Bakker and Women

[Kalbear]

[quote]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.[/quote]Okay, so only the moderator of the board was accusing Bakker of being a sexist. My bad. :P

[Larry.]

I still think I'd rather Scott make up his eternally doubt-ridden mind and start a blog where he could make a weekly post or so on a particular topic, let his readership battle it out, with only occasional commentary there. After all, there are several close races in the NHL right now that I'm sure he'd rather talk about at length as opposed to other topics ;)

And Kalbear,

As for not providing "concrete examples," there's a reason why I'd rather make a hint and let others follow along with it (or not): I knew beforehand much of what Scott would have had to say on the issue regarding "certainties." Go back and pay close attention to the hints I gave, if you so desire (don't blame you if you didn't, however). I've met him in person, conducted or help conduct four interviews and some Q&As and over the course of almost five years, I got to know enough of what he was arguing to know that claiming one is "certain" on any particular issue regarding his work would be akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull.

But since "concrete examples" are wanted, pardon me if I start by mentioning another author, one Vladimir Nabokov. This Russian immigrant wrote a rather unsettling novel, [i]Lolita[/i] I believe it was called, that was told from the PoV of a child molestor. Many hailed the novel as a masterpiece, others condemned Nabokov for "glorifying" perverts like Humbert and glossing over the suffering that victims of child sexual abuse suffer. Which side is more "correct"?

Yes, the role of women in Scott's story is not a glorious one. Yes, they are often abused, mistreated, and viewed in ways that are quite alien to those of us living on the other side of the Enlightenment. Yes, it is worthy to ponder if the messages carried in these books is clear and concise enough. But it would be wise to consider each of those points with a healthy heaping of self-skepticism. Don't kill the messenger for the message perceived. Don't conflate the story with the author. That's why I quoted that passage from Stendhal's novel, in hopes that rather than stating baldly that some were attacking the author more than the story, that some would think about it and draw their own conclusions and thus react in their own ways.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Eloisa' post='1682898' date='Feb 11 2009, 10.45']1) [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showt...ntry1662067"]Yes[/url]. Equally, there is still a plethora of non-positive representations of women, whether as eye candy, as tokens or as pawns: it is vastly, vastly easier for a male reader to find a book containing a positive representation of his gender than a female reader.

2) There is also a more specific problem with stories containing "positive representations of women" by people regarded as "great authors". One "problem" with the females in PoN that I didn't mention earlier is that you're generally regarded as one of the stunningly good authors out there despite the fact that you write only women whose lives are made crap by the men around them. Male fans don't point and laugh at the rampant misogyny, or see past it to the subtext that you may just be making fun of them; they lap it up - and women are prepared to ignore it, though it makes reading difficult, because we're used to it. [b]If I wrote a book in which all the men were oppressed, however technically accomplished it was, I wouldn't get any male readers.[/b] You're still getting some female readers.[/quote]

What makes you think this?

I mean, your whole problem both in this thread and the other is that you seem to feel an author is OBLIGED to provide good female role models in his/her books.

It strikes me as the exact same thing Scott's editor was talking about. "We need that empowered female character!"

[Kalbear]

[quote]As for not providing "concrete examples," there's a reason why I'd rather make a hint and let others follow along with it (or not): I knew beforehand much of what Scott would have had to say on the issue regarding "certainties."[/quote]Do you talk with your friends this ambiguously as well?

Some times it's just acceptable to share your opinion and state it clearly and concisely. Especially on a message board where there are no nonverbal cues.

[quote]But it would be wise to consider each of those points with a healthy heaping of self-skepticism. Don't kill the messenger for the message perceived. Don't conflate the story with the author.[/quote]I think it's also reasonable to state this: don't conflate the criticism of the art with the criticism of the artist. Don't conflate the criticism of the message with criticism of the messenger.

In any case, I'm sorry if I offended you, Scott. I clearly hit a nerve, and that wasn't meant. I don't think that I am the sole arbiter of the opinion on the book, nor do I think that I am necessarily correct. I've not seen a compelling argument towards my statements; the best I've seen is that this was a purposeful decision. But if I did actually criticise you, the person, Scott, I apologize.

