Bakker and Women II

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1686344' date='Feb 13 2009, 18.40']Akka does think of Esmi all the time. And he talks about her with other people. She's constantly in his thoughts. Akka's a good example of why [i]the other men in the Crusade might have mentioned women[/i].

Again, the point is that it's a bit unnatural. It's unnatural to not see any queens or daughters of royalty when everything's being sacked. It's weird to not hear men talking about how important their families are. It's odd to not see any nobles save Istriya in Nansur. It's odd that the Scarlet Spires have no women. It's odd that none of the warriors of the crusade have queens.[/quote]

Who's head to we get into though?

Kellhus? Doesn't count.
Cnauir? Obsessed with a women. And a man. (Technically obsessed with the women because he's obsessed with the man :P)
Akka? Obsessed with Esmenet.
Conphas? Obsessed with himself.
The Emperor? Paranoid. That is all.
Proyas? Obsessed with his faith. Doesn't seem to have a women in his life.

And that's about it for POVs.

Now if you wanna lament the lack of women and such coming up in conversation, I'd point out that there's not much casual conversation AT ALL. It's not a lack of women, it's a lack of, as someone else put it, "local colour". Something I certainly wouldn't be AGAINST, but I never felt it's absence while reading the books.

[Finn]

[quote name='Balefont' post='1686354' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.45']Isn't Lobellia a nosy bitch? Rosie is a sweet [s]womb[/s] mother. Goldberry I can't remember much because I loathed that part of the books. And Shelob is an evil creature-eating female spider. Go J.R.R.[/quote]

Sure, but hasn't Tolkien pretty much been taken to the woodshed for having a sausage party of a fantasy epic? And he does have the excuse that he was writing in the 1930s and 40s.

[Kalbear]

Yeah, Shryke, it's much more about the local color scheme than anything else. And it's quite possible that this is entirely a flaw in Bakker's writing that I don't like; as someone described above (and my apologies for not remembering who said this), it's more like a kind of amorphous landscape that people imprint on. We don't get a lot of motivations or feelings or even descriptions of the world, and this has been mentioned in the past how nondescriptive it really is. I tended to template it like images I thought of from the Crusades and movies, but in truth it's just a cipher.

It just stood out for me more that there was so little mention of women anywhere, and the women that had any kind of role to play in the book were whores and mothers and concubines only; they were sex objects. That stood out over the various roles we see of men in the book. But as you say, it may have little to do with the role of women in the book and more to do with the role of the world in the book.

[Ran]

Balefont,

I was just responding to Wert not recalling many other female characters of note, not stating that they're somehow superior to Bakker's depiction of women.

Goldberry falls more along the lines of Galadriel in being a helpful mystical character who provides some wisdom (and deciphers whatever the hell is coming out of Tom Bombadil's mouth while he's tripping on those mushrooms growing out back). But yes, anyways, there are a few more characters there, but I can't attest to how progressive they are.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1686344' date='Feb 13 2009, 18.40']Again, the point is that it's a bit unnatural. It's unnatural to not see any queens or daughters of royalty when everything's being sacked.[/quote]I could have used more of this too. If one wishes to show the despair of women in this time, then the sacking of a city would be a perfect point to do so.

[quote]It's weird to not hear men talking about how important their families are.[/quote]Agree, but this does happen in a highly limited fashion. Reading through the Chronicles of the Crusades does not reveal too much thought as to their families back home or even sexually-craving women, but to the glory for God and Christendom.

[quote]It's odd to not see any nobles save Istriya in Nansur.[/quote]Agree. A little more life in the courtroom where Kellhus was would have been nice.

[quote]It's odd that the Scarlet Spires have no women.[/quote]Agree.

[quote]It's odd that none of the warriors of the crusade have queens.[/quote]I do disagree with this assertion since if they had kings, those kings probably had queenly wives. But there is little talk of kings or other noble squabbles of the homelands. One cannot therefore conclude either that they all had queens or that they had none.

[quote]Well, Jeordhi was defending the lack of women by comparing this to other historical fictional works. Which is pretty bad as a comparison, as it turns out.[/quote]Though it does oddly enough match up with the amount of discussion of women in the [i]Chronicles of the Crusades[/i]. I have since found other women mentioned, but it is still scant material and presumes a level of organization and settlement that is not present in the Holy War.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1686367' date='Feb 13 2009, 18.59']Yeah, Shryke, it's much more about the local color scheme than anything else. And it's quite possible that this is entirely a flaw in Bakker's writing that I don't like; as someone described above (and my apologies for not remembering who said this), it's more like a kind of amorphous landscape that people imprint on. We don't get a lot of motivations or feelings or even descriptions of the world, and this has been mentioned in the past how nondescriptive it really is. I tended to template it like images I thought of from the Crusades and movies, but in truth it's just a cipher.

It just stood out for me more that there was so little mention of women anywhere, and the women that had any kind of role to play in the book were whores and mothers and concubines only; they were sex objects. That stood out over the various roles we see of men in the book. But as you say, it may have little to do with the role of women in the book and more to do with the role of the world in the book.[/quote]Sweet heavenly Sejenus! We're getting somewhere in this discussion!

