Jump to content
The Emma-Watson.net Forum

Emma Watson To Star In 'Queen of the Tearling'


Recommended Posts

Casting for this movie should be as follows. I think Pen....a member of the Queens guard with blond hair whom Emma's character is close with should be played by Chris Pratt "Guardians of the Galaxy".  I've always had a thing for Chris Pratt and I think there may be a chance for a romance with Pen and the Queen in future books.  Also I think the Fetch should be played by Pedro Pascal who played "Oberyn Martel...The Viper" in "Game of Thrones".  He has that dangerous but sexy needed for the Fetch.                 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Okay so .... I've read it....I'm not saying how but I have and it was Amazing!!!!  Also it's not stealing because I've pre-ordered the book at my local bookstore and will be the first there as soon as the store opens on July 8th to procure my copy.  Anyway this is not ... I repeat   NOT a Young Adult Book.  This book is Adult.   I, however, would allow my 16 year old to read it.  This book has mentions of rape including child rape...this book has death with blood and gore in "Game of Thrones" true fashion and Emma's character Kel can be a bad ass, sometimes, and vulnerable, sometimes, which makes for a great character.  Most of all there was a scene that made me cry...and if I cry over a scene in a book  then the book is immediately deemed a "Good Read" in my eyes.  I might add this book has a good bit of language....FU being the most predominant along with D*ck, a mention of a C*nt being licked, C*ck....and well a lot of colorful language that makes the book .... so not...Young adult.  If the movies follow along with the books then they will be a strong PG-13 or an easy R rating.  Don't listen to anyone who gives this book a bad review.  The characterization is strong with great character development and a very good story line.  Emma read it and loved it and so have I. It is a book with substance...you won't be disappointing. The only thing about it that disappoints me is that I can't have all 3 books to read NOW and all 3 movies to watch NOW.  Also I'm glad Emma is producing this. I'm sure she knows that the closer a movie follows the book then the better the Movie is and I have faith that she will make sure this movie retains the integrity of the books.  Reading the book and envisioning Emma as Kel... :) Happy dance! Peace I'm out.

Edited by tabitoo
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

If it's really close to Game of Thrones, I won't be reading it. Too much violence for me, not enough joy and laughing haha ! Not the type of book I would honestly appreciate.  

don't be so quick at judging when you didn't even give it try, that's silly. The fragment is too small to make an opinion on the book as a whole. 

I will buy it because it seems like something worth reading, entertaining, with major female roles/characters - that makes me excited to squeeze the book while reading it, so try it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've learn something in my last years it's that I know my tastes very well, and every time I've tried to play the "let's try to do like the other's" game, i'm losing because it doesn't correspond to what I want/need/like.

 

I'm not at all saying it's not worth reading, I'm saying that as entertained as I was with something as praised as Game of Thrones at the beginning, i can't watch it anymore without feeling anger, frustration, and bad feelings like that. And that's what's suppose to happen ! I've read that the author wants us to feel it in our guts when a character dies. But I also know that that's not what i want to feel when I try to entertain myself, and I don't like at all to feel that way when I want to be entertained. 

 

So yes it's silly, but it's how I feel, and as much as I could repeat myself "It's a good show, it's a good story, it's well written", I'm not living this experience for anyone else than myself, so if it doesn't feel good it's not for me. To rationalize isn't efficient here (pleasure's not about rationalizing). 

 

But you know what, if this story is as good as it's said to be, my mother will buy it for my brother, and i'll surely get to take an eye on it! But with all the good books that I still have to read, there's no point rushing to a book that doesn't match my interests. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The book is slightly comparable to "GoT" but not as violent. Though I think the "GoT" books aren't as violent as the TV series, due to the visual aspect you get from seeing it.  I just meant that I wouldn't put this book in a Young Adult category along the lines of "Twilight" or "Hunger Games". To me this book deals with a more mature subject matter. I can't say what it is because it would be too big of a Spoiler but it is a good subject to be focused on and that needs to be addressed and that can be related to from what's going on in the world today. All I'm saying is that it's a good book and I'd recommend it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Young Adult section even seems to be more violent these days...I just want to see Emma do a variety of things (same with Rupert). They are both very talented and directors need to take more notice!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
A very interesting essay from Tasha Robinson at The Dissolve on Strong Female Characters.
 
