In the Shadow of the Status Quo--Fantasy literature and conservativism

[karaddin]

On the Cersei and feminism thing, I really think that a large part of confusion there is coming from a conflation of 'feminist character' and 'feminist outcome'.  Cersei herself is most definitely not a feminist character, however the outcome of a depiction like hers can definitely be so, and in some cases I suspect will be much more impactful specifically because she is not a feminist character which would cause some people to automatically switch off.

 

On 09/09/2016 at 0:47 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Privilege is used as a "dirty word" today.

I know we've had this conversation before Scot, you know better than this.  Privilege in this context is a word that was chosen, and perhaps was not the best choice of word, to describe a series of advantages that someone is bestowed due to a particular characteristic.  Many of these advantages, I'd probably say most, are not zero sum and the way to fix them is not to tear down those who already have them, but to lift up those who do not.  There are others which are zero sum in some sense, if you currently have an unfair advantage in hiring practices for example, then everyone getting lifted up to that tier will eliminate your advantage, but that's still an oversimplification because the focus is still on giving the opportunities to others, not taking yours away.  Having your words respected in a workplace setting based on their merits, rather than dismissed due to your gender, is an element of male privilege and can be eliminated by having everyone's words taken at their merit. This would also reduce increased access to promotion opportunities however, which will be an actual loss where the first component was not.  Its complicated and there is an awful lot that goes into this, but to claim that privilege is a dirty word and perhaps imply that its an insult to those who have it? You're better than that.

When privilege is pointed out in a conversation its asking you to accept that your experiences are coloured by the privileges that you posses and accept that others may have worse experiences than you do, so maybe try listening to them instead of asserting your experience as universal. You can choose to interpret that as being told to stfu, or you can see that it's asserting a diversity of experience which no single individual can speak to the entirety of.  Accepting your privileges doesn't mean you have nothing of value to say, it means you'll analyse what you are saying and your experiences for areas where you might be blind to something that others experience. And that is one of the most insidious things about privilege, it normally functions in a way that blinds you to its presence.

 

On depiction of a social reform movement being led by a noble, I thought this was done very well by Dan Abraham in Dagger and Coin and was a big part of his very subtle subversion that many seemed to miss. We saw this from the point of view of the conservative traditionalist who was opposing the reform, and he was played as a likeable sympathetic character for the most part.

 

On queer interpretations of friendship, that's a hard one because its such a spectrum that bounces around. For example in Frodo/Sam even when the person with that reading is well intentioned, I feel like that entire read of the characters is predicated upon modern somewhat homophobic aversion to genuine but non-romantic intimacy in male-male friendships. At the extremes (which is obviously based on how I see it, as a queer woman desperate for more representation) you have homophobic readings of characters as queer to decry them and at the far end you have dogmatic rejection of queer interpretations of characters that have very clear subtext, and in many cases more than subtext. The former I'd associate more with conservative christian homophobia and the latter with nerd guys online. Yes there are also over zealous queer individuals who draw rather long bows in looking for queer subtext, but that is seeking for things to make them happy in themselves and I find it much less harmful even when the particular case is misguided. And then you've got the queerbaiting which complicates things, both the "we never actually go there" style and the "we'll bury the gay immediately after they have sex" style.

[Darth Richard II]

OK, dumb question, what exactly is queerbaiting?

Also you all have said privilege so much I'm really surprised kalbear hasn't shown up!

[C.T. Phipps]

Cersei is certainly a feminist character in the fact she draws attention to the injustices of the Westeros system. She's an awful person but everything she says about the system is true.

 

[Altherion]

29 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Cersei is certainly a feminist character in the fact she draws attention to the injustices of the Westeros system. She's an awful person but everything she says about the system is true.

But this is exactly what Lyanna Stark was saying: the character herself is not feminist -- she merely serves as a mouthpiece for feminist critique. She only cares about any of the things she says in so far as they affect her personally and she does not attempt to rectify any of them when she finally gains power. The fact that she happens to articulate the problems noble women face in Westeros is completely incidental: she does not care at all even about women of her own class and common women are entirely beneath her notice.

TLDR: She's not a feminist, she's a Cerceist.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah, also she doesn't really draw attention to it outside of her own inner dialogue. Yeah, she's mad she can;t do stuff, but its not like she's making speeches or sweeping social reform..or...anything effective.

[C.T. Phipps]

Well, there's a difference between a character who is feminist and one who makes a feminist statement, especially if you believe Cersei would be the monster she is without the patriarchy.

[Darth Richard II]

But she doesn't make any feminist statements...hence my confusion. Also uh, yeah, she's a horrible person.

[Lyanna Stark]

46 minutes ago, C.T. Phipps said:

Well, there's a difference between a character who is feminist and one who makes a feminist statement, especially if you believe Cersei would be the monster she is without the patriarchy.

Altherion has the right of it. Cersei works as a mouthpiece for feminist critique within the story. However, she is not a feminist nor is she actually making a feminist statement as such. She is providing a problem description. In this section from Clash (and sorry Darth Richard, she does make a speech ) she is talking about herself only, but of course, as readers, we can see that this is true of Westerosi women in general, too.

Quote

“…when we were little, Jaime and I were so much alike that even our lord father could not tell us apart. Sometimes as a lark we would dress in each other’s clothes and spend a whole day each as the other. Yet even so, when Jaime was given his first sword, there was none for me. ‘What do I get?’ I remember asking. We were so much alike, I could never understand why they treated us so differently. Jaime learned to fight with sword and lance and mace, while I was taught to smile and sing and please. He was heir to Casterly Rock, while I was to be sold to some stranger like a horse, to be ridden whenever my new owner liked, beaten whenever he liked, and cast aside in time for a younger filly. Jaime’s lot was to be glory and power, while mine was birth and moonblood.”

“But you were queen of all the Seven Kingdoms,” Sansa said.

“When it comes to swords, a queen is only a woman after all.”

A feminist statement would be if she went on to say something like "and this is why Dornish law on inheritance is far superior!". But she does not. She makes no feminist statement.

In fact, Cersei does the opposite, as she uses and tries hard to emulate the extremely patriarchal methods of Tywin. She wants to be the next Tywin, and is openly scornful and rejects anything "tainted" by femininity in this regard. She sees herself as the only woman who can emulate masculine values correctly, and disdains and fears all other women. In this, Cersei is a picture perfect, if tragic, example of internalised sexism at work.

Interestingly, none of the other female POV characters, not even Brienne, is interested in emulating masculinity in this negative fashion as Cersei does. Even Arya, Brienne and Asha, who might seem fairly tomboyish have more positive interactions with other women, and don't see themselves as the unique snowflake woman who is more manly than other men, and is therefor more fit to rule.

[Darth Richard II]

Well, it has been a while since I did a re read.

[Jo498]

What I do not really understand is why we should fall for embittered Cersei's description. While it might be unfair that Jaime was raised as heir and she was not, it's not that any future position as a consort to a high Lord or in her case the King would not be a powerful position. Not quite as powerful and autonomous as Lord of Casterly Rock but not at all chattel. Robert needs the alliance of the Lannisters almost as much as they profit from the marriage; so it is simply untrue that he could treat her willfully or cast her out. Dany-Drogo is a considerably more one-sided bargain, but then beggars can't be choosers...

And why are arranged marriages ONLY hard on females? Is Edmure Tully also a stud, sold to the highest bidder (or in his case, actually not even the highest bidder but bargained away for a strategic advantage in a war)? (The preference of older sons is even more arbitrary than male heirs taking preference vs. females.)

Should we take Littlefinger as a speaker for underprivileged petty nobility because he could not marry his sweetheart (neither the next best, the sister), is too weak to become a great warrior so he simply has no choice than becoming a creepy schemer?

When it comes to swords, a Queen is only a woman, is just true in a world with sexual dimorphism clearly favoring men in physical combat and (more importantly) where females are more valuable because of their (royal) wombs. (Note that in a world with heritable royalty male royalty is also simply more valuable because of what they are, not because of some specific leading abilities or so.) But power is not only gained by the sword and there is no reason why through intrigues, cabals and policies a Queen could not muster as much power as a King with his armies.

[Darth Richard II]

Random thought before bed: who ever mentioned Katherine Kurtz: *thumbs up*

She was writing gritty realistic historically influenced fantasy IN THE FRICKING 70s. 

[C.T. Phipps]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

What I do not really understand is why we should fall for embittered Cersei's description. While it might be unfair that Jaime was raised as heir and she was not, it's not that any future position as a consort to a high Lord or in her case the King would not be a powerful position. Not quite as powerful and autonomous as Lord of Casterly Rock but not at all chattel. Robert needs the alliance of the Lannisters almost as much as they profit from the marriage; so it is simply untrue that he could treat her willfully or cast her out. Dany-Drogo is a considerably more one-sided bargain, but then beggars can't be choosers...

That would be how it should work, except Cersei is beaten and raped by Robert anyway.  Sansa, likewise, shouldn't be in danger from her fiance and husband. But she is. Because Kings SHOULD be smart and avoid awful deeds through sheer pragmatism if nothing else but the majority we meet are idiots.

And awful people in general.

And why are arranged marriages ONLY hard on females? Is Edmure Tully also a stud, sold to the highest bidder (or in his case, actually not even the highest bidder but bargained away for a strategic advantage in a war)? (The preference of older sons is even more arbitrary than male heirs taking preference vs. females.)

Generally, because marriages in Westeros strongly favor the male. It's interesting that one of the biggest benefits of the strong church in Medieval Europe was one for women as, say what you will about the Catholic church, but they clamped down HARD on forced marriages. There's even a lot of things inside the Catholic ceremony you'd don't think about like "anyone here object", "who gives away the bride", why the women gets asked to make sure it's all on the level.

Should we take Littlefinger as a speaker for underprivileged petty nobility because he could not marry his sweetheart (neither the next best, the sister), is too weak to become a great warrior so he simply has no choice than becoming a creepy schemer?

Actually, I do think it's interesting that Littlefinger does show the people of this society revere murderous savagery than intelligence.

When it comes to swords, a Queen is only a woman, is just true in a world with sexual dimorphism clearly favoring men in physical combat and (more importantly) where females are more valuable because of their (royal) wombs. (Note that in a world with heritable royalty male royalty is also simply more valuable because of

what they are, not because of some specific leading abilities or so.) But power is not only gained by the sword and there is no reason why through intrigues, cabals and policies a Queen could not muster as much power as a King with his armies.

I actually think the Tyrells are a kind of deconstruction from that. They're the most cultured, intelligent, and politically savvy family around yet continually lose because naked savagery always wins over them. Tyrion as well is a political savant yet all of that matters less in the end than simply overruling him.

[Wall Flower]

41 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Altherion has the right of it. Cersei works as a mouthpiece for feminist critique within the story. However, she is not a feminist nor is she actually making a feminist statement as such. She is providing a problem description. In this section from Clash (and sorry Darth Richard, she does make a speech ) she is talking about herself only, but of course, as readers, we can see that this is true of Westerosi women in general, too.

A feminist statement would be if she went on to say something like "and this is why Dornish law on inheritance is far superior!". But she does not. She makes no feminist statement.

In fact, Cersei does the opposite, as she uses and tries hard to emulate the extremely patriarchal methods of Tywin. She wants to be the next Tywin, and is openly scornful and rejects anything "tainted" by femininity in this regard. She sees herself as the only woman who can emulate masculine values correctly, and disdains and fears all other women. In this, Cersei is a picture perfect, if tragic, example of internalised sexism at work.

Interestingly, none of the other female POV characters, not even Brienne, is interested in emulating masculinity in this negative fashion as Cersei does. Even Arya, Brienne and Asha, who might seem fairly tomboyish have more positive interactions with other women, and don't see themselves as the unique snowflake woman who is more manly than other men, and is therefor more fit to rule.

I always feel that Cersei's internalised misogyny feeds into her narcissism - she has to see herself as the unique snowflake, more manly than the men around her, because the alternative is to be one of those weak, powerless females she so fears being reduced to. Maybe, she can't afford to admit weakness and vulnerability or her sense of herself might come crashing down (Wallflower's pop psychology 101).

Cersei lives in a society where direct power is vested in men (except in Dorne, I guess) and she can't imagine a world where that might not be the case. She is smart enough to understand that she can only exercise power at second hand through her father, husband or son and that's always an insecure position for a queen or noble lady. How much power and influence she wields depends on the men in her life and her relationship to them.  Sooner or later she'll be replaced, if only by her son's wife, and become surplus to requirements. Cersei's been taught that power is what matters but that she will always be locked out of wielding it in her own right.

Whenever I read Cersei's 'advice' to Sansa,  I can't help imagining her writing a bad Queen's drunk handbook for young ladies - maybe "Things your Septa didn't tell you and your lady mother didn't want you to know".

