Oh, this is lovely – it’s great to see someone else using Substack for process writing for a larger project! I discovered the same thing, and have no idea why Substack works so well for me for a book project (that I plan to publish as a popular/general one rather than a peer-reviewed one) when I could never get into any of blog services (LiveJournal and Dreamwidth are sort of technically ‘blogs’ but never felt like it, and a lot of the people with blogs hated LJ back in the day).
I think I agree with about 93.7% of this post! And I know you’re working through the book sin order of publication which affects a lot of what you can say (though you have some nice foreshadowing with regard to Tiffany, and the Witches sub-series).
I cannot remember what order I read Pratchett’s novels in—I know I started with _Small Gods_ as recommended by a friend of mine (who did a fantastic presentation on the wizards vs. philosophers aspect of Pratchett’s world-building), and loved it. I think I then found some of the Rincewind ones (this would have been in the middle and later 1990s (last century!), and I think it took a few more years for Pratchett’s work to start being widely available in the U.S. I remember being somewhat ambivalent about EQ the first time I read it (and I did not have consider it a feminist novel—now, I would say, it depends on how one defines “feminist”!).
And of course during the 1990s, there was a lot of discourse on “feminist” meaning “a strong female character” (emphasis on the singular! and very misogynistic focus on physical strength) that led to some interesting discussion; I still remember one hilarious take-down of the idea that a S.F.C. makes the text automatically “feminist” that was an analysis of Lara Croft’s big pixels. Bechdel coined the “Bechdel-Wallace” test in regard to movies in 1985, but I think it took a few years to become more widely known, and even then it was widely (mis)understood (if my students at the time are representative) as “if it passes the test, it’s feminist,” as opposed to “minimum to avoid being totally sexist.”
I do think that EQ was the start of Pratchett exploring and critiquing essentialist ideas of gender in his novels, and that over time, his work became feminist, and one of the reasons I describe it that way is that he didn’t focus only on the differences between wizard [man]/witch [woman] but on the differences among and between women—that is, he did what Tolkien and many other (mostly but not entirely male) authors (in many genres, not just fantasy) failed to do, moving beyond the single/token/exceptional women to show women in groups and relationships of various kinds (not just family). And while the witches are a major part of that (culminating, as you say, in the Tiffany Aching series, though I think it started with Agnes/Perdita storyline), it’s not only the witches. They get the most focus, and get to be POV characters (sometimes the groups of women are observed through a man’s eyes—thinking of Vimes observing the group of women working with Lady Sibyl to rescue dragons). And Pratchett being Pratchett, there’s no woo-woo-utopian-sisterhood established (though Magrat does seem to want a New Age version of that at times, but of course that desire runs up against Granny and Nanny; but, and I forget which book makes it clear—maybe Lords and Ladies—even though Magrat’s theory of magic differs from the others, she is a witch, and that means her magic works). But despite some reluctance, the relationships happen (Angua and Cheery).
Now that I’m thinking about it, I can hardly wait for you to talk about Thief of Time and the issue of Auditors taking on corporeal forms (mumblemumblevalaandmaiamumble), and Myria Le Jean’s narrative arc, in the context of the sexist binary of male [mind]/female [body]!
*”Misogyny” vs. “sexism” I am working to integrate Kate Manne’s definitions and “logic of misogyny” (_Down Girl_ https://academic.oup.com/book/27451?login=false) into my thinking these days!
QUOTE:
“So sexist ideology will often consist in assumptions, beliefs, theories, stereotypes, and broader cultural narratives that represent men and women as importantly different in ways that, if true and known to be true, or at least likely, would make rational people more inclined to support and participate in patriarchal social arrangements. Sexist ideology will also encompass valorizing portrayals of patriarchal social arrangements as more desirable and less fraught, disappointing, or frustrating than they may be in reality. Whereas, as I’ve defined misogyny, it functions to police and enforce a patriarchal social order without necessarily going via the intermediary of people’s assumptions, beliefs, theories, values, and so on. Misogyny serves to enact or bring about patriarchal social relations in ways that may be direct, and more or less coercive. On this picture, sexist ideology will tend to discriminate between men and women, typically by alleging sex differences beyond what is known or could be known, and sometimes counter to our best current scientific evidence. Misogyny will typically differentiate between good women and bad ones, and punishes the latter. Overall, sexism and misogyny share a common purpose-- to maintain or restore a patriarchal social order. But sexism purports to merely be being reasonable; misogyny gets nasty and tries to force the issue. Sexism is hence to bad science as misogyny is to moralism. Sexism wears a lab coat; misogyny goes on witch hunts. (79)”
Thanks for all this, Robin! Glad you're on board for this. I'm definitely using a somewhat more expansive understanding of "feminist"; I'm being generous with EQ in calling it that, in part because I think that's the novel's general intention, and also--as you point out--because even if it's still nascent here, I see it in the context of what the witches novels (and Discworld more broadly) develop into. But your point is well taken: I see a deeper dive into interrogating the more granular understandings of these terms in my future (Down Girl has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, perhaps time to finally crack it open!)
