Jump to content

Bakker XXIV: To Be Human is to Be Damned


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

In any case, I think that in the end, all paths lead to Golgotterath.

Yeah, I don't think there's a conceivable plot where Serwa gets stuck in the Gnostic Quya version of an Uroborian Circle, unable to kill herself by biting through her tongue, all while forced to birth children over and over. (Though maybe with Cants of Compulsion?)

I think Serwa/Seswatha will somehow convince the Intact to join her Father. Allying himself with Seswatha was an ingenious move on Kellhus's part. It's possible every Mandati and Swayali who touches the mummified heart all subconsciously know about the discussion Kellhus had with the Seswatha-in-Akka.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

I didn't even know Bakker had been on these forums before, so I'm not sure how that even figures in these discussions, especially as the posters who were critical of him over the preceding three pages never even brought it up. In my own case, I even had to look up what "sock poppet" meant within the contest of how it was being used right now, since I was not familiar with the term. In any case, It was the posters who were critical of the posters who were critical of Bakker who brought it up. Yes, you read that right and it's very strange.

I have actually read the books, which seemingly addresses another charge being levied right now, that many of the posters critical of his books have not read those very books.

So, if anyone is keeping track right now:

  • Some posters are here arguing that other posters are being ridiculous for disparaging a book that has not even come out yet.
  • This, as it turns out, is incorrect.
  • What is actually happening here is that some posters are disparaging the literary and logistical merits of a theory proposed by another poster (i.e., Madness), while at the same time allowing it could very well come true given the history of the author in question.
  • Key point here: Nobody is arguing that the theory is bad theory, as in it has little chance of occurring, rather, that it would be a bad development for the books as in what it would do the story. Take your pick here: It would make the story . . .

( a ) less enjoyable;

( b ) predictable;

( c ) repetitive;

( d ) offensive; or

( e ) one or more of the above.

As for the legality of gay marriage in Scotland . . . yeah, to be honest, I don't know how or why the legality of gay marriage in Scotland figures into this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's go back to this question.


I find it uber hilarious that you all simply discount that Serwa might have a position here, as you know as a strong, independent woman...


Like you expect her to just sit there and take it?

Yes, we do, because as you've said repeatedly when faced with Kellhus there is no agency. Anything that Serwa decides will be informed by what Kellhus wants. She may even believe that it is her real desire and her decision - but as we know, this will be false. We're talking about someone who convinces people routinely to cut their own throats as a message to others. I'm sure they believed they were doing it of their own free will too.


If she doesn't just sit there and take it, then that too is in Kellhus' plan - to either make her resistance a weapon or a goad. To make her resistance weaken the nonmen or to make it appear that his monstrousness is genuine and thus have them trust him more - but it will be a conscious decision by him (or...will it?) and it will be manipulated to get the outcome he wants.



Kellhus could be fallible - it could not work out the way he wants it to. But that doesn't mean that his wants aren't going to come into play here, one way or another.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be bother me one bit if that was what happened with Serwa. It's not that because she is a woman, she *has* to have agency, has to do something special, because supposedly there aren't enough women in the books. It's the same with the endless whining about Poor Esmenet being only a broodmare, she has no agency, she's no modern girl, she's not enough of a perfect leader while Kellhus is away. Serwa is a special women because of her ancestry and her power, but Kellhus is a ruthless motherfucker who's clearly thought this through, he might just use her for his purposes.

Seriously what you see here are various grown men who say to themselves, " I crave powerful women in my story and if women don't get enough agency in Bakker's books, it is my duty to come to the Westeros forum and whine about it every single day, 5 years in a row". It's like they've been indoctrinated. It never ends. Almost every discussion gets molested by the talk about how they don't like that the women aren't given enough attention as the men. And if there's nothing to talk about for a while, one of the following topics always gets dragged back in by the haters:

1) " Did you know Bakker once had a sockpuppet on this forum? If you didn't, now you know. Let's talk about that again. Those were the days. remember our moral outrage?"

2) " I know we talked about how Esmenet and Mimara don't have sufficient agency 25 times the last 12 months. But since there is nothing to do right now, shall we do it again, and deride the author once again with our moral outrage, frequently commenting on his presumed personal views on women"?

My take: I'm interested in all the current storylines post- WLW and that includes Serwa/Moenghus and Sorweel heading towards Ishterebinth.

If it turns out Serwa has some sort of connection to the Nonmen and if her role is that she gets hooked up to one of their race and conceives, that would be fine by me. I don't think that that is what Bakker has in store for Serwa, but I think it's an interesting theory that Madness posited. It could happen. I think though that Bakker has already taken such an incredible amount of flack for not having the women do enough important stuff in the story according to the male feminists, that he would probably be influenced by that and forego the idea.

I for one would like to thank you for demonstrating how much strawmannish bullshit (and pure bullshit) one can stick into a post and still get +1ed by Madness. And if you're going to complain about "endless whining", please don't do it while throwing a temper tantrum... it makes you look bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we accept Lockesnow's theory that Kellhus's atheist/materialistic outlook is misdirection, here's one from Cnauir:



“War is dark. Black as pitch. It is not a God. It does not laugh or weep....”



