Bakker and Women

[Ran]

Balefont,

Obviously, Achamina would have to be part of the Mandate school which has managed to shed some of the prevalent notions of women as inferior (probably because the founder, Seswatha, was a woman), and because of the power of the Gnosis and the uneasy regard for their learning, they still hold a role as potential tutors even as they are shunned. So Inrau and Proyas and Xinemus could still, each in their way, have a relationship with Achamina.

And then, of course, Achamina could fall for a whore named Esmenet, and so on.

Wow, that scene at the end would be mighty different if Achamina forswore her wife... Different, and amazing, at least in my mind's eye.

I guess the reading thing would be at issue, but just make it a caste thing I suppose.

Anyways, it'd be a different book, but it'd be less silly than sticking tits on Conphas, or less plot mechanic changing than turning Conphas the general into Conphrya the Byzantine politco.

[Balefont]

mmmmm

I'm going to have to read the story again. Conphas' character never struct me as "suitable" for a women in the context of the world as it is presented (read: male dominated). The world being male dominated [i]is [/i]a major aspect of the story, imo.

ETA: Ran, while that does sound interesting, for the same opinion I have about the male dominance [i]being[/i] a major aspect of the story, I think your idea would change too much of the story.

[kuenjato]

[quote name='Galactus' post='1683072' date='Feb 11 2009, 10.41']Which for the record, I cannot fucking understand. Normally I'm all for FP, but their journey towards bigotry light and baton populism really disturbs me.



The problem is not the lack of Hatschepschuts but the lack of Eleanors or Birgittas or Hildegards or Jeannes.[/quote]

Those examples, while relevent (somewhat, as none were in the historic period of inspiration specific to PON) either a) form the basis of the "warrior women" which we see in many mainstream fantasy series, or b) are associated with the church, one of the only organizations in which women found value via chastity -- as in, the [i]denial [/i]of sex.

Should fantasy focus on warrior women and saints? I did like Kalbear's mentioning of Byzantium merchants. But again - does that fit the plot? Does it fit the patriarchal focus of this particular world?

As I haven't read TJE yet, I should refrain from further conversation.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1683246' date='Feb 11 2009, 21.07']Of course, it would also meant she-Moenghus used sex to influence Cnaiur, so people would still complain.[/quote]
Would still be more popular than having “Conphia” ass-raped by Cnaiür.

What I’m completely puzzled about his that Bakker’s editor never suggested to introduce [i]any sentient trees[/i] into the story. I mean, either it’s a hommage to Tolkien or it isn’t.

But maybe we just have to wait for them to make their appearance. Or the Inches could be originally arboreal, before the “birthed mouths” and so on. Incidentally, what language is the [i] huphiryas[/i] written in? Could “birthed mouths” and “shed their bark” be homophones in Auja-Gilcunni?

[Finn]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1683145' date='Feb 11 2009, 10.42']Or could it be that I've written something genuinely complicated, genuinely problematic, something that provokes timely debates about timely issues?

What I'm really curious about is your apparently absolute faith in the in the universal veracity of your individual interpretative perspective.

scott/[/quote]

Or could it be that this thread has intentionally tweaked your normative expectations about what readers get from your novels in ways you didn't like, and you're doing your best to recontextualize/reinterpret in ways that make it more ideologically manageable - to turn it into 'they just don't get it.'

After all, most everybody writes to win. When was the last time you saw an author dropping into an internet discussion about his or her work who blamed [i]themselves[/i] instead of the readers' inability to appreciate this or that?

I think in this thread we've provided enough grounds to at least [i]consider[/i] the possibility that at the very least we aren't mindless drones reacting without thinking to our reading experience.

Or maybe you're simply doing what we all do all the time when we interpret: selectively confirming our initial impressions? Like you said, when you smell mindless lab rats responding unthinkingly to complex stimuli among your readership, odds are you're going to find some.

Are we mindless lab rats, Pierce? Do you really think that?

:cheers:

[Kalbear]

I like the notion of Akka as a woman; the Mandate is already not part of the rest of society, there's nothing specific that requires Akka be male. Heck, it'd reinforce the notion that women are best, right? Gnosis can only be used by women, who are otherwise horribly repressed? And it's not like women aren't already damned.

