Bakker and Women II

[Jon AS]

[quote name='Eefphrodite']Which "that statement", Jon? Bakker's, or mine? What interpretation do you take from it, in either case?[/quote]

That's what I get for trying to keep my posts short: Bakker posted in a thread about the portrayal of women in his writing and said that "his primary goal is...". Now, is that his primary goal in the entire series of books, or his primary goal with his portrayal of women within the series? Could be either, personally I'm leaning towards the latter as the former seems like a very narrow focus, and he has made mention of various other things he wanted to do.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

Possible, Triskele, but very unlikely, especially given his posts about talking to his editor about it. He knew people had problems with his portrayals of women (though I'm not entirely sure the suggested 'improvements' would necessarily have been so), and chose to give us the book he did, because he felt that that presented his point(s) best. Obviously, this is where some of us disagree, and others disagree elsewhere. ;)

Edited to make it clear which post that's in response to.

[Ran]

In [url="http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/new-r-scott-bakker-interview.html"]this interview[/url], he stated:

[quote]This is the primary abstraction I try to concretize in The Judging Eye. What would it be like, what would it mean, to live in a world where everything had objective value, where everything was ranked and ordered, so that men actually were ‘spiritually superior’ than women, and so on.[/quote]

Or [url="http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2008/01/new-r-scott-bakker-q.html"]here[/url]:

[quote]Specifically, I’m interested in what it means to live in a world where value is objective - which is to say, to live in the kind of world our ancestors thought they lived in. Could you imagine, for instance, what it would mean to live in a world where, say, the social and spiritual inferiority of women was a fact like the atomic weight of uranium. Biblical Israel was such as world, as were many others.[/quote]

I gather from what's been said that TJE makes the objective fact of their inferiority clear in the text.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

[quote name='Ran' post='1689191' date='Feb 17 2009, 09.55']I gather from what's been said that TJE makes the objective fact of their inferiority clear in the text.[/quote]


If you unreservedly believe what eponymous Judging Eye says, then yes. Considering that uncertainty and deception are major themes in the series, I rather doubt it. Still, RAFO is the only sensible answer for such questions (and, yes, I admit I will be disappointed if it will prove to be universally true).

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1689196' date='Feb 17 2009, 10.04']I guess the problem I'm having (though my confidence is being shaken) is that even if Earwa is a world in which women are objectively inferior to men, I still don't necessarily see that as something that must offend, especially if the author is truly (and he may not be) trying to make it problematic rather than celebrate it. I guess if I look at that last quote Ran posted, it's possible he just wanted to do his own little intellectual exercise and for whatever reason, that happened to be having fun with a world where women are 2nd class by law. Is that the problem?[/quote]

1. You can offend without meaning to. Authors aren't exempt from this. Go back to the questions about "would non-whites be justified in being offended if this metaphysical inferiority were applied to them". If you agree they would be, why aren't women? (And "he did it this way because it would be published, while the race version would not" is not an answer to "are women justified in finding this offensive".)

2. See also my comment about Earwa, and the metaphysical inferiority, being an Archie Bunker-like "figure". Whatever the author's intent, the very fact that this kind of world resonates with any readers shows that these beliefs are actually still out there in real life. (To a lesser extent, this is also reflected in "women characters are boring", as opposed to "women characters aren't well-written".) I imagine that more than a few of us have come across these beliefs in person, too, and are more sensitive to them in our fiction than others.

3. For those of us who've read three or four of the PoN books (given that TJE isn't out everywhere yet), this isn't necessarily that we find the books bad, just that we've seen no in-text justification for it yet. Nor any indication (in-text, again) that this is going to change, yet. There's waiting for a later explanation/payoff that we assume -- or hope -- will come, and reading in vain. The very assumption that we have that things will change might be, in turn, one of those things Bakker wants to turn on its head. "Modernity" doesn't always prevail, and doesn't always make everything better, after all.

