Jump to content

Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)


JGP

Recommended Posts

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1692841' date='Feb 19 2009, 13.44']And things were going so well...[/quote]
Indeed.

[quote name='Matrim Fox Cauthon' post='1692865' date='Feb 19 2009, 13.55']I'm almost thinking that at this point, the entire three sections of discussion should be archived and broken down into books and chapters. Some characters (or posters) have left the picture, while it seems that we are getting a wave of new posters who have not read the previous discussion. I'm just not sure yet how to label this new wave of discussion. Perhaps this is more of a needless recap chapter to help heighten our suspense until the exciting discussion we just touched upon recently is resumed.[/quote]
It's the "Archie Bunker effect" or "Archibald Merriwether effect" at work *in the thread.* Who knew how many permutations this effect could have?

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1692870' date='Feb 19 2009, 13.57']See Bakker's post above. I think I have finally understood where the fundamental disagreement in this debate lies. In my mind the picture of something is not the same as the thing itself.[/quote]
Of course not. No one is confusing fiction with reality, or saying that representations are the same as the thing represented. But representations in texts do have real effects on readers. Even if the author's intentions are good, even if there is some larger frame that will ultimately make everything clear, readers can legitimately question the purpose, execution, and ultimate effect of these representations.

I could make a racist joke and frame the joke by saying that I'm not really a racist and my only purpose in telling the joke is to make people laugh. That framing device doesn't change the real effect my joke might have in injuring others and promoting (however unintentionally) a culture of racism. And before anyone jumps in to tell me that they don't believe in political correctness and are a fan of edgy humor, I'm willing to bet that everyone has lines beyond which they don't want to cross. And again the point here isn't to police those lines but to discuss what is at stake in representing "X" in "Y" ways.

To paraphrase Yeats: "In dreams [and fantasies] begin responsibility." (And, by the way, go Yeats and Ireland in the literary world cup thread!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692839' date='Feb 19 2009, 16.42']Am I wrong in thinking that, for some of you here at least, what I've said [i]makes no real difference[/i]?

I represent a mysogynistic world, like the world of the Bible as interpreted by many. A world where, like I once debated with an evangelical Aunt of mine, Men stand closer to God than Women - whatever the hell that means.[/quote]

i think "whatever the hell that means" is the crux of the whole problem. what does that mean? the actual early middle ages were a misogynistic world already. in a world where women are inherently inferior their degraded, subservient position can be justified - they are inferior, they occupy an inferior position, so all is right with the world (as it were). so what is being said there? what issues could you not address by portraying a misogynistic world where the women considered and are treated as though they are inferior- where they occupy an inferior postion - that you can in a world where they actually ARE inferior?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Archibald Merriweather' post='1692586' date='Feb 19 2009, 14.26']I am really taken aback that this is an aspect of the series that people find controversial. I've not gotten the impression from the novels that women in Earwa are categorically inferior - spiritually, intellectually, characteristically, or in any other way. I see no evidence of misogyny. The use of the terms "whorish" and "harlotry" seem, to me, to be appropriate considering one of the main characters [i]is a prostitute[/i]. And that there are few women of power in the novel seems perfectly apropos considering the status of women in general in the early medieval period in western europe, a period which the actions in these novels seem to echo. The novels present one story in an entire fictional world that stretches back nearly to infinity (and beyond!). That the one sliver of the history of this vast, ancient world that this story represents doesn't contain a wealth of powerful female characters is hardly misogynistic considering the history of medieval Europe - there are countless pivotal episodes from the history of that period that do not feature powerful women actors in prominent roles. And since when must gender roles in all fantasy novels be themselves fantastical? Is it really misogynistic to have gender roles in a quasi-medieval fantasy reflect gender roles as they were, by and large, in the medieval world to which it hearkens - a world in which powerful women were an exception to the rule, in which the world of power was almost entirely a male-dominated one? Perhaps Mr Bakker has created Earwa as a world which was far more oppressive to women than medieval Europe was; perhaps on Earwa there were no women anywhere who ever held power. I don’t believe that the text itself indicates that. I read it as being reflective of a world in which - like medieval Europe - powerful women were an exception to the rule, and simply did not feature in this particular story. The women in the series are certainly no less admirable than the men imo – the one complaint I have about these novels is a lack of sympathetic characters, period – there aren’t any of either sex, really.

