Bakker and Women II

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688436' date='Feb 16 2009, 13.51']Decius, there's a difference between not satisfying readers because of (writing style, themes, writing ability, subject matter that's not interesting) and actively alienating the readers you're trying to make a point about.[/quote]

I wouldn't assume that this thread represents the whole audience for the book in a microcosm. Not even close.

I know plenty of women I've recommeneded it too who really enjoyed it, or didn't enjoy it because of completely unrelated reasons (ones biggest compaing was the abrupt ending).

Basically, saying "It turns off women with all the sexism" is completely unsupported for anything past individual cases here.


[quote]And none of that really explains why all the women in the book are sex objects.[/quote]

They aren't, but we've already had this discussion.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Basically, saying "It turns off women with all the sexism" is completely unsupported for anything past individual cases here.[/quote]I don't think it's unsupported. Clearly Bale and others liked it fine or thought it wasn't that big a deal. And also equally clearly others did not and did think it was that big a deal. I don't claim that all women dislike Bakker or his writing since that's demonstrably false, but I don't think it's out of the realm of thought to say that a lot of women did have issues with these things. It's all anecdotal at this point anyway, so it can't be particularly proven. It's just something to consider, and a more interesting question arises: why is this allowable but race or some other bugaboo (religion, perhaps) not?

This would have been a similarly interesting troll had it been about Islam as the analogy. I think that it would have gotten a similar reaction to what Dan Simmons did a while back.

[quote]They aren't, but we've already had this discussion.[/quote]Sorry, all the main female characters are. My bad.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688481' date='Feb 16 2009, 14.33']There's a very distinct difference between asking this about historical values and trying to find the origin of premodern sexism, and asking why an author chose to make women objectively inferior because the actual existing God says they are.[/quote]I think it would be to explore how truly damning and deplorable such a world with such metaphysical worldview would be were it objectively true.

[JGP]

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1688492' date='Feb 16 2009, 12.44']I think it would be to explore how truly damning and deplorable such a world with such metaphysical worldview would be were it objectively true.[/quote]

I agree, but were that the case would it actually be that much worse than what was and what is, beside actual damnation?

[Nerdanel]

I find the complaints about the books being disrespectful to Jesus rather funny, since Kellhus is obviously (to me) supposed to be [i]the Antichrist[/i]. He's evil and charismatic and takes over the world. I think I have also noticed evidence that he is knowingly on the side of the No-God by the end of PoN. Having a black goatee, a pair of little horns, and a 666 tattooed on his forehead aren't on the list of requirements.

I think people have been spoiled by movie villains. Very few people would have followed Kellhus if he hadn't disguised his true nature in order to manipulate people. Not even Serwë would have liked him then.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1688495' date='Feb 16 2009, 14.51']I agree, but were that the case would it actually be that much worse than what was and what is, beside actual damnation?[/quote]Could you elaborate please? I think I may know what you are asking, but I would rather be safe before answering.

Like Ran, I am more inclined of the opinion that Bakker missed an opportunity that could have helped balance the scales and clarify his work. He could have still explored the waif, whore, slave, tinker, tailor, soldier, sailor archetypes, but he could have used an additional neutral, non-sexualized female character to help draw more comparison between the rise of Esmi and the fall of Serwe and Istriya. Such a character could have helped facilitate a better window into his world for female readers. ETA: It perhaps would have been interesting if this hypothetical character had been a female capable of being one of the Few.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688486' date='Feb 16 2009, 14.39']I don't think it's unsupported. Clearly Bale and others liked it fine or thought it wasn't that big a deal. And also equally clearly others did not and did think it was that big a deal. I don't claim that all women dislike Bakker or his writing since that's demonstrably false, but I don't think it's out of the realm of thought to say that a lot of women did have issues with these things. It's all anecdotal at this point anyway, so it can't be particularly proven. It's just something to consider, and a more interesting question arises: why is this allowable but race or some other bugaboo (religion, perhaps) not?[/quote]

Because racism is a touchier subject. That's just the truth when it comes to the real world. Sexism is more acceptable then racism.

