Gaston de Foix Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 It doesn't for Esmenet's extenuating circumstances specifically because of her caste. Mimara was not a caste-menial. I really don't understand. What caste was Mimara? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurble Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 She's a slave. They rank below caste-menial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaston de Foix Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 She's a slave. They rank below caste-menial. I thought slavery was akin to being an untouchable in the Hindu caste system, i.e. outside caste altogether. But suffice it to say, I don't agree that caste has any intrinsic significance to Yatwer. Sorweel is a castle-noble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I see no evidence in text suggesting hooking is ok for slaves but not others. The whole hookin makes you damned per se is totally in doubt given TJE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I'm starting to think that I should look up what the word 'caste' means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Like I said in the last thread, its your choice to read it or not. And frankly, the line of thinking on this thread is that of haters. (Like madness stated, the 3 or 4 people who steer the conversation the way the want it to go.) Why don't you guys put in 20 years of your life into (IMO, a fantastic series) and let everyone get the same pleasure as you do at tearing apart a humans life work. Its like so many of you are so unhappy with yourselves that this is your only release in life. To come on here and argue and argue with anyone who doesn't conform to your opinions. This is a terrible line of argument. It's just paranoid accusations of thread oligarchy followed by a splutter of ad hominems. It seems to me that this is an attempt to reframe things to conform to your expectation of reality - that, if anything, you find some of the criticism compelling but dismiss it in the way a creationist will cast moral aspersions against people advocating evolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalnestk Oblast Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 If not a female character baring kellhus's children then, who? Saubon, akka, proyus? I don't get how this is even an argument. Bakker evidently thought he needed dunyain children to advance the plot. So everyone who is calling esement nothing but a broodmare, what are your other options if not a female? These are "human" characters and humans are mammals. Mammals need a male and female to reproduce. So tell me what are the other options?Given that the argument was not that 'women must reproduce' but 'Esme has a super special womb', the answer would be really clear, no? Have other women be able to carry a Dunyain child to term. There ya go! Really simple solution. Prior to TJE there was no reason to think that this wouldn't be the case. But that's not what happens. In the story it is important that we recognize how difficult it is to carry Kellhus' children to term and that Esme is special for doing so. This is a plot point. One possibility is that Bakker was just lazy (as Faint somewhat implies) and wanted to make Esme feel special while getting kids into the world. Madness believes that this indicates Esme is historically significant and has Nonmen blood in her line. Jurble is making a really great argument that this indicates Yatwer has been favoring Esme significantly for a long time, and is the main reason Esme's fertility works. (seriously, I love this argument and it ties well into lockesnow's theories about how the gods are doing everything). Note that Jurble's theory also explains very well why Mimara is special; it's not that she has nonmen blood too, it's that she's specifically blessed by the gods. Or you can go with lockesnow's idea that Esme isn't all that special but Kellhus is playing it up as a means of control. I find that argument especially funny coming from him given that there's so much textual evidence that the gods are interceding and locke usualy plays that up, but chooses to ignore it here. But anyway, you can pick your theory or promote your own - but anything you do needs to explain why Esme is indicated by the text as special with respect to breeding. I'd also strongly recommend to everyone in the thread - myself included - to stop with the ad hominem attacks on other posters. It is the surest way to get this topic shut down for a while. If you're not enjoying the direction of the thread or that people will be critical of the work or the author, that's fair; it's probably better to suggest other things to talk about that you are interested or go to a forum like the Second Apocalypse. If you can't do that, take it to PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalnestk Oblast Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 How is that anti-feminist? Are all breeding programs or tracking of heritable traits across generations anti-feminist then? Because that's the only conclusion of your position here. That no one can ever have a breeding program in a story without being anti-feminist because any breeding program must, by definition, value people (including women) for the traits they can pass on to their offspring. This is a patently ridiculous position to take.All breeding programs of humans that are dominated by men are antifeminist, yes. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand. Especially one like this, which is explicitly against Esme's desires (she says several times she didn't want more kids, and yet had them). Forcing a woman against her will to have children is a very antifeminist tactic. Perhaps I should have clarified; it's not a breeding program that's necessarily antifeminist, it's the forced breeding program that is. And if that is all she does, then the rest of her skills do matter if for no other reason then they make her father's use of her all the more tragic and horrible.I think that would be one of the things that we object to. Especially since Kellhus is a stand-in for the author (by his own words). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Jurble is making a really great argument that this indicates Yatwer has been favoring Esme significantly for a long time, and is the main reason Esme's fertility works. (seriously, I love this argument and it ties well into lockesnow's theories about how the gods are doing everything). Okay, this is pretty brilliant. But why would Yatwer want Dunyain around? Perhaps the Hundred are not as blind to the No-God as people think? Or maybe Ajokli has been tricking the pantheon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalnestk Oblast Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Okay, this is pretty brilliant. But why would Yatwer want Dunyain around?I was thinking about this a bunch last night. Yatwer is the goddess of slavery, right? Her thing is that the ultimate worship is giving. Giving as much as you can - until it hurts, and then past that. We see this in Psatma's psalms and in the slaves that serve her. Giving is the important thing. Who has given more? Esme gave up her own daughter. Esme willingly chose Kellhus over Akka, knowingly giving up love for the sake of her children. She has subsumed herself for the sake of the empire, for Kellhus, for her kids. Kellhus is the ultimate taker. He takes all. Yatwer is intrinsically opposed to him. But his kids? THey're just as victims as Esme. Note also that the fertility that Yatwer provides Esme wouldn't be a gift; it'd be a punishment, a way to make Esme give even more. It is a burden. And yet with burden upon burden, Esme continues to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalnestk Oblast Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Well, in Bakkerverse the poor and downtrodden are there because of caste, not because of circumstance. So it's pretty much the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 All breeding programs of humans that are dominated by men are antifeminist, yes. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand. Especially one like this, which is explicitly against Esme's desires (she says several times she didn't want more kids, and yet had them). Forcing a woman against her will to have children is a very antifeminist tactic. Perhaps I should have clarified; it's not a breeding program that's necessarily antifeminist, it's the forced breeding program that is. No Kalbear, your argument has been that the depiction is anti-feminist. Don't try and weasel out of that. I think that would be one of the things that we object to. Especially since Kellhus is a stand-in for the author (by his own words). Wow, this is a ridiculous stretch. "The main character does something bad and so the author is bad because the main character is to some extent a reflection of the author". :lol: This is becoming a fucking joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalnestk Oblast Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 No Kalbear, your argument has been that the depiction is anti-feminist. Don't try and weasel out of that.Um, okay. I'm correcting myself. I misspoke. You can hold me to something that I explicitly don't mean, but know that it doesn't carry a whole lot of weight with me. The depiction of Esme being forced to breed against her desires is an antifeminist view, just as it was in Handmaid's Tale. I'm sorry if I didn't communicate this well enough before. Wow, this is a ridiculous stretch. "The main character does something bad and so the author is bad because the main character is to some extent a reflection of the author".It's not that the author is bad. It's that the author at that point is kind of unreadable for a lot of people. Put it another way: Kellhus is supposed to represent modernity. What does it say about modernity (or Bakker's opinion of it) if he sends his eldest daughter to be raped and forcibly impregnated by an alien species in order to further goals? It would be a very blatant statement about how modernity is simply utility no matter what, and rights are totally an illusion with respect to women, and will be removed as soon as more utility comes about to remove them. That's a pretty unpalatable viewpoint for a whole lot of people and colors a lot of other interactions in a harsher light, ones that have been given more charity. I don't think Bakker will do that for a number of reasons - notably, the Yatwer supporting Esme thing makes a lot of sense and is much better than the Esme is Nonmen idea, and is supported by the text. But if he did, it would have a lot of ramifications to many who have tried to defend his work as being somewhat feminist in nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 skipping pages ten and eleven at the moment to respond. Yes, it's my thing to say we're deceived, that's why I offer the alternate that Esme is not special, her perception of her specialness is just a mechanism of control Kellhus uses on her to get her to convince herself to acquiesce to breeding with him. That's in keeping with the genre of manipulation where Kellhus plants ideas and then lets the person 'implanted' (heh) convince themselves of everything Kellhus wants them to believe. However, this is a relative long shot, there is a ton of evidence to suggest that Esmenet is special for her magic womb (which also gave birth to the holy savior of man, Mimara). And really, this doesn't surprise me, given my screenname, I've read a lot of Orson Scott Card novels in my youth, and women being only useful for making babies is how he has written every single character in his career--how Bakker writes women is spookily similar to how OSC does it, which dovetails nicely with how spookily similar to Ender Wiggin Anasurimbor Kellhus is. But that brings you to the question of genre tropes and what the authors do with them. OSC adopts uncritically the ubermensch trope time and again and his heroes are pretty much more misogynistic versions of Doc Savage (they love to imprison women on pedestals), however it's abundantly clear that Bakker is extremely critical of the ubermensch trope and adopts it specifically to undermine it and he is attempting to get readers to actively question one of the fundamental tropes of the entire genre of speculative fiction. So it would be in character that Bakker is also attempting to adopt and undermine the use of females in genre fiction, which is why he uses the magic womb so blatently. However, given Bakker's other writing, both in novels and non-diageticly on the web, it is GLARINGLY apparent that he has a MASSIVE blindspot in this area (treatment of women) and he also refuses to believe/acknowledge this Blindspot exists (since Bakker believes himself to