Comments on: Rosemary Sutcliff: “innately sexist”?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 06:53:30 +0000

Yes, I do think she was a very nuanced writer. (I am new to MC Scott’s work, so will read it with interest.) But you clearly are much more informed and thoughtful about the detail of Rosemary’s writing than I, and your appreciation thus much more nuanced! Thank you for your comments.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 11 Jun 2012 06:49:57 +0000

Most interesting reflection Feona. Thank you. Marcus was Rosemary’s favourite ‘hero’ of all that she wrote of, I think. She certainly had a very special affection for him.

By: Feona Bowey

Feona Bowey — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:47:47 +0000

You make an interesting mention about disability, Anthony. [Marcus] Aquilia is probably one of the best portrayals of a disabled/wounded hero in literature. Sutcliff obviously fed a lot of her frustrations into Marcus. Whenever I read ‘Blue Hills’ and she describes having a plaster removed as a child, I always think of Marcus having his wound searched. I can not imagine another writer being able to create Marcus, or write The Eagle of the Ninth.

By: Feona Bowey

Feona Bowey — Sun, 10 Jun 2012 12:36:55 +0000

No writer writes in a vaccum, and we are all products of our era, and of course Rosemary Sutcliff’s books are a product of her gender politics. Just as Manda Scott’s politics are painfully apparent in her works.

But to accuse her of innate sexism, leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. Sutcliff was far too clever for that, gender roles in Ancient Rome where strict and proscribed [I actually love Cottia, she knew her own mind, and stuck to it.] Neither did Sutcliff stick to such a simplistic binary as noble savage:barbarian. Cradoc is very different to Liathan, but both complex in character. I would place Sutcliff closer to Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, or Robert Louis Stevenson’s South Sea Tales [with a little 39 Steps in there!]

But I’ve always viewed Scott’s work as having an agenda with sexual politics that goes far beyond male vs female, and ultimately becomes another revisionist. But, as I’ve already said, Rosemary Sutcliff was too nuanced a writer for that.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:31:32 +0000

Correct-I need a co-writer!

By: Hallie O'Donovan (@HallieOh)

Hallie O'Donovan (@HallieOh) — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:13:14 +0000

I’m delighted to learn about her attitude towards Enid Blyton! Er, assuming that you don’t mean she’d have been irritated with me. :)

By: Hallie O'Donovan (@HallieOh)

Hallie O'Donovan (@HallieOh) — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:11:14 +0000

It was a bit long, now that I look at it! Maybe just let me check with Catherine about using it as a post? I’m fine with it, but always feel she would have expressed everything better.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:05:40 +0000

… and Roseamry would have been REALLY VERY irritated at the conflation with Enid Byton, and would have been with you in your remarks, I think! I do think you are correct about the nuanced nature of her story-telling.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 12:01:51 +0000

Thank you for this ‘comment’. May I use it as a main post?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 11:44:48 +0000

I suppose much hangs on interpretation of “innately sexist” …. Sandra and Elin are persuading me …