Bakker and Women 3 (merged topic)

[Finn]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1694094' date='Feb 20 2009, 11.22']Contempt?

I think your completely missing the point of the line about Bush speeches. That people who either liked or hated him never actually THOUGHT about what he said. The part of their brains that do actual deliberate thinking never lit up. They simply used whatever he said to reinforce the notion of him they already had.

Basically, most people form an initial impression and then all other information gathered is just used to reinforce that impression.

So people who formed the impression thata the books are sexist (for whatever reason) read the parts that are SUPPOSED to be "Look at this sexism, isn't it awful" instead as being "Oh look, more sexism for the pile. Damn sexist bok."[/quote]

I'm not sure what the precise point of the original Bush and brains analogy was, but . . . the above isn't contempt? All you people who think X, simply haven't bothered to think ("the part of their brains that do actual deliberate thinking never lit up")?

The almost obsessive need to recount the latest research as to why humans can't think critically is an unfortunate part of Bakker's posting style. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he means well, but it can't help but give the impression that he's dismissing whatever viewpoint he's discussing as a kneejerk reaction without much thought behind it. Not conducive to good discussion, in my mind.

[Archibald Merriweather]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1694104' date='Feb 20 2009, 14.29']We read about people taking shits, about the consistency, the smell, the appearance, the size, everything.[/quote]

New sig up for grabs ^^^


or perhaps a Mission Statement for a daring, avant-garde book club.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Finn' post='1694105' date='Feb 20 2009, 14.30']I'm not sure what the precise point of the original Bush and brains analogy was, but . . . the above isn't contempt? All you people who think X, simply haven't bothered to think ("the part of their brains that do actual deliberate thinking never lit up")?

The almost obsessive need to recount the latest research as to why humans can't think critically is an unfortunate part of Bakker's posting style. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he means well, but it can't help but give the impression that he's dismissing whatever viewpoint he's discussing as a kneejerk reaction without much thought behind it. Not conducive to good discussion, in my mind.[/quote]

I get the impression your just not used to his style.

He's not saying "All you people who think X, simply haven't bothered to think", he's saying "EVEREYONE simply haven't bothered to think".

That was the whole point of the Bush Speech study he referenced. That no one, from the dumbest Bush supporter to the most critical and educated Bush detractor, actually THOUGHT about what they were hearing. They just take what they are hearing and use it to reinforce what they already think. They don't actually consier how the new information might change their viewpoint. The brain, as he puts it, rations it's reasoning power and simply avoids using it whenever possible.

Think of it as a scientific explanation for why it's so hard to change peopels minds when arguing with them. Especially on the internet. The brain resists it.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1694104' date='Feb 20 2009, 14.29']It's not. Horror authors like Stephen King have been living off of this titillation factor for a long time. It's not that different from John Norman or Terry Goodkind either. Heck, it's really not that different from porn. My point is that blaming the readership for not getting the point is one thing (and saying that he didn't understand that the readers couldn't get over their confirmation bias is precisely that), but accidentally obscuring your point or disgusting readership with the ancillary data may be a poor strategy for communicating a message. And it ignores a very important part here, which is that irrespective of the authorial intent the authorial method may be the problem that people have with some of this.

I think that this is something that Lolita managed that Bakker really hasn't - that because we aren't given the insane graphic details of Humbert's actions we're not immediately turned off by his actions. This allows us to sympathize a bit even though the actions are the same (and are so deplorable). We aren't given that kind of freedom in Earwa; it's all gripping phalluses and jetting seed and bitch and whore and slit, women as objects and property, women without agency, left and right, all rape demons and violence towards women. Of course, we're not meant to sympathize with the skin-spies, but instead we're just reading a lot about disgusting acts and behaviors towards women. Those don't need confirmation bias. Even if we're supposed to be horrified and disgusted by the behaviors, [i]those behaviors are still too personal for some people[/i]. And because it's such a central point of the books and Bakker wanted to make sure that everyone got that sexism is bad, we see it again, and again, and again.[/quote]

It's funny reading you ay this over and over again. There's not near as much of this in the books as you seem to think.

Hell, take out the couple of skin spy scenes and the amount of sex and such in the book isn't all that much compared to other books in the genre.

[quote]I agree, but when he said that he felt like it didn't work for some people because of confirmation bias, I think that really missed a lot of why that might even come up. When you read about all these sexist tropes and all this misogyny, it's hard not to pile that into sexist works. That's what I'm trying to say - that the confirmation bias that Bakker railed against and blames for his misinterpretation was caused mostly by him, and by how he chose to write the story.[/quote]

Then why does it hit some so strongly and not others?

[Kalbear]

[quote]Hell, take out the couple of skin spy scenes and the amount of sex and such in the book isn't all that much compared to other books in the genre.[/quote]It's not just about sex. Sex is an aspect, and it can be a pretty disturbing one, but it's not even the big part of this alienation.
[quote]Then why does it hit some so strongly and not others?[/quote]Because some people aren't as personally affected by sexism as others?

