R. Scott Bakker: What am I missing?

[Shryke]

Except then we get back into what Kal is talking about. Esme is just an extension of Kelhus' will. In ways she can be considered his creation. Eleanor? Not so much. From a young age she was an independant women, much more progressive than others of her time. She caused ripples (so to speak) from her actions. Esme? Passive extension of Kelhus.

Her position of power may be an extension of Kellhus, but her innate intelligence has been there since the first time we see her (it's why Kellhus chooses her after all), and she's far from passive. She takes quite a bit of initiative and does alot in Kellhus' name.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Perhaps the women are of equal strength, wit and fortitude. However it still doesn't explain why women in Bakker's series are treated like shit. That's the issue. If it was that women were powerless in Earwe society, that by itself would be fine. Extreme patriarchial societies have existed before in real life. But to add to that how they seemed to treated as almost subhuman on top of it is where it becomes problematic. Most patriarchial societies might not allow women to have power, but at least they were cared for and respected. I can't understand a world where woman are both powerless and as mistreated as we see represented here. Like Kal said, why are all the female characters whores who are sexually abused? We can all make excuses about it, but right now it stands that Bakker has chosen to write a story that depicts women as so much inferior to men. Answering that well the women are there, it's just that he doesn't write about them doesn't work, well at least not for me.

We have really only seen three women in the entire three books - Serwe, Esmi, and the Empress. One a whore; one a concubine; and one a sex-craved skin-spy in disguise.

[Selkie]

We have really only seen three women in the entire three books - Serwe, Esmi, and the Empress. One a whore; one a concubine; and one a sex-craved skin-spy in disguise.

only 3, huh..

On the other hand both Esmi and Serwe get a fair bit of screen time, only slightly less than Akka and Kelly. Or maybe it just seems like that after having to read pages of Serwe (and later Esmi) fretting and swooning over Kellhus.

It's also possible that Bakker does not feel very comfortable with writing female characters in general, and prefers to limit the type and number of female roles. Imagine an array of shrewish women in various stations of life and positions of power, intermittently sniffing and jerking their braids in unison, or throwing their underwear at Kellhus.

[Happy Ent]

We have really only seen three women in the entire three books - Serwe, Esmi, and the Empress. One a whore; one a concubine; and one a sex-craved skin-spy in disguise.

Hm... one is the most intelligent worldborn in the books, one is the Empress. The fucking Empress of the Nansurium. (Yes, she turns out to be a skin-spy. Just like the ruler of High Ainon does. But that is irrelevant for evaluating the position of women, just as the fact that the ruler of High Ainon is a sex-craved skin-spy is irrelevant for evaluating the position of men. RealWorld has had a few powerful women. So has Bakkerworld. In both cases, unless you are nobly born, your are chattel. Even then, you are not a legal person, no more than a child. The wives of House Gaunum may have been powerful compared to the lower caste men in that household, but unless they are the last survivor of that house, they probably don't inherit anything. Just like it has been in RealWorld, most of the time.)

Just like in the RealWorld, rape of women who have no male protection is routine, if illegal. This is exactly as described in MartinWorld. The difference is that in BakkerWorld it seems to hurt us more. That's a criticism of Martin not of Bakker. Rape is terrible and should be described as such. I detest books with happy whores, content slaves, or environments that for some magical reason are safe for unprotected women and children.

We have little historical data for this, but we do have law texts such as the Old Testament, which make a big deal out of rules for rape and rape prevention. We have all reason to believe that it was important. What few original societies are left to be studied by anthropologists do little to contradict these ideas, with shocking stories like the fierce people, the Yanomamo, who made the level of violence used in domestic abuse a sign of prestige. (True or not? Depends on how much you believe those who originally studied this tribe. In any case, much more feudal societies than classical Europe or Bakkerworld can be imagined.)

[Kalbear]

She wasn't the empress of the Nansur, not for a long, long time. She was just a relative of the emperor. She wielded no power by herself.

RealWorld has had a few powerful women. So has Bakkerworld.