4. If the presentation is driving away potential intelligent, perhaps contrary viewpoints from discussions on the purported central premise, and the reaction is "oh well, that sucks, move on", then the entire thing starts to smell a bit of intellectual wankery.* I don't think that's actually been Bakker's reaction, but I'm not as sure about some of the "defenders" of the work, and on all sides I think there's been unfortunate expression that's obscuring, rather than elucidating, points.
*The idea that you're trying to show how clever you are, rather than actually interested in engaging in discussion of your points. It also applies to things like some of Stephenson's info-dumps, which seem to serve more to show how much research he's done, and how much more he knows than you, than to actually improve the world, the characters, or the story. I get it, you're smart. If you're not writing a (to-me) interesting book, your effort's going to be wasted because I'm going to stop reading.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1689207' date='Feb 17 2009, 10.41']Great points. I guess my primary defense is that I don't think Bakker set out to offend.[/quote]

And see, I think he did, but only insofar as he wanted people to examine why they were offended (or not, as the case may be). I think that ties in to challenging assumptions. I just also think that if the first thing you do is offend people, they're not necessarily going to stick around to find out what your real point was. Even if they do stick around, they might question your methods in gaining their attention, which is pretty much what I think this discussion has come around to, at least for me.

[AverageGuy]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1689196' date='Feb 17 2009, 04.04']especially if the author is truly (and he may not be) trying to make it problematic rather than celebrate it.[/quote]

I don't know that "the guy explicitly states his primary goal is to challenge rather than confirm readers' gender assumptions and biases" necessarily implies he set out to either problematize or celebrate anything. It could just be a thought-experiment. "Here. This world has these rules regarding women. React." Especially from someone with a philosophy background, a more-or-less neutral attempt to make you reflect on your own worldview is a possible motivation.

And this isn't a defense or a criticism of the text but a purely neutral observation.

[Lyanna Stark]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1688509' date='Feb 16 2009, 21.07']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]


Finally, somebody said it. Yes, racism is less acceptable than sexism, hence writing a world that is brutally sexist will cause less of a fuss and people won't have that many issues with it.

Yet when people point out what the point is and why we get called "The PC brigade" by a lot of people. I find this hypocritical in the extreme. (Not saying you did Shryke by the way.)
Also, the fact that feminists get branded, slandered and generally are seen as hysteric and overreacting, yet if people actually are true to themselves, sexism is less of an issue than racism and less important. It is not something people feel "guilt" over, unlike racism. It is not something that they feel are worth discussing, apparently. Yet it concerns 50% of the human population and should be just as "sensitive" and just as important as racism. After all, we are all human beings. Why should certain types of oppression be more acceptible than others?


Perhaps Bakker will use the extremely sexist setting to prove a point, perhaps not. We cannot know until the series is complete. The problem is that a lot of women won't read until the end. I am still undecided. I liked a lot of themes in PoN and found it an interesting read, albeit extremely unpalatable a lot of the time, and I found myself asking "why?" a lot. Why is Istrya breaking taboos for no reason? Why is Emenet, a clearly clevel woman, used so much as a vehicle for sex? It felt like she was almost a ragdoll sometimes, passed between men.

(Yeah sorry needle I stole your rant :P )

As for whether or not female readers will enjoy PoN less: among my friends it has definitely alienated the female readership. Most of them are not what I would call "trash readers" either; they don't spend their evenings reading Jilly Copper or Barbara Cartland.

[Decius]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1689235' date='Feb 17 2009, 11.59']Finally, somebody said it. Yes, racism is less acceptable than sexism, hence writing a world that is brutally sexist will cause less of a fuss and people won't have that many issues with it.[/quote]

Yes, Scott said so 7 pages ago. :)
Says a lot about our world, but that's how it is.