[Tears of Lys]

[quote name='Finn' post='1686361' date='Feb 13 2009, 18.53']Right. My point was about the arguments being made here - it's worse than the Iliad but only barely! :) - not about the books themselves. As I've said, [b]I get that Bakker is up to something; I just don't know what it is yet, or if it'll be worthwhile once we get there[/b].[/quote]

I amuse myself whilst waiting for [i]The Judging Eye[/i] by fantasizing about the Tusk -which , after all, is where the damnation of women, blah, blah, blah is spelled out. This Tusk artifact, it seems to me, is rather suspect. When I daydream about it, my thoughts spin round the fact that we don't really know its origins, and in fact, I don't believe, IIRC, the whole thing has been deciphered as yet. I admit I'd like to see the whole damn religion discredited and the Thousand Temples cast down.

Bakker's not finished this work yet. Anything's possible. :)

[.H.]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1686367' date='Feb 13 2009, 18.59']It just stood out for me more that there was so little mention of women anywhere, [b]and the women that had any kind of role to play in the book were whores and mothers and concubines only; they were sex objects.[/b] That stood out over the various roles we see of men in the book. But as you say, it may have little to do with the role of women in the book and more to do with the role of the world in the book.[/quote]

Perhaps this is some sort of reaction formation to the fact of sexism being highly institutionalized in Earwa?

I'm not sure how a woman in Earwa could elevate herself without using sex. It seems like the only lever she might have to move the boulder of ingrained societal sexism she has been chained to. Perhaps that could be the point trying to made with these characters, that sex is perhaps the only option they can see?

As for our curiously alluded to, but missing, subtexts could one perhaps be that sex is a major part of the Legion? That Kelhus isn't the only one to be able to manipulate using what comes from it? And that women have known this from time immemorial?

Or maybe i just don't get it at all. Hell, my favorite characters from the series are Aurang and Aurax, and i think the No-God will be the hero of all this Apocalypse stuff, so there's no figuring on the vagrancy of taste.

[JGP]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1686344' date='Feb 13 2009, 16.40']Well, Jeordhi was defending the lack of women by comparing this to other historical fictional works. Which is pretty bad as a comparison, as it turns out.[/quote]

Careful, Kal. While true I was defending Bakker's work, I never once said it was, 'ok.' Don't put words in my mouth. I have a hard enough time expressing my thoughts off the cuff in a manner easily rendered without you making it worse. ;)

These constant 'worse than the real world' or 'any historical society' comments make me scratch like something's gotten under my skin. If I were comparing I suppose I can see how you'd get disgruntled, but I was trying to make a counter-point more than anything. Hence my bringing the Romans in. Then you talked about historical documents not working, so I bring in an ancient narrative-- the Iliad. Now that doesn't count cause... Well of course there are Goddesses and women in it. Jealous and petty [i]deities[/i] and a couple prizes, but there's no point treading the same path as MFC.

[spreads hands]

The point I was getting at, and which Shryke and others are hitting more concisely than I've been able to yet, is that the narrative structure of the first trilogy just didn't allow for even a few of the observations that might make you more comfortable. I miss my Mom. My sister's husband better not beat her again. That constellation there, looks just like the pattern of freckles beneath my wife's dark eyes. Oh hey merchant lady, don't you look cool in those Zeumish bangles. Shit, didn't mean to offend you. How about I have that kebab there while I'm doing [i]nothing[/i] to further the plot. Did Bakker plot it that way, making conscious decisions? I should hope so. In his responses here he's implied as much, but do his decisions mean anything necessarily negative about him personally or even the story thus far? No, and that shit doesn't jive with me. There's nothing wrong with asking questions, with wanting to examine the work, but if you're going to I'd think it might be fitting for one who is striving to understand to be a little more open to historical context at least. You can't be a feminist without acknowledging that the past sucked for women. If you [i]can[/i] concede that...

Look. Unlike you, I don't think Esmenet's made a mess as Empress simply because Kellhus isn't there. Ignorance, perhaps, but she's pretty wrapped up in her thoughts and distrust of her family. What exactly did Kellhus sort out when he returned however briefly from the Great Ordeal? Exactly. There are indications Esmenet's not fooled by Kellhus, even Kelmomas. The fact that we're seeing a lot more women in TJE would be another indication that it’s more a matter of setting than otherwise, but I will say this. This threads given me a lot to think about that I might not have, and it made my time tonight while putting my daughter down that much more poignant and stressful on the heart. Is life fair for women? Not yet.

But it sure as fuck was [i]worse[/i].

[Arthmail]

I've watched this argument range back and forth, and for myself, i've found myself coming down on the side of those that think Bakker's depiction of women in his books is a crock of shit, and his justification for doing so doesn't hold water. This is an odd position for me, if any have read my comments from the WSM thread from earlier.

I think, what it comes down to for me, is hallow world building. Oh sure, there's reams of history, and the philosophy is certainly endless, but i personally don't get the feeling that this world breathes. Ruined empires, holy wars, and sorcerer schools does not make a world. These are elements of a world, but shorn of simple things that are common in every day life gives it little meaning, makes it seem more like a quick DnD guidebook. Bakker has a tendancy to gloss over EVERYTHING not directly related to his main characters of his philosophical constructs. Ill be honest, when i first started writing, i was in such a rush to show everything that i thought was cool or interesting, that i ignored the dirt road leading there. Bakker feels the same, to me. There are no commoners given any character, no woman aside from the main 3 given any character, and even the names of many of the men and nations just fade into one giant pile. In fact, most of the male characters, main or otherwise, feel like some congealed mass...aside from the obvious two (Khellus the Perfect and Akka the whiner.).

