Bakker XLII: If you do not post with the people, then you are not of the people!

[Darth Richard II]

Ironically, I think it was @Curethan who got me to read Bakker in the first place.

[Curethan]

Well, sorry for the offence.  There's no rancor there though.  Merely an observation on the fact that topics of conversation dry up, and this is no exception in my view,

It is what it is, and people do what they want and get their kicks where they find 'em.

By all means continue your interesting and exclusive discussion.  

That's a very interesting comment peterbound and I see no irony in it whatsoever.  

[themerchant]

5 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Well, I was laughing at the idea of ME being the one with a  hard on for Bakker when you guys are the ones that seem to think he reinvented the whole genre and don't think his books have any gender issues(haha, I laugh again). Plus the idea that we all secretly hate Bakker around here, when if it wasn't for this forum I don't think I ever would have heard of the guy. But no, continue. Ever are men deicved, eh?

Who are "you guys"? Just use names and examples. Instead of appealing to vague people doing vague things. It's much easier, saves on the melodrama and hyperbole. Give me two name and quotes that shows we have people, on here, thinking he re-invented the whole genre?

Here's an example you said "Hey I don't need to point out what a terrible person he is, he does it himself on his blog". When speaking about Bakker on the 14th January 2016.

That way we can make sure everything exists and isn't just some product of an echo chamber, like "ever are men deceived" (it not actually appearing in the book)

 

 

[Darth Richard II]

Sigh.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole

Also, Ever are men deceived does';t appear in the book? Like, seriously? I'm beyond confused at this point.

[themerchant]

Citing who said something and quoting them shouldn't be confusing. Ignore the rest if that's confusing you.

I'm just saying you make vague claims about vague people when with the technology we have we can make specific claims about specific people , it stops on the melodrama and hyperbole (for example Bakker is a terrible person).

Stops pigeon-holing everyone (you guys) and stops people prone to exaggeration adding their own take onto the situation.(invented the whole genre)

Now i'm just making a suggestion i'm not picking on you cause it will affect your posts the most,

It allows me to easily separate fantasy from fact when dealing with competing claims.

 

[Lyanna Stark]

17 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Dude I don't give on damn red cent about his views on feminism. Until, it was brought to my attention about all the Woman vs Bakker stuff, it never even crossed my mind. I don't read books and think oh that's sexist or what have you. My wife has just finished PoN and has never said anything about it. Its only those that look for it, that seem to have a problem with it. It has never made me think less of the book. Treatment of woman? What about the treatment of men in the series? Its a dark world there is no hope. I could care less about Bakker's views. Why is that so hard for you to understand? I don't give two shots about the agendas so many want to push on this forum. I simply enjoy the books.

Indeed. If you are dead set on not seeing the issues then of course, you won't see any. You admit yourself that you never consider when reading a book whether it is problematic or not. What then makes you a good judge of whether it has a problematic take on women, or not? Why are you in a better position to make this call than people who did look for issues? Why is your wife? Does she also read novels without considering these issues? In that case I'd say you are perhaps neither of you in a very good place to claim that there are no issues with the treatment of female characters in the Bakker-verse.

It did not strike you as even a little tiny bit strange that the only female characters in any sort of speaking role are a prostitute, a sex slave and an incestous, sex craze abusive stereotypical harridan? It didn't strike you as odd that Kellhus had a random threesome with Esmie and Serwe? Not even a tiny little teeny bit? It didn't strike you as odd that neither of the female characters ever reflect upon their subordination, but just take that as a given?

Bakker's works are interesting from certain standpoints, and aim at adding something new. However, when it comes to treatment of female characters, it is extremely reactionary. Lots of novels are. It's nothing *strange*, but also nothing to get worked up about. A lot of people like their novels with a good helping of old fashioned sexism. Just roll with it.

