Jump to content

Bakker and Women


Maia

Recommended Posts

Well, he's going further than that, it seems to me, due to the particular philosophical ideas he wants to explore. He wants to make "concrete" an abstraction -- he wants to turn belief into objective, fundamental reality.

It seems to me that this is on the same order of sorcery being objectively evil: if people believe something long enough, it becomes true. So, I take what he says to mean that women aren't just treated abhorrently because it is a powerful belief that women are inferior, it's because they [i]are[/i] inferior and deserve to be treated that way (broadly speaking). Women aren't reduced to sexual objects and brood mares because the patriarchy insists, it's because that's all that they really [i]are[/i] good for. Which kind of colors what I've heard of TJE.

The difference between the former and the latter is substantial, namely that the former can comment on the real world (and real history), and the latter can't. The latter is a commentary on traditional world building, first and foremost, which is nice ... but less profound.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke']I don't see it as less profound. It's a far more interesting idea to look at imo. What if, quite simply, we AREN'T all equal?[/quote]

The thing is, I don't see this "objective inequality" reflected within the story. Part of that might be my modern mindset affecting my perception of a quasi-medieval world, but I just can't think of anything in the book that reveals any new truths. Sorcerers are damned, yes we knew that already, but where are there even hints at the "spiritual superiority" of men? And I also have to agree with Ran, it is less profound if your big, uncomfortable themes are not truly relevant to the real world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, corollary to the lack of profundity would be that the depiction of women isn't something to get worked up about. Bakker's not writing about women, but about representations of women in traditional world building. This is at a bit of remove.

Of course, I don't know where the [i]Neuropath[/i] thing stands, but then perhaps BoG had the right of it when he brought up inherent sexism in the thriller genre; maybe, like this series, Bakker is commenting on representations of women in genre instead of trying to say anything directly meaningful regarding "real" women.

ETA: And of course, this also means Bakker's works would be intensely metatextual. Without the context of traditional world-building or thrillers, you won't "get" what he's saying about them. And as we've seen, even within the context, a lot of people (on both sides, I'll note) seem to have misapprehended what's going on. I suppose that says something interesting about base assumptions -- we argued about real-world gender when it has little or nothing to do with Bakker's work, because we're all concerned about gender issues, to one degree or another, and are willing to have a dialogue (even a dysfunctional one) about it. Which I think is good, anyways. But it seems even less likely to be the argument Bakker was hoping to have.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1678787' date='Feb 8 2009, 04.56']The thing is, I don't see this "objective inequality" reflected within the story. Part of that might be my modern mindset affecting my perception of a quasi-medieval world, but I just can't think of anything in the book that reveals any new truths. Sorcerers are damned, yes we knew that already, but where are there even hints at the "spiritual superiority" of men?[/quote]

As Doctrine, it's stated a few times. For actual evidence, nothing I've seen so far really pushes the idea.

But really, it seems to just be another extension of the whole idea of his world building. The most obvious example being Sorcery itself. After TTT came out, which includes Kellhus' explanation of Sorcery, alot of people on Three Seas were .... taken aback by the answers given. There was discussions, people didn't like it, blah blah blah.

And at some point, Scot stepped in a basically pointed out that the problem was, people were expecting an explanation that made sense to them in terms of science. In terms of how our world works. Sorcery channeling energy and what not through craft and so on. And the point is, it's NOT our world. He wanted to make a world where, in essence, the spiritual IS real. In Earwa, Damnation is not an abstract concept. It's not something we hear about, and people believe, but is ultimately unproven and we can dimiss on some level. Damnation, God, all that shit, is REAL. It's a world where the foundation is not one, ultimately, of science but one of .... I don't know, faith, religion, whatever.

It's a world where the Spiritual trumps the Scientific.

