402 replies to this topic

[Ran]

Quote

A quick scanning of Joinville and Villehardouin's (two actual crusaders) Chronicles of the Crusades reveals very little talk of women.

Noblemen writing about other noblemen.

Bakker has POVs from a concubine, a whore, and an itinerant Mandati schoolman. Any of these could just as well have interacted with some non-objectified woman, if Bakker had wanted to do so. He didn't. Again, it's a conscious choice on his part to write something that was ... parareal, maybe? It's not any Middle Ages I know, but it's a particular take on a particular notion of the Middle Ages.

[Shryke]

Matrim Fox Cauthon, on Feb 13 2009, 17.50, said:

I am not sure how this sort of speculative thinking is all that beneficial or that valuable, because even then there is no mention of these could-be-maybe queenly lieges by any of the crusaders, where talk of the homeland nobility would be expected. Ultimately then, when the rest of the terrible plot of women being the way they are as we see in Earwe, it would be more logical for one to assume that the lack of women in such places is intentional and not a matter of simply being off-screen.

There was no mention of the homeland nobility ... period.

Quote

Bakker has POVs from a concubine, a whore, and an itinerant Mandati schoolman. Any of these could just as well have interacted with some non-objectified woman, if Bakker had wanted to do so. He didn't.

I think the issues though is, did he CONSCIOUSLY not do it, or did it just ... never come up.

I mean, it's a creative process. Like writing music or something. Maybe Nirvana never used Oboes in their music because they hated Oboes. Or maybe they just never thought of it.

Edited by Werthead, 13 February 2009 - 05:58 PM.

[Werthead]

Quote

Honestly, I can't think of a single book of historical fantasy, historical fiction, mythology or fiction I've read where there were so few mentions of women.

LotR? Galadriel and Eowyn aside (as Arwen was in the book for about three seconds), there's hardly any other named female characters mentioned at all compared to the reams of male characters. Ironically, of course, women play a considerably larger and more prominent role in The Silmarillion.

Otherwise this is a point I hadn't entirely considered before. Even Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles, set in the darkest of the Dark Ages, noted the importance of women in the nobility and in religious roles.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Kalbear, on Feb 13 2009, 17.47, said:

Because comparing it to historical fictions like the Iliad (which have women all over the place) and comparing it to historical documents like Roman surveys from consuls is not the same thing.

Similarly, comparing Tolkien to various mythologies is not the same thing as comparing it to scribes recording the lineage of the Tudors.

Jeordhi was saying that in history, there weren't many women mentioned, so it's okay. That may be true, but this isn't history. This is closer to an epic poem - and epic poems have tons of women in 'em.

There are women all over the place in the Illiad, but considering that the most important women for the plot of the Illiad is a sex object that launched 1,000 ships and Achilles's anger with Agamemnon, and reason for subsequent sitting out of most of the war, is that he stole his sex object prize, I'm not sure how much better your case for such women is in the Illiad. The only other thing which would make it more comparable to the Illiad would for the Padirajah's wife and daughters to be sold into slavery or captured as sex prizes.

Quote

It does, but Bakker doesn't romanticize them or make them worse; he deletes them completely.

He deletes alot of people though, which is the point that Shryke seems to be making.

Part of the problem is the rapid speed of the Holy War. Many women were in the historical crusades because the crusaders had land holdings and establishments where they had encroached themselves. The Holy War is practically a single non-stop march from Momemn to Shimeh. This situation changes what is feasible. I suppose Scott could have expanded the Holy War to ten books and stretch it over a two-hundred year period of back-and-forth fighting between the Fanim and Inithri with multiple crusades.

Ran, on Feb 13 2009, 17.52, said:

Noblemen writing about other noblemen.

Bakker has POVs from a concubine, a whore, and an itinerant Mandati schoolman. Any of these could just as well have interacted with some non-objectified woman, if Bakker had wanted to do so. He didn't. Again, it's a conscious choice on his part to write something that was ... parareal, maybe? It's not any Middle Ages I know, but it's a particular take on a particular notion of the Middle Ages.

A concubine whose company were Kellhus, Cnaiur, and noblemen. A whore whose company and clients were noblemen. And an itinerant Mandati schoolman who was instructed to go along with the Holy War to watch Kellhus and who already had high connections with Conriyan nobility.

Edited by Matrim Fox Cauthon, 13 February 2009 - 06:10 PM.

[Ran]

Lobellia Sackville-Baggins, Rosie Cotton,  Goldberry, and Shelob are four more... I'm pretty sure Mrs. Maggot has some lines, too.

Well, Shelob doesn't have any lines, but anyways, you know what I mean. Named, had lines and/or played some significant role. ;)

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Ran, on Feb 13 2009, 18.13, said:

Lobellia Sackville-Baggins, Rosie Cotton,  Goldberry, and Shelob are four more... I'm pretty sure Mrs. Maggot has some lines, too.

Well, Shelob doesn't have any lines, but anyways, you know what I mean. Named, had lines and/or played some significant role. ;)

Samwise's baby-making sex object?

[kalbear]

Quote

LotR? Galadriel and Eowyn aside (as Arwen was in the book for about three seconds), there's hardly any other named female characters mentioned at all compared to the reams of male characters. Ironically, of course, women play a considerably larger and more prominent role in The Silmarillion.

At least Galadriel isn't a whore, and Eowyn isn't fucking Eomer to keep him in power. (or...was she?)And Sam still has his woman back at home. And there are women mentioned on the road to Helm's Deep. Heck, wasn't there a woman in the inn? And there's Tom Bombadil's 'wife', though I hates her.

I don't like LotR that much, and I do think that it has a lot of sexism in it as part of the mores of the time, but I also had no doubt that when the men got home they'd be going home to their families. In Earwa, I'm not sure that's the case at all.

Quote

Is this a joke question?

No, not really.

People talk about what they want. They think about it, they fantasize about it. They dream about it. What they want is in their thoughts.

If women are what men want, why aren't the men actually thinking about them or talking about them? It just seems odd.

Quote

There are women all over the place in the Illiad, but considering that the most important women for the plot of the Illiad is a sex object and Achilles's anger with Agamemnon is that he stole his sex object prize, I'm not sure how much better your case for such women is in the Illiad. The only other thing which would make it more comparable to the Illiad would for the Padirajah's wife and daughters to be sold into slavery or captured as sex prizes.

Well, when the Iliad wins as being a triumph over you when you're talking sexism, you might have a problem. I'm not saying that the Iliad is some paragon of feminist lit, but at least women existed there. We do still see the Queen of Troy. We see goddesses aplenty. And the Iliad is about as anti-feminist as you can get: it's a story about a war being waged to own the most beautiful woman on the planet.

It still beats Bakker.

[Ran]

Matrim,

Strangely but fortuitously, hobbit-women are very wholesome but unsexy. I don't want to think of hairy feet tangling together.

I once got a sample of hobbit TS (read: cybersex) paged to me on a Tolkien text-based game I play. Gave me nightmares.

Kal,

Quote

Eowyn isn't fucking Eomer to keep him in power. (or...was she?)

No, not Eómer.

Edited by Ran, 13 February 2009 - 06:35 PM.

[Shryke]

Matrim Fox Cauthon, on Feb 13 2009, 18.16, said:

Samwise's baby-making sex object?

Hey, she makse Beer too doesn't she?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Kalbear, on Feb 13 2009, 18.18, said:

No, not really.

People talk about what they want. They think about it, they fantasize about it. They dream about it. What they want is in their thoughts.

If women are what men want, why aren't the men actually thinking about them or talking about them? It just seems odd.

Does Akka not think of Esmi? What conversations are there from "the men" of the Holy War? While I followed many of your other points, this one seems like you are grasping at straws.

