I think the answer is simply that Donaldson's women reflect the era in which he wrote them. Like the early Star Trek women in their short, revealing uniforms, these heroines were automatically beautiful, despite Donaldson's more 3-dimensional rendering of their history or resultant flaws/weaknesses. We look at them with our 2006 eyes and ask why he made them so, but they were made in an era where 'why is she beautiful?' was no more often asked than 'why is the hero battle-scarred?' It would be as illogical as asking in 1977 why no Haruchai women ever left their husbands to fill the place of a fallen member of the Bloodguard. Too much leaping out of stereotype.
I've come to realise over the last few years that I have to forgive Donaldson for his limitations when it comes to women. Why are so many women objectified, fondled like toys, even raped, in his books. I used to think it was just that the guy had issues (and maybe he did/does), but now I tend to think that a man of his generation simply lacked imagination when it came to women. When it came to hurting women he used the same old methods that men have always used - treat her like a thing, take away her chastity (which will of course devastate her the way it would never devastate a man...it was always assumed), use sexual violence.
It's disgusting, in terms of constantly repeated themes it's even boring, but it's also typical of the era. With the themes of women's liberation floating through the entertainment world, writers created new, strong, female characters, but when it came to quelling their strength they resorted to old ways of hurting women. Their paradigm hadn't quite shifted enough for anything else yet. <i></i>
|