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

[María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda]

Given the time period of the book along with the setting, a greater female presence would not have been realistic. I think the author did a fantastic job with his female characters. Given how young Sarah is, her character is remarkable but more strong female characters would have diminished Sarah's role.

I agree. We often forget that the role of women in society changed relatively recently. Of course, we can find it bothersome and even sexist to see that female characters have a secondary role in historical novels but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the author is sexist. It's sometimes just the way to keep the story historically accurate.
Although I do love Sarah!

[Sarah Shine]

I am in love with the Warramunga series. jamie and Jacko are incredibly believable characters and throughout the novel I didn't get any idea of sexism. It's just about the demand of story and it could't be much batter. Female characters are very strong in many of novels and I believe they are given their due regality.

[kperm]

I believe that the novel would benefit a lot from a greater female presence. My favorite character in the book is Sarah and I would love to read more about her. I think that having a strong female character in a book is very important in today's society. Female characters in books become role models for young girls and become their motivation.

[Nuel Ukah]

I love this series by Greg Kater, however, I often feel like the amazing female characters could have a larger part to play in the novels.
For example, in "Skills of the Warramunga" Sarah, Jacko's half-sister is feisty, courageous and has amazing bush-skills. I was extremely impressed by her tracking skills. She's an inspiration to young women in her demeanor and independence.

Do you think the novel would have benefited from a greater inclusion of these amazing female characters? Or do you think that this would have been inappropriate in the historical setting of the novel?

I think greater inclusion of female characters would have been distracting. Female characters weren't the focus of the book.

[briellejee]

I love this series by Greg Kater, however, I often feel like the amazing female characters could have a larger part to play in the novels.
For example, in "Skills of the Warramunga" Sarah, Jacko's half-sister is feisty, courageous and has amazing bush-skills. I was extremely impressed by her tracking skills. She's an inspiration to young women in her demeanor and independence.

Do you think the novel would have benefited from a greater inclusion of these amazing female characters? Or do you think that this would have been inappropriate in the historical setting of the novel?

I think it would have, but considering the author is a male, I think he hesitated a bit because either there is lack of knowledge on how to portray them exactly in a way women readers would find interesting or it is not just an aspect he wants to deliver on the book. Regarding the first reason, separating a man's perspective in writing about women seem difficult. There has also been a backlash from women on some male authors in writing women characters so I guess this could be the reason why there is no greater female presence.

[briellejee]

Given the time period of the book along with the setting, a greater female presence would not have been realistic. I think the author did a fantastic job with his female characters. Given how young Sarah is, her character is remarkable but more strong female characters would have diminished Sarah's role.

I agree. We often forget that the role of women in society changed relatively recently. Of course, we can find it bothersome and even sexist to see that female characters have a secondary role in historical novels but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the author is sexist. It's sometimes just the way to keep the story historically accurate.
Although I do love Sarah!

I do agree about it being historically accurate. And that a lesser exposure of women does not imply that the author is sexist. Actually it might be a bit better since the author is male and that he is not sure that his portrayal of women in his novel would not offend his women readers.

[FrankieKelley]

I think it could have used more female characters, but I very much enjoyed reading it in the first place. Sarah alone provides quite a bit of representation in the story. But yes, it might have made the story a bit more accessible if there were more females involved.

[FrankieKelley]

Given the time period of the book along with the setting, a greater female presence would not have been realistic. I think the author did a fantastic job with his female characters. Given how young Sarah is, her character is remarkable but more strong female characters would have diminished Sarah's role.

I agree. We often forget that the role of women in society changed relatively recently. Of course, we can find it bothersome and even sexist to see that female characters have a secondary role in historical novels but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the author is sexist. It's sometimes just the way to keep the story historically accurate.
Although I do love Sarah!

I do agree about it being historically accurate. And that a lesser exposure of women does not imply that the author is sexist. Actually it might be a bit better since the author is male and that he is not sure that his portrayal of women in his novel would not offend his women readers.