Really? Before Kellhus raised Esmi to be his queen consort, what woman had we heard mentioned that was of any note? We hear about hundreds of chieftains, warlords, kings, princes and whatnot. Not once do we hear about their wives. Not once do we know their names. Why does the most powerful man in Nansur have no wife but does have concubines? Why are there no stories of queens in the entire series?

So you say Bakkerworld has had a few powerful women. To my knowledge, the only powerful woman that we know is actually a woman is Esmi - and the only reason she's powerful is because of Kellhus. Who are the women that you talk about? Where are they in the story?

I have no doubt that you can imagine any number of hugely abusive, misogynistic worlds that are based on real events and real cultures in the real world. Does that actually change anything about how the books are misogynistic? Bakker chose to write about this culture for whatever reason. He chose to have a total of three relevant female characters in the entire series, and he chose to make their professions as demon spy, concubine and whore. Why wouldn't this be misogynistic? Why wouldn't this indicate a misogynistic tone?

I'm not saying that Bakker is particularly misogynistic personally, because I don't know the guy. I'm not even implying it. I'm saying that his books certainly are.

BTW, a really good example of a powerful woman during the crusades was the queen of Jerusalem during Baldwin's reign. Lotsa stuff about her.

[Sebastian]

Interview with Bakker

The readings that I find myself arguing against the most have to do with gender in the works. I don't have much use for what I call 'quota characterization,' where you allow some political orthodoxy to determine the who and what of your characters. This may be well and fine for an After School Special, but this just isn't anything that interests me. Likewise, I'm not a fan of what I call 'deux ex epiphanies,' potted instances where characters caught up in a patriarchal or misogynistic situation have an author-absolving realization of suspiciously contemporary, suspiciously politically correct, truths. These things may sooth certain moral sensibilities, but I think you'll agree they really don't have any place in The Prince of Nothing.

Critics here like to talk a lot about 'authorial choices,' as though the process is such that at any moment where I depict, say, a female character, I hit a fork in the road, and I get to choose the high road or the low road. If only it were that simple. It's never a coin toss. There's a million forks in the road, and since the ground isn't trackless, none of them are equally weighted. Any choice any writer makes takes place against the buzzing context of thousands of other choices, and it's the totality of those choices that makes work of fiction what it is. I think it's clear that those criticizing the role of gender in The Prince of Nothing are oversimplifying, and not seriously asking why I make the choices I do.

I'm interested in why these fantasy worlds-these crazy non-existent places that loons like myself cook up-command the attention of so many. I want to understand the why and wherefore of the 'escape.' I think one of the reasons has to do with the things modern life has stripped from us: fantasy worlds tend to be pre-modern worlds for good reason.

One of the things that characterizes pre-modern worlds is the objectification of bias: in Biblical Israel, for instance, the inferiority of women wasn't a fact of 'historical attitudes back then,' for the Biblical Israelites it was a fact about the world. The world itself was sexist-and still is, if you are, say, a Biblical literalist or an orthodox Catholic. Since fantasy worlds take the reality of pre-modern views as their premise, I made Earwa a sexist world as well. I wanted to create a world to escape to that makes it abundantly clear what we've escaped from.

At the same time I'm deeply interested in questions of autonomy and freedom, as well as questions of belief and religious transcendence. The animality of humanity, and the ways this animality is sublimated or celebrated, comprise an important dimension of this. This means that Earwa is a sexual world as well. Everyone, male and female, is sexual, just like the real world, the difference is that the oppressive social conditions render the women sexually abject (which some would argue is just like the real world as well). And this is an uncomfortable thing, both to write and to read.

People should question it.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Very nice find.

[Happy Ent]

I wanted to create a world to escape to that makes it abundantly clear what we've escaped from.

Very, very quotable. Exactly what I wanted to say. There is a moral reason for us today to show shitty societies as they are. Because we've actually achieved something. Humanity has come a long way. There's reason to fight the good fight because we can build a better society. And have done so.

That's why I am politically and morally uneasy about pre-modern settings in which women and children and peasants are just as empowered as today. I am actively uncomfortable about the happy, self-empowered whores in Scott Lynch's otherwise gritty Camorr. (Not even mentioning the purely literary aspect that the setting loses verisimilitude right there.)

