Monstrous Regiment
Dec. 16th, 2009 06:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kindkitI recently re-read Terry Pratchett's Monstrous Regiment, and I have some thoughts.
I first read this novel when I was unfamiliar enough with the Discworld that I had no idea who Sam Vimes was, which was unfortunate as I think the book assumes the reader has some prior knowledge. It's not surprising I didn't enjoy it much on first reading. Now, as a confirmed Discworld fan, I expected to like it a lot more, but I didn't.
Polly Perks never felt well-developed as a character, so her quest to find her brother wasn't meaningful to me. The war situation was potentially interesting but written quite heavy-handedly (War Is Bad, yes, thanks Terry, we get it). And there was a lot that strained credulity, from small details (we're supposed to believe that Vetinari, who's gone to incredible lengths to avoid war in other books, would send Ankh-Morpork soldiers into a foreign war on account of some clacks tower being burned down?) to large plot developments. I couldn't even believe every soldier in the company turning out to be female, let alone a third of the high command. In general, the plot was too unstructured and much too reliant on coincidences.
The gender issues were handled in a way I think is typical of Pratchett, where he tries hard but there are some things he doesn't get. It bothered me that all the women except Maladict are in the army either for emotional reasons (searching for a relative or lover) or because they had no choice, rather than out of a desire for adventure or escape from the constraints Borogravian society places on women, or even patriotism. Pratchett also seems to think certain stereotypical characteristics (e.g. being able to cook a decent meal) are natural indicators of femaleness. On the other hand, he beautifully dismantles the notion that women are naturally gentler and kinder than men. I think Pratchett is relatively clueful about gender roles, but he's willing to sacrifice that cluefulness for the sake of a joke. It makes reading his books frustrating at times.
It also deeply dismayed me to see that the characters who, it's hinted, are a lesbian couple are portrayed as psychologically damaged. Tonker is full of barely controlled rage, while Lofty is a pyromaniac. We're told that this is due to abuse they suffered, but that doesn't really help. The problem is encapsulated by the moment when Polly sees them holding hands and thinks that they don't really look like friends but like people who are clinging desperately to each other out of fear. It's the all-too-common idea that lesbians are lesbians not because they love women, but because men have hurt them and therefore they hate and fear men. That and the "crazy lesbian" stereotype are things I could've gladly done without.
I should also say that Monstrous Regiment made me uncomfortable for reasons that aren't the fault of the book itself. As someone just coming to terms with his own trans identity, it's weird to read about cis women pretending to be men, even though of course they're pretending for good reasons. It's simultaneously too close to my own feelings and yet much, much too far away. (Let me hasten to add that I'm not against anyone playing around with gender. But the book is . . . not quite that, somehow.)
Perhaps that's why my favorite character was Sergeant Jackrum. I think there's a good case to be made for Jackrum actually being a trans man. He keeps referring to himself as a man even after revealing that he's female-bodied, and much of his reluctance to leave the army seems to stem from the idea that he'd then have to live as a woman. I loved the fact that, at Polly's suggestion, he decides to keep living as a man and to approach his long-lost son as a father rather than a mother.
I wish the book had been about Jackrum rather than Polly (for one thing, I want to know how Jackrum and William carried on their affair--did their fellow soldiers see them as a male/male couple?).
I know this is a favorite book for some of you on the flist. As I said, I honestly expected to like it better on re-reading, but it just doesn't work for me.
I first read this novel when I was unfamiliar enough with the Discworld that I had no idea who Sam Vimes was, which was unfortunate as I think the book assumes the reader has some prior knowledge. It's not surprising I didn't enjoy it much on first reading. Now, as a confirmed Discworld fan, I expected to like it a lot more, but I didn't.
Polly Perks never felt well-developed as a character, so her quest to find her brother wasn't meaningful to me. The war situation was potentially interesting but written quite heavy-handedly (War Is Bad, yes, thanks Terry, we get it). And there was a lot that strained credulity, from small details (we're supposed to believe that Vetinari, who's gone to incredible lengths to avoid war in other books, would send Ankh-Morpork soldiers into a foreign war on account of some clacks tower being burned down?) to large plot developments. I couldn't even believe every soldier in the company turning out to be female, let alone a third of the high command. In general, the plot was too unstructured and much too reliant on coincidences.
The gender issues were handled in a way I think is typical of Pratchett, where he tries hard but there are some things he doesn't get. It bothered me that all the women except Maladict are in the army either for emotional reasons (searching for a relative or lover) or because they had no choice, rather than out of a desire for adventure or escape from the constraints Borogravian society places on women, or even patriotism. Pratchett also seems to think certain stereotypical characteristics (e.g. being able to cook a decent meal) are natural indicators of femaleness. On the other hand, he beautifully dismantles the notion that women are naturally gentler and kinder than men. I think Pratchett is relatively clueful about gender roles, but he's willing to sacrifice that cluefulness for the sake of a joke. It makes reading his books frustrating at times.
It also deeply dismayed me to see that the characters who, it's hinted, are a lesbian couple are portrayed as psychologically damaged. Tonker is full of barely controlled rage, while Lofty is a pyromaniac. We're told that this is due to abuse they suffered, but that doesn't really help. The problem is encapsulated by the moment when Polly sees them holding hands and thinks that they don't really look like friends but like people who are clinging desperately to each other out of fear. It's the all-too-common idea that lesbians are lesbians not because they love women, but because men have hurt them and therefore they hate and fear men. That and the "crazy lesbian" stereotype are things I could've gladly done without.
I should also say that Monstrous Regiment made me uncomfortable for reasons that aren't the fault of the book itself. As someone just coming to terms with his own trans identity, it's weird to read about cis women pretending to be men, even though of course they're pretending for good reasons. It's simultaneously too close to my own feelings and yet much, much too far away. (Let me hasten to add that I'm not against anyone playing around with gender. But the book is . . . not quite that, somehow.)
Perhaps that's why my favorite character was Sergeant Jackrum. I think there's a good case to be made for Jackrum actually being a trans man. He keeps referring to himself as a man even after revealing that he's female-bodied, and much of his reluctance to leave the army seems to stem from the idea that he'd then have to live as a woman. I loved the fact that, at Polly's suggestion, he decides to keep living as a man and to approach his long-lost son as a father rather than a mother.
I wish the book had been about Jackrum rather than Polly (for one thing, I want to know how Jackrum and William carried on their affair--did their fellow soldiers see them as a male/male couple?).
I know this is a favorite book for some of you on the flist. As I said, I honestly expected to like it better on re-reading, but it just doesn't work for me.
