Jump to content

Bakker XXXVIII: Where The Posters Are Damned


Madness

Recommended Posts

Shouldnt we as readers of PoN and AE judge him by his work and his work only?  
I don't think so. You can judge the works on their own merit, but judging the author should be done on all levels. It seems ludicrous to be fine with Jim C. Wright's books and only judge him on his novels despite his completely insane persona. Same with Benjanun S, for that matter. 

 

Take me as some kind of labor rat as I didnt follow the meta-discussion back in the day. And in my perception of his published work, I cannot see anything which would justify a statement like "Bakker's work is misogynist". Au contraire, I could even make a case that Bakker's work is that of a social progressive as he - in contrast to the myriad of epic fantasy authors, GRRM amongst them - doesnt make as root for a social opressive system but rather makes us, the reader, hate that system. As it should be.
I think you're arguing against things that no one has said. I don't know a whole lot of people who said Bakker is a misogynist. The original conversation started because people said the books were misogynist depictions, and, incredibly, people argued against that interpretation. Bakker himself came in and said that the books were deliberately and obviously misogynistic and that this was an authorial decision. And if anything he regretted not making it even more obvious, because some people actually thought that he was writing a story that was meant to be realistic with its depiction of women in medieval periods. 

 

What you specifically seem to have a problem with is the notion of hypocrisy - that the people who have railed against Bakker have not, to your perception, done the same against GRRM. I think this is more confirmation bias than truth. It also has to do with the mediums presented. Keep in mind that people have been talking about GRRM on this forum and this board for over 15 years now; what you are seeing on the front page is a very small subset of the conversations we've had and continue to have. That all being said, GRRM wins a lot more people on board because his women are well-written, which is a fairly common complaint about Bakker for his characters in general. Having well-realized characters goes a long way towards mitigating issues. 

 

In any case, if you want a fairly caustic take on GRRM and misogyny, you can start here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kalbear,
first thanks for your very detailed answer and the link.

I thought I made it clear but anyway, GRRM is just an example. The point is: Bakkerworld is shown as a mostly disgusting crapsack world, where the life of an individual is worth shit. Slavery, genocide committed by all factions, misogyny, asshole gods, systemic supression of the masses (slaves and caste menials). The full spectrum. No romantic depiction of a feudal society as in so many epic fantasy works. Earwa's society model is so shitty that you as reader simply have to reject it. Basically the fantasy world version of 1984 (on the crapsack scale). And all of this Bakker has done by intention.

I call that a complete de-mystification of the fantasy secondary world. And I can understand why Bakker is pissed off by people who are not able to see that and even criticize him for not showing a more happy people Fantasy world. That's like bashing Orwell and 1984 as horrible because he doesnt show a nicer version of totalitarism.

Fantasy often gets bashed by literature critics as escapism and juvenile wish fullfillment and unfortunately quite often those critics are correct. You can find that shit even in the better epic fantasy works. But not in Bakker.

And that is the reason why I would call him one of the few radical progressive contemporary fantasy authors (Mieville is another on).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I call that a complete de-mystification of the fantasy secondary world. And I can understand why Bakker is pissed off by people who are not able to see that and even criticize him for not showing a more happy people Fantasy world. That's like bashing Orwell and 1984 as horrible because he doesnt show a nicer version of totalitarism. 

 

Except that's not why they're pissed, or what their criticisms have ever been. 

 

Bakker isn't making a romantic view of feudalism - neither is GRRM, for that matter - but more importantly Bakker is actually making a worse version of how things were. He is exaggerating everything for reasons. You appear to believe that what he is doing is realistic. It is not. It is deliberately not realistic and exaggerated to point out several things. 

 

And this is one of the problems people have with his work. So far, there is not a whole lot of indication as to why it is so exaggerated. There does exist some reason, at least this is what Bakker says, and the choice to make it about systemic misogyny instead of, say, systemic racism was an arbitrary one - but through 5 books it is unclear what that reason is. 