[quote]It strikes me as the exact same thing Scott's editor was talking about. "We need that empowered female character!"[/quote]I think that a reason an editor might suggest that (other than selling more books) is that without one, having a world where all women are horribly oppressed can send the wrong message.

[Larry.]

It's a bad habit of mine, as I teach for a living and I've been indoctrinated not to lecture to the students whenever possible, but instead to present problems for them and give them only enough hints to put all the pieces together. I'll try to do better in the future.

[Finn]

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1683417' date='Feb 11 2009, 14.39']As for not providing "concrete examples," there's a reason why I'd rather make a hint and let others follow along with it (or not)[/quote]

Ah, but if one is to master truly the art of smug condescension . . .
But I've said enough already. It is better to let you find your own way.

;)

[Larry.]

Hrmm...let me think, let me think a bit on this...got it!

I have to study from a master of it, right? :P

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683426' date='Feb 11 2009, 17.48']I think that a reason an editor might suggest that (other than selling more books) is that without one, having a world where all women are horribly oppressed can send the wrong message.[/quote]

And this is what I don't get. What message? It's not like it's ever shown as being a GOOD thing or anything. It simply IS within the setting.

It reminds me of what you said earlier:
[quote]While you have any number of justifications for writing Esmi as a whore (and I largely agree with them), at the end of the day you're writing yet another fantasy novel where the lead woman is a whore. You know this, you use it purposely, and then you wonder why people have issue with it - wasn't that your point?[/quote]

Why SHOULD people have issues with it?

It's like this strange idea that a story must have characters that reflect and exalt our own ideas of what's moral. And if it doesn't, it's a bad thing.

I mean, as I said before, it's not like the story's saying that this is a good thing. It's simply showing life in a certain way. And apparently for many people, showing life as not being happy and unsexist and unracist is bad.

"Your main female character is a whore. This is bad, even if it makes perfect sense within the context of the story, because <blank>"

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683068' date='Feb 12 2009, 04.38']Neuropath spoilers.[/quote]

Bitch

I was probably asking for I suppose, still, its not exactly out in all that many places yet.

[Mackaxx]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683203' date='Feb 12 2009, 06.32']at the end of the day you're writing yet another fantasy novel where the lead woman is a whore.[/quote]

Is this really as commonplace as you say, to be honest I can't think of any fantasy novels where the lead woman is a whore. I've read quite a few and whenever there is a female lead I can't recall any being whores. I'm sure there are some of course. But how many [i]lead[/i] female characters are there who are whoring whores who whore.

To be honest a lot of female leads that I come across seem more to be a case of positive discrimination, tokenism, etc, certainly not whores.

Edit

To add, it seems whenever we have a female character in a fantasy series people get pretty offended when sexual things come up. [b]Ash[/b] is a good example of this, the lead characters rape is described in the first chapter of the book. Now, this book is thousands of pages long and has a really well written female lead and equally well written female supports. Thing is in this forum I can remember that what people got hung up on was the rape scene, screw the rest of the thousand page tome with all its blood and thunder, lets talk about the rape bit at the start. Reader bias at its finest. [b]Sundial in a grave [/b]had something similar and again high horses were mounted.

[Serious Callers Only]

No, noooo. Sundial in a grave had a 14 year old cross dressing tom-boy (almost) taking it up the ass, and enjoying it. Slightly different.

By the way anyone read Ilario: The Lion's Eye yet?

[Tears of Lys]

[quote name='Zollo' post='1683382' date='Feb 11 2009, 17.03']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.[/quote]

I don't know if that's true. Artists have felt the need to explain their works for a long while now. And sometimes their critics have had some influence on the artists' future works.

I personally think there's nothing to explain and if I were Bakker I'd just say, "I meant what I meant, so arse off." :P

[Kalbear]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1683448' date='Feb 11 2009, 15.02']And this is what I don't get. What message? It's not like it's ever shown as being a GOOD thing or anything. It simply IS within the setting.

