R. Scott Bakker: What am I missing?

[Werthead]

Don't really want to get embroiled in this argument, but I've met Bakker and I've met his wife. Just to confirm that the guy isn't a misogynist at all. Obviously, whether you think his fiction is or not varies by reader.

[Shryke]

Esmi isn't defined by her intelligence. We don't find out how smart she is until well into the second book. She's defined by her profession. Tell me, HE, is she a wanton slut because she's really smart? And no, she's not more sexual than Cersei - but the difference there is that not all women are written like Cersei is in ASOIAF. Cersei is very very different than all the rest; Esmi is actually pretty close.

Pfft. Esmi is defined as highly intelligent right from the start. In one of her first scenes in TDTCB Achamian describes how he always tells her everything he learns and how she helps himprocess the information, often seeing things he missed. They also mention that she pumps her clients for information about hte world around her. Right from the start she's described as intelligent and curious.

As to Istriya, yes - she's as sexual as the son that she raped as a child. Can't imagine there's any psychological reason behind that...

Istriya and ehr whole family are pretty fucked up. What more explanation do you want? Those characters happen to come from a pretty warped family.

Istriya used her beauty and sexuality to marry the Emperor, and continues to use it to control his sons after he's gone. I believe it's also heavily implied that she killed her husband once he stopped being controllable, and put Xerius in his place.

Men were abused in the battle of Kiyuth? I thought they just, ya know, got fried. The opening rape of the Anasurimbor is a good example - a lot of people argued whether that implied rape or nothing. Same with Conphas. Has anyone argued that Esmi wasn't mind controlled or that Serwe wasn't raped?

Conphas had all their Scylvendi prisoners raped in open sight before the battle of Kiyuth, in order to enrage the Scylvendi and provoke them into attacking. The Scylvendi see homosexual sex as taboo, and Conphas tried to use that against them. He talks about it when he's Cnaiur's prisoner in TTT.

The rape of the young Anasurimbor and Conphas are in no way in dispute, it's fairly obvious they happened. I don't know how you can read it any other way. Sow hat's the point here? Men are raped, so are women.

No rapes are shown more then neccasery. Let's go through the ones that aren't just told about or implied.

1) Cnaiur raping Serwe: None are actually described in much detail actually. The first one is an important scene to hint at the breaking of Kellhus' conditioning, as he feels outraged by the incident. The rest are mearly mentioned and are their as part of the story of how Kellhus controls Cnauir, as much s he can anyway.

2) Esmi "raped" (basically, even though she seems to go along with it, mind control type shit and all that) by the Inchoroi: An early scene with the Inchoroi helping to establish that these things use sexuality for control and domination. Hell, they use it in everything. Their lust for physical pleasure is the defining element of the Inchoroi. It also helps to show Esmi's state of mind during the whoel thing, and how they can use that to pump her for information.

3) Serwe by the thing pretending to be Kellhus / End scene of TWP: same thing as the above one. It's the inchoroi.

4) Esmi's seduction by Kellhus?: Would this qualify in your mind? Gotta show how it happened. It's a very important incident to the plot.

What else was their?

I didn't say characters of power - I said characters. We don't see women in the book at all unless they're camp whores or followers or being raped by Cnaiur. Yeah, there are a few exceptions, but those largely prove the point; the women just aren't around. And yes, I would expect to see a lot more women given that it's usually about 50% women in the real world.

Where are the queens of Conphas and Xerius? Where are the queens of Proyas and Gothyeki? Where are the wives of the Fanim? Where are the wives of the generals? Where are the merchant women of note? Where are the noblewomen of note?

Yes, you can argue that because it's a war, we're going to see more about the guys. Okay, but we're in Fanim lands. Where are the women of the Fanim? Why do we not once see a woman holding the keep or castle and seceding control if the men are all out fighting? We don't see these things because Bakker purposely set out to write a book where women were kept down far more than they were under normal life.

Neither Xerius nor Conphas are married yet. Hell, neither are Proyas, Saubon, any of the Shrial Knights or in fact most of the main male characters. And even if they do have wives, they're not being brought along for the war. Their probably back home running shit while the men are out fighting. Or not. Either way, a Holy War is not exactly a place for women.

Ad for the Fanim, we don't see ANY of them. At all. We get 1 scene of Skauras where he dies (a very short scene) and another 1 or 2 scenes describing the Padirajah's reactions to the whoel situation at the end of TWP. Other then that everythings from the perspective of the Inrithi. We don't see any Fanim women sure, but we don't see any men either. He doesn't go into alot of detail into excactly what happens when this or that city fell, he just says it did. I don't know why you expect him to go out of his way to talk about Fanim women when he barely mentions any Fanim directly at all.

Since you appear to enjoy the book because of the misogyny, I'm not sure what would make my argument stronger. I'll keep doing it because it's the correct terminology.

Such as? I don't remember a single rape scene in Martin's stories being detailed as to what was actually happening during the sex. The scene might've been detailed (the rape of Tysha, for instance) but we're not getting the explicit descriptions of raping that we do in Bakker.

He doesn't enjoy the book because of the misogyny. He enjoys it because Bakker has zero interest in sugar coating the past into a happy, fun fairy tale. The same reason alot of people enjoy Martin. Bakker does his best to completely purge modern sensibilities from the culture and situations he's writing about, which I (and HE too I believe) find very refreshing. There people don't think that the caste system, or the place of women as subordinate to men, are wrong at all. For them, that's the way life is.

