Bakker and Women II

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688082' date='Feb 16 2009, 03.28']I think it's similarly narrow-minded to not try and understand exactly why these are uncomfortable to some people to the point where it isn't useful to read anymore because it's just too frustrating and painful.[/quote]So the novel successfully creates an alienating pre-modern world in which people would not want to use as for their idealized and romanticized fantasy escapism?

[quote name='Ran' post='1688083' date='Feb 16 2009, 03.33']And maybe some or all of that is untrue. But it's the impression that the setting leaves, because there are no hints that there are any exceptions. The 11th century is cited again and again, and yet it feels like a nightmare version of it . . . for women. For men, it "feels" a lot closer to the reality. But for women, it seems over the top, beyond what the stated setting ought to have.

Maybe women can inherit and rule in their own name. Maybe there is an Isabel of Conches or a Matilda of Tuscany out there. But it doesn't feel like there can be, and that's down to authorial choices.[/quote]Not in the highly limited scope of the world in which we have seen thus far. There are probably exceptions, perhaps even amongst the female nobility, but then they still remain an elite exception and not the norm. It is possible that Istriya could read, but if we saw that she could, it would certainly remove most of the emotional impact of Esmi's intellectual "liberation."

Honestly, I could have used having a fourth female character. Istriya and Serwe fall, while Esmi rises. But it would have been nice to have a fourth (one not defined so much by sex) who neither rises nor falls, but is simply left feeling desperately stuck in a status quo she cannot escape.

[Ran]

Indeed.

As I said way back: a missed opportunity. For a lot of writers, well, they're just missed. But here, the failure strikes me as more important and damaging to the author's stated purposes.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1688086' date='Feb 16 2009, 09.53']So the novel successfully creates an alienating pre-modern world in which people would not want to use as for their idealized and romanticized fantasy escapism?[/quote]


I think it is one of the most important reasons of the disconcerted feelings. Epic fantasy is a genre in which description usually equals endorsement. Basic readers assumptions typically are that authors describe the world as they believe it should be, whilst Scott explicitly does the opposite. I don't really get this, since I never read books for so defined escapism, but it seems to be the case. I certainly participated in several Tolkien vs Martin discussion where Tolkienists repeatedly said: "Martin sucks because I would never want to live in Westeros". Well, certainly nobody in their right mind would want to live in Earwa and this may explain at least some of gut-level negative reactions.

[Jon AS]

[quote name='Kalbear']I think it's similarly narrow-minded to not try and understand exactly why these are uncomfortable to some people to the point where it isn't useful to read anymore because it's just too frustrating and painful.[/quote]

I thought I had covered that in the same post: I understand where people are having problems with these books, because on some level [i]I have these very same problems[/i] (except for Athmails gripes about borrowing too closely from the Crusades, that is).


The narrow-mindedness enters when one side keeps asking the same question ("Why did Bakker set out to create a sexist world?") without acknowledging the answer ("Because he attempted to write a pre-modern world, which is, amongst other things, a sexist world.").


[quote name='Ran']one thing just about no one agrees with you on is throwing personal aspersions at Bakker.[/quote]

Except for Ran of course.:P

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Incidentally, I have tried to figure out why Istriya needed to use sex with her son. The only thing I can figure thus far is that it was a meta-decision used to disguise the point when Istriya becomes a skin-spy. If Istriya had no prior sex with her son, then his mother turning her voracious sexual desires on him would have seen even more odd of a plot development than normative incest would be and raise even more flags to the reader and the emperor.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1688096' date='Feb 16 2009, 10.18']Incidentally, I have tried to figure out why Istriya needed to use sex with her son. The only thing I can figure thus far is that it was a meta-decision used to disguise the point when Istriya becomes a skin-spy. If Istriya had no prior sex with her son, then his mother turning her voracious sexual desires on him would have seen even more odd of a plot development than normative incest would be and raise even more flags to the reader and the emperor.[/quote]


Yeah, it makes sense. It would mean author did it purely for plot reasons, without attaching any deeper significance to this particular fact.

