Marthatown, so they needed to send a big signal. And remember, the first time Michael talks about his plans, he mentions a failed rebellion some decades ago. So this slaughter is very much a message to the other garrisons.
I am so happy that we selected a book that is provoking so much thoughtful and considered discussion! Well done, all of us!
Mod
Does anyone still have the book? I thought I remembered "vaguely brown" characteristics being represented early on, but can't recall anymore.
Another thing I've been thinking about is that the men have to wage war to "protect women" but they want to usurp women, too. How well do we feel this dichotomy was addressed in the book?
Searching for “brown” in the Kindle edition only brought up references to brown hair for me. I think the “protect women” vs. “usurp women” is another one of those points where the book extrapolates on gender roles/stereotypes. I think it did a good job of exploring how what I’ll call “the warrior mindest” - were the manliest men because we face battle and because of that we’re better than anyone else - can lead to resentment of civilians. And since most of the civilians, and especially the civilians who have the most power, are women that resentment turns into “we want to usurp women” in the book. It’s most obvious whenever Michael talks about his plans, but it’s also clear, to me, that this dynamic is rooted in how this society is set up as a whole.
Mareike, you bring up a great point about the resentment that the "warrior mindset" brought about in the men in the story. I think that you can also see some resentment developing on the women's side, too, with Myra's point of view and some of the questioning of the Council ordinances. I think Michael was attempting to sow more of that resentment with the manipulation of Myra and Stavia.Thank you, also, for brining up the structure in your other post. I forgot to mention the structure in my original response, but it was one of the aspects of the book that I found very powerful and made the book difficult to put down after a certain point. It deepened my understanding of the characters (and the significance of the play). Also, selfishly, it kept the book from being too stressful of a read for me because I knew that Stavia would be okay and the rebellion would not be successful, since we see the older version of her in a world that seems to be mostly the same. Instead of worrying about what would happen, I was more curious to see how things would work out (though I still found the section in the Holyland to be stressful to read).
Oh yeah, Lichael was absolutely trying to sow/exacerbate discontent among the women. And one reason it worked with Myra - how I find quite interestingvas a character - is that she struggied with parts of the rules anyway (the whole art/craft/science thing, for example).I totally agree about the reassurance-effect of the structure. I definitely though 'Well, Stavia is alive later, so the rebellion doesn't succeed...' once or twice.
I also thinknTepper does a real good job of not tipping her hand about the "the whole garrison was killed off" part. That was one of the moments that, despite everything, really shook me.
It broke my heart from the first that her son rejected her. By the end I knew that it was expected and in order to shape the future she had to go through such a heartbreaking experience. It speaks to having so little control over our adult children's decisions and the ability to let go.
Cinnabelle wrote: "It broke my heart from the first that her son rejected her. By the end I knew that it was expected and in order to shape the future she had to go through such a heartbreaking experience. It speaks ..."Yeah, that is very sad.
Though I think the fact that her son chooses to stay in the garrison is also one of the ultimate tragedies of this book. If Stavia and the rest of the Council had looked at the rebellion and what happened with Chernon and Stavia specifically and said “Hm, maybe we should change how we run things” and decided to raise their boys differently, than Stavia maybe wouldn’t have had to go through this.
Here are two more things I’ve been thinking about:
First, the chapter from Susannah’s perspective was heartbreaking, but very effective in introducing Holyland. But I though it was especially so in how it highlights how oppression can isolate people who would actually have common issues to organize around. I’m thinking specifically of these two paragraphs:
Susannah unbuttoned her bodice and put Baby to the breast. She wouldn’t wean him until she had to. As long as he wasn’t weaned, she wouldn’t get her uncleanliness, and as long as she didn’t get it, she probably wouldn’t get pregnant. She couldn’t bear to be pregnant again right away. Maybe not ever. She’d been pregnant almost all the time since she was fourteen. She’d had eleven pregnancies and had six living children, not counting the two girls who had just disappeared. If she got pregnant again, she thought she’d kill herself. It would be easier to die than to go through it again. Let Papa get some more babies on the sister wives, Matilda and Cheerfulness and Plentitude and Rejoice. No, Rejoice was too old, but Plentitude only had one at home, almost five years old. Let her have another one. Cheerfulness only had four and she hadn’t had one for three years. Let her. Let Matilda get up out of that bed she’d been in for five years and get pregnant. Having three dead babies and coughing up blood now and then wasn’t any reason to escape duty. If that’s all it took, maybe Susannah could manage to cough up some, too.
Susannah’s eyes filled. All these thoughts were wicked and uncharitable and unkind, and she knew they were but she kept having them anyhow. Everything was just so … so wearisome. It got so you looked forward to your daughter being unclean just so Papa wouldn’t come to the house. And Chastity had long, unclean times, too. Seven or eight days, sometimes. It meant Papa had to leave Susannah alone for a whole week at a time. She wished it was forever. Let him take some other girl, a really young one, and spend all his time and energy on her. Susannah was too old for this. She was almost thirty—much, much too old for this.
