Jump to content

BAKKER VI: Death comes swirling down


Happy Ent

Recommended Posts

Chataya's business definitly count as "Happy Whore" (and is all the more distasteful for the fact they're two out of three Black characters portrayed in the novels, however I don't think Shae or the girls at the Peach's count. I think Shae especially never shows herself to be happy about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to happy whores: I was criticising both Lynch and GRMM for that trope. The list above is a good (if incomplete) summary of GRRM's rosy-tainted view of prostitution and slavery, but I was even more angry at Lynch's. I have since come to realise that Lynch writes escaptist fantasy, so I have to resign myself to warrior women and self-empowered prostitutes. Pure wish-fulfillment for entertainment. I still like the books.

But I am puzzled that some of the board member who claim to push a feminist agenda (recently, Raidne, if you're reading this message) seem to admire Lynch's setting, while Bakker gets a lot of flak for his. To me, lying about human nature, or about the conditions of women in pre-modern societies, or about the plight of prostitutes, doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. As a feminist, I am extremely happy about Bakker's novels, and quite taken aback by the naiveté re sex differences in society in Lynch.

Aside: I do understand (but not empathize with) a related sentiment: that some female readers who strongly self-identify with female characters don't enjoy reading Bakker. They enjoy Lynch more, much like 13-year old bespectacled boys enjoy reading Ender's Game because the geek gets to beat people up and save the world. The sentiment is alien to me, because I don't bring that approach to literature. (I don't self-identify with characters because of their sex. For example, the character in GRRM that I strongly identify with is Catelyn.) But I understand that many people take concepts of identity-as-belonging-to-a-group very seriously, especially in the US, so I can appreciate that this perspective has consequences for reading Bakker versus Lynch. For example, part of the feminist movement strongly advocates building a concept of gender identity, and this I can use to at least partially explain this phenomenon. As I said, the approach is alien to me (indeed, I find it offensive and actively try to avoid it in my own world-view). So I remain puzzled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chataya's business definitly count as "Happy Whore" (and is all the more distasteful for the fact they're two out of three Black characters portrayed in the novels,

Come on, there was a whole shipload of them in AFFC. True, they didn't get much screentime as individuals, but neither did Chataya and Alayaya.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to happy whores: I was criticising both Lynch and GRMM for that trope. The list above is a good (if incomplete) summary of GRRM's rosy-tainted view of prostitution and slavery, but I was even more angry at Lynch's. I have since come to realise that Lynch writes escaptist fantasy, so I have to resign myself to warrior women and self-empowered prostitutes. Pure wish-fulfillment for entertainment. I still like the books.

But I am puzzled that some of the board member who claim to push a feminist agenda (recently, Raidne, if you're reading this message) seem to admire Lynch's setting, while Bakker gets a lot of flak for his. To me, lying about human nature, or about the conditions of women in pre-modern societies, or about the plight of prostitutes, doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. As a feminist, I am extremely happy about Bakker's novels, and quite taken aback by the naiveté re sex differences in society in Lynch.

Aside: I do understand (but not empathize with) a related sentiment: that some female readers who strongly self-identify with female characters don't enjoy reading Bakker. They enjoy Lynch more, much like 13-year old bespectacled boys enjoy reading Ender's Game because the geek gets to beat people up and save the world. The sentiment is alien to me, because I don't bring that approach to literature. (I don't self-identify with characters because of their sex. For example, the character in GRRM that I strongly identify with is Catelyn.) But I understand that many people take concepts of identity-as-belonging-to-a-group very seriously, especially in the US, so I can appreciate that this perspective has consequences for reading Bakker versus Lynch. For example, part of the feminist movement strongly advocates building a concept of gender identity, and this I can use to at least partially explain this phenomenon. As I said, the approach is alien to me (indeed, I find it offensive and actively try to avoid it in my own world-view). So I remain puzzled.