[quote]Sorry, [b]all the main female characters are[/b]. My bad.[/quote]

Yes, the bolded part, definitely your bad.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1688509' date='Feb 16 2009, 15.07']Because racism is a touchier subject. That's just the truth when it comes to the real world. [b]Sexism is more acceptable then racism.[/b][/quote]I think this is what Kalbear and others are partially upset about, but that reality delves into Happy Ent's frequent mentioning of the "what [i]ought[/i], what [i]is[/i]" fallacy.

[needle]

[quote]Sexism is more acceptable then racism.[/quote]

This.

And you, Shryke, have repeatedly said you don't understand [i]why we gals have a problem?[/i] When [i]the author[/i] has admitted it would be unpublishable if the focus was Race, not Sexism? Happy Ent said he 'understood' but didn't agree it was a problem? Shit, this makes me want to rant. Quite a lot. But respecting the tone of the thread so far, I won't.

[quote]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 more convinced of our position - because our argument has to be kick-ass when it so thoroughly kicks the competition's ass, doesn't it?[/quote]

I'd disagree with this, I am afraid. There's been a few mind changes throughout this thread. People are capable of changing their mind - people have done it here. I've actually changed my partner's mind about these books, and in turn had my own mind changed. It may be difficult, but it's certainly not impossible.This is perhaps an example of the nihilistic lack of free will that personifies your work that women, in particular find difficult to take - the inevitability of subjection and inferiority unless forces way beyond our, and anyone elses, direct control takes a hand.

I don't know why I'm still talking in this thread - I'm almost talked out. And I'm not familiar enough with the books to truly argue it, it having been so long since I read them. Good debate though, on the whole.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Because racism is a touchier subject. That's just the truth when it comes to the real world. Sexism is more acceptable then racism.[/quote]Arguing 'that's because it is' is a pretty lame argument. But it's not for Bakker's thread, that I agree.
[quote]Yes, the bolded part, definitely your bad.[/quote]Okay - it was the author's intent that they were all sex objects, and that's the interpretation of a lot of people out there. If you don't think that Bakker got it right and somehow made his female archetypical characters not sex objects despite that being his intent, I guess that's your prerogative.
[quote]I think this is what Kalbear and others are partially upset about, but that reality delves into Happy Ent's frequent mentioning of the "what ought, what is" fallacy.[/quote]It's a side point, I think. I guess the question I'd ask is this: why does Bakker need to specifically try and offend? It sounds like he considered using racism but threw it out because it wouldn't get out there, so it seems like he wanted to create some reaction, right?

So if the goal is just creating an affecting tale, that's one way to do it.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='needle' post='1688545' date='Feb 16 2009, 15.30']This.

And you, Shryke, have repeatedly said you don't understand [i]why we gals have a problem?[/i] When [i]the author[/i] has admitted it would be unpublishable if the focus was Race, not Sexism? Happy Ent said he 'understood' but didn't agree it was a problem? Shit, this makes me want to rant. Quite a lot. But respecting the tone of the thread so far, I won't.[/quote]I would probably then be inclined to say that it is more indicative of a social problem rather than simply a defect of the book or writer, especially when the writer indicates that he would have explored either one or the other or possibly even both.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688547' date='Feb 16 2009, 15.32']It's a side point, I think. I guess the question I'd ask is this: why does Bakker need to specifically try and offend? It sounds like he considered using racism but threw it out because it wouldn't get out there, so it seems like he wanted to create some reaction, right?

So if the goal is just creating an affecting tale, that's one way to do it.[/quote]Alienating modernity? I feel like we keep circling around this point. He is writing about a world and a series of worldviews that modernity escaped from. Perhaps it was never this bad (all at once) in a given society, but since Bakker does not have all the time in the world to explore the pre-modernity of Earwe through the ages, he concentrates it into a specific time period, the middle age period that is frequently romanticized by modern fantasy.

[Kalbear]

[quote]Alienating modernity? I feel like we keep circling around this point.[/quote]I don't know if that's alienating modernity though. Is being rude alienating modernity? Is being a sociopath? I don't think that it hurts people because it is antithetical to modern viewpoints so much as it's promoting viewpoints that still exist and harm people.

I'm now very much hoping for a classic revenge tale wherein Akka decides that the Outside really is the problem and goes and kills it.

