Jump to content

Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)


JGP

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Shryke' post='1691211' date='Feb 18 2009, 20.52']I think, given the way the world is constructed, it's silly NOT to bring these in. I mean, the very thing you complain about (the fact that "one of their primary missions is to eradicate and police so-called 'superstition'") is what makes them relevant. All 3 of these religions, but Chrsitanity and Islam especially, seek to tear down the old superstitions, not to get rid of them, but to put one ultimate truth in their place.

And if they'd suceeded and they were right, I think we'd get something like Earwa out of it.[/quote]


But Intithism, and pre-Sejenus forms of Kiunnat which are arguably forms of the same faith, isn't the only religion in Earwa. There is also Fanimry which appears to have quite different tenets from Inrithism - to the extent that Solitary God of Fanimry doesn't seem likely to be just another "aspect" of Inrithi God. If Inrithism is the one true religion, it would follow Fanimry must be false. If so, where Cishaurim came from?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1691220' date='Feb 18 2009, 14.59']But Intithism, and pre-Sejenus forms of Kiunnat which are arguably forms of the same faith, isn't the only religion in Earwa. There is also Fanimry which appears to have quite different tenets from Inrithism - to the extent that Solitary God of Fanimry doesn't seem likely to be just another "aspect" of Inrithi God. If Inrithism is the one true religion, it would follow Fanimry must be false. If so, where Cishaurim came from?[/quote]

Fanimry says that the One True God is solitary and all the lesser gods are demons.

Inrithism says that the lesser gods are all just aspects of the One True God (a Hindu type twist on Polytheism->Monotheism).

Before that, there seemed to be MANY Gods worshipped all over the place.

All 3 ideas are compatible to a fair extent. Just depends what you define as "God" and what you define as "Demon".


Also, while the Cishaurim were priests, they didn't derive their power from God. Not anymore then any other sorceror does anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to throw this one out there (still steering clear of the "objective inferiority" issue as I find myself reluctant to believe any so-called scriptural Truths, even in - heh - fiction), it's still Scott's treatment of the actual female characters (rather than women in general) that bothers me. In the absence of Akka, would Esme have even had a story? Nope. In the absence of Xerius, would we have even seen Istrya? Nope. Would Serwe have entered the story if not for Cnaiur and Kellhus? Nope. And yet you can't really say the same for any of the main male characters. Akka's character would have been less [i]interesting [/i]without Esme, yes, but he'd still have had a job to do and a role to play. This is not true for any of our three ladies, all of whom are entirely dependent on the fellas for even having a part in the story at all. This, more than any of the religious nonsense, is probably the main reason I'm less than keen on the female presence in the series; they just seem to be props in the Main, Important stories about the Men.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1691227' date='Feb 18 2009, 21.08']Fanimry says that the One True God is solitary and all the lesser gods are demons.

Inrithism says that the lesser gods are all just aspects of the One True God (a Hindu type twist on Polytheism->Monotheism).

Before that, there seemed to be MANY Gods worshipped all over the place.

All 3 ideas are compatible to a fair extent. Just depends what you define as "God" and what you define as "Demon".


Also, while the Cishaurim were priests, they didn't derive their power from God. Not anymore then any other sorceror does anyway.[/quote]


Well, all sorcery is supposed to be coming from God. That is why it is blasphemous. Stealing the song of creation or something like this. IIRC, Three Seas sorcerers draw form the mind of God, and Cishaurim from the heart (that is why Moenghus sucked at Psukhe).

Of course it may prove that all gods are in fact demons (as the Consult seem to think) - that means they are just powerful entities from Outside which oportunistically set themselves up to be worshipped by benighted people of Earwa, but it would rather destroy the whole "objective truth" idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace' post='1691233' date='Feb 18 2009, 15.20']Well, all sorcery is supposed to be coming from God. That is why it is blasphemous. Stealing the song of creation or something like this. IIRC, Three Seas sorcerers draw form the mind of God, and Cishaurim from the heart (that is why Moenghus sucked at Psukhe).

Of course it may prove that all gods are in fact demons (as the Consult seem to think) - that means they are just powerful entities from Outside which oportunistically set themselves up to be worshipped by benighted people of Earwa, but it would rather destroy the whole "objective truth" idea.[/quote]

It's not "Stealing the Song of Creation", it's the whole "Fucking up God's Tapestry" angle.