be immune from the cognitive failings he's so often harping about, even as he disclaims he's a victim of them, he refuses to acknowledge where they apply to him as well), and he responds to criticism of his blindspots by escalating his trollish/misogynistic behavior. That escalation suggests that he just gets angry and he doesn't really think, self reflect nor doubt himself. All of which leads me to conclude even if Bakker thinks he is deconstructing the magic womb trope he is also playing into that trope as well. In a sense, Bakker is in the "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" trap, which was a liberal movie striving super hard to not be racist, but it's full of and reinforces subtle and actually quite nasty racism, it's an understanding of racism that is 'headline' depth online, and the film itself does not comprehend that it is actively reinforcing racist tropes even though the entire story is trying to be not-racist. So it's probably true that it's a magic womb, but it may be that Bakker's critique of the magic womb is very shallow and simultaneously his critique reinforces the trope he's trying to attack because it lacks a depth of understanding about the issues at hand. Bakker writes from a position of privilege but doesn't know it, and his privilege is constantly undermining what he is trying to accomplish. Regarding why Esmenet is holy. Why is Mary Mother of Jesus holy? Because she gave birth to the savior. Esmenet is holy because she gave birth to Mimara. And that's the same only special for the womanly ability to give birth problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Buck Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 However, given Bakker's other writing, both in novels and non-diageticly on the web, it is GLARINGLY apparent that he has a MASSIVE blindspot in this area (treatment of women) and he also refuses to believe/acknowledge this Blindspot exists (since Bakker believes himself to be immune from the cognitive failings he's so often harping about, even as he disclaims he's a victim of them, he refuses to acknowledge where they apply to him as well), and he responds to criticism of his blindspots by escalating his trollish/misogynistic behavior. That escalation suggests that he just gets angry and he doesn't really think, self reflect nor doubt himself. All of which leads me to conclude even if Bakker thinks he is deconstructing the magic womb trope he is also playing into that trope as well. In a sense, Bakker is in the "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" trap, which was a liberal movie striving super hard to not be racist, but it's full of and reinforces subtle and actually quite nasty racism, it's an understanding of racism that is 'headline' depth online, and the film itself does not comprehend that it is actively reinforcing racist tropes even though the entire story is trying to be not-racist. Yeah, this pretty much nails my thoughts on Bakker and feminism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 which dovetails nicely with how spookily similar to Ender Wiggin Anasurimbor Kellhus is. I don't see this. Ender is continually shown to be in accordance with our moral systems through OSC's manipulation of viewpoints (as recounted in the Innocent Killer essay) whereas Bakker confronts us with someone who is incredibly amoral. (Now after 20 years living among the world born, as opposed to fucking around as a blind dude in a cave, Kellhus may have changed more than Big Moe) As for the rest of it....I actually wonder if age is a big difference. I think Bakker wanted people to think about how the sausage gets made with regard to porn all the way to beauty standards. As much porn as Bakker jokingly claims to have watched, he did say his intention was to drip acid into the male gaze as well as show how brutality of the world is an argument against the whole idea that women can just magically liberate themselves. But maybe he just didn't anticipate how creepy and weird people could really be? A Bakker growing up with 4chan might've been less confident about edginess leading to revelation. I also think the books may have bitten off more than they can chew. There's obviously attempts to comment on a variety of psychological and social issues, such as the whole "rape module" thing, but there's also class based criticism that is actually way more clear than the gender stuff. Also how meanness begets meanness and the error of thinking of moral agents as existing in vacuums.... But then you throw in the gods being spidery incarnations of War & Birth standing outside time and the WLW being able to slide into every necessary event where P(even) > 0, the nature of paradox in language and the relationship to souls and magic.....and so on, and the space to elucidate the political themes gets lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalnestk Oblast Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 whereas Bakker confronts us with someone who is incredibly amoral.There's some good evidence from the books that Kellhus is the most moral, no? At the very least this is a question that hasn't been answered yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 There's some good evidence from the books that Kellhus is the most moral, no? At the very least this is a question that hasn't been answered yet. What do you mean by "most moral"? But yeah for all we know he is the Messiah. What's interesting about Earwa is how fallible gods [and messiahs] are allowed to be. In that I think Jurble is right to draw parallels to Hinduism - Rama and Krsna, held by many to be incarnations of the Godhead, commit very human foibles....sometimes out of necessity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalnestk Oblast Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Well, in Earwa there is an objective morality that can be experienced. It's possible that of all the people, Kellhus is the most moral person in the world. He is most aligned with what the objective morality of the universe is. (I don't think that this is the case; I think that his mission is to remove objective morality from the equation). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Except does it truly count (or matter to the charge of amorality) if you stumble upon the right path when working towards your own inhuman ends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.