OnlineBookClub.org

Its a world where women are commonly taken advantage of. The physical attributes of these women largely contributed to their success as spies.

Wow guys! Interesting comments. I am new and haven't read this book yet but plan to do so. After reading your comments I am anxious to get at it! I'll post my opinion of the women when I'm done!

I agree with you

In my option they were portrayed as prostitutes but were still brave because we live in a world where they still think women are the lesser species. So being able to use their bodies but still gather information as spies was amazing

I think this one's a double edged sword for me. On the one hand, the women got much less character development than the men, but on the other, I think them being belly dancers and prostitutes did play a large role in why they were so successful in their spying endeavours. It is a tired trope, but given that it's still a thing that happens in the real world, apparently, I have a slightly more forgiving view of this specific novel.

Not to mention, the women who weren't spies, aside from the murder and kidnap victims, weren't either of these things, but were sort of elevated at times, like Jacko's sister, Sarah, being much better at tracking than he was.

I also think it's a side effect of having the point of view be so close to the men, so it doesn't give much development to characters they don't interact with on a frequent basis.

Prostitutes and dancers are the typical ways male authors depict women. They are supporting characters to the male lead, and thus, less important.

The women played their roles smartly and fearlessly and with their talent were successful in deceiving and manipulating the mindsets of the opponents.

Ever_Reading wrote: ↑03 Feb 2019, 14:15 I am glad you brought this up. I didn't like how women were generally portrayed in the book. In my opinion, most of the female spies were easily disposable. Out of all of them, Yasmina was the most well-developed. I couldn't tell the rest apart from one another. It felt like they were simply included to benefit and help Jamie, Jacko and the other lead male characters.

While they came across as smart, it was clear their looks and bodies did most of the work for them. They were effective in their roles but I wish more work could have been done to make their personalities shine through.

Dude, I totally agree. It was like the women were objectified even as they were being (supposedly) “empowered”. Almost as if they were dehumanized and deconstructed and washed-out to be the bare minimum of a plot-driven character. There wasn’t any pathos. Like you said, it felt like they were easily disposable, just complimentary to the male characters. Almost like they were accessories rather than people.

Itskai88 wrote: ↑03 Feb 2019, 16:52 From what I have noticed, the female characters in the story were portrayed as strong but the only problem probably stems from the fact that character development wasn't evident.

Bad character development totally kills a story, honestly. The plot can be great, but if the characters suck, the story will suck, too. Good characters can carry a lame plot, but even a dope plot can’t support poorly written characters.

They were strong and fearless. But I felt that they were used and manipulated. The only female character who was not manipulated appeared to be Jacko's sister, Sarah and she was not directly related to the war.

I think the problem with women in the book isn't that they're incapable, it's that they're all basically the same kind of capable. They're almost completely interchangeable- they're all smart, flirty, courageous...
They are all too much alike, so there's basically no difference between them. Thus, they become weirdly uninteresting.

Philip LoPresti wrote: ↑16 Apr 2019, 18:24 I think the problem with women in the book isn't that they're incapable, it's that they're all basically the same kind of capable. They're almost completely interchangeable- they're all smart, flirty, courageous...
They are all too much alike, so there's basically no difference between them. Thus, they become weirdly uninteresting.

You raise an excellent point here, though I do have to wonder. Is it that it was done because of a lack of interest in developing extended points of view for them, or is it because the author chose not to focus on things that did not directly contribute to the overall character arcs for Jack and Jamie?

The far I have read this book I must confess that the women characters as spies were portrayed as strong creatures. The likes of Fifi and Yvette.

I'm not sure, but I think it's part of an overall pattern. The people Jacko and Jamie encounter in the Outback are all eerily similar as well. Perhaps the writer felt that one he had a character type he liked to write, that's what he stuck with.
I don't think any of the women are poorly characterized per se, but they definitely are all alike.
I think it undercuts how strong the female characters are, or should be.

I think that the women presented in this piece were intelligent, strong, and cunning. The women used their bodies, minds and skills to their advantage. That being said, they were somewhat stereotypical, and it would have been interesting to see the female characters developed a bit more. The focus in this book was on the main male characters, not the females, which is not unusual for this genre.