I think I get where you're headed with the Briggs--it's the whole humanity side. What makes us human and what makes us "other," and, along those lines, what makes the supernatural still human, which gets back to certain assumptions. Her wolves still strive to retain humanity; those that don't are the ones that need to be destroyed.
And, swinging that back around, what defines humanity? It often goes back to certain, basic binaries like man/woman, good/evil, black/white. . . The inescapability of certain roles.
I think it's interesting though, that if you look at the way those roles a navigated when an author wants to turn them upside down, it's a very delicate process--no one wants to create the "effeminate man" or the "*itch woman." Striking a balance that a general audience will accept while overturning certain stereotypes becomes a very difficult thing.
Well her wolves aren't just wolf spirits co-habiting human bodies. Samuel's wolf wanted to maintain his 'personality'? in the second to the last book but was slowly turning into a massive raging bundle of death. On the other hand the were-wolf half was definitely intriguing to the Indian Wolf/God. Yet on a third, actual wolves rarely turn into rabid bundles of kill kill kill. So like I said its hard to pigeon-hole how the were's would act from a straight observation of man/wolf. The magic portion (which has to be the explaination) throw's everything off.
As far as what defines humanity. I'm with you on the first one. The second two are constructs, are they integral constructs or optional worldview kind of go into philosophy. The closest thing I've seen to an instinct in humanity, is the desire to create language for communication. But as the wolf boy of France showed back in the 1800's, use it or the ability to develop it is lost. However we're such socialized creatures that certain bedrock cultural norms we absorb during our development define not only us. But everyone around us. Its like the Judge who once commented that is someone didn't like swearing to tell the truth so help me god, they should just swear the alternate so help me under the law or whatever the exact wording is. Yet when he was questioned if he wouldn't have a bias against someone who asked to be sworn in under the alternate, he took a moment and admitted he he probably would. Which actually was mildly surprising to the judge once he realized it.
Then there's the test with young school children, and it shows a bias for their own race type. It can be mostly overcome with early socialization but the tendancy is present before they've been socialized into it.
Regardless I even if everything was about proper socialization, I maintain there is no such thing and no way to acheive it even if there was. So this whole train of thought of mine is really getting away from Growing Tired of New Urban Fantasy and seriously in danger of losing any point whatsoever.
As for effeminite men and the converse in women. That is a pit fall everyone needs to be wary of. We tend to write what we know. So men, being intimately familiar with men, do better there, while with women its the same thing, having a natural inside look at the female perspective gives the advantage there. With some male authors they make the women unrealistic carictures, or really just side line, dance in and dance out. With some of the women authors, take the romance scene for instance. Tall, Dark, Bad Boy, yet more willing to take a back seat and let the female lead deal with certain tough situations than I could stomach. A different guy type sure, maybe he'd stand back but not the titilating tough-guy character they need for the rest of the plot. Which in addition to the hot and heavy bedroom action is part of why I can't stand the genre. I'm here for the story, the horizontal action only as it promotes the story and gives it flavor.
I'm sure there are lots more examples of male authors getting the females wrong. C.J. Cherryh once commented that she read something and just shook her head, thinking no female would think or do what that certain character was doing.
Plus in addition to being consistent with people and things we aren't as familiar with, there's the fact that we're writing a story about exciting people in circumstance most of us can only imagine. We're not writing about House Wife Gwen and Family Man with 9-5 Job. We're pushing the boundaries and writing about things that interest us. Even when we try to stay away from certain stereotypes, the real world actually does have examples of such people breaking the 'rules'. Naturally we want to include some of those in our story, even if only as peripheral characters. Which takes practice, practice, practice, and a certain level of research and dedication until we get it right.
I actually like the Ilona Andrews husband wife team. The wife ilona writes most everything, except the scenes with the male leads. Then the husband writes at the male part. It leads to a certain consistency with the man/woman dicotamy you normally run into with a single sex author (
not sure I used the right descriptor here
).
Anyway I think I've lost whatever point I was trying to make, and got lost in the weeds.
Have fun,
And don't let anyone get you down! Certainly not me!@
The Deposed King