There are ten billion pages on this subject already, and I apologize if everything i've said has already been addressed and refuted. Regardless, it seems to me that, having been weaned on politically-correct, self-esteem-boosting narratives where the only gender differences were anatomical, many readers find stories that do not conform to that dynamic offensive in and of themselves merely for violating laws of political correctness to which we all must now subscribe, regardless of whether [i]reality itself[/i] violates those laws - as the reality of gender roles did in medieval Europe, and do in Earwa.[/quote]

anyway we could get a mod to pin this somewhere in case someone needs to demonstrate what "WRONG" means?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1692911' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.17']Check out the 3 seas forums some time. And there have been plenty of folks on this thread and other Bakker threads in the past that have been really thrilled with his portraying a world realistically, which if not the same thing is fairly close.

Weren't you the one that said that your favorite part of the book was Cnaiur raping Conphas?

Wrong? I don't know that many people have ever added value judgment to this one way or another. At the same time, it's fairly naive to think that (for example) someone who has been the victim of pedophilia would have the same view of Lolita as someone who hasn't, and I would consider it pretty disrespectful to tell that person 'you just aren't getting my work'.[/quote]


*sigh* - as I already wrote, it was what the scene [i]signified [/i]in the course of that relationship - something built over the course of the trilogy and climaxing at that moment - not the visceral thrill of "mud and blood on the sheets" or however Bakker puts it. The interior issues/conflict, not the external act. Perhaps you didn't read my heartfelt apology for poorly-measured words, in case I offended some random reader out there who had been victimized.

If you did read it already and simply put it in there to add weight to your argument, weak sauce. I haven't seen any drooling over the rape scenes in PoN (thank goodness); perhaps you have, but on this board? Enjoying a realisticly-depicted society (whatever that means, given the Earwa is exaggerated in a deliberate manner) is pretty far from, say, getting a chubby when Achaiman solicits a young prostitute in TWP (a scene that made me feel very uncomfortable on my first read and subsequent re-reads - see, some of us can enjoy the setting if not all that takes place [i]in [/i]that setting).

As for Lolita, you didn't answer my question. What [i]are [/i]you suggesting , exactely? That masterworks should be surpressed or [i]not [/i][i]written [/i]simply because they may bother a segment of society? That certain themes should not be addressed at all?

I acknowledge that may not be your intent (in fact, I'm positive it's not), but what comes out of such posts veers dangerously close to the sort of censorship that hardcore fundamentalists and hardcore PC activists demand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear']And there have been plenty of folks on this thread and other Bakker threads in the past that have been really thrilled with his portraying a world realistically, which if not the same thing is fairly close.[/quote]

I disagree. I don't think being pleased at "realistic portrayal" (let's [i]not[/i] get sidetracked with whether it is or isn't, okay?) necessarily means that at all. It could (and I'd say for pretty much anyone whom I've seen express thoughts along that line regarding Bakker's books on this board it does) mean that they think that portraying a non romanticized version of a medieval world is good. In fact, it is even uplifting in a way: our world may be far from perfect, but at least it's better than [i]that[/i].

[quote name='Finn']I'm willing to bet that everyone has lines beyond which they don't want to cross.[/quote]

Absolutely. I am also willing to bet that for each individual those lines vary by context and presentation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Archibald Merriweather' post='1692930' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.30']imagine a set of novels in which black people are inherently inferior. are those novels "racist"?

i don't see how to escape the misogyny label when women in the novel are inherently, objectively inferior.

i am still having trouble accepting that. and i don't see where bakker fully acknowledges this fact - the closest i've found (forgive my shoddy investigative work if this is the case) is his response to kalbear, and that's not exactly explicit. i just don't get it. i would vventure to say that most people who read these do NOT recognize that in Bakker's invented universe women are objectively, inherently inferior. that is the sort of thing that finds its way into reviews and discussions and what not. i'd not read about it until i stumbled onto this board and posted all those stellar posts and made such a great impression on everyone.[/quote]