[quote]And I also have to agree with Ran, it is less profound if your big, uncomfortable themes are not truly relevant to the real world.[/quote]

And why would you think it's not relevant to the real world? What is fantasy and Sci-Fi but creating a non-real situation to in some way talk about ideas and things in the real world that aren't possible within the framework of the universe as it actually is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran']And of course, this also means Bakker's works would be intensely metatextual. Without the context of traditional world-building or thrillers, you won't "get" what he's saying about them. And as we've seen, even within the context, a lot of people (on both sides, I'll note) seem to have misapprehended what's going on. I suppose that says something interesting about base assumptions -- we argued about real-world gender when it has little or nothing to do with Bakker's work, because we're all concerned about gender issues, to one degree or another, and are willing to have a dialogue (even a dysfunctional one) about it. Which I think is good, anyways. But it seems even less likely to be the argument Bakker was hoping to have.[/quote]

Actually, from what I remember of other interviews with him, this could be exactly the kind of argument Bakker was aiming for.;)

[quote name='Shryke']As Doctrine, it's stated a few times. For actual evidence, nothing I've seen so far really pushes the idea.[/quote]

Exactly.

[quote name='Shryke']And why would you think it's not relevant to the real world? What is fantasy and Sci-Fi but creating a non-real situation to in some way talk about ideas and things in the real world that aren't possible within the framework of the universe as it actually is.[/quote]

That was aimed specifically at the "spiritual superiority" of men. I'm just not seeing the relevance there. Well, maybe if you manage to get really worked up about world building that is "too PC".;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1678809' date='Feb 8 2009, 05.40']Exactly.

That was aimed specifically at the "spiritual superiority" of men. I'm just not seeing the relevance there. Well, maybe if you manage to get really worked up about world building that is "too PC".;)[/quote]

And the point is, it might not BE a focus of the writing. He only talks about it in the context of him wanting to make "a world where everything had objective value, where everything was ranked and ordered". Or, more generally, a world that works fundamentally different from our own. One where the spiritual, not the scientific, is the base.

And I guess if you dismiss it right off the bat, then no, you won't see any relevance. But that's would just a pointless interjection into the conversation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the whole "spiritual superiority" thing may seem dubious, but I read it as another example of "belief shaping reality" argument. In Earwa belief, influencing the Outside, shapes actual, not only social reality - at least to some extent, I didn't notice any actual spiritual inferiority in Bakker''s women, compared to Bakker's men.
Once again, we will have to wait and see where he will go with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bakker's quote there is explicit: he wrote it that way to comment on traditional world building. Not to discuss the world as we know it directly, but to discuss the way certain texts have been written. It's only indirectly that you wonder why those texts have been written as they have, and what effect the world has had on the creation of those texts.

Which is fine. It's metatextual. It's an interesting commentary, especially if you read genre texts as representing to their authors a creation of maximal objectivity (because whatever they believe can be, and in a way, is fact). There's a lot that's interesting there about it.

But it's less profound because at the end of the day, we're talking about the creation of texts, and not about the historical process or gender relations as we're aware of them. We are given women that explicitly cannot have existed in reality, because they *are* inferior, as opposed to stereotyped and raised to believe they're inferior. I doubt Kellhus's vague move to make Inrithism less misogynistic will have had much impact on changing the objective truths of the world in regards to women.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='UnJon']I disagree. There is a clear character change with Istriya. She is not a skin-spy the whole time.[/quote]

I think the clear change is due to the skin-spy switching tactics from covert influence mode to assassination mode when Xerius had proven too hard to control.

In Istriya's first appearances Xerius keeps noticing how his mother seems different and less compentent. We also see Istriya and Skeaös banding together in defense of the Holy War over the interests of the Nansur Empire while claiming to do it for the sake of their souls, something that doesn't seem in character for either of them but fits with the agenda of the Consult. Really, there is a ton of evidence scattered around in little pieces.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1678779' date='Feb 8 2009, 04.33']Well, he's going further than that, it seems to me, due to the particular philosophical ideas he wants to explore. He wants to make "concrete" an abstraction -- he wants to turn belief into objective, fundamental reality.