ETA: as to racism and whether or not it could be done - well, something similar was done in [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Iron_Dream"]The iron dream[/url] 36 years ago. And even then, being hugely ironic in nature it really missed the mark with a few people (like the German government) and got cherished by skinheads.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688578' date='Feb 16 2009, 16.04']I don't know if that's alienating modernity though. Is being rude alienating modernity? Is being a sociopath? I don't think that it hurts people because it is antithetical to modern viewpoints [b]so much as it's promoting viewpoints[/b] that still exist and harm people.[/quote]??? Where are you getting that idea?

I do not think that the book is setting out to being rude or where you are getting that impression. Bakker is not Bill O'Reilly here nor does he share his views. Bakker is again setting about to alienate the backwards looking modern reader from a darkened blurry reflection of our past worldviews. I think that if you were to read the Romantic Fantasy genre, you would have a much better idea of what Bakker seems to be writing against. Bakker's fantasy is in a bizarre way almost written as an anti-fantasy.

ETA: Kalbear, I did expand my point a bit more in my post above. Also in regards to The Iron Dream, on your link, fellow author Ursala Le Guin seemed to get as well as other literary critics. The fact that the American Nazi Party did not get the satirical nature could almost be a subject of satire in itself.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688578' date='Feb 16 2009, 22.04']I don't know if that's alienating modernity though. Is being rude alienating modernity? Is being a sociopath? I don't think that it hurts people because it is antithetical to modern viewpoints so much as it's promoting viewpoints that still exist and harm people.[/quote]


So writing controversial books is now be considered rude or even sociopathic? I have never heard of a book which wouldn't offend someone (remember those Harry Potter burnings?), so who will get to decide what should and should not be acceptable?

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688578' date='Feb 16 2009, 22.04']I'm now very much hoping for a classic revenge tale wherein Akka decides that the Outside really is the problem and goes and kills it.[/quote]


If we go into crazy theories territory, I now consider Gotterdammerung the most likely ending of all I can think of.

[Kalbear]

[quote]??? Where are you getting that idea?[/quote]Promoting is perhaps a bad word, in the sense that it implies authorial ownership and backing. Not discouraging? Not condemning? I'm not sure. It's not exactly discussing, because it's what the basis of the world is.

[quote]I do not think that the book is setting out to being rude or where you are getting that impression. Bakker is not Bill O'Reilly here nor does he share his views. Bakker is again setting about to alienate the backwards looking modern reader from a darkened blurry reflection of our past worldviews.[/quote]I think that's true - but I also think that what he chose alienates some people in a very different way.

We do keep coming back and forth to this, but I'll try again. The subtext is that the historical world did suck for women, it was misogynistic and brutal and sexist. Another is the notion that economic gain, not social improvements, was the real reason for more egalitarian morals and female empowerment (I think this is a bit shallow; a lot of the woman's gains in rights came about because of some well-timed wars, and the rights of women were not as Maia pointed out required to make them factory workers, but that's yet another discussion). It's showing the base stereotypes of common romantic fantasies and illustrating how unreal they really are.

But the text is having all the women characters be archetypical sex objects, the world objectively valuing women as worse than men, having few women in any places of power (or really even on screen or mentioned), and that men are the only thing that can empower a woman (and they'll do so not because of the woman's merit, but because she'll produce good offspring) - and all of these things are very typical of the fantasy/sci-fi genre (or really, of all genres). If anything (as we pointed out with Iliad/LotR) Earwa is actually worse than a lot of them. I realize this is purposeful and is trying to make a point, but it makes it no less difficult to read.

[quote]So writing controversial books is now be considered rude or even sociopathic? I have never heard of a book which wouldn't offend someone (remember those Harry Potter burnings?), so who will get to decide what should and should not be acceptable?[/quote]No, that's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that writing something to get a rise out of people is not necessarily the same as writing something to 'alienate modern sensibilities'. If it's your goal to alienate modern sensibilities and you do this by reminding people about how bad [i]modern [/i]life actually is for them, did you succeed?