Unless I'm grossly misreading Scott's last post you're off the mark here. Sure, in the world people think women are inferior but I haven't seen any indication in anything he's said or in the books that would lead me to conclude that it's some kind of objective fact of life in Eärwa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Zadok' post='1692962' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.46']Unless I'm grossly misreading Scott's last post you're off the mark here. Sure, in the world people think women are inferior but I haven't seen any indication in anything he's said or in the books that would lead me to conclude that it's some kind of objective fact of life in Eärwa.[/quote]

i feel the same way, but there are people here (everyone, really) who have been discussing this with the author and know better than i that say that this is the case. i believe them, though i find it a hard thing to do and every ounce of me screams against it. i didn't get that from the books, and i still - even now - don't get that from his actual words here, but i think i'm missing something and they know better than i do at this point.

you've been here longer than i have - ask em.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='kuenjato' post='1692958' date='Feb 19 2009, 14.44']As for Lolita, you didn't answer my question. What [i]are [/i]you suggesting , exactely? That masterworks should be surpressed or [i]not [/i][i]written [/i]simply because they may bother a segment of society? That certain themes should not be addressed at all,

I acknowledge that may not be your intent (in fact, I'm positive it's not), but what you're suggesting comes dangerously close to the sort of censorship that hardcore fundamentalists and hardcore PC activists demand.[/quote]
I *knew* someone was going to bring up censorship. Simply doesn't apply here. No reason for this thread to go there. No one is suggesting that controversial works should not be written, read, turned into delicious pies, whatever.

On the Lolita thing - Do you think that maybe Nabokov wanted his readers to think about the effects of his representation of a charming pedophile? That he wanted them to ask questions about it? Ironically, I often think the censorship flag is raised to put a stop to tough questions.

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1692960' date='Feb 19 2009, 14.45']Absolutely. I am also willing to bet that for each individual those lines vary by context and presentation.[/quote]
Of course . . . and that's one of the interesting things that these threads bring up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='firqorescu' post='1691943' date='Feb 19 2009, 20.41']Mackaxx, I find it completely incomprehensible that you can interpret what Bakker said like that.

Bakker has said:


Here he explicitly says that A) in Eärwa the spiritual inferiority of women is like a natural law and B) that this is explicitly not like the world of our ancestors, since they only [i]thought[/i] that they lived in such a world.

Bakker has also stated that he wants to investigate worlds with a built-in intentionality and value scale and I really don't see why he would only say that and then go on and create a world without it.[/quote]

Simple enough, I see both quotes as making analogies about how it was like to live in the olden days, where all sorts of things were thought to be natural law. The first one about the uranium is explicitly and analogy and the second one a little more specific, in its case its even saying that in the world of our ancestors spiritual value was objective. You and I both know that this objectivity was incorrect.

I think were going round n round in circles here now.


Really enjoyed the past few pages discussion on justice coming about for the wrong reasons, and in the end it's still justice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finn' post='1692973' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.51']I *knew* someone was going to bring up censorship. Simply doesn't apply here. No reason for this thread to go there. No one is suggesting that controversial works should not be written, read, turned into delicious pies, whatever.

On the Lolita thing - Do you think that maybe Nabokov wanted his readers to think about the effects of his representation of a charming pedophile? That he wanted them to ask questions about it? Ironically, I often think the censorship flag is raised to put a stop to tough questions.[/quote]

Finn--

Sorry, but when someone starts talking about this:

"Bakker can't control the readers of his work."

That can be applied [i]anywhere[/i], to any media. Lolita is just a famous example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]As for Lolita, you didn't answer my question. What are you suggesting , exactely? That masterworks should be surpressed or not written simply because they may bother a segment of society? That certain themes should not be addressed at all,

I acknowledge that may not be your intent (in fact, I'm positive it's not), but what you're suggesting comes dangerously close to the sort of censorship that hardcore fundamentalists and hardcore PC activists demand.[/quote]Man, I should make that part of my sig or something.

I'm not suggesting that at all, that things should be suppressed or made more PC or anything of the sort. My wife's favorite book is Lolita, which makes this especially amusing to me. She turned me on to the book and after reading it I have to agree; it's one of the best books I've ever read, and it would be a crime if it were never written.

At the same time, if a friend of mine told me that they were utterly disgusted by Lolita, I wouldn't be at all surprised and I would almost instantly see why. For some people out there there are going to be things that touch them too personally, and they cannot leave their shit at the door (to quote Jeordhi). That's not a failing of theirs either; their shit is pretty big to leave at the door, and to ask them to do so would be pretty criminal and belittling.

