Jump to content

Bakker and Women


Maia

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1676965' date='Feb 6 2009, 20.24']Eliza may be problematic for exactly opposite reasons - she is a woman with totally modern values in a pre-modern setting. Since this is what some seem to be demanding, they should love her character, at least in theory. I liked Eliza a lot, but I found her utterly unbelievable.[/quote]

Not really, mind I haven't read the Baroque Cycle, but the entire "sex-slave but also a virgin" feels kind of skeevy just from the description of it...

I think the main issue, and this is admittedly subjective, is this: Someone described feminism as "The radical and subversive belief that women are people too." The problem with Bakker is that it feels like his women, for whatever reason *aren't as human* as his men. They are written as Other Martin (and mind, Martin has his own issues in certain areas) doesen't do this. I never feel that Catelyn is Other, for instance.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's what most people are demanding or requesting. Again, there is a difference between wanting a modern woman who is as awesome as men and has as much agency and options as men and wanting a woman who is not only able to use sex as their sole means of power, and who is evaluated entirely based on that alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Galactus' post='1677001' date='Feb 6 2009, 20.43']Not really, mind I haven't read the Baroque Cycle, but the entire "sex-slave but also a virgin" feels kind of skeevy just from the description of it...[/quote]
This isn't what defines Eliza. Frankly, I didn't even remember this detail. Her most striking characteristic is very pragmatic attitude toward sex, but anything else as well. She seems to be a person living utterly outside attitudes of her time and place.



[quote name='Galactus' post='1677001' date='Feb 6 2009, 20.43']I think the main issue, and this is admittedly subjective, is this: Someone described feminism as "The radical and subversive belief that women are people too." The problem with Bakker is that it feels like his women, for whatever reason *aren't as human* as his men. They are written as Other Martin (and mind, Martin has his own issues in certain areas) doesen't do this. I never feel that Catelyn is Other, for instance.[/quote]


I don't see this at all. Surely Kellhus is the least human of all his characters? As fot the rest of them, I didn't notice any difference of such kind in way they are portrayed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate to say this, but if the guy explicitly states his primary goal is to challenge rather than confirm readers' gender assumptions and biases, doesn't the very fact we're having this debate mean that he's achieved his aesthetic goals in this respect? Would PC orthodox representations of women - all the 'he-should-have-done-this' statements that have cropped up on this thread - made the books 'better'? I would say clearly not, simply because they would be less likely to generate thoughtful, reflective threads like this.

The fact is the guy's written something that inspires fierce interpretative partisanship. Like he said in his last interview: people find agreement agreeable, they much prefer to have their assumptions reinforced than challenged. Could that be what he's taking aim at? The gap between a reader's post-Enlightenment ideological demands and the kinds of pre-Enlightenment worlds they desire. The real problem could be that he's too clever by a half.

Has anyone mentioned the fact that by the end of TTT we learn that neither Serwe nor Istriya (sp?)are actually female? Both have been replaced. Seems to me he's saying something important about the types at issue.

Which leaves Esmi...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Sebastian' post='1676882' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.31']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.[/quote]

I haven't finished even the second PoN book, so take my opinions with a pinch of salt. But I just don't agree with the last sentence at all, and I think in the context of this discussion this is just as important as the characterisation of the three female characters there are.

I cannot see why there is no room for more female characters in the setting. You could just as well suggest that there is no room for them in ASOIAF, for example. And the lack of other female characters could, I would suggest, indicate that what has been suggested in the thread by others is true: that for Bakker, female characters are an afterthought, or a separate species. Something to be included to serve specific purposes (this talk about 'problematising' them suggests this) but not something his story includes naturally.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kal, I think with Bakker's world already being so grim that the idea of having women equal to men in all things, including sex, would actually provide too much hope via their 'empowerment'. I think by repressing the women down to what they are in the stories, one gets a greater the impression that this "world" is that much more hopeless; that potentially talented women are reduced and wasted.

I can better see now why some people take issue with the portrayal of the women in the stories. At the same time, I have to stand by my feelings that it works for me for this story without getting my panties in a bunch.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mormont' post='1677055' date='Feb 6 2009, 21.07']I cannot see why there is no room for more female characters in the setting. You could just as well suggest that there is no room for them in ASOIAF, for example. And the lack of other female characters could, I would suggest, indicate that what has been suggested in the thread by others is true: that for Bakker, female characters are an afterthought, or a separate species.[/quote]


TJE has five major POV characters, three of which are female. I don't see how it is an afterhought. I also don't think they were added to "pacify the feminists", since it appears Bakker from the beginning knew pretty well where the story is going.