Think of the non-Psukhe sorceries as being like you trying trying to alter a Da Vinci with an unsharpened crayon. It works, but it's really obvious that it's wrong and it fucks up the picture, whch pisses God off.

The Psukhe is more like trying to play your own tune in the middle of a symphony. As long as you've got the same beat and stay with the chord progression, you can do alot of your own thing without it fucking up the whole song.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1691230' date='Feb 18 2009, 15.17']Just to throw this one out there (still steering clear of the "objective inferiority" issue as I find myself reluctant to believe any so-called scriptural Truths, even in - heh - fiction), it's still Scott's treatment of the actual female characters (rather than women in general) that bothers me. [b]In the absence of Akka, would Esme have even had a story? [/b]Nope. In the absence of Xerius, would we have even seen Istrya? Nope. Would Serwe have entered the story if not for Cnaiur and Kellhus? Nope. And yet you can't really say the same for any of the main male characters. Akka's character would have been less [i]interesting [/i]without Esme, yes, but he'd still have had a job to do and a role to play. This is not true for any of our three ladies, all of whom are entirely dependent on the fellas for even having a part in the story at all. This, more than any of the religious nonsense, is probably the main reason I'm less than keen on the female presence in the series; they just seem to be props in the Main, Important stories about the Men.[/quote]

You don't think so?

I mean, she's only roped into the story via her connection to Akka, but that's not different then half the characters. Cnauir is only their because of meeting Kellhus and Kellhus is only there because of Moenghus and so on.

Esmenet spends alot of the series WITHOUT Akka. And comes to her own decisions about what to do and her own character arc and such.

And Serwe is fairly important, although by her character's nature, she's not very proactive. She's like the epitome of "women as possession" in this world. And funnily enough, in the end, the only one who gives the slightest shit about her is Kellhus, the one who uses her the most.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finn: No. No bets. Only wonder, worry, and I admit it, a certain amount of pride.

And yeah, I really do worry, and I really am conflicted. All I know is that I have a story to tell, a number of themes that have vexed me for a number of years, and an abiding belief that wrapping things up in nice, tidy, logical pictures is anathema to art.

I've acknowledged that I think my feet should be put to the fire. I've acknowledged my concern about the Archie Bunker Effect. I've acknowledged that graphic nature of the series is likely related to my desensitization to sex and violence. But you seem to want more.

Do you think I should be ashamed? Do you think I should accept the critical interpretations that you and others proposed as canonical or somehow privileged over the apologetic interpretations both I and others have offered here?

Where is my response coming up short on your yardstick?

I've read your response regarding fundamentalism (which I'm using in a more general sense than you, I think) a couple of times, Finn, and I honestly can't see what you're driving at. Could you restate it, or give me an analogy, maybe?

scott/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, Finn, I took Bakker's response of 'unbelievable' to be more of 'wow, you guys are still writing tons about my books! That's awesome' and not 'wow, you guys still don't get it and you're still as clueless as pieces of moldy cheese'.

And personally, Scott, I think you shouldn't take criticism of your work so personally. If people are asking questions about it, they aren't necessarily doing so because they are implying a specific answer; I think a lot of people are genuinely curious about your authorial intent and are seeking more clarity. I'm sure some are asking pointed rhetorical questions, but a lot of the discussion isn't whether or not you should have done it at all or whether the questions the book raises should ever be discussed - it's whether how you raised the questions worked well and how it could have worked better, and what did and didn't work. And yes, all of this is subjective, all of it is a dialog between the reader and the read, so it isn't going to be universal. At the same time things are going to be common in certain ways, and looking at it is an interesting exercise.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='TheValyrianDragonlord' post='1691143' date='Feb 18 2009, 14.09']But who are you, man, to answer God thus? Will what is made say to him who made it - Why have you made me this way? Does the potter not have power over his clay, to make, from the same mass, one vessel for honor, and another for dishonor?
-Romans

Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind and said,
Who is this that darkens counsel By words without knowledge?
Now gird up your loins like a man,
And I will ask you, and you instruct Me!
[b] Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? [/b]

God does not do things because they are just. Things are just because God does them.[/quote]Well played.