War and Birth and both gods apparently, and figure prominently in the series. Though IIRC no one in the Ordeal has been named Battle Celebrant yet right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, even if assuming, for sake of argument, that Kellhus really does intend to to give up Serwa as a broodmare and Serwa actually fights back -- and taking things a step further, this is not something Kellhus had planned -- I would still prefer if the author dispensed with the magic womb as a plot device for the remainder of the series. Honestly, he is better than that. There are superior, more creative, plot workings he can come up with instead of repeating himself. I felt much the same about the sexual humiliation of Sorweel in the last book. We've been here before, it would be better to go somewhere else, somewhere new.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the legality of gay marriage in Scotland . . . yeah, to be honest, I don't know how or why the legality of gay marriage in Scotland figures into this discussion.

Would you like to know? Or are you putting that out there in case anyone was wondering if you knew the how or why of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts:

I didn't even know Bakker had been on these forums before, so I'm not sure how that even figures in these discussions, especially as the posters who were critical of him over the preceding three pages never even brought it up. In my own case, I even had to look up what "sock poppet" meant within the contest of how it was being used right now, since I was not familiar with the term. In any case, It was the posters who were critical of the posters who were critical of Bakker who brought it up. Yes, you read that right and it's very strange.

I have actually read the books, which seemingly addresses another charge being levied right now, that many of the posters critical of his books have not read those very books.

So, if anyone is keeping track right now:

  • Some posters are here arguing that other posters are being ridiculous for disparaging a book that has not even come out yet.

Aye, same i had to look up "contest" to see the context of it too.

Some? It was just me can you point me to the others? I was referring to that Thai girl on requires only hate, not "many of the posters critical of his books have not read those very books".

Here is what i said "So how one can criticise Bakker while not having read his work, but still criticise internal to text, i do not know." One is singular where i come from, again it might mean many in other cultures i don't know. I was answering in the context of the statement that "The criticisms of RSB are internal to his work, as they should be. "

What is clear though is there is huge holes in your knowledge on what has been said before (i actually envy you this) so everything will just keep wooshing you till you rectify that, which would entail reading loads of Bakkers internet persona which isn't easy.

In future i will just state names straight out save people getting paranoid that folk are talking about them.

I see my own error in people talking specifically about here, when i thought the discussion was all criticisms. So probably looking at it from different contexts caused the errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's get back to something themerchant said.


The battle field seems like it is so far away from the war, the actual action. We just got same sex marriage passed in Scotland it was a hard long trip and it's becoming more and more accepted in Scottish society as a good thing , a great thing and something to be proud of, while 15 years ago it was still taboo
As it turns out, this seems pretty far from the truth. Right now, as we speak, a huge shitstorm over how women writers are treated in the SFF space is going on. The notion that SFF is now 'fine' for women writers and authors appears to be hugely far from the truth. I am not saying that I think Bakker has anything to do with the reprehensible behavior exhibited by the SFWA bigwigs in person or online. However, saying that discussing these things about him (and other authors) is irrelevant is pretty silly. It's clearly quite relevant to feminism and the attitudes towards women, especially since so many consider SFF to be a bastion of progressive, egalitarian thinking.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And let's get back to something themerchant said.

As it turns out, this seems pretty far from the truth. Right now, as we speak, a huge shitstorm over how women writers are treated in the SFF space is going on. The notion that SFF is now 'fine' for women writers and authors appears to be hugely far from the truth. I am not saying that I think Bakker has anything to do with the reprehensible behavior exhibited by the SFWA bigwigs in person or online. However, saying that discussing these things about him (and other authors) is irrelevant is pretty silly. It's clearly quite relevant to feminism and the attitudes towards women, especially since so many consider SFF to be a bastion of progressive, egalitarian thinking.

What specifically is far from the truth?

the battlefield seems so far away?

Scotland just got same sex marriage legalised?

it was a long hard trip?

it's becoming more and more accepted?

it;s being seen as a great thing?

15 years ago it was taboo?

What is far from the truth i can't see how those articles contradict

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, even if assuming, for sake of argument, that Kellhus really does intend to to give up Serwa as a broodmare and Serwa actually fights back -- and taking things a step further, this is not something Kellhus had planned -- I would still prefer if the author dispensed with the magic womb as a plot device for the remainder of the series. Honestly, he is better than that. There are superior, more creative, plot workings he can come up with instead of repeating himself. I felt much the same about the sexual humiliation of Sorweel in the last book. We've been here before, it would be better to go somewhere else, somewhere new.

Where is this "magic womb as plot device" in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What specifically is far from the truth?


the battlefield seems so far away?

