Steven Brust has an interesting entry in his weblog on whether fiction should provide female role models. (It's the January 30th entry -- you may have to scroll down a little to read it.)

I agree with a lot of what Brust says, but I'm not sure if I agree with his overall point. I am awfully glad to hear someone else say that they're tired of all the emphasis on supposedly biological differences between men and women. Do I believe that there are no biological differences? Of course not. But I think that there are lots of ways that people are the same, and lots of ways that people differ. The differences between men and women aren't necessarily the most important ones in a given context.

It also makes me itchy when people talk about things like "role models" in fiction, because the conversation tends to reduce the value of fiction to that of the lessons it teaches or the values it inculcates. This is a little bit like reducing a nice juicy orange to its vitamin C content. Or a filet mignon to its saturated fat content. Most of us don't read novels for moral or political education. Or at least, not just for moral or political education.

But, on the other hand, there's nothing wrong with observing that people can improve their health by eating a little fruit once in a while. By the same token, I think it's healthy if people read about heroes of different genders. Or different sexual preferences. Or different ages. Or different races.

But I think it has less to do with fiction providing "role models" per se (how often in your life do you find yourself thinking, "Okay, what would Frodo Baggins do?") than with just telling the truth about the world: that heroism isn't the property of just one kind of person.

And I don't think any writer would have a problem with telling the truth.