I am working out how to try to convey the many fuzzy boundaries of (and conflicts among the people in) the multiple feminist movements for my feminist reception of Tolkien -- so, yeah, it's something that takes time (which you know, is one purpose of process drafts!).
And I can highly HIGHLY recommend _Down Girl_ though. In the meantime, I am happy to share that Kate Manne has a Substack (as does Sara Ahmed) which I can also recommend!
Another great post, Chris! I'm so glad you took this project on. And I'm even gladder to hear of the book you're planning. I can't wait to read it!
After the US inauguration, I decided to dig into the core Witch novels so I could think more systematically through their theorization of story-power (which, of course, seems to be what headology ultimately adds up to). I'll be eagerly looking forward to the next point where our re-reads intersect!
I have two thoughts to add to the mix; they don't feel like corrections, so much as attempts to think into the spaces beyond the frames you've selected. Please, forgive the length. It's just so much fun (and so tricksey!) to think into the imaginary spaces your writing opens up!
First, you say that Pratchett leaves behind his exploration of the gendering of magic, but that only seems true in a narrow (if still crucial) sense, since magic is pretty strictly gendered in all the wizard and witch books that follow. The wizard books chart the masculinized knowledge/power of "jommetry," while the witch books explore the feminized story/power (it's still "power," whatever Grannie claims here) of "headology." That gendered opposition forms the dramatic conflict inside this novel in a way that (sadly) never recurs in the Witch novels. But wouldn't it also set up a meta-dramatic conflict between the separate novel clusters? The gender critique would seem to move from the explicit/literal field of the individual text to the implicit/ironic field of the intertextual ouvre (also transferring the "authorship" of that drama from Pratchett to the co-creative/critical reader). I'm raising the point not just to quibble but because some form of dialogical/ironic intertextuality seems to become essential for Pratchett's project (although, maybe not this early in the game). I wonder if there's a point in the books where simple seriality starts to give way to some kind of dialogical opposition--a point that an old-fashioned Romanticist might pinpoint as the emergence of "the literary."
Second, you suggest that Rowling's novels approach magic from something of a gender-blind position, but that may only be true at the level of her novels' content. Witches and wizards do get the same training and have access to the same spells in Rowling's novels, and some female characters enjoy considerably more power than most their peers. But the texts still give all of their key structural functions to male characters. Harry is always the protagonist/hero, the antagonist/villains are male competitors or henchmen of Voldemort, Dumbledore is the authorizing father/dispatcher figure, & the most important "princess" figure is Serious Black. To me, that suggests that the novels present magic in a way that is deeply gendered, both because their gendering is foundational, but also because it's deep--invisibly inhabiting the structure and operating as sheer ideology (unprocessed, uncriticized, and possibly more destructive). Rowling's gender-blind content seems to operate as an alibi for a sexist structure, much like race-blind policy can help facilitate racist outcomes.
I'll reiterate your call for a trans reading Equal Rites--and for queer or trans readings that upset the "clearly" gendered readings I've projected into the Witch and Wizard clusters (how frequently is Grannie masculinized or Rincewind feminized, & to what effect?)
Again, thanks so much for taking us all with you through these books!
Thanks, Craig! I'm glad you're enjoying it, and thanks for the boosts across platforms. :-)
I agree entirely with you here. I wasn't as clear as I would have liked, reading it over ... I do mean Sir Terry leaves behind the exploration of gender in a very narrow sense, insofar as what he does with Esk in EQ doesn't get revisited, and the gendering of magic does settle into the witches/UU clusters without being explored in the same way. (I should also add as a caveat that my memory for details is quite lousy, so there's always the very real possibility that when I say "[X] doesn't happen again," I've just simply forgotten that X does in fact happen again; I forsee a lot of revisiting early confident assertions.)