[Larry.]

Thinking on this topic (and especially after re-reading an old interview of his) has given me quite a few cognitive headaches.  Since I'm still working things out for myself, perhaps others can give their responses to the following:

If Bakker's Earwä is in part a reaction to and a reflection of older (Tolkienian?) epic fantasy conventions, then by what measures should modern-day readers be analyzing/judging the fictional social structures?  Do we apply our own "yardsticks" (as Bakker terms it in the linked interview above) to societies (real and fictional alike) that differ significantly from modern-day Western societies?  What is it about our "yardsticks" that seem to allow for certain things to "exist" in fictional settings (war, caste-like social systems, slavery) but which cause us to react so violently to other matters (rape, social status of women, general gender relations)?

Do we dare applaud a Kellhus for "creating" some semblance of gender equality in Earwä?  Do we treat his actions and claims suspiciously and wait for some unseen other shoe to drop before judging his motives and actions?  

I'm undecided on these questions, in part because I'm waiting for more data (more books) and in part because I suspect that my reactions may end up being reversed on further consideration.  It is indeed worthy to discuss why Bakker didn't include more "local color" women in his stories to "humanize" the Inrithi crusaders, but I keep coming back to that nagging question of what is Bakker aiming to do in having such a misanthropic (as it seems to suck to be most men who aren't high on that jnin list) social setting?  Are we humans really wolves toward each other after all, or is there something else to it than blind people being "certain" that (via Tusk, Scripture, etc.) they can see?

[GoN]

MFC

Quote

The Kian ladies-in-waiting and female servants?

Touché :lol:

I'll cop to it having been two years since I read them, and I have almost zero memory of periphery stuff like that :)

[Finn]

Kalbear, on Feb 13 2009, 15.18, said:

Well, when the Iliad wins as being a triumph over you when you're talking sexism, you might have a problem. I'm not saying that the Iliad is some paragon of feminist lit, but at least women existed there. We do still see the Queen of Troy. We see goddesses aplenty. And the Iliad is about as anti-feminist as you can get: it's a story about a war being waged to own the most beautiful woman on the planet.

It still beats Bakker.

:rofl:

Seriously.  So . . .  we're defending a 21st century, Western, and in many ways seemingly progressive author from the charge that his work is not particularly women-friendly by turning to the Lord of the Rings, the Iliad, and the pre-modern chronicle tradition?  

And he flat out loses the comparison to two out of three?  :stunned:  
:P

Edited by Finn, 13 February 2009 - 06:33 PM.

[Shryke]

Finn, on Feb 13 2009, 18.33, said:

:rofl:

Seriously.  So . . .  we're defending a 21st century, Western, and in many ways seemingly progressive author from the charge that his work is not particularly women-friendly by turning to the Lord of the Rings, the Iliad, and the pre-modern chronicle tradition?  

And he flat out loses the comparison to two out of three?  :stunned:  
:P

Only if you assume he's holding up the society he's talking about as a good thing.

[Balefont]

Ghost of Nymeria, on Feb 13 2009, 16.28, said:

All I know is these books were not enjoyable to read, and I would probably never pick up another book by Bakker. Maybe the grand scheme will reveal some rabbit from a hat and make it apparent why things were the way they were, but he has lost audience members along the way. Not because we are too stupid to get it, not because we are looking for a rat, but because the trip so far hasn't been enjoyable enough to look towards the destination.

I can respect this point of view. :grouphug:

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Ghost of Nymeria, on Feb 13 2009, 18.25, said:

MFC

Touché :lol:

I'll cop to it having been two years since I read them, and I have almost zero memory of periphery stuff like that :)

Considering that I had to pull that mostly out of my ass, the essence of your point is still mostly valid.