Since I've never, NOT ONCE, claimed that Bakker was misogynistic, I don't know why you keep bringing this up with me. The book is misogynistic. Bakker may or may not be - I don't know the guy. I'm not claiming he supports being a misogynist, but he certainly glorifies it in his novels.

Glorification does not necessarily mean 'positive light'.

What's it mean then? The culture in his book misogynistic, mainly because it's based on our past, which was also misogynistic. It's like claiming a book about the Third Reich is anti-jew. No shit, so were they, what did you expect.

So how does he glorify it? Because he describes it? How are we suppose to know what happens if he doesn't describe it. The most vivid descriptions of rape usually involve the Inchoroi, and for good reason. It gives us a good understanding of how perverted these things are, which is very important to who they are and why their doing what they do.

I simply don't understand what you mean by "glorifying".

[Happy Ent]

Are you seriously comparing women to things that are basically animals and who are created by rape demons and actually believing this is not somehow misogynistic? Seriously?

Ah, antagonistic rhetorics. Stop that.

I was comparing women to Inchoroï. If you want to play this game, I compared women to superhuman intelligences, and super-powerful ones. So, by your logic, that is somehow the opposite of misogyny, isn't it?

But I don't want to play this game. I'm better at it than you, but I find it unhelpful. I would like a sensible definition of "misogynistic book", and I would like an assessment of Bakker's that doesn't rely on purposefully neglecting counterexamples or inventing rape detail where none is written.

Yes, you can argue that because it's a war, we're going to see more about the guys.

Only guys, actually. Comes with the genre. But Bakker actually lets a woman rise to unspeakable power in that environment and makes it clear that only the shackles of society (in this case, the Tusk) prevented her from doing that before.

Since you appear to enjoy the book because of the misogyny, [...]

I would prefer if you avoided that kind of phrasing. I am no better at ignoring insults than the next guy.

Such as? I don't remember a single rape scene in Martin's stories being detailed as to what was actually happening during the sex.

Interesting. I can help.

Even the nights brought no relief. Khal Drogo ignored her when they rode, even as he had ignored her during their wedding, and spent his evenings drinking with his warriors and bloodriders, racing his prize horses, watching women dance and men die. Dany had no place in these parts of his life. She was left to sup alone, or with Ser Jorah and her brother, and afterward to cry herself to sleep. Yet every night, some time before the dawn, Drogo would come to her tent and wake her in the dark, to ride her as relentlessly as he rode his stallion. He always took her from behind, Dothraki fashion, for which Dany was grateful; that way her lord husband could not see the tears that wet her face, and she could use her pillow to muffle her cries of pain. When he was done, he would close his eyes and begin to snore softly and Dany would lie beside him, her body bruised and sore, hurting too much for sleep.

Day followed day, and night followed night, until Dany knew she could not endure a moment longer. She would kill herself rather than go on, she decided one night . . .

What's even more disturbing is that later Dany decides to overcome her predicament by becoming better at sex! Yeah! What a great book. If only all victims of spousal rape could see the sense in improving their lovemaking skills!

Also from a Dany chapter, we see the rape of the lamb people. It's quite a long scene, I cut out the dialogue.

Across the road, a girl no older than Dany was sobbing in a high thin voice as a rider shoved her over a pile of corpses, facedown, and thrust himself inside her. Other riders dismounted to take their turns. That was the sort of deliverance the Dothraki brought the Lamb Men.[..]

Behind them, the girl being raped made a heartrending sound, a long sobbing wail that went on and on and on. Dany’s hand clenched hard around the reins, and she turned the silver’s head. “Make them stop,†she commanded Ser Jorah.[..]

Across the road, the girl was still crying, her high singsong tongue strange to Dany’s ears. The first man was done with her now, and a second had taken his place.[..] All the while the man atop the lamb girl continued to plunge in and out of her, so intent on his pleasure that he seemed unaware of what was going on around him. Ser Jorah dismounted and wrenched him off with a mailed hand. The Dothraki went sprawling in the mud, bounced up with a knife in hand, and died with Aggo’s arrow through his throat. Mormont pulled the girl off the pile of corpses and wrapped her in his blood-spattered cloak. He led her across the road to Dany. “What do you want done with her?â€

You can compare that to the rape of Serwë, which I quoted in full upthread. Pretty close match, by the way. Steppe barbarian rapes war prize. (Remember the detailed description of Serwë's rape? No? Because there was not a word.)

I think her name is Eroeh, by the way. She is briefly saved by Dany, but her plight is later "glorified" again:

“Mago seized her, who is Khal Jhaqo’s bloodrider now,†said Jhogo. “He mounted her high and low and gave her to his khal, and Jhaqo gave her to his other bloodriders. They were six. When they were done with her, they cut her throat.â€

But we have Arya chapters, too!

“Meanwhile, this daughter of his has been fetching and pouring, a fat little thing, eighteen or so—â€

“Thirteen, more like,†Raff the Sweetling drawled.

“Well, be that as it may, she’s not much to look at, but Eggon’s been drinking and gets to touching her, and might be I did a little touching meself, and Raff’s telling young Stilwood that he ought t’ drag the girl upstairs and make hisself a man, giving the lad courage as it were. Finally Joss reaches up under her skirt, and she shrieks and drops her flagon and goes running off to the kitchen. Well, it would have ended right there, only what does the old fool do but he goes to Ser and asks him to make us leave the girl alone, him being an anointed knight and all such.