[Maithanet]

6 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

It did not strike you as even a little tiny bit strange that the only female characters in any sort of speaking role are a prostitute, a sex slave and an incestous, sex craze abusive stereotypical harridan? It didn't strike you as odd that Kellhus had a random threesome with Esmie and Serwe? Not even a tiny little teeny bit? It didn't strike you as odd that neither of the female characters ever reflect upon their subordination, but just take that as a given?

And even the incestuous sex crazed harridan is actually a (genderless? male?) skin spy who is pretending to be a woman.  And Serwe is just not a very well developed character at all.  Which just leaves Esmi (for the original trilogy anyway).  I actually think she is a very good character, but still, she has to do a lot of heavy lifting as the only decent female character in an entire three book series. 

[Hello World]

I think the last Bakker & women thread is still open actually.

[Lyanna Stark]

Just now, Maithanet said:

And even the incestuous sex crazed harridan is actually a (genderless? male?) skin spy who is pretending to be a woman.  And Serwe is just not a very well developed character at all.  Which just leaves Esmi (for the original trilogy anyway).  I actually think she is a very good character, but still, she has to do a lot of heavy lifting as the only decent female character in an entire three book series. 

Istrya was not a genderless/and/or/male spy in the beginning when she initiates the incestuous relationship with her son, but otherwise yes, it leaves Esmi really. Esmi is also the unique snowflake woman, even though there is nothing particularly unique about her, and we are told she is very clever, but the "show, dno't tell" isn't there.

[Maithanet]

7 minutes ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Istrya was not a genderless/and/or/male spy in the beginning when she initiates the incestuous relationship with her son, but otherwise yes, it leaves Esmi really. Esmi is also the unique snowflake woman, even though there is nothing particularly unique about her, and we are told she is very clever, but the "show, dno't tell" isn't there.

Istrya initiated the incestuous relationship prior to the start of the books, but in one of the first chapters of TDTCB the Emperor noticed something was "off" with his mother, and I was under the impression that indicated she was already a skin spy for essentially the entire series.

[sologdin]

there's something of spenser's snowy florimell in robot istriya, surely. the question therefore becomes why the robot version needs to adhere to bad gender ideology.  the charitable reading is that the consult robot-builders have bad gender ideology in their design specifications thereof.  as the consult does not appear to be on the progressive wing of earwa's politics, safe to conclude that the charitable reading is reasonable? 

that the bad gender ideology is nevertheless shared by the society that does not have robot slave labor (relying instead on old fashioned human forced servitude), which society is tendered as the one requiring readerly sympathy, does not bode well for our assessments of that society. 

[.H.]

Haven't we plumbed these depths time and time again?

Is there a case to be made for issues with the way that women are depicted?  Yes.  Do I wish he had handled it differently?  Yes.  Am I on board with all of Scott's ideas, from "feminism" to philosophy?  No.

Does that invalidate the series are readable though?  Or, dare I say it, possibly enjoyable, despite there being flaws? 

No doubt I am part of DRII's fan-boy allusion, but in all my time here I really can't recall anyone says that Baker is perfect or that he reinvented anything.  I felt like he wrought a fairly enjoyable fantasy series.  I like some elements.  Other's bother me to varying degrees.

I guess that the implication is that those of us who enjoyed  the series are just sexist and enjoy sexism?  If we don't view Scott as a "terrible person" then we are not objective and just fan-boys?