 
 
DreamWorks’ How To Train Your Dragon 2 considerably expands the world introduced in the first film, and that expansion includes a significant new presence: Valka, the long-lost mother of dragon-riding protagonist Hiccup, voiced by Cate Blanchett. The film devotes much of its sweet, sensitive middle act to introducing her, and building her up into a complicated, nuanced character. She’s mysterious and formidable, capable of taking Hiccup and his dragon partner Toothless out of the sky with casual ease. She’s knowledgable: Two decades of studying dragons means she knows Toothless’ anatomy better than he does. She’s wise. She’s principled. She’s joyous. She’s divided. She’s damaged. She’s vulnerable. She’s something female characters so often aren’t in action/adventure films with male protagonists: She’s interesting.
 
Too bad the story gives her absolutely nothing to do.
 
There’s been a cultural push going on for years now to get female characters in mainstream films some agency, self-respect, confidence, and capability, to make them more than the cringing victims and eventual trophies of 1980s action films, or the grunting, glowering, sexless-yet-sexualized types that followed, modeled on the groundbreaking badass Vasquez in Aliens. The idea of the Strong Female Character—someone with her own identity, agenda, and story purpose—has thoroughly pervaded the conversation about what’s wrong with the way women are often perceived and portrayed today, in comics, videogames, and film especially. Sophia McDougall has intelligently dissected and dismissed the phrase, and artists Kate Beaton, Carly Monardo, Meredith Gran have hilariously lampooned what it often becomes in comics. “Strong Female Character†is just as often used derisively as descriptively, because it’s such a simplistic, low bar to vault, and it’s more a marketing term than a meaningful goal. But just as it remains frustratingly uncommon for films to pass the simple, low-bar Bechdel Test, it’s still rare to see films in the mainstream action/horror/science-fiction/fantasy realm introduce women with any kind of meaningful strength, or women who go past a few simple stereotypes.
 
And even when they do, the writers often seem lost after that point. Bringing in a Strong Female Characterâ„¢ isn’t actually a feminist statement, or an inclusionary statement, or even a basic equality statement, if the character doesn’t have any reason to be in the story except to let filmmakers point at her on the poster and say “See? This film totally respects strong women!â€
 
Valka is just the latest example of the Superfluous, Flimsy Character disguised as a Strong Female Character. And possibly she’s the most depressing, considering Dragon 2’s other fine qualities, and considering how impressive she is in the abstract. The film spends so much time on making her first awe-inducing, then sympathetic, and just a little heartbreakingly pathetic in her isolation and awkwardness at meeting another human being. But once the introductions are finally done, and the battle starts, she immediately becomes useless, both to the rest of the cast and to the rapidly moving narrative. She faces the villain (the villain she’s apparently been successfully resisting alone for years!) and she’s instantly, summarily defeated. Her husband and son utterly overshadow her; they need to rescue her twice in maybe five minutes. Her biggest contribution to the narrative is in giving Hiccup a brief, rote “You are the Chosen One†pep talk. Then she all but disappears from the film, raising the question of why the story spent so much time on her in the first place. It may be because writer-director Dean DeBlois originally planned for her to be the film’s villain, then discarded that idea in later drafts. But those later drafts give her the setup of a complicated antagonist… and the resolution of no one at all. (Meanwhile, the actual villain gets virtually no backstory—which is fine, in a way—but it leaves the film unbalanced.)
 
And Valka’s type—the Strong Female Character With Nothing To Do—is becoming more and more common. The Lego Movie is the year’s other most egregious and frustrating example. It introduces its female lead, Elizabeth Banks’ Wyldstyle, as a beautiful, super-powered, super-smart, ultra-confident heroine who’s appalled by how dumb and hapless protagonist Emmet is. Then the rest of the movie laughs at her and marginalizes her as she turns into a sullen, disapproving nag and a wet blanket. One joke has Emmet tuning her out entirely when she tries to catch him up on her group’s fate-of-the-world struggle; he replaces her words with “Blah blah blah, I’m so pretty.†Her only post-introduction story purpose is to be rescued, repeatedly, and to eventually confer the cool-girl approval that seals Emmet’s transformation from loser to winner. After a terrific story and a powerful ending, the movie undermines its triumph with a tag where WyldStyle actually turns to her current boyfriend for permission to dump him so she can give herself to Emmet as a reward for his success. For the ordinary dude to be triumphant, the Strong Female Character has to entirely disappear into Subservient Trophy Character mode. This is Trinity Syndrome à la The Matrix: the hugely capable woman who never once becomes as independent, significant, and exciting as she is in her introductory scene. (Director Chris McKay sorta-acknowledged the problem in a DailyMail interview presented as “The Lego Movie filmmaker promises more ‘strong females’ in the sequel,†though his actual quotes do nothing of the sort.)
 