 

Which is why a lot of us have gone past the books in looking for answers - and what we've found isn't very encouraging

 

I will grant that Bakker explicitly wanted to write a fantasy novel in which the reactionary, conservative elements that are typically found in fantasy were brought to their natural conclusion. Everything is ordered, there exists true good, true evil - but what good and evil are are not defined by our modern sensibilities but by what people back then actually thought. That's a very different take compared to most fantasy, especially most fantasy that has gods in it. GRRM is taking the more typical route of dark fantasy, where whatever the gods are doing is inexplicable, fairly minor, and pretty opaque, and good and evil are defined mostly in what people do. Bakker didn't dodge that. But that's not where the criticism is being leveled, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see, this I never got. An author should be judged solely by his work and not by maybe some stupid things he said in a heated online debate.

Well I once articulated my disgust about a SanSan love thread on here. Result was not so nice.

Anyway I know that there have been discussions about misogyny in ASOIAF (sometimes hard to find amongst all those "hottest chick/boy" threads). I guess at the end of the day what is considered as misogynist is not so much content-driven but PR driven. Your reply basically is a proof of that.

 

Can you find any examples in these threads of people arguing that his depiction is endorsement?  It's certainly not the go-to-Westeros version of Bakker you're making it out to be.  And I doubt you'll find many "OMG would Bronn beat Drogon in a fight if he had Arya lashed to his back?" type fans who have even heard of Bakker.  GRRM has way better PR and net presence, Bakker just constantly shoves his foot in his mouth or wants to talk about philosophy and Blind Brain Theory.  

 

I think you're kind of poking at a strawman here:

 

Just wanted to point out the hipocrisy of those criticizing Bakker for a perceived misogyny in his work while in the next moment walking around with "GO TEAM STARK/TARGARYEN/STANNIS" HBO T-Shirts.

 

Show me some of these people or that they represent the common opinion on Bakker and his work if it's such a prevailing attitude.  I doubt you'll find it here.  I mean shit, I post and follow this thread because I love these books.  Doesn't mean I can't also think Bakker comes across as a major douche at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bakker isn't making a romantic view of feudalism - neither is GRRM, for that matter - but more importantly Bakker is actually making a worse version of how things were. He is exaggerating everything for reasons. You appear to believe that what he is doing is realistic. It is not. It is deliberately not realistic and exaggerated to point out several things.


Kalbear where did I say that I believed Bakker is showing us a "realistic" picture of a pre-modern society? Never said that and that was never my point.

I explicitly wrote de-mystification of secondary fantasy world. And I explicitly wrote no romantic depiction of a feudal society as in so many other epic fantasy works.

Pray tell me how do you come to the conclusion that I believe Bakker shows us a realistic world?
I am quite well aware that such a crapsack society never existed in real life.

Of course Bakker MASSIVELY exaggerates. You are aware that this is a stylistic tool in literature to make a point? Do you accuse Orwell as well because a totalitarian system so totalitarian like that in 1984 didnt exist "in real life"?

My point stands: Bakker intentionally made Earwa such a crapsack world. And I am sorry that you seemingly have a problem that Bakker didnt show a nicer oppresive social system. Like in so many other epic fantasy series.

At least no reader of Bakker will start to root for the various representatives of the opressive system. As I said, no "Go Team Stark/Baratheon/Targaryen" T-Shirts and coffee cups.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Larry, I wasnt speaking of people in those threads. Obviously they are fans or at least have a love/hate relationship to the books.

Maybe I should explain that I am reading all the old threads since 2007 (now reaching 2014) and some users I know quite well from the ASOIAF forum made statements I didnt agree with. So I had the urge to express my opinion ;).

I am a little bit like the gods that it's difficult to separate all those timelines ;).

With regard to the person Bakker: I know de facto nothing about him what hasnt been mentioned in the threads here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point stands: Bakker intentionally made Earwa such a crapsack world. And I am sorry that you seemingly have a problem that Bakker didnt show a nicer oppresive social system. Like in so many other epic fantasy series. 

 

Ah, there's the ad hominem that I was expecting. 

 

I literally - like the post you quoted - say that I don't have a problem with it.

