Jump to content

Bakker and Women II


Mackaxx

Recommended Posts

[quote]Dunno about that, Cnaiur raping Conphas was one of my favorite scenes in the entire trilogy.[/quote]

:o

I'm a bit at of a loss for words... and those who know me know how truly shocking that is.

Rape isn't a tool to bring someone down a peg, no matter how much you dislike said person. It is one of the most horrible experiences, physically and emotionally a person can be put through. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place in fiction, I think it does, but I don't think anyone should look at it as some sort of just punishment, in fiction or otherwise.

Its overuse in PoN didn't endear me to the series, but lord knows I didn't want to open that can of worms on this board. Your post is at best callous, and at worst fucking disturbing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1686773' date='Feb 14 2009, 12.54']I agree with this, as I said above. I would have liked more local colour.

But I fear Bakker consciously resists this. For example, given that he writes a fricken fantasy novel that takes place in a war, there is almost [i]no[/i] wankery about weapons and armour and siege engines and so on. There’s only the scene with Echo I mentioned before (where Bakker actually [i]describes[/i] what a Shrial knight looks like). I find this remarkable. Not only are women and other incidentals not desribed in any detail, even the central trappings of [i]war[/i] remain shrouded in the reader’s imagination.

Women aren’t described. Merchants aren’t described. Buidlings, siege engines, breastplates, — all [i]mentioned[/i], never described. (This, of course, does not make Bakker a misogynist or a misoarmist (Yeah, my greek sucks. [i]Mea culpa[/i]))

I think this is a conscious decision, and I think there was an early interview with Bakker where he says as much. But maybe I forget. But I don’t much [i]like[/i] it. It strikes me as an unnecessary exercise in making the books less accessible, more than a purposeful rejection of a very tempting genre trope.[/quote]

It's just a style of writing.

I'm reading "The Dragons of Babel" by Michael Swanwick right now and he in many ways uses the same sort of thing, except even more so. Almost nothing is directly described.

It's like "This guys a Haint", but he never tells you what that means. Ever. You just pick it up from what happens in the story. Descriptions of characters and places are almost non-existent. It's like "It's an elf. You know what an elf looks like, I don't need to tell you".

Same with a merchant or a siege engine or a breastplate in Bakker.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]He's created a premodern world. A world where things are ranked and ordered. And where such ranking and ordering are not the products of flimsy social conventions but something as real as the atomic weight of oxygen. Social reality is objective reality.
No such thing as sexism, or social status, social construction or social anything. The concept of status in premodern worlds was an objective reality. The inferiority of women in premodern worlds is not mere social convention but objective reality. Bakker makes us understand emphatically that his world is not an indifferent material world like ours but a living judging, ranking and ordering world. A world of absolutes where social conventions are objective realities and damnation actually is real. A world where essentialism rules.[/quote]

Exactly. It's not about a world where "Women are inferior to Men", it's about a world that is actually the way Premodern people thought it was.

Honestly, go read The Old Testament. Seriously. It's the easiest piece of premodern work to get a hold of that will help you understand the way these people viewed the world. As TheValyrianDragonlord put it:
[quote]his world is not an indifferent material world like ours but a living judging, ranking and ordering world[/quote]To them, lightning doesn't happen because of some physical process, it happens because GOD IS FUCKING ANGRY.

Now, imagine a world where these primitive societies were RIGHT.

That's Earwa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]However, there's a serious tension in Bakker's world between belief and reality (as well as structure and agency) because Kellhus and the Dunyain have the ability to hijack the supposed objective reality of Earwa. He is somehow able to impose his own belief system on a world where if beliefs are objective reality, this should not be possible. Kellhus and Esmi are somehow able to change their rank in a world where this shouldn't happen. A whore somehow becomes an empress.

After getting a lot of hints about the world being a place where belief systems actually correspond to THE TRUTH, we get the character of Kellhus who treat belief systems as having mere social function instead of truth. Kellhus changes a lot conventions and beliefs in Earwa. My interpretation of Kellhus and the Dunyain are that they're modern interlopers in a premodern world.

This reason I find this so significant is that Kellhus imposing his own system on Earwa and changing its conventions is akin to me changing the second law of thermodynamics.[/quote]

This is great stuff btw. Very insightful.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1686823' date='Feb 14 2009, 20.21']It's like "It's an elf. You know what an elf looks like, I don't need to tell you".[/quote]
As I said, I also feel it’s a conscious stylistic choice, rather than authorial ineptitude.

But I’d still prefer if Bakker were more like — well, a Sansa POV. In fact, one of my first attempts to write a [i]If Bakker had written ASoIaF[/i] parody was the Hand’s turney, written in the detached 3rd person omniscient perspective Bakker uses for some of his descripte passages. [i]Really[/i] unengaging. But it never worked. Even less than Bakker’s passages. I’m that bad.

