First Test

People have been telling me for years that I ought to read Tamora Pierce, and I finally have. I've read the first three books in her Protector of the Small series (First Test, Page, and Squire), and I'm looking forward to reading the fourth (Lady Knight).

I was really impressed by the way Pierce uses a fantasy setting to address real-world issues like sexism, bullying, institutional hazing, and the code of silence that so often unites young people against adult authority figures. Keladry of Mindelan, a remarkable 10-year-old, is the only girl in a school full of boys training as pages, the first step toward becoming a knight. Kel must cope with hostility from many of her teachers as well as from her peers: the training master has made no secret of his belief that women have no place at the school. Kel spends her first year of training "on probation," a restriction imposed on no other student.

Kel's early training as the daughter of a diplomat allows her to remain calm and expressionless even when her fellow-students jeer and laugh at her. "I am stone," she tells herself, refusing to be goaded into an emotional display that would only reinforce the men's conviction that a woman doesn't have what it takes to be a successful knight. Although her classmates nickname her "the Lump," she ultimately wins their respect not only for her fighting skills but for her sense of justice. She challenges the bullying that others have accepted as part of school life, but she doesn't merely protect those who are weak and small; she teaches them to defend themselves.

What confuses me is how Pierce fans respond to my choice of First Test for last month's meeting. "Why did you start with that?" they want to know, their voices dripping with disgust. "You should have read Alanna." Sometimes it's another series, Beka Cooper or Circle of Magic, but the majority of protestors have named Alanna and the Wild Magic books. "Kel is so boring. She doesn't even have any magic."

As I said, Protector of the Small is the only series I've read, so I can't comment on the others. For all I know, I might prefer Wild Magic; that's not really the issue. Why do they seem so angry, so personally insulted by my choice of book, especially when they admire the author so much?

I've come up with a few reasons for their reaction:

Chronology: Alanna's series takes place earlier; in fact, Alanna's struggle to become a knight while disguised as a boy forces the king to recognize that girls should be given equal opportunity. Kel's story begins with Alanna's discovery that she will not be allowed to help the young girl on her journey to becoming a knight; like Alanna, Kel will have to find her own way. I've noticed that fans can be very rigid about the order in which books SHOULD be read.

Impatience: First Test is the only book by Tamora Pierce we've scheduled for this year. Perhaps the protestors are disappointed that they'll have to wait a long while before we'll get around to the Pierce book they prefer.

The Paradox of the Series: Series are popular because when readers find a book they really love, they want to read more of the same. At the same time, they're very critical of writers who repeat the same story over and over. I got the impression that some readers felt that Kel was too different from Alanna, far less fiery and impulsive and therefore "boring." At the same time, they'd already seen the story of a young girl fighting for acceptance among the male warriors; why rehearse it again? It's difficult to satisfy readers who want "the same thing only different" from their favorite authors.

These all make sense, but I'm afraid there may be one more reason, one that I find particularly disturbing. From what I've seen of her in Protector of the Small, Alanna prefers to meet every challenge by confronting it immediately and head-on. When she's angry, people know it, and she wins the respect of her opponents at the point of a sword. Kel, on the other hand, plays the long game. She's willing to work slowly to solve a problem, and she shows surprising grace and tact in resolving problems with friends and enemies alike. Her cool judgment and ability to act wisely in a crisis shows that she can be a strong leader in peacetime as well as in conflict.

Do readers prefer Alanna to Kel because fighting for a quick fix is more appealing than working slowly toward a long-term solution? Have they decided that patience and tact are outdated, boring, and stereotypically feminine?

Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency has provoked a number of questions about women's ability to lead, and Sen. Clinton has responded by emphasizing her qualifications as Commander-in-Chief. She's focused on issues of personal strength and military engagements, but what about diplomacy and statesmanship? Obama speaks often of the need to reconcile (liberals and conservatives, the U.S. and other nations); is Clinton afraid that she'll seem weak if she talks about reconciliation instead of military solutions? Can there be authority without violence?

My final question applies as much to Senator Clinton as it does to Alanna and Kel: Does a woman have to fight to be taken seriously?