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1691230' date='Feb 18 2009, 15.17']Just to throw this one out there (still steering clear of the "objective inferiority" issue as I find myself reluctant to believe any so-called scriptural Truths, even in - heh - fiction), it's still Scott's treatment of the actual female characters (rather than women in general) that bothers me. In the absence of Akka, would Esme have even had a story? Nope. In the absence of Xerius, would we have even seen Istrya? Nope. Would Serwe have entered the story if not for Cnaiur and Kellhus? Nope. And yet you can't really say the same for any of the main male characters. Akka's character would have been less [i]interesting [/i]without Esme, yes, but he'd still have had a job to do and a role to play. This is not true for any of our three ladies, all of whom are entirely dependent on the fellas for even having a part in the story at all. This, more than any of the religious nonsense, is probably the main reason I'm less than keen on the female presence in the series; they just seem to be props in the Main, Important stories about the Men.[/quote]Ummm...[i]everyone[/i] in the Holy War, including Kellhus, walks on a conditioned path.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1691275' date='Feb 18 2009, 12.55']For the record, Finn, I took Bakker's response of 'unbelievable' to be more of 'wow, you guys are still writing tons about my books! That's awesome' and not 'wow, you guys still don't get it and you're still as clueless as pieces of moldy cheese'.[/quote]
I assumed it was a little bit of both, pride and exasperation.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1691261' date='Feb 18 2009, 12.45']I've acknowledged that I think my feet should be put to the fire. I've acknowledged my concern about the Archie Bunker Effect. I've acknowledged that graphic nature of the series is likely related to my desensitization to sex and violence. But you seem to want more.

Where is my response coming up short on your yardstick?[/quote]
To be honest, I'm surprised you're here at all (no judgment intended there). But since you are, and if your goals were what you say they were (and I have no reason to doubt you), then it seems to me that you should be cheering this thread on*, [i]especially[/i] those people asking the tougher questions. That's all.

*With the understanding that this is the internet, of course, so there will be misunderstandings, over-the-top positions, mistimed jokes :blush: , etc.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1691261' date='Feb 18 2009, 12.45']I've read your response regarding fundamentalism (which I'm using in a more general sense than you, I think) a couple of times, Finn, and I honestly can't see what you're driving at. Could you restate it, or give me an analogy, maybe?[/quote]
I'll have to get back to you and the thread on this. [Edited to add: and maybe this particular discussion belongs in the proposed Bakker and religion thread. Seeing MinDonner's post above, I'm mindful that the religion angle is only one small aspect of this discussion. OK, for real now, back to work . . . ] In theory, I'm at work . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]And personally, Scott, I think you shouldn't take criticism of your work so personally.[/quote]

Some things have stuck in my craw, I admit, but certainly not as much as I feared going in. I'm a veteran of Gabe's old Dead Cities board, and a survivor of several full-on broadsides from the estimable Matt Stover. Now that guy can fire grapeshot! Too much scar tissue to feel real pain anymore.

I know I do an awful lot of sloganeering for a guy who claims to hate slogans, but there is one slogan which drives all my work, if only in a negative sense, and that's Don DeLillo's "I write for the page," which I take to boil down to a nifty version of "I write for myself."

I literally think this is [i]the[/i] expression of a profound cultural tragedy - I won't bore you with details here (I have a paper built around it in the first issue Jay Tomio's online mag, [i]Heliotrope[/i], which should still be kicking around). All writers write for readers - writing is communication, after all, and communication is at minumum a two term concept. To say I write for myself is simply to say something along the lines of "I write for people like me," which is to say, "for people who [i]already[/i] share my tastes and values."

And as far as I'm concerned this amounts to "I write to entertain the like-minded," which I have no problem with so long as you don't pretend to be provocative and challenging (things we normally attribute to 'LITERATURE' (add french accent)). This is why I think most of the stuff that is extolled as challenging and literary is actually little more than a high-end consumer good, and only judged 'challenging' vis a vis [i]virtual[/i] readers who in actuality would never pick these books up.

What you write selects who your readers will be. You can either aim your books outward - and I think genre is the perfect vehicle for this - or you can aim them inward. Since I think we humans are quickly burning through whatever margins that have insulated us from the consequences of our folly in the past, I feel the distinct need to aim my books [i]outward[/i]. To spread the Dubious Word.

Now I'd be lying if I said my motives were simple: I have a new book coming out, and my future in this business depends on it doing at least as well as the old books. So yes, I'm here to promote my vision and so defend my living. But I take feedback [i]very seriously[/i] for the above reasons. I see all my writing as an attempt to walk a tightrope between alienation and fascination.