(Eventually I tried [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=1430&st=180&p=354379&#entry354379"]Theon’s interrogation of Reek[/url] through Kellhus’s eyes, and that was a lot funnier.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Even Akka is fucked despite representing skepticism and doubt and being frankly bakker's most sympathetic character. He's fucked because his skepticism and doubt just seem to be thin veneers covering the rage of a scorned man (kellhus stole his wife).[/quote]

Aye. Go read the Chapter Starting quote for the last chapter of TTT and it really hammers this home. It goes on and on about Doubt and Uncertainty being the start of all knowledge and reason and such, and ends with this (one of the best quotes in the book imo):[quote]And this is why I mourn my love of the Great Kyranean. For despite the pull of his wisdom, there are many things of which I am absolutely certain, things that feed the hate which drives this very quill.

-Drusas Achamian[/quote]

And to further the idea of Kellhus' transformation not being for the best in some ways, there's this great exchange in the last chapter, when Achamian approaches Kellhus at the very end of the book right after his coronation:
[quote]"With me" Kellhus declared, "everything is rewritten. Your books, your parables, and your prayers, all that was your custome, are now nothing more then childhood curiosities. For too long has Truth languished in the vulgar hearts of Men. What you call tradition is naught but artifice, the fruit of your vanity, of your lust, of your fear and your hate.
"With me, all souls shall find a more honest footing. With me, all the world is born anew!"
...
Achamian continued to limp forward. "The old world is dead!" he cried out "Is this what you say, Prophet?"
...
Kellhus nodded to him, his frown amiable and perplexed. "This is what I [i]decree[/i], Akka. The old world is dead."
Leaning against his staff, Achamian glanced across the astonished assembly. [b]"So you speak," he said without urgency or rancour, "of an apocalypse."[/b][/quote]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1686831' date='Feb 14 2009, 14.40']As I said, I also feel it’s a conscious stylistic choice, rather than authorial ineptitude.

But I’d still prefer if Bakker were more like — well, a Sansa POV. In fact, one of my first attempts to write a [i]If Bakker had written ASoIaF[/i] parody was the Hand’s turney, written in the detached 3rd person omniscient perspective Bakker uses for some of his descripte passages. [i]Really[/i] unengaging. But it never worked. Even less than Bakker’s passages. I’m that bad.

(Eventually I tried [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?showtopic=1430&st=180&p=354379&#entry354379"]Theon’s interrogation of Reek[/url] through Kellhus’s eyes, and that was a lot funnier.)[/quote]

I really liked his battles actually. Very EPIC feeling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1686807' date='Feb 14 2009, 13.47']:o

I'm a bit at of a loss for words... and those who know me know how truly shocking that is.

Rape isn't a tool to bring someone down a peg, no matter how much you dislike said person. It is one of the most horrible experiences, physically and emotionally a person can be put through. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place in fiction, I think it does, but I don't think anyone should look at it as some sort of just punishment, in fiction or otherwise.

Its overuse in PoN didn't endear me to the series, but lord knows I didn't want to open that can of worms on this board. Your post is at best callous, and at worst fucking disturbing.[/quote]

I thought it was certainly an INTERESTING scene. I sure as hell didn't see it coming. But it fit really well within the story.

It's not used as punishment in the scene though, it's Cnauir essentially "asserting his dominance" over Conphas. Except in the fucked up way only a madman like Cnauir could think to do it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke, please understand I'm not railing against that scene in particular. Or even rape in fiction. Rape in PoN I thought was brutal- but it should be. I felt it was a tad overdone.

My post in response to somebody posting that it was their FAVORITE scene in the series, and the justification being they enjoyed seeing Conphas taking down a peg. I really cannot even begin to fathom how a rape scene could be anyone's favorite scene in [i]any[/i] book. I find it gross that anyone would enjoy that scene, and I hope the post in question was poorly worded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1686853' date='Feb 14 2009, 14.59']Shryke, please understand I'm not railing against that scene in particular. Or even rape in fiction. Rape in PoN I thought was brutal- but it should be. I felt it was a tad overdone.

My post in response to somebody posting that it was their FAVORITE scene in the series, and the justification being they enjoyed seeing Conphas taking down a peg. I really cannot even begin to fathom how a rape scene could be anyone's favorite scene in [i]any[/i] book. I find it gross that anyone would enjoy that scene, and I hope the post in question was poorly worded.[/quote]

Oh, I know. I was just commenting on the scene in general.

Calling it your favorite scene seemed ... weird to me as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ghost of Nymeria' post='1686807' date='Feb 14 2009, 11.47']:o

I'm a bit at of a loss for words... and those who know me know how truly shocking that is.

Rape isn't a tool to bring someone down a peg, no matter how much you dislike said person. It is one of the most horrible experiences, physically and emotionally a person can be put through. I'm not saying it doesn't have a place in fiction, I think it does, but I don't think anyone should look at it as some sort of just punishment, in fiction or otherwise.

Its overuse in PoN didn't endear me to the series, but lord knows I didn't want to open that can of worms on this board. Your post is at best callous, and at worst fucking disturbing.[/quote]

Take yourself too seriously...? Or rather, [i]me[/i]...

That was a bad 'joke post' in responce to Werthead's correct assertion that too much of anything will desensitize. My point being, that scene was [i]so [/i]shocking, after 'so much rape'*, that obviously Bakker was able to elect emotions of disgust and shock in what amounts to the climatic exchange between two pivitol characters.

*seriously, though, is the rape-count all that much higher than Martin? How many times are we told about the rape of the Dorne Princess by Gregor and the baby getting his brains bashed in?

It's not really my 'favorite scene', pretty far from it actually. (Kellhus's trance at the peak of TDtCB wins that one hands down) I was being fascicious with that post; I apologize. However, it was so unexpected that I did almost cheer. An interesting twist, utterly unexpected, and moreover perfectly in frame to Cnaiur's character and his relationship with Conphas prior to that scene & at that point in the book. Shryke is right, it wasn't inflicted for "punishment", it was power assertion over the 'Lion of Kiyuth'.

EDIT:
I edited out that off-color "joke post" because, frankly, I see your point. It seems rather offensive, particularly for any who might have been victimized as a child or adult. (I know, I've dated incest and rape victims and am well aware of the trama associated). Again, apologies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No harm, no foul, K. I thought poorly worded was the best case scenario, and glad you saw it yourself.

It was an interesting twist. Not sure I've got an opinion on it, other than that.

And yeah, the internet is serious business, of course I take it seriously. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it is simple, isn't it? It is not a woman, but a man, and an alpha male at that, who gets raped. Women get raped all the time, it is old news and nothing anyone cares about.

It IS still far more shocking for a man to rape another man than it is for a man to rape a woman.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It turns out I have managed to interest my psychologist in Bakker. He's actually bought the first book. It'll be interesting what someone of his background will see in the books.

I'm not one of those who want more local color. In fact, I think PoN could have used some tightening. As a Silmarillion fan, I'm perfectly fine with distant overviews, especially when written well, like both Bakker and Tolkien do.

In my current reread I have noticed how tight the focus of the books actually is. Every scene is there for a reason, even if the reason is a lot of psychological navel gazing that illustrates a character or foreshadowing something that will become revealed two books later. I think Istriya's replacement has been hinted at from her very first appearance, which was invisible to me on the first reading but became clear on the second.

I think it's dangerous to judge thematic elements of a story that has barely started yet, especially when the author is obviously ambitious. I've noticed that people can have radically different interpretations of the books. I have my own interpretation that most people disagree with.

By the way, I've been trying to stat Kellhus (pre magic training) as a Lawful Evil Proxy of the No-God Male Paragon Human Monk 20/Rogue 1/High Proselytizer 1 while the No-God is basically unstattable as an overdeity based on the huge width of its Divine Aura during the First Apocalypse, but I think I can say it has the Divine Storm Salient Divine Ability. Based on the previous assumption and the fact that Sranc are obviously Chaotic Evil I can then confirm that the No-God's specific brand of Evil is Lawful Evil since its Divine Storm picks up and throws Sranc. Though, the official divine rules obviously haven't been given much thought as far as actually playing them goes, so perhaps I should use something like the Dicefreaks variant rules there instead, even if they aren't official.

I'm perfectly aware that the previous paragraph contains quite a bit of controversial interpretation. As I've said earlier, I'm of the opinion that Kellhus, true to the reality of the Ancient worldview, is actually an Antichrist figure working for the No-God and will deliver the Three Seas to ruin with his deceptions. Being that old-fashioned is actually rather radical these days where gray-and-gray morality is so fashionable in Epic Fantasy. But I think Bakker is still putting a new spin on the old subject, and looking what an Antichrist capable of taking over the world would really be like.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]As for people thinking of their wives: Cnaiür does that a lot. Anissi, I think. Also, in Neuropath, Thomas thinks about his wife all the time. Akka we already covered, who does so much thinking-about-wife that it annoys some readers. Kellhus thinks about both Serwë and Esmi when they are off-screen, though by that time we get very few POVs of him. Xerius’s wife is but briefly mentioned. Conphas I don’t know about. These wives seem to be remembered with equal measures of fondness, respect, lust, dread, pity, scorn, admiration, longing, etc. Of all the bad points raised in condemnation of Bakker, this strikes me among the most ill-conceived and lazy.[/quote]Since that wasn't actually my point, I don't really care.