[sologdin]

it's fallacious to assume that an author is sexist just because a text has bad gender ideology on display.  it's also fallacious to assume that the text is not sexist because the author disavows sexism personally.  ROH always threw authors under the bus immediately upon detection of bad gender ideology; that's as asinine as arguing that there's no bad race politics in tolkien just because the author said he hates NSDAP race doctrine.  i.e., there's an equivalence between fanboys and ROH at the level of literary theory error--the magical identification of text and author that merges them together in some sort of grotesque mess, whereas text and author are separate things.

the average fan falls into error by making assumption that flow in the opposite direction:  you have accused the text of having bad gender ideology so therefore you have accused me of liking a text with bad gender ideology, liking bad gender ideology as such, of holding same ideology personally.  it might well be that undergraduates make this set of hasty associations, but it's not worth getting exercised about it.  probably better for the reasonable fan to examine the claim regarding bad gender ideology through the lens of critical gender theory, rather than through the received gender ideology that will render the text's defects undetectable and perhaps natural.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

11 hours ago, peterbound said:

Actually, discussing the author's intent, and worldview when writing the books adds a /shit ton/ to the conversation.  Just because you are able to enjoy the works like a simpleton, doesn't mean that others down't derive joy (and enriching reading experiences) by finding out more about the author, his craft, and how that shapes the books he/she writes.  Bakker's silly views on the fairer sex not only makes him a difficult author to like, but it also adds some light to the treatment of some of the characters in his books, and his views on sex within the works.  You /not/ taking a deeper looking into that aspect of the books makes you a surface reader, and not willing to invest the effort or time to actually enjoy (or understand) the books at a level that many here do.  

 

Keep trying though. 

@peterbound, i ddo not read the books as a simpleton. You are another who seems to think you Grace us with your presence. DRII, doesn't even add anything to the discussion of feminism in the books. All we ever get is his unwitty one-liners and such. And as I said before not until it was brought to my attention did I care or take time to see the feminism thrown about in the book. I see that its there, it just does nothing for me. I find it so fucking amusing how many so-called feminists and SJW's we have gracing this board. FFS, can't you just be a person that looks out for the good of all human beings, we're all treated equally? The HIGH AND MIGHTY of Westeros have spoken.

[sologdin]

basic egalitarian doctrine requires things such as feminism and critical gender theory; that is looking out for everyone.

[peterbound]

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

@peterbound, i ddo not read the books as a simpleton. You are another who seems to think you Grace us with your presence. DRII, doesn't even add anything to the discussion of feminism in the books. All we ever get is his unwitty one-liners and such. And as I said before not until it was brought to my attention did I care or take time to see the feminism thrown about in the book. I see that its there, it just does nothing for me. I find it so fucking amusing how many so-called feminists and SJW's we have gracing this board. FFS, can't you just be a person that looks out for the good of all human beings, we're all treated equally? The HIGH AND MIGHTY of Westeros have spoken.

Holy shit, did I just get accused of being an SJW?  You apparently don't know me very well. 

 

I /do/ look out for the good in all human beings, my whole life has been dedicated to that, that's why I have such a hard time letting Bakker's bullshit when it comes to women go.  It's there man, and i'm sure it's awesome to be able to read books for just the kewl factor you get from it, but I need more.  You claim to 'not read it as a simpleton' yet you do nothing but say how you only want to enjoy the work.  Great.  Good for you.  I just can't support the books (while they are good, they are hardly earth shattering) of someone with that odd of a world view. I think it also says a lot about you, that you are so dismissive of the acts, and try so hard to defend the man. 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

2 hours ago, Lyanna Stark said:

Indeed. If you are dead set on not seeing the issues then of course, you won't see any. You admit yourself that you never consider when reading a book whether it is problematic or not. What then makes you a good judge of whether it has a problematic take on women, or not? Why are you in a better position to make this call than people who did look for issues? Why is your wife? Does she also read novels without considering these issues? In that case I'd say you are perhaps neither of you in a very good place to claim that there are no issues with the treatment of female characters in the Bakker-verse.

It did not strike you as even a little tiny bit strange that the only female characters in any sort of speaking role are a prostitute, a sex slave and an incestous, sex craze abusive stereotypical harridan? It didn't strike you as odd that Kellhus had a random threesome with Esmie and Serwe? Not even a tiny little teeny bit? It didn't strike you as odd that neither of the female characters ever reflect upon their subordination, but just take that as a given?