[Larry.]

[quote name='needle' post='1694045' date='Feb 20 2009, 12.41']And an even more sizeable number of your readers [i]didn't notice[/i] that misogny was front and centre? In your in-depth interviews with DylanFanatic, gender didn't even [i]come up[/i]? Which bothers you more, I wonder? I'm certainly a reader you [i]overestimated [/i]however, as I have no idea what embedded reflection is, and most certainly missed it in the text..[/quote]

Since I'm being mentioned here, the reason why this wasn't raised in my two interviews is not that I didn't notice gender relations, because I did (although I was more interested in how Cnaiür's sexuality and "manliness" was being portrayed, since at the time there weren't many discussions of male homosexuality in epic fantasy settings). I just thought that with the plot setting (army marching to war, with camp followers) that it would be the rationale for having so few women, with those few appearing in places that today (and then) would be considered the most "degrading." And part of it is, I'll admit, that I just didn't think to ask for clarification at the time, as I was trusting that the social dynamics would be explored more (as they are in TJE and I suspect even more in the next volume). But I did notice this well before this topic was introduced. Guess I'm guilty of reacting more strongly to the religious/nihilistic elements, since that struck closer to home for me, considering my own past.

[Finn]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1694129' date='Feb 20 2009, 11.42']I get the impression your just not used to his style.

He's not saying "All you people who think X, simply haven't bothered to think", he's saying "EVEREYONE simply haven't bothered to think".

That was the whole point of the Bush Speech study he referenced. That no one, from the dumbest Bush supporter to the most critical and educated Bush detractor, actually THOUGHT about what they were hearing. They just take what they are hearing and use it to reinforce what they already think. They don't actually consier how the new information might change their viewpoint. The brain, as he puts it, rations it's reasoning power and simply avoids using it whenever possible.

Think of it as a scientific explanation for why it's so hard to change peopels minds when arguing with them. Especially on the internet. The brain resists it.[/quote]

But if we assume that there actually *is* a part of people's brains that does deliberative thinking, and we assume that people use this part of the brain at least some of the time, shouldn't we be generous and assume that those people we're conversing with are actually using this part of the brain, at least until they prove otherwise?

If we're so concerned with the difficulty of changing people's minds or having real discussion, doesn't it make sense to treat everyone as if they're capable of these things?

And if we really wanted to be cynical about these things - and I don't for the record - why shouldn't we be cynical about Bakker's use of this research in discussion?

[Archibald Merriweather]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1694139' date='Feb 20 2009, 14.47']Then why does it hit some so strongly and not others?[/quote]

I would guess that the majority of readers do not have Kalbear's reaction, or share Kalbear's disgust. That is not to cast any judgment on the validity of Kalbear's take on it, but I don't think most readers find it so unbearably repellant. Then again, I don't think most recognize that the inferiority of women in Earwa in an objective fact (I find it extremely odd how some can skate over that as though it were inconsequential to the matter at hand), and I think absent that aspect the novel doesn't read as misogynistic (on the part of Mr Bakker) at all, whatever misogyny exists in the quasi-medieval world he created. And now that I've thought about it more, even with a world where the inferiority of women is an objective fact, I'm not sure that reflects on any misogyny on Mr Bakker's part, or that it makes the novels themselves misogynistic. Like most things the intent is what matters here, I should think anyway.

[Shryke]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1694148' date='Feb 20 2009, 14.52']It's not just about sex. Sex is an aspect, and it can be a pretty disturbing one, but it's not even the big part of this alienation.

Because some people aren't as personally affected by sexism as others?[/quote]

Yes, exactly. It's the reader, bringing their own personal view point and such to the work. It's who is reading the book.

Basically, your problem boils dow to "It hits to close to home for some people, for whatever reason". Which isn't a criticism of the book at all. It's just a statement about the reader.

[raft]

I think kalbear puts his finger on people’s main issue with PON: the incredible vividness and relentlessness of the books’ depiction of sexism, like getting your head beat in with a crowbar over and over again. Bakker compared PON to Iron Man a couple pages back. Well, when in the next movie Robert Downey Jr. graphically rapes Gwyneth Paltrow and [i]his semen is black[/i], then maybe that would be a good comparison. Iron Man is thoughtlessly sexist, but PON is just the opposite and that might be worse.

I don’t mean Bakker is a misogynist or that PON is a misogynist work. His very awesome posts on this thread should convince everyone otherwise. I am now persuaded PON is a very deep, systematic, and forceful critique of gender relations, genre fantasy, modernity, etc. But that’s just the thing—the sexism is SO deeply and SO forcefully presented that it is disturbing, to the point that we want to question why the author would spend so much effort coming up with these fucked up stories in the first place. The easy answer is that he enjoys it. We imagine Bakker sitting around in his study thinking up sick rape fantasies and masturbating to them. Sorry if that’s too blunt, but there it is.