The series, of which i have only been able to digest the first book and a half, is a philosophical info dump. But there is no life, no essence. I am reading an author skilled in constructing sentences, but not one able (as of yet), to capture my imagination. I know many have liked the series, poor depictions or not, but i have not been able to like them. I am going to give them another try this weekend to see, and try to open up my mind to see these subtexts that like 4 people on the planet have noticed, so we'll see.

But even if i don't take the drastic step of gifting them to someone else because i've come to at least partially enjoy them, i don't think my feelings on Bakker and his world will change.

[Finn]

[quote name='Tears of Lys' post='1686398' date='Feb 13 2009, 16.46']I amuse myself whilst waiting for [i]The Judging Eye[/i] by fantasizing about the Tusk -which , after all, is where the damnation of women, blah, blah, blah is spelled out. This Tusk artifact, it seems to me, is rather suspect. When I daydream about it, my thoughts spin round the fact that we don't really know its origins, and in fact, I don't believe, IIRC, the whole thing has been deciphered as yet. I admit I'd like to see the whole damn religion discredited and the Thousand Temples cast down.

Bakker's not finished this work yet. Anything's possible. :)[/quote]

Yeah, I think the real reason I'm mucking about in this thread is because I can't muck about in the other one yet. %$*&@# publication dates.

And you're right, this series could go in all kinds of interesting directions. I meant to say this while Bakker was slumming with us, but I'm very much a fan of the series. I think most of the people asking questions in this thread are (except maybe Arthmail :thumbsup:). Otherwise, why bother to be bothered?

Edited to add: I made the Arthmail comment before the salty salute above. Nice timing, A! :cheers:

[Guest thebadlady]

Holy shit. I caught up finally. I have so much shit to say, but... years ago I said there was something really wrong with Bakker and the dude should be on Prozac for his women issues. I have seen nothing that changes my mind, only makes me more certain I am right. But I am not going to wank into my own sockpuppet in public. There is so much deep nasty I am a fanboy living in the moldy basement woman hate in his books that I am surprised at the people who liked it and that it was even published in the first place. The casual malice that killed Serwe and the complete contempt with all women are treated made me uneasy.

Years ago, when I still cared enough to post in Bakker threads, I couldn't really verbalise what I hated so much about the books. Three years of therapy have helped me get this far anyway - trust your gut. Back then my gut screamed about the books and said, WRONG SUN ON WRONG HEAD, RUN! Now I can say that the woman hate is seriously disturbing. Rape *is* always used as a weapon and a power trip and these books were full of it. Hell, they started with a child rape. Issues anyone? I am totally not the one who can look at all the fingers pointing back and say I am without issues (lol, I thought you'd like that one) but jeasus christ. What The Fuck?

We went full circle with some sort of emotional agnst - the abused boy to the abused man to the abuser man.

I am disturbed when someone says they like this crap. No, it may not be misogynistic, its simply a deep hate toward women altogether. The books exist as a vehicle to express hate for women and show the author's insane issues with women.

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1674880' date='Feb 5 2009, 07.36']Frankly, before crying "misogyny", I cut the author some slack and think he just tried to create a "dying" elder race that you find in many, many works of fantasy literature, and instead of modelling them completely on Tolkien's elves, he mixed it up a little and drew a parallel with the Ents and their missing Entwifes instead.[/quote]

I love that idea, but I don't agree that is what he was doing.


[quote name='Balefont' post='1674956' date='Feb 5 2009, 08.41']Methinks if you took away or changed most of what you don't like about the portrayal in the story, you'd have a very different story.


As a female who has been lucky to have lived a relatively safe existance, I really don't have a problem with the way Bakker portrays the women in the story. I think it works for the story and if you don't like it, perhaps the series is not for you. There's nothing wrong with that either. I can't get into Erikson myself so...[/quote]

I think you wouldn't have a story at all. Bakker has a nasty woman hate going and Erikson is more like WoW - sex doesn't matter when the char is supposed to be uber balled. I am still shocked out of my socks you like this.


[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1675226' date='Feb 5 2009, 12.56']In the interest of [i]realism[/i] I would agree. (Wouldn’t make for a very good book, of course. Our protagonists need to be exceptionel.)

I don’t agree. I feel a lot more outrage at the rape scenes in Bakker than at the very similar scenes in Martin. I don’t know why that is so, but I think that’s a point in Bakker’s favour.

In fact, the happy whores in Martin (and Lynch) make me positively angry, though I normally try to check my political agendas at the door when I read fiction.[/quote]

Its your gut. Its telling you that something ain't right. I don't think Martin or Lynch would ever consider raping someone for real and you can feel that in their writing.

[quote name='Lady Blackfish' post='1676792' date='Feb 6 2009, 11.56']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]

There has been a variation of every conceivable idea in every position in the last 10 years. Alas (or maybe to the good) most are lost in the 20 page purges.