The meta-dramatic conflict between clusters is an intriguing notion--something I'll certain revisit as I get farther along in the reread.
Also, please stick a pin in the "dialogical/ironic intertextuality"--that strikes me as exactly right, but also (as you observe) not something we can tease out this early in the series. I'll also want to revisit this framing when we've got a critical mass of the novels under the belt.
And re: JKR -- yes to all of that. Going down the Harry Potter rabbit hole would have added another 2K words at least to this post; suffice to say, I'm now itching to get into precisely what you're talking about. I left it here with describing the series as "explicitly heteronormative," which was my vague way of hinting at what you're talking about here, namely the fact that the superficially egalitarian world JKR presents is in fact gendered along archetypal lines.
Wow, I love the idea of a "meta-dramatic conflict" (or dialogue) between novel clusters, especially where there are specific points where the characters interact -- and now I'm wondering how much that term could also apply to the different iterations of Tolkien's multiple drafts of the legendarium which he never could resolve (although of course there's the difference between what he did publish and what Christopher curated in the posthumous publications--but I mean there are bits of HoMe where he's actually arguing with his past self!)
I agree with the general thrust of your comments re JKR, but Equal Rites predates the first of the Potter books by a full decade—so we can wonder if Rowling was influenced by Pratchett (or maybe wish she had been!) but we know that none of the earlier Discworld books have any reference to Hogwarts.
To me the essential point of comparison is Earthsea. I’d be extremely surprised if TP—a voracious reader of SF and fantasy—hadn’t read A Wizard of Earthsea. But your account of Esk’s early apprenticeship strongly reminded me of Ged’s experience with Ogion; there’s the same impatience to be ‘doing magic’ but Ogion keeps him at seemingly mundane tasks. And IIRC herbs, for instance, come in here too.
Maybe Le Guin is less concerned with unpicking gender stereotypes in the first three books, and she did receive feminist criticism for it, but it’s fascinating to see how her take evolves in later stories—albeit without completely upending the nature of Archipelago society. But it’s fun to imagine a conversation between Granny W and a mature Ged.
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that EQ is a response to Harry Potter. Whether JKR is influenced by Sir Terry is an open question, but the comparison between the two is meant as an illustrative contrast. The implicit point (which I'll be making again in future posts, far more explicitly) is that even in one of his earliest DW novels we see a far more nuanced perspective on these issues than you ever get in Harry Potter. Not a more nuanced understanding per se (at least not yet), but a set of precepts that open critical pathways that JKR has always already shut down.
I love your comparison here to Earthsea. I hadn't thought of that, but I think you're spot on. Of the post-Tolkien fantasists from 60s-80s, Le Guin is one of the few who is doing something almost entirely at odds with the genre's currents. And no, she doesn't make gender an issue, but the consonance you see with Sir Terry is, I think, indicative of how they were on a similar wavelength.
Granny W. chatting with Ged would be amazing. Ogion, too -- though in that instance, I don't think they'd have to actually talk, just vibe. We need fan fiction of Granny encountering the great wizards and witches of fantasy over a glass of scumble (I can already imagine the sharp words she'd have for Merlin).
oops, you've done it now: "And no, she doesn't make gender an issue," means I have to now take this over to my Substack and make a post which I predict will be too long for some emails spinning off about this point . . . ..
Most of my post will be about the issue of definitions of feminism(s) and such although this is part of what I call the "morass of feminist, gender, and queer approaches in Tolkien" (in this post: https://robinareid.substack.com/p/the-morass-of-feministgenderqueer), and the complex interweavings of the terms -- I'd say that the first Earthsea novel has a great deal to say about gender (although not a feminist critique of gender structures)--because it is all about the dude and his quest and his dudely mentor etc. etc. (Now, she does a lot of quiet subversion against the White default of fantasy in her Earthsea series that was ignored/not noticed by people doing the adaptations!). This is where we get into the messy morass of reader response, and I fall back on the feminist critique of the faux universality/default nature of "male" as "human/not gendered"!
Oh, this is lovely – it’s great to see someone else using Substack for process writing for a larger project! I discovered the same thing, and have no idea why Substack works so well for me for a book project (that I plan to publish as a popular/general one rather than a peer-reviewed one) when I could never get into any of blog services (LiveJournal and Dreamwidth are sort of technically ‘blogs’ but never felt like it, and a lot of the people with blogs hated LJ back in the day).