[Calibandar]

Bakker, as usual, is on the money. Of course he is now taking flack from readers who insist on major female characters in every book they read. At the same time you don't see those readers whine their head off when the umpteenth fantasy novel written by a woman features a predominantly female cast with female leads and support characters. No that's ok, that's normal.

But here is Bakker who is unphased by all this modern sensibility bullshit and portrays a Fantasy version of a pre-medieval world as you'd expect, where so many Fantasy authors today cave in to the need for empowerment of women even it concerns worlds from hundreds of years ago. Cause that is what some people now want to read.

I am completely unbothered by these complaints, they are the same ones as are levelled against JRR Tolkien. I find Bakker's portrayal of his female characters valid. I agree that he could have used more female characters in different roles but it does not decrease the power of the book one bit that he has not. It's disturbing that some modern readers have the " women must be in everything and must be at least equal to the men" idea so deeply embedded in their brains, because it leads to them unfairly criticizing authors who actually have regarded our own historical world with a steady eye and then cast our world into a Fantasy version with it's own attributes. No, they want the inconsistent and utterly out-of-keeping modern elements in there as well. Well fuck that.

[Mackaxx]

Enjoyed that little gem of an interview extract too. Nice one, and, nice topic shut down.

[Kalbear]

Happy Ent, you missed the first sentence:

Since fantasy worlds take the reality of pre-modern views as their premise, I made Earwa a sexist world as well.

It kind of goes with my point, tbh. He's saying that he created a world that's misogynistic. He is saying, point blank, that all the criticism of the book being misogynistic is purposeful because that's the way he wanted to write it. That was my point all along. Bakker made a world that IS sexist. It IS misogynistic. The book drips of it.

I've never said that the book needs more main female characters. Never, ever. I have said that the female characters that do exist represent something specific, and Bakker actually agrees with me. I've also wondered why there are no women of power represented in the series. Bakker answers that by saying 'because I wanted to make a world that way'.

The characterization is 'valid' in the sense that it is internally consistent with the novel. I've never, not once, argued that. Happy Ent for a while was trying to indicate that Bakker's world was not all that bad, and that there are women in power and that it isn't as sexist or misogynistic as I was seeing. Well, guess what HE - the author disagrees with you now as well.

My point is that the books are misogynistic. There can be any number of reasons for that, but it's clear now that this was the author's intent. That, in turn, makes it hard for a lot of people to read. Some people have no problem reading about women being raped, used, tortured and treated like property. Hell, I'm sure some actually get off on it, calling it realistic or whatnot. That's fine. Bakker says straight out that he knows this is uncomfortable for some to read. My point originally is that it exists and it is there, realism or no.

Thanks for digging that up; I'm not sure I could've made my point better.

[unJon]

It kind of goes with my point, tbh. He's saying that he created a world that's misogynistic. He is saying, point blank, that all the criticism of the book being misogynistic is purposeful because that's the way he wanted to write it. That was my point all along. Bakker made a world that IS sexist. It IS misogynistic. The book drips of it.

You don't get off that easy. Have I been misunderstanding your point?

You weren't just saying that the world was misogynistic, but you've been implying that Bakker gives that misogyny his stamp of approval. That he 'glorifies' female rape. The character most (and sometimes least) likely to be speaking with the author's approval is Kel, and he's the person that points out and derides the misogyny. (To Kel everyone is equally worthless ).

[Kalbear]

No, I didn't say that. I specifically said that I don't know whether Bakker is a misogynist or not - and I highly doubt he is. It's not material. Here's what I said before:

I'm not saying that Bakker is particularly misogynistic personally, because I don't know the guy. I'm not even implying it. I'm saying that his books certainly are.

He absolutely gives the misogyny a lot of space. He does it purposely. He totally glorifies the rape scenes, making them brutal and violent and bloody and disturbing. And he does this, again, purposely - he knows that it is difficult 'to read and to write'. That was my point, again. The books are misogynistic. Absolutely, totally. Someone countered with 'but they're realistic'. Fine, but so what?

