402 replies to this topic

[Jon AS]

Matrim Fox Cauthon said:

Probably the Tusk, that religious text where  all the bad things about women are written. I would assume the  subjugation of women comes partially from the text. The only explicit  mention we have really received thus far is women not being permitted  to learn how to read.

I meant "where in the story we read is there a hint at this". We do get explicit confirmation of the damnation of sorcerers, but nothing about this "spiritual inferiority".

[Larry.]

In discussions such as this, I am often reminded of a comment Stendhal made in his famous novel, The Red and the Black:

Quote

Un roman est un miroir qui se promène sur une grande route. Tantôt il reflète à vos yeux l’azur des cieux, tantôt la fange des bourbiers de la route. Et l’homme qui porte le miroir dans sa hotte sera par vous accusé‚ d’être immoral ! Son miroir montre la fange, et vous accusez le miroir ! Accusez bien plutôt le grand chemin où est le bourbier, et plus encore l’inspecteur des routes qui laisse l’eau croupir et le bourbier se former.

A novel is a mirror carried along a high road. At one moment it reflects to your vision the azure skies at another the mire of the puddles at your feet. And the man who carries this mirror in his pack will be accused by you of being immoral! His mirror shews [sic] the mire, and you blame the mirror! Rather blame that high road upon which the puddle lies, still more the inspector of roads who allows the water to gather and the puddle to form.

Vol. II, ch. XIX

Sometimes, I wonder how much criticism the "mirror" deserves and how much we ourselves merit.

[Ran]

Matrim,

Quote

But wouldn't that mean that if a paradigm shift occurs such that people cease thinking of women as objectively inferior...

It follows, certainly. But how long does it take to undo the inertia of millenia of religious doctrine? Was it you who remarked up-thread that your first thought was, "That's it? That's all it takes?" when Kellhus claims to rewrite the Tusk and so on?

SPOILER: TJE

Now, I haven't read it, but I have read what others have said about Esmi, in the end, needing Kellhus to pull things out of the fire. And in light of the spiritual inferiority of women that is an objective fact of the setting, it seems to me the reason Bakker has her fail is probably that, despite whatever Kellhus has done, the objective fact is that Esmi, as a woman, remains (broadly) inferior to men. She may be smarter than a lot of guys, but in the end, she has to lose, because she's a woman -- it's The Rules.

Given that sorcery is still objectively evil despite Kellhus stating otherwise (something else I've gleaned from TJE spoilers), it seems fair to suppose that the objective reality has not yet changed in regards to gender issues.

So, yeah, the rules of the setting suggest that at some point, objective reality will conform to belief. But I don't think it's done so yet, and I'm not sure it'll do so by the end of the series... and I'm not really sure it matters whether it does so or not, in terms of this discussion. The whole issue remains a primarily a commentary on traditional world building, as Bakker indicates, regardless of what happens to the actual characters and setting.

[Shryke]

Ran, on Feb 8 2009, 07.28, said:

Bakker's quote there is explicit: he wrote it that way to comment on traditional world building. Not to discuss the world as we know it directly, but to discuss the way certain texts have been written. It's only indirectly that you wonder why those texts have been written as they have, and what effect the world has had on the creation of those texts.

Which is fine. It's metatextual. It's an interesting commentary, especially if you read genre texts as representing to their authors a creation of maximal objectivity (because whatever they believe can be, and in a way, is fact). There's a lot that's interesting there about it.

But it's less profound because at the end of the day, we're talking about the creation of texts, and not about the historical process or gender relations as we're aware of them. We are given women that explicitly cannot have existed in reality, because they *are* inferior, as opposed to stereotyped and raised to believe they're inferior. I doubt Kellhus's vague move to make Inrithism less misogynistic will have had much impact on changing the objective truths of the world in regards to women.

And how is that different from ANY piece of speculative fiction?

Does the fact that Dragons aren't real make ... well, any book with dragons less profound?

[Ran]

Quote

Does the fact that Dragons aren't real make ... well, any book with dragons less profound?

Well, no. But if you spend time arguing about the author's intentions (as we've done for more than 200 posts in this case) in regards to his dragons, whether they're a complex metaphor for the all-consuming greed of capitalistic society or perhaps a careful study in our relation to received wisdom, and you're talking about these things .... and then the author says, "No, I put them there because traditional world building in fantasy tend to stick them in there without logic or reason, and I wanted to provide a reason for why they're there that goes right to the heart of the setting.."

Well, that's not very profound. He's commenting on other genre texts, which (as I said) is at a remove from commenting on the space within which all texts are found (i.e., here and now).

In this case, Bakker's explicitly said this particular facet of his story is a commentary on traditional world building. Not much to argue about with that.