And even when strong, confident female characters do manage to contribute to a male-led action story, their contributions are still more likely to be marginal, or relegated entirely to nurturer roles, or victim roles, or romantic roles. Consider Tauriel in The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug, a wholly invented Strong Female Character ostensibly created to add a little gender balance to an all-male adventure. She’s capable of killing approximately a billion spiders and orcs with elven archery kung-fu, but she only shows any actual personality when she’s swooning over the dwarf Kili, and being swooned over in return by Legolas, in a wearyingly familiar Twilight-esque love triangle. Consider Katee Sackhoff’s Dahl in Riddick, introduced as a tough second-in-command who proclaims early on that she’s no man’s sexual object—unlike the movie’s only other woman, a brutalized, chained rape victim, casually killed to make a point—but given no particular plot relevance. Despite what Dahl says, she’s just sexual spice for the film: She strips for the camera, fights off a rape attempt, smirks through the antihero’s graphically crude come-ons, then decides at the end that she would like to be his sexual object. Consider Alice Eve’s Carol Marcus in Star Trek: Into Darkness, introduced as a defiant, iconoclastic rules-breaker exactly like James Kirk, but ultimately winding up in the story largely so she can strip onscreen and present herself as an embarrassingly ineffectual hostage. Rinko Kikuchi’s Mako Mori in Pacific Rim is weak next to Charlie Hunnam’s Raleigh—her past trauma blocks her from being effective in mecha combat, and endangers everyone around her—but even when she proves her strength, he still has to assert himself by knocking her out and dumping her limp body as he heads off to save the day at the end. Ditto with Tom Cruise’s Jack in Oblivion, who pulls the same move on Julia (Olga Kurylenko), his capable partner.
 
It’s hard for any action movie to have two or more equal heroes, and the ensemble approach doesn’t work for every story. It’s understandable that for a Hero’s Journey plot to entirely resolve, the hero sometimes has to take the last steps alone. For male heroes, that often means putting independence and self-sacrifice before any other consideration. But for decades, action movies have found ways to let male sidekicks drop back at the climax of a story without dying, disappearing, or waiting at home to offer themselves to the hero to celebrate his victory. Female characters don’t have to dominate the story to come across as self-reliant, but they do have to have some sense of purpose. Valka’s is, apparently, to deliver some heartening information and a little inspiration to Hiccup, and nothing else. It’s a bafflingly piddly role for someone whom the narrative seems to care about passionately… until it’s time for her to do something.
 
So here’s a quick questionnaire for filmmakers who’ve created a female character who isn’t a dishrag, a harpy, a McGuffin to be passed around, or a sex toy. Congratulations, you have a Strong Female Character. That’s a great start! But now what? Screenwriters, producers, directors, consider this:
  1. After being introduced, does your Strong Female Character then fail to do anything fundamentally significant to the outcome of the plot? Anything at all?
  2. If she does accomplish something plot-significant, is it primarily getting raped, beaten, or killed to motivate a male hero? Or deciding to have sex with/not have sex with/agreeing to date/deciding to break up with a male hero? Or nagging a male hero into growing up, or nagging him to stop being so heroic? Basically, does she only exist to service the male hero’s needs, development, or motivations?
  3. Could your Strong Female Character be seamlessly replaced with a floor lamp with some useful information written on it to help a male hero?
  4. Is a fundamental point of your plot that your Strong Female Character is the strongest, smartest, meanest, toughest, or most experienced character in the story—until the protagonist arrives?
  5. …or worse, does he enter the story as a bumbling fuck-up, but spend the whole movie rapidly evolving past her, while she stays entirely static, and even cheers him on? Does your Strong Female Character exist primarily so the protagonist can impress her?
  6. It’s nice if she’s hyper-cool, but does she only start off that way so a male hero will look even cooler by comparison when he rescues or surpasses her?
  7. Is she so strong and capable that she’s never needed rescuing before now, but once the plot kicks into gear, she’s suddenly captured or threatened by the villain, and needs the hero’s intervention? Is breaking down her pride a fundamental part of the story?
  8. Does she disappear entirely for the second half/third act of the film, for any reason other than because she’s doing something significant to the plot (besides being a hostage, or dying)?
If you can honestly answer “no†to every one of these questions, you might actually have a Strong Female Character worthy of the name. Congratulations!

 

But there are exceptions to every rule. Edge Of Tomorrow features Emily Blunt as Rita, an ultra-tough female character who dies to motivate the male protagonist.(Repeatedly!) She starts off as the biggest bad-ass in her world, but is eventually surpassed by hero William Cage (Tom Cruise), who starts off as a bumbling fuck-up. She mostly exists in the story to provide Cage with information and cheer him on, and eventually validates him with a brief romantic moment. And yet the story doesn't degrade, devalue, weaken, or dismiss her. It sends the hero on without her at the end—but only at the very end, after she’s proved her worth again and again. She’s tough. She’s confident. She’s desperate. She’s funny. In short, she’s aspirational and inspirational, and just as exciting at the end of the movie as she is at the beginning. 
 
So maybe all the questions can boil down to this: Looking at a so-called Strong Female Character, would you—the writer, the director, the actor, the viewer—want to be her? Not want to prove you’re better than her, or to have her praise you or acknowledge your superiority. Action movies are all about wish-fulfillment. Does she fulfill any wishes for herself, rather than for other characters? When female characters are routinely “strong†enough to manage that, maybe they’ll make the “Strong Female Characters†term meaningful enough that it isn’t so often said sarcastically.
Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a huge problem with movies today. Yes as a young woman I love seeing the guys especially because of the eye candy ;) but I also want guys who can act too. Now for women roles, I want to see strong female characters. That was a huge reason why I love Hermione. She is a strong female who showed that brains was better than brawn. She also showed that she wasn't the damsel in distress kind but wouldn't turn down her ginger knight from saving her and protecting her. But it wasn't just Hermione...was also Molly-she is the home maker and a wife but this woman would go to any length to protect her children, Hermione and Harry included. I mean even Narcissa was willing to lie for her son's protection.

 

This was also a huge reason I loved Noah. I thought that Ila and Naameh were just incredible. These 2 women were the bravest and smartest out of the men. I mean in my opinion I think movies are afraid to show smart brave women because there is something to be said for a bit of chauvinism in the movie industry. Maybe someday there will be strong female characters and maybe just maybe there will be a trend started. Thanks for sharing this Roberto.

Link to post
Share on other sites
"The screenplay for The Queen Of The Tearling has been written by Mark L. Smith, who has just finished The Revenant for director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (that one will star Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy)."
 
"Smith’s doing further work on his Tearling script and will deliver it to producer David Heyman in two weeks."
 
"Discussions about a director will start once the script has been handed in."
 
"Filming on the kick-ass fantasy could start next year, but it may take some time to line up an A-list director who can be available at the same time as Emma. Plus, there are some mammoth new worlds to be created on studio backlots."
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I am just ready to see her and Rupert both do lead roles. Dan has been doing it since forever so now I want to see our other 2 of the trio get some lead roles :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean I am just ready to see her and Rupert both do lead roles. Dan has been doing it since forever so now I want to see our other 2 of the trio get some lead roles :)

He has been amazing in his films and there's more to come, Emma won me over but Rupert has to show me he is worth voting for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read "Queen of the Tearling" the female lead is most definitively the main character throughout. She does have lots of support from male characters but she is the main focus and is in almost every scene of the book if only being focused and discussed by other characters in a few chapters not from her point of view. Kelsea is a strong and flawed character. I think everyone will enjoy the book and yes there is plenty of violence if you want a sweet love story without violence then I recommend "The Fault in Our Stars" its a very good book. However if you want a kick ass action adventure with sword play that does contain blood shed, dismemberment and death then read this book. Though this book has a lot more substance than the violence within. The world Kelsea is born into is a violent world and one she wants to change for the better.  Kelsea suffers a lot and without giving too much away there is plenty of colorful language throughout and I mean MF...F...words. So yeah this book isn't for the squeamish but if you can handle GoT then you can most def handle this. But it is a damn good book and the last two chapters made me cry...so yeah it's good. I've read it 3x so far and I can't wait to purchase the Hardback copy in a couple of days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Elena, from what I have seen of Rupert he is very good in Into the White and was hysterical in Wild Target...maybe soon he will win yas over ;) Emma has more than won me over no question!!!! :)

 

Tabitoo thanks for your review...I love action movies and this sounds pretty actiony ;) but it also sounds like it is not mindless action but has a real plot! I will need to read this book myself!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Elena, from what I have seen of Rupert he is very good in Into the White and was hysterical in Wild Target...maybe soon he will win yas over ;) Emma has more than won me over no question!!!! :)

