Do you think the novel would have benefited from a greater female presence?

[Wyland]

Yes I believe Sarah's role in all these books in the series has been key because of her tracking skill. She may not be one of the main characters but her presence is important in the plotline. So, I think the author should consider having more female characters.

[Joe Hadithi]

Yes. Simply yes.

[Andy_C]

I do feel sometimes that concerns around gender and racial equality can be pushed on authors, and they end up writing books and characters that are more diverse but less convincing. I haven't yet read the novel, so I'm sure my opinion counts less than most on here, but given that it's a historical novel, I think a good case can be argued for less of a female presence (although plenty of amazing historical novelists use women as their protagonists - I'm thinking of Sarah Perry and Jessie Burton). I think this Sarah character sounds quite rounded and interesting, though, given what others have said.

[Sam Ibeh]

If the book was set in our present day, more female presence wouldn't have been a bag idea at all.

[Mallory Porshnev]

I don't think adding more females into the story would take away from it, but it might make it less historically accurate. I like when historical fiction is mostly accurate.

[Howlan]

Yes, definitely. I was personally disappointed that Sarah had not a very big role to play in the movie.

[mariana90]

I find hilarious that all these comments excuse the lack of female characters (in any book) due to them being "historical novels". You do know that women were in existence in ANY historical period, right?

You might say: "yeah, but they usually stayed at home". A. This was not the case for all of them. B. Even if they stayed at home, their perspective is still interesting and their tasks important.

[nicole-adrianne]

While female empowerment does not seem to be a theme of the story, I think almost anything based in history could use a stronger female presence. Though I don't feel that the author is intentionally leaving them out or anything like that. Women have been heavily present in adventures throughout history, but unfortunately their roles have often been dismissed, painted over, or forgotten. I think it's important we don't continue that trend. That being said, while I haven't read the whole story, I don't get the impression the author is sexist or anything like that.

Your interpretation of this reminds me of an exhibit hosted at the Vasamuseet in Stockholm, Sweden. It's a large, video-based exhibit that shows the role of European women in the 1500s and 1600s in business, construction, medicine, and more. Their narrative made the same point, that women have always been a large part of history but have been glossed over or forgotten.

[Katherine Smith]

I think that the biggest misconception that we have in western history is that women weren't involved in society. This could be further from the truth because women were courageous, but their stories were overlooked by historians due to their gender. I think that it is always a good thing to include more women in novels in a variety of roles.

[Manali_DC]

Given the time and setting of the story I think the characters were appropriate. Sarah was an amazing and strong female character. The first book had quite a few women characters central to the story. However, I think the author wrote characters according to the need of the story and it is great just the way it is.

[Kaitlyn Canedy]

If there are more women like Sarah yes! I love her character so much. I have read about 30% of the book and I cannot wait to see where her story is going to go.

[D_A_M_Martinez]

Although you have a point, there are different connotations with writing a male or female character, I'm not saying it is impossible to write an adventure book with a female protagonist but the development of each counterpart is different. And it appears it suited better for the author to write with a male character.

[KitabuKizuri]

I don't get it. I noted several women in the book, but it seems the question here is why they are not on the frontline, slaughtering, kidnapping, being slaughtered, being kidnapped, hunting, being hunted...

Women were more protected in those days, in my opinion. You can see the concern when some people ask about Sara's safety before they ventured into the Jungle.

If a man was lost in battle then children would at least have the mother around, even for protection from attackers. Women were much tougher those days when most of what was done was physical. Mothers nowadays don't go to work with children on their backs, do they? There is usually a trade-off family-wise when a woman takes the reigns in society. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The book is great as it is.

[nooregano]

The narratives of females in war are often left untold. It would have added another dimension to the story, and made it richer.

[amandathebibliophile]

I didn’t read this book, so I can’t claim specifically that I agree. But. I would mostly always argue that there’s a place for a strong female character in all stories!