Of course, a reader can certainly read whatever one wants to read into it, and take what one wants to take away from it. But Bakker's intentions as he explains him are less profound (to me) than I  was intentionally led to believe. And as you'll note, I've focused pretty much entirely on Bakker's role in the text -- what was his intention, and did he succeed in it, etc. When I thought he was problematizing gender to make some sort of comment on modern society [ETA: Or historical society!], well, it was a tough row to hoe, and you can see how many people (on both sides) were thrown off the scent of the intended commentary.

Now that I know that wasn't his intention at all, that his ambition in depicting women was very narrow and very specific commentary on other texts, it's practically not an issue for me any longer. I don't even think he's missed an opportunity, as I said before, because the opportunity he missed concerned problematizing women as a comment on society, when in fact he was problematizing women as a comment on traditional world building and the depiction of women within it.

Again, one can take out of it what one wants. But what the author intended -- at least to take that quote as evidence -- is that it's a comment on world-building.

Edited by Ran, 08 February 2009 - 03:52 PM.

[Shryke]

Quote

Now that I know that wasn't his intention at all, that his ambition in depicting women was very narrow and very specific commentary on other texts, it's practically not an issue for me any longer. I don't even think he's missed an opportunity, as I said before, because the opportunity he missed concerned problematizing women as a comment on society, when in fact he was problematizing women as a comment on traditional world building and the depiction of women within it.

Oh, I see what you were thinking.

I've never seen it as any sort of "problem" or "missed opportunity" or whatever, so his statements on the issue change nothing about the book for me.

[Finn]

Jon AS, on Feb 8 2009, 10.35, said:

I meant "where in the story we read is there a hint at this". We do get explicit confirmation of the damnation of sorcerers, but nothing about this "spiritual inferiority".

Do we actually know what Bakker means by "spiritual superiority"?  Are we talking about ethical / moral superiority?  In other words, women are morally weaker and more likely to "sin"?  Or are we talking about some sort of metaphysical principle that has some sort of application in the afterlife?  

The example of sorcerers is interesting because we know that they are supposed to be damned, but there is never any indication that sorcerers are more or less moral or ethical than anyone else.  In fact, Akka might be the most ethical character we've met in Earwa.

[Nerdanel]

Considering that Eärwa has its origins in a roleplaying setting, I find it entirely possible that the true reason behind women's inferiority is that they simply on average have lower levels in their chosen character classes. A little adventuring from enough women would fix that (either you level up or you die - either way the average goes up), but the culture doesn't allow for that and so the situation perpetuates itself.

:P

[Ran]

That's so nerdy that it's probably true!

[AverageGuy]

Finn, on Feb 8 2009, 17.26, said:

Do we actually know what Bakker means by "spiritual superiority"?  Are we talking about ethical / moral superiority?  In other words, women are morally weaker and more likely to "sin"?  Or are we talking about some sort of metaphysical principle that has some sort of application in the afterlife?

The latter.  Either.  Both.  I doubt Bakker's thought it out that far, but he has said that there's an objective morality imposed by the Outside, so along those lines, I'd say they could both apply.  A nebulous metaphysical principle that somehow matters to the numinal.  As far as we know, it is such a broad rule that it applies even to good women when compared to bad men.

[Sheep the Evicted]

If Bakker was setting out to portray the spiritual inferiority of women then he flopped quite drastically; i don't think its too much of a spoiler to say that the spiritual leaders in the biggest religious cult in Earwa HAVE to be women.

Or maybe he did but Kellhus changed it all by rewriting the Tusk.

What the hell does Spiritual Inferiority even mean ?

That your less charismatic ? Less aggressive/assertive ? More likely to go to hell ?

[Kat]

I think I liked Bakker better before I knew about that quote. :o Which is to say, I've never been a particular fan, and thought his point about gender fell flat...but now it seems even more pointless. What's so interesting about "What if this stereotype which has been traditionally held as The Truth, were actually true? Wouldn't that show those PC worldbuilders!"

I mean...what PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:

[Red Sun]

Ran, on Feb 8 2009, 10.33, said:

Well, he's going further than that, it seems to me, due to the particular philosophical ideas he wants to explore. He wants to make "concrete" an abstraction -- he wants to turn belief into objective, fundamental reality.

Kat, on Feb 9 2009, 07.23, said:

I think I liked Bakker better before I knew about that quote. :o Which is to say, I've never been a particular fan, and thought his point about gender fell flat...but now it seems even more pointless. What's so interesting about "What if this stereotype which has been traditionally held as The Truth, were actually true? Wouldn't that show those PC worldbuilders!"