It reminds me of what you said earlier:


Why SHOULD people have issues with it?

It's like this strange idea that a story must have characters that reflect and exalt our own ideas of what's moral. And if it doesn't, it's a bad thing.

I mean, as I said before, it's not like the story's saying that this is a good thing. It's simply showing life in a certain way. And apparently for many people, showing life as not being happy and unsexist and unracist is bad.

"Your main female character is a whore. This is bad, even if it makes perfect sense within the context of the story, because <blank>"[/quote]On the main female character is a whore: the reason this may be bad is because it's been given a very justified stigma as a copout for writing women as a man when they don't have any real idea of how to relate to a woman. Or worse, that this is how they truly view women. It's especially bad in the fantasy/sci-fi setting, as for whatever reason whores seem to be commonplace. That isn't to say it's always a bad thing, just that it can be - and it can easily be construed as more of the same. The earlier linked article had a good discussion about it.

But in general - when a large chunk of books view women as valuable only for their ability to fuck, there's a problem.

On the in general point: it's not bad that you're showing a horrible world that doesn't have modern sensitivities. It's not even necessarily bad that you're showing one that's worse than modern or medieval sensibilities. It's that Bakker went out of his way to create a world where women were more oppressed than they have been in most of human history (and certainly more than the period of the First Crusade that it borrows from). If you create such a misogynistic world and then populate it with stereotypical misogynistic female roles such as the whore, the harridan, and the prize, a reasonable interpretation is that [i]you have something against women[/i]. I mean, you've written a fantasy about female subjugation, where women are [i]objectively[/i] worse than men.

This may not send the message that it is bad or immoral or that it isn't the author's views; point of fact it may very well send the opposite message.

Is it necessarily a problem? No, not really. But if your goal is to show how women are superior but only are held down by a patriarchy that covets them, one possible misstep would be to make the world so that it actively subjugates and damns them. It's hard to see how women would be objectively superior to men and objectively damned.

[Ran]

Mack,

Are you sure about Ash and A Sundial in a Grave getting those responses around here? Moreso the latter than the former.I don't recall anyone saying anything about Sundial in that sense.

Ash, I can see some knee-jerk reactions to it due to that opening scene. That said, the fact that she kills her mutilators and rapists at the tender age of 8 immediately afterwards kind of suggests this isn't your standard rape scene.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683376' date='Feb 11 2009, 16.59']Make him unable to have babies as part of the Gnosis or the Mandate. [b]Heck, you could reasonably say that the use of sorcery destroyed the ability to have children,[/b] 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.[/quote]Then how does Kellhus get his superbabies?

[quote name='Maia' post='1683402' date='Feb 11 2009, 17.20']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.[/quote]Did any of this appear economically viable given the metaphysical nature of magic? From my reading of the magic, none of this would have been the most efficient uses of magical capital or terribly plausible given the nature of magic. There were not nearly enough sorcerers to make it a marketable enterprise. The high religious stigma associated with the profession would also keep this from being a frequently explored venue as a profession or to be employed by others for the purposes you listed. Nor did the imaginations of the people of Earwe really see sorcery as anything but a blunt destructive instrument. Nor would I imagine that sorcerers would want to use their magic for such purposes. It would be as intellectually insulting as calling in a professor of astrophysics for a job in a demolition crew to operate a wrecking-ball.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Then how does Kellhus get his superbabies?[/quote]Sorry if it wasn't clear - I meant destroy the ability to carry a child, not to procreate. And Kellhus being the kwizatch haderach of the Gnosis (one reason to not make the Mandate this, I suppose) could make him simply above and beyond that.

Or a simpler choice: Akka is old. :P

[quote]Nor did the imaginations of the people of Earwe really see sorcery as anything but a blunt destructive instrument. Nor would I imagine that sorcerers would want to use their magic for such purposes. It would be as intellectually insulting as calling in a professor of astrophysics for a job in a demolition crew to operate a wrecking-ball.[/quote]I'm not sure this is true. Akka frequently laments that sorcerers are there only for destruction. I think that a number of sorcerers would be happy being able to interact with the world magically that is not specifically and solely destructive.