“Ser Gregor, he wasn’t paying no mind to none of our fun, but now he looks, you know how he does, and he commands that the girl be brought before him. Now the old man has to drag her out of the kitchen, and no one to blame but hisself. Ser looks her over and says, ‘So this is the whore you’re so concerned for’ and this besotted old fool says, ‘My Layna’s no whore, ser’ right to Gregor’s face. Ser, he never blinks, just says, ‘She is now’ tosses the old man another silver, rips the dress off the wench, and takes her right there on the table in front of her da, her flopping and wiggling like a rabbit and making these noises. The look on the old man’s face, I laughed so hard ale was coming out me nose. Then this boy hears the noise, the son I figure, and comes rushing up from the cellar, so Raff has to stick a dirk in his belly. By then Ser’s done, so he goes back to his drinking and we all have a turn. Tobbot, you know how he is, he flops her over and goes in the back way. The girl was done fighting by the time I had her, maybe she’d decided she liked it after all, though to tell the truth I wouldn’t have minded a little wiggling. And now here’s the best bit . . . when it’s all done, Ser tells the old man that he wants his change. The girl wasn’t worth a silver, he says . . . and damned if that old man didn’t fetch a fistful of coppers, beg mlord’s pardon, and thank him for the custom!â€

The men all roared, none louder than Chiswyck himself, who laughed so hard at his own story that snot dribbled from his nose down into his scraggy grey beard.

I could go on. The unspeakable horrors visited upon Pretty Pia throughout the books. The almost-rapes. The rape of Myrish swamp. We can count lines or adjectives. But as I said, I really don't want to play this game, because I don't see the point. Your memory is extremely selective about both Martin's and Bakker's book, and I also have the feeling that you are very much emotionally invested in this debate, so I am not sure you are rational participant.

Glorification does not necessarily mean 'positive light'.

That's ridiculous. If Goodkind had said that it would be sigged. Trust me, most people live under a different kind of semantic model, and I humbly suggest you change your vocabulary that is supported by a broader demographic.

As for the battle of Kiyuth: The war tactic employed by Conphas his to bugger their war captives. That's why Cnaiür repays him in kind. I have no electronic copy of PoN, so I'm not so keen at quoting. Maybe later.

[Kalbear]

I could go on. The unspeakable horrors visited upon Pretty Pia throughout the books. The almost-rapes. The rape of Myrish swamp. We can count lines or adjectives. But as I said, I really don't want to play this game, because I don't see the point. Your memory is extremely selective about both Martin's and Bakker's book, and I also have the feeling that you are very much emotionally invested in this debate, so I am not sure you are rational participant.

You'd be wrong about the emotional investment. You do have a decent point about Martin's world talking a lot about the raping though, and you're right - it is subjective. I'll rescind the point, and just say this - I never felt like Martin was going over the top about describing something for the sake of description. When reading Martin, a lot of his description is done from the third person talking about what they saw and not what they experienced, which makes it less personal. And that is what made it a bit more affecting to me.

I would prefer if you avoided that kind of phrasing. I am no better at ignoring insults than the next guy.

It's not an insult. You said that it was refreshing to see women in a book treated this way because it didn't honeycoat the truth - that we saw the world as before in a brutal, vicious way towards women, and you'd rather see the horror than pretend that it didn't exist. I can find the precise phrasing you used, but the long and short of it was that I got the impression you appreciated the book for being written in this way.

Which is why I'm confused about what you're arguing about.

As to the glorification part: okay, here's an example. How many people have you seen cheering Conphas' rape by Cnaiur in this thread? Or other threads? I've seen a few. When you write a book such that rape is seen as a just action, one to be cheered on - that is the glorification of rape. In the same way a revenge flick glorifies violence by making the violence acceptable and actually wanted by the watcher, Bakker glorifies rape by making it acceptable and actually wanted by the reader. Does that make sense? I assure you, it's not an uncommon usage of the term.

I was comparing women to Inchoroï.

Uh, no. You were comparing them to sranc. The point is still valid in either case - you were saying that because Bakker treats and describes Sranc the same way as women, I should be offended for the Sranc. I'm saying that by treating Sranc the same as women in description he is reducing the women to something less and something bad. Even if he was comparing them to Inchoroi, that would be a comparison of a woman to a rape demon bent on the destruction of mankind. How exactly is this not misogynistic?

[Happy Ent]

As to the glorification part: okay, here's an example. How many people have you seen cheering Conphas' rape by Cnaiur in this thread? Or other threads? I've seen a few. When you write a book such that rape is seen as a just action, one to be cheered on - that is the glorification of rape.

I have mentioned several times that this is the only instance where rape is possibly glorfied, in the sense that at least I had some emotional satisfaction from it. And since it is a male rape I cannot see how it makes the book misogynistic. On the contrary.

Uh, no. You were comparing them to sranc.

The passage in question is about xenomorphs, my play on words on misogynistic versus xenophobic. The Sranc are not aliens, they are constructs. The Inchoroï are the aliens.

Even if he was comparing them to Inchoroi, that would be a comparison of a woman to a rape demon bent on the destruction of mankind. How exactly is this not misogynistic?

Because it compares the woman to an extremely powerful being. The only anti-PoN argument so far I halfway follow (at least in principle—I disagree with the evidence and find the reasoning silly) is "depiction of women as powerless" -> "endorsement of women as powerless". The Inchoroï are no victims, so in that sense comparing women to Inchoroï would show them as powerful, the opposite of the claimed misogynistic technique. But, as said countless times, I find this entire logic completely nonsensical. My bad for trying to twist it even further.

[Kalbear]

I've seen other folks comment that they were very happy when Serwe 'got what was coming to her' and were happy when she finally died in a painful way. Same kind of thing there. I know you can't control that sort of thing and it may not have been the author's intent, but that's what I was talking about. Again, this all comes from the derogatory 'wanton slut' moniker that I've heard from several people - why be negative about Esmi?

Because it compares the woman to an extremely powerful being.

Okay, so comparing women to satan is actually a good thing?

Not that it matters; the comparison to women and Inchoroi that you made (kinda) is that they're both extremely sexual beings, and that as far as I can tell has nothing to do with the Inchoroi's power. So...yeah, not sure where you're going with that. Plus, the Inchoroi are all male (or identify with male); while we hear about Sranc women breeding quickly, the Inchoroi and their constructs are very much characterized by having phalluses (ad nauseum, really...do we need all this 'phallus straining with release' crap he put in everywhere?) and are pretty much masculine in that regard.

Perhaps that's another point you might acknowledge. Sex in this book is very, very negatively portrayed. The main villains are rape demons who want to have congress with everything, there is a lot of sex used as a weapon, sex is used to bind people and control people, etc. Now, in the book, women are more associated with sex than men are. Can you see how that can connote a negative image of women?

[Happy Ent]

I've seen other folks comment that they were very happy when Serwe 'got what was coming to her' and were happy when she finally died in a painful way.

Certainly not from me.

Again, this all comes from the derogatory 'wanton slut' moniker that I've heard from several people - why be negative about Esmi?

"Wanton slut" is mine. The formulation is something like "whore with a heart of gold that is a wanton slut, crazy barbarian who is actually bat-shit insane, sex slave who is a stupid bimbo". I was purposefully juxtapositioning positive clichés with negative traits.

Okay, so comparing women to satan is actually a good thing?

As I said, I find the whole logic silly.

Perhaps that's another point you might acknowledge. Sex in this book is very, very negatively portrayed. The main villains are rape demons who want to have congress with everything, there is a lot of sex used as a weapon, sex is used to bind people and control people, etc. Now, in the book, women are more associated with sex than men are. Can you see how that can connote a negative image of women?

Well, the book displays sex as a very powerful force. The Inchoroï build their entire system of controlling their constructs around it, for example. From that premise, following your reasoning, I seem to be able to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion as you. (Namely, that by their "association with sex" women would then be connoted with power.) As I said, I think the whole syllogism is faulty. In short: I agree on the premise. Sex is an extremely important topic of the topic, especially for its use to subjugate others (be they women, men or Sranc). But from that premise, misogynism follows with as much validity as feminism does. (Namely, not at all.)

Rape is consistenly displayed as evil, except in one instance, where a man is raped. It is also clear that women are powerful and intelligent beings easily capable of ruling entire wars, and that the reason for them not habitually being in that position is social constraints. Rewrite the Tusk, and Esmi is a Queen. These are two arguments that I would accept as valid proofs of why PoN is a feminist tract. I would like arguments for the opposite of the same clarity.

[Kalbear]

Sex is a powerful, negative force though. Kellhus uses it to bind Esmi to him in spite of her love of Akka. Istriya uses it to rape her children and then have some degree of control over them. He uses Serwe as a tool to control Akka and Cnaiur. The inchoroi use it to coerce others. While it's powerful, it's also negative. The only way that women have to gain power in the Bakkerworld is via sex as well; Kellhus doesn't view Esmi as useful because of her intellect except that said intellect may produce more useful offspring, and her power is granted via Kellhus because he wants that breeding.

The premise is thus: sex is a powerful force that is extremely negative. Women are associated with sex in this series. Therefore, women are shown as using power that is extremely negative.

The power thing is orthogonal to that argument; the original argument was that there are no women shown in places of power when ancient and medieval cultures had them aplenty. Bakker goes out of his way to write a world where women have even less power than they ever did. That he goes out of his way to make women less powerful than normal is the argument for why that is misogynistic.

When women have power in his series, they have it because of sex (again, used negatively) or because of breeding. There are no women who have risen to power because of their intellect alone. Esmi did not rise to power until Kellhus thought she would be a good broodmare - before that, she was the worst of all, a wife of a disgraced sorcerer.

It is also clear that women are powerful and intelligent beings easily capable of ruling entire wars, and that the reason for them not habitually being in that position is social constraints.

It is? I don't think I see a single woman ruling an entire war; what does Esmi do during the battle of Shimeh? If that's the method of rule, I think she's doing a spectacularly bad job.

By the way, the whole 'sex is powerful and women control it' thing is a very old sexist, misogynistic diatribe. Hell, it's downright biblical. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

[Kalbear]

"Wanton slut" is mine.

Actually, when you had said it was the third time I'd seen it used by someone. So no, it's not exclusively yours.

[Spring Bass]

Sex is a powerful, negative force though. Kellhus uses it to bind Esmi to him in spite of her love of Akka. Istriya uses it to rape her children and then have some degree of control over them. He uses Serwe as a tool to control Akka and Cnaiur. The inchoroi use it to coerce others. While it's powerful, it's also negative. The only way that women have to gain power in the Bakkerworld is via sex as well; Kellhus doesn't view Esmi as useful because of her intellect except that said intellect may produce more useful offspring, and her power is granted via Kellhus because he wants that breeding.