[quote name='Deluge' post='1676819' date='Feb 6 2009, 12.03']:agree:
Still, the misogynistic archetypes involved, and Bakker's defensiveness do bug me, a lot. Personally, I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the objective morality of Earwa will be a significant plot point, and he's reluctant to discuss it in depth, but it won't stop me from scratching my head a little.[/quote]

The defensiveness rattles my cage and makes me assume I am right about his hate for women. My ex is defensive a lot too.

[quote name='Ran' post='1677194' date='Feb 6 2009, 15.08']Matrim's suggestion that Bakker made such a misogynistic portrayal of women to deliberately point out at the end that the whole of the misogyny is an artifact of a couple of lines of text in a holy book is sticking with me as a potential solution to my own concerns. There's something very visceral about just subjugating half the entire human race that way. I can see some other ways in which he could have done the same exact thing -- say, have Kellhus end the practice of slavery (which is widespread in the setting) just like *that* by similar means. But would it be as visceral? It depends on how he handled it. None of us have been slaves and are very unlikely to have known any, but some of his readers are women, and the rest are (hopefully) acquainted with women, so it makes the experience more personal.[/quote]

Visceral = right on gut reaction.


[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1677560' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.31']The best pedagogical methods rely upon the students filling in the gaps, not the teacher explicating everything, so pardon me if I don't feel like explaining every single bit. Thing is, I disagree with you your interpretations of the characters and the story. I think you've come close, if not crossed the line, to confusing valid interpretation with certainty. Having read TJE,

SPOILER: TJE

I would counter by noting that Esmenet defines herself much more these days by her roles as mother and as unwilling leader than by her vagina and its uses. That Mimara defines herself by her confused feelings for her mother, her desire to know, which is what leads her to camp outside Akka's place for several days. That Serwë, if she had a PoV in the PoN novels, likely would have emphasized much more her innocence - considering her few comments often relate to her childhood - and her sometimes misplaced but rather strong care for the concerns of others.

But considering that it is [i]precisely the point[/i] of seeing how these women are characterized that is the issue here, are you going to dimiss their PoVs as blithely as some tend to dismiss the recorded comments of women in X professions when trying to argue gender roles for any historical society?[/quote]

You could really try being less arrogant.

[Guest thebadlady]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1677585' date='Feb 6 2009, 18.53']Why did he create his fake world to be sexist?

Because the real one is.[/quote]

The real world doesn't have all women in one of the three roles. Our modern world may have some fucked up shit in it, but that is NOT mainstream. The women (all three of them) are in the mainstream. They aren't some random farm wife.

[quote name='Balefont' post='1678371' date='Feb 7 2009, 15.18']I said it earlier why I think Istrya does it. While her husband was emperor, she was not the true ruler. Knowing one day he'd die and her son would then be emperor, she used the most effective weapon possible to undermine her son's mental state as a child so that when he grew to be a man and emperor, she had control over him. And it is the most effective weapon because it induces the element of shame which then forces there to be a level of secrecy that needs to be kept. Because if it ever got out...[/quote]

Bale, you know there are a trillion ways to keep your son tied to your apron strings and none of them involve fucking him and otherwise fucking with his sexuality in very bizarre ways.

[quote name='Shryke' post='1678775' date='Feb 8 2009, 03.21']Huh?

I think what he's trying to say is that Fantasy has a habit of being incredibly PC, even when depicting cultures that just ... weren't.

His goal is to create a world that ISN'T PC.[/quote]

lol. come on.

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1678986' date='Feb 8 2009, 12.36']In discussions such as this, I am often reminded of a comment Stendhal made in his famous novel, [i]The Red and the Black[/i]:[/quote]

Do you have a thought on this or just want to wave your book peen around?


[quote name='Nerdanel' post='1679239' date='Feb 8 2009, 16.59']Considering that Eärwa has its origins in a roleplaying setting, I find it entirely possible that the true reason behind women's inferiority is that they simply on average [i]have lower levels in their chosen character classes[/i]. A little adventuring from enough women would fix that (either you level up or you die - either way the average goes up), but the culture doesn't allow for that and so the situation perpetuates itself.[/quote]

You got me a bit hot and bothered there.

[quote name='Kat' post='1679602' date='Feb 9 2009, 00.23']I think I liked Bakker better before I knew about that quote. :o Which is to say, I've never been a particular fan, and thought his point about gender fell flat...but now it seems even more pointless. What's so interesting about "What if this stereotype which has been traditionally held as The Truth, were actually true? Wouldn't [i]that[/i] show those PC worldbuilders!"

I mean...[i]what[/i] PC worldbuilders? There really aren't that many of them as far as gender goes, who aren't explicitly feminist. (And many of them aren't writing by "PC" standards either wrt gender.) Just seems like a literary strawman. :dunno:[/quote]

Just think how many people liked Card before they knew he was bugfuck nuts.

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1679630' date='Feb 9 2009, 01.16']I don't think it only regards gender, it also regards a lot of his portrayal of other cultures. I started to like the books a bit less, when I realised that the Nansur Empire would really be like the worst stereotypes that existed of Byzantium and worse. And that's why Istyria as a character concept irritates me more than the other female characters (Esme and Serwe), because she is like the incarnation of "greek decadence and vice".