What I wouldn't get is people who actively [url="http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Lolicon"]think that it's okay[/url] or think Humbert was in the right - and make no mistake, there are a lot of people out there.

And I think that there are decisions that you can make, as a writer, that make sure your intent is more clear and that detachment is more obviously able to be taken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the author's admission to deliberately creating a world where women are objectively inferior to men must be tempered with his following aversion of the world being an evolving character in the series. That is, we are looking at Act I of a three-act play. There's more to come.

Now, whether what is to come can mitigate the sexism in the first 4 books, or whether the final answer can lend sense to it all, we won't know until we have those final 5 books in front of us (and perhaps even then, the answer will be ambiguous). It's fair for some to say that no pay-off is good enough to continue to read a series with deliberate and exaggerated sexism. It's also fair for others to say that they are willing to hang on a little longer to find out if the pay off at the end is worth it.

Finally, I think if someone sets out to portray an extremely sexist world, then it is inevitable that many readers will find the work to be sexist. There's nothing unfair about that, as far as I am concerned. This is not the same as a reporter filming a 5-minute segment on the sex slave trade where we can comfortably say that the report itself is not misogynistic just because the content is. This is a work of fiction, with author intent and fingerprint all over it. Frankly, I'd think it'd be a worse failure if the author set out to writes a deliberately and literally sexist world only to have most of the readers not see it at all. I think a central theme of the discussion has been how should we, the readers, react to that portrayal, vis a vis the author intent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finn' post='1692973' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.51']On the Lolita thing - Do you think that maybe Nabokov wanted his readers to think about the effects of his representation of a charming pedophile? That he wanted them to ask questions about it?[/quote]

And this is essentially what many of us have been saying from the start.

Lolita ok, but PoN mysogonistic apparently?

To say, as Kalbear has implied, that many of us don't see the mysogony is ignoring what peope have been saying.

We see it as a story ABOUT mysogony (in some way) and not a mysogonstic story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Lolita ok, but PoN mysogonistic apparently?[/quote]I think the difference would be the objective vs subjective reality, but I could easily see calling Lolita a miso..pedic? story. I'm not sure what the distinction is; is saying a book is misogynistic saying that it's promoting misogyny?

I have a much better idea now of what Bakker intended; I didn't before this series of threads came about, and I really appreciate the clarification and discussion from both him and lots of others. I didn't really believe that the crux of the story and the primary thematic element was about gender relations and modernity. I thought it was about philosophical views, and as such the gender relations felt somewhat out of place, as if he wanted to overstress the realism of a premodern time.

It doesn't make it any less uncomfortable to read, but now that it is less about an artistic flourish (sort of like Martin and his food fetish) and more a specific argument, it's a bit more palatable. I still think it would have been more effective if it were less graphic and obvious.

[quote]To say, as Kalbear has implied, that many of us don't see the mysogony is ignoring what peope have been saying.[/quote]Hell, I spent about 2 weeks arguing with Happy Ent that the world was misogynistic at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1692992' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.02']And this is essentially what many of us have been saying from the start.

Lolita ok, but PoN mysogonistic apparently?

To say, as Kalbear has implied, that many of us don't see the mysogony is ignoring what peope have been saying.

We see it as a story ABOUT mysogony (in some way) and not a mysogonstic story.[/quote]
I think you're missing my point. I'm not here to condemn - or offer absolution to - any work of fiction. It isn't clear at all to me that Lolita, for instance, is "OK." I think it is precisely the point of Lolita that it might not be OK. Works that are designed to provoke, provoke. I think Terraprime said it well:

[quote name='TerraPrime' post='1692991' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.01']Finally, I think if someone sets out to portray an extremely sexist world, then it is inevitable that many readers will find the work to be sexist. There's nothing unfair about that, as far as I am concerned.[/quote]
I can imagine Bakker thinking that if you want to make an omelet, you've got to break some eggs. Well and good, but let's not act as if eggs have not been broken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692208' date='Feb 20 2009, 02.26']means & ends[/quote]

Not buying it, firstly because as soon as you reach an 'ends' it becomes a 'means'.

Secondly these largely unitary goals being something abstract like getting closer to heaven are no less crazy than making your own life comfortable, which is one of our societies unitary goals. Is the pointless consumption really that pointless if it makes you happy?