I'm saying that there are plenty of works that alienate modern feelings. They're hugely popular as escapist fantasy; look at how successful things like Stephen King is, or how big a 'hero' Hannibal Lecter is. Doing this does not require much, even in high fantasy.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688599' date='Feb 16 2009, 16.21']Promoting is perhaps a bad word, in the sense that it implies authorial ownership and backing. Not discouraging? Not condemning? I'm not sure. It's not exactly discussing, because it's what the basis of the world is.[/quote]When you get a better idea of your word choice, be sure to get back to me on that. I do not think that the work is discussing the issue explicitly in a manner that is neither discouraging, condemning, or condoning, but the work is creating an entire world that is to be rejected implicitly by modern sensibilities.

[quote]I think that's true - but I also think that what he chose alienates some people in a very different way.

We do keep coming back and forth to this, but I'll try again. The subtext is that the historical world did suck for women, it was misogynistic and brutal and sexist. Another is the notion that economic gain, not social improvements, was the real reason for more egalitarian morals and female empowerment (I think this is a bit shallow; a lot of the woman's gains in rights came about because of some well-timed wars, and the rights of women were not as Maia pointed out required to make them factory workers, but that's yet another discussion). It's showing the base stereotypes of common romantic fantasies and illustrating how unreal they really are.

But the text is having all the women characters be archetypical sex objects, the world objectively valuing women as worse than men, having few women in any places of power (or really even on screen or mentioned), and that men are the only thing that can empower a woman (and they'll do so not because of the woman's merit, but because she'll produce good offspring) - and all of these things are very typical of the fantasy/sci-fi genre (or really, of all genres). If anything (as we pointed out with Iliad/LotR) Earwa is actually worse than a lot of them. I realize this is purposeful and is trying to make a point, but [b]it makes it no less difficult to read[/b].[/quote]That may be a good thing in many respects. But again, as this is a blurry reflection, some are more affected by this distorted reflection than others. The question though would invariably return then to "Why did Bakker consciously choose to focus a greater bit of the distortion on women?" And that answer has been repeatedly answered to some extent or another, though perhaps not in manner that appeases your own modern sensibilities.

[quote]No, that's not what I meant at all. I'm saying that writing something to get a rise out of people is not necessarily the same as writing something to 'alienate modern sensibilities'. If it's your goal to alienate modern sensibilities and you do this by reminding people about how bad [i]modern [/i]life actually is for them, did you succeed?[/quote]It depends.

[quote]I'm saying that there are plenty of works that alienate modern feelings. They're hugely popular as escapist fantasy; look at how successful things like Stephen King is, or how big a 'hero' Hannibal Lecter is. Doing this does not require much, even in high fantasy.[/quote]But these are social and political issues that (hopefully most) modern person prides themselves in working against, so the issues in the PoN in some ways hit closer to home and make it much harder (especially for women) to use Earwe for escapism. It is emotionally jarring because the problems of sexism are still a problem. This is partially why the romantic fantasy genre has been popular as a channel for escapism for a number of readers, with a greater proportion probably being female readers. But once more, Bakker seems to be writing against this romanticizing of the pre-modern world prevalent in fantasy, though perhaps I am giving him too much credit, since I admit that he never seems to directly address any specific concerns or issues.

[Finn]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1688245' date='Feb 16 2009, 06.46']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.[/quote]

OK. This puts an end, I think, to some of the sub-arguments in this thread.

First, the idea that those who have trouble with gender representation in PoN are misreading ('just not getting it') because they're exaggerating the importance of gender to the series. The author is here telling us that gender is central to the series' meaning. So let's put that one to bed.

Second, the idea that those who fail to see how the premise/thought-experiment *necessarily* leads to this particular world are misreading ('just not getting it') because it's obviously the case that if you start with the idea of literalizing premodern belief you end up with Earwa. The author is here telling us that he is not rigorously pursuing the thought-experiment wherever it leads; rather, he is cherry-picking (choosing some battles and not others). This is fine and certainly his prerogative, but let's drop all the "you don't get the premise, which naturally leads to X" stuff. In other words, if Earwa feels jury-rigged to some of us, that's because it is. Again, nothing necessarily wrong with that.