I think I agree with about 93.7% of this post! And I know you’re working through the book sin order of publication which affects a lot of what you can say (though you have some nice foreshadowing with regard to Tiffany, and the Witches sub-series).
I cannot remember what order I read Pratchett’s novels in—I know I started with _Small Gods_ as recommended by a friend of mine (who did a fantastic presentation on the wizards vs. philosophers aspect of Pratchett’s world-building), and loved it. I think I then found some of the Rincewind ones (this would have been in the middle and later 1990s (last century!), and I think it took a few more years for Pratchett’s work to start being widely available in the U.S. I remember being somewhat ambivalent about EQ the first time I read it (and I did not have consider it a feminist novel—now, I would say, it depends on how one defines “feminist”!).
And of course during the 1990s, there was a lot of discourse on “feminist” meaning “a strong female character” (emphasis on the singular! and very misogynistic focus on physical strength) that led to some interesting discussion; I still remember one hilarious take-down of the idea that a S.F.C. makes the text automatically “feminist” that was an analysis of Lara Croft’s big pixels. Bechdel coined the “Bechdel-Wallace” test in regard to movies in 1985, but I think it took a few years to become more widely known, and even then it was widely (mis)understood (if my students at the time are representative) as “if it passes the test, it’s feminist,” as opposed to “minimum to avoid being totally sexist.”
I do think that EQ was the start of Pratchett exploring and critiquing essentialist ideas of gender in his novels, and that over time, his work became feminist, and one of the reasons I describe it that way is that he didn’t focus only on the differences between wizard [man]/witch [woman] but on the differences among and between women—that is, he did what Tolkien and many other (mostly but not entirely male) authors (in many genres, not just fantasy) failed to do, moving beyond the single/token/exceptional women to show women in groups and relationships of various kinds (not just family). And while the witches are a major part of that (culminating, as you say, in the Tiffany Aching series, though I think it started with Agnes/Perdita storyline), it’s not only the witches. They get the most focus, and get to be POV characters (sometimes the groups of women are observed through a man’s eyes—thinking of Vimes observing the group of women working with Lady Sibyl to rescue dragons). And Pratchett being Pratchett, there’s no woo-woo-utopian-sisterhood established (though Magrat does seem to want a New Age version of that at times, but of course that desire runs up against Granny and Nanny; but, and I forget which book makes it clear—maybe Lords and Ladies—even though Magrat’s theory of magic differs from the others, she is a witch, and that means her magic works). But despite some reluctance, the relationships happen (Angua and Cheery).
Now that I’m thinking about it, I can hardly wait for you to talk about Thief of Time and the issue of Auditors taking on corporeal forms (mumblemumblevalaandmaiamumble), and Myria Le Jean’s narrative arc, in the context of the sexist binary of male [mind]/female [body]!
*”Misogyny” vs. “sexism” I am working to integrate Kate Manne’s definitions and “logic of misogyny” (_Down Girl_ https://academic.oup.com/book/27451?login=false) into my thinking these days!
QUOTE:
“So sexist ideology will often consist in assumptions, beliefs, theories, stereotypes, and broader cultural narratives that represent men and women as importantly different in ways that, if true and known to be true, or at least likely, would make rational people more inclined to support and participate in patriarchal social arrangements. Sexist ideology will also encompass valorizing portrayals of patriarchal social arrangements as more desirable and less fraught, disappointing, or frustrating than they may be in reality. Whereas, as I’ve defined misogyny, it functions to police and enforce a patriarchal social order without necessarily going via the intermediary of people’s assumptions, beliefs, theories, values, and so on. Misogyny serves to enact or bring about patriarchal social relations in ways that may be direct, and more or less coercive. On this picture, sexist ideology will tend to discriminate between men and women, typically by alleging sex differences beyond what is known or could be known, and sometimes counter to our best current scientific evidence. Misogyny will typically differentiate between good women and bad ones, and punishes the latter. Overall, sexism and misogyny share a common purpose-- to maintain or restore a patriarchal social order. But sexism purports to merely be being reasonable; misogyny gets nasty and tries to force the issue. Sexism is hence to bad science as misogyny is to moralism. Sexism wears a lab coat; misogyny goes on witch hunts. (79)”
Thanks for all this, Robin! Glad you're on board for this. I'm definitely using a somewhat more expansive understanding of "feminist"; I'm being generous with EQ in calling it that, in part because I think that's the novel's general intention, and also--as you point out--because even if it's still nascent here, I see it in the context of what the witches novels (and Discworld more broadly) develop into. But your point is well taken: I see a deeper dive into interrogating the more granular understandings of these terms in my future (Down Girl has been sitting on my shelf for a while now, perhaps time to finally crack it open!)
I am working out how to try to convey the many fuzzy boundaries of (and conflicts among the people in) the multiple feminist movements for my feminist reception of Tolkien -- so, yeah, it's something that takes time (which you know, is one purpose of process drafts!).
And I can highly HIGHLY recommend _Down Girl_ though. In the meantime, I am happy to share that Kate Manne has a Substack (as does Sara Ahmed) which I can also recommend!
https://substack.com/@katemanne
https://substack.com/@feministkilljoys
Pedantic point; Eskarina does reappear in one of the later Tiffany Aching books.
Don't tell me which (witch?)! I want to be surprised.
THANK you! I had forgotten that -- and now I have another reason to revisit them all!
Another great post, Chris! I'm so glad you took this project on. And I'm even gladder to hear of the book you're planning. I can't wait to read it!
After the US inauguration, I decided to dig into the core Witch novels so I could think more systematically through their theorization of story-power (which, of course, seems to be what headology ultimately adds up to). I'll be eagerly looking forward to the next point where our re-reads intersect!
I have two thoughts to add to the mix; they don't feel like corrections, so much as attempts to think into the spaces beyond the frames you've selected. Please, forgive the length. It's just so much fun (and so tricksey!) to think into the imaginary spaces your writing opens up!
First, you say that Pratchett leaves behind his exploration of the gendering of magic, but that only seems true in a narrow (if still crucial) sense, since magic is pretty strictly gendered in all the wizard and witch books that follow. The wizard books chart the masculinized knowledge/power of "jommetry," while the witch books explore the feminized story/power (it's still "power," whatever Grannie claims here) of "headology." That gendered opposition forms the dramatic conflict inside this novel in a way that (sadly) never recurs in the Witch novels. But wouldn't it also set up a meta-dramatic conflict between the separate novel clusters? The gender critique would seem to move from the explicit/literal field of the individual text to the implicit/ironic field of the intertextual ouvre (also transferring the "authorship" of that drama from Pratchett to the co-creative/critical reader). I'm raising the point not just to quibble but because some form of dialogical/ironic intertextuality seems to become essential for Pratchett's project (although, maybe not this early in the game). I wonder if there's a point in the books where simple seriality starts to give way to some kind of dialogical opposition--a point that an old-fashioned Romanticist might pinpoint as the emergence of "the literary."
Second, you suggest that Rowling's novels approach magic from something of a gender-blind position, but that may only be true at the level of her novels' content. Witches and wizards do get the same training and have access to the same spells in Rowling's novels, and some female characters enjoy considerably more power than most their peers. But the texts still give all of their key structural functions to male characters. Harry is always the protagonist/hero, the antagonist/villains are male competitors or henchmen of Voldemort, Dumbledore is the authorizing father/dispatcher figure, & the most important "princess" figure is Serious Black. To me, that suggests that the novels present magic in a way that is deeply gendered, both because their gendering is foundational, but also because it's deep--invisibly inhabiting the structure and operating as sheer ideology (unprocessed, uncriticized, and possibly more destructive). Rowling's gender-blind content seems to operate as an alibi for a sexist structure, much like race-blind policy can help facilitate racist outcomes.
I'll reiterate your call for a trans reading Equal Rites--and for queer or trans readings that upset the "clearly" gendered readings I've projected into the Witch and Wizard clusters (how frequently is Grannie masculinized or Rincewind feminized, & to what effect?)
Again, thanks so much for taking us all with you through these books!
Thanks, Craig! I'm glad you're enjoying it, and thanks for the boosts across platforms. :-)
I agree entirely with you here. I wasn't as clear as I would have liked, reading it over ... I do mean Sir Terry leaves behind the exploration of gender in a very narrow sense, insofar as what he does with Esk in EQ doesn't get revisited, and the gendering of magic does settle into the witches/UU clusters without being explored in the same way. (I should also add as a caveat that my memory for details is quite lousy, so there's always the very real possibility that when I say "[X] doesn't happen again," I've just simply forgotten that X does in fact happen again; I forsee a lot of revisiting early confident assertions.)