It'd also have another side benefit that would be good; Akka is never expressed as being particularly attractive physically. All the other women in the tale are. Women as being physically attractive or not actually there is a very long-standing bias; a physically unattractive somewhat older woman would also turn that around.

Neat idea, Ran!

Could've done the same thing with the Cish, I suppose, though there'd be the very reasonable argument about women and emotion vs. men and rationalization.

[Ran]

I should be an editor.

[Maia]

You have called, HE ;) ?

Anyway, I guess that my problems with the series are not encompassed by the treatment of women in them. And that fan reactions to the books are partly responsible, which is not quite fair. Anyway:

1. "Realism". A lot of fans of the series laud its realism, although the 3 main male characters (Kelhus, Akka, Cnäur (yes, his fighting prowess is completely out there )) are blatantly fantastic and there are lots of fantastic elements in worldbuilding. Sorry, sexism doesn't trump overturning the laws of physics, existence of super-powers et al. on the realism scale.

Not to mention that something like Dunayin community that existed for 2 millenia is far more unlikely than women having more rights and requires much more suspension of disbelief.
Clearly, the world is gritty, but realistic it is not. This is, however, more the fault of fan reaction than of the series itself.

2. " What comes before determines what comes after" - i.e. a promise of plausibility and internal logic on a higher standard than run-of-the-mill fantasy. And here, I feel, the series doesn't deliver.
Basically, happy as I am to see borrowings from fresh historical material (from fantasy genre standpoint), I don't follow how this world could have plausibly progressed from aliens, Non-Men and Appocalypse to the events closely paralleling those of the First Crusade. To be brief:

Was the Womb Plague an instance of gross incompetence for the Inchoroi? Because it certainly doesn't look like a half-way logical attempt at quickly de-peopling a planet, particularly considering that the more numerous humans of Eanna (which is just another continent, right?) were untouched.

Where is the "human nature" argument when Scylvendi fought for the No-God, in the cause of self-extermination?

Why didn't the already ostracized and damned sorcerers recruit women into their ranks to increase their power, particularly when their were staring in the face of the end of human race anyway, during the Apocalypse or later when religion tried to exterminate them?

Why didn't women, who couldn't bear children during the 10 years of Apocalypse, move into different niches in society? Particularly since men would have been depleted from fighting.

How can the Dunayin have techologies and knowledge that should have taken a significant technological base to create and maintain?

Why don't the Schoolmen use their magic in peace-time to increase their wealth and power and to make themselves indespensible to rulers? If they do, why doesn't it have logical effects on society, making trade and banking develop sooner (long-distance communication) and catalysing the Age of Exploration?

How could Fanimry be so successful against it's neighbours, when Fane had to develop a whole new magical system first and train a lot of people in it, while his opponents had the Schools? Islam didn't have this problem, after all ;) . Etc, etc.


Re: tokenism - a monk (and why on earth was Kelhus a "monk"? it isn't like he was religious or a hermit ), a barbarian and a sorceror, none of whom should have had anything to do with a Holy War find themselves pretty much directing it. Hm...

Re: Conphas as a woman, couldn't imagine it at all, him being a great general in a severely mysoginistic setting. But a non-body-snatched Istrya with an expanded role, power and sans incestous child-molesting? Would have fit well. I am not bothered by her selecting women for Xerius, BTW - there are more than enough historical precedents of royal mothers or even fathers doing this. The idea was to prevent somebody unsuitably ambitious from influencing the sprog via sex and grabbing political power.

A sorceress would also have fit, IMHO.

I actually think that purposefully picking up women in very low social positions and juxtaposing them with powerful men isn't all that useful in examination of sexism. Isn't contrasting the differences between options of different genders who belong to the same social group far more illustrative? Which is why I also think that Serwe as just some common woman, somebody's unhappy young wife would have been far more effective than Serwe the concubine if examining female suffering and powerlessness were the object.

And yes, there is a dearth of strong, plausible (within the settings with various levels of magic, technology, aliens, biology and other differences, _not_ RL history, which lacks all of the above) heroines in fantasy and SF of course. And I strongly doubt that SF/fantasy can say something on the subject of RL sexism that works in other genres didn't already say or can say better.

