Bakker and Women

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677327' date='Feb 6 2009, 17.18']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.[/quote]

How did he "go out of his way" to do what your claim he's doing?

[Shryke]

[quote name='Maia' post='1677333' date='Feb 6 2009, 17.19']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?[/quote]

Please. This is sounding alot like the usual "It's fantasy, it doesn't have to make sense" bullshit.

If you want the differences between our world and the one in the book to effect gender roles, you have to have a reason for why they would.

Someone like Jordan supplies that reason. Other authors like Martin or Bakker, don't.

[Kalbear]

[quote]How did he "go out of his way" to do what your claim he's doing?[/quote]Why does Istrya - the queen mother of one of the largest empires in the world - need to use sex to control her son? There's no specific historical precedent for it. There's no real requirement in the story either; the emperor doesn't get manipulated particularly more or less because he's sex-crazed, he just dies when the Consult wants him to. There's no real motive to it that I can see.

So why have Istrya do it? Just to make her a creepy molestor? Ooookay...

[Maia]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1677337' date='Feb 6 2009, 17.23']Please. This is sounding alot like the usual "It's fantasy, it doesn't have to make sense" bullshit.[/quote]

On the contrary, it does have to make sense. Just haphazardly grabbing cool fantastical stuff from one's imagination and/or from one's literary predessors and lazily pasting it on historical events doesn't do it, though.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677344' date='Feb 6 2009, 17.29']Why does Istrya - the queen mother of one of the largest empires in the world - need to use sex to control her son? There's no specific historical precedent for it. There's no real requirement in the story either; the emperor doesn't get manipulated particularly more or less because he's sex-crazed, he just dies when the Consult wants him to. There's no real motive to it that I can see.

So why have Istrya do it? Just to make her a creepy molestor? Ooookay...[/quote]

Why not?

Like any monarch with absolute authority, almost all power stems from him and her ability to manipulate him is one of the keys to her position and power. On top of that, it's implied she's very used to using her looks and sexuality to manipulate those around her, so why wouldn't she use it again?

It's not like it's the ONLY way she does things. She seems to manipulate Conphas very well too, and that mostly through stroking his raging ego.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Maia' post='1677346' date='Feb 6 2009, 17.30']On the contrary, it does have to make sense. Just haphazardly grabbing cool fantastical stuff from one's imagination and/or from one's literary predessors and lazily pasting it on historical events doesn't do it, though.[/quote]

So instead we're going with the eevn more intellectually lazy:

Magic => Female Empowerment

[Kalbear]

[quote]Why not?

Like any monarch with absolute authority, almost all power stems from him and her ability to manipulate him is one of the keys to her position and power. On top of that, it's implied she's very used to using her looks and sexuality to manipulate those around her, so why wouldn't she use it again?[/quote]Oh, I understand that she does it. What I don't understand is why it was necessary to have the only woman in a position of power be there because of her looks and ability to fuck.

As you say, she can manipulate Conphas with some ego stroking (though she does a pretty spectacularly bad job of it). Why can't she do the same with her son? Why does she need to resort to penis stroking?

Again, Bakker's said that he's made a conscious decision to portray the three women in the book this way. I ask again - what point does this specifically serve?

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677174' date='Feb 6 2009, 15.58']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 [b]many other powers than sex alone.[/b] 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.[/quote]But this still seems to be the case in PoN. There is almost a weird inversion going on of characters. Esmi [i]had[/i] to whore herself, because that was her lower class profession, but upon leaving that profession and joining the crusade, she does not really use sex to get what she wants. Istrya is a powerful woman who should not need to use sex due to her place in society, but she does anyway because it is what served her well in her past. Serwe seems to come from that naive belief that sex can be used to get love, but she does not go around sleeping with everyone for the sake of manipulating them.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677369' date='Feb 6 2009, 17.41']Again, Bakker's said that he's made a conscious decision to portray the three women in the book this way. I ask again - what point does this specifically serve?[/quote]

To go along with all the other "generic fantasy roles" that populate the book.

I mean, think about it, you've got:

The Savior
The Wise Magic Tutor
The Barbarian Warrior
The Mad King/Emperor
etc

The book is full of these roles being filled. He deliberately puts them in there and then twists them around.

The Barbarian is probably one of the smartest, most clear thinking individuals in the series. Oh yeah, and gay.

The Savior doesn't even believe he is one and is, frankly, a fucking monster.

The Wise Tutor is a used up, middle-aged guy who's stuck in a shitty low-paying position with no room for advancement.

The Whore is one of the smartest people in the entire book and also avoids teh whole "Happy Whore" stereotype bullshit.

And so on.

[Kalbear]

The Molesting Grandmother is a fantasy archetype? Who knew?

[quote]But this still seems to be the case in PoN. There is almost a weird inversion going on of characters. Esmi had to whore herself, because that was her lower class profession, but upon leaving that profession and joining the crusade, she does not really use sex to get what she wants[/quote]Except she only gets what she wants by fucking Kellhus and having his kids, and the only reason he wants her is because she'll hopefully produce good babies.

Other than that oversight, I agree.

[Ran]

[quote]So, basically, tokenism.[/quote]

Do you even know what the word means?

I think Bakker would have done a better job of his stated goal of problematizing gender if he had not stuck as rigidly to the notion of "All women in the first trilogy will be sexual objects first and foremost."

By doing it the way he has, and by the unfortunate coincidence of doing something similar in his near-future thriller, he undermines his own stated arguments. He missed a trick, or he erred, or he's a secret misogynist in his heart of heart's, or what have you.

I don't think when he wanted people to argue about the issue that what he really wanted to see was one side shouting, "No, that's tokenism!" to every argument put forward.

[Shryke]

Except Kellhus also trusts her with alot of power. She's not just breeding stock.

Also, she doesn't use sex to achieve her position. She is chosen for her brains.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Ran' post='1677418' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.04']Do you even know what the word means?

I think Bakker would have done a better job of his stated goal of problematizing gender if he had not stuck as rigidly to the notion of "All women in the first trilogy will be sexual objects first and foremost."

By doing it the way he has, and by the unfortunate coincidence of doing something similar in his near-future thriller, he undermines his own stated arguments. He missed a trick, or he erred, or he's a secret misogynist in his heart of heart's, or what have you.

I don't think when he wanted people to argue about the issue that what he really wanted to see was one side shouting, "No, that's tokenism!" to every argument put forward.[/quote]

If you don't want it shouted, don't use it in your argument.

Explain how "more female characters should be present because I think their should be more female characters" ISN'T tokenism? (Or quota writing if you prefer)

[Larry.]

Since the title of this thread is "Bakker and Women" and since I imagine some reading this might like something humorous to break things up a bit...

[url="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2877/529/1600/Ad%20Astra.jpg"]Bakker and Women[/url]

Taken from [url="http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/interview-with-caitlin-sweet.html"]this interview[/url], which was I was editing for tags just now.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Except Kellhus also trusts her with alot of power. She's not just breeding stock.[/quote]Yeah, and as we find out in TJE,

SPOILER: TJE

it's because she's afraid of losing that power. There's a great feminist ideal for you.

[quote]Also, she doesn't use sex to achieve her position. She is chosen for her brains.[/quote]Kellhus doesn't care about that at all except that her intelligence makes her more likely to have smart babies. This is stated explicitly in the prologue

SPOILER: TJE

and reinforced in TJE.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677444' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.17']Yeah, and as we find out in TJE, it's because she's afraid of losing that power. There's a great feminist ideal for you.[/quote]

Kellhus trusted her with alot of power because she's afraid of losing that power? That doesn't even make sense.


[quote]Kellhus doesn't care about that at all except that her intelligence makes her more likely to have smart babies. This is stated explicitly in the prologue and reinforced in TJE.[/quote]

So what? Kellhus doesn't care about pretty much anyone.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

I hate you, Kal. Spoiler tags, you fuck.

Er. I mean. Please, kind sir, do me the kindness of using spoiler tags when referencing pretty much anything from TJE. At least until the US release date.

*pathetic puppy-dog eyes*

[Sheep the Evicted]

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1676792' date='Feb 6 2009, 17.56']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.[/quote]

Indeed, what's bothering me about this thread is that Bakker just put out a new addition to his series that shakes things up a little but no one seems to want to discuss it.

Despite my snide comments and largely unsympathetic character i agree with a lot of the issues being brought up in this thread - every woman in the original trilogy, when you really get down to it, is a defined by sex. I just don't think that claim is valid any more.

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1677065' date='Feb 6 2009, 20.13']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.[/quote]

Two of them where whores.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1677327' date='Feb 6 2009, 22.18']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.[/quote]

You've read TJE. So you don't agree that Bakkker has given you just what you asked for ?

[b]Also Jordan is a sexist ? I have searched for the thread but couldn't find anything. Anyone one want to help me out here. [/b]

[Jon AS]

[quote name='mormont']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]

I just don't think that speculating about the women Bakker [i]could[/i] have written is productive. If we want to discuss the portrayal of women in his work we should stick to the ones that are actually portrayed. If we want to criticise the scarcity of female characters in the first trilogy on principle, we edge uncomfortably close to that word which has been used so often in these discussions these last few days that it feels almost dirty: tokenism.

[quote name='mormont']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? ;)[/quote]

So, are you suggesting we use our amazing powers of telepathy to probe Bakker's subconscious? Because it seems to me that short of that we can only speculate as to the reasons.

To me, there is nothing missing from the story. Never while reading I found myself thinking: "This holy war business is all very interesting, but I sure wonder what the old slavewoman who cleans Conphas' clothes thinks about all this." I accepted, maybe naively, that Bakker had created and enormously sexist world and that on top of that the story was largely set in places where more prominent women would actually have been out of place, given the established gender roles in the Three Seas. I never thought to infer some conscious or subconscious agenda on the author's part because of this.

It should also be noted that the [i]Prince of Nothing[/i] trilogy is the first installment in a bigger series, and that the very first book of the second trilogy introduces quite a number of female characters, none of which are reduced to using sex as a tool. Some are members of an ancient and influential all-female religious order, others have Kellhus to thank for their improved status.

[Max the Mostly Mediocre]

[quote name='Sheep the Evicted' post='1677466' date='Feb 6 2009, 15.26']Indeed, what's bothering me about this thread is that Bakker just put out a new addition to his series that shakes things up a little but no one seems to want to discuss it.

Despite my snide comments and largely unsympathetic character i agree with a lot of the issues being brought up in this thread - every woman in the original trilogy, when you really get down to it, is a defined by sex. I just don't think that claim is valid any more.[/quote]

Great. I'll get back to you after the 19th.