Thirdly, whilst on an individual level 'pointless' consumption does drive many of us along this consumption does serve to turn other wheels with quite a bit more point, wheels to do with science for instance now turn more than they ever have before. This is kinda nice as scientific advancement is our best bet right now for unlocking meaningful things.

Right now it would be just as weird if everyone worshipped at the alter of science as it would be to worship Ra and build some pyramids. It would nice if everyone genuinely had a thing for science but they really don't and thats fine, they can grease another wheel.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692402' date='Feb 20 2009, 04.45']The thing that really creeps me out is the way modern neuroscience seems to be slowly strengthening the hand of the nihilist camp. It troubles me because I am not a nihilist. I literally [i]want[/i] to believe in some version of the liberalism you describe.[/quote]

I'm not so sure you should consider the neuroscience alone, a bit of evolution and maybe memes wouldn't go astray.. I'm sure what you've read is mostly correct but be sure to take it in the context of us as a species, a species with a propensity to exist in cohesive societies. We have evolved as a species together and faith in one another is an essential part of that, a nihilistic outlook being our ultimate reality wouldn't have facilitated the development of the strange kind of monkey we have become.

Self preservation is definitely hard wired into us, but then so is altruism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, thank you to Scott for taking the time to comment on my post and especially for expanding on (3) 'the answer'.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692208' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.26']Regarding (2), I'm saying that, although Three Seas society is thoroughly patriarchal, it is the [i]story[/i] that largely determines the relative paucity of female characters. Just because you don't see many powerful female characters, doesn't mean they aren't there. The assumption frankly perplexes me. My general dislike of quota characterization, or the fact that the world was originally born in the mind of a naive 17 year old, may have led me to go overboard, but I'm not really convinced this is the case. Otherwise I think my choices are pretty much as thematically justified as they could be.[/quote]
OK, that confirms that I understood your position on (2). I'm going to try and say more about (2) next.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692208' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.26']The reason my female characters are defined by male desire is simply because critiquing male desire is one of my primary thematic axes - building up, in the case of Esmenet, to Kellhus's use of contemporary egalitarian rationales to 'liberate' her into his unique brand of slavery, and in the case of Serwe (whose naivete and compliance to desire was meant to parallel that of [i]fantasy worlds in general[/i]), her death in the course of Kellhus's Circumfixion, which is to say, his rise to absolute power in the Holy War.[/quote]
Um... you are trying to do a lot of things at once. On the one hand you’re saying in some sense that Esmi represents real life women’s progress through time, but on the other hand through the male characters you’re exploring male desire, and so in that theme Esmi represents some aspect of what men desire. These sound like separate layers that got conflated in people’s minds, to suggest that women in your world are defined by male desire. Then you have Serwe representing fantasy… but interpreted by readers as a typical fantasy [i]woman[/i] (people did pick up on the ‘unrealistic’ but what to you seemed obvious hints that she wasn’t supposed to be a representation of a woman didn’t sink in to me.)

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692208' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.26']As for the 'numbing' repetition of harlot, womanish, and so on, I meant this as a blur on the numbing repetition of 'bitch,' 'pussy,' and so on in contemporary Anglo culture. Even after all this time, men continue to define themselves and their virtues [i]against[/i] women - to the point where the greatest male sin - homosexuality - seems to come down to playing woman to another man. This is where the themes surrounding Cnaiur directly link up with those underwriting Esmenet. Sadly, this is another instance where I thought I was being too overtly feminist (really!) and actually ended up provoking the opposite response in probably too many readers.[/quote]
Well you had me on board with this.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692208' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.26']But the fact is I cooked all this stuff up before I really appreciated the way surface details prime subsequent interpretation - before I understood that our brains - yours, mine, everyones - are pigeonholing machines. I really thought that all the clues I laid out would be obvious enough that a substantial proportion of readers would at least understand that I was up to something deeper.

I was wrong. I don't mean this in the self-congratulatory way of saying "I gave too much credit to my readers," but in the critical way of saying, "I failed to understand my readers - female readers in particular."[/quote]

Take care not to pigeonhole 'female readers' ;)

But yes, as I was pointing out in my point (1), you were not aware of the extent to which your choices resembled that of so many other fantasy authors. You were aware that you were using archetypes but you expected the reader to realise they were deliberate archetypes and not to file them away with all the other instances which created the archetype in the first place...

