Bakker and Women 4

[Kelli Fury]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695856' date='Feb 22 2009, 16.15']I'm not doubting the [i]work[/i] at all, Sophelia! It's the 'trying to understand' that I'm not clear on. Needle said it had to do with trying to decipher the why of reception: IF this author put so much work into criticizing misogyny, then WHY did I perceive the precise opposite?[/quote]

Having read most of these threads and said very little on them, I think it's been pretty clear that she is trying. Had she just decided her opinion is written in stone I doubt she would still be here discussing it, or at least not as cordially as she has been. I think it's a bit rude to decide that because some people interpret the book a certain way they are merely rationalizing a knee jerk reaction. It could be that neither your expressed intent nor the misogyny are clear, but enough of each exists to justify either opinion. But I think accusations on both sides of using their opinion of the book to cover something about themself as a reader are inappropriate.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Ran' post='1695810' date='Feb 22 2009, 22.07']Too much symbolic baggage is shoved onto the characters for them to really feel "well-realized" [i]as characters[/i], [...][/quote]
Really? Kellhus, Xerius, Cnaiür, maybe Conphas, Serwë — I could accept that these are more of a metaphor/symbol/proof-of-concept/exercise than character. But Akka and Esmi? I think they are so much better than anything else I’ve seen in the genre, it’s not even funny.

That being said, I of course [i]like[/i] the symbolic baggage. My favourite book is the [i]Magic Mountain[/i] by Mann, and there everybody is a walking symbolic luggage trolley. (And [i]also[/i] great characters.) My one criticism of Martin is exactly the absence of ambition in that respect. (But it’s a criticism I readily forgive — in fact, in general I believe that the genre owes a lot of its narrative strength from the absence of this requirement, which is crippling a lot of other literature in that it receives too much of the author’s attention at the detriment of story and characterisation.)

[Finn]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695856' date='Feb 22 2009, 14.15']So, as I said, it kind of seems like you're really poking around looking for that damn rat you [i]knew[/i] you smelled the first time reading the trilogy!

I know that little bugger is around here somewhere![/quote]
:(

I dunno, I think [i]this guy[/i] might be onto something:
[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695856' date='Feb 22 2009, 14.15']To whit, when in doubt give the benefit of the doubt.[/quote]

[quote name='Kay Fury' post='1695884' date='Feb 22 2009, 14.45']But I think accusations on both sides of using their opinion of the book to cover something about themself as a reader are inappropriate.[/quote]
Amen to that. :cheers:

[Pierce Inverarity]

[quote]You can *say* that the problem is universal and that it affects you as much as anyone else, but right here you're dismissing the other side of the discussion. And the problem for me is simple: the argument is ad hominem. You're not here addressing the argument, but the person behind the argument. And once we head down this road, we're virtually eliminating the possibility of real discussion.[/quote]

This is the dilemma, to be sure, everyone accusing everyone else of rationalization - and the crazy thing, they're all probably right! I'm deeply cynical about our ability to 'reason' - in fact I sometimes think we do the [i]least[/i] amount of reasoning when we claim to be doing the most!

In other words, Finn, if by 'real discussion' you mean 'rational discussion,' I think this is virtually impossible. But somehow, we manage to muddle along. A miraculous muddle.

In a sense, what I'm doing is actually worse than 'arguing against the man,' it's actually '[i]arguing against the species[/i]'! But if you go back through my posts, I think (hopefully) you'll find that my rationalization rants are primarily directed against interpretations of my books, and that the arguments I address - such as yours, here - I try to meet with good old-fashioned counter examples and counter-arguments.

Take Sophelia's argument regarding the disconnect between Earwa and the real world: my counter-argument was that, look, if Earwa isn't a parallel, then how can [i]any[/i] alternate world fiction be considered parallel. It was only then that I complained that it [i]seemed[/i] to be part of a larger sense of rationalizing the rat odour my work exudes.

My strategy has typically been to approach the argument (if I disagree with it, because I have bitten quite a few bullets) on its own terms, and if it seems to collapse too easily, to then 'go meta' and suggest that it only seemed convincing because it rationalizes some preexisting conclusion. Irritating perhaps, but not necessarily inaccurate.

What I'm literally trying to do is to tweak everyone to the fact that we're bumping through a fog. I know people have been annoyed by it, but I'm not so sure I haven't been successful.

Otherwise, it really only [i]isn't[/i] justified if it's used as an excuse to avoid arguments, and if the interpretations I'm referring to are NOT in fact rationalizations!