EDIT: Three out of six. I forgot the northern boy :( Still half isn't so bad.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='mormont']And the lack of other female characters could, I would suggest, indicate that what has been suggested in the thread by others is true: that for Bakker, female characters are an afterthought, or a separate species. Something to be included to serve specific purposes (this talk about 'problematising' them suggests this) but not something his story includes naturally.[/quote]

I don't think pointing out the absence of other women from the story is useful to the discussion. The story, as conceived by the author, only included three women. Using the absence of others as a mark "against" Bakker implies that he could have "scored points" by simply including more women, even if the story did not call for it, in other words resorted to tokenism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1677116' date='Feb 6 2009, 20.30']I don't think pointing out the absence of other women from the story is useful to the discussion.[/quote]

I think it's useful. What point is there in atomising the discussion, as opposed to looking at the story and the setting as a whole?

[quote]The story, as conceived by the author, only included three women. Using the absence of others as a mark "against" Bakker implies that he could have "scored points" by simply including more women, even if the story did not call for it, in other words resorted to tokenism.[/quote]

Nobody's scoring him on a points system, though. And I would dispute that this has anything to do with tokenism. It's a potential issue - and I do say potential, because I'm not really qualified to do anything other than raise it as such - that I find interesting. After all, the story as conceived by the author contains only a few major male characters, too: yet the minor male characters are there in numbers. Are other women characters omitted as a deliberate choice by the author? If so, what was his aim? If not, is it an oversight that gives an insight, so to speak? ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Balefont' post='1677077' date='Feb 6 2009, 21.18']Must get TJE! Damn 2/19/09 release date. I loathe being a peon.[/quote]
Yeah, it's been a long time since I read the books but now, after reading this thread, I want to know how the story continues. I'll try to find The Judging Eye tomorrow.

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1677045' date='Feb 6 2009, 21.00']This isn't what defines Eliza. Frankly, I didn't even remember this detail. Her most striking characteristic is very pragmatic attitude toward sex, but anything else as well. She seems to be a person living utterly outside attitudes of her time and place.[/quote]
I'd actually forgotten this detail, too. But I read the Wikipedia article before posting because I didn't remember if her name was spelled Eliza or Elisa. ;)

[quote name='mormont' post='1677055' date='Feb 6 2009, 21.07']I haven't finished even the second PoN book, so take my opinions with a pinch of salt. But I just don't agree with the last sentence at all, and I think in the context of this discussion this is just as important as the characterisation of the three female characters there are.

I cannot see why there is no room for more female characters in the setting. You could just as well suggest that there is no room for them in ASOIAF, for example. And the lack of other female characters could, I would suggest, indicate that what has been suggested in the thread by others is true: that for Bakker, female characters are an afterthought, or a separate species. Something to be included to serve specific purposes (this talk about 'problematising' them suggests this) but not something his story includes naturally.[/quote]
The setting isn't really comparable to ASoIaF, though, because most chapters of Prince of Nothing just show the army on their crusade. Of course, Bakker could have included more female characters somehow. I still think the absence of female characters makes sense in the setting and does not necessarily imply subconscious sexism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Kal, I think with Bakker's world already being so grim that the idea of having women equal to men in all things, including sex, would actually provide too much hope via their 'empowerment'. I think by repressing the women down to what they are in the stories, one gets a greater the impression that this "world" is that much more hopeless; that potentially talented women are reduced and wasted.[/quote]I agree. But that's not what I suggested. Martin's books don't have women equal in all things, not by a long shot, but you still have women that can manipulate the world via many other powers than sex alone. Cersei uses it, true, but for every Cersei you have a Catelyn or a Lysa, and there are far more female characters who have differing positions of influence in the book.

Whereas with Istrya, you have a powerful woman who still needs to fuck her own son and send him whores to maintain her power. And that's the best of the lot.

Pierre, I understand where you're coming from, but I don't understand why women need to be listed as afterthoughts who are only able to fuck things as a way to challenge stereotypes of women. If anything, it's a direct reinforcement of the stereotypes from 40 years ago.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be fair, there are a few minor female characters. A couple of serving women (at least one of whom is sexually available to men), for example, or Cnäiur's concubine/wife. Maybe there are a couple more, I'm sure.

I don't think he has to have more female characters, in any case. I mean, realistically, what would they be? Or rather ... that's what I was going to say, and making the basic assumption that any women in the crusade would be camp followers. But a quick bit of research reminds me that some men took along their wives, and Pope Urban had to actively dissuade young women from taking up the cross without the permission of legal guardians. And of course, armies always need laundry women, who aren't necessarily there for sexual services. So ... realistically, yeah, he could have included more women who weren't all about being sexual objects even when they didn't have to be.

Matrim's suggestion that Bakker made such a misogynistic portrayal of women to deliberately point out at the end that the whole of the misogyny is an artefact of a couple of lines of text in a holy book is sticking with me as a potential solution to my own concerns. There's something very visceral about just subjugating half the entire human race that way. I can see some other ways in which he could have done the same exact thing -- say, have Kellhus end the practice of slavery (which is widespread in the setting) just like *that* by similar means. But would it be as visceral? It depends on how he handled it. None of us have been slaves and are very unlikely to have known any, but some of his readers are women, and the rest are (hopefully) acquainted with women, so it makes the experience more personal.

ETA: Of course, if it turns out that Dûnyain women are just breeding stock, my view of things could turn.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1677194' date='Feb 6 2009, 16.08']To be fair, there are a few minor female characters. A couple of serving women (at least one of whom is sexually available to men), for example, or Cnäiur's concubine/wife. Maybe there are a couple more, I'm sure.

I don't think he has to have more female characters, in any case. I mean, realistically, what would they be? Or rather ... that's what I was going to say, and making the basic assumption that any women in the crusade would be camp followers. But a quick bit of research reminds me that some men took along their wives, and Pope Urban had to actively dissuade young women from taking up the cross without the permission of legal guardians. And of course, armies always need laundry women, who aren't necessarily there for sexual services. So ... realistically, yeah, he could have included more women who weren't all about being sexual objects even when they didn't have to be[/quote]

And what would have been the point of talking to laundry women?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I just don't want to do your thinking for you, Shryke. Because there simply are absolutely no reasons whatsoever for why an author would want to complicate the gender picture so as to give the problematizing of women a greater depth by viewing it from different perspectives than just "Sex Object 1", "Sex Object 2", and "Sex Object 3". A view into the life of an old woman of the faith whose time as a sex object are done, who, I don't know, some Skin Spy might try to suborn to get at some impotant figure, would never, in a million years, have any potential to contribute to the story and to its polemics in the hands of a skilled writer.

It. Just. Can't. Be. Done.

Hence:

:rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]So, basically, tokenism. A female character added because you think the story could use another female character.[/quote]How about a female character that isn't defined by her sexual relationship? Just one? Because as it stands, he went out of his way - far out of his way - to make sure all of the women are defined that way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will return to my thoughts on Bakker later, when I have more time. But people who question whether it was possible for a common woman to become a ruler of a country in 18th century need to read biography of Ekaterina I of Russia ;) . Yes, certainly not through being a virgin or even a genius, but nevertheless...

And those who question pragmatism of women of the period need to read the memoirs of Ekaterina II (The Great). A lot of what she wrote about gaining allies and leadership, etc. wouldn't look out of place in a Dale Carnegie book :) .

I'd like to point out that a spouse/mother/lover/other female relative of a ruler being a trusted adviser and even a leutenant wasn't as unheard of as some people seem to think and didn't require for said ruler to be a super-human messiah with magical powers. I mean, Justinian and Theodora are an obvious example, of course as are Augustus and Livia before them, but there were many others, who cropped up in the most unlikely places. In France it was particularly common, but there are examples from Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Russia and likely many other places that I am unaware of. Nor did such cases result in gains for woman's rights, IIRC.

Re: tokenism and realism, I have to ask this - why would you expect speculative settings to ape RL history where sexism is concerned, when they contain some very fundamental other differences, like magic? Or superhuman fighting prowess, which is so much of a trope that nobody seems to notice it? For RL realism, shouldn't one look to history or historical novels?
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...