[Galactus]

[quote]Those examples, while relevent (somewhat, as none were in the historic period of inspiration specific to PON) either a) form the basis of the "warrior women" which we see in many mainstream fantasy series, or b) are associated with the church, one of the only organizations in which women found value via chastity -- as in, the denial of sex.[/quote]

Err, at least Eleanor and Hildegard are, I'd argue, within the general timeframe of the earlier part of the Crusading era, so definately from the same general timeframe.

[quote]Should fantasy focus on warrior women and saints?[/quote]

I don't neccessarily have a problem with fantasy focusing on merchants or farmers. Although for some reason others seem too :P

[Pierce Inverarity]

[quote]Or could it be that this thread has intentionally tweaked your normative expectations about what readers get from your novels in ways you didn't like, and you're doing your best to recontextualize/reinterpret in ways that make it more ideologically manageable - to turn it into 'they just don't get it.'

After all, most everybody writes to win. When was the last time you saw an author dropping into an internet discussion about his or her work who blamed themselves instead of the readers' inability to appreciate this or that?

I think in this thread we've provided enough grounds to at least consider the possibility that at the very least we aren't mindless drones reacting without thinking to our reading experience.

Or maybe you're simply doing what we all do all the time when we interpret: selectively confirming our initial impressions? Like you said, when you smell mindless lab rats responding unthinkingly to complex stimuli among your readership, odds are you're going to find some.

Are we mindless lab rats, Pierce? Do you really think that?[/quote]

I've actually bitten quite a few bullets in my day. There's plenty on this board that can vouch for me in this regard, I think.

Otherwise, confirmation bias is simply a fact of human nature. When I say that 'find the rats we smell' this is simply what I was refering to - I certainly wasn't accusing people of being 'mindless lab rats'! We all suffer confirmation bias all the time, and in most cases we are completely oblivious to it - particularly if we don't know anything about it. I certainly don't exempt myself, which is why I try to be careful to use the first person plural and to insert qualifications. I can go back and give you examples of those qualifications if you want me to. I'm not sure what I could have done differently.

How about you, Finn? Are you an exception?

But the bottom line is, I'm the one being accused of sexism here. Since I genuinely believe that I'm more a reverse sexist than otherwise, and because I know with relative certainty what I was trying to do when I made the choices I did. Should I be blamed for saying things in my books are more complicated than they seem?

Look. Browsing the web I've come across literally countless speculative critiques regarding my books and my character. People have called me gay, a homophobe, a womanizer, a pervert, an agent of hell, even offered penetrating analyses of all the ways I must mistreat my wife. I never respond to them, because, on the one hand, people see what they see, and no matter how 'open' they claim to be (and let's face it, everyone thinks they're openminded), the fact is they (generally) make summary judgments which they (generally) then rationalize. If you don't believe me, I can offer you a number of titles to check out, any number of studies - but all you really need to do is Google.

On the other hand, I come to think there's something unseemly about authors defending themselves - that it's actually better to let it all work itself out. If your work is strong enough, it will rally any number of intelligent partisans. This has certainly been the case here - moreso than I sometimes think the books deserve!

I felt the need to add my voice in this case because I thought there might be genuine interest in learning what [i]my motives really were[/i]... Perhaps I was mistaken.

I asked the above questions with a certain amount of frustration, yes, but [i]honestly[/i]. I apologize if I inadvertantly offended you, Finn.

In the meantime, my questions still stand.

scott/

[JGP]

[quote name='Ran' post='1683321' date='Feb 11 2009, 14.13']I should be an editor.[/quote]

Perhaps, although the idea of a female Scylvendi fighter might fit better within the established framework of the story.

