R. Scott Bakker: What am I missing?

[Spring Bass]

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.

Which no less proves my point that the argument was ridiculous in the first place. History is replete with examples of powerful figures, both male and female, who held enormous power even if it was only because they could call on the name of their superior. This is the case with Esmenet in TTT; remember how she humbles Eleazaras?

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.

That's a more legitimate criticism. On the other hand, a more prominently placed woman like Istriya isn't exactly going to be able to follow the Crusade, which is where the main point of the action was, particularly after TDTCB; even Xerius's parts are few.

[AverageGuy]

She wasn't perhaps a power for female independance, but the fact was that she was revered in roman society, and yes was very influential. True she retired from public life, but at the same time she recieved guests and had a great deal of influence over Roman society (on how the ideal roman woman should be, etc) until her death and well after. When she died there was great mourning and statues were erected devoted to her. So yes she was influential, just not in a way that promotes female independance. Not exactly a surprise in a patriarchial society like Rome. I don't get you saying that she wasn't influential. She might not have been like Fulvia (who was very much the anti typical roman), but she did have a huge influence. You don't have to break conservatism to be influential.

Ah, you were using a different definition of influential; I thought you were referring to women actually wielding power. Cornelia did nothing on her own. Her popularity stemmed from her sons and from her seclusion after their deaths. No patricians passed laws based on her opinion, no plebs went to her for advice. She was considered virtuous because she didn't try to wield power, and it became one more story. If you look to Roman stories, you get a sense of how women were supposed to stay out of worldly affairs (look at portrayals of Fabia, Dido, Cleopatra as opposed to those of Lucretia or Cornelia). Romans probably didn't treat women that well.

So in Earwe, it's not a problem that women don't wield power, just that no one reveres them? Except for the priestesses and a few of the nobility, that is.

[Spring Bass]

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)

Peasant men in Roman and Greek society could own property, fight in wars (particularly in the Roman Republic, where the 'common man a legionary' bit was actually true, or in Greece, when average Joe Independent Farmer provided one hoplite), succeed in commerce, and otherwise find ways to improve their station. Peasant women, particularly in the Classical Mediterranean World, couldn't own property, were at the mercy of the male heads of their families, either father, brother, or husband, and could only unofficially eke out status. Don't confuse Classical Mediterranean Peasants with slaves, or with the later serf class who were considered bound to the land. Not to mention the bit about risking death in childbirth in order to have 6-7 children in your lifetime from the age of 13-17, since half of said children will die in infancy. Being a peasant sucked, but being a female peasant sucked considerably more.

And influential, almost entirely male commoners abounded, particularly in the Middle Ages if they were merchants or clergyman (witness the wealthy Franklin of Chaucer's tale). There were even a group of later soldier-Emperors in Rome(Diocletian among them) who came from common routes and rose through the ranks via soldiery - a route blocked to women.

None of this refutes any of what I mentioned, particularly about the example of women in classical Greece. My point was that you can't use the women of a heavily privileged caste, who are going to receive more of everything than their average counterpart, as a good example of how rights are distributed to women in a society. You have to compare them to their male average counterparts.

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.

We see good - or as much as we can see for a novel that takes place with its setting being mostly that of a bloody Crusade. Momemn is a beautiful city, even though we see it partially through a riot.

[Kalbear]

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.

I never said Bakker was a misogynist - I said that he chose to make his book misogynistic.

Since you seem to agree with that, what exactly are you arguing?

None of this refutes any of what I mentioned, particularly about the example of women in classical Greece. My point was that you can't use the women of a heavily privileged caste, who are going to receive more of everything than their average counterpart, as a good example of how rights are distributed to women in a society. You have to compare them to their male average counterparts.

The point is that we don't actually see any women of higher caste. Ever. Their existence isn't even mentioned. Where we might think about seeing them, they don't exist. it adds to the ever increasing evidence that the book is very oppressive towards women.