Bakker's works are interesting from certain standpoints, and aim at adding something new. However, when it comes to treatment of female characters, it is extremely reactionary. Lots of novels are. It's nothing *strange*, but also nothing to get worked up about. A lot of people like their novels with a good helping of old fashioned sexism. Just roll with it.

I am not dead set on not seeing the issue, tbh. I see it and there is good discussion in it surely. I was pointing my posts to DRII who offer nothing on the books or feminism, just little quips every two or three pages about Bakker's feminism issues and how we are all fan boys.

[Lyanna Stark]

16 minutes ago, .H. said:

Haven't we plumbed these depths time and time again?

Is there a case to be made for issues with the way that women are depicted?  Yes.  Do I wish he had handled it differently?  Yes.  Am I on board with all of Scott's ideas, from "feminism" to philosophy?  No.

Does that invalidate the series are readable though?  Or, dare I say it, possibly enjoyable, despite there being flaws? 

No doubt I am part of DRII's fan-boy allusion, but in all my time here I really can't recall anyone says that Baker is perfect or that he reinvented anything.  I felt like he wrought a fairly enjoyable fantasy series.  I like some elements.  Other's bother me to varying degrees.

I guess that the implication is that those of us who enjoyed  the series are just sexist and enjoy sexism?  If we don't view Scott as a "terrible person" then we are not objective and just fan-boys?

The bolded:

a. As I pointed out in my post, the series is interesting for other reasons. Its treatment of women has lots of issues, however. Pretty plainly put, I think, so I am unsure how you can construct a strawman out of it.

b. The point made was that if you cannot see any issues with the treatment of women and find it totally cool, then you probably enjoy a bit of sexism in your literature.

But by all means, don't let me destroy your whingeing and moaning at strawmen if it makes you feel good and proper victimised.

If you, on the other hand, have issues with what I actually stated, then that is a different thing all together.

[peterbound]

8 minutes ago, sologdin said:

it's fallacious to assume that an author is sexist just because a text has bad gender ideology on display.  it's also fallacious to assume that the text is not sexist because the author disavows sexism personally.  ROH always threw authors under the bus immediately upon detection of bad gender ideology; that's as asinine as arguing that there's no bad race politics in tolkien just because the author said he hates NSDAP race doctrine.  i.e., there's an equivalence between fanboys and ROH at the level of literary theory error--the magical identification of text and author that merges them together in some sort of grotesque mess, whereas text and author are separate things.

the average fan falls into error by making assumption that flow in the opposite direction:  you have accused the text of having bad gender ideology so therefore you have accused me of liking a text with bad gender ideology, liking bad gender ideology as such, of holding same ideology personally.  it might well be that undergraduates make this set of hasty associations, but it's not worth getting exercised about it.  probably better for the reasonable fan to examine the claim regarding bad gender ideology through the lens of critical gender theory, rather than through the received gender ideology that will render the text's defects undetectable and perhaps natural.

Ha, I have always loved your babble. 

 

I still think you're a bot buried in the board somewhere.  I refuse to accept that you're an actual living person. 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

1 minute ago, peterbound said:

Holy shit, did I just get accused of being an SJW?  You apparently don't know me very well. 

 

I /do/ look out for the good in all human beings, my whole life has been dedicated to that, that's why I have such a hard time letting Bakker's bullshit when it comes to women go.  It's there man, and i'm sure it's awesome to be able to read books for just the kewl factor you get from it, but I need more.  You claim to 'not read it as a simpleton' yet you do nothing but say how you only want to enjoy the work.  Great.  Good for you.  I just can't support the books (while they are good, they are hardly earth shattering) of someone with that odd of a world view. I think it also says a lot about you, that you are so dismissive of the acts, and try so hard to defend the man. 

But I madnit clear I do not defend the man Bakker. Cherry picking, another Westeros staple. I made it clear that what Bakker does or his views are of zero consequence to me. Try again.