While I definitly like Bakker more than Lynch :), I think it's unfair to say one position should be favoured over the other. I think both are needed, the empowering wish-fulfilment and the gritty realism. In Lynch's case, of course, I'm not sure how much of femine wish-fulfilment it is - they're secondary characters and definitly seen from the PoV of males (both characters and writers) - at least judging by Lies, haven't read Red sea yet. I favour Jacqueline Carey for the prostitution sugar coated view ;)

BTW I don't identify much relating to gender either, and I think most females are good at identifying with male characters anyway, but that doesn't mean it's not still rewarding to read a story with a powerful female character (regardless of how realistic that is in the context), as well as ones with powerful male character even if I can identify with them too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, there was a whole shipload of them in AFFC. True, they didn't get much screentime as individuals, but neither did Chataya and Alayaya.

What's in shipload, Black characters or Happy whores?

Regardless, I remember Chataya and Alayaya's names and their role in the story, and I've no idea who are the characters you're talking of so screentime as individuals does sound biased in their favour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's in shipload, Black characters or Happy whores?

Regardless, I remember Chataya and Alayaya's names and their role in the story, and I've no idea who are the characters you're talking of so screentime as individuals does sound biased in their favour.

I talk about crew of a ship Cinnamon Wind which took Samwell from Braavos to Oldtown. Captain was called Quhuru Mo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say that classifying Chataya and Alayaya's as 'happy whores' on the limited knowledge we have of them is almost LOOKING for something to be offended by. Whose eyes do we see them through? Tyrions. What the hell do you expect them to do, mope around and give lectures on how horrible their lives are? Oh, yeah, that's good for business and reputation. It'd just make matters worse for them. They may be happy whores, or perhaps in the limited scenes of them we just see their charade that they do to increase their own security and profits. Who knows, we're not given enough insight into it to say, and without GRRM's blunt sight into it, or future writing on the subject, there's just nothing but surmise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside: I do understand (but not empathize with) a related sentiment: that some female readers who strongly self-identify with female characters don't enjoy reading Bakker. They enjoy Lynch more, much like 13-year old bespectacled boys enjoy reading Ender's Game because the geek gets to beat people up and save the world. The sentiment is alien to me, because I don't bring that approach to literature. (I don't self-identify with characters because of their sex. For example, the character in GRRM that I strongly identify with is Catelyn.)

Interesting point. I don't self-identify with any of Bakker's female characters or Lynch's, because they are female. The women in Bakker's world are pretty much alien to me, and I guess that Lyanna means something similar with "dehumanised". I can understand how they tick and why, but it's only rational understanding. I don't really dislike Bakker for writing them this way, it just means that it makes it harder for me to feel with them.

Ironically, Bakker makes me much more interested in the fate of a rapist and almost crazy killer, just because he is the only character who, right from the start, doesn't want to submit to Kellhus. I don't really identify with him, but he is fascinating to read just for this reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not alone in seeing Esmenet as one of the strongest characters in the series. Imagine nearly anyone else in the books, in the circumstances she was in, responding to them so well and rising so high. She's very believable as an intelligent but flawed woman in a society that punishes both those things, making the best of what she can. I actually see a bit of Catelyn Stark in her, mainly as a character who routinely gives other people better advice than she can give herself. It makes her an interesting counterpoint to Kellhus.

By the way, was anyone else disappointed by the relative lack of Saubon in Book 3? I found him by far the most fascinating supporting character to get inside the head of - a tormented, complex heart and a straightforward, ruthless mind; exactly the kind of raw metal that Kellhus is forging into weapons. I really hope he's still alive in Aspect-Emperor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not alone in seeing Esmenet as one of the strongest characters in the series.

I'm right behind you there. I also agree with Esmi and Cat being very similar. I think both are wonderfully realized; towering achievements of modern genre literature.

I am especially impressed by their author's determination to make them flawed. Catelyn can't find it in herself to love Jon Snow, and Esmi actually sold her daughter into slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still say that classifying Chataya and Alayaya's as 'happy whores' on the limited knowledge we have of them is almost LOOKING for something to be offended by. Whose eyes do we see them through? Tyrions. What the hell do you expect them to do, mope around and give lectures on how horrible their lives are? Oh, yeah, that's good for business and reputation. It'd just make matters worse for them. They may be happy whores, or perhaps in the limited scenes of them we just see their charade that they do to increase their own security and profits. Who knows, we're not given enough insight into it to say, and without GRRM's blunt sight into it, or future writing on the subject, there's just nothing but surmise.