This started when Happy Ent called Esmi a wanton slut - which is a fairly misogynistic term in the real world. If you like, I can make an argument that Bakker doesn't directly support me on - that this kind of book encourages more misogyny and misogynistic tones. I'm sure HE can counter with 'words are wind' (which is such utter bullshit I'm surprised he could even type it) or that he was merely keeping in the tone with the novel - but I'm not sure that's such a good thing either.

I don't think that Bakker is a misogynist, but his world is absolutely misogynistic, it's far worse than a lot of medieval history ever was (though I suppose it's better than biblical israelites...yay?), and his book drips of it. I don't see how you can make an argument that it is anything else.

[Galactus]

So she did not actually go on the crusades? So she ruled while her son went on the crusades? Is it not possible that the same occurred in Bakker's world? And I am not sure how independent or powerful of a woman Eleanor would have been if Anasurimbor Kellhus really existed. She would probably have become as much of a pawn as any other character fictious or real.

No, Eleanor actually went on the Crusade. Visited Jerusalem and all of that. She ruled the Aquitaine in her own right (and was also married to the King of France, but the Aquitaine was *hers*)

Quite a few women did in fact, usually they did not fight (although there are a few instances thereof) but many brought their own retainers to fight, just as their male counterparts did.

I'd also like to point out that Bakkerworld is NOT an accurate portrayal of history: He takes the worst pieces of it and blends it together. His particular brand of misogyny is only applicable to Eärwa.

I am *very* sure he does this deliberately, to make a point as it were, but it comes off as a bit pointless and gratuitious a

If one seeks to lean on "realism" and faithfullness to historical modes of thought and social contexts... Then you are also bound by them. Bakker quite emphatically is not. Eärwa bears only a very cursorily resemblence to medieval Europe. (And that is fine, it is a fantasy world after all) but it means that Bakker *cannot* use the fact that it is "realistic" as a cop-out: He has to defend his world on it's own merits.

[A Time for Wolves]

I'm trying not to read the "spoiler" posts, but I caught a couple things here and there, and I think I'm going to give the trilogy another chance, Serwe or no Serwe.

[Spring Bass]

I'm sure she's bright. That's not an issue. I'm not even saying that Esmi is a weak character (though pretty much every other woman in the book is either weak or a consult spy). She is a passive one. She doesn't go out and seek Akka or Kellhus - they go and take her. She doesn't choose to ascend to being the Queen Consort; she is chosen. She doesn't choose to be Akka's wife; he takes it from her. She doesn't come to Akka about her worries of Kellhus, he comes to her. Yeah, she's powerful - but that power is entirely given to her, granted to her by others.

Except that all Akka does is tell her to come for him and leave the city. She still actually chooses to do it; to leave the city of her birth, cross country that is completely unfamiliar to her (and, as it turns out, hostile to whores). She actually makes the decision; she isn't just yoked into it.

People bend to her will because behind her, Kellhus sits. Kellhus trusts her to make fairly smart moves (or, as indicated by some of the passages, programs her to speak what he wills) - but at the end of the day it's his power, not her power, that matters. This is in comparison to Cnauir or Akka or Proyas or Conphas who are instigators, actors.

So? You could say the same thing about Conphas - the only reason people obey him is because he has the threat of the power of the Nansur Empire behind his back. Officially, he doesn't even possess power except at the privilege of Ikurei Xerius. As for the 'instigator', keep in mind that she's a low caste woman in the middle of some powerful forces; how is she supposed to be an instigator?

Part of that is like what MFC said - women in this world can't be actors of note. They aren't allowed to be sorcerors, they're not allowed to fight. They don't appear to march with armies or lead men. That all being said - that was his choice to make his world that way, and that he chose to do so while having a theme of rape demons points to some fairly obvious misogyny. It's a problem for me. It doesn't destroy my reading of the book any more than it did with Donaldson, but my enjoyment of the book is in spite of this.

So, in other words, the fact that he chose to use the Classical Mediterranean World, which incidently was very misogynistic, makes him a misogynist? That's ridiculous, but it's your taste. Even the Consult rape-happiness (which isn't just used against women; the Sranc rape everything, even corpses, and it's supposed to be representative of the Inchoroi's degenerate tastes) has a good in-story reason. It's not simply for the sake of being misogynist.

[Arakasi]

That quote about the world we have escaped from is laughable. Women were never in the history of this world in as abject conditions as we see in Earwe. Bakker deliberately set the books this way, and it is not realistic at all. And no Cali, I don't want more female characters, or even major ones. What I would like is mention of one or two that are not a whore, concubine or skinspy. Doesn't have to be major, heck doesn't have to be minor. It just needs to exist to counter Kal's point.

People need to stop arguing that Bakker's world is just like classical mediterranean. That argument is bullshit because the real world was never this harsh to women. Like Galactus said, Bakker has taken the worst of human history and applied it here, with none of the positives. So please please stop saying that we were like Earwe back in the middle ages, because history clearly shows we were never like that.

[Spring Bass]

That quote about the world we have escaped from is laughable. Women were never in the history of this world in as abject conditions as we see in Earwe. Bakker deliberately set the books this way, and it is not realistic at all. And no Cali, I don't want more female characters, or even major ones. What I would like is mention of one or two that are not a whore, concubine or skinspy. Doesn't have to be major, heck doesn't have to be minor. It just needs to exist to counter Kal's point.

Oh, please. Do you realize that in Athens around the time of the war with Persia, 'good' women weren't even supposed to go outside? Women who actually went outside, and walked on the streets, were considered prostitutes. That's at least as bad as Bakker as put it, if not worse. And let's not forget honor killings and the infamous female genital mutilation.

Incidently, Arakasi, I've noticed you've only used examples of high class women, who are a terrible standard by which to measure gender equality in an overall society (like using Cersei to claim that all women in Westeros can aspire to political power). Even while Eleanor may have been ruling in the stead of her son, the average English woman was still unable to own property, and continued to die giving birth to the third or fourth child in eight years (these aren't exact figures, but you get the idea -hopefully). The same thing applies with ancient Rome (particularly Republican Rome, where a father could kill his wife, or sell her into slavery, if she displeased him), or ancient Persia.

People need to stop arguing that Bakker's world is just like classical mediterranean. That argument is bullshit because the real world was never this harsh to women. Like Galactus said, Bakker has taken the worst of human history and applied it here, with none of the positives. So please please stop saying that we were like Earwe back in the middle ages, because history clearly shows we were never like that.

Read the above. As for the source, it's in the book Persian Fire. All of the above did happen in the Classical Mediterranean World, which means that Bakker's world is at least mostly realistic in that aspect. You might quib about how he only shows two low caste women as main characters (which, in my opinion, made them no less strong characters), but you can't ignore the fact that Bakker is trying to portray a realistic version of a society similar to the Classical Mediterranean World.

[add-on]

So? You could say the same thing about Conphas - the only reason people obey him is because he has the threat of the power of the Nansur Empire behind his back. Officially, he doesn't even possess power except at the privilege of Ikurei Xerius.

You may have been able to make that claim at the very beginning of TDTCB, but after Kiyuth his popularity with the people and the army made him very formidable in his own right.

As for the 'instigator', keep in mind that she's a low caste woman in the middle of some powerful forces; how is she supposed to be an instigator?

Erm, I think that's kind of Kal's point. All the prominent female characters that we've been shown (sans Istriya) aren't in a position to instigate.

[Arakasi]

Peasants, regardless if they were male or female in most societies were considered inferior. So I don't think their rights are in question here. Sure serfs and peasants in feudalistic societies might have had a couple basic rights if they were men, but still it was only the nobility in most feudalistic societies that actually did anything. To use your example a male serf in westeros has about as good a chance of having power as a female serf. In this case being a serf far outweighs their gender. And look at Bakker. Virtually everyone of note outside Kelhus and the two girls are nobility or a member of magical orders. (eg: clergy in Bakker's world)

Yes some horrible things have happened in our world, sure things that are worse than stuff in Bakker's. But like everything there is balance. Good against bad. We just never see the good in Earwe in this case. That's the problem. Lack of balance.