So . . . gender is central to what is going in this series, and the author has created a world that stacks the proverbial deck against women - *not* because his thought-experiment just happened to go that way, but because he wanted to manipulate the gender politics of contemporary readers to produce certain effects. I think Kalbear (who bore the brunt of the 'you're just not getting it' mantra) is owed an apology.

[Kalbear]

[quote]But these are social and political issues that (hopefully most) modern person prides themselves in working against, so the issues in the PoN in some ways hit closer to home and make it much harder (especially for women) to use Earwe for escapism.[/quote]Going back to the Archie Bunker thing, I think that this didn't quite succeed the way he wanted it to. We had a lot of people thrilled with how awesome Kellhus was in prior threads on Bakker. Not his insights or his sociopathic coldness, but how bad-ass he was. And there were plenty of people who saw what happened to Serwe and cheered, or thought Esmi was a slut for fucking Kellhus or Akka.

For those people (and I think they're a great representation of the misaimed fandom) this wasn't a tale showcasing how sexism was bad or illustrating how harmful and self-destructive it can be; it was an energizing tale where women were put in their proper place. The problem is that PoN reads a lot like these other books with their objective truths and values put in with strawmen to defeat, and I can imagine that this is a problem for a lot of people; it reads just like the sexist literature seen elsewhere that is actually trying to be sexist in a positive way. Again, it's hard to get past the text, and it has nothing to do with modern sensibilities and everything to do with modern [i]experience[/i].

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1688647' date='Feb 16 2009, 17.12']Going back to the Archie Bunker thing, I think that this didn't quite succeed the way he wanted it to. We had a lot of people thrilled with how awesome Kellhus was in prior threads on Bakker. Not his insights or his sociopathic coldness, but how bad-ass he was. And there were plenty of people who saw what happened to Serwe and cheered, or thought Esmi was a slut for fucking Kellhus or Akka.

For those people (and I think they're a great representation of the misaimed fandom) this wasn't a tale showcasing how sexism was bad or illustrating how harmful and self-destructive it can be; it was an energizing tale where women were put in their proper place. The problem is that PoN reads a lot like these other books with their objective truths and values put in with strawmen to defeat, and I can imagine that this is a problem for a lot of people; it reads just like the sexist literature seen elsewhere that is actually trying to be sexist in a positive way. Again, it's hard to get past the text, and it has nothing to do with modern sensibilities and everything to do with modern [i]experience[/i].[/quote]And if these same people read Dickens as the rightful triumph of the industrialists over the impoverished and working class, then they are literary idiots. What is your point? Would you prefer Bakker to be more didactic in his presentation? I think that the PoN reads very differently from those other books, but it is made challenging by those modern experiences.

ETA: I do see your objections, but I think that the underlying principle is largely out of the author's hands in this case. He cannot really control readers who get a hard-on from the rape, the war, the devastation, or the sexism even if they are intended to alienate and shake us up. I think that it is sick that there are readers who do find this a suitable place of escapism, but with what Bakker was trying to achieve, I think that his work would invariably create these different reactions in different readers. This is a problem that is in place no matter what piece of literature you are reading. Talking about any historical piece of literature often reveals the modern prejudices of your peers as much as it does with the author and their time period.

[Kalbear]

[quote]What is your point? Would you prefer Bakker to be more didactic in his presentation? I think that the PoN reads very differently from those other books, but it is made challenging by those modern experiences.[/quote]My point has simply been that because it's so similar to other objectivist books that treat women as sex objects, denigrate them and repress them, it's difficult to get past to the actual meat of the book and obscures the point. I don't know whether Bakker needed to be more explicit or didactic about his point, but having other women in the world would have helped some. Having women who aren't all sex objects may have helped.

By being so similar to things like John Norman or Goodkind or any number of cheap sexploitation masturbatory boyhood fantasies, it causes people to associate the wrong thing. Again, it doesn't matter what the subtext is at some level if the text is still the same sexist crap. And while I don't think that was Bakker's intent, I can absolutely see it as a problem for a lot of people - and it did make it less enjoyable to read. Not because the ideas were disturbing or perturbed my modern sensibilities, but because at some level I felt like I was supporting misogyny by buying the book.

And because that's the actual text, it's a lot more likely to get that winning view instead of the subtext.

I'm really amused by Calibandar's reaction to the book, as an example.