Yet he also makes use of that intellect by putting her in a powerful position. While his primary purpose with Esmi was securing highly intelligent offspring with a worldborn woman, he placed value on her intellect is well, so the point is wrong.

The premise is thus: sex is a powerful force that is extremely negative. Women are associated with sex in this series. Therefore, women are shown as using power that is extremely negative.

It's ridiculous logic. You could also say "war is a powerful force that is extremely negative. Men are associated with fighting and war in this series. Therefore, men are shown as using war that is extremely negative, and the implied 'men are portrayed as evil'".

The power thing is orthogonal to that argument; the original argument was that there are no women shown in places of power when ancient and medieval cultures had them aplenty. Bakker goes out of his way to write a world where women have even less power than they ever did. That he goes out of his way to make women less powerful than normal is the argument for why that is misogynistic.

And, as we've pointed out time and time again, the story focuses on the Holy War, and almost entirely on the Inrithi side (we only see general glimpses of the Fanim). So you're not going to see Emily Average Merchant selling her wares in the streets of Atyersus, and most of the women who are with the Holy War armies are 'camp followers' (read: mostly prostitutes).

Among the few times, we actually see women other than from the main female characters' perspectives, we see a powerful woman in the form of Istriya. We also catch a glimpse of the Gaunum wives.

When women have power in his series, they have it because of sex (again, used negatively) or because of breeding. There are no women who have risen to power because of their intellect alone. Esmi did not rise to power until Kellhus thought she would be a good broodmare - before that, she was the worst of all, a wife of a disgraced sorcerer.

This is idiotic. Most of the men of power in the series only rose to power because they were born into the noble caste, or because they had an extremely rare characteristic that makes them exceptions to the caste rules (i.e., being one of the few and becoming sorcerors). Kellhus is a rare exception, and even he has to pretend to be the prince of Atrithau in order to have any initial credibility with the Inrithi nobles.

As for sex, while Istriya uses it, it's hardly her only weapon. She's a good manipulator as well. And, as mentioned earlier, while Kellhus seduced Esmi to breed the best possible children with a worldborn, that's hardly the only reason he values her, which can be seen in the fact that he actually goes beyond just using her as a symbol, to having her manage a number of his affairs, including sensitive intelligence work.

Honestly, people missing the portrayal of Esmi as highly talented and capable once given a chance (and keep in mind that Esmi had both caste-status as well as her gender working against her) boggles me. Hell, she humiliates Eleazaras, who was thinking of her along the lines of a 'pretty peach' belonging to the Warrior-Prophet.

It is? I don't think I see a single woman ruling an entire war; what does Esmi do during the battle of Shimeh? If that's the method of rule, I think she's doing a spectacularly bad job.

So, in other words, you take the fact that she wasn't leading in a battle as evidence against her having power? Did you miss then entire part before, where she was handling Kellhus's intelligence network? And helping to prosecute people speaking against the Warrior-Prophet (i.e., the people she had flayed alive and nailed to the gate at Caraskand)?

By the way, the whole 'sex is powerful and women control it' thing is a very old sexist, misogynistic diatribe. Hell, it's downright biblical. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that.

Sex is powerful; Kellhus even pointed out in TWP that one of the features of the Skin-Spy was that its' creators had used the powerful sex drive, tying it to fulfillment of orders (which usually means killing). It can give the woman in a society like Bakker's (or Westeros in the case of Cersei, for that matter), a means of gaining advantage. Not to mention that we're talking about a patriarchal society where a woman's main contribution is seen (keep in mind that this is reflecting the culture's ideal portrayal, reality is more complicated) as lying in her sexuality and reproductive capabilities.

[Kalbear]

Yet he also makes use of that intellect by putting her in a powerful position.

No, he makes use of her because she's bent to his will. I don't think he'd care one way or another as long as she's speaking with his voice. Really, what matters to him is the control and that her children are going to be smart - and if he's going to have a queen because he needs children, their mother needs to be shown in a positive light for him to have power. I don't see why the point is invalidated; if Esmi wasn't desirable to Kellhus for breeding, she would not be queen.

It's ridiculous logic. You could also say "war is a powerful force that is extremely negative. Men are associated with fighting and war in this series. Therefore, men are shown as using war that is extremely negative, and the implied 'men are portrayed as evil'".

Except that war isn't shown as extremely negative - it's shown as the positive force that will unite the three seas against the coming darkness. It's shown as glorious and amazing. The demons don't wage war - they fight via subterfuge and seduction. Only the Men fight using warfare. That's kind of the point - that sex is demonstrated as such a deplorable act. That the Inchoroi are damned because of their urges for congress. No one is damned because they fight in a war.

And, as we've pointed out time and time again, the story focuses on the Holy War, and almost entirely on the Inrithi side (we only see general glimpses of the Fanim). So you're not going to see Emily Average Merchant selling her wares in the streets of Atyersus, and most of the women who are with the Holy War armies are 'camp followers' (read: mostly prostitutes).

Among the few times, we actually see women other than from the main female characters' perspectives, we see a powerful woman in the form of Istriya. We also catch a glimpse of the Gaunum wives.

Explained a bunch of times why Istriya, a child rapist who used sex and molestation to gain power, is not perhaps the best example of 'woman in power' that you could find. And why wouldn't you see emily the average merchant? It's not like they weren't in cities for a long time. Again, why are there no Fanim wives handing over cities? Why are none of the lords that we see mentioned as having wives? Why are neither Conphas or Xerius married? Where is marriage as a tool for politics?

This is idiotic. Most of the men of power in the series only rose to power because they were born into the noble caste, or because they had an extremely rare characteristic that makes them exceptions to the caste rules (i.e., being one of the few and becoming sorcerors).

Cnaiur rose to rule because of his intellect and his power. Xinemus rose to be one of the leaders because of his intellect, not because of who he was. Conphas gained his own power separate from Xinemus because of his skill at war. Maithanet rose to power because of his training and skills. And then there's Kellhus, skilled beyond all. Heck, Akka differentiates himself from the other Mandate because of who he is and his skills and ability for skepticism. I'm not sure how you can say that men are only there because of their noble rank.

So, in other words, you take the fact that she wasn't leading in a battle as evidence against her having power?

No, I take the fact that she wasn't leading in a battle as evidence that she wasn't 'ruling an entire war', which was what Happy Ent said verbatim. Point of fact she rules nothing of the war.

Not to mention that we're talking about a patriarchal society where a woman's main contribution is seen (keep in mind that this is reflecting the culture's ideal portrayal, reality is more complicated) as lying in her sexuality and reproductive capabilities.

Well, that was what I'd been saying all along as well. That attitude is misogynistic, and Bakker takes that viewpoint and creates a world where that is exaggerated. I'm not sure we disagree here.

[Werthead]

I case anyone's wondering, I stuck the NSFW thing up because people do view the board at work and sometimes have bosses sneaking up behind them to see what they're reading. A thread where the word 'rape' appears several dozen times a page seemed to qualify for a warning.

[unJon]

No, he makes use of her because she's bent to his will. I don't think he'd care one way or another as long as she's speaking with his voice. Really, what matters to him is the control and that her children are going to be smart - and if he's going to have a queen because he needs children, their mother needs to be shown in a positive light for him to have power. I don't see why the point is invalidated; if Esmi wasn't desirable to Kellhus for breeding, she would not be queen.

This is circular. He only wants her for breeding because she's smart.

[Galactus]

The latter is just false, and I suggest you stop repeating it. It devalues the otherwise good points that you and Tyrone and others are expressing. It's not central to your argument and easily falsified. (One in three female POVs in Bakker certainly are never raped because they are the fucking Empress of the Nansurium. And you can not with a straight face claim that in Bakkerworld Ikurei Istryia is raped with probability higher than, say, Rhaella Targaryen.)

The Empress is not a POV. She's just a character. Xerius is the POV.

Also, I never said "every woman is raped" i said that was the *impression* I got. Two very different things.

And given that she was actually replaced with an agent of the consult and their proclivites towards rape I'm not certain I'd want to argue probabilities on that matter. Still, your point is valid: Only two thirds of the important female characters are raped.

I simply don't get the point of your argument. No question Martin writes a happier book than Bakker. But so does CS Lewis. I cannot see how any of the three authors can be reasonably criticised for those choices. And I can't see how (say) Lewis is less misogynistic than Martin just because there are no rapes in Narnia. The essence of this argument completely escapes me, and I promise that I'm not purposefully daft here.

My beef with Bakker is mainly that he uses historical realism as a cloak for scoring some cheap points. If he wants to show a very bleak world because that's what he wants to show: Fine. But he does not. He argues on basis of realism. And it is not realistic to ommit half of the picture. If you EVER invoke history to defend whatever you are doing you are under an obligation to present the entire picture, or at least as much of it as you are able, otherwise you end up with 300 and crap like that.

I don't understand the relevance. Martin's book is more abusive against women than Narnia is. If you claim that Westeros is more misgynistic than Naria than at least I see that you are consistent, but I don't see the point. Describing a feudal society as heavily abusive against women could be feminist just as well as it could be misogynist.

This argument is really beneath you. Let me pick it apart.

It assumes that the SOLE qualifier of misogynism is portrayal fo abuse against women, rather than one of many. Seriously, even trying to make that argument is far beneath your usual calibre.

Is the book androgynistic for that?

The term would be "misandrist".... Andros=man Gynos=woman. mis-=hate or loathing.

[Kalbear]

This is circular. He only wants her for breeding because she's smart.

But it's not her intellect that matters for her position. I'm saying that the important thing about Esmi isn't that she's smart; it's that she can have children that Kellhus wants. If he absolutely needed children with black skin for some reason, Esmi would be out of luck. If Esmi couldn't have kids for some reason, Esmi would also be out of luck. Her intelligence only matters inasmuch as it's a desirable trait to pass on to his Dunyain kids. Esmi by herself is nothing.

[Arakasi]

Very good debate guys. Very interested in reading the good points Galactus and Kal make. I bowed out since I've not read all of book 3 and really have not reread the series so it's hard to debate on these finer points.

[Spring Bass]

No, he makes use of her because she's bent to his will. I don't think he'd care one way or another as long as she's speaking with his voice. Really, what matters to him is the control and that her children are going to be smart - and if he's going to have a queen because he needs children, their mother needs to be shown in a positive light for him to have power. I don't see why the point is invalidated; if Esmi wasn't desirable to Kellhus for breeding, she would not be queen.

You missed the point. I admitted that the primary reason for Kellhus keeping hold of Esmenet is because of her reproductive potential. However, I said that he also values her intelligence, which is why she's in an important position.

To get the point to you, notice how he didn't use his influence to put Serwe in an important, influential position with a deal of decision-making. He kept her around, but he didn't put her to any kind of major use in the way that he uses Esmenet. In contrast, he placed Esmenet in influential positions, even though he didn't have to, meaning that he sees her as useful and valuable in these positions, and these are areas where her intellect is of importance.

Except that war isn't shown as extremely negative - it's shown as the positive force that will unite the three seas against the coming darkness. It's shown as glorious and amazing. The demons don't wage war - they fight via subterfuge and seduction. Only the Men fight using warfare. That's kind of the point - that sex is demonstrated as such a deplorable act. That the Inchoroi are damned because of their urges for congress. No one is damned because they fight in a war.

You're joking, right? Did you miss the parts where Bakker switches to the general narrative, and shows how the Holy War sacked cities, raping and pillaging? He was hardly portraying it as a positive, and the act was associated with men. War, and in particular war guided by religious fervor, is shown in the novel as a powerful, negative force, and one that is primarily associated with men. So if you are going to use that logic, then you have to admit the same point. Moreover, the Inrithi, while having a God for war (Gilgaol), also have a goddess (Giera) of love, whose priestess acolytes are the equivalent of Temple Prostitutes, and are held in high regard.

In any case, the Inchoroi (and their successors, the Consult) did wage open war - in fact, Akka mentions that until a few centuries before, the Consult and the Mandate had actually fought openly, with the Consult only then going underground. If you decide to finish TTT, I'd suggest you look up the Nonmen's war with the Inchoroi and their creations. Hell, one of the Inchoroi at the end of TWP actually mentions himself as something along the lines of the 'spearcarrier of mighty Sil'.

Explained a bunch of times why Istriya, a child rapist who used sex and molestation to gain power, is not perhaps the best example of 'woman in power' that you could find. And why wouldn't you see emily the average merchant? It's not like they weren't in cities for a long time. Again, why are there no Fanim wives handing over cities? Why are none of the lords that we see mentioned as having wives? Why are neither Conphas or Xerius married? Where is marriage as a tool for politics?

Whether or not Istriya is an epitome of moral virtue isn't the point; the point is that she is an example of a woman who holds enormous power in Inrithi society.

As for the 'Emily Average Merchant' point, when they actually are in Inrithi cities, they are either

-In a meeting of the lords leading armies into war, and

-From Esmenet's point of view, where while she is in the city she's mostly at her place of business.

Neither lends itself to seeing Emily Average Merchant. And, as mentioned several times before, we don't really see much of the Fanim on a personal level; most of it consists of seeing them from a broad scale, like when Bakker switches into 'general narrative' mode.

Conphas, along with a number of the other lords, is young, and hardly in a rush to get married (particularly since he's on the campaign for much of the time); in fact, Xerius may actually discourage it, since Conphas having his own heir might result in Conphas being even more tempted to seize the throne. Xerius is an odd case, although it is referenced that all his sons were drooling and in diapers into adulthood; it's possible that he's put away women over the year who were his wives after they failed to give him viable sons.

Cnaiur rose to rule because of his intellect and his power. Xinemus rose to be one of the leaders because of his intellect, not because of who he was. Conphas gained his own power separate from Xinemus because of his skill at war. Maithanet rose to power because of his training and skills. And then there's Kellhus, skilled beyond all. Heck, Akka differentiates himself from the other Mandate because of who he is and his skills and ability for skepticism. I'm not sure how you can say that men are only there because of their noble rank.

Cnaiur rose to power among the Utemot, his clan, through intellect and power - but only gained those among the Inrithi because Kellhus and Proyas vouched as a commander. Xinemus is Proyas's Marshal and commander; it's highly likely that he's noble caste as well, if not as high as Proyas. Maithanet is an exception, but then again, there may be far more advancement for merit in the Thousand Temples, particularly for someone of Maithanet's skill. Kellhus I mentioned, and I pointed out that he only got to his influential position by initially posing as the Prince of Atrithau, where upon he built on that base (when he lost that base in TWP, even in spite of his genius and leadership, he still ended up being condemned to death for lying about it, among other things). Akka likes to think of himself as different from the other Mandate, but that doesn't actually mean that he is; we see almost nothing of Nautzera's abilities, for the most part.

My point was that generally, to hold real power for the most part in Earwa, you have to be noble caste. That doesn't mean there aren't exceptions under certain circumstances, like Maithanet and the Thousand Temples (although it's worth noting that one of the books mentions that hereditary priest positions generally hold higher status than non-hereditary).

No, I take the fact that she wasn't leading in a battle as evidence that she wasn't 'ruling an entire war', which was what Happy Ent said verbatim. Point of fact she rules nothing of the war.

You mean aside from managing the Warrior-Prophet's intelligence network? She may not lead in battle, but she's an influential part of the Holy War.

Well, that was what I'd been saying all along as well. That attitude is misogynistic, and Bakker takes that viewpoint and creates a world where that is exaggerated. I'm not sure we disagree here.

We disagree quite a bit, not least because while I believe an attitude which values women only for their reproductive capabilities is misogynistic, I believe that it is realistic to portray it as part of a society very similar to a real-life society where that kind of belief was ingrained. I also hardly think it's exaggerated; it's just that the vast majority of the book is centered on the Inrithi in their Holy War.

[Mackaxx]

You realize that the rape of his wife was described more explicitly than his rape, right? What shit would I be talking again?

It certainly does not go 'on and on' and it certainly is not 'glorified'. Which was your point. These scenes are quite offensive, quite abhorrent. Which you certainly seem to agree on.

The scenes with the men by contrast, are not always so offensive. What is happening is horrific in many cases, I for one do not want to be 'used as a womb', but in many cases seems to be a 'just desserts' for some of the male characters. In the case of the women, its meant to be appaling. Would it be better just to mention as an aside?

If anything, the raping of the men is the glorious bit....

[Mackaxx]

Esmi isn't defined by her intelligence. We don't find out how smart she is until well into the second book. She's defined by her profession. Tell me, HE, is she a wanton slut because she's really smart? And no, she's not more sexual than Cersei - but the difference there is that not all women are written like Cersei is in ASOIAF. Cersei is very very different than all the rest; Esmi is actually pretty close.

Actually, she is defined as being intelligent from the start. She helps akka with all sorts of shit. Many readers seem to miss this and dwell on her job. The problem lies with these readers in my opinion

As to Istriya, yes - she's as sexual as the son that she raped as a child. Can't imagine there's any psychological reason behind that...Are you seriously comparing women to things that are basically animals and who are created by rape demons and actually believing this is not somehow misogynistic? Seriously?

Men were abused in the battle of Kiyuth? I thought they just, ya know, got fried. The opening rape of the Anasurimbor is a good example - a lot of people argued whether that implied rape or nothing. Same with Conphas.

Has anyone argued that Esmi wasn't mind controlled

Have you mentioned an entire army was apparently mind controlled into killed kazillions of people? And when i mentioned that I convince girls to go to bed with me or my friends apparently this is somehow different to what khellus does... Somehow with khellus it is rape though.

Men were abused in the battle of Kiyuth? I thought they just, ya know, got fried.

They got the crap raped out of them to incite the opposition.

And im going to stop there, this is going round n round like a merry go round.

[Mackaxx]

The power thing is orthogonal to that argument; the original argument was that there are no women shown in places of power when ancient and medieval cultures had them aplenty. Bakker goes out of his way to write a world where women have even less power than they ever did. That he goes out of his way to make women less powerful than normal is the argument for why that is misogynistic.

Can you honestly tell me that all ancient medieval societies had women aplenty in positions of power? This book isnt a trek across the entire face of the world remember, its two societies. Its an unfair task for anyone to prove but i dont think you could anyway.

How many women in positions of power were there in the bible anyway?

Honestly, people missing the portrayal of Esmi as highly talented and capable once given a chance (and keep in mind that Esmi had both caste-status as well as her gender working against her) boggles me. Hell, she humiliates Eleazaras, who was thinking of her along the lines of a 'pretty peach' belonging to the Warrior-Prophet.

Yes, its something that has been shitting me too. Focusing on the so called negative aspect and not even recognising the positivies. It really makes me think the problem is with the reader as the positives are the very meat of the story. How does one miss those?

No, he makes use of her because she's bent to his will. I don't think he'd care one way or another as long as she's speaking with his voice. Really, what matters to him is the control and that her children are going to be smart - and if he's going to have a queen because he needs children, their mother needs to be shown in a positive light for him to have power. I don't see why the point is invalidated; if Esmi wasn't desirable to Kellhus for breeding, she would not be queen.

Erm, I think you missed the point. She IS desireable... Why? Because she is smart enough to run shit and something else entirely. He does make use of her because he is bent to her will but she is bent to his will because she is capable in his absence of doing some pretty smart stuff. None of his other lackeys get given such a position, and it would have been MUCH easier to give them one in such a man heavy socieity. They are just as loyal as she is, in fact, perhaps a little less conflicted.

Choosing Esmi is in fact more of a risk than khellus actually needs to make. So, is tere more to his choice than simple utility. I think there is, at the very least on a subconcious level.

Except that war isn't shown as extremely negative - it's shown as the positive force that will unite the three seas against the coming darkness. It's shown as glorious and amazing. The demons don't wage war - they fight via subterfuge and seduction. Only the Men fight using warfare. That's kind of the point - that sex is demonstrated as such a deplorable act. That the Inchoroi are damned because of their urges for congress. No one is damned because they fight in a war.

You appear to have read a totally different book to me, on a lot of levels. Its getting more and more plain with every comment I read. I couldnt disagree more. This crusade is portrayed as an atrocity. Necessary maybe, but im not convinced of that either, but never ever a glory.

Cnaiur rose to rule because of his intellect and his power. Xinemus rose to be one of the leaders because of his intellect, not because of who he was. Conphas gained his own power separate from Xinemus because of his skill at war. Maithanet rose to power because of his training and skills. And then there's Kellhus, skilled beyond all. Heck, Akka differentiates himself from the other Mandate because of who he is and his skills and ability for skepticism. I'm not sure how you can say that men are only there because of their noble rank.

Cnaiur - Essentially royal blood (Skiötha) the greats kid + Khellus based sponsorship

Conphas - Royal blood, nuff said

Coithus Saubon - Royal blood

Nersei Proyas - Royal blood

Maithanet - Royal blood + Dunyain blood + Training

Kellhus - Royal blood + Dunyain blood + even more training

Xinemus - Royal blood likely but not a definite (And, what does he really do?)

Akka - The only man apart