Yes, that would be it. Apologies for making it unclearer. You were saying that talking about Bakker's sexism in his books is far away from the feminist battles on the main lines. Turns out that it's pretty close to the main lines. And last year, when Bakker's self created shitstorm about ROH and Foz Meadows and Cat Valente and Nick Mamatas happened,


And all of that ignores the thought that gay rights are not the same thing as feminist goals (which is something you did), that typing on a message board is the only form of activism that people here do, that people's minds aren't being changed (despite evidence here to the contrary).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know, even if assuming, for sake of argument, that Kellhus really does intend to to give up Serwa as a broodmare and Serwa actually fights back

A Serwa who did not intend to obey her father's plans would presumably be a Serwa who never went to Ishterebinth in the first place. I think she willingly accepts her place in her father's plans, although her conditioning is something we can only guess at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that would be it. Apologies for making it unclearer. You were saying that talking about Bakker's sexism in his books is far away from the feminist battles on the main lines. Turns out that it's pretty close to the main lines. And last year, when Bakker's self created shitstorm about ROH and Foz Meadows and Cat Valente and Nick Mamatas happened,

And all of that ignores the thought that gay rights are not the same thing as feminist goals (which is something you did), that typing on a message board is the only form of activism that people here do, that people's minds aren't being changed (despite evidence here to the contrary).

No problems i asked for clarification you gave it, that works fine for me.

What is the goal of feminism? For woman to have full and equal rights with men? Not to be distinguished by their gender. The same sex marriage people also wanted to have equal rights and not be defined by their sexuality.

Now i've seen how one group went about getting legislated for equal rights and get parity with the thing that we couldn't do/get. I was comparing how you go about getting equal rights (which i assume is the goal) . Typing on a message board in my experience is not enough activism, going after authors got nothing done efficiently, much more efficient to spend time writing to politicians and larger orginisations. I wasn''t saying it was the only activism people do, just that in my experience it's an awfully ineffective way of doing it, like bailing out a boat with a spoon instead of a bucket, you look and think are you trolling me using a spoon for this?

Now of course you've highlighted the flaw in my thinking, assuming both "LGBT" wanted equal rights and women wanted "equal rights or treated equally"

What is the goal of feminism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking the extent to which anyone in contact with Kellhus is conditioned is like trying to figure out if Leo still in a dream at the end of Inception.



It's the kind of problem Bakker is found fond of examining both in and out of his fantasy works.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the goal of feminism? For woman to have full and equal rights with men? Not to be distinguished by their gender. The same sex marriage people also wanted to have equal rights and not be defined by their sexuality.

Asking what the goal of feminism is is much like asking what the goal of women throughout the world across all time is. There are so many dimensions that distilling it down to such a basic concept makes it kind of a strawman. The most agreed on basic statement about feminism is simply this: feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunity is not defined in respect to men; it is important for many feminists that men's rights are equal to women's as much as women's rights are equal to men. It is also note the case that being distinguished by the gender is a goal by most feminists, though this is a really difficult thing to gloss over. There's the general concept of whether or not gender is biological or social in nature, whether women should be treated differently socially or physically. In that respect gay marriage is similar to but not directly aligned with feminism, though they tend to be allied in a general way.

As an example, one of the best ways to get multiple schools of feminists to argue is to ask whether or not it is okay for a woman to be a stripper. There's not necessarily a right answer there, either.

Now, the way Bakker represents feminism is much more aligned with your thinking - that feminism is getting equal rights with men and that genders are not distinguished. When Bakker says that he wants to problematize feminism, this is the feminism that he wants to problematize - specifically that women and men can be undistinguished or that men can ever grant women those rights without a fight. But that's a pretty sophomoric view of feminism that very, very few people have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Asking what the goal of feminism is is much like asking what the goal of women throughout the world across all time is. There are so many dimensions that distilling it down to such a basic concept makes it kind of a strawman. The most agreed on basic statement about feminism is simply this: feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunity is not defined in respect to men; it is important for many feminists that men's rights are equal to women's as much as women's rights are equal to men. It is also note the case that being distinguished by the gender is a goal by most feminists, though this is a really difficult thing to gloss over. There's the general concept of whether or not gender is biological or social in nature, whether women should be treated differently socially or physically. In that respect gay marriage is similar to but not directly aligned with feminism, though they tend to be allied in a general way.

As an example, one of the best ways to get multiple schools of feminists to argue is to ask whether or not it is okay for a woman to be a stripper. There's not necessarily a right answer there, either.

Now, the way Bakker represents feminism is much more aligned with your thinking - that feminism is getting equal rights with men and that genders are not distinguished. When Bakker says that he wants to problematize feminism, this is the feminism that he wants to problematize - specifically that women and men can be undistinguished or that men can ever grant women those rights without a fight. But that's a pretty sophomoric view of feminism that very, very few people have.

So there is not a single feminist thought, how does one distinguish between what is a correct and not correct one then?

"Feminism is the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunity is not defined in respect to men" is how you describe it.

"For woman to have full and equal rights with men? Not to be distinguished by their gender." is how i heard it described before. so i used the words.

I'm sure there are nuances i'm not getting that make your statement about feminism correct and mine immature (looked up sophomoric) you state more people believe your interpetation , and very, very few people believe what you state to be my view. Is number of believers thought to be a metric of veracity in feminism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...