Second, I quite liked how the novel took the term “domestic violence” and showed how paradoxical it is in some ways when Morgot mentions it to Stavia:
The Council keeps some old books in a locked room under the Council Chambers. I’ve read some of them. There’s a phrase they used to use—’domestic violence.’ “
Stavia raised her eyebrows, questioning.
Morgot responded. “I know. It has a funny sound. Like a wild animal, only partly tamed.”
Chris wrote: "Environment isn't being ignored. Genetics and environment are being pitted against each other. The males who choose to return to Women's Country do so despite all the environmental pressure to stay..."That's how I read it, too.
message 32:
by
aPriL does feral sometimes
(last edited Aug 16, 2022 04:37PM)
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
I love reading everyone's comments! Everyone is very thoughtful.I kept thinking about the current times of war and religious extremism happening right now (Afghanistan and Ukraine). I think a struggling civilization, especially one with vivid memories of the past, would work very hard to eliminate whatever had caused a lot of grief and destruction. The women of Afghanistan and Ukraine have all described gang rape happening by the men. Women and men are being sorted by: a. religion; and b. utility in these countries. Since I read histories, I know this is the same thing which has occurred in all wars of the past. This imaginary society in the novel has tried to logically address the concerns which caused "the devastation". The novel makes complete sense to me how a society might develop after the apparent end of the previous civilization.
aPril, great points! I think you're definitely onto something with the idea that people who had been through hell would do whatever they could to ensure it didn't happen again. Although homo sapiens does seem to have an awfully short memory :P
Mod
I really look forward to your thoughts when you’re done, Ryan!
Mod
The foreshadowing to show that the Council women engineered a war for population control and lack of resources was well done. That's my guess anyway. Could have done without giving the Servitors superpowers though.
I haven’t read Notes from the Burning Age, but I think now I have to.The superpowers sure are a choice…
Overall, really disturbed by this book. I enjoyed the play interspersed through the story; for me it released the tension and added a different perspective. Two story points that I focused on:1. I had assumed early on that the servitors were used to some extent as fathers in this environment, though that it was complete was surprising. I imagine that would have made it very difficult for those men (already the more sensitive?) to have all their male progeny be sent off to the garrison and likely early death (4 out of 5).
2. I was disturbed by the response to the awareness of Susannah's group's slavery and violence was that they would die off in a few generations, yet the adult men in the garrison were slaughtered in one battle. Is it worse to imagine that one group were strangers and the other were their adult children?
To your first point: I think the repeated scenes of Joshua crying real tears during rehearsals and during the performances of the play at the very end are meant to emphasite the emotional toll the system (and the decusion to kill off an entire garrison) has on him and potentially on servitirs more generally.To your second point: I'm pretty sure Morhot says that they're planking acraid to get the women (and presumably the children) out.
That is still a chilling contrast, though.
Mod
Mod
I think there's a thread to pull regarding the Servitors mind reading and Stavia's single mindedness that would undermine the plausibility of the final situation, but I liked, not enjoyed, this story too much to do it.
I finished this today - a bit late to the discussion as I had to wait a while for it to come in at the library. Whilst I can't really say I 'enjoyed' the read, I did like the book and I think it was a good choice for a BOTM. Quite thought-provoking, and I've enjoyed reading the comments here.The book is full of interesting and challenging ideas. A dystopia with a complex societal structure that the reader doesn't really come to understand till almost the very end. The story was slow-moving, but gradually built its power.
I did get a little frustrated by the slow pacing of the book, which is why I couldn't give 5 stars. It took me quite a while to feel as if I cared about the character of Stavia, but when it started to seem as if she were going to be captured by the inbred men from the extremist cult, I had to put the book down for fear of what might be going to happen. So somewhere along the line I had become invested in her character. LOL.
The segments of the play felt a little tedious at first, but again, this element gradually built in power for me, and helped to frame the powerful ending.
The ending made it worth persisting with the slow development and lead-up. I liked that the ending wasn't all sunshine and unicorns. The characters were well aware that the world they were perpetuating was far from perfect, ('Hades', in fact) and the reader is left to think about the society and the reasons why it developed that way.
In some aspects the book reminded me of John Wyndham's The Chrysalids, another older post-apocalyptic book with some similar elements, including the unexpected development of telepathy.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
The Chrysalids (other topics)Notes from the Burning Age (other topics)
The Song of Achilles (other topics)
1. What did you think of the inclusion of the play?
2. What did you think about how the societies were formed?
3. What rule shocked/dismayed you most and why?
4. What do you think this book was exploring in terms of gender roles?
5. Overall thoughts?
Non-spoiler thread here: First impressions