Page 1 of 15

The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 05:08
by Rodel Barnachea
When I was reading the book, I noticed that there are no major female characters involved in the storyline. The protagonist, the protagonist's friends, Voulhire's leader, Riva Rohavi's leader, Hillport's leader, and the magical antagonist are all males. Many people say that given the book's medieval setting, it is only common that the book also follows medieval norms: decreased roles for women and bigger roles for men.

What is your opinion on this? Does the above explanation completely justify the book's lack of female main characters?

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 06:40
by rahilshajahan
Even though the book hasn't portryaed any female leads, the series does so down the line. And their characters are crucial for most of the pivotal scenes in the series. This book is just an introduction to the 9-book fantasy. So, I wouldn't worry about it much right now!

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 06:58
by AnnOgochukwu
Honestly, I wanted to ask this same question, but I thought it was a lone (and probably overthought) observation by me, and that made me skeptical.
I considered the above-mentioned reason (about this book being set in medieval times). I also considered the roles of Beth, and lord Eldus' wife and daughter. But I do not think that these are sufficient justification for the obvious lack of female characters in this book. The most justifiable reason I could come with was that this was how the author wanted this story to be. My only consolation is that in the later installments, there is an inclusion of active female characters, really amazing characters.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 10:27
by Ellylion
Beth's character is very interesting, in my opinion :) Also, let us not forget about the Lord Eldus' housekeeper. She is very intriguing. She holds all the keys and knows all the secrets. Also, she would close her eyes to many evil things just to survive. She is quite memorable.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 13:30
by Manang Muyang
Ellylion wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 10:27 Beth's character is very interesting, in my opinion :) Also, let us not forget about the Lord Eldus' housekeeper. She is very intriguing. She holds all the keys and knows all the secrets. Also, she would close her eyes to many evil things just to survive. She is quite memorable.
I agree. Beverly and Beth seem to have pivotal roles. For one, they aren't damsels in distress.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 15:38
by a_r_egerton
I also questioned the dearth of promient female characters; Beth's the only one who got a POV chapter. As others have pointed out, later books in the series do introduce some major female characters. Since this is the first book in a none-book series, readers will just have to wait to meet those chracters.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 18:30
by Laura Britos
At first I was a little bit annoyed at the lack of female representation on the book. Regardless of the role the characters play, whether they are the heroes, sidekicks or villains, they are all male characters. I have not read the entire series yet but I really wish that this issue changes.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 18:34
by Guete Zuelo
I noticed it too! The book is great. It has a great world-building but that aspect was such a huge downer for me. Though the book was set to a time where men are to have bigger roles than women, historically this does not stop women from being great! I think it's a failure on the author's part. Beth and the wife of the lord of Hillport isn't enough to do justice.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 19:11
by Rodel Barnachea
rahilshajahan wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 06:40 Even though the book hasn't portryaed any female leads, the series does so down the line. And their characters are crucial for most of the pivotal scenes in the series. This book is just an introduction to the 9-book fantasy. So, I wouldn't worry about it much right now!
Yeah, that could be another reason. World building is extremely important in fantasy books, so it is imperative that the first book does a good job at it. Hopefully, we'd see a varied female personalities in the next books.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 19:19
by Rodel Barnachea
AnnOgochukwu wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 06:58 Honestly, I wanted to ask this same question, but I thought it was a lone (and probably overthought) observation by me, and that made me skeptical.
I considered the above-mentioned reason (about this book being set in medieval times). I also considered the roles of Beth, and lord Eldus' wife and daughter. But I do not think that these are sufficient justification for the obvious lack of female characters in this book. The most justifiable reason I could come with was that this was how the author wanted this story to be. My only consolation is that in the later installments, there is an inclusion of active female characters, really amazing characters.
I'm also not referring to the number of female characters, but also the extent of the role/part they play. Judging only the first book, no female character made a huge impact. However, I do see some who has a lot of potential: I'm talking about girl from Caromentis who met with Meldorath.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 01 Oct 2020, 19:27
by Rodel Barnachea
Ellylion wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 10:27 Beth's character is very interesting, in my opinion :) Also, let us not forget about the Lord Eldus' housekeeper. She is very intriguing. She holds all the keys and knows all the secrets. Also, she would close her eyes to many evil things just to survive. She is quite memorable.
Beth was introduced at the later part of the book, so I understand if she didn't create a tremendous impact to the plot.

I agree that Beth is very interesting since she's the first character who came from Caromentis, which is still not yet explored in the first book. However, she was introduced at the later part of the book, so not much time is given to explore her character. I believe that she has a huge potential and could be a pivotal character in investigating Caromentis.