I'm not going to begrudge Bakker of the women that we do see in Earwe, but it still would have been nice to see more women in some capacity just to make the world itself feel more vivid. I would not call that tokenism though, as I am not asking for token women, but for just a greater breadth of "local color." Shryke is right in that it is not the main focus, but still to see more women in Caraskand or around Sumna would have been more interesting for me to be able to picture the world or the city.

Finn, on Feb 13 2009, 18.33, said:

Seriously.  So . . .  we're defending a 21st century, Western, and in many ways seemingly progressive author from the charge that his work is not particularly women-friendly by turning to the Lord of the Rings, the Iliad, and the pre-modern chronicle tradition?  

And he flat out loses the comparison to two out of three?  :stunned:

Except that no one is pretending that his work is women-friendly. Even the defenders acknowledge that his world is not female-friendly. The original position seems to have changed (perhaps to keep the argument going) that what women we do see are just sex objects, a question of justification as to why women are objectively inferior to men in Earwe, and why are there not more non-sexual women who make appearances in the story?

Edited by Matrim Fox Cauthon, 13 February 2009 - 06:40 PM.

[kalbear]

Quote

Does Akka not think of Esmi? What conversations are there from "the men" of the Holy War? While I followed many of your other points, this one seems like you are grasping at straws.

Akka does think of Esmi all the time. And he talks about her with other people. She's constantly in his thoughts. Akka's a good example of why the other men in the Crusade might have mentioned women.

Again, the point is that it's a bit unnatural. It's unnatural to not see any queens or daughters of royalty when everything's being sacked. It's weird to not hear men talking about how important their families are. It's odd to not see any nobles save Istriya in Nansur. It's odd that the Scarlet Spires have no women. It's odd that none of the warriors of the crusade have queens.

Quote

Except that no one is pretending that his work is women-friendly. Even the defenders acknowledge that his world is not female-friendly. The original position seems to have changed (perhaps to keep the argument going) that what women we do see are just sex objects, a question of justification as to why women are objectively inferior to men in Earwe, and why are there not more non-sexual women who make appearances in the story?

Well, Jeordhi was defending the lack of women by comparing this to other historical fictional works. Which is pretty bad as a comparison, as it turns out.

Edited by Kalbear, 13 February 2009 - 06:42 PM.

[GoN]

Cheers, Bale! :grouphug:

Let me just say, I recognise the scope and originality of the books as something rather grand. Honestly I'm rather sad I don't enjoy them more :(

MFC-

Quote

I'm not going to begrudge Bakker of the women that we do see in Earwe, but it still would have been nice to see more women in some capacity just to make the world itself feel more vivid. I would not call that tokenism though, as I am not asking for token women, but for just a greater breadth of "local color." Shryke is right in that it is not the main focus, but still to see more women in Caraskand or around Sumna would have been more interesting for me to be able to picture the world or the city.

Agreed, especially with the bolded parts.

Edited by Ghost of Nymeria, 13 February 2009 - 06:45 PM.

[Balefont]

Ran, on Feb 13 2009, 18.13, said:

Lobellia Sackville-Baggins, Rosie Cotton,  Goldberry, and Shelob are four more... I'm pretty sure Mrs. Maggot has some lines, too.

Well, Shelob doesn't have any lines, but anyways, you know what I mean. Named, had lines and/or played some significant role. ;)

Isn't Lobellia a nosy bitch?  Rosie is a sweet womb mother.  Goldberry I can't remember much because I loathed that part of the books.  And Shelob is an evil creature-eating female spider.  Go J.R.R.

ETA: GoN, s'okay.  I just lurv Kellhus.  I'm a sick bastard like that. ;)

Edited by Balefont, 13 February 2009 - 06:47 PM.

[Finn]

Shryke, on Feb 13 2009, 15.36, said:

Only if you assume he's holding up the society he's talking about as a good thing.

Right.  My point was about the arguments being made here - it's worse than the Iliad but only barely!  :)  - not about the books themselves.  As I've said, I get that Bakker is up to something; I just don't know what it is yet, or if it'll be worthwhile once we get there.