In a larger sense, I've been bummed by the fact that after 15+ years of continually disagreeing with myself and swapping naive scientism for existentialism for post-structuralism for contextualism, I have actually remained a 'skeptical naturalist' for around 8 years now. It's a kind of 'no-position position,' I know, but I worry that all I've really done is adopt a kind of philosophical posture that allows me to never be wrong because it has transformed admissions of being wrong into a kind of theoretical virtue.

Also because it's forced me to hold certain commitments, my moral realism especially, as an article of quasi-religious faith.

To believe things I don't think I can rationally justify.

scott/

[needle]

[quote]But like I said: I thought this issue had been resolved. On the one hand, readers are prone to mistake depiction for endorsement, and to selectively confirm their initial suspicions. On the other hand, I failed to signal my intent with the required clarity, and so not only failed to understand my readers, but to acheive the critical goals I set for the work.[/quote]

In a broad sense, yes. But I think it's worth further discussion to find out where that line lies. I don't think the debate stops there, for the readers or the author. That's why it's worth going back to look at the specifics in the light of that agreement. Otherwise, we're left with nothing but failure all round, no?

[quote]Your most recent questions and observations don't really seemed aimed at finding clarification - do you think they do? Even Needle refers to them as 'Sophelia's critiques.'[/quote]

Oh, no fair to use my sloppy language to harpoon Sophelia! :P
[quote]But I also, because the research seems unequivocal on the subject, that scouring hints and innuendos for evidence of implicit or concealed gender or racial bias in individuals (as opposed to institutions) should be avoided, simply because we are so prone to confirm our suspicions that the chances of unfairly labelling (with socially injurious terms like sexist or racist) someone who's innocent are pretty high.[/quote]

Links plz? :P No I'm genuinely interested - can you give me a starting point to reading about that?


Enough for one night. I'll return to looking at [i]the books[/i] instead of debating the debate tommorrow.

[Pierce Inverarity]

[quote]I think it's a bit rude to decide that because some people interpret the book a certain way they are merely rationalizing a knee jerk reaction. It could be that neither your expressed intent nor the misogyny are clear, but enough of each exists to justify either opinion. But I think accusations on both sides of using their opinion of the book to cover something about themself as a reader are inappropriate.[/quote]

It may be rude, Kay, but it seems to be an accurate description of the vast majority of interpretations we all make. The more we learn about human cognition, the less flattering things look. We pigeon-hole far, far more than we deliberate. Sad fact.

I actually think the primary reason it's rude is because we've erected an education system and an entire culture on suppressing the truth of human cognitive tom-foolery. We live in a 'you-gotta-believe' society when we have a 'you-really-should-doubt' cognitive capacity. And I fear the has been and is the cause of untold misery - and that it'll likely be the end of us in the near future.

scott/

[Pierce Inverarity]

[quote]That's why it's worth going back to look at the specifics in the light of that agreement. Otherwise, we're left with nothing but failure all round, no?[/quote]

I certainly don't think so! My thoughts on this subject feel far more clear, and good deal more humble...

Yesterday I did a reading in Toronto where this very debate became [i]the[/i] topic of discussion - easily one of the best talks I've ever given. And the ironic thing is that I spent most of my time [i]defending[/i] all the critics on these threads!

Kicked some ass in your name, I did!

On the cognitive psychology stuff, check out Cordelia Fine's [i]A Mind of its Own [/i]or Gary Marcus's [i]Kluge[/i]. David Dunning's [i]Self-Insight [/i]is a lot drier, but deals a particularly trenchant blow to human cognitive vanity. Otherwise, much of the stuff I've mentioned comes from periodicals, or from dreadfully complicated cognitive science or philosophy of mind monographs. [i]Scientific American [/i]and [i]Scientific American MIND [/i]are favourites of mine because of they we they tap the researchers themselves to write for the layperson.

scott/

[john]

[quote name='needle' post='1695901' date='Feb 22 2009, 23.02']Links plz? :P No I'm genuinely interested - can you give me a starting point to reading about that?[/quote]

Neuropath. Although something tells me you might not like it. :|

On the characterisation thing - I also think Esmenet is one of the better drawn characters in genre, and I can claim to have read a shaming amount of it. In fact her symbolism is very limited (which is kind of the point, usually being a whore is enough of a character). In terms of real-seeming women (if cartoon ones like Lynch (and i'd put Rothfuss and probably Abercrombie in there too) don't count) then, outside Martin, it is pretty thin on the ground. Hobb's Molly from Farseer and KJ Parker's Veatriz from Engineer trilogy are pretty good. I liked Felisin from Malazan too but her character arc doesn't give much scope for exploration. She's miserable from the moment we meet her, then she gets more miserable and correspondingly harder, then she dies.