For me, the issue with GRRM is that all the whores we see appear to be at least relatively happy with it. There are no significant exceptions at all. To state the obvious: this is a common male fallacy that justifies prostitution to many, and contradicts the RL fact that nearly all of them are and were forced into it and kept there by poverty/slavery/rape/single motherhood/variations of these.

I agree that GRRM does have the potential escape clause of limited PoVs - Tyrion in particular is unlikely to see behind the painted smile facade - and that he still has time to put in a corrective viewpoint. This is now looking less likely to me though, as I would have expected Arya to get a true vision of the Happy Port in AFfC, but yet she does not seem to. Too young to understand perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damn, Happy Ent, you just expressed everything I love about Bakker's series.

The fantasy genre is concerned with fantasy. Thus, Lynch is truer to the genre, because his books are primarily wish-fulfillment adventures, a dollop of grittiness notwithstanding. Even GRRM sugar-coats certain aspects of his saga (happy whores).

Bakker writes fantasy, but I think in this case "speculative fiction" is more apt a title, as PON depicts the bleak domain of the past, the savage existence of scrabble, scorn and surpass that reigned dominant before the Enlightenment and, let's be honest, after (Burma being a recent example in the news media of might-is-right tyranny). Beyond the comforting bubble of North America / Europe , people are still starving to death, stilling getting arms chopped off, still being gang-raped and exterminated by the thousands, and for basically the same reasons as two or five thousand years ago. Power and wealth and religious conviction to give delusionary justification.

PON isn't wish-fullfillment or genre-fantasy, it is a dark and unrelenting take on reality, with a few sorcerous battles here and there.

As for my part, I think Bakker has some of the strongest characters in current literature. The only one I didn't like was Serwe, because of her abject stupidity, and my reaction was exacely what Bakker intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to happy whores: I was criticising both Lynch and GRMM for that trope. The list above is a good (if incomplete) summary of GRRM's rosy-tainted view of prostitution and slavery, but I was even more angry at Lynch's. I have since come to realise that Lynch writes escaptist fantasy, so I have to resign myself to warrior women and self-empowered prostitutes. Pure wish-fulfillment for entertainment. I still like the books.

But I am puzzled that some of the board member who claim to push a feminist agenda (recently, Raidne, if you're reading this message) seem to admire Lynch's setting, while Bakker gets a lot of flak for his. To me, lying about human nature, or about the conditions of women in pre-modern societies, or about the plight of prostitutes, doesn't make it better. It makes it worse. As a feminist, I am extremely happy about Bakker's novels, and quite taken aback by the naiveté re sex differences in society in Lynch.

Aside: I do understand (but not empathize with) a related sentiment: that some female readers who strongly self-identify with female characters don't enjoy reading Bakker. They enjoy Lynch more, much like 13-year old bespectacled boys enjoy reading Ender's Game because the geek gets to beat people up and save the world. The sentiment is alien to me, because I don't bring that approach to literature. (I don't self-identify with characters because of their sex. For example, the character in GRRM that I strongly identify with is Catelyn.) But I understand that many people take concepts of identity-as-belonging-to-a-group very seriously, especially in the US, so I can appreciate that this perspective has consequences for reading Bakker versus Lynch. For example, part of the feminist movement strongly advocates building a concept of gender identity, and this I can use to at least partially explain this phenomenon. As I said, the approach is alien to me (indeed, I find it offensive and actively try to avoid it in my own world-view). So I remain puzzled.

I think that's the issue here HE. Some people don't like reading about circumstances that they find disturbing and/or distasteful. I know I couldn't get much past the rape scene in Lord Foul's Bane, because I just found Thomas Covenant the kind of person I had no interest in reading about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not alone in seeing Esmenet as one of the strongest characters in the series. Imagine nearly anyone else in the books, in the circumstances she was in, responding to them so well and rising so high. She's very believable as an intelligent but flawed woman in a society that punishes both those things, making the best of what she can. I actually see a bit of Catelyn Stark in her, mainly as a character who routinely gives other people better advice than she can give herself. It makes her an interesting counterpoint to Kellhus.

By the way, was anyone else disappointed by the relative lack of Saubon in Book 3? I found him by far the most fascinating supporting character to get inside the head of - a tormented, complex heart and a straightforward, ruthless mind; exactly the kind of raw metal that Kellhus is forging into weapons. I really hope he's still alive in Aspect-Emperor.

Yes and yes. Happily, it looks like Saubon might play an important part in the next book;

SPOILER: Saubon in The Great Ordeal

He and Proyas are described as being the Exalt Generals of the Warrior Prophet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope I'm not alone in seeing Esmenet as one of the strongest characters in the series. Imagine nearly anyone else in the books, in the circumstances she was in, responding to them so well and rising so high. She's very believable as an intelligent but flawed woman in a society that punishes both those things, making the best of what she can. I actually see a bit of Catelyn Stark in her, mainly as a character who routinely gives other people better advice than she can give herself. It makes her an interesting counterpoint to Kellhus.

By the way, was anyone else disappointed by the relative lack of Saubon in Book 3? I found him by far the most fascinating supporting character to get inside the head of - a tormented, complex heart and a straightforward, ruthless mind; exactly the kind of raw metal that Kellhus is forging into weapons. I really hope he's still alive in Aspect-Emperor.

I agree with most of this, but I strongly, strongly disagree with the comparison to Catelyn Stark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that is frigging awesome Brady.

SPOILER: The Great Ordeal
Conphas is probably rolling in his grave.

Brienne, they're certainly dissimilar characters, but there's two key parallels that I find kind of interesting. One is that they're both filling the "woman in a man's world" archetype - Catelyn in the political sphere, and Esmenet (by Thousandfold) in a more strictly social sense, but they both approach particularly unfriendly aspects of a masculine society from a similar direction. They bring a feminine viewpoint without attempting to "feminize" their particuarly sphere of influence - however that might be accomplished. Cat pushes for peace, using her credentials as a mother; Esmi uses her status as the Prophet-Consort to deal with some of the more subtle threats the Holy War faces. They both offer solutions to masculine problems as women, but not from the angle of "I am a woman and I have a unique look at this." It's a subtle but intriguing difference.

The other parallel, mentioned above, is that they're both That One Girl. The one you were friends with, guys, who was always clever and fun to be around and offered you all kinds of advice on dating and stuff that was pretty much spot-on - and yet. all her boyfriends were druggies or abusive or just plain dumb. Obviously the last part of that description isn't accurate in this specific case, but they remind me of, I guess, a modern character archetype - the woman who has solutions to everyone's problems but her own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, the issue with GRRM is that all the whores we see appear to be at least relatively happy with it. There are no significant exceptions at all.

I'm curious as to how anyone can think of Shae as "happy". Satisfied at pulling off some kind of ambition? Yes. But I don't think we ever see her being genuinly *happy*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's useful philosphic spin, because it gives us some hinges to put our concepts on. Let's continue from here.

I think where we are miscommunicating is your concept of "human". By your definition, 99% of Humanity that ever lived is not human.

Your definition above is not the answer to "What makes us human?" but the answer to "What makes us post-Enlightenment, post-feminist affluent, secular North-Western Europeans?"

And that's the point. Bakker wants to show us "what we have escaped from". He wants to show us the basic human condition. In my book, the dynamics Bakker portrays are very much part of what makes us human.

Exactly what Bakker wants us to think about.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are *kind* of misunderstanding how pre-enlightenment socities actually operated. It is a common fallacy to look into the law and read from there how society operated, something that is often fallacious (certain kinds of criminals, poachers, forgers, could very much be socially accepted within certain circles, for instance)

Just like today our (legal, officially formulated) doctrine of gender-equality does not mean we actually have real, factual gender-equality, in the past the official doctrine did not neccessarily reflect reality. As a simple example, just because women could not legally own property in their own right did not mean they didn't. That women were forbidden by law to do something does not seem to (in many cases) have stopped them from actually doing it, and seemingly quite often with the blessing or at least quiet acceptance by the men surrounding her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...