The meta-dramatic conflict between clusters is an intriguing notion--something I'll certain revisit as I get farther along in the reread.
Also, please stick a pin in the "dialogical/ironic intertextuality"--that strikes me as exactly right, but also (as you observe) not something we can tease out this early in the series. I'll also want to revisit this framing when we've got a critical mass of the novels under the belt.
And re: JKR -- yes to all of that. Going down the Harry Potter rabbit hole would have added another 2K words at least to this post; suffice to say, I'm now itching to get into precisely what you're talking about. I left it here with describing the series as "explicitly heteronormative," which was my vague way of hinting at what you're talking about here, namely the fact that the superficially egalitarian world JKR presents is in fact gendered along archetypal lines.
Wow, I love the idea of a "meta-dramatic conflict" (or dialogue) between novel clusters, especially where there are specific points where the characters interact -- and now I'm wondering how much that term could also apply to the different iterations of Tolkien's multiple drafts of the legendarium which he never could resolve (although of course there's the difference between what he did publish and what Christopher curated in the posthumous publications--but I mean there are bits of HoMe where he's actually arguing with his past self!)
Another excellent post.
I agree with the general thrust of your comments re JKR, but Equal Rites predates the first of the Potter books by a full decade—so we can wonder if Rowling was influenced by Pratchett (or maybe wish she had been!) but we know that none of the earlier Discworld books have any reference to Hogwarts.
To me the essential point of comparison is Earthsea. I’d be extremely surprised if TP—a voracious reader of SF and fantasy—hadn’t read A Wizard of Earthsea. But your account of Esk’s early apprenticeship strongly reminded me of Ged’s experience with Ogion; there’s the same impatience to be ‘doing magic’ but Ogion keeps him at seemingly mundane tasks. And IIRC herbs, for instance, come in here too.
Maybe Le Guin is less concerned with unpicking gender stereotypes in the first three books, and she did receive feminist criticism for it, but it’s fascinating to see how her take evolves in later stories—albeit without completely upending the nature of Archipelago society. But it’s fun to imagine a conversation between Granny W and a mature Ged.
Thanks for this!
To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that EQ is a response to Harry Potter. Whether JKR is influenced by Sir Terry is an open question, but the comparison between the two is meant as an illustrative contrast. The implicit point (which I'll be making again in future posts, far more explicitly) is that even in one of his earliest DW novels we see a far more nuanced perspective on these issues than you ever get in Harry Potter. Not a more nuanced understanding per se (at least not yet), but a set of precepts that open critical pathways that JKR has always already shut down.
I love your comparison here to Earthsea. I hadn't thought of that, but I think you're spot on. Of the post-Tolkien fantasists from 60s-80s, Le Guin is one of the few who is doing something almost entirely at odds with the genre's currents. And no, she doesn't make gender an issue, but the consonance you see with Sir Terry is, I think, indicative of how they were on a similar wavelength.
Granny W. chatting with Ged would be amazing. Ogion, too -- though in that instance, I don't think they'd have to actually talk, just vibe. We need fan fiction of Granny encountering the great wizards and witches of fantasy over a glass of scumble (I can already imagine the sharp words she'd have for Merlin).
Great idea about the fanfiction. And Nanny Ogg could join in with a banananana dakry.
oops, you've done it now: "And no, she doesn't make gender an issue," means I have to now take this over to my Substack and make a post which I predict will be too long for some emails spinning off about this point . . . ..
Not in the first Earthsea novel!
Most of my post will be about the issue of definitions of feminism(s) and such although this is part of what I call the "morass of feminist, gender, and queer approaches in Tolkien" (in this post: https://robinareid.substack.com/p/the-morass-of-feministgenderqueer), and the complex interweavings of the terms -- I'd say that the first Earthsea novel has a great deal to say about gender (although not a feminist critique of gender structures)--because it is all about the dude and his quest and his dudely mentor etc. etc. (Now, she does a lot of quiet subversion against the White default of fantasy in her Earthsea series that was ignored/not noticed by people doing the adaptations!). This is where we get into the messy morass of reader response, and I fall back on the feminist critique of the faux universality/default nature of "male" as "human/not gendered"!
Have fun with the re-read! I recently worked my way through the entire Discworld as well, and it was a beautiful experience.