It seems to me that this is on the same order of sorcery being objectively evil: if people believe something long enough, it becomes true. So, I take what he says to mean that women aren't just treated abhorrently because it is a powerful belief that women are inferior, it's because they [i]are[/i] inferior and deserve to be treated that way (broadly speaking). Women aren't reduced to sexual objects and brood mares because the patriarchy insists, it's because that's all that they really [i]are[/i] good for. Which kind of colors what I've heard of TJE.

The difference between the former and the latter is substantial, namely that the former can comment on the real world (and real history), and the latter can't. The latter is a commentary on traditional world building, first and foremost, which is nice ... but less profound.[/quote]But wouldn't that mean that if a paradigm shift occurs such that people cease thinking of women as objectively inferior, then by the metaphysics of Bakker's world women would objectively cease to be objectively inferior?

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1678787' date='Feb 8 2009, 04.56']The thing is, I don't see this "objective inequality" reflected within the story. Part of that might be my modern mindset affecting my perception of a quasi-medieval world, but I just can't think of anything in the book that reveals any new truths. Sorcerers are damned, yes we knew that already, [b]but where are there even hints at the "spiritual superiority" of men?[/b] And I also have to agree with Ran, it is less profound if your big, uncomfortable themes are not truly relevant to the real world.[/quote]Probably the Tusk, that religious text where all the bad things about women are written. I would assume the subjugation of women comes partially from the text. The only explicit mention we have really received thus far is women not being permitted to learn how to read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon']Probably the Tusk, that religious text where all the bad things about women are written. I would assume the subjugation of women comes partially from the text. The only explicit mention we have really received thus far is women not being permitted to learn how to read.[/quote]

I meant "where in the story we read is there a hint at this". We do get explicit confirmation of the damnation of sorcerers, but nothing about this "spiritual inferiority".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In discussions such as this, I am often reminded of a comment Stendhal made in his famous novel, [i]The Red and the Black[/i]:

[quote]Un roman est un miroir qui se promène sur une grande route. Tantôt il reflète à vos yeux l’azur des cieux, tantôt la fange des bourbiers de la route. Et l’homme qui porte le miroir dans sa hotte sera par vous accusé‚ d’être immoral ! Son miroir montre la fange, et vous accusez le miroir ! Accusez bien plutôt le grand chemin où est le bourbier, et plus encore l’inspecteur des routes qui laisse l’eau croupir et le bourbier se former.

A novel is a mirror carried along a high road. At one moment it reflects to your vision the azure skies at another the mire of the puddles at your feet. And the man who carries this mirror in his pack will be accused by you of being immoral! His mirror shews [sic] the mire, and you blame the mirror! Rather blame that high road upon which the puddle lies, still more the inspector of roads who allows the water to gather and the puddle to form.

Vol. II, ch. XIX[/quote]

Sometimes, I wonder how much criticism the "mirror" deserves and how much we ourselves merit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matrim,

[quote]But wouldn't that mean that if a paradigm shift occurs such that people cease thinking of women as objectively inferior...[/quote]

It follows, certainly. But how long does it take to undo the inertia of millenia of religious doctrine? Was it you who remarked up-thread that your first thought was, "That's it? That's all it takes?" when Kellhus claims to rewrite the Tusk and so on?

SPOILER: TJE
Now, I haven't read it, but I have read what others have said about Esmi, in the end, needing Kellhus to pull things out of the fire. And in light of the spiritual inferiority of women that is an objective fact of the setting, it seems to me the reason Bakker has her fail is probably that, despite whatever Kellhus has done, the objective fact is that Esmi, as a woman, remains (broadly) inferior to men. She may be smarter than a lot of guys, but in the end, she has to lose, because she's a woman -- it's The Rules.

Given that sorcery is still objectively evil despite Kellhus stating otherwise (something else I've gleaned from TJE spoilers), it seems fair to suppose that the objective reality has not yet changed in regards to gender issues.


So, yeah, the rules of the setting suggest that at some point, objective reality will conform to belief. But I don't think it's done so yet, and I'm not sure it'll do so by the end of the series... and I'm not really sure it matters whether it does so or not, in terms of this discussion. The whole issue remains a primarily a commentary on traditional world building, as Bakker indicates, regardless of what happens to the actual characters and setting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran' post='1678836' date='Feb 8 2009, 07.28']Bakker's quote there is explicit: he wrote it that way to comment on traditional world building. Not to discuss the world as we know it directly, but to discuss the way certain texts have been written. It's only indirectly that you wonder why those texts have been written as they have, and what effect the world has had on the creation of those texts.

Which is fine. It's metatextual. It's an interesting commentary, especially if you read genre texts as representing to their authors a creation of maximal objectivity (because whatever they believe can be, and in a way, is fact). There's a lot that's interesting there about it.

But it's less profound because at the end of the day, we're talking about the creation of texts, [b]and not about the historical process or gender relations as we're aware of them.[/b] We are given women that explicitly cannot have existed in reality, because they *are* inferior, as opposed to stereotyped and raised to believe they're inferior. I doubt Kellhus's vague move to make Inrithism less misogynistic will have had much impact on changing the objective truths of the world in regards to women.[/quote]

And how is that different from ANY piece of speculative fiction?

Does the fact that Dragons aren't real make ... well, any book with dragons less profound?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Does the fact that Dragons aren't real make ... well, any book with dragons less profound?[/quote]

Well, no. But if you spend time arguing about the author's intentions (as we've done for more than 200 posts in this case) in regards to his dragons, whether they're a complex metaphor for the all-consuming greed of capitalistic society or perhaps a careful study in our relation to received wisdom, and you're talking about these things .... and then the author says, "No, I put them there because traditional world building in fantasy tend to stick them in there without logic or reason, and I wanted to provide a reason for why they're there that goes right to the heart of the setting.."

Well, that's not very profound. He's commenting on other genre texts, which (as I said) is at a remove from commenting on the space within which all texts are found (i.e., here and now).

In this case, Bakker's explicitly said this particular facet of his story is a commentary on traditional world building. Not much to argue about with that.

Of course, a reader can certainly read whatever one wants to read into it, and take what one wants to take away from it. But Bakker's intentions as he explains him are less profound (to me) than I was intentionally led to believe. And as you'll note, I've focused pretty much entirely on Bakker's role in the text -- what was his intention, and did he succeed in it, etc. When I thought he was problematizing gender to make some sort of comment on modern society [ETA: Or historical society!], well, it was a tough row to hoe, and you can see how many people (on both sides) were thrown off the scent of the intended commentary.

Now that I know that wasn't his intention at all, that his ambition in depicting women was very narrow and very specific commentary on other texts, it's practically not an issue for me any longer. I don't even think he's missed an opportunity, as I said before, because the opportunity he missed concerned problematizing women as a comment on society, when in fact he was problematizing women as a comment on traditional world building and the depiction of women within it.

Again, one can take out of it what one wants. But what the author intended -- at least to take that quote as evidence -- is that it's a comment on world-building.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Now that I know that wasn't his intention at all, that his ambition in depicting women was very narrow and very specific commentary on other texts, it's practically not an issue for me any longer. I don't even think he's missed an opportunity, [b]as I said before, because the opportunity he missed concerned problematizing women as a comment on society[/b], when in fact he was problematizing women as a comment on traditional world building and the depiction of women within it.[/quote]

Oh, I see what you were thinking.

I've never seen it as any sort of "problem" or "missed opportunity" or whatever, so his statements on the issue change nothing about the book for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1678985' date='Feb 8 2009, 10.35']I meant "where in the story we read is there a hint at this". We do get explicit confirmation of the damnation of sorcerers, but nothing about this "spiritual inferiority".[/quote]

Do we actually know what Bakker means by "spiritual superiority"? Are we talking about ethical / moral superiority? In other words, women are morally weaker and more likely to "sin"? Or are we talking about some sort of metaphysical principle that has some sort of application in the afterlife?

The example of sorcerers is interesting because we know that they are supposed to be damned, but there is never any indication that sorcerers are more or less moral or ethical than anyone else. In fact, Akka might be the most ethical character we've met in Earwa.
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...