thePlenty.net Forums

Full Version: Human Diversity (WARNING:unmarked Dragon Keeper spoilers)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
One of the (many) things that impresses me about Robin Hobb's stories is her willingness to address issues of human diversity through a fantasy medium. With regard to gender diversity, many female fantasy characters (including Althea in Hobb's own Liveship trilogy) cross-dress as men in order to evade social restrictions. However, the Fool ventures far beyond this purely utilitarian approach to transgender, expressing a gender identity and sexuality so ambiguous that it subverts the distinction between man and woman.

Hobb is also the only author (of which I am aware) to have created a Down's syndrome fantasy hero (Thick). The issue of attempts to limit human diversity was touched upon through Thick's interactions with the Outislanders. In the Outer Isles, selective infanticide is practiced; any newborn children considered weak or defective are killed at birth. Thick is initially regarded with disgust and derision as a person who should not have been allowed to survive. It is only when Thick exhibits his skill-healing powers that he is accepted as a useful (indeed, revered) member of society.

In Dragon Keeper, this theme moves to centre stage. The Bingtown traders and Rainwilders also practice selective infanticide, killing children that express reptilian traits at birth. The justification for this practice is that children "touched" by the Rain Wilds tend to be short-lived and undesirable as mates; unlikely to contribute to the next generation. It is also believed that such individuals will tend to produce children who are themselves heavily touched, increasing the proportion of such individuals in the population. In essence, Rainwild/Bingtown society has constructed arbitrary limits for human diversity. Anyone falling beyond those limits is judged unworthy to survive.

The Dragons have a slightly different approach. Weak individuals are not killed but neither are they aided. Any individual too weak to survive alone is allowed to die and then consumed by the survivors. Here, nature is appointed judge of who is worthy to survive. This is natural selection but it is artificial natural selection because the stronger dragons could help the weaker if they chose to do so. No-one unable to survive alone is allowed to survive at all.

The contradictions and limitations of institutional care for those regarded as defective are revealed in the Rainwilders' treatment of the hatchling dragons. Because of their contract with Tintaglia, the Rainwilders feel obliged to keep the dragons alive. However, because they see the dragons as defective and useless, the Rainwilders do the bare minimum necessary to meet their obligations and attempt to rid themselves of their perceived burden at the first opportunity. They make no effort to aid the dragons in overcoming their disabilities or discovering their potential and so the dragons fail to thrive, wallowing in despair and self-pity.

In our world, most societies do not practice selective infanticide in the traditional sense. However, in the UK, all prospective parents are offered tests and screens for Down's syndrome and various other "birth defects" with the option of abortion if the outcome is unfavourable. I think that our treatment of the "disabled" is now a little more enlightened than the Rainwilders' treatment of the hatchling dragons. Nevertheless, it does no harm to be reminded that huge potential can exist in unexpected places and that by limiting diversity we may literally be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I have nothing to add, except that I am so glad to be a part of this group Thankful ! You all just amaze me with insightful posts such as this one...BRAVO, Maulkin...that was magic Magic !
Thanks for that interesting post maulkin!
I really loved the character of Thick. Now that I think about it, it must have been a bit of a challenge writing that character without being patronising or offensive or having it seem like you're putting in a 'token' character.

I guess the Rainwilders have their 'practical' reasons for leaving their 'deformed' children out in the jungle but it seems like disgust at their sheer physical differences (and their reptilian resemblence?) is a part of it. (see some people's reactions to Thymara in DK), I am not sure why such a big deal is made of it when a fair proportion of the Rainwilds population is affected to a lesser degree anyway. Maybe they like to draw a line in the sand and have 'acceptable' firmly on one side and 'unacceptable' on the other.

The dragons ARE a lot more open about their position aren't they? I think the main difference behind this is that humans in fact feel guilt/shame about their practices whereas dragons have none at all.

I thought the Rainwilders treatment of the hatchlings WAS pretty shabby, but I guess your post highlights the fact it was probably meant to be considered alongside their treatment of their own children (the dragon keepers themselves).

I love your last point about how huge potential can exist in unexpected places. Coincedentally I've been thinking about that very point recently. How society tends to value certain types of people and even more strikingly tends to devalue certain other types of people. How true that you literally never know what a person could contribute - if given a chance to develop whatever their gift may be.
(May-14-2010, 01:41 PM (UTC))Nuytsia Wrote: [ -> ]I guess the Rainwilders have their 'practical' reasons for leaving their 'deformed' children out in the jungle but it seems like disgust at their sheer physical differences (and their reptilian resemblence?) is a part of it.
Hmmm having read about 3/4 of Dragon Haven I'd have to review, or add to, my thoughts on this a bit....

Dragon Haven