[Balefont]

[quote name='thebadlady' post='1689087' date='Feb 17 2009, 00.44']We read (and write and watch) what we enjoy. If you enjoy reading about non-consensual sex, well... I could also say nice way to trivialize rape.[/quote]

I can't really agree with this, Ro. There are plenty of books out there on uncomfortable and unenjoyable subjects that people read for various reasons such as, but not limited to, educating oneself.

[GoN]

[quote]Why is Emenet, a clearly clevel woman, used so much as a vehicle for sex? It felt like she was almost a ragdoll sometimes, passed between men.[/quote]

Apparently we're sexist for seeing her that way :lol:

Mack-

[quote]Esmi was not only defined through sex, simple. To say so would make you rather sexist in my view. In light of this it strikes me as something that the one woman who has a point of view, despite being a whore, is SUPRISE! not defined by sex.[/quote]

I'm trying not to be snarky here, but I really don't know how to respond to that. Maybe you found some hidden layers of subtext in her story that I missed. But I found her to be completely defined by sex- not just as a whore- but her role in the books as well. She is another women who seems to be there to get fucked by one or more of the three male protagonist.

When there is a thread discussing whether or not GoN is a misogynist, then maybe I'll concede the point :P

[The Iceman of the North]

[quote name='thebadlady' post='1689087' date='Feb 17 2009, 06.44']We read (and write and watch) what we enjoy. If you enjoy reading about non-consensual sex, well... I could also say nice way to trivialize rape.[/quote]
Are you really claiming that you only read what you enjoy, Ro? I read a lot of stuff that depict stuff I don't enjoy, in some cases (fiction) I will read it because I 'enjoy' the story as a whole, in other cases (non-fiction) I read it because I consider it somewhat important to know about. But 'enjoying' reading books where rape occurs*, and actually enjoying reading about rape, are two completely different things.

[b]ETA:[/b] I note Bale made the same point two posts upthread...

* I'm not talking about reading the book because it includes rape, but reading books that happens to include rape - like ASOIAF.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1689266' date='Feb 17 2009, 13.10']I'm trying not to be snarky here, but I really don't know how to respond to that. Maybe you found some hidden layers of subtext in her story that I missed. But I found her to be completely defined by sex- not just as a whore- but her role in the books as well. She is another women who seems to be there to get fucked by one or more of the three male protagonist.[/quote]

SPOILER: TJE

She is also an empress who rules the empire in absence of her husband, and all things considered she does quite good job of it. Neither Esmenet nor Mimara are whores anymore in this point of the story, and I am becoming a little bit bothered that people still call them that. It smack of "once a whore always a whore" stereotype, IMHO

[Sophelia]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1688245' date='Feb 16 2009, 14.46']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.[/quote]
Scott – I’m not sure how this is germane to the current discussion. It reads as if you are answering people who say there are no sympathetic characters in your books. Is there some specific point about women that you are addressing? For all I know you could be saying that your female characters represent truths about women that your female readers are in denial about.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1688245' date='Feb 16 2009, 14.46']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.[/quote]
There are also thoughtful debates on this board about [i]Twilight[/i]. Perhaps you commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. ;)

To be serious though, I do think your books are thought-provoking and the main reason motivating me to finish the PoN series is so that I can read the spoiler thread on this board and get into a good debate. However the debates I wanted to jump into were not about the depiction of women, which was a minor issue for me (until this thread I just lumped it in with all those other fantasy novels, as an irritating aspect which I would grit my teeth and ignore because I was interested in the book for other reasons – mostly the questions about free will and determinism i.e. the Kellhus concept).

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1688245' date='Feb 16 2009, 14.46']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.[/quote]
I can read this as “Yes, I chose to abuse women because I knew I could get away with it”. Your last sentence even suggests, contrary to what you said earlier, that you aren't really that interested in engaging in the gender debate.

So now it’s unclear whether you intended to challenge people about gender (ie. pitched your tents in order to join that particular battle), or whether it was a different war you wanted to fight, with the gender battle being one you would have to fend off hopefully without too much loss of troops since your opponents would be weak.:unsure:

(It’s this kind of ambiguity which makes your arguments sometimes seem ad hoc)

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1688253' date='Feb 16 2009, 14.54']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]
I completely understand how difficult it must be to fully explain or defend yourself when you don’t want to give away the entire plot. It is very good of you to have had a go anyway. If it hadn’t been for this thread I wouldn’t have known that you had intended to create a world where women were metaphysically inferior (whatever that means). This does change my perceptions of the books: it makes me feel deliberately used.

As many of us keep saying, it’s hard to know whether that decision was worthwhile until we know what the payoff is.

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1688275' date='Feb 16 2009, 15.32']What we wanted was an explanation for the question "why?"[/quote]

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1689044' date='Feb 17 2009, 04.32']I don't really know what I'm trying to say or explain anymore. I think it would be easier to dismiss/excuse/overlook whatever if the author hadn't pointed out that this world was suppose to be as sexist as (some of us) think it is. Like Kalbear I'm just sorta left sitting here, reading these posts, thinking about the books and wondering why. But the question as to why is the one question that unanswered- except for [i]just because[/i].[/quote]

[quote name='Eefphrodite' post='1689205' date='Feb 17 2009, 09.36']3. For those of us who've read three or four of the PoN books (given that TJE isn't out everywhere yet), this isn't necessarily that we find the books bad, just that we've seen no in-text justification for it yet. Nor any indication (in-text, again) that this is going to change, yet. There's waiting for a later explanation/payoff that we assume -- or hope -- will come, and reading in vain.[/quote]

Some seem to think this has already been answered:

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1688629' date='Feb 16 2009, 21.51']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]

If it has been answered already, then AverageGuy repeats the only answer I have seen:

[quote name='AverageGuy' post='1689221' date='Feb 17 2009, 10.15']I don't know that "the guy explicitly states his primary goal is to challenge rather than confirm readers' gender assumptions and biases" necessarily implies he set out to either problematize or celebrate anything. It could just be a thought-experiment. "Here. This world has these rules regarding women. React." Especially from someone with a philosophy background, a more-or-less neutral attempt to make you reflect on your own worldview is a possible motivation.[/quote]

I hope this isn’t ‘the answer’, however, since the only people reacting strongly are those who already hold a different worldview, and those who are not bothered by how the usual treatment of women in fantasy novels either won’t notice anything amiss, or won’t be bothered by it, since they’re not interested in women’s issues.
(Also if that was the author’s aim it would surely be more effectively conveyed by a short story, than a lengthy fantasy series which is going to lose many readers before they get anywhere near realising the premise)

If Bakker is commenting on gender one could argue it has backfired. But I am sure he has more complex aims.

[GoN]

I've not read TJE- as I've stated before. So I'm not sure what the point of responding with spoiler text is. After quick considering I clicked it anyway, because frankly how could I not? :P

I can't argue about what her role is in a book I've not read. My point of view is based entirely on the first three books. So consider that a preface for any post I've made, or might make in the future.

On of the salient points made in this thread and the others is that there are people who were so turned off by the representation of women in the first series that they (in this case, me) have no intention of reading further. I've said before, maybe Bakker does reveal to the lowly reader the point of it all, but his build up has at least turned me off so that I have zero interested in reading anything else he might put out.

[Sophelia]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1689235' date='Feb 17 2009, 10.59']I liked a lot of themes in PoN and found it an interesting read, albeit extremely unpalatable a lot of the time, and I found myself asking "why?" a lot. Why is Istrya breaking taboos for no reason? Why is Emenet, a clearly clevel woman, used so much as a vehicle for sex? It felt like she was almost a ragdoll sometimes, passed between men.[/quote]

Well I asked 'why?' a lot about many of the brutal scenes involving men as well. I reached the somewhat different conclusion that R. Scott Bakker likes to shock and discomfit the reader*. The reason I find the books hard to read is that I prefer a subtler style, rather than cranking it up to the max. - the violence is just overdone** (on purpose) - it's either too harrowing or just breaks my suspension of disbelief as I feel the author's hand. Well, that's my impression anyway. It's like all the most lurid stories from a tabloid newspaper, except that they are written beautifully and interspersed with a great many interesting psychological and philosophical questions as the characters agonise over their choices (or lack of choices).

* As with GRRM, this doesn't always work. (Incest plus menstrual blood plus sex on the altar this just makes me :rolleyes: and smile). Oh noes, black semen :lol:

** That's not to say it's 'unrealistically violent' (well, barring the fantasy elements), just that the narrative concentrates the horror and violence, focusing the reader on whichever characters are being most tortured at the time ;) (without much of the compassion and humour of RL) This isn't a criticism of the books at all: it's laudable to show that war is grim, or even for no other reason than that's what the author likes writing. Just mentioned it as it's one of the main reasons I won't be reading beyond TTT.

[JGP]

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1689235' date='Feb 17 2009, 03.59']Yet when people point out what the point is and why we get called "The PC brigade" by a lot of people. I find this hypocritical in the extreme. (Not saying you did Shryke by the way.)

Also, the fact that feminists get branded, slandered and generally are seen as hysteric and overreacting, yet if people actually are true to themselves, sexism is less of an issue than racism and less important. It is not something people feel "guilt" over, unlike racism. It is not something that they feel are worth discussing, apparently. Yet it concerns 50% of the human population and should be just as "sensitive" and just as important as racism. After all, we are all human beings. Why should certain types of oppression be more acceptible than others?[/quote]

Which illustrates the insidious vagaries of oppression. No more, no less. Women though predominantly [but not exclusively] oppressed throughout the long history of our world, were not as a whole subjected to [i]hate[/i]. Treated as possessions, yes, guarded jealously or disregarded entirely, valued only because men wanted either them, for sex and/or because other men might want them, and/or for whatever else they could provide, [i]i.e.[/i] stability on the homefront, a mother for their children, [i]etc...[/i] This is why racism is deemed the worse of the two, imo. Hate is a different beast, it cannot be domesticated.

This is worthy of discussion, absolutely. Are we simply inured to sexism, with men having benefited while women have lived with it for so long, or is it something else? Sexism is important. As a charge against R. Scott Bakker or his work thus far? This is what I take exception to.

To respond to MFC, what I meant was this. If Bakker is attempting to show as an empirically objective reality what our ancestors by and large [i]thought[/i] was an objective reality, what’s the actual difference between depiction and reality [aside from certifiable damnation, that is] so [i]why[/i] would it be so much more contentious one way as opposed to the other? This is what strikes me as philosophically curious.

SPOILER: TJE

And about The Judging Eye, Mimara is not used by [i]it[/i]. Though inexplicable at this point in the second series, there's a power there that's elevated her beyond her peers-- Cleric, Achamian, et al.

[john]

I'm not sure about the RAFO stuff. I thought it was established pretty early on that the prejudices that govern the world are bad, and therefore the rules that enforce them are also bad. The Outside is the bad guy. Kellhus is the hero and he wants to free the world. This is clear in the first prologue of Darkness that Comes Before, where he discovers to his surprise (or dunyain equivalent) that magic is real and people are stupid.

So, while I was conscious of the unpalatable (to borrow the word of the moment :P) nature of the depiction of women, I never thought for a moment that the story wouldn't provide an equally palatable conclusion to that strand.

edit - And who here thinks that metaphysical realities are ever GOOD, in any case. We're all familiar with wondering why God lets famine and disease happen, why Chance fucked things up for me again, why hundreds of millions of people believe the wrong things. We don't like matphysical realities, to the extent that nowadays we're all going to heaven in return for a relatively blameless existence and nothing else. You need an automatic assumption of harmful intent to find offensiveness and i would think the opposite should be true here.

[Pierce Inverarity]

I'm not sure how I could spill more e-ink on the topic, Why? Of course, when I say, 'Because of a,' you can ask, Why a? and when I say, 'Because of b,' you can ask, Why b? And so on. I have no way of blocking this regress, nor does any human living, so demanding that I do strikes me as nonsensical.

On the other hand, if the problem is that you [i]don't like[/i] the reasons I've provided, if you think, for instance, exploring the manipulative dimension of apparent truth is pure wankery, then we have another debate altogether. The fact remains that my representational choices are rationally grounded, and not the consequence of some hidden moral defect - or at least not simply so.

As for my answers being post hoc rationalizations... what can I say? Except, no, I'm not lying. Yes, these were the things I was thinking about [i]while[/i] I wrote the books. If you think this is simply more dissembling, if you think you detect a pattern of face-saving deception in the answers I've given so far, then all I can say is you've robbed me of any voice you can hear, and you're in fact debating yourself. If that's your bag then run with it.

Otherwise, a little charity, please.

Surely, no one here is censorious enough to suggest that fantasy worlds should not reflect the bigotries you commonly find in scriptural worlds, [i]period[/i]. If not, then the question is simply: is there any way any writer could do this with any subtlety that would not run afoul the interpretative sensitivities of various readers? Especially when it comes to writers like me, ones who despise quota characterization almost as much as they despise potted PC epiphanies - which is to say, the way so many writers try to avoid ruffling too many readerly feathers.

Run the gauntlet, I say.

When it comes to gender, I read (and wrote) the books as an exercise in espousing and problematizing feminism. I put my female characters in brutal circumstances [i]to condemn the circumstances[/i], not the women, and I actually think the text is crystal clear in this regard, given a certain interpretative scheme. I'm not saying my interpretation, even though it is based on compositional intent, is canonical. Only that PoN is a dastardly complicated work, and that misogynistic readings, while understandable given different interpretative schemes, also should not be considered canonical - and certainly shouldn't be attributed to authorial intent.

Does anyone here really think their reading is the [i]real reading[/i]? If so, I humbly suggest you've been duped by your own psychology. Check out Richard Marcus's [i]Kluge[/i] or Cordelia Fine's [i]A Mind of Its Own[/i] if you suspect this is just more post hoc rationalization on my part. Given ambiguity, we are hope and suspicion confirming machines.

Look. If you find my books more frustrating than interesting, then don't read them. If you have read them despite your frustration, then regardless of what you think, I feel (given what I know of our penchant to find agreement agreeable) as though I've accomplished something marvelous. If you think the future of the series holds more of the same, then take a pass.

Just realize that it's not [i]just[/i] the books that don't work: it's the combination of you with the books. There's always more than one text to be interpreted.

(I sometimes think, given the defensive vehemence with some dislike the book (like on the Malazan board for instance), that the books somehow tickle certain readers with this dialectical fact. Some readers seem to [i]need[/i] the books to be shite - in all possible universes! I haven't really gotten that sense here, however (if I can trust 'that sense' at all)).

My whole premise writing genre is that quite a few people actually enjoy reading books that challenge and entertain. That Epic Fantasy in particular could be a vehicle of subtle, complicated, and troubling ideas - rather than the conservative pablum the literati and some among the paraliterati seemed to think is intrinsic to its form.

Does anyone here really think I've failed?

Love'm or hate'm, I think it's safe to say that there's something about PoN. Or at least a little something. A tiny, teeny-weeny, shred of something?

C'mon. Throw me a fricken bone already.

scott/

[Ran]

Were I a teacher, I think overall you've got a passing grade (with distinction). It does make you think.

It's just that it's better at doing that in some areas than in others. In regards to problematization of feminism specifically, I don't think it's come off as well as you hoped, and that some of your choices strike me as not helpful to what you wanted to say, but it's not like it's a wash.