 

 

 

[Jo498]

As far as I recall there is ONE occasion when Cersei is hit by Robert (after behaving in a very bitchy and offensive manner, obviously denying him respect and authority). Their conjugal couplings are described by Cersei as Robert usually being too drunk to get it up not as rapes. Otherwise it would be somewhat strange that there was no child by Robert among the siblings. Robert might have been a bumbling boor but it's not that he was not suffering in that marriage. But we should also not forget that there is a successful and lovable arranged marriage described between Ned and Cat, so the book is not quite as cartoonish.

From a modern perspective the most creepy thing is probably still Dany-Drogo despite the latters unexpected tenderness in the wedding night (grossly distorted by the show as rape).

But to generalize the point: Choices we take as self-evident and unalienable today obviously did not exist for most people in human history (and they are not up to choice for many millions today, we are very quick to generalize from Western societies).

It's not only the choice of spouse. In the West there was usually more freedom about that than for the choice of profession. So if we see no choice (or very restricted, another feature of the real middle ages was that you could "escape" almost anything forced upon you by deciding to become a monk/nun!) in many things where it is for us now very important to have one as a mark for certain miserability we have to deplore not only the fate of nobility brides in arranged marriages but of almost everybody in most of human history... and it seems to me that this would be quite a distortion.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

1 hour ago, Jo498 said:

What I do not really understand is why we should fall for embittered Cersei's description. While it might be unfair that Jaime was raised as heir and she was not, it's not that any future position as a consort to a high Lord or in her case the King would not be a powerful position. Not quite as powerful and autonomous as Lord of Casterly Rock but not at all chattel. Robert needs the alliance of the Lannisters almost as much as they profit from the marriage; so it is simply untrue that he could treat her willfully or cast her out. Dany-Drogo is a considerably more one-sided bargain, but then beggars can't be choosers...

 

Hmm, is this a joke post?

What formal power does a Queen have? None. Her power derives from a. her husband the King and b. her House, which is run by its Lord, who is normally her father or another male relative. A Queen, in herself, has no power.

Further, she has, as we have seen, no say in whom to marry. That is dictated by generally her father, or her family. Oh, it may be like in Ned's case where that power is basically benevolent, but all the same, Cersei had no bodily autonomy at all. Neither did Rhaella, or Sansa or Lysa. Or, for that matter Lady Hornwood. Cersei is chattel in the same way Sansa and Lysa are, or Dany. The reasons their various marriages were negotiated was not because it would bring any of them any joy. In Rhaella's case, she was also a queen, same position as Cersei. As was Naerys Targaryen. This, if anything, should highlight that any power a Queen might wield is not at all her own, and is completely an utterly limited by her husband's.

Both Cersei and Rhaella were subjected to spousal abuse and marital rape, and it is probably safe to say that Naerys at the very least suffered marital rape, as did Lysa and Dany.

Of course, this doesn't mean that comparably to poorer women, these women aren't privileged in that they are clothed, fed and have servants, but it doesn't change the fact that they completely lack the authority over themselves. 

Also, I might add, if you consider marital rape, as far as I know, we have no in universe occurrence of a wife raping a husband. We do know of several instances of husbands engaging in marital rape. Further, as we know from Stannis and Tyrion's marraige to Sansa, it is possible for a husband to completely avoid his wife and sleep with other women, should he prefer it that way. The wife, on the other hand, has no right to resist her husband. Sansa does resist, but she is only able to do so because Tyrion recognises the moral wrong it would be to force her.

As for the last line, well, "beggars can't be choosers" the one who was a beggar was Viserys, and he told Dany outright he didn't care if she was raped by all the khalasaar if he got his troops, so the one who "can't be a chooser" is not Dany, it is Viserys. Dany had no power and no bodily autonomy, she was sold as a slave. Something she herself points out, repeatedly, too.

[Lyanna Stark]

16 minutes ago, Jo498 said:

As far as I recall there is ONE occasion when Cersei is hit by Robert (after behaving in a very bitchy and offensive manner, obviously denying him respect and authority).

 

Erhm, please do not excuse domestic violence, EVER. Just...don't go there. Also "bitchy" is sexist, do not use it. If we are going to descend into marital rape and domestic abuse apologism, then I am out of here, sorry.