And to be totally frank, I really don't think anything I've written has been a 'success' in this particular regard. Far from it some respects.

Quite simply, I genuinely want to get better at communicating my stories to you all. And on this issue - gender - I worry that I've erred on the side of alienation.

I can see people shaking their heads, praying to God that junior never decides to get a philosophy degree!

scott/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add some context, since Steg's contribution on the historical/prehistorical dimensions of patriarchical society knawed at something inside of me last night.

-Euro/Western conceptions of women and men were based on the fundamental differences (percieved) of warmth, based on a Greek chap named Galen. He concluded that Men were hot/active, based on certain balances of the four humors. Women were cold/passive, once again based on a certain balance of the humors. It was believed, up until Victorian Britain I believe, that it was based on this that women could not reproduce without the aid of the hot/active male sperm, which housed the embryo already. The woman was simply the weak vessel that housed it, fed it, gave birth to it.
-Galen also, if I remember right, beleived that women were imperfect men, due to the fact that male testies were outside the body, where as the woman's reproductive tract was housed inside - not hot enough to 'drop' it out, I suppose.
-Also due to this assumption of active/passive, it was only natural for it to have led to the notion that men were actively seeking to become Rational, whereas women were content to being irrational.
-Religious discourse about feminism as well abounded, predominantly in the early years, where there was much made of the value in reproduction - when God's wrath descended, punishing the sinful and returning the virtuous to life and eternal salvation. Arguments occured, with one sect being known as the anti-feminists came to be a vocal sect. They argued against the need of relations with women, trying to justify it as potentially harmful for men. One in particular, St. Jerome (If I remember right he translated the bible from hebrew to vulgar latin) wrote "Against Joviniauns" which railed against the need for women, adapting certain Greek writers, such as Theophrastus' "The Golden Book of Marriage."
Oh and add in the whole "Eve screwed Adam over, ergo humanity's suffering" and you've got yourself a nice pie to stare and shake your fist at. (It looks delicious, but damnit the pie is so wrong)

As well - you can shoot me for this, as I know many will - anthropology - here is why you will want to shoot me ... cause my background is in history - from what I remember of a feminist history course I took, generally labelled men as hunters, whereas women were gathers. This distinction of labor affected the power structure of the genders - Native American society near the Great Lakes tended to have men hunt, whereas women foraged AND tended to gardens. One of the things that Europeans first remarked on Native Americans was how slothful the menfolk were, because the women were doing all the agricultural work. European views held that agriculture should primarily be a male job.

Since the women then had power of production - if I remember right - they were then given primary advantage in civil politics, both domestic and public. They had the right to choose male partners, to 'divorce' them, keep the children. (If anyone is far more educated on this please feel free to correct me)

This view, it can be argued, is polar opposite of how Euro-centric society was, which mainly saw the man as the breadwinner, thus the head of the household. Aside from the gender politics (Read Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales if you want to see the dynamics of it, specifically the Wife of Bath, compared to Grisilda from the Clerk's Tale - The Wife is monsterous because she has become a man, in that she is active and dominates the men in her life, to one degree or another. Grisilda is so passive that she becomes the 'ideal' woman) Men were suppose to be the head of the household, since he it is reflected in the King being given right to govern his country by the power of God. Male activeness was seen as the only way to properly govern, hence reports of how Queen Elizibeth tried to make her public image either gender neutral, or more masculine.

As well, around the turn of the 18th century, if my mind is not failing me, was the beginning of the industrial revolution, which vastly changed perceptions of gender politics. Though the lower classes were not able to give such divide assumptions of which gender should work - one nice balancing of the genders, if you're not an optimist like i am, is that both men and women were somewhat more equal once the development of the working poor was put into place - but the growing middle class, replicating practicies of the elite, began to cement notions of public/private spheres: Men, being active, should be the one who works/deals with the world at large, whereas women, being passive, should stay inside, rear children, keep household maintained, oversee servants, etc. As well, education still largely favored boys, but it isn't a surprise either that women were, somewhat, being given more liberties: educated women were being thrown into the public sphere, through the growing literacy rates (Of which girls were encouraged to be educated, though relatively shorter period of time than boys) the introduction of the printing press, and the introduction of the novel.

Attempting to summerize the evolution of the novel like I am about to is a crime, so bad me! But anyways, this period still largely saw literature as cherishing poetry first, plays second, novels dead last. The reason? The elites saw it as low brow, because anyone without a classical education could write one. Women then were given, at least in the beginning, a wide space to write. This only stopped as the novel became more accepted in higher society, with the women authors having to hide behind male personas (Austin, Gaskette to name just two).

Pretty much the status quo until the 19th/20th century, where women were given more rights ... and with that I will stop before i shoot myself. My background is mostly in Chinese history, with a smattering of British 1400-1800 century literature history. I do not know enough about the later British/American period.

TBH, I don't know why I wrote this (My memory, without consulting notes and reference material) is pretty shallow. I only wrote this cause Steg openned the door to my shabby attempt of outlining the history of western gender conceptions. I don't even know why I added the last bit about women in literature, except maybe to try to end in a slightly more positive note. >.>

But if you know more on any of the subject, feel free to correct/rip on me
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galen, had been discredited time and again all through the middle ages and the renaissance, while he was influential for a time, it didn't last long, and he was only later study out of respect for his work and as a tome of history. Al'Razi in the Islamic world and Paracelsus in Europe both tore Galen theory apart, but earlier scientists, doctors and alchemists also challenged Galen theory. It was far from the universal standard of medicine and biology, certainly not in philosophy, during the middle-ages.

Not really relevant, just thought I'd add that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1690805' date='Feb 19 2009, 00.51']Secondly, is [b]what's right right because the gods hold it to be true, or do the gods hold it to be true because it's right?[/b] I wanted to put my readers in the Socratic no man's land of this question by creating a fantasy world at odds with their values

etc etc[/quote]

Insert gloating here

Good to have confirmation that just because its gods will doesn't make it true or right even in Earwa. I wonder if by the end of the series we will come to realize just what these 'gods' are made of. The nature of these gods and of your 'damnation', whatever the hell that means, is interesting.

[quote name='needle' post='1690720' date='Feb 18 2009, 23.09']Umm..it appears from these threads at least, that [i]by and large[/i] it is the male readers that have 'moved on and got past it'. The women are a bit more troubled, if not offended. Nice to know you've got past sexism., Makk. Not so great for those of us who live with it, maybe?[/quote]

Way to take a quote, isolate it from the thing it responded to and vaguely accuse me of being sexist and not understanding because I'm a man.

Well, when in Rome I guess, perhaps I should be offended by the propensity of women in this thread to accept the men being misogynistic bastards as being ok and not worth getting on a soap box about. But then, maybe thats because you've gotten past sexism in respect to men, not so great for those who live with it, maybe?

That would be presumptuous though.

ok, done with the tit for tat now


[quote name='JoannaL' post='1691091' date='Feb 19 2009, 05.40']The point is that woman in Earwa are not only 'spiritually inferior' but generally inferior. The are intellectually and emotionally inferior to normal human beings. Now don't start the 'but Esme is soo smart argument'.[/quote]

Untrue. At which point in the story did someone do an unbiased scientific study of the potential intelligence and emotional states of women in Earwa? Because if they did I must have missed it. Women are considered to be inferior in all sorts of ways, that doesn't mean they actually are.

People have way too much respect it seems for the words of gods, be they fictional gods in fictional worlds or be they fictional gods in our world. Just because god said doesn't make it true.

[quote name='Finn' post='1691095' date='Feb 19 2009, 05.43']Well, if I understand what you're saying here, this seems to me to be very different than asking "what if the fundamentalists are right?" For fundamentalists, there is no distinction between god and truth. If Earwa is truly a world of "moral certainty and solidarity - a world where everything and everyone finds themselves ranked in order of value" then there is no "outside" (pardon the term) to that.[/quote]

The way I see it the fundamentalists who were running Afghanistan [i]were[/i] right, they were right with moral certainty and solidarity, hence the fundamentalist bit. Their world was truly a world where everyone was ranked according to value, it still is in fact. Whether an outside existed or not [i]their[/i] world, be it Afghanistan or Earwa, had those rules and they were absolute truth.

The very fact we have opposing 'gods'[i] apparently[/i] kicking about in this story is indicative that there is plenty of scope for the outside.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Good to have confirmation that just because its gods will doesn't make it true or right even in Earwa. I wonder if by the end of the series we will come to realize just what these 'gods' are made of. The nature of these gods and of your 'damnation', whatever the hell that means, is interesting.[/quote]Right, but the damnation isn't part necessarily of the gods. That's sort of the point - at least I think so. If it's just that the gods believe women suck but that's not true, it's not anything special of a story; it's just a big baddie enforcing ancient wrong stereotypes instead of a society doing so.

So ask yourself this - what if the world did actually dictate that women were worse than men? Would that change your reaction to the story? Would that question your views of what the book was trying to accomplish or what the message was?

Another way to hint at this similar message is this: why couldn't the Consult confront the gods directly? If Earwa wasn't defined by damning Inchoroi because of who they were, why couldn't they do something else instead of shutting the world away from the Outside by obliterating the human populace? If the gods are wrong, why do the Inchoroi believe them to be correct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1691502' date='Feb 19 2009, 11.46']Right, but the damnation isn't part necessarily of the gods. That's sort of the point - at least I think so. If it's just that the gods believe women suck but that's not true, it's not anything special of a story; it's just a big baddie enforcing ancient wrong stereotypes instead of a society doing so.[/quote]

Is the big baddie really enforcing them though? Or is society happy to do so? Things haven't exactly been that interventionist godwise for while now, the sorcerers do get away with their damnedness after all. We also have different gods and cultures into the mix and from what we can see, surprise surprise they all conveniently oppress women. A bit like us.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1691502' date='Feb 19 2009, 11.46']So ask yourself this - what if the world did actually dictate that women were worse than men? Would that change your reaction to the story? Would that question your views of what the book was trying to accomplish or what the message was?[/quote]

The world actually does dictate this. No what if necessary. Living in a culture with slightly more modern views of these injustices I can see that, and this book is written for just that culture, not for Taliban living in the hills. Thus the message gets through just fine for me.

If I was religiously indoctrinated and a bit thicker it may come through differently. The world would be the same but my beliefs of course would be different. If this were the case then I'd call the novel more of a subversive work, getting past the religious censors but actually pushing a very different message.

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1691502' date='Feb 19 2009, 11.46']Another way to hint at this similar message is this: why couldn't the Consult confront the gods directly? If Earwa wasn't defined by damning Inchoroi because of who they were, why couldn't they do something else instead of shutting the world away from the Outside by obliterating the human populace? If the gods are wrong, why do the Inchoroi believe them to be correct?[/quote]

Be cautious not to give the Inchoroi too much credit, they are just as falliable as the humans and the 'gods' in this piece. I'm not so sure where your going with this paragraph anyway so if you could elaborate it a bit more it may help.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mackaxx' post='1691523' date='Feb 18 2009, 20.03']Be cautious not to give the Inchoroi too much credit, they are just as falliable as the humans and the 'gods' in this piece. I'm not so sure where your going with this paragraph anyway so if you could elaborate it a bit more it may help.[/quote]
I seem to recall somehow that the Inchoroi became convinced by the ideology of Inrithism that they would be damned, and it was at that point that they began their crusade to save themselves.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose the 'why couldn't they do something else' question can be answered by the obvious, they didn't know of any other way to accomplish their salvation. Simple enough.

This puts the Inkys below god X or whatever, for perceived or actual reasons, but thats not a big deal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Be cautious not to give the Inchoroi too much credit, they are just as falliable as the humans and the 'gods' in this piece. I'm not so sure where your going with this paragraph anyway so if you could elaborate it a bit more it may help.[/quote]

Okay, I'll try.

We know the Inchoroi tried to destroy mankind to save their own souls. We know that they understood that they were damned - damned despite not believing in the same religion, damned basically for what they were, damned as soon as they arrived. They've known this for a lot longer than men have really been around, even (hence the womb-plague against the nonmen).

So what does this damnation mean? Is it an agency actively damning them - a god or gods saying specifically that they suck? That's what the humans believe at least. But what if they're wrong? What if it's like Kellhus says - that the Outside connects to the world through the pinholes of humans, and the souls escape through those pinholes to the Outside where they go to heaven or hell depending on what they did in this world? And what if (this is the important part) it doesn't matter about gods, god, satan, or anything like this - that this is simply a physical, causal process essentially that is ungoverned by any agency? In other words, no matter what anyone believes in Earwa as long as there is a connection between Earwa and the Outside, you will go to hell if you do certain things in this world. It's as causal as gravity.