[potsherds]

I'd love to jump into this debate, but I gave up on the first book years ago, about 150 pages in, since I'd just gone through the 1st Crusade in history class and didn't want to read about it all over again, and because I found pretty much every character contemptible or unsympathetic.

I would like to say that I appreciate Bakker's input, as well as that of numerous feminists on the board. :)


I'm still terribly unclear what underlying feminist message was meant to be portrayed in the books, if someone could point me to where that's been addressed.


I DO see the parallel between a fantasy world where women are 'in truth' metaphysically/spiritually/whatever inferior to that of ancient and medieval cultures of the Abrahamic faiths, where that was an [i]accepted[/i] truth. I am curious if one point you were making is that the continued existence of those old, patriarchal and misogynistic faiths, even in a more enlightened and reformed veneer will continue to support the sexism of current cultures. I can't help but read some of what you are saying as something someone irreligious, and perhaps even anti-thesitic would say/think.



EDIT: clairity

[Paxter]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1695975' date='Feb 23 2009, 10.08']I'm still terribly unclear what underlying feminist message was meant to be portrayed in the books, if someone could point me to where that's been addressed.[/quote]

This is one of the "holy grail" questions that we have been exploring in these threads. I think the best summary is this quote from Bakker:

[quote]So the real question has to be why did I choose the representations I did.

I can go on and on about my reasons for choosing the female types I did. So for instance, I wanted to exploit the ironic parallels between 'Men' and their dastardly 'antithesis,' the Sranc. I wanted to explore the nihilistic implications that underwrite social functionalist accounts of our present day gender egalitarianism - the suggestion that the now-sacred values so many have espoused here are actually secondary, ways to rationalize the more efficient utilization of labour given our new technologies of production and reproduction (something which is part and parcel of the way I use Kellhus as a contradictory figure of modernity). What does justice mean when it comes about for all the wrong reasons? I can go on and on, about the ways in which I parallel Serwe and Earwa, and so on.[/quote]

I'm not sure whether you could describe this as an underlying feminist message (he is trying to get the reader to think about the origins of "now-sacred" values in our modern society). But it certainly isn't an underlying misogynistic message. The trouble was that many female (and some male) readers on this board were unable to discern this subtext, because they were so alienated by the actual text.

[quote name='potsherds' post='1695975' date='Feb 23 2009, 10.08']I am curious if one point you were making is that the continued existence of those old, patriarchal and misogynistic faiths, even in a more enlightened and reformed veneer will continue to support the sexism of current cultures. I can't help but read some of what you are saying as something someone irreligious, and perhaps even anti-thesitic would say/think.[/quote]

Very interesting point potsherds. I hadn't thought about that before.

ETA: Triskele, I agree. I think the ability to go online and discuss these issues (with the author also involved), does enhance the overall appeal of literature.

[Kat]

Actually, I prefer not having authors participating in discussion threads on their own work. For me, it makes it hard to say what I really want to say, and the "authorial intent" thing becomes [i]really[/i] blurry when they're debating with you. I don't want a total Death of the Author; that would go against the grand tradition of SFF. I like reading interviews and having Q&A threads and going to readings at bookstores and talking to authors at conventions, and seeing authors around talking about other books, but I prefer a little more detachment from in-depth discussion about their own work, lest it become too much like, "Justify your work!" "You're reading this wrong!" :|

Edit: Not to mention, the fanboy/girlism interferes with the discussion. I'll be the first to admit that I turn into a total fangirl when I'm around my favorite authors...or any published author at all, to be honest...and the fangirlism makes me not want to mention what I don't like about a particular work. There's a lot, for instance, that I don't like about Malazan, but I'm still in many ways a fangirl, and if SE were in a debate, I'd never bring up what I didn't like. I haven't even bothered going into the Abercrombie threads because, while I didn't like his books at all, in his other posts, he seems very pleasant. I had another fangirl moment when Richard Morgan posted in his own thread, but I couldn't bear to tell him I'm not the world's biggest Kovacs fan even though I like his other books. I sat next to GRRM for several hours at a dinner in Denver and didn't want to say that I wasn't a great AFFC fan. Ya know? It's hard enough to detach myself from a text without having the author be there as well.

Edited 2x: And now I just feel [i]rude[/i] for saying that.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Why do you think it's rude to admit that you are self-conscious about your criticisms? I would be the same.

[Galactus]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1695774' date='Feb 22 2009, 21.14']One honest question to those who don’t think Esmi’s characterisation is the knee’s bees: Could you point me to a female character in genre literature that is significantly better realised?

I simply haven’t been exposed to enough F&SF to readily think of one.

For example, this board knows I think Catelyn Stark is great, but I find Bakker’s Esmi superior in almost every way (both in the sense of being believable and in the sense of being somebody I have sympathy for). But there are many fantasy authors I haven’t read; I suspect Robin Hobb may contain characters that are more carefully constructed. Stephenson’s Eliza may qualify (and in many ways parallels Esmi’s story arc, complete with [i]Pygmalionesque[/i] Anasurimbor Henry).

[i]Please[/i] don’t say Drakasha Zamira — that’s exactly [i]not[/i] the kind of character I’m looking for when I read books.[/quote]

Personally I think Catelyn (or even Sansa) are better characters than Esmi. Felisin Paran as mentioned, not sure if Molly from Farseer would count.

Esmi is actually a decent character, and so is Akka. We'll have to see how the new ones introduced in TJE turn out. But the issue is that *Esmi is the only decent female character in the book* and by "decent" I mean "The only one given any kind of characterization or personality at all." (thus far)

For men we at least have Akka, Cnaiur Conphas and even to some degree Kellhus. As well as Akka's old friend whose name I've forgotten.

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695908' date='Feb 23 2009, 00.06']It may be rude, Kay, but it seems to be an accurate description of the vast majority of interpretations we all make. The more we learn about human cognition, the less flattering things look. We pigeon-hole far, far more than we deliberate. Sad fact.

I actually think the primary reason it's rude is because we've erected an education system and an entire culture on suppressing the truth of human cognitive tom-foolery. We live in a 'you-gotta-believe' society when we have a 'you-really-should-doubt' cognitive capacity. And I fear the has been and is the cause of untold misery - and that it'll likely be the end of us in the near future.

scott/[/quote]

You have considered that your "defence" (IE: Claiming that others are merely rationalizing a knee-jerk reaction) is ITSELF a knee-jerk reaction?

[Tom the Merciful]

[quote name='Sophelia' post='1695737' date='Feb 22 2009, 20.29']The main discussion for me has [i]always[/i] been about the depictions of women.[/quote]

Huh, Chaldanya got me scared for a moment. I haven't misanderstood what this all is about. Or I am not the only one.

Why was I taking down the level of discussion? What's down and what's up? Are you trying to tell you're up from me? I knew it. We stupid people are always being made fun off. So, now I will protest at how stupid people are treated on this board.

[Finn]

[quote name='needle' post='1695699' date='Feb 22 2009, 10.43']The whole argument about spiritual inferiority of women in Earwa didn't particularly trouble me - tbh, it seemed to be something the boys got very caught up in debating that the girls weren't actually interested in discussing.[/quote]
Just the boys?! What about Kalbear?!














:P

[Finn]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695569' date='Feb 22 2009, 06.31']And lastly because the way critics seemed to be falling back on the 'metaphysical inferiority' issue, trying to squeeze, it seemed to me, some justification for their intitial animus from this particular facet of the work.

[. . .snip longer post . . .]

So why the hang-up with the 'metaphysical status' of women in Earwa? Despite setting out with the express intent of creating a fantastic premodern world that paralleled the bigotries of our real premodern world, should I have given Earwa an egalitarian metaphysics?[/quote]
I think the "metaphysical inferiority of women" argument took over the thread for a while largely because posters were going back and forth about what this might mean. But the author is here asking why this particular facet of the world should be such a big deal.

I don't want to derail the thread, and so I'm going to try to avoid getting us bogged down in the "what does it mean" debate and focus on the "why does it matter" question, which I think is more on topic for the thread anyway.

So . . . rather than get caught up in what Bakker means, I'm going to propose – just for the moment, and just for the purposes of discussion – a reading of his claim that he's creating "an ideologically unsanitized, premodern scriptural world" in which premodern beliefs are literally true and women really are "inferior."

Religions of certain stripes believe that when God created the world, he created humanity in two, unequal forms. Man and woman, he created them; the man - superior, the woman - not so much. In these religions, this is not an idea, or a perspective, or even a judgment, it’s just a fact. Moreover, it’s an immutable fact. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. So when I happened upon Bakker's bold claims about the distinctive metaphysics of the world he created, I assumed that in Earwa these beliefs are literalized, that they are true. Women in Earwa are created by their creator to be less than men. The women we meet in Earwa are less than men.

Now, maybe I'm completely wrong in the way I've read this, but that's not the issue here. The question the author asks is - so what? Why does this idea prove so troublesome?

Well, first, I confess there's the visceral response. Sure, it's an invented world, a work of fiction, but women literally not the equal of men . . . Huh. That's sort of a kick in the teeth of modern sensibilities. I don't necessarily mind kicks in the teeth, but I would hope there would be a particularly good reason for it.

But there's more to it than that.

Very early on in these threads, HE, I believe, laid out a simple and compelling defense of the series: the description of a misogynistic society should be horrific; the more horrific, the better and, crucially, the more feminist. Now, one could take the view that adding a layer of metaphysical misogyny simply amplifies the horrors all the more. Bakker has taken a feminist project to the next level: this is not just a misogynist society but a misogynist universe.

But to my mind, the metaphysical thing is a game changer. Because it doesn’t necessarily amplify the societal sexism; arguably, it mitigates it. Suddenly, it isn't entirely clear that the societies of Earwa are particularly sexist. Let's say some men treat Serwe as if she's an object and nothing more. Well, before the metaphysical angle was introduced, we could have simply seen this as another example of this society's sexism. But once the metaphysical shoe drops, it isn't clear that this is sexism at all. Why shouldn't they do what they're doing, since she's *literally* inferior?

When the men of Earwa dismiss women as less than men, they are, evidently, correct to do so. When a man of Earwa assumes that he is more important than a woman, this isn't prejudice or bigotry; it's just true. Once you introduce the idea that women are literally less than men, it isn't clear that we're talking about sexism or bigotry anymore, or at least not in the same way.

My problem is that in Earwa we already have this world full of misogyny – so much so that it's hard for many to take – and this metaphysical angle completely muddies the waters about what this might mean.

*Again, the point of the above is not to push any particular interpretation, but to show why someone might consider this aspect of the worldbuilding important to a discussion of the series' gender politics.*

[I can kick this over to the SpecFic and religion thread if people think this is going to gunk up the works here.]

[Galactus]

It should also be noted that official christian (and muslim) dogma has always been that while women may be inferior in day-to-day life they are NOT so in the eyes of God. Women and men may have different jobs to do (which is itself sexist of course) but, to quote Paul: " 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus'" (Gal 3:28).

Islam has a similar passage, IIRC.

[Sophelia]

[quote name='Finn' post='1696244' date='Feb 23 2009, 08.08']But to my mind, the metaphysical thing is a game changer. Because it doesn’t necessarily amplify the societal sexism; arguably, it mitigates it. Suddenly, it isn't entirely clear that the societies of Earwa are particularly sexist. Let's say some men treat Serwe as if she's an object and nothing more. Well, before the metaphysical angle was introduced, we could have simply seen this as another example of this society's sexism. But once the metaphysical shoe drops, it isn't clear that this is sexism at all. Why shouldn't they do what they're doing, since she's *literally* inferior?[/quote]

Finn, that was exactly what puzzled me:

[quote name='Sophelia' post='1695541' date='Feb 22 2009, 12.53']he could have simply been saying "other writers have been doing women a disservice by making you think women didn't have too hard a time of it. I'm going to show you how it really was". [...] However, this is not what he is doing, because he made some further changes and choices.
[...]

Fifth, he added the twist that in Earwa, women really are metaphysically inferior, which on the fact of it would seem to completely reverse any 'feminist message' resembling the above, since it presents a world where sexism is justified and therefore quells any ability to complain about it [...] The parallels to the real world are (presumably) sundered by this decision[/quote]

Bakker's reply was as follows:

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695569' date='Feb 22 2009, 14.31']All this seems to be settled. So why the hang-up with the 'metaphysical status' of women in Earwa? Despite setting out with the express intent of creating a fantastic premodern world that paralleled the bigotries of our real premodern world, should I have given Earwa an egalitarian metaphysics?

I really don't get it. I can't see how the [i]intent[/i] is wrong? What better way to examine premodern values than to show them in the context of their corresponding metaphysical commitments? To look at their values in the context of [i]our modern metaphysical commitments[/i]is to simply rip them out of their world. And we do this, for what? Comfort's sake?

The best way to study fish is to jump into the water, no matter how brackish, not watch the thing flop around on the dock of our (so we think) more enlightened atmosphere.[/quote]

So for Bakker the inclusion of the metaphysical reality enhances rather than undermines the feminist message. So I did a mind-flip and tried to see that point of view instead, in this reply (which made Bakker question my motives so I'm guessing the answers I considered are so facile that he thought I was taking the mick - I would appreciate some help getting my head straight here):

[quote name='Sophelia' post='1695598' date='Feb 22 2009, 16.13']it seems that I need to reconsider that 'women had it hard' explanation, and you don't regard your inclusion of the 'metaphysical inferiority' as ruling it out, indeed you are suggesting it makes it stronger?

[...]

And... argh... now I'm getting tangled up again trying to understand what you're doing. Here are random thoughts which have occurred to me so far:

An egalitarian metaphysics - is that like what I assume, that there is no god and no consequences of actions for any kind of afterlife?

Making medieval beliefs 'true' is a really interesting way to communicate how medieval people thought (more vivid than doing it simply through their dialogue, thoughts and behaviour), it's easier to empathise with the women for example, when their beliefs are made manifest.

How is our understanding of history affected by the reader assuming an egalitarian metaphysics, since the reader's beliefs don't affect the beliefs and actions of people in history?

Is something specially different achieved by doing it 'knowingly' in a current novel, than just digging out some older (or ancient) literature in which it was done that way because people thought that was how it was? Am I getting a different message about sexism than if I read, for example, Ian Fleming's Bond books, the Bible, or Plato's Phaedo?

Well, (I imagine you saying), it's unlikely any historical book you might read would make thoroughly explicit the metaphysical assumptions underlying them, because they simply take them for granted. So by reading PoN, you get a deeper understanding of the exact beliefs which caused women to be poorly regarded.

Um... am I getting there?[/quote]

[Sophelia]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1695975' date='Feb 23 2009, 01.08']I'm still terribly unclear what underlying feminist message was meant to be portrayed in the books, if someone could point me to where that's been addressed.[/quote]

[quote name='Paxter' post='1696143' date='Feb 23 2009, 04.28']This is one of the "holy grail" questions that we have been exploring in these threads. I think the best summary is this quote from Bakker:

I'm not sure whether you could describe this as an underlying feminist message (he is trying to get the reader to think about the origins of "now-sacred" values in our modern society). But it certainly isn't an underlying misogynistic message.[/quote]

No, no, that wasn't the underlying feminist message.

It's evident from his reply to me (which I just quoted part of in the last post) that the underlying feminist message is closer to what you [potsherds] were saying, and is pretty much "[b]other writers have been doing women a disservice by making you think women didn't have too hard a time of it. I'm going to show you how it really was[/b]", since he got a bit upset when I summarily dismissed the possibility he could be conveying this.

Actually I'll try and pick out the parts of his post which most clearly convey his intentions:

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695569' date='Feb 22 2009, 14.31']setting out with the express intent of creating a fantastic premodern world that paralleled the bigotries of our real premodern world [...]
What better way to examine premodern values than to show them in the context of their corresponding metaphysical commitments? To look at their values in the context of [i]our modern metaphysical commitments[/i]is to simply rip them out of their world. And we do this, for what? Comfort's sake?

The best way to study fish is to jump into the water, no matter how brackish, not watch the thing flop around on the dock of our (so we think) more enlightened atmosphere.[/quote]

So it's an exploration of how women were treated [i]in situ[/i], with the 'why's as well as the 'how's. Well, I better not say more in case I misrepresent him. Best to read the man's own words.

[Sophelia]

[quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695913' date='Feb 22 2009, 23.17']I certainly don't think so! My thoughts on this subject feel far more clear, and good deal more humble...

Yesterday I did a reading in Toronto where this very debate became [i]the[/i] topic of discussion - easily one of the best talks I've ever given. And the ironic thing is that I spent most of my time [i]defending[/i] all the critics on these threads![/quote]
:lol: :cheers:

Well I'm really pleased that you were able to get such a positive experience as a result of this thread. (Now I wish I could have heard that talk) Oh, by the way, are you going to the Montreal Worldcon in August?

[quote name='Triskele' post='1696047' date='Feb 23 2009, 02.37']To summarize, I feel like the fact that we can have the conversation that we are having in the format that we are having it actually adds to the appeal of literature in general. People already had a lot of motivation to read, but how much more rewarding if you can actually have follow-up discussions like this?[/quote]

I know! I feel incredibly privileged to be able to engage with the author like this. Scott's definitely something special. I've enjoyed analysing ASOIAF but hearing the author's take on things takes it so much deeper, well, at least here where the author made so many motivated choices.