As for the imagination, I'd imagine that similar to what happens in the US would happen in Earwa; military necessity and imagination would supply the need, which would eventually trickle down to civilian use. Sorcery's been around for over 2000 years now, after all. Imagine 2000 years where no one even thinks about digging a hole in a mountain, or using it for excavation, or road-building, or anything like that. It's as odd as spending 8000 years at a technological plateau.

[Mackaxx]

The Ash thing was actually from one of my first posts on the board, the old board in fact. Being one of my initial posts it wasn't exactly subtle and shenanigans ensued. In respect to sundial in a grave what drew criticism was the raped persons interactions with Fludd after the rape. To be honest I think the heated debate about that happened in chat actually (thankfully its not all back slapping in there), not on the board. Ash was discussed a bit too there.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683527' date='Feb 12 2009, 11.08']On the main female character is a whore: the reason this may be bad is because it's been given a very justified stigma as a copout for writing women as a man when they don't have any real idea of how to relate to a woman. Or worse, that this is how they truly view women. It's especially bad in the fantasy/sci-fi setting, as for whatever reason whores seem to be commonplace. That isn't to say it's always a bad thing, just that it can be - and it can easily be construed as more of the same. The earlier linked article had a good discussion about it.[/quote]

It's a pretty big stretch to say that a lot of authors may view women as whores, at least in fantasy. I'm not going to argue that its the case in a lot of religious serious business stuff though. It seems to me that a lot of readers view women who use sex as a tool negatively, that this makes them whores. Somehow this is also seen to be worse than those who use big swords to kill each other and the odd infant. Somehow its worse than the fellas being ok with this and carrying on doing it without question.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683527' date='Feb 12 2009, 11.08']But in general - when a large chunk of books view women as valuable only for their ability to fuck, there's a problem.[/quote]

I blame the bible personally, maybe Gorean fantasy as well.

Sillyness aside I think that your belief that the genre mostly having women there only for their ability to fuck isn't reflected in a lot of the books i've read in said genre. When I look at my bookshelf in all honesty I don't see that many. I'm going to go out on a limb and say bullshit. Modern fantasy is WAAAAAAY more full of tokenistic badly written female heroines. This bias you mention is bollocks.


[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683527' date='Feb 12 2009, 11.08']If you create such a misogynistic world and then populate it with stereotypical misogynistic female roles such as the whore, the harridan, and the prize, a reasonable interpretation is that [i]you have something against women[/i]. I mean, you've written a fantasy about female subjugation, where women are [i]objectively[/i] worse than men.[/quote]

No, its not a reasonable interpretation. The women do not exist in a vacuum, it takes the men to enforce the bias and they are portrayed in a far from flattering manner.

Saying that because someone writes about something negative means they endorse it is ridiculous, Lolita springs to mind, as do aspects of A Clockwork Orange. It's like saying Schindlers list was anti semetic. It is simply not an reasonable interpretation.


[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683527' date='Feb 12 2009, 11.08']It's hard to see how women would be objectively superior to men and objectively damned.[/quote]

Watch the news sometime. Its not that hard to see at all.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Sillyness aside I think that your belief that the genre mostly having women there only for their ability to fuck isn't reflected in a lot of the books i've read in said genre. When I look at my bookshelf in all honesty I don't see that many. I'm going to go out on a limb and say bullshit. Modern fantasy is WAAAAAAY more full of tokenistic badly written female heroines. This bias you mention is bollocks.[/quote]Didn't say there weren't. I said there were a large number of books out there that fit this. And there are - and a lot more than the fantasy genre. And whores are fairly commonplace in the fantasy genre. This isn't really anecdotal; there's been plenty of study to go along with it. Go check out the earlier link.