I mean...what PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:

I don't think it only regards gender, it also regards a lot of his portrayal of other cultures. I started to like the books a bit less, when I realised that the Nansur Empire would really be like the worst stereotypes that existed of Byzantium and worse. And that's why Istyria as a character concept irritates me more than the other female characters (Esme and Serwe), because she is like the incarnation of "greek decadence and vice".

And I do think that the books are some kind of verbal masturbation, which seems the same as fighting a literary strawman with many, many words. That said, I didn't hate them, but I also don't think that they are the best and deepest books ever.

[Galactus]

Finn, on Feb 8 2009, 23.26, said:

Do we actually know what Bakker means by "spiritual superiority"?  Are we talking about ethical / moral superiority?  In other words, women are morally weaker and more likely to "sin"?  Or are we talking about some sort of metaphysical principle that has some sort of application in the afterlife?  

The example of sorcerers is interesting because we know that they are supposed to be damned, but there is never any indication that sorcerers are more or less moral or ethical than anyone else.  In fact, Akka might be the most ethical character we've met in Earwa.

SPOILER: TJE

We do get a confirmmation in TJE (yes, I read it yesterday) Mimara's Judging Eye sees women as inferior to men (and less holy) like snakes are holy but pigs are unclean. (and sorcerers are outright damned)

Edited by Ran, 09 February 2009 - 04:07 AM.

[Galactus]

Quote

About 50%. And also a terrible example: mother vs. whore?!?!? Why not complain that the other 50% is involved in being an Empress, and of course only a female can be an Empress?   I think the right complaint is that she is out of her depth as an Empress and a petty despot. Basically she was a smart whore but no more. You can dress her up but . . .

Whore, daughter, mother, crone are pretty much the "traditional" gender-roles. (sometimes combined in various ways) The point is that these are all related to sexuality in a way that male gender-roles by and large are not. (because male is the default, and so forth and so on, we all know that)

[Triskele]

Please be careful with spoilers in this all too interesting thread.  


2/19 cannot come soon enough for me.

[Marcelo Rebelo Firqoralas]

Kat, on Feb 9 2009, 07.23, said:

I think I liked Bakker better before I knew about that quote. :o Which is to say, I've never been a particular fan, and thought his point about gender fell flat...but now it seems even more pointless. What's so interesting about "What if this stereotype which has been traditionally held as The Truth, were actually true? Wouldn't that show those PC worldbuilders!"

I mean...what PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:

I don't think this is what Bakker set out to do. In interviews and articles Bakker has talked about how he see the epic fantasy genre. He's mentioned that one of the central aspects of a fantasy world is that it is anthropomorphic and has a built in morality and that this may be the thing that most effectively draws people to the genre, since this way of looking at the world comes natural to people. He is therefor, as I see it, saying that there is a problem with an uncritical, escapist reading of epic fantasy, since there really isn't any reason to expect a world with a built in morality to be moral in a way that is palatable to modern sensibilities and that it is problematic that almost all fantasy worlds that we come across are.

With Eärwa he seems to have wanted to create a fantasy world that is not morally acceptable to most readers. The whole spiritual inferiority of women thing is just one part of this, but it doesn't seem to really have been something that he focused on in the first trilogy so maybe he will deal with it in more detail in future books (including TJE, which I haven't read yet).

To what extent this is profound or not can of course be discussed, but it seems to me atleast to be somewhat more original than pointing out once more that it can suck to be a woman. That has been done many times before, and been done better.

[Shryke]

Kat, on Feb 9 2009, 01.23, said:

I mean...what PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:

I think your defining that far too narrowly.

I mean, for one easy example, any time you see a princess pinning about how she'd rather marry soemone she loved then someone her parents choose, your hitting PC worldbuidling.

I mean, PC might not be the best term here. It's more ... it's more about the characters and setting and such conforming to our modern moral expectations.

Edited by Shryke, 09 February 2009 - 05:48 AM.

[Ran]

Possibly.  Troubadors and the culture of courtly love, 14th century Europe, OTOH, say differently. It really depends on the author and what they're calquing from.

ETA: Wrote that without seeing the ETA. Basically we're in agreement. An author who choses to emphasize aspects of courtly love in their setting may be doing so because it adheres (or seems to adhere) more to modern expectations. Mind you, the whole courtly love thing is a complex and interesting subject, and it's not as clear cut as a superficial understanding makes it out to be.

Edited by Ran, 09 February 2009 - 05:52 AM.

[Galactus]

Shryke, on Feb 9 2009, 11.47, said:

I mean, for one easy example, any time you see a princess pinning about how she'd rather marry soemone she loved then someone her parents choose, your hitting PC worldbuidling.

Except that people often did complain. We actually have lots of examples, historically. In medieval culture at large marriage was supposed to be, if not about love so at least about mutual consent and approval.