 

Kalbear where did I say that I believed Bakker is showing us a "realistic" picture of a pre-modern society? Never said that and that was never my point. 

 

You implied it when you said that Bakker isn't doing a romanticized version of feudalism, unlike (say) GRRM. Who...isn't doing a romanticized view of feudalism. 

 

At least no reader of Bakker will start to root for the various representatives of the opressive system. As I said, no "Go Team Stark/Baratheon/Targaryen" T-Shirts and coffee cups. 

 

Confirmation bias. Many board members have had a Kellhus or Kellhus-like boardname. Many have thought that Kellhus was the coolest ever. One poster posted at one point that his favorite part in the books was Cnaiur raping Conphas. The Bakker and Women threads are filled with people who love Kellhus and love how realistic the setting is. 

 

The reason you're not finding many in these threads is pretty much because they've been weeded out and sent to other forums where they can practice their fanboi happiness. But hey, go over here and see the happiness that exudes from the fans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, let's go back a bit.

 

Of course Bakker MASSIVELY exaggerates. You are aware that this is a stylistic tool in literature to make a point? Do you accuse Orwell as well because a totalitarian system so totalitarian like that in 1984 didnt exist "in real life"?

 

What is the point Bakker is making?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, let's go back a bit.
 
What is the point Bakker is making?


Well one point he is making is surely that rooting for the representatives and enablers of an opressive social system is ridiculous. Basically he is showing epic fantasy its ugly face.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one point he is making is surely that rooting for the representatives and enablers of an opressive social system is ridiculous. Basically he is showing epic fantasy its ugly face. 

How precisely is he making that point? Where is the ridicule? Heck, in the thread before we spent a few pages arguing about whether or not Akka was a misogynist - doesn't that the argument occur make it pretty clear that at best, Bakker is doing a pretty bad job of making the point you think he's making? After all, if you're not supposed to root for Akka (as he is a representative of said social system) why are so many people wanting to defend Akka? 

 

Furthermore, this is pretty problematic as an interpretation because of another thing Bakker has said - which is that Kellhus represents modernity, but is also bad. Why is he bad? Well, because Kellhus is doing things like emancipation and breaking of slave structures not because it's a good thing, but because he needs the resources. Which is Bakker's theory on how industrialization brought along emancipation. (let's not get into how that's actually completely wrong; that's his stated theory). So if you're right we should be rooting for Kellhus as our representative of modernity - but it's pretty clear that Kellhus is also very much in the wrong, being a sociopath, fucking over characters left and right, etc. 

 

It's certainly an interesting idea - that all of this is designed as a giant 'screw you' to fantasy allegory. My suspicion is that the point was not well made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, there's the ad hominem that I was expecting. 
 
I literally - like the post you quoted - say that I don't have a problem with it.
 
You implied it when you said that Bakker isn't doing a romanticized version of feudalism, unlike (say) GRRM. Who...isn't doing a romanticized view of feudalism. 
 
Confirmation bias. Many board members have had a Kellhus or Kellhus-like boardname. Many have thought that Kellhus was the coolest ever. One poster posted at one point that his favorite part in the books was Cnaiur raping Conphas. The Bakker and Women threads are filled with people who love Kellhus and love how realistic the setting is. 
 
The reason you're not finding many in these threads is pretty much because they've been weeded out and sent to other forums where they can practice their fanboi happiness. But hey, go over here and see the happiness that exudes from the fans

I for sure didnt imply with any word that Bakker is drawing a realistic picture of a pre-modern society.

Oh come on Kalbear, you and your confirmation bias accusation. As I wrote above: I am reading step by step all threads Bakker related since 2007 (now I reached 2014) due to being ill the last 3 weeks.

The statement you are referring to (Cnaiur rape of Conphas) was stupid and horrible and I am sure Happy Ent (who is a great Poster in these threads btw) regrets making it.

Anyway, even though you have been a great poster as well in the Bakker threads over the past 7/8 years I am quite aware that you have somekind of love/hate relationship with the books. Which is ok.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...