If that's the case, it doesn't matter about the gods. The Consult can't create a god or start worshipping one or anything like that; [i]the gods have no specific power over the metaphysics of the world[/i]. Their only choice is to sever that link between the Outside and the world. Not because of the connection between God and man, but because of the connection between the Outside and man. Gods are just other things that are strong and powerful, but are along for the ride.

If that weren't the case - if it were that the gods were dictating the damnation of Inchoroi - they could in theory plead with those gods, or do something else. Make deals, worship, etc. But all they can do is sever the connection with the outside.

So let's go with that as a basis. Now, instead of damnation for certain actions, lets take worth. Lets say that there is a way to objectively weigh someone's worthiness for heaven - and we can do it precisely with a digital spirit scale. On that digital spirit scale, women weigh less than men, right off the bat. This isn't society stating as such. This isn't some god stating it either. This is just the way the world works; women can't screw up as much as men can, because they'll go to hell. Or women have to work even harder to get into heaven. Again, gods don't come into play here at all; they can manipulate people, maybe even physics, but they aren't the judges of who is damned and who is saved. It's entirely causal and entirely based on things like whether or not you were a whore, whether or not you were a sorcerer, and whether or not you were a woman or a man. These things have spiritual, measurable value in this theory. And women value less.

Their atomic spiritual weight is a lesser isotope of spirituality than the men. That's just the way it is.

If that's the case, is the No-God the real hero given that all its doing is making that value totally valueless? What does that mean for Kellhus' goals, especially since we know he's a liar and is only superficially changing the rules? It's easy to declare that the gods are wrong (this is after all what Kellhus successfully does); how do you declare that gravity is wrong? How do you declare that thermodynamics are wrong? And even if you do - how does that declaration change what gravity and thermodynamics actually do?

[quote]I seem to recall somehow that the Inchoroi became convinced by the ideology of Inrithism that they would be damned, and it was at that point that they began their crusade to save themselves.[/quote]based on the wiki, the No-God died in 2155 and Inri was born in 2159, so I'm not sure how that follows.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1691372' date='Feb 18 2009, 17.49']And as far as I'm concerned this amounts to "I write to entertain the like-minded," which I have no problem with so long as you don't pretend to be provocative and challenging (things we normally attribute to 'LITERATURE' (add french accent)). This is why I think most of the stuff that is extolled as challenging and literary is actually little more than a high-end consumer good, and only judged 'challenging' vis a vis [i]virtual[/i] readers who in actuality would never pick these books up.

What you write selects who your readers will be. You can either aim your books outward - and I think genre is the perfect vehicle for this - or you can aim them inward. Since I think we humans are quickly burning through whatever margins that have insulated us from the consequences of our folly in the past, I feel the distinct need to aim my books [i]outward[/i]. To spread the Dubious Word.
scott/[/quote]

Your post reminded me of these this article by John Dolan of [i]The Exile[/i]
As you're a former academic, I think you'd like it. It's about how he made the transition from academic writing and it's audience of three people (the author, anonymous reader, and proofreader) to popular online discourse. Btw I really enjoyed The Judging Eye and I'm looking forward to its sequel next year (hopefully :)). Keep doing what you're doing

Conceived in Sin: The Online Audience and the Case of the eXile
[url="http://mokk.bme.hu/kozpont/konferenciak/szetfolyoirat/eloadasok/dolanj"]http://mokk.bme.hu/kozpont/konferenciak/sz...loadasok/dolanj[/url]

Excerpt:
The question of audience seems particularly fraught as topic of an academic conference. As in, whoever said we have one? English-language academics not only lack an audience - they don't want one. For starters, connecting with
one requires some shared premise; and the unspoken motive underlying most contemporary Anglophone academic writing is the proud sense of alienation from a despised popular sensibility which is to be surveyed at all only to be deplored.

Contemporary academic discourse continually depicts itself as "speaking truth to power" and "transgressing," thus positioning itself as a dissenting voice - but this discourse without an audience threatens no one, least of all "power," and these "transgressions" are the work of some of the tamest, most harmless people in existence. How likely is it that people afraid of caffeine and secondhand smoke could generate anything that would give "power" a second's worry?

/sorry for the thread jack
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...