[quote]No, its not a reasonable interpretation. The women do not exist in a vacuum, it takes the men to enforce the bias and they are portrayed in a far from flattering manner.[/quote]Except in Earwa, where women are objectively worse. It doesn't require men to enforce this so much as go along with it. And why wouldn't they? When they have people with the ability to see the damnation of women (and not of men), they can actually experience women for being worse.

[quote]Saying that because someone writes about something negative means they endorse it is ridiculous, Lolita springs to mind, as do aspects of A Clockwork Orange. It's like saying Schindlers list was anti semetic. It is simply not an reasonable interpretation.[/quote]So John Norman writing about women liking bondage and submission was just a lark, then? Goodkind writing about Objectivism isn't at all personally motivated? The Fountainhead? Etc, etc. Now it's less reasonable because of the tone; nowhere is Earwa presented as all happiness and light. At the same time, if someone writes a brutal violent rape fantasy, it's not odd to think that they may have issues about women.

It's not always accurate, but it's not unreasonable. I don't think that it's the case, but I can absolutely see how others could get that message.

[quote]Watch the news sometime. Its not that hard to see at all.[/quote]I don't understand this at all. Earwa is a place where women are objectively damned. The metaphysics of the world dictate that they are going to hell. This isn't some random pope telling them that they're part of original sin; this is the universe saying they are less. This is something measurable and observable. This isn't some claptrap about how women get better grades on average and get paid less. This is the notion that women are somehow better than men and simultaneously damned to go to hell because they're women. This doesn't really ring true to me; how can you be better than someone else because of your sex and be damned because of your sex?

[Sebastian]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1683371' date='Feb 11 2009, 22.56']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]
I think it was made clear in the books that Esmi is more intelligent than Akka. I remember a scene showing Akka frustrated because he knows she is more clever than him and, as a woman, she [i]shouldn't[/i] be.

[kuenjato]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683527' date='Feb 11 2009, 17.08']On the main female character is a whore: the reason this may be bad is because it's been given a very justified stigma as a copout for writing women as a man when they don't have any real idea of how to relate to a woman. Or worse, that this is how they truly view women. [b]It's especially bad in the fantasy/sci-fi setting, as for whatever reason whores seem to be commonplace. [/b]That isn't to say it's always a bad thing, just that it can be - and it can easily be construed as more of the same. The earlier linked article had a good discussion about it.

On the in general point: it's not bad that you're showing a horrible world that doesn't have modern sensitivities. It's not even necessarily bad that you're showing one that's worse than modern or medieval sensibilities. It's that Bakker went out of his way to create a world where women were more oppressed than they have been in most of human history (and certainly more than the period of the First Crusade that it borrows from). If you create such a misogynistic world and then populate it with stereotypical misogynistic female roles such as the whore, the harridan, and the prize, a reasonable interpretation is that [i]you have something against women[/i]. I mean, you've written a fantasy about female subjugation, where women are [i]objectively[/i] worse than men.[/quote]

What? What epic fantasy books have you been reading to make that statement? As far as I remember, prostitutes do not appear in the works of Williams, Brooks, Jordan (ok, maybe there is one among the 1800 characters??) Modesset, Donaldson, the Dragonlance books, Eddings, and any number of mainstream fantasy series. As in, no mention whatsoever. Ok, there are a few exceptions: Conan and his 'wenches' (usually warrior women); I'm sure Goodkind probably threw some in for "moral lessons" (never read his work beyond book 1); Haydon had her main character as a prostitute who then magically became a virgin (Mary Sue-ism at its worst) - then we have more 'modern' fantasy writers like Martin, Erikson and Lynch, who dabble here and there with the topic but, aside from Erikson, do not have a prominant (or any) POV as a prostitute.

More importantly, prostitution was and is [i]extremely [/i]common., in all societies, going back to pre-civilization, when sex was traded for food.

I guess I disagree, in that I see Esmenet as a sympathetic character, much moreso than the happy whores of Martin or Lynch.

EDIT: I see from above that you're not just refering to the epic fantasy genre. My ignorance may show through, as I do not read the slash genres.