It's a common (and tiresome) critique of historic or fantasy novels that place women in pre-industrial military roles that such a character and activity is simply implausible. "Women couldn't do the work." "A long-term disguise as a man is not believable." And so forth at tiresome length. The best counter to such critiques is to drown them in data. Alas, even that approach won't satisfy the more stubborn of the nay-sayers. I've watched online discussions where such critics picked away at each piece of data as "a special case", "marginal", "not really a combat role", "poorly documented", "exaggerated for sensational purposes"...all while ignoring how much of male military history would fall in exactly those same categories by the same criteria.
This isn't to say that historic women in military roles were ever common, or that they were openly accepted except in special circumstances. But there's no reason to think that the simple act of creating a fictional historical woman in a military context should break the suspension of disbelief. Diane Dugaw's book on "warrior women" in fact and pop culture focused mostly on the 17-19th centuries. Today's publication brings that picture up to date by focusing on the 19-20th centuries.
Comments