That’s actually a really great point! I think it did work out better for the author to not have so many female characters, because then there wouldn’t be this huge debate over whether the book represented their leading ladies better or not.

[María Andrea Fernández Sepúlveda]

Given the time period of the book along with the setting, a greater female presence would not have been realistic. I think the author did a fantastic job with his female characters. Given how young Sarah is, her character is remarkable but more strong female characters would have diminished Sarah's role.

I agree. We often forget that the role of women in society changed relatively recently. Of course, we can find it bothersome and even sexist to see that female characters have a secondary role in historical novels but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the author is sexist. It's sometimes just the way to keep the story historically accurate.
Although I do love Sarah!

I do agree about it being historically accurate. And that a lesser exposure of women does not imply that the author is sexist. Actually it might be a bit better since the author is male and that he is not sure that his portrayal of women in his novel would not offend his women readers.

You're right. Unfortunately, a lot of male authors have trouble depicting complex and realistic female characters and can fall into stereotypes.

[briellejee]

I agree. We often forget that the role of women in society changed relatively recently. Of course, we can find it bothersome and even sexist to see that female characters have a secondary role in historical novels but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the author is sexist. It's sometimes just the way to keep the story historically accurate.
Although I do love Sarah!

I do agree about it being historically accurate. And that a lesser exposure of women does not imply that the author is sexist. Actually it might be a bit better since the author is male and that he is not sure that his portrayal of women in his novel would not offend his women readers.

You're right. Unfortunately, a lot of male authors have trouble depicting complex and realistic female characters and can fall into stereotypes.

Stereotype! That’s the word I was looking for! Unfortunately, this is true to most, if not all, women characters written by men. Resorted to what they only see and know, they tend to not go deeper to understand the woman psyche. Fortunately, Sarah’s character did not go into this stereotype.

[Howlan]

I think it could have used more female characters, but I very much enjoyed reading it in the first place. Sarah alone provides quite a bit of representation in the story. But yes, it might have made the story a bit more accessible if there were more females involved.

Definitely so. I have not read the previous books but I felt that Sarah could have offered us much more than what she has done. The inclusion of more female characters would have been better on the condition that they would have not mere side characters but rather had an interesting role to play in the whole story.

[Poppy Drear]

Honestly, this is one of the biggest reasons I don't read historical fiction. Some authors seem to think that women in historical fiction aren't worth writing much about, probably because what they could and couldn't do was so strictly limited by society at the time. At the end of the day, it's a matter of taste.

[faint9]

The book has been done without reservations. I think nothing else would have been done in terms of characters to improve on it. Let’s look at it this way; this being a predominately crime infested story; definitely, female presence would have been limited. They never take pleasure in these vices.

Sarah has significantly been vital because of the role she has played. Personally, I would have preferred inclusion of most active characters than a dull one. This is what Greg Kater has exactly done. Otherwise, the story will be full of inactive and passive individuals that will bring confusion to a reader.

[CommMayo]

Given the time period of the book along with the setting, a greater female presence would not have been realistic. I think the author did a fantastic job with his female characters. Given how young Sarah is, her character is remarkable but more strong female characters would have diminished Sarah's role.

I agree. We often forget that the role of women in society changed relatively recently. Of course, we can find it bothersome and even sexist to see that female characters have a secondary role in historical novels but that doesn't mean, necessarily, that the author is sexist. It's sometimes just the way to keep the story historically accurate.
Although I do love Sarah!

You make a really good point about the struggle between wanting to see stronger women while also having the book remain historically accurate.

[briellejee]

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.

"more diverse but less convincing", I agree on this. Lack of female presence might be accounted for the timeline and it does not mean it's a biased perspective on the author. Also, it could be that the author is much more comfortable in writing men since he is one, and that writing female characters on a man's perspective could lead to more stereotyping.