[Kalbear]

[quote]So the novel successfully creates an alienating pre-modern world in which people would not want to use as for their idealized and romanticized fantasy escapism?[/quote] I really don't think that a book that tells people 'women are bad' and the feelings that this can engender in women is exactly the same as not a particularly happy intellectual vacation spot. If anything, I'd see it the other way. A lot of people have used this book as escapist happy literature; witness any PoN topic on how awesome Kellhus is. The people that have the biggest problems with it don't seem to be bothered by it being not another piece of escapist literature.

[quote]\
I thought I had covered that in the same post: I understand where people are having problems with these books, because on some level I have these very same problems (except for Athmails gripes about borrowing too closely from the Crusades, that is).[/quote]No, see, you're understanding why I might be having problems with this book. I don't think you understand or really can understand why Ghost of Nymeria is having a problem with it, or why Eef did.

[quote]The narrow-mindedness enters when one side keeps asking the same question ("Why did Bakker set out to create a sexist world?") without acknowledging the answer ("Because he attempted to write a pre-modern world, which is, amongst other things, a sexist world.").[/quote]Premodern is not necessarily sexist any more than it's racist. He chose not to make his God racist, right? He chose not to have some horrible anti-shrimp fetish thing going on. Both of these were parts of at least one premodern religion. Why not those and why sexism? You can say that it was because he wanted to create a premodern world, but that's not the whole answer - he chose to create a very specific type of premodern world with very specific morals that aren't necessarily shared with the historical background that he was mirroring. Was sexism common in premodernity? Yes, it was. So was slavery, so was racism, so were any number of things that Bakker didn't use.

So again I ask - why specifically sexism?

[Nerdanel]

In a place with an objective reality, even in Eärwa, the scientific method is possible, even if the science is psychology and the subjects are gods. Scientific method then allows the world be understood so that problems can be solved and life improved.

For all we know, whores would stop being damned if they stopped using whore's shells and switched to herbal abortificants that don't trap souls.

For all we know, the Cishaurim are not automatically damned but rather exalted. (Moënghus would be still damned anyway because he is so very evil.)

For all we know, the women would stop being spiritually inferior to men if they stopped being reproductive accessories and started actually using their brains.

The Tusk is likely an ancient text written on a branch of a dead tree. But science, even divine psychology in a world where supernatural is real, is never finished. Sticking to someone like Aristotle as the final world would be a huge mistake. Listening to someone like Kellhus and believing just because he panders to our desires for a nice and understandable world would be an even bigger mistake. It would be akin to being a Creationist in real life because evolution isn't nice enough. Putting one's head in the sand of unquestioned belief accomplishes nothing while sceptical inquiry is the way forward. This works even in a place like Eärwa, since science is not innately godless like its detractors say.

That's what I think the books will be going for.

[needle]

[quote]For all we know, the women would stop being spiritually inferior to men if they stopped being reproductive accessories and started actually using their brains.[/quote]

Do you [i]realise[/i] how that comes across?

[Nerdanel]

[quote name='needle' post='1688112' date='Feb 16 2009, 12.10']Do you [i]realise[/i] how that comes across?[/quote]

Well, that was probably too blunt, but then I'm a woman myself (and a feminist, in fact). So if the society loosened up some and the women took up the opportunity, it could be that suddenly women would be men's spiritual equals as the gods would see it.

[Jon AS]

[quote name='Kalbear']No, see, you're understanding why I might be having problems with this book. I don't think you understand or really can understand why Ghost of Nymeria is having a problem with it, or why Eef did.[/quote]

So you're saying that dialogue between the genders is pretty much useless as far as these books (and possibly the discussion of sexism as a whole) are concerned?