And I do think that the books are some kind of verbal masturbation, which seems the same as fighting a literary strawman with many, many words. That said, I didn't hate them, but I also don't think that they are the best and deepest books ever.[/quote]

I think its a kind of verbal S&M masturbation. Maybe autoerotic asphyxiation.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1680147' date='Feb 9 2009, 12.14']I don't know how profound it is. It's not all that profound to me, at least. This sounds a lot like the kind of question my son asks me.

Him:"What if the soldiers shot lasers that cut through walls?"
Me:"Err...what if?"
Him:"Wouldn't that be cool?"

Bakker:"What if there was a fantasy world where women were objectively worse than men because their objective god existed?"
Me:"Err...what if?"
Bakker: "wouldn't that suck for women?"

For me, this basically feels like I'm now reading about Thomas Covenant, except instead of one horribly flawed character that I hate but is compelling, I'm now reading about a whole world that I find very compelling but want to burn. It'd be more compelling if the morality of the world itself was abhorrent to the characters, but it's not. They all go along with it (save Kellhus, but he's a liar). The only one that it's abhorrent to is the reader, and making misogynistic shit up that makes the reader want to retch isn't really anything new or original, save that most authors don't have the explicit goal to do so and the cojones to justify why they're doing it as some exploration into morality.

Still doesn't explain why the same shit comes up in Neuropath.

In any case, this tears it. I'm rooting for the Consult.[/quote]

And what if the world were made of chocolate? The TC books sucked horribly and were totally overrated for the same reason - rape fantasy was made entirely ok as long as it is a LITERARY DEVICE.

[quote name='Nerdanel' post='1681910' date='Feb 10 2009, 15.16']Scott,

I have some questions I thought would never be answered, but since you are there now...

If you meant the term "twelve-talent whore" is taken to mean a whore (NPC class Expert) who gets 12 skillpoints per level, does that mean Esmenet must be at least level 8 and have 20 intelligence? (6 skillpoints from being an Expert, +1 from being human, +4 from starting with 18 int, and +1 from raising intelligence twice on level-up.) Or is she a Rogue rather than an Expert, which would give her 12 skillpoints with just 16 int?

I think Esmenet isn't yet old enough (as of PoN, which is what I have read) to get the intelligence bonus from middle age and anyway IIRC in 3.0 the age bonus was only to wisdom (unless I'm confusing editions here which is possible). Anyway, if Eärwa is using a (modified, especially as far as magic is concerned) D&D system, I think 3.0 is it, since Kellhus's Whirlwind Attack feat was severely nerfed in 3.5 so that it no longer combines with other feats, specially Great Cleave. (By the way, did you make Kellhus a Paragon Human Monk intentionally to make him a combination that looks great on paper but is actually very weak? [A powerful template like Paragon is murder for XP gain, and the Monk is generally considered the weakest core class, despite its many cool powers.] Or did you just make a character with cool powers? Or is the Dûnyain monk a decidedly more powerful version of the standard monk, beyond just the handy ability to count the longsword a monk weapon and do Flurry of Blows with it? Some things Kellhus does make it sound like he's doing things like expending his psionic focus to use his Offensive Precognition power...)

Or did I just manage to outgeek you?[/quote]

I want to make the sex with you now. Seriously, that was hot.

[Guest thebadlady]

[quote name='Finn' post='1682075' date='Feb 10 2009, 17.17']Wow, Morgan and Bakker checking in to the forum in the same week. Can we get them together in one thread? Maybe they can exchange . . . insults and recipes?

Or maybe they could field questions about the other's work?
Hijinks would ensue![/quote]

Morgan, as in Richard Morgan? *fangirls* OMG!!! where!!??

[quote name='Shryke' post='1682252' date='Feb 10 2009, 19.57']In that the majority of posters here will be those who, for whatever reason, had a problem with something involving women in this series?

According to your criteria, ASOIAF has serious problems with being all perverted.[/quote]

The majority of posters here aren't dumbasses and realize there is something wrong with the books. And I can't think of anyone who seriously wanked to the thought of Tyrion. Ok, maybe a few.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1682378' date='Feb 10 2009, 21.24']I wouldn't judge the veracity of the topic based on the amount of posts. It doesn't mean it's good or bad, or that that was what people thought in general; it just means what it does.

Not that it should matter in the slightest whether or not popular opinion values or devalues something.[/quote]

If popular opinion says these books are sick and uninteresting, then its probably right. Or you could be a lying lair who lied. Value is subjective, so none of what we say really has a difference on if we are right or wrong about the books. Look at the sheer volume of RJ and Goodkind posts - that sure isn't an indication of quality, is it?

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1682901' date='Feb 11 2009, 09.46']Was that a joke? :o

Its rather funny you would bring that up since this current thread about women in PoN stems from a huge conversation about women and minorities in Science Fiction and Fantasy in general.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, but yes I find that there is in fact an extreme lack of positive, female characters in the genre.[/quote]

Agreed. Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist about representation and tokenism, take a look at shit on the whole.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683068' date='Feb 11 2009, 11.38']For example, in Neuropath I don't have a problem with the woman being the sociopath. I do have a problem with her being only successful in manipulation of the man when she fucks him. She's a brilliant, amoral killer and the only thing that works is to fuck? Then she goes crazy and starts fucking more? Aside from the bad girl as slut meme that's been around for ages, it's kind of sad that this is the only thing that works. I recognize that this was in part largely because the book centers around showing how humanity is meat, not a soul; that's the Argument. Still, after seeing it over and over in PoN, seeing yet another set of women defined by how they fuck men or how they have kids, it was just another shrug and 'that's Bakker for you'.