To me, and the main reason why I've been avoiding these Bakker-Women iterations largely since 2.0 or so, is that I don't see Earwa as semi-medieval. Yah, there are some borrowings from the Crusades, but these people in tone and by deed are putting me more in mind of the classical world, where women lived both enlightened and liberated to be sure. Where they were almost exclusively either Goddesses or wives, concubines or whores, who had next to no voice in public or political discourse excepting perhaps pillow talk. Where quite often they were chattel that could be beaten with impunity, even killed, as well as mothers that on occasion and for whatever reason were expected to practice infanticide or have their children taken from them, [i]etc etc.[/i] It goes on and on. Were there exceptions even then? Of course, but these were aberations, and as far as the plotting of PoN, there's no reason to include an exception just for the case of doing so.

Way I see it, there’s no big deal here beyond modern sensibilities, and yea, an unconscious entreaty for tokenism.


ETA: to correct my longest run-on yet, appalling grammar, etc

[Nerdanel]

All this talk of alternate genders makes me wonder what the books would be like if [i]Cnaiür[/i] was female... Let's see, Cnaiürina was a daugher of a Scylvendi chieftain who met (a femaleized?) Moënghus who taught her that her culture's oppression of women was pointless and wrong. Thus Moënghus got Cnaiürina play along in the scheme that involved the murder of her father. Afterwards, Cnaiürina made herself the unquestioned-in-public chieftainess of the Utemot clan by killing everyone who tried to oppose her. (She was just that good.) As a woman, Cnaiürina had to act more like a blood-thirsty macho barbarian than the other blood-thirsty macho barbarians in a futile attempt to get the respect of her peers, suppressing the tender part of her that still loved Moënghus, who she now understood had only used her...

And so on. Well, it would have been different.

Re: Kellhus the monk, to me that sounds like influence of D&D terminology. Specifically, Kellhus is a monk with the Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, Whirlwind Attack, Deflect Arrows, and Snatch Arrows feats and likely Power Attack, Cleave, and Great Cleave too to really abuse the D&D 3.0 Whirlwind Attack. And I haven't even gotten to hazier things like Leadership and Skill Focus (diplomacy)... By the way, Kellhus can also be seen as a character who displays the scary power of very high pluses in the D&D diplomacy skill. Spend 10 minutes talking a diplomacy check and *poof* you just may have turned your audience into your fanatical followers that are willing to die for you, a state that is counted as a mind-affecting effect by the game, like a spell. A character who specializes in this is called a diplomancer in the player jargon.

[Kalbear]

[quote]I felt the need to add my voice in this case because I thought there might be genuine interest in learning what my motives really were... Perhaps I was mistaken.[/quote]Perhaps you should actually address the questions about your motives then.

Why did you decide that Istriya would molest her son as her means of keeping power over him?
Why did you decide to objectively make women inferior as part of the metaphysical reality of Earwa?
Why did you decide to use the archetypes of women that you did? How do you feel that was not inherently sexist?
Did it occur to you when you wrote PoN that you literally (har har) had not a single speaking female in the book that did not use sex to gain power, keep power or as her occupation? If so, why did you decide to stay that way?
Did it bother you at all that the women in Neuropath do similar things? Was this purposeful as well?

Because so far the argument you've put forward is that either we're not able to get it because we're dense, or we're not able to get it because we're rationalizing and will automatically select biases regardless of what answers are presented...but you've not actually put any concrete answers forward. Which is fine, but much like Dylanfanatic it's not particularly useful for discourse.

I don't think anyone's accusing you of sexism, Scott. If you do believe that, I would recommend explicitly reading the statements in this thread by myself and others explicitly saying otherwise.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683298' date='Feb 11 2009, 15.50']I like the notion of Akka as a woman; the Mandate is already not part of the rest of society, there's nothing specific that requires Akka be male. Heck, it'd reinforce the notion that women are best, right? Gnosis can only be used by women, who are otherwise horribly repressed? And it's not like women aren't already damned.

It'd also have another side benefit that would be good; Akka is never expressed as being particularly attractive physically. All the other women in the tale are. Women as being physically attractive or not actually there is a very long-standing bias; a physically unattractive somewhat older woman would also turn that around.

Neat idea, Ran!

Could've done the same thing with the Cish, I suppose, though there'd be the very reasonable argument about women and emotion vs. men and rationalization.[/quote]If Akka was female, he would have probably been the first choice for Kellhus to seduce to produce "intelligent super babies," so I really do not see how this would be a winning choice of character either.