[quote name='Kalbear']Was sexism common in premodernity? Yes, it was. So was slavery, so was racism, so were any number of things that Bakker didn't use.[/quote]

The books are filled with slavery, religious intolerance and there is even racism apparent in the Nonman attitude towards humans. There are four distinct ethnic groups of humans in Eärwa: Norsirai, Ketyai, Satyothi and Scylvendi. All these groups clearly look down on each other, and there is also a certain amount of cultural snobbery within the specific ethnic groups. And let's not forget the genocide perpetrated by the four tribes on the Emwama.

Is this 19th/20th century racism, which was both a consequence and a reinforcing factor in European Imperialism? Clearly not, but I think it is in line with historical attitudes during the middle ages. I'm no expert though, so if you have counterexamples I'd be glad if you could point me in the right direction.

[john]

[quote name='Sophelia' post='1687840' date='Feb 16 2009, 01.46']So yes, I really don't understand (yet) how creating a world where women really *are* inferior, and in which the position of women is *worse* than in medieval RL (‘problematising’), is supposed to challenge the stereotypes. And since I can't see the payoff, I feel 'used'.[/quote]

OK, here's my take - I don't think Bakker is intending to make it "worse" for women in his world, or that reference needs to be made to medieval history at all. I think a feature of humanity is that we treat women as inferior, we treat it as a fact. Contempory life is based on this fact. Politics, law and commerce in their modern form were established in the 19th century and are based on the needs of men. Going back to medieval times gives you the belief in God and magic, the sexism remains the same. He's not talking about any period, he's talking about the human condition.

So Bakker sets out to write the inverse of a classic tale: the irrational man in an rational world. He's not writing about gender relations, they just provide an example of his point, which is that rationalisations and social conscience are illusory.

But there [i]are[/i] supernatural rules and to me it makes total sense that he should choose one that appears to the readers to be outrageously unfair. That's the whole theme - the superstitious, loving, sociable man finds the real world outrageous, things just happen for no reason! Bakker is writing the inverse of that.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1687849' date='Feb 16 2009, 02.05']Okay, we'll put it more bluntly. Why does God need to be sexist? Why is this part of the basic package but not (for example) racism, or shrimp?[/quote]

These are comparable, sure (people have strong feelings about shrimp). But, simply enough, it's not a big enough deal. Yes, that could alienate more readers but it makes his point more certainly. As far as the text goes, we don't know why things are fixed in Earwa, so at this stage I don't see why we would have the least generous interpretation.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1688096' date='Feb 16 2009, 11.18']Incidentally, I have tried to figure out why Istriya needed to use sex with her son. The only thing I can figure thus far is that it was a meta-decision used to disguise the point when Istriya becomes a skin-spy. If Istriya had no prior sex with her son, then his mother turning her voracious sexual desires on him would have seen even more odd of a plot development than normative incest would be and raise even more flags to the reader and the emperor.[/quote]


That may be, but that just means it hangs there, unexplained. As a plot device, it still needs a proper explanation and currently it has none. Istrya as she is described seems to strongly confirm that women only use sex to gain power and have nothing else. Even if it means breaking the strongest of human taboos for morsels of it.



[quote]So you're saying that dialogue between the genders is pretty much useless as far as these books (and possibly the discussion of sexism as a whole) are concerned?[/quote]

No, but "the other side" seem to have a very hard time understanding why we want to ask the question "Why is Earwa so sexist? What is the point? Is there a point?"

So far, nobody has been able to answer those questions in a satisfactory way. Nobody has been able to tell us what the point of making Earwa so incredibly sexist is. You know, all the layers and layers of subtext that apparently are in there, well we can't figure this one out. As it happens, nobody else can either, including the author himself.

[john]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1688145' date='Feb 16 2009, 11.52']No, but "the other side" seem to have a very hard time understanding why we want to ask the question "Why is Earwa so sexist? What is the point? Is there a point?"[/quote]

I think it's [i]literally[/i] sexist because that follows on from the basic premise. I think it's [i]practically[/i] sexist so it can ask questions about modernity and female empowerment and so on, that's been covered here already.