Like I've said countless times in this thread and others, I don't have a problem with women being oppressed in the tale; it has countless historical antecedents and is largely taken from the history that the whole world is based in. Martin does it as well. The problem I have is that women in Bakker's world are defined by their relationship to sex in a way that men are not, and that is not necessary to the telling of the tale. That's their sole source of power in the world. I hope that explains things a bit better, and I apologize for my misuse of biology before this.[/quote]

So the 'I am a crazy little boy stuck in this large penis' theme carried over to other books? I sip my beer, all smug satisfaction.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1683145' date='Feb 11 2009, 12.42']So is this a [i]taste[/i] thing for you, Kalbear? Or do you think no man - perhaps no woman - should represent women in a sexualized light? I see lots of judgment in your posts, lots of 'oh-ya-that's-Bakker-for-you' (because ultimately I'm simple?) and very little in the way of what you think I should have done different, let alone any real engagement with the justifications I've so far provided.

[i]Neuropath[/i], as the title implies, is about psychopaths, serial murderers, [b]which for whatever reason happen to be serial rapists as well[/b]. So are you saying that I should have 'desexualized' the two signature 'neuropaths' in the book? Or do you think I should have made all the neuropaths [i]male[/i]? Or do you think I should have avoided the topic altogether?

In writing the scene that I'm assuming you find so offensive, I knew that very many people would have a response similar to yours.[b] The thing I was interested in was the [i]inversion[/i], the way having a female serial rapist engages an entirely different set of responses. If the genders of the participants were reversed, then the scene would have been monstrous. As it is, it smacks of a hairy-palmed teenage fantasy.[/b] (Sam even [i]says[/i] as much in the scene at issue). Since, at a cultural level, sexploitation is a cornerstone of the whole cult of the psychopath, I'm not sure how I could have written this story without confronting it somehow. And since I'm suspicious of all orthodoxies, PC included, I'm not sure how I could have written it without pissing you off.

Are you suggesting this subject matter was too toxic, too subtle, or too something x, for someone like me to tackle?

Or could it be that I intentionally (and trust me, I debated all these issues endlessly in the course of writing the book) tweaked your normative expectations in ways you didn't like, and you're doing your best to recontextualize/reinterpret in ways that make it more ideologically manageable - to turn it into 'more of the same.'

[b]After all, most everybody reads to win. When was the last time you saw an amazon reviewer who blamed [i]themselves[/i] instead of the book for their inability to appreciate this or that x? [/b]

I think I've provided enough grounds to at least [i]consider[/i] the possibility that at the very least this isn't your run-of-the-mill sexism. Maybe it's more subtle, and therefore more dangerous.

Or maybe you're simply doing what we all do all the time when we interpret: selectively confirming our initial impressions? Like I say, when you smell a rat in fiction, odds are you're going to find one.

Am I a rat, Kalbear? Do you really think that? Do you really think your interpretations exhaust the [i]essence[/i] of my books, and that all the rest is simply ad hoc, face-saving rationalization?

Or could it be that I've written something genuinely complicated, genuinely problematic, something that provokes timely debates about timely issues? Of course, I [i]want[/i] to believe this, which instantly makes me suspicious of it.

What I'm really curious about is your apparently absolute faith in the in the universal veracity of your individual interpretative perspective.

scott/[/quote]

For what ever reason? Spare me. Hairy palmed teenaged fantasy? Robert Jordan wrote for that too and no one is claiming he was da shizzle. You were provocative because it got you noticed and a thousand bucks says you have more issues than I do. We are too dumb to get you? As would be said in GC, OMG, get over yourself already. What happened to you to make you hate sex and women as much as I hate men?

[quote name='Zollo' post='1683382' date='Feb 11 2009, 16.03']Are authors now getting onto fantasy boards to explain their books and / or defend themselves from opinions / impressions (a tiny) part of their readership might have based upon having read one or more of said books? Someone pinch me.

Besides, as an author, if you feel you have to explain the motives of a book... something isn't right.[/quote]

Not many authors have been called upon to defend their books as often either.

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1683417' date='Feb 11 2009, 16.39']I still think I'd rather Scott make up his eternally doubt-ridden mind and start a blog where he could make a weekly post or so on a particular topic, let his readership battle it out, with only occasional commentary there. After all, there are several close races in the NHL right now that I'm sure he'd rather talk about at length as opposed to other topics ;)

And Kalbear,

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

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

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

Do you floss with that dick? Conflate the story with the author? Where exactly do you think the story came from?

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1683426' date='Feb 11 2009, 16.48']Do you talk with your friends this ambiguously as well?

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

I think it's also reasonable to state this: don't conflate the criticism of the art with the criticism of the artist. Don't conflate the criticism of the message with criticism of the messenger.[/quote]

Yeah, sort of.