[add-on]

Which no less proves my point that the argument was ridiculous in the first place. History is replete with examples of powerful figures, both male and female, who held enormous power even if it was only because they could call on the name of their superior. This is the case with Esmenet in TTT; remember how she humbles Eleazaras?

Totally not following you here. My point was that Conphas is a bad example for your point because after Kiyuth he has power in his own name. He has no need of Xerius, and if it was in his interest to do so, probably could have staged a coup.

SPOILER: conphas shtuff

Iirc, he even thinks about an impromptu coup at his return to Mommem (sp?) only to discover that Xerius has prepared for this ahead of time. Which only goes to prove that Xerius acknowledges the increase in Conphas' power.

Plus, there's a reason that the Nansur make up the largest portion of the Orthodox in TWP, and it's not because they're the most devout, nor is it because they fear the power of Xerius from thousands of miles away. It's because of their loyalty to Conphas and Conphas alone.

spoilered just to be safe.

Anyways, I'm gonna be hitting the bars in a couple minutes, so that's it for me tonight.

[harrol]

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.

The empress of the first book was the real empress. It was not untill the second book that she is killed and replaced. You can tell this by her out witting her son into giving up info in the first book, but later him commenting on her losing her edge in the second and third books. Why? because skin spies lack the depth of thought that humans have. Kellhus stated as much and Bakker's pov of a skin spy. He wrote " what passed for a soul went through what passed for a soul" when you see those differences you can recognize the intro of the skin spy empress.

[Mackaxx]

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.

I refer you to afghanistan, that wasnt that long ago fella.

[unJon]

The empress of the first book was the real empress. It was not untill the second book that she is killed and replaced. You can tell this by her out witting her son into giving up info in the first book, but later him commenting on her losing her edge in the second and third books. Why? because skin spies lack the depth of thought that humans have. Kellhus stated as much and Bakker's pov of a skin spy. He wrote " what passed for a soul went through what passed for a soul" when you see those differences you can recognize the intro of the skin spy empress.

Wow. Impressive catch. Kal, while your point is still valid overall, I think we need to concede that at least one woman wielded power for a long time as a woman, and not skinspy.

[unJon]

I never said Bakker was a misogynist - I said that he chose to make his book misogynistic.

Since you seem to agree with that, what exactly are you arguing?

He's arguing against the proposition that Earwe is more misogynistic than any culture in the history of this world, that Arakasi is advocating.

ETA: damn the no more merge thing on the updated board.

[Mackaxx]

You bakker lovers are all just ex lovers of that 'Gor' series, apparently that was just a touch sexist..

Maybe that was the intention of that author too.

[Spring Bass]

I never said Bakker was a misogynist - I said that he chose to make his book misogynistic.

Since you seem to agree with that, what exactly are you arguing?

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. You've already conceded that Bakker isn't necessarily a misogynist, and that the misogyny in Earwa is realistic in the sense that it is similar to that of the Classical Mediterranean world, so what is your point? Do you just have objections to the portrayal of such a culture in fiction, or is it specifically in the form of complaints about the female characters present?

The point is that we don't actually see any women of higher caste. Ever. Their existence isn't even mentioned. Where we might think about seeing them, they don't exist. it adds to the ever increasing evidence that the book is very oppressive towards women.

You mean like pre-face-spy Istriya? She's actually a good example of a powerful upper-caste woman. We also see the noble-caste wives of the Gaunum family (who are one of the bigger noble clans of Nansur, and the one that Serwe was sold to), in present-time TDTCB, and in Serwe's flashbacks in that book. Esmenet, in one of her general ponderings about being a camp follower, mentions a group of highly-honored noble-caste courtesans. There's a number of noble-caste women, although, of course, aside from Istriya, you don't see them shaping empire-wide policies most of the time.

The point is that, unofficially, there may be a number of influential women in the noble-caste. Officially, though, (and for the status of women in general), women have very weak rights, and are heavily subordinated to men in status.

[Kalbear]

My point from a long time ago was that the book was misogynistic. That was all. A lot of people were arguing that it wasn't. I called BS.

We've heard mentioned a couple women that are higher caste, but that's about it - they're mentioned extraordinarily briefly and in passing. Why do we not meet one of the wives of Skauras or the Padrashahs or any of the queens that rule in Fanim? I'm sure there are courtesans and other higher class women - but where are the ones that actually rule? Even Istriya doesn't rule; at best, she gives advice at Xerius's whim.

And all of this points to a misogynistic book.

That, in turn, is a hard read for some people. It certainly detracted from my enjoyment of the book. That was the author's goal, so in that respect it succeeded, but it makes it no less a valid criticism to call the book misogynistic. Considering that he took a lot of the cultural traits from the most misogynistic cultures around, it's a very misogynistic book. That's it.

[unJon]

I'm trying to figure out what you are saying. You've already conceded that Bakker isn't necessarily a misogynist, and that the misogyny in Earwa is realistic in the sense that it is similar to that of the Classical Mediterranean world, so what is your point?

Kal's just pissed that Bakker didn't describe the male rapes in more detail. Haven't you been paying attention?

[Spring Bass]

My point from a long time ago was that the book was misogynistic. That was all. A lot of people were arguing that it wasn't. I called BS.

We've heard mentioned a couple women that are higher caste, but that's about it - they're mentioned extraordinarily briefly and in passing. Why do we not meet one of the wives of Skauras or the Padrashahs or any of the queens that rule in Fanim? I'm sure there are courtesans and other higher class women - but where are the ones that actually rule? Even Istriya doesn't rule; at best, she gives advice at Xerius's whim.

You mean like Istriya, who appears in almost every Xerius scene, and who is actually the "dowager Empress" or something like that, so she has some considerable power (you were asking for a powerful woman in PoN, and she is one). As for the Fanim, it's because the setting takes place almost entirely on the Inrithi side.

And all of this points to a misogynistic book.

It makes a for a society and setting that is realistically portrayed as misogynist. Generally a misogynist book, at least in my opinion, has to be promoting misogynism, akin to how the SoT promotes Objectivism, or Gor (which actually does promote domination of woman, and portrays it as positive). Bakker certainly doesn't portray the patriarchal society in his novels as positive; the treatment of Serwe ought to be proof enough for that.

That, in turn, is a hard read for some people. It certainly detracted from my enjoyment of the book. That was the author's goal, so in that respect it succeeded, but it makes it no less a valid criticism to call the book misogynistic. Considering that he took a lot of the cultural traits from the most misogynistic cultures around, it's a very misogynistic book. That's it.

Same point as above. I disagree with you that the book itself is misogynistic, while the culture therein is.

If you want a serious look at books which are very misogynistic, and portray it as positive, read the Gor novels (but be prepared for complete disgust).

[Spring Bass]

Totally not following you here. My point was that Conphas is a bad example for your point because after Kiyuth he has power in his own name.

I'll admit it turned out as a bad example. But my point is that there have been a number of individuals in real history that have held heavy power, even if it only consisted in having the backing of the king/emperor behind them. Positions like Grand Vizier or Chancellor come to mind.

Anyways, I'm gonna be hitting the bars in a couple minutes, so that's it for me tonight.

Enjoy. Remember to drink plenty of water when you get home to get over the hangovers faster. Assuming you don't find yourself next to a rather pretty young thing.

[Arakasi]

Couple comments here.

Cornelia actually wrote, which was somewhat rare for a roman woman. She raised her sons on her own. She decided on her own will not to remarry, even to a king. Even after the retiring from public life, she still recieved guests regularly and had a great deal of influence in Roman society. So while she wasn't wielding power on her own, she imo was quite influential.

Guardsman, I thought you were talking more about feudal culture, aka dark ages and onward. Yes Roman citizens (and Greek) had a great deal of influence, and could rise pretty high, well as long as they weren't of too low class. The 5th class of roman citizenry had very little rights. The middle class yes had more rights and power, but then again it's been like that in every culture, even on to the middle ages. But my point wasn't much about the trade class, but about the ones below them.

So I'm sorry I misunderstood what time period you were talking about. I've never felt Bakker's world to be much modelled after that time. I believe the parallels hold much more strongly with 800-1200 ad, especially with the conflicts between Spain and Muslim North Africa. Especially with all the crusades.

On points of human history, yes there have been and are some very oppresive societies towards women, some even worse than Earwe. Bakker representing those with similar examples is not the issue. Him only showing that type of female characters/cultures is the issue. We have a good mix of different cultures in Bakker's books, but like Kal said women of any note are lacking, even in the nobility where they should by all rights have influence/power. It's like characterizing human history with the list of the holocaust, nanking, exploration/conquest of the new world and the conquests of the huns. Sure it's a part of it, it all is both good and bad. Humanity is capable of heinous acts and the flipside of that. Bakker has intentionally created an extremely harsh world by removing the light side. And most especially in the way women are treated. For every culture you guys name where women are treated awfully, I can list one where it's the reverse. Bakker's world lacks that balance.

And still even without culture, it doesn't address anything about the passivity of Bakker's women or the harsh way women are treated in the world. Many societies have had women with little actual power but they are treated with a great deal of reverence and protected. Not sure that is shown at all here.

[Galactus]

But my point wasn't much about the trade class, but about the ones below them.

Even medieval peasantry had thier fair bit of rights and usually were pretty self-governing. Of course "medieval peasant" isn't some kind of term that denotes identical circumstances for the 95+% of the population designated as such, there were HUGE differences within the peasantry, both betweeen various groups and areas.

For every culture you guys name where women are treated awfully, I can list one where it's the reverse.

And more importantly, it is important not to judge socities based on the words of a few stray historians and texts of law. Just like legally enshrining equality does not magically make it come about, legal discrimination does not mean that these laws are actually obeyed (for instance, women were forbidden to own property in most countries in Europe, yet we have women working, and even running businesses, not all of which are widowed. Obviously the law is not always being followed)

Among the peasantry we also have the delicate problem that women's work was desperately needed: It was almost impossible to run a farm or be a fisherman without a wife. The fact that women held a very signficiant portion of production in their hands ensured them at least some measure of respect, if simply out of neccissity.

'

You mean like Istriya, who appears in almost every Xerius scene, and who is actually the "dowager Empress" or something like that, so she has some considerable power (you were asking for a powerful woman in PoN, and she is one). As for the Fanim, it's because the setting takes place almost entirely on the Inrithi side.

Except that, y'know. She's NOT a woman. She's a skin-spy.

[Kalbear]

Heck, let's go with her as a woman.

Istryia is the only woman in the entire 2000-page series that is of noble rank and has some power. Not a lot, mind you - she doesn't get what she wants. But she has some power. Let's characterize her, shall we?

She's manipulative and treacherous. She has molested her son - potentially to gain power over him, potentially because she wanted to or because she lusted after him. She is shown as having weird sexual appetites and is described as perverse. Do you consider her to be a 'good' character, or a bad one? Compared to the other nobles that we meet, how good or evil do you find a person who molested their own child?

Now, tell me - what does that say about the tone of the book that the only woman of any power that we meet is either a sick child rapist, or a Consult agent? Which is worse? I'm not sure I should argue any more that she wasn't a woman, because that makes my point even stronger. So the three examples of main women in this book are a whore, a concubine, and a child molester. Yeah, that's much better.

It makes a for a society and setting that is realistically portrayed as misogynist. Generally a misogynist book, at least in my opinion, has to be promoting misogynism, akin to how the SoT promotes Objectivism, or Gor (which actually does promote domination of woman, and portrays it as positive). Bakker certainly doesn't portray the patriarchal society in his novels as positive; the treatment of Serwe ought to be proof enough for that.

That's your interpretation of what I was saying, and honestly not what I meant. Though it is interesting that multiple people have used such misogynistic language when describing the book, I don't think Bakker set out to explicitly say 'woohoo, women suck'. It doesn't actually matter though; even if the message is 'look how horrible things were' the fact that it's done so vividly sends a similar message to horror movies that show splatter; at the end, it's there to provoke a reaction. That reaction might be disgust, or it might be titillation depending on the person. Without actually showing that misogyny is really, truly wrong, he ends up promoting it at least indirectly. Really though, you're just splitting hairs at this point. A book about abusing and degrading women is still misogynistic, even if the main character (who is a sociopath) views it as Bad.

As for the Fanim, it's because the setting takes place almost entirely on the Inrithi side.

Given the amount of land and places that they capture, I disagree - while we get the Inrithi point of view, we are almost exclusively in the Fanim side. I would think that we wouldn't see a lot of daily Inrithi life, but it's kind of surprising how little we see of daily Fanimry. A bit here and there (Esmi's escorts are good examples) but not a lot, and again - none of any rank.

[Shryke]

Except that, y'know. She's NOT a woman. She's a skin-spy.

/sigh

She WAS a women. Skin Spies have no personality on their own. They don't grow up on their own and become part of some group. They REPLACE someone. EVERY TIME. It's explained specifically in TTT that skin spies in the end are only really mimics. Any skin spy is simply taking the place of someone who was once real.

And all of this points to a misogynistic book.

No, all of this points to a book that takes place within a misogynistic culture. There's a difference.

On points of human history, yes there have been and are some very oppresive societies towards women, some even worse than Earwe. Bakker representing those with similar examples is not the issue. Him only showing that type of female characters/cultures is the issue. We have a good mix of different cultures in Bakker's books, but like Kal said women of any note are lacking, even in the nobility where they should by all rights have influence/power. It's like characterizing human history with the list of the holocaust, nanking, exploration/conquest of the new world and the conquests of the huns. Sure it's a part of it, it all is both good and bad. Humanity is capable of heinous acts and the flipside of that. Bakker has intentionally created an extremely harsh world by removing the light side. And most especially in the way women are treated. For every culture you guys name where women are treated awfully, I can list one where it's the reverse. Bakker's world lacks that balance.

The book is set in the middle of a war. It's like having a book set during the Holocaust. You can say "Oh, it doesn't show the good things humans have done too." and I would say "Well, no. It's about the goddamn Holocaust, why should it feature a bunch of people having a fun romp in a field and talking about all the good humans have done in the world?".

I guess I just can't understand why you people feel the author needs to bash you over the head with the fact that alot of what happens in the book is not good. That he for some reason needs to put a big disclaimer in there somewhere saying "HEY, TREATING WOMEN LIKE PROPERTY IS BAD!!!!". It's a STORY not a fucking after school special where we all learn a lesson at the end set to some cheesy pop beat, and then hold hands and sing koom bi ah.

In fact, I would have found it annoying if he did have someone come out and explicitely say something like that. There's no reason anyone from this culture should be thinking with modern sensibilities. It's specifically mentioned in the book that their religion views Women as subservient to Men. Men are to Women as God is to Men is the specific idea. The only one who does question it is Kellhus, since he sees it for what it is, which is a way to keep women in their place and under control.

[Kalbear]

No, all of this points to a book that takes place within a misogynistic culture. There's a difference.

Not when the female characters are not 'normal' but are bad caricatures of 'bad women', not when the rape scenes of the women go on and on, not when the women take so much more glorified abuse than the men do. If it isn't explicitly misogynistic, why were only the female rape scenes done with such detail? If it isn't specifically misogynistic, why is the only woman with any power before Esmi shown to be a child rapist, and why is Esmi viewed by people here as a 'wanton slut'?

The book deals with a misogynistic culture, but Bakker goes beyond that in description and tone.

I guess I just can't understand why you people feel the author needs to bash you over the head with the fact that alot of what happens in the book is not good.

He doesn't. Whether he views it as not good or good is immaterial; it's that he's choosing to write a book that's misogynistic that I've been arguing. He doesn't need to clarify that abuse of women is bad...but if it is bad, why is it shown in such detail? Why promote it so heavily? Why focus on that aspect of the story instead of others?