Again, I don’t think this is what is actually happening. But it is really the impression people can get from reading PON. The first question I was asking myself was not “How does this passage critique and complicate oppressive patriarchal social discourses?” but “How could a normal mature person possibly come up with this stuff?”

[quote]Bakker: “Quite simply, I genuinely want to get better at communicating my stories to you all.”[/quote]
Well, you’re doing pretty well so far. PON is one of my favorite book series ever. But if you want my two cents I think you could cut down on the sex a little bit for your next story. I know that’s your “thing” so I’m not suggesting you get rid of all of it. Just the more ridiculous stuff like the masturbating orcs, etc.

[Kalbear]

[quote]I would guess that the majority of readers do not have Kalbear's reaction, or share [b]her[/b] disgust.[/quote]Kalbear grips his phallus with great longing as he reads the ignorance of posters on the intarwebs.

[quote]Basically, your problem boils dow to "It hits to close to home for some people, for whatever reason". Which isn't a criticism of the book at all. It's just a statement about the reader.[/quote]Yes - but if your intent is to actually convey a message to a reader, it's a good idea to actually understand this.

And if you think that the reason that they didn't get it is because some readers are predisposed to think 'MISOGYNY! MISOGYNY" and not understand that there might, just maybe, be a link between writing about sex objects, rape demons, abuse of women and denigrating, sexist language towards women and that confirmation bias, then you're doing it wrong. To me, it read like Bakker basically blamed his readers for daring to read that the book was a misogynistic representation or having any real problems with it at all, and didn't really think that it might just happen to be because he brought it up in the first place.

[Archibald Merriweather]

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1694171' date='Feb 20 2009, 15.02']Kalbear grips his phallus with great longing as he reads the ignorance of posters on the intarwebs.[/quote]

WELL ECKSKEEEYOOOOUZE ME

[Shryke]

I think it's farily obvious he's disappointed in himself for not being able to get his points across to more people.


And considering there will always be "some readers" who miss the point, I don't see how you've "missed the point" as an author if those readers miss the point.

[Finn]

[quote name='raft' post='1694169' date='Feb 20 2009, 11.59']I know that’s your “thing” so I’m not suggesting you get rid of all of it. Just the more ridiculous stuff like the masturbating orcs, etc.[/quote]
On the contrary, you can never have too many masturbating orcs. If I ever feel the urge to form a prog-rock group, I'm going to name it Masturbating Orcs. Also works well for a folk trio, I would think.

[Archibald Merriweather]

i changed it to "kalbear's" instead of "her" before i read your phallus-gripping post, by the way.

[Zadok]

[quote name='Archibald Merriweather' post='1694167' date='Feb 20 2009, 14.57']I would guess that the majority of readers do not have Kalbear's reaction, or share her disgust. That is not to cast any judgment on the validity of her take on it, but I don't think most readers find it so unbearably repellant. Then again, I don't think most recognize that the inferiority of women in Earwa in an objective fact (I find it extremely odd how some can skate over that as though it were inconsequential to the matter at hand), and I think absent that aspect the novel doesn't read as misogynistic (on the part of Mr Bakker) at all, whatever misogyny exists in the quasi-medieval world he created. And now that I've thought about it more, even with a world where the inferiority of women is an objective fact, I'm not sure that reflects on any misogyny on Mr Bakker's part, or that it makes the novels themselves misogynistic. Like most things the intent is what matters here, I should think anyway.[/quote]

I don't think people are skating over it as much as realizing that the only basis for that view is a quote taken out of context from a previous post by Bakker. One of the theories is that belief in Earwa has a direct connection to the outside, which is why the Consult is trying to destroy the world, if everyone else is dead then their twisted beliefs become the law. This would explain how women could be "further from God" but still not make it an objective fact of the world.

[Archibald Merriweather]

[quote name='Zadok' post='1694181' date='Feb 20 2009, 15.06']I don't think people are skating over it as much as realizing that the only basis for that view is a quote taken out of context from a previous post by Bakker. One of the theories is that belief in Earwa has a direct connection to the outside, which is why the Consult is trying to destroy the world, if everyone else is dead then their twisted beliefs become the law. This would explain how women could be "further from God" but still not make it an objective fact of the world.[/quote]

It's seemed to me that most people here are in agreement that it's an objective truth in that world. I hope you're right and they're not, but they are convincing and THEY ARE LEGION, not to mention disturbing, what with all the phallus-gripping and shit-sniffing.

[needle]

[quote]Guess I'm guilty of reacting more strongly to the religious/nihilistic elements, since that struck closer to home for me, considering my own past.[/quote]

Fair enough, Df. We all read with our own filters, which is sort of a theme of the thread.

[Larry.]

True, which is why I like to read these comments and not comment quickly in return, so I can contemplate them and perhaps learn a bit as well :D