As for the housekeeper, what's her name again? I honestly cannot remember her name or if she survived Riva Rohavi's attack. Though, I do remember Lord Eldus' son escaping and probably surviving.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 02 Oct 2020, 00:32
by Cynthia Olyy
This really got me concerned. Was there no place to fix a female character? Well, the plot is still perfect, but I am of the opinion that female characterization would have spiced it up the more.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 02 Oct 2020, 02:26
by xsquare
aaurba wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 05:08 When I was reading the book, I noticed that there are no major female characters involved in the storyline. The protagonist, the protagonist's friends, Voulhire's leader, Riva Rohavi's leader, Hillport's leader, and the magical antagonist are all males. Many people say that given the book's medieval setting, it is only common that the book also follows medieval norms: decreased roles for women and bigger roles for men.

What is your opinion on this? Does the above explanation completely justify the book's lack of female main characters?
Not at all. As I've said in my review of the book – just because the book's set in a medieval setting, doesn't mean we have to import literally all of the characteristics of medieval settings. Moreover, this book isn't even set on medieval Earth, which makes this explanation even more of a flimsy and poor one. It would have made literally zero difference to the plot if the king is replaced by a queen, his son is instead a daughter, the Eiodi female instead of male – of course, I can't say for certain that it won't have a difference in the sequels, but if your plot honestly depends on your characters being male, then I think your plot has problems in the first place.

Moreover, Beth isn't even human. 'She' is an entity from Caromentis, and (hope I'm not spoiling it for anyone) if I'm recalling correctly they don't even have physical forms.

I've only read the second book of this series so far, but this is an issue that persists even in the second book. I think it's a pretty poor track record if 2/9 of your books don't feature female characters.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 02 Oct 2020, 05:06
by Ellylion
aaurba wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 19:27
Ellylion wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 10:27 Beth's character is very interesting, in my opinion :) Also, let us not forget about the Lord Eldus' housekeeper. She is very intriguing. She holds all the keys and knows all the secrets. Also, she would close her eyes to many evil things just to survive. She is quite memorable.
Beth was introduced at the later part of the book, so I understand if she didn't create a tremendous impact to the plot.

I agree that Beth is very interesting since she's the first character who came from Caromentis, which is still not yet explored in the first book. However, she was introduced at the later part of the book, so not much time is given to explore her character. I believe that she has a huge potential and could be a pivotal character in investigating Caromentis.

As for the housekeeper, what's her name again? I honestly cannot remember her name or if she survived Riva Rohavi's attack. Though, I do remember Lord Eldus' son escaping and probably surviving.
The Housekeeper not only survived, she continued to serve Meldorath like everything was okay.

Re: The book involves only a few female characters: Is it justified?

Posted: 02 Oct 2020, 14:29
by AnnOgochukwu
xsquare wrote: 02 Oct 2020, 02:26
aaurba wrote: 01 Oct 2020, 05:08 When I was reading the book, I noticed that there are no major female characters involved in the storyline. The protagonist, the protagonist's friends, Voulhire's leader, Riva Rohavi's leader, Hillport's leader, and the magical antagonist are all males. Many people say that given the book's medieval setting, it is only common that the book also follows medieval norms: decreased roles for women and bigger roles for men.

What is your opinion on this? Does the above explanation completely justify the book's lack of female main characters?
Not at all. As I've said in my review of the book – just because the book's set in a medieval setting, doesn't mean we have to import literally all of the characteristics of medieval settings. Moreover, this book isn't even set on medieval Earth, which makes this explanation even more of a flimsy and poor one. It would have made literally zero difference to the plot if the king is replaced by a queen, his son is instead a daughter, the Eiodi female instead of male – of course, I can't say for certain that it won't have a difference in the sequels, but if your plot honestly depends on your characters being male, then I think your plot has problems in the first place.

Moreover, Beth isn't even human. 'She' is an entity from Caromentis, and (hope I'm not spoiling it for anyone) if I'm recalling correctly they don't even have physical forms.

I've only read the second book of this series so far, but this is an issue that persists even in the second book. I think it's a pretty poor track record if 2/9 of your books don't feature female characters.
I really like your argument. Especially your stating that Beth is but an entity (having no form) in Caromentis. I hope this is not a spoiler, but the series doesn't continue in this style (of having no active female characters). There is a refreshing introduction of female character(s) in the 4th book, and curiously, Beth, is still a side-bag.