Maia, you [i]repeatedly[/i] mention how the changing laws of physics should not trump cultural world-building, but you [i]repeatedly[/i] fail at offering any suggestions on how you would have constructed the world differently. Could you please answer me for once?! What would you do differently in world-building based on how these laws of physics have changed?

[Kalbear]

[quote]If Akka was female, he would have probably been the first choice for Kellhus to seduce to produce "intelligent super babies," so I really do not see how this would be a winning choice of character either.[/quote]Make him unable to have babies as part of the Gnosis or the Mandate. Heck, you could reasonably say that the use of sorcery destroyed the ability to have children, which is an interesting tie to the Womb-Plague and the No-God.

Or don't, but have Akka refuse Kellhus, which forces him to turn to Esmi. But I agree - Akka-chan would've been the first target assuming nothing else.

[Ran]

Practice of the Gnosis renders Mandati schoolwomen infertile? Or Akka just knows she's infertile for whatever reason.

Anyways, I'm not actually advocating this as a "better series". Not at all. I'm just saying that, if I were an editor and I was pushing an empowered female central character for commerical reasons, I'd have picked Akka because at least as far as plot mechanics go, it seems to me changing him into a her would be easiest. A lot of the plot remains unchanged, a lot of the emotional beats for the character, too; and it opens up some different things to explore.

Some thematic and ideological points would be massively transformed, doubtless. But if an editor didn't care about that, I figure Achamina would have been a fine way to approach the story. Better than Conphas-with-tits, anyways.

I should add that I'm not denigrating the editor's choice of Conphas as the character to turn into a woman; I don't know why they thought that'd be the best choice, but they had the benefit of working with Bakker so probably had a better idea of what he might go for.

[zollo]

Are authors now getting onto fantasy boards to explain their books and / or defend themselves from opinions / impressions (a tiny) part of their readership might have based upon having read one or more of said books? Someone pinch me.

Besides, as an author, if you feel you have to explain the motives of a book... something isn't right.

[Ran]

I think Scott certainly has the right to say, "This is what I intended, not that." I don't even see anything wrong with an author providing commentary on their own work, or discussing it, so long as it's clear that an author can only provide so much insight into the inner workings of their creativity and intellect, and how those relate to the broader context in which they write.

And to be utterly fair, I'm one of those who implied that one possible answer to the conundrum of gender depictions in Scott's work were that maybe he had issues with women. Which I stand by, in the sense that it could be an answer, if you just look at the text and try and figure out the whys and wherefors.

[Maia]

Wasn't Akka already in his forties in PoN? That would make "her" unsuitable for Kelhus's baby-making plans.

Matrim, I have repeatedly written what plausible uses for magic and what effects I see: better roads (particularly over mountains, where a little controlled destruction could go a long way), better or even new harbors ditto, enhancement of long distance trade through magical communication, accelerated developement of trade, banks, etc., much sooner advent of the Age of Exploration, as even controlled control over wind would make discovering trade routes much easier, etc.

[Finn]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1683353' date='Feb 11 2009, 13.41']I asked the above questions with a certain amount of frustration, yes, but [i]honestly[/i]. I apologize if I inadvertantly offended you, Finn.

In the meantime, my questions still stand.

scott/[/quote]


Sorry, I'm the one who needs to apologize. I wasn't offended in the least, and I also didn't sense the initial frustration on your part. And so I poked when maybe I shouldn't have. I did mean my parodic reversal of your post to be more tongue-in-cheek than you evidently took it. Tone is difficult sometimes in this medium.

At any rate, there was a serious point to my "poke." Look, I think your points about confirmation bias, etc, may very well be true *in general*. But I also think that it detracts from the legitimate give-and-take in discussions of this sort when someone suggests that those with whom he disagrees simply aren't seeing/thinking/interpreting clearly because they haven't bothered to think critically.

By and large, I think posters in this thread have given the series a serious reading and are offering cogent responses to it. I don't see all that much in the way of knee-jerk responses, and I certainly don't see anyone who is guilty of having "absolute faith in the in the universal veracity of . . . [his or her] individual interpretative perspective."

And once again - because I do have faith in the emoticon -
:cheers: