Anatúrinbor Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 In a universe where there is a God(ess) of birth, why the hell shouldn't there be a God of death? In fact why isn't there?And why would death "swirl" down of all things? Is death only paying homage to the No-God's whirlwind? eta:So does that mean that EAMD is really just Ajokli messing with people's heads rather than the author's commentary on human fallibility?If thoughts originate in the outside, then yeah, why not? It can be both at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 In a universe where there is a God(ess) of birth, why the hell shouldn't there be a God of death? In fact why isn't there? There might be some kind of psychopomp but seems like most Earwans believe you shift directly into your worshiped god's realm. That might obviate the need for a death god, though I guess there could still be god representing this passage into the afterlife. It is curious... So does that mean that EAMD is really just Ajokli messing with people's heads rather than the author's commentary on human fallibility? Trickster Makes This World. :-) We know Ajokli plays some important role in all this, seeing something the other gods cannot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Are you not aware of the Bakker sock puppet incident in the Bakker and Women thread?? Oh boy you are in for a treat. A boring, even handed to the point of obscure dullness treat that wasn't worth paging through the thread for, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 No. Just thought that we hear about Dunyain willing to submit to degradation yet that always ended up being slavery. I think slavery is something that makes a character seem more badass, as it's like you're an undercover spy willing to go deep. Giving out bjs from fur and food would've made the reader really grasp the feeling of degradation. Didn't Moe have sex with Cnaur? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I think having more than one Serwe would make the book feel like torture porn. I do wonder if we might've had a character who does manage to eek out a living independently - like say a camp follower witch who hides under the shadow of the Spires. I'm not sure how one could justify it, but alternate time lines with some sort of female role doing well, then a comparative line with a patriarchy applying the sort of pressure on the female character and where they end up there (remembering the pressure isn't some power men have, but comes from being a mob). Then compare the two. The books basically have only the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I still think Kellhus degrading himself sexually before Leweth would have balanced out some of the criticisms about gender roles in the books. I'm sure there's fanfic of this out there somewhere..."The peregrine monk knelt before the musty furs, the air was heavy with the trapper's sour odor..." etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I just want to make a statement concerning the links provided about bakker and sexism. First off, I come from a family where I have mixed siblings so I know all about racism. And really no one can tell another what offends them, this is true. But I think that was the biggest joke I've ever read! 1. Bakker should have never have commented on people's remarks. He should have kept his mouth shut and let everyone voice their concerns. Especially if "this" is what he wanted from writing the books. Well then....he got what he wanted didn't he? 2. People, if something offends you enough to go online and rant and rant about the quality of characters in a book and bothers you sooooooo bad, well why didn't you just take the book over to the fire place and toss it in there? I mean why put yourself through the agony and torture of it? I don't understand. I'm sure this has been beaten to death, but nobody, I'm sure was forced to read the book, right? I don't think that there is any one book out there that is completely 100â„… politically correct. So, we all had made a choice to finish the books or not. I'm sorry, but to me this is just more of what is dragging our society in the ground. Everyone seems to be a glutton for punishment. And then they feel bad for themselves because they was made to witness such degradation. Its all above me I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I'm sure there's fanfic of this out there somewhere..."The peregrine monk knelt before the musty furs, the air was heavy with the trapper's sour odor..." etc... I just figure Kellhus would want to clean his beard before the money shot freezes. I'm sorry, but to me this is just more of what is dragging our society in the ground. Well if the reality of the situation matched the poisoned well description you gave, you might be on to something. People criticizing a work doesn't mean they didn't enjoy other aspects of it. Or that once bought they wanted to get their money's worth. Or that they simple have a rule about finishing works they start. I don't think anyone in those thread, including Bakker, acted as if they'd been victimized simply by reading and discussing a text. Honestly the person who seems most whiny about those particular discussions is you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 I just figure Kellhus would want to clean his beard before the money shot freezes. Well if the reality of the situation matched the poisoned well description you gave, you might be on to something. People criticizing a work doesn't mean they didn't enjoy other aspects of it. Or that once bought they wanted to get their money's worth. Or that they simple have a rule about finishing works they start. I don't think anyone in those thread, including Bakker, acted as if they'd been victimized simply by reading and discussing a text. Honestly the person who seems most whiny about those particular discussions is you.Well if that's ur thoughts I can't change them. And I definitely am not getting into a verbal war with you. I was just stating my opinion that if something bothers u so bad, then why put yourself through it? Its your choice.Eta: I know you was in that discussion and you made great points. I'm not talking about the civilized discussion of the matter. Only, the rude and ignorant things posted near the bottom of the 3 pound brain post. If your telling me that wasn't viscous attacks and whining, well then....you certainly read something different than I. What I think I'm really trying to get across is that its a fiction. And people need not get so upset about make believe characters. I think effort such as that, should be left for the "ism's" in our society. Also, because I don't agree with it, how does that make me whiny? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Apologies, perhaps hyperbolic is a better term than whiny. My point was just that society has far greater ills than people reading & criticizing works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 What I think I'm really trying to get across is that its a fiction. And people need not get so upset about make believe characters. I think effort such as that, should be left for the "ism's" in our society. Also, because I don't agree with it, how does that make me whiny? It makes you whiny because you're complaining about a thread on a message board a year old to people that largely didn't participate in it. The majority of the people on that thread, btw, weren't complaining about Bakker's writing. They were complaining about Bakker's behavior towards other writers and bloggers and critics. In that respect it is most decidedly not a work of fiction. It's just fandom drama. Well if that's ur thoughts I can't change them. And I definitely am not getting into a verbal war with you. I was just stating my opinion that if something bothers u so bad, then why put yourself through it? Its your choice. Ask yourself why you're posting here perhaps, and you may get your answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Apologies, perhaps hyperbolic is a better term than whiny. My point was just that society has far greater ills than people reading & criticizing works.Accepted. And that was my point also. I think you can take any work of fiction (on a level with this series, 5 books) and if you dissect it enough all of us can find a ism in it. It doesn't mean we should attack the author, that just seems to come about on its own. Now, I guess if I stop to think about it, bakker wanted this though. So, maybe I have a hard time getting my point across or maybe I'm just sticking foot in mouth. I'm just gonna stop here. I do enjoy everyone's insight on this forum and love reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 It's never just a work of fiction. And I've never been quite sure what the point of the "there'll always be an ism in it" argument is except as a not-so-subtle way to tell someone to stop bugging you with that "ism" bullshit. Which makes little sense since no one is forced to read anything :| And yes Bakker wanted, and got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Well if you can point me to a work of fiction as large as these that doesn't have a ism in it. I would love to read it. Look, I understand its a real problem I do. No ism should be taken lightly. I'm just asking if you think its always a direct attack on the offended group, or maybe offended group took away something different than what was intended. Its a hard subject, but I do believe that maybe just maybe it always isn't intended to be a attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Also, like I stated in my original post, I've dealt with it. I'm a white male, my stepfather is Africans american. I have 3 half-sisters, and have heard the most viscous comments made to them, let alone what me, my brother and mother were called. So don't dare throw me the line about a not-to-subtle-way shit, I don't want to hear it. All I'm saying is sometimes you have to take shit with a grain of salt. You don't have to attack everyone who you think is being a sexist/racist. Sometimes you need to hold your head high and be the bigger man. If not, an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind. Sorry, its not that I don't see the point or even the argument. Its I think people should not always think because you read something that you think sexist/racist whatever. That that's the intent of the author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Bakker's stated, repeated goal was to problematize feminism as part of his work. Not to be a feminist, or to help with any feminist leanings - but to make the problems with feminism (as he saw them) discussed and pointed out. His goal was to get people talking about it. Now, I suspect what he really wanted was to get people agreeing with him - but at least stated wise he wanted people to talk about it. That he then started campaigns against people when they criticized his work, ignored people's personal space or requests to not talk about certain subjects and in general made a huge internet ass of himself - well, that's what brought the shitstorm down in Three Pound Brain. I guess my confusion about your posts, MSJ, is that you seem genuinely upset that when Bakker goes and trolls people they troll back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Accepted. And that was my point also. I think you can take any work of fiction (on a level with this series, 5 books) and if you dissect it enough all of us can find a ism in it. It doesn't mean we should attack the author, that just seems to come about on its own. Now, I guess if I stop to think about it, bakker wanted this though. So, maybe I have a hard time getting my point across or maybe I'm just sticking foot in mouth. I'm just gonna stop here. I do enjoy everyone's insight on this forum and love reading it. Well, I'd agree that there are levels of discontent that may or may not be conducive to change at any particular point. And that it's probably better to not mix discussion of text with discussion of the author's personality. But, as Kalbear [&] you yourself note, Bakker went out of his way to hunt down critics so that was a whole 'nother mess. =-=-= On the nature of Earwa - what would it mean to Awaken the God? If ever instance of consciousness is really the viewpoint of the God, what does that mean for someone like Kellhus who seems able to unify these myriad vantage points and hold them in his own mind? Can he reconcile the viewpoints of the Dunyain, the chosen instruments of Yatwer, the Judging Eye, and the Cish into some Aleph point that maximizes his awareness of reality? Is this kind of realization enough for an apotheosis, or do the seemingly dualistic metaphysics of Earwa & the alien nature of divinity present too great a gap between mortal souls and the Hundred? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 No I'm not genuinely upset about anything other than the fact that everybody reads in too much about everything. I seen a thread in general awhile back that GRRM is a mysoginist. What? Really? I don't know maybe I shouldn't voice my opinion, because obviously so man on here have such strong feelings about said topic. I just don't get the point in it all. Its a work of fiction an its a made-up scenario. It was really hard for me to get through those parts in the books. I almost put them down because they made me feel so guilty (icky, ugly, etc) for just reading it. But, I liked the main plot so I stuck it out. I don't know now, I didn't realize one, that he stated this before the books come out. I never knew that. If so, well it kinda is a fucked up thing to do. I have just seen a lot of authors, people, get screwed over or labeled as a ist, so often. I think people read too much into things, that's all. Everybody is not evil in some way. I feel most people are generally good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 And I guess sci is right. Maybe I shouldn't lump bakker into the discussion. Just his works. I get where everyone is coming from and in hindsight I didn't take into consideration that bakker went out and attacked people. When that was what he wanted in the begining. I got ya kalbear. I just get upset that people in general(I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT ANYONE HERE) like to read too much into something, then attach a label to that person. Its unfair and probably wasn't was intended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted February 10, 2014 Share Posted February 10, 2014 Also, like I stated in my original post, I've dealt with it. I'm a white male, my stepfather is Africans american. I have 3 half-sisters, and have heard the most viscous comments made to them, let alone what me, my brother and mother were called. So don't dare throw me the line about a not-to-subtle-way shit, I don't want to hear it. All I'm saying is sometimes you have to take shit with a grain of salt. You don't have to attack everyone who you think is being a sexist/racist. Sometimes you need to hold your head high and be the bigger man. If not, an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind. Sorry, its not that I don't see the point or even the argument. Its I think people should not always think because you read something that you think sexist/racist whatever. That that's the intent of the author. No one assumes that the author is always aiming to be a malicious, moustache-twirling sexist. But otherwise, how is this not exactly what I mean? It is essentially telling people to be quiet about what they perceive as sexism because...I don't know,because the person asking doesn't like dealing with it? Doesn't like seeing people whose morals don't tell them to keep a stiff upper lip or something? Why do you care? And more generally: why is this generous advice always thrown at those who challenge the status quo? Why not move on? Maybe someone more charitable than me is willing to assume that this is just an attempt to discuss better strategies. But having seen the way this argument is constantly deployed; against legitimate complaints because they have the temerity to intrude on (supposedly) previously undisturbed (read:unseen by the person making the argument) territory, as a way to imply that everyone is over-sensitive and will never be pleased so their arguments can be dismissed without guilt and so on, I cannot help but be suspicious of anyone who makes it. Also; Your language doesn't help you. No one is "attacking" everyone who makes any work because there is naturally an "ism" in it. this is just, ime, another way to paint the people making the arguments in a negative light while trying to redirect sympathy where it (apparently) belongs; to the poor beleaguered author. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.