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1692208' date='Feb 19 2009, 15.26']With reference to (3), I'm talking about the problem of nihilism. Modern liberalism can be understood as the political expression of the fact that there's really no such thing as value. Since we cannot arbitrate between competing version of the 'Good,' the state retreats, adopts a 'live and let live posture,' legislating only those guidelines that most efficiently allow the greatest number of us to maximize our consumption. We dress these guidelines up in sacred clothing, 'equal rights' and what not, but ultimately it's all about keeping the human animal fat and happy in the most collectively efficient manner possible.[/quote]
I can barely dip my feet into such a discussion. Trying to grasp hold of what you are worried about, (I am aware what I am about to say is one of a thousand possible ways to solidify what you are saying, and this won't be what you actually mean - but I say this to demonstrate how difficult it is to communicate even directly, let alone through allegory) you seem (like Tolkien!) to be regretting the changes brought by the industrial revolution. You sound nostalgic for a simpler past when people believed in palpable good and evil, and religion gave people their life goals. Your description of a world in which people cooperate only for acquisitiveness and personal growth towards happiness sounds as 'nihilistic' sounds as strange to me as as people who call science 'cold'. I’m not sure I share your concerns… (though that’s probably because my big toe is not sufficient to discern the meanings here)… but this brings me back to (3), the answer to the question… see my next post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply Paxter:

[quote name='Paxter' post='1692120' date='Feb 19 2009, 14.14']No, I don't think you've missed the point. He wants us to think about the origins of "justice" (e.g. gender equality) in our modern society, and whether it makes a difference when the origins of this "justice" are, in fact, unjust.
[…]
This makes us (or, at least, me) think: shit. If I can't even get excited about the empowerment of a lowborn female and the destruction of characters who were symbols of female inferiority (Istriya/Serwe), and this has occurred in a very short space of time and [i]in a world in which women are objectively inferior[/i], why the hell should I get excited about gender equality in the modern world when we haven't even come from such a dire position as Earwa (we haven't had to reverse an objective reality in our own world)? It really does make me question my assumptions about gender equality (among other "now-sacred values") in our modern society and makes me skeptical as to the nature of their real origins. As needle said some time ago, these are depressing thoughts.[/quote]

Then R. Scott Bakker has achieved his goal with at least one reader here. :)

Big confession from me now. I…um… don’t really mind where gender equality came from (I’m more interested in where [i]in[/i]equality comes from). I’m disgracefully ignorant about the origins of ‘equal rights for women’ (despite being the great grand-daughter of a Quaker suffragette), but I am surprised that is the feminist view. Well, I guess it was meant to be a surprise. But as a payoff, for me personally it’s a damp squib.

[ETA: and I suppose it is very nerdy of me that I would prefer to see that suggestion written up as an academic paper, with some evidence ;) ]

More confessions… I am a bog standard simple-minded fantasy reader: I mainly read for characters, with character-driven plot a secondary motivation. I enjoy a thought-provoking writing style. I expect to create in my own mind themes which are meaningful to me, and I like a novel to cause me to reflect on human nature. [i]However[/i] I am no literary critic: I don’t approach a novel like a cryptic crossword.

I would never have noticed that the characters were meant to symbolise anything, and even if I had attempted to work it out for myself, would never have reached the interpretation that Esmi represented the female gender, and Kellhus modernity, and so on. For me, yes, that is ‘too clever’ and goes totally over my unsuspecting head. Even now it’s explained I can’t really see it – I just don’t have corresponding concepts to match up to the representations (for example I don’t see the fantasy genre as ‘reality abject to desire’ or ‘compliant’ – that seems to me pigeonholing it – and what does it mean that the book is itself a fantasy book? ;) ). I’m probably missing several dozen points here, but it’s quite good fun doing so.:P

My failure to grasp the finer points of the message makes me feel that I just wasn’t the intended audience for this series (but that is completely unrelated to my gender). However Scott has been layering these stories up for 20 years, and most of us readers are going to spend less than [i]20 hours[/i] reading the trilogy, so there’s going to be an awful lot of us who might be waylaid by our own nihilistic tendencies into thinking there is no goal but to enjoy the story.;)
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...