[Jo498]

Feel free to get out. We are talking about an effing book. Nobody is defending Robert. Nothing in the book implicitly endorses his behavior and don't tell me I am defending it because I am not. But unless I do not remember correctly, he snapped after Cersei contradicted and humiliated him in front of Ned and others. He was the King, not some redneck wifebeater. And of course, as a king he was showing a double weakness, first, not having his wife in line so she would do something like that, and second, snapping and hitting her straight away.

As for Dany-Drogo I mentioned this to contrast it with the Cersei situation. I was also not at all talking about Cersei's "bodily autonomy". Of course she cannot simply kick Robert out of her bed (although de facto that's pretty much what she did!). But her position of power is not only getting nice clothing and servants. As queen she could influence court policy in all kinds of subtle ways even before she gets the position of Queen regent. Even without formal power. Informal power was wielded quite efficiently in real history, often by women with even LESS formal power than a Queen, namely mistresses of kings. The reason why before Cersei could not do so much in subtle influence and intrigue was mainly that she hated Robert and hardly concealed it. (And that there were two far more able master schemers active in that court.)

Robert is as miserable in that marriage as she is, he ends up cuckolded and dead with his wife's bastard on the throne. But we should above all feel sorry for Cersei's plight...? Seems somewhat lopsided to me.

[Andorion]

50 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Hmm, is this a joke post?

What formal power does a Queen have? None. Her power derives from a. her husband the King and b. her House, which is run by its Lord, who is normally her father or another male relative. A Queen, in herself, has no power.

Further, she has, as we have seen, no say in whom to marry. That is dictated by generally her father, or her family. Oh, it may be like in Ned's case where that power is basically benevolent, but all the same, Cersei had no bodily autonomy at all. Neither did Rhaella, or Sansa or Lysa. Or, for that matter Lady Hornwood. Cersei is chattel in the same way Sansa and Lysa are, or Dany. The reasons their various marriages were negotiated was not because it would bring any of them any joy. In Rhaella's case, she was also a queen, same position as Cersei. As was Naerys Targaryen. This, if anything, should highlight that any power a Queen might wield is not at all her own, and is completely an utterly limited by her husband's.

Both Cersei and Rhaella were subjected to spousal abuse and marital rape, and it is probably safe to say that Naerys at the very least suffered marital rape, as did Lysa and Dany.

Of course, this doesn't mean that comparably to poorer women, these women aren't privileged in that they are clothed, fed and have servants, but it doesn't change the fact that they completely lack the authority over themselves. 

Also, I might add, if you consider marital rape, as far as I know, we have no in universe occurrence of a wife raping a husband. We do know of several instances of husbands engaging in marital rape. Further, as we know from Stannis and Tyrion's marraige to Sansa, it is possible for a husband to completely avoid his wife and sleep with other women, should he prefer it that way. The wife, on the other hand, has no right to resist her husband. Sansa does resist, but she is only able to do so because Tyrion recognises the moral wrong it would be to force her.

As for the last line, well, "beggars can't be choosers" the one who was a beggar was Viserys, and he told Dany outright he didn't care if she was raped by all the khalasaar if he got his troops, so the one who "can't be a chooser" is not Dany, it is Viserys. Dany had no power and no bodily autonomy, she was sold as a slave. Something she herself points out, repeatedly, too.

I agree. The position of Queen has no inherent power in itself. The specific queen in question may with what resources are available to her seek to gain some power, but by the very nature of Westeros such power is informal and on a lower key than the power of the King or even that of a Lord Paramount

In fact it can be argued that apart from Dornish exceptionalism the only two women to have complete autonomy in the history of Westeros were the two sisters of Aegon the Conqueror. 

I would have loved a story about Visenya. She slashed open Aegon's cheek in the presence of his guards to prove the necessity of a dedicated Kingsguard. Utter badass. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Along those lines, I'll just say that I much prefer TV!Robert over his book counterpart. Book!Robert is presented as vaguely cuddly and well-meaning (like a sort of alcoholic, bumbling Father Christmas), who is the victim of Lannister plots. TV!Robert is much more interesting - an alcoholic, abusive scumbag who knows he is an alcoholic, abusive scumbag, and hates himself as much as Cersei does.

[C.T. Phipps]

Honestly, aside from removing the bastercide, I don't think Show Cersei is that different from Book Cersei, except that HBO has a great deal more sympathy for her plight.