I wasn't talking about the main characters and whether they were thinking about their women, and honestly it was a simple observation about the ancillary characters and that they don't seem to have families back home. But ya know, it's fine. Pick the weakest part of the argument and misinterpret it. Don't bother addressing the tons of other points brought up. That's okay, HE. Keep calling women sluts and don't think it actually has meaning outside of the definition. That's essentially what we're arguing about, right? That Bakker's world has no particular meaning outside of the work, and should be appreciated internally as an internally consistent work vs. whether it's affecting because of the social implications outside of it.

Valyrian and Paxter, really excellent posts. I do agree that this makes the most amount of sense in what Bakker's attempt was.

I also think that he fails by adding a lot of things that are absolutely unnecessary. For instance, that interpretation is absolutely fine without objectively women being worse than men. That isn't required. All it does is actively obscure the point. Similarly with Istriya's fucked-up molesting of her son; this was done before she turns skin-spy. What point does that actually serve?

One could argue that Bakker's promoting the premodern vs. modern view of women as commodity and showing how both aren't particularly good. One could also reasonably argue that he's stating a view that all women are only good as a commodity regardless. And it's that ambiguity that really hurts his argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Lyanna Stark' post='1686980' date='Feb 14 2009, 17.44']Well it is simple, isn't it? It is not a woman, but a man, and an alpha male at that, who gets raped. Women get raped all the time, it is old news and nothing anyone cares about.

It IS still far more shocking for a man to rape another man than it is for a man to rape a woman.[/quote]

It shouldn't be, though. Men raping men, I believe to be fairly common also. Probably unreported, though.

Back to the books, the Nansur rape the captive Scylvendi, as I recall too, in TDTCB, to incite them to attacking at Kyuth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Valyrian Dragonlord.

[quote name='TheValyrianDragonlord' post='1686717' date='Feb 15 2009, 00.54']Could you provide a link to this post/interview please? I'd like to read the whole thing. Thanks.[/quote]

Here is a link to all of Scott's posts on these two threads ([url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=4d308566075f248e53922af4f56d99d6&search_in=posts&result_type=posts"]link[/url]). The quote I used earlier was posted on: Feb 12 2009, 00.22.

@Kalbear: I think you are right in that one of the main issues up for debate now is how well Bakker actually conveyed his authorial intent in the text of PoN, and whether he did things that he didn't need to do in conveying this intent.

Side-note: hurry up HE and Valyrian Dragonlord!! I really want to hear what you have to say about this whole Serwe/Earwa thing, because I am at a loss.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1686992' date='Feb 14 2009, 18.10']Valyrian and Paxter, really excellent posts. I do agree that this makes the most amount of sense in what Bakker's attempt was.

I also think that he fails by adding a lot of things that are absolutely unnecessary. [b]For instance, that interpretation is absolutely fine without objectively women being worse than men. That isn't required.[/b] All it does is actively obscure the point. Similarly with Istriya's fucked-up molesting of her son; this was done before she turns skin-spy. What point does that actually serve?[/quote]

Is it not required? I'd say it is definitely required. Hell, if your gonna base your world on a pre-modern one, then women not being viewed as "less" in some sense then men would be a glaring omission.

I mean, we can argue about the EXTENT of sexism in these cultures, but I don't think you can argue that it wasn't pervasive in some form or other.

[quote]One could argue that Bakker's promoting the premodern vs. modern view of women as commodity and showing how both aren't particularly good[b]. One could also reasonably argue that he's stating a view that all women are only good as a commodity regardless. [/b]And it's that ambiguity that really hurts his argument.[/quote]

You could? Really? I don't see how.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1686992' date='Feb 15 2009, 00.10']Don't bother addressing the tons of other points brought up. That's okay, HE. Keep calling women sluts and don't think it actually has meaning outside of the definition. That's essentially what we're arguing about, right?[/quote]
Ah! Snark, hyperbole, purposeful misrepresentation of the other’s position — all rolled into just a few lines!

Kal, Bakker isn’t calling women sluts. He’s writing a book where others (often, [i]bad guys[/i] or [i]society[/i]) call women sluts, at least implictly. I think that is an important distinction. You don’t. So “what we’re arguing about” is if you can [i]describe[/i] nature (or anything else, like fictional settings) without simulateneously [i]condoning[/i] it — if there is a difference between “what is” and “what ought”. One of my main criticism against a current brand of postmodernist theory is exactly that I consider the conflation of “what is” with “what ought” [i]a fallacy[/i]. A fallacy that (1) I suspect you are prone to and (2) you wouldn’t even view as a fallacy. And I think this axiomatic difference lies at the heart of many of the debates we have on this thread. (I may be wrong.)

/over and out. I warn you, board: if you let this thread get interesting, I’ll find a way to log on and ask when [i]A Dance with Dragons[/i] is finished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...