 

Tabitoo thanks for your review...I love action movies and this sounds pretty actiony ;) but it also sounds like it is not mindless action but has a real plot! I will need to read this book myself!!

emma got to me, I love her so much and too proud for all she has achieved. but yeah will watch ruperts movies and come back with an opinion. i want queen of the tearling in my collection and on screen xx

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) I hear what ya say Elena... I love Emma as Hermione which was how she had my attention but she won me over once I saw her in Perks :) I have seen all of her movies now :) Rupert too- I love him as Ron but he won me over in Wild Target...he was so awesome in this. Into the White though was his most dramatic role and you were like uhhhh is that really the guy who played Ron Weasley? Both just have extremely promising post Potter careers.

 

Oh I know!! I want Queen of the Tearling too- not only because it is action and sounds like a strong female character but also because Emma will be the lead!!!!!!!!! :) go Emma!!!!!!!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

:) I hear what ya say Elena... I love Emma as Hermione which was how she had my attention but she won me over once I saw her in Perks :) I have seen all of her movies now :) Rupert too- I love him as Ron but he won me over in Wild Target...he was so awesome in this. Into the White though was his most dramatic role and you were like uhhhh is that really the guy who played Ron Weasley? Both just have extremely promising post Potter careers.

 

Oh I know!! I want Queen of the Tearling too- not only because it is action and sounds like a strong female character but also because Emma will be the lead!!!!!!!!! :) go Emma!!!!!!!! :)

aaaaand first time executive producer! that is so cool! i haven't seen noah yet, but yes she won me over with perks, definitely and foreverly. I haven't seen any other grint film other than potter so I cannot comment on any. seeing everybody raving about him, I have to get it on and watch some.

Edited by Elena
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know isn't it cool!?! You HAVE to see Noah....if you want to see two strong female characters, watch Naameh and Ila.

Yes Rupert is awesome and there is a reason many of us rave about him :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Why We Need "Ugly" Heroines
By Erika Johansen
 
There are not enough realistic heroines in literature. Lately, every time I pick up a book with a female main character, I see at least two common elements. The first is that she’s pretty, if not beautiful, and the fact that she’s physically appealing has a distinct effect on the novel’s plot, changing the way other characters, both male and female, react to her. The second is that no matter how grim a situation surrounds the heroine or how world-ripping the conflict she’s involved in, there is always a love story, and it’s usually one of the main foci of the book.
 
Maybe I’ve been reaching for the wrong books. I’m the first to admit that I don’t read widely enough; and it limits the number of new books I get to. But I spend plenty of time in my local bookstore’s sci-fi/fantasy section. Covers with women on them are rare, but among those, the sexy woman with snapping hair and a fiery come-hither-and-sex-me-now look predominates. If I’m lucky, she’s wearing something that approximates a full outfit, but still, whether she’s casting a spell or wielding a sword, there’s usually a generous helping of cleavage.
 
This drives me up the wall.
 
Women read fantasy. We read it in droves. But someone out there clearly thinks that it’s not enough that a fantasy heroine be good with a sword or a spell. She also needs to look like a leather-clad model. That’s a phenomenon you don’t see with male fantasy protagonists, who are usually fully covered in clothing — and often a heap of armor to boot — and I find the double standard incredibly irritating. True, women are probably undeterred by the fact that some art department has cast our protagonist as an elfin Kate Upton; if I want to read a book, I’m going to buy it no matter what’s on the cover. But there’s a big difference between being undeterred and being satisfied, and the cover gives the general impression of what’s inside the book.
 
That’s not to say that these smoking-hot heroines can’t still be good role models. If I ever have a daughter, I would like her to be as brave and resourceful as Katniss Everdeen. Hell, I would like to be as brave as Katniss myself. But as much as I loved The Hunger Games, I was also sad that even a small measure of Katniss’ success demanded that, in addition to being tough and smart, she also look good on stage in a dress. Wasn’t she enough of a badass already?
 