[quote name='Dylanfanatic' post='1683437' date='Feb 11 2009, 16.54']It's a bad habit of mine, as I teach for a living and I've been indoctrinated not to lecture to the students whenever possible, but instead to present problems for them and give them only enough hints to put all the pieces together. I'll try to do better in the future.[/quote]

In my memory, you have been reminded 5 times now to kindly remember that this board is not your classroom and you are talking to your peers in age for the most part. As well as your peers in intellect. Don't think you are superior to people because people don't respond to you - perhaps take that as a sign you are on a large number of ignore lists.

[quote name='Ran' post='1683529' date='Feb 11 2009, 18.11']Mack,

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

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

Ash got hit hard.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1683731' date='Feb 11 2009, 20.39']The thing which gets my goat, I think, is the presumption that the books don't hold more than what meets the eye. It'll be interesting to revisit this topic following [i]The Disciple of the Dog[/i], which is the first thing I've written without labouriously pondering subtext after subtext - direct from by subconscious without all the torturous, ass-saving twists and turns of reflection.

Otherwise, I'm really not all that unsympathetic to a number of criticisms that have been floated here. I actually DO think negative representations have the nasty habit of reinforcing negative attitudes. I follow the research on bias too closely not to have the odd, ohmigod-what-have-I-done moment. My knee-jerk defence has always been to say that I'm not writing after-school specials. Probably too dismissive, that.

scott/[/quote]

You think you have layers and layers of subtext? Can you please share what you are smoking so the rest of us can glory in your godlike wisdom? Don't worry about offending your readers - you are in it for the [i]art[/i], not the sales, right?

[Guest thebadlady]

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1686156' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.10']That's not true. It's a slippery slope type of argument, where one finds a correlation with one set of a larget subset and than on that calls it equal. Would you like for racial relations in this world for the only examples you show to others being the holocaust and the subjugation of blacks through slavery? Or is it true that those are just the worse aspects of our humanity, but to say that is what we are misses the point.

That's the problem with your so called equality here. You go and find the worst and most heinous subjugation of women in our world's history, and then since Bakker's is no worse than that you call it equal. What people keep pointing out and you keep failing to see (for why I don't know) is that there is a large spread of women/men relations. Even when times were darkest for women in our history, there was still positive things for them and ways for them to express themselves that wasn't tied to their biological function.

Bakker has created a world where women have received much of the worst things that happened in ours, but he has purposely removed all the good things that happen to women. Even in the worst societies for women that our world has ever seen there is a lot of positives there. As has been mentioned many times here. Bakker in his world purposely only has shown the dark, and for that he has alienated a lot of people, specifically female ones.[/quote]

You should post more often Arak.

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1686184' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.28']This isn't about empowerment for me. Its about women being shown as ANYTHING other than some sort of sexual object. Emphasis on the word [i]object.[/i]I don't need or want Xena, Warrior Princess showing up. What would be nice to have any woman represented as something other than an object to fuck.

I'm not nearly as articulate as Kalbear or Needle on this subject. All I know is these books were not enjoyable to read, and I would probably never pick up another book by Bakker. Maybe the grand scheme will reveal some rabbit from a hat and make it apparent why things were the way they were, but he has lost audience members along the way. Not because we are too stupid to get it, not because we are looking for a rat, but because the trip so far hasn't been enjoyable enough to look towards the destination.[/quote]

I think you picked up on the same things I did. There is something just not right about the books and they were bland as sunday communion.

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1686191' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.32']That's a copout answer though. If people are allowed to respond to critiques of authors by saying "well they did it offscreen, or we really don't know because they really weren't clear" than one can pretty much dismiss any criticism. All you can judge for is the words the author put on the page. I have all sorts of great things I wish Peter Jackson did when remaking LotR on screen, but he didn't do it. Instead he did something else, and that is what I judge him on.

And even with that your answer isn't really legit. There is plenty of the world and story that doesn't take part in the war. There is room there for something, not as a token like you guys keep harping about, but as a part of a real breathing world. Not a world where women go through the shit Bakker puts them through. Kalbear is pretty much right, he wrote it deliberately that way. Sure in the world Bakker made it would be tokenism for him to put an empowered woman in it among the tons of women that aren't. But a world such as he created is like others have said here, inherently unrealistic. So it comes down to why make a world in which women are subjectively worse? I don't know and I don't think anyone has answered that one yet.[/quote]


Your wife is a lucky woman.

[quote name='needle' post='1686202' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.41']Again, and again, and again.

It's not about feisty empowered women. It's about having non-abused woman, non sexualised objects within the text. It's about the vague mention that someone is worried about his daughter. It's about someone missing his wife. It's about someone thinking back to his mother in a positive light. It's about having evidence that women exist in Earwa beyond the bounds of the military camp. It's about some evidence that 50% of the occupants of this world are women. It's about Ran's washerwoman. It's not about a token Lara Croft.

Bakker's books would work if discovered as historical manuscripts - if we were reading a history of Earwa. The omission of woman apart from sidenotes to Istrya, Esme, and even Serwe as mother of wee moenghus would be about right, seen through a lens of contemporary-to-that-era male misogny. But it's not a history book of a world, it's a depiction of inside that world, from a modern writer who should surely be aware that the written evidence does not always equate to reality.