If you're asking why it is necessary to write a book showing sexism at all then I have no answer other than that I didn't find the purpose to be sexism, in fact showing it only enforced the idea of gender neutrality.

Things the books told me about our world - most of what we believe (including sexism) is rubbish.
Things the books told me about Earwa - Earwa is an unfair world.

[Maia]

[quote name='Ran' post='1688083' date='Feb 16 2009, 03.33']The 11th century is cited again and again, and yet it feels like a nightmare version of it . . . for women. For men, it "feels" a lot closer to the reality. But for women, it seems over the top, beyond what the stated setting ought to have.[/quote]

OK, I have to say that I have a big problem with the notion that Bakker's setting is somehow "realistic" for men or not conducive to (male) escapism. You can say that life sucked for the majority of common men in pre-modern times, but that's not who Bakker chose to concentrate on, is it? Not a common man to be seen among his important characters.

And the main trifecta of Kelhus/Akka/Cnäiur are powered up to 11 with supernatural abilities (yes, Cnäiur's fighting ability is completey fantastical). Clearly, realistic men aren't enough for Bakker.

He didn't only chose to diminish women in his setting (compared to RL history that wasn't all that congenial to them either), but he chose to enhance and elevate the men at the same time.

Also re: powerful women being exceptions, surely you realise that common men rising to power were also exceptions? More frequent exceptions perhaps, but nevertheless compared to what was typical, very rare ones. Yet somehow this became a beloved trope that is seldom questioned or criticized for it's lack of realism.

I find it funny that people have quoted Iliad as a comparison, BTW, because IMHO both it and Odyssey are head and shoulders above PoN in puncto empowered females, even though they are not the focus of the story. And it can't even be accused of PC-ness! I was actually struck by the thought that if depicting pro-active women in pre-modern settings is tokenism and romanticism, then it sure has a long and proud tradition ;).

[Nerdanel]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1688145' date='Feb 16 2009, 13.52']So far, nobody has been able to answer those questions in a satisfactory way. Nobody has been able to tell us what the point of making Earwa so incredibly sexist is. You know, all the layers and layers of subtext that apparently are in there, well we can't figure this one out. As it happens, nobody else can either, including the author himself.[/quote]

I think Eärwa is so incredibly sexist as a starting point. I think a central question in the series is the search for truth and justice and goodness, which includes a more equal situation for women. I think Kellhus represents a false answer, one rooted in lies and blind ideology that deals with unwanted facts by pretending they don't exist. I think a better answer based on the facts of the situation will emerge later on in the series.

Eärwa is not a static place. The First Apocalypse took place in a bronze age while iron is widely used in the present of the story. The primitive belief structure of the Tusk was modified by Inri Sejenus and then further changed by Fane. I think they all are incomplete views of the same greater truth, yet each an improvement over the last. I think all the metaphysical viewpoints presented in the stories are deep down compatible, although the one I put most credibility to is the Nonman view of Outside Influences. I think divinity in the books is very much a matter of definition, so what for a believer in the Tusk is a rather nasty god is for an Inrithi a rather nasty aspect of the God and is for a Fanim a rather nasty demon and for a Nonman a rather nasty Influence, and they are all correct.

I think Bakker is too afraid of spoilers to say that kind of thing outright...

[Ran]

Akka is not of the nobility, IIRC. But yes, he has his magic that makes him extraordinary.

I think that there are a lot more secondary male characters in the books than secondary female characters, and those are the ones who largely feel "right" -- the leaders of the crusade stand in fairly well for Robert of Flanders, Godfrey of Boilloun, and so on. They don't seem that much more extraordinary than those men, with all their flaws and their fanaticism and their reckless courage.

The depiction of the condition for men stands closer to the reality of the 11th century than the depiction of the condition for women does.

[Pierce Inverarity]

Ah, let the cranks have their say. Cranks crank. Too bad we couldn't hook light-bulbs up to them or something, save the environment a little grief.