Many of the initial reactions to my first novel, The Queen of the Tearling, have mentioned, with pleased surprise, that my heroine, Kelsea, is not pretty. The ubiquity of these comments tells me that there are plenty of readers out there — and not all of them are women — who are absolutely being underserved by the current trends. Of course, the heroic mode, in which our hero must always be stronger, better-looking, smarter, and braver than the rest of us, will always serve a purpose, but I think that purpose is now largely rooted in escapism rather than realism. Readers also like the opportunity to read books about people like themselves, characters who struggle with the same set of flaws and challenges. Many authors, across multiple genres, have discovered this fact and used it to their advantage. There’s good money in the quotidian, but there seems to be a curious resistance to books and stories about the “ugly†heroine. I’m not sure whether this resistance comes from the writers or the publishers, although when my agent and I were marketing my own novel, I did field several questions from potential editors about whether we could “make her pretty.†These demands seemed to convey a lack of faith not only in the book and the heroine, but in the reader as well, by assuming that no one would want to read about a woman unless she was beautiful.
 
This assumption is especially surprising in America, where we have major problems not only with obesity, but with eating disorders as well. Cosmetic surgery does a thriving business, mostly with women. The country has a disproportionate number of women who think they are not pretty enough, or not thin enough, no matter what the objective evidence tells them. Our popular culture is doing women no favors in this respect; for many women, even an ordinary day presents myriad possibilities to learn the ways in which we are, physically speaking, simply not good enough. It’s difficult to weave self-esteem out of midair, and when books reinforce the idea that appearance is a defining characteristic of who we are, it doesn’t help.
 
I want something better than this for women. Intelligence, compassion, integrity, persistence, the ability to look beyond oneself — these are qualities that we should encourage all genders to value and embrace, both in themselves and others, from a young age. But the assumption that heroines need to be good-looking creates a corresponding assumption about women who are not. Books have the power to combat the idea of appearance as defining currency. Books can show us that admirable and interesting women come in all shapes and sizes.
 
And speaking of interesting, let’s talk about what that means. Above, I mentioned my other big beef with women’s literature: If the book is “geared toward women†— whatever that really means — then there must be a love story.
 
God knows I love a good romance novel; it’s rare that I’m not carrying a Lisa Kleypas book to get me through any given airplane flight. But romance is a genre defined by escapism, by letting go of reality. When I’m reading a novel about real women with real problems, nothing irritates me more than a heroine who forgets everything else as soon as the token love interest shows up. Every once in a while, the author is good enough to perfectly balance the romantic with the real, and I applaud such authors; Alice Hoffman has a particular gift for it. But most of the time, the love story seems contrived, because it is. It doesn’t belong in the story, but someone has stuck it in there anyway, because how else would we keep female readers interested? This is another area where potential publishers expressed concern: that there was no love story in my novel. The usual question I received: “Is there a way to up the romance?†This in spite of the fact that my heroine is a queen, the head of government, and facing a nightmare list of problems in her corrupt kingdom. Surely it would be reasonable for her to waste valuable time cobbling together a romance with any available guy, right?

 

But whether a love story would have made sense in the context of the book is really beside the point. The more important question, to my mind, is: Would potential publishers have asked me that question if my book’s central character had been a king? Unlikely. Some publishers and authors may claim that they’re simply catering to the market, but few have been brave enough to test that market. For every early reader who has complained that my book contains no romance, there was an equal and opposite reader who mentioned the lack of romance as a breath of fresh air in a genre where the tropes are generally pretty well-defined. (Thank you, second reader; you were my target audience when I wrote my book.) And as much as I adore a good romance, I don’t think it’s a great trend that any novel with a woman at its center must have romance awkwardly shoehorned in there, no matter how poorly it fits.
 
The predominance of romance in women’s literature is stunningly unrealistic. The assumption that most heroines would necessarily focus that much attention on their love lives is ridiculous, particularly in the modern world. Real women, even if they aren’t queens, have real problems: jobs to do; bills to pay; families to raise; domestic and sexual violence to worry about; sexism to combat; and sometimes racism, homophobia, and other forms of bigotry as well. When the average adult heroine pushes these real problems aside in favor of worrying about how to live happily ever after with her prince, I don’t find her admirable, nor do I find her a good role model. I am likewise offended when a heroine who is perfectly interesting on her own must be forced to couple up in order to hold the interest of a fantasy demographic. I love escapist literature, but the contours of escapism shouldn’t define the rules for every heroine out there. When potential editors ask me why my incredibly busy, stressed, and belabored queen can’t have a love life, something is wrong.
 
We need more fantasy books about women, period. But we particularly need more books about real women: heroines with their priorities in order, to whom both male and female readers can relate. Readers need to demand such heroines; publishers need to take a chance on them. There are all kinds of women out there; many of us contribute to society, and many of us go unnoticed in a crowd. But we are still worth writing about, still worth publishing…and still waiting to see ourselves on the cover of that fantasy novel.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...