Hell, if we want to look at feisty empowered woman, that cliche is right there within the text in the form of Esme. Esme who is still somehow radiantly beautiful despite twenty years as a prostitute suffering from malnutrition? realistic, much? Esme, who we are continually told is dazzling intelligent with no education ( but we're not really [i]shown[/i] her being intelligent, are we? just told she is). Bakker wanted to write a rags to riches to story for his one woman POV. All that does for me though, is to highlight absence within the the text. To be honest, without the faintly ridiculous and romanticised Esme sotry I might not have a problem and may have accepted the books as just 'ones without wimmen'. Because, I can and do do that as a reader without getting upset. But he did put his one woman in, who overcomes adversity to become great. And then the questions fall thick and fast..why are there no other women in this world, even in peoples thoughts?

Being a feminist does not mean wanting every book to be about Joan of Arc -you are right there, Happy Ent. But the removal of woman from the canvas completely or than in deliberately mysogynistic stereotypes is an entirely different matter.[/quote]

Yeah, what she said. :P

[quote name='Azor Ahai' post='1686220' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.55']Is it though? That's what I'm wondering. And it's this kind of statement, 'It's not about feisty empowered women. It's about having non-abused woman, non sexualised objects within the text.' as you say and is clearly echoed by others, that makes me wonder if in fact this [i]is[/i] about tokenism.
[b]
I look at it this way-- if it weren't for the Romans love of gossip and scandal, how much would we [i]really[/i] know about Roman women?[/b] Could it be possible that Roman men in general and paterfamilias in particular thought as little about the women in their lives as they purportedly did about women as a whole? Could a Roman consul ride down the [i]Appian Way[/i] and utterly disregard women passers-by if he wasn't attracted to them? I bet he could.

Maybe this is what Bakker's exploring. What if the importance of women in history was exactly how important they were in reality? A big if, mind you, but there might be hints of such considering some of the obstacles [admittedly small, so far] that Esmenet runs into as Empress. I don't know.[/quote]

J, you didn't just really say that did you? Come on.

[quote name='Arakasi' post='1686224' date='Feb 13 2009, 15.57']I definitely agree with Needle. It's not about tokenism (because as Kal has pointed out it is quite deliberate that women in Earwa are in a crappy situation and are subjectively worse, so having an exception would be odd). It is about why is the world even written in that way? There should be plenty of women around who can do things other than fuck people and have babies, yet there isn't.

Your excuses don't work because this isn't only a military story, this is a broad epic tale spanning over many regions. Not all of the story is focused on war. One good woman in the midst of all that would yes be tokenism, but it should never even have gotten that way.[/quote]

Agreed again. All of these men come from somewhere. Even in China there are women.

[quote name='Ran' post='1686321' date='Feb 13 2009, 17.21']Matrim,

Strangely but fortuitously, hobbit-women are very wholesome but unsexy. I don't want to think of hairy feet tangling together.

I once got a sample of hobbit TS (read: cybersex) paged to me on a Tolkien text-based game I play. Gave me nightmares.

Kal,



No, [url="http://www.textfiles.com/sex/EROTICA//R/rohanbrd.txt"]not Eómer[/url].[/quote]

You say that with your glorious mane?

[quote name='Balefont' post='1686354' date='Feb 13 2009, 17.45']Isn't Lobellia a nosy bitch? Rosie is a sweet [s]womb[/s] mother. Goldberry I can't remember much because I loathed that part of the books. And Shelob is an evil creature-eating female spider. Go J.R.R.

ETA: GoN, s'okay. I just lurv Kellhus. I'm a sick bastard like that. ;)[/quote]

Why? Kellhus is the worst Gary Sue ever. In the history of man AND woman kind. Fancy prose doesn't change that this series is as bad as Rhapsody for the Sue'ing.


Oh shit, I lost the rest of what I was going to respond to. No matter really, no one ever reads this far anyway. :P Jesus, what a pain in the ass.

[Shryke]

Your posts are deeply disturbing thebadlady.

I have no idea what book you read.

[Finn]

Holy &*%$!!! :stunned:
I knew they created the internets for a reason.
I don't know that I completely agree with you badlady -or hell maybe I do, who knows at this hour- but you've got style . . . miles and miles.
:bow:

[Relic]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1686560' date='Feb 14 2009, 01.53']Your posts are deeply disturbing thebadlady.

I have no idea what book you read.[/quote]


There are reasons for everything.

Anyway,

I don't particularly agree, as ive never been bothered Bakker's portrayal of women (and i consider myself a pretty huge champion of equality IRL). I always assumed he was painting an extraordinarily cruel world run by disgusting violent men and as such women naturally(and sadly) get the short end of the stick. From the little ive read of the next series Esme is Empress and in charge of shit while Kel marches north. Maybe her portrayal in that role will soothe some of the discomfort a bunch of you feel.

[Guest thebadlady]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1686560' date='Feb 14 2009, 00.53']Your posts are deeply disturbing thebadlady.

I have no idea what book you read.[/quote]

Same as you, but I am sane.

Finn, thank you. I am fucking spent.

[afterroots]

Damn it! i KNEW i must have been insane to like the series.