Otherwise I find myself nodding or shaking my head so much while struggling to keep with this thread that I'm sure I look like a grinning bauble-head. All this strikes me as proof positive that aside from some privileged compositional insight, the author really has no say on the matter.

The 'Archie Bunker Effect' is a great way to analogize my worries on the topic.

When it comes to people not liking my characters, the reason is pretty straightforward, I think. It's a well-established (but unfortunately not well-known, since our educations systems assiduously avoid teaching our children anything about themselves and the weaknesses that will bedevil them for the entirety of their lives) fact that we are generally better at predicting the behaviour of others in moral situations than our own. This seems to be because we reflexively judge ourselves (and close loved ones) on our intentions, while we judge others according to their past actions. And of course, everybody but everybody has the 'best intentions.' What this means - and this is a pet theory of my own, mind you - is that we have a tendency to identify with characters that seem consonant with our own largely fantastic self-image. (Add to this things like the way we all seem to discount situational factors in our decision making and our self-image becomes out and out magical) Cormac McCarthy's father in [i]The Road[/i] is a great example of this, I think. Everyone else has become a cannibal, but not me and my boy.

I happen to despise these characters, which is why I people my books with the Other Guy. Just one more reason I'll never be a millionaire.

There seems to be a general consensus that 'running risks' in fiction is a good thing. But the naysayers all seem to think I'm running the wrong ones when it comes to gender. The irony, from my perspective, is that [i]this is what you get[/i] when you run the right risks - isn't it? Sophisticated debate that leaves everyone with somewhat revised positions.

Of course, very few people out-and-out change their mind: the combination of interpretative ambiguity and our cognitive shortcomings means that there's nothing to prevent us from continually convincing ourselves. This is what makes the small gains - the topical concessions, the deeper appreciation of the complexities involved, the mellowing of our intial commitment - so extraordinary.

Just to give you an example of how reflexively irrational we all are: when confronted with a cogent counter-argument from someone apparently as discerning as we are, the rational assumption to make is that, all things being equal, we are just as likely to be wrong as they are. But this never enters our head. Instead, research shows that when confronted with cogent counter-arguments we tend to become [i]more convinced[/i] of our position - because our argument has to be kick-ass when it so thoroughly kicks the competition's ass, doesn't it?

Which brings me to what I think is a striking argument from analogy (I apologize for being so longwinded, but it's a holiday in Canada today and my favourite coffee-shop doesn't open until late). Why choose gender as the ground for Kellhus's 'manipulative truths' and not race? I think the 'narrative efficiencies' of my choices speak for themselves (I was telling an upside down love story, after-all). But the fact is, while probing gender the way I did counts, I think, as a bona fide risk (because of all the ways my representations were certain to prime the interpretative biases of certain readers) doing the same thing with race would have made the books [i]unpublishable[/i]. No one would have touched them with a ten foot pole.

And we wouldn't be having this debate. You have to pick your battles. I'm not sure that the inevitable fact that my battles don't line up with the fights others are spoiling for really counts as a criticism of the books, so much as a difference in priorities.

scott/

[Pierce Inverarity]

And, yes, I AM afraid of spoilers. The series is only half-complete. I hope I've given the critics enough to stick with me, because it is going to be one crazy ass ride! Even if the wheel gives me 14 more lifetimes I'm not sure I could come up with something as awesome as I think this will be.

I admit it. I'm infatuated with my story. We've been married for about 25 years now...

[kuenjato]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1688253' date='Feb 16 2009, 07.54']And, yes, I AM afraid of spoilers. The series is only half-complete. I hope I've given the critics enough to stick with me, because it is going to be one crazy ass ride! Even if the wheel gives me 14 more lifetimes I'm not sure I could come up with something as awesome as I think this will be.

I admit it. I'm infatuated with my story. We've been married for about 25 years now...[/quote]


As long as you don't cave in to the politically correct expectations / tokenism that's flitted up from time to time... :read:

What's really important, though: when can we expect [i]TWW?[/i] Even a rough estimate.... ? :read: