Jump to content

Bakker and Women


Maia

Recommended Posts

I'd much rather read about whores and concubines then shield-maidens and princesses.

Bakker rules. :smoking: And the over-the-top feminist argument of this whole thread is completely fucking ludicrous and embarassing. Either enjoy the books or not - don't go singling out the author and accusing them of such horrors as *gasp* sexism. It's his story, he can do whatever the fuck he wants.

Btw, I think the horrible depiction of females by writers like Jordan, who so obviously go out of their way to not seem sexist when they have no fucking clue how to write a female part, are argubaly more sexist. Jordan's chicks act all snooty and untouchable until they meet Rand or one of the other main characters then fall into a crazed fit about whether they are showing too much or not enough cleavage for the dudes to get horny over. Surely that is much fucking worse than R.S.B.'s hot Exalt-Whores.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's cool, I skipped like the last 5 pages anyway.

I just think it's nuts that Bakker is being singled out for something a lot of fantasy authors either do, or try so hard to [i]not[/i] do that they end up looking shit. I think Bakker himself is far from the most sexist fantasy writer - he just writes what fits his world and story and fuck everything else.

I'd rather see that than clumsy attempts at female empowerment. Leave the strong female leads to guys and gals who can pull it off like GRRM and Robin Hobb.

I mainly find it strange that people are firing parabolas of incandescence at Bakker for being some kind of Leader of Sexist Fantasy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheEvilKing' post='1676729' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.26']I think Bakker himself is far from the most sexist fantasy writer <snip>
I mainly find it strange that people are firing parabolas of incandescence at Bakker for being some kind of Leader of Sexist Fantasy.[/quote]
Nobody is saying or implying this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheEvilKing' post='1676706' date='Feb 6 2009, 10.12']I'd much rather read about whores and concubines then shield-maidens and princesses.

Bakker rules. :smoking: And the over-the-top feminist argument of this whole thread is completely fucking ludicrous and embarassing. Either enjoy the books or not - don't go singling out the author and accusing them of such horrors as *gasp* sexism. It's his story, he can do whatever the fuck he wants.

Btw, I think the horrible depiction of females by writers like Jordan, who so obviously go out of their way to not seem sexist when they have no fucking clue how to write a female part, are argubaly more sexist. Jordan's chicks act all snooty and untouchable until they meet Rand or one of the other main characters then fall into a crazed fit about whether they are showing too much or not enough cleavage for the dudes to get horny over. Surely that is much fucking worse than R.S.B.'s hot Exalt-Whores.[/quote]

I have to say :agree: with most of this. I'm reminded of Eco's Ten Little Middle Ages while reading this thread - readers examining and criticising the past (or its correlative depiction) through a modern pc lens. Of course, Bakker is doing this intentionally, so the argument is a legitimate one, but the championing for tokenism is rather grating. Bakker's characters are much more interesting than warrior princesses and the standard feminine revisionism we so often see in the genre.

On a side note, Esmenet is the one character whom I feel is vurnerable in the series. When she's about to get stoned in TDtCB, her life feels threatened - something I never feel about the central male characters. I know Kellhus, Cnaiur et al. will hack n' slash or manipulate themselves out of any possible danger - Esmenet and Serwe, not so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bakker and Jordan are guilty of being very sexist but in very different ways. Jordan set out too try to be non-sexist but constantly stumbles over his own prejudices. (I'm somewhat disregarding his lack of characterization ability here, it's a slightly different flaw) Bakker sets out to create an explicitly sexist world but fails to provide any compelling analysis or discussion of it (which leaves one asking why? Especially as he isn't doing it out of ignorance)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1676731' date='Feb 7 2009, 02.27']Nobody is saying or implying this.[/quote]

Really? I don't see an 'Abercrombie and Women' thread, despite the main female characters in his book being an insane revenge-driven feral halfbreed and a dirty alcoholic slut.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abercrombie's depiction of women has been discussed in the past. This recent thread started because, well, people wanted to discuss Bakker.

kuenjato,

I don't know that anyone here has been championing tokenism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheEvilKing' post='1676766' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.45']Really? I don't see an 'Abercrombie and Women' thread, despite the main female characters in his book being an insane revenge-driven feral halfbreed and a dirty alcoholic slut.[/quote]
Well, dude, this board has been around years, there's lots of books that have been discussed. I can't say I've been here for all of them, nor could I give you an inventory of every series for which the gender issues were analyzed, but likely books that have obvious issues are just, well, so obviously problematic that it becomes uninteresting to keep revisiting them. The issues are clear cut and don't really need rehashing. Bakker seems to be revisited since there's still things people could talk about. And there's no reason why other authors won't be discussed or re-discussed in the future.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheEvilKing' post='1676706' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.12']I'd much rather read about whores and concubines then shield-maidens and princesses.[/quote]
:agree:
Still, the misogynistic archetypes involved, and Bakker's defensiveness do bug me, a lot. Personally, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the objective morality of Earwa will be a significant plot point, and he's reluctant to discuss it in depth, but it won't stop me from scratching my head a little.
Also, the other potential sexist point, the spiritual inequality of men and women in Bakker's world, is something we really don't know for sure. Akka's pov where he's talking to Mimara about the Judging Eye seems to imply that there's a lot more going on there than he's telling her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So maybe this thread should be changed from "Bakker and Women" to "The Portrayal of Women characters in Fantasy".

And yes, that discussion has been hashed and rehashed like all the others. (Women in Leather and Kicking Ass ring a bell with anyone?)

Again, I'm a girl and Bakker's portrayal of any of his characters never bothered me. They all work for me in the context of the story. If anything were to be changed, I think the central focus would be shifted into a direction the story is not meant to go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit strung out on codeine now, so I hope this doesn't become too rambling and incoherent here:

I'm of many minds when it comes to looking at the relationships/issues raised in Bakker's tales. Sometimes he takes a didactic approach, other times a more "personal" one. Having read all five of his books to date, it seems to me that he's interested in exploring what happens when the cultural veneer of human civilizations is stripped away. What sorts of urges are there? How are power issues manifested? What is that damnable "darkness" that comes before? Are there really things such as "Agency" or "Free Will?"

I said a couple of days ago (I believe it got lost immediately in the rush of posts) that Bakker doesn't exactly treat [i]any[/i] of his characters nicely. Since so many want to talk about the sexual nature of the gender politics in his stories, why not examine more closely just how the Inchoroi are such dastardly [i]villains[/i]. What is so [i]seductive[/i] about them and their take on the world? What is it that people of all sorts, today especially, [i]fear[/i] about the possibility of abolishing any form of sexual restrictions?

The issue of sexism invariably is going to revolve around each person's own set of cultural values. If someone decides that there's a bit of hypocrisy in UK/US (Western?) views on gender relations and s/he (love that, by the way, connotes so much by the slashing of two words and the combining them into one) explores that by exposing all of it for people to see...is it any surprise that it would hit a few raw nerves?

After all, having "different" roles for whatever social/political/gender/etc. group is still a grounds of dispute. Why not level it all and create uniformity? Or is that but domination under another guise?

I'll leave it for people to argue. I'm still of different minds on it, mind you...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, I never got the vibe of Bakker that he is describing what is happening when our veneer of culture breaks down: He's describing what happens when someone from outside our culture (be it the INchoroi or Kellhus) decides to manipulate our cultural mores. Which I think are fairly different things altogether.

EDIT: It's essentially about culture shock rather than the destruction of culture. (Which would be more Lord Of the Flies kind of)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read [i]Neuropath[/i]? Because that's the direct message being sent there, about how so much of what humans have created for themselves is really but an illusion. Stone Age minds, not able to process X, so they create Y to stand in its place, even when it's self-destructive. In the PoN novels and TJE, the implication is that things we take for "certainties" are but manipulatives that we readily accept because of an unwillingness (inability?) to process other vantage points due to the limitations of the physical form.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always found the criticism of Bakker's books as sexist a bit strange. In my opinion, the critics only examine the female characters in the story and don't view them in context of everything else.

Earwa is absolutely and completely horrible in every imaginable way. I literally can't think of a single positive aspect of this world. In comparison, Westeros seems like a kind of paradise. Considering that, the over the top sexism doesn't seem jarring at all. It's just one more way to make Earwa worse than our world.

I can understand the point about all (three) female characters being reduced to their sex but I don't really agree. For one, I thought Esmenet was an interesting character, she and Achamian were the only people in the story that I liked. Of course, Serwe and Istrya are more problematic. But are the male characters any better? I think Cnaiur is as much reduced to his sexuality as any of the women in the story. Why not accuse Bakker of homophobia because of his portrayal of Cnaiur and the absence of any other gay characters? What about the other men, Kellhus, Conphas or the emperor (Xerius? - forgot his name)? Not exactly positive role models, I think.

There may be some nicer secondary male characters and I don't think there are any other women in the story except the three that were already discussed (although it's been a few years since I read the books so I might be wrong). But that makes sense in the Holy War setting.


Completely different question: Would Bakker's critics prefer it if he included a character like Eliza from Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle? She is a very strong, independent, attractive genius who succeds at pretty much anything she does and eventually becomes a powerful ruler despite being a woman in 17th century Europe and even though she is only a sex slave (but also, interestingly, a virgin) at the beginning of the story.

I always found a character like Eliza much more problematic than anything in Bakker's books. Wonder if people agree with me there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1676214' date='Feb 6 2009, 02.17']I just have to question what the point of that would be? And what difference it would be to write a book about Race A being metaphysically inferior to Race B.[/quote]


I imagine there will be a point ultimately. I have a sense that the metaphysical reality of Earwa will be some sort of weird feedback loop where the beliefs of humanity (and others) shape both the "outside" and the relationship of "world" to "outside."

So . . . women are metaphysically inferior because people believe this to be true. But free your mind and your ass (or soul) will follow and all that. Although the freeing in this case would have to be at the cultural rather than individual level. Existentialism on a global scale or something.

Or, more likely, I'm completely wrong. (I haven't read TJE, fwiw)

In any case, I guess the question for this thread is - if Bakker does have a larger point, will that justify the depiction of women in the series for those troubled by it? I have to say I'm on the fence on this issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I always found a character like Eliza much more problematic than anything in Bakker's books. Wonder if people agree with me there.[/quote]

She does sound problematic, but for entirely different reasons.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finn' post='1676910' date='Feb 6 2009, 19.54']I imagine there will be a point ultimately. I have a sense that the metaphysical reality of Earwa will be some sort of weird feedback loop where the beliefs of humanity (and others) shape both the "outside" and the relationship of "world" to "outside."

So . . . women are metaphysically inferior because people believe this to be true. But free your mind and your ass (or soul) will follow and all that. Although the freeing in this case would have to be at the cultural rather than individual level. Existentialism on a global scale or something.

Or, more likely, I'm completely wrong. (I haven't read TJE, fwiw)

In any case, I guess the question for this thread is - if Bakker does have a larger point, will that justify the depiction of women in the series for those troubled by it? I have to say I'm on the fence on this issue.[/quote]

That would, I think, depend entirely on how and what that point is.
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...