Pierce Inverarity Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote]Oh, by the way, are you going to the Montreal Worldcon in August?[/quote] Sure as shit. Maybe we should propose a panel? I'm telling you, this stuff is downright incendiary in person. As for the chauvinistic metaphysics of Earwa, I'm not sure where the communicative disconnect is arising. The questions you're raising seem to be the questions the books are raising as well. Which is, well, the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
needle Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote]Sure as shit. Maybe we should propose a panel? I'm telling you, this stuff is downright incendiary in person.[/quote] A panel would be fun. But only with beer. there must needs be beer to [i]truly[/i] get to the heart of things. ETA : but only if we ban rats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinDonner Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Maybe you should bring along some rat-scented joss sticks and conceal them to confuse people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Merriweather Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote][quote] (Finn @ 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](Sophelia @ 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.[/quote] [...][/quote] and me as well: [quote name='Archibald Merriweather' post='1692947' date='Feb 19 2009, 17.39']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?[/quote] [url="http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&showtopic=34482&view=findpost&p=1692947"]http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php?s=&am...t&p=1692947[/url] I don't think his answer really answered the question though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Merriweather Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Sophelia' post='1696277' date='Feb 23 2009, 04.45']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]",[/quote] So by placing them in a world where[i] they are[/i] inferior he's demonstrating how difficult it was for women to live in a world where they were [i]perceived to be[/i] inferior? Is that right? Sophelia, help me out for a second here while I rephrase: are you saying that Mr Bakker is saying that the reason he decided to set his story in a world where women were in fact inferior was to, after a fashion, demonstrate that[i] for women[/i] living in a world where they are objectively inferior is no different than living in a world where they are [i]percieved to be[/i] inferior and treated as such? Is it a comment on perception vs reality, on how perception [i]is[/i] reality? I'm not a stupid person, by the way. I know it seems that way here but I'm not. I just am not wrapping my head around this, and I don't know why I'm failing to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1696290' date='Feb 23 2009, 10.35']Sure as shit. Maybe we should propose a panel? I'm telling you, this stuff is downright incendiary in person.[/quote] That would be fun. I guess maybe I'll have to come to the Con then.;) [quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1696290' date='Feb 23 2009, 10.35']As for the chauvinistic metaphysics of Earwa, I'm not sure where the communicative disconnect is arising. The questions you're raising seem to be the questions the books are raising as well. Which is, well, the point.[/quote] Oookay. *looks blank* Actually I'm just posting from work (:uhoh:) because it occurred to me that if we pop up a level the problem can be seen as a different commentary, and this might have been covered earlier in the thread. That is, the metaphysics of the world is mysogynist because the creator God is sexist. So then it's back to an agency (a character) having discriminated against women. So this would be just a way to reinforce that it is religion which was the cause of sexism in the middle ages. Well, I'm not sure if this is what Bakker is/was intending to say, but I'm just pointing out that there are ways the books could expand on these ideas. Hmm. It still literally gives the (unintended) message that people were sexist because women were inferior, but suggests women are inferior because the god made them that way. And since belief created the god that way,... um... *gets stuck in infinite regress* OK, I thought I'd got something but I haven't... :leaving: I think I'll put aside questions about the implications of the metaphysics until we have a better idea how it's covered in later books (I will read the TJE spoiler threads even if I don't buy it, though now I'm wondering if I approach the books as cryptic crosswords rather than immersing myself in them, I might be able to distance myself from the violence...). [quote name='Archibald Merriweather' post='1696356' date='Feb 23 2009, 13.28']So by placing them in a world where[i] they are[/i] inferior he's demonstrating how difficult it was for women to live in a world where they were [i]perceived to be[/i] inferior? Is that right? Sophelia, help me out for a second here while I rephrase: are you saying that Mr Bakker is saying that the reason he decided to set his story in a world where women were in fact inferior was to, after a fashion, demonstrate that[i] for women[/i] living in a world where they are objectively inferior is no different than living in a world where they are [i]percieved to be[/i] inferior and treated as such? Is it a comment on perception vs reality, on how perception [i]is[/i] reality?[/quote] Yes, that seems to me true enough (if we're talking about 'morally inferior' - I'm not sure whether the inferiority goes through to actually being more stupid and so on - people seem to think not because of Esmi). Whether he is using that to make comments on perception versus reality I don't know. I'm still muddling though it too. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Sophelia' post='1696392' date='Feb 23 2009, 15.08']though now I'm wondering if I approach the books as cryptic crosswords rather than immersing myself in them[/quote] Esmi, on her back in Oklahoma. (1,4) Sorry for your meatballs? Look for confused barbarian in page we forget. (6,6) Sceptical of Ixion’s wife: too many hats and dots. (9) Pimpernel breathes a school. (7,6) Arrangement of shanties: let’s see where Conphas takes it. (2,3,3) (Edit to make it easier, add some more. Soph, what are you waiting for?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerraPrime Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Re: Spiritual inferiority I have read only the first two books, so my perspective is limited. From what I gathered, women in Earwa were deemed to be inferior because of the holy text, no? Since in Bakkerworld, gods appear to be real, that means that women are indeed inferior, by the god's dictate. We can debate whether women are inferior because god says so, or whether god says that women are inferior because it is so. Either way, we are still stuck with the gradually introduced revelation that god(s), as the people of Earwa perceive them, might not be what we modern Westerners think of as gods at all. There's also the hint, from what I gathered from reading these threads, that there are more than one party at work here. It seems the books are trying to get the readers to see that the religious dictate that the people of Earwa obeyed for so long might actually be wrong. Unfortunately, I have the niggling feeling that I am missing the point because this interpretation doesn't seem to map very well to Bakker's other stated goal, which is to not project a modernistic framework of cognition to a fictional world set in premodern times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 :lol: That Conphas one has me laughing in the office. Naughty! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Happy Ent' post='1696429' date='Feb 23 2009, 15.21']Arrangement of shanties: let’s see where Conphas takes it. (2,3,3)[/quote] :rofl: (Yes, that definitely works distancing me from the violence ;) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 So nr. 5 is the only one you girls can all do? I find that [i]very[/i] telling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maia Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1695780' date='Feb 22 2009, 16.19']To me, given the sheer amount of work I put into making my world 'authentic' (far more than a good number of my peers, I think)[/quote] Scott, I have to say that this is far and away my greatest problem with the series, it doesn't feel authentic to me. It is indeed clear that you put a lot of work into your worldbuilding, but there seem to be also a lot of relics from the original RPG setting, which are cool, yes, but sort of stick out. Now, of course the majority of other SF/F authors (all?) also have inconsistent worldbuilding, but you rose expectations for plausibility and logic of your world with the whole "Darkness that comes before" thing, at least in my case. And that's why, perhaps unfairly, I reacted to the failure much more strongly. I expected that, while starting from a fictional and indeed fantastical premise, things would unfold logically and cohesively from there, that Kelhus's character was in part meant to illustrate this - but instead I spent a lot of time thinking "Huh? How did they arrive to this from that? It is unreasonable within the constraints of the setting. I don't believe! (cue Stanislavski)". Sexism was an entirely secondary concern for me - I read and enjoy a lot of stories with necessarily sexist settings. The form it took was just another thing that didn't fit my notion of cohesive worldbuilding. Re: the link between capitalism and woman's rights, maybe it is a whiff of dialectic materialism in my formative years ;) , or maybe I am a born sceptic, but it always seemed self-evident to me that evolution of human rights in general was directly tied to economical interests. And that political interests of the moment often spurred on the actual change. Which is why I didn't understand why it was supposed to be a revelation, or indeed why feminism specifically was singled out, when casuality was exactly the same for all other similar advances, starting with sparing prisoners once they became worth more than their upkeep and going on from there. I have also been thinking about the comparisons between "Lolita" and "PoN" in puncto criticism of repugnant practices and why I think that the former succeeds while the latter fails, IMHO. Now, of course I am total Nabokov fangirl and consider him a literary genius, so it may be my preconceptions speaking ;) . But in the end it comes down to this, for me, that despite the very nuanced depiction of Humbert, he always remains repulsive and contemptible, while the trifecta of male characters from PoN is romanticized and lionized, as are many of the supporting characters. Maybe even against Scott's will. Perhaps it is because Nabokov utilized some of his wife's RL experiences in his work. Possibly it is because the whole fantasy scenario with impending apocalypse just muddies the things too much and invites excesses of characterization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Happy Ent' post='1696511' date='Feb 23 2009, 17.01']So nr. 5 is the only one you girls can all do? I find that [i]very[/i] telling.[/quote] :blush: :P That one wasn't very cryptic - worked backwards from the answer to the clue (well, I had 'up' the first time). I've never learnt to do cryptic crosswords. No. 2 presumably has 'Cnaiur' in it. The only other one I worked anything out for is no. 4 'scarlet (a)spire(s)' :huh: *fails* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Pierce Inverarity' post='1696290' date='Feb 23 2009, 02.35']As for the chauvinistic metaphysics of Earwa, I'm not sure where the communicative disconnect is arising. The questions you're raising seem to be the questions the books are raising as well. Which is, well, the point.[/quote] Fair enough. My post was just an attempt to explain why this facet of the worldbuilding might be a legitimate issue for some readers, and not an issue that arose out of some sort of argumentative "bad faith." Personally, I'm content to let this sub-discussion drop, especially as it seems that heading down this road may lead to spoiler country. [quote name='Sophelia' post='1696392' date='Feb 23 2009, 06.08']I think I'll put aside questions about the implications of the metaphysics until we have a better idea how it's covered in later books.[/quote] Me too. RAFO and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edda van Heefmstra Ruston Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I didn't say that - I said it's the one that made me laugh. :P SPOILER: For example, about Ixion's wife....It's not over the top -- part of why I laughed at the Conphus one was the absurdity. In addition, I would have used something more like "disparaging" or "censorious"; "sceptical" to me leads to "mistrusting", not where you wanted it to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Merriweather Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Maia' post='1696512' date='Feb 23 2009, 12.01']Scott, I have to say that this is far and away my greatest problem with the series, it doesn't feel authentic to me.[/quote] I'm the opposite. No other fantasy world has struck me as so authentic with the possible exception of Tolkien's, which has a similar historical depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Maia' post='1696512' date='Feb 23 2009, 12.01']Scott, I have to say that this is far and away my greatest problem with the series, it doesn't feel authentic to me. It is indeed clear that you put a lot of work into your worldbuilding, but there seem to be also a lot of relics from the original RPG setting, which are cool, yes, but sort of stick out.[/quote] What didn't feel authentic to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ran Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 I'm fairly sure Maia went over some of her issues, re: authenticity in earlier posts. I recall some stuff regarding sorcery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Archibald Merriweather' post='1696569' date='Feb 23 2009, 18.55']I'm the opposite. No other fantasy world has struck me as so authentic with the possible exception of Tolkien's, which has a similar historical depth.[/quote] The irony is that I never felt Tolkien to be particularly authenthic. "Deep" In a sense? Yes. But not *real*. Too much songs, too little discussion of trade routes and agricultural techniques I guess.* Bakker fails in pretty much the same degree. Martin, while the years-long seasons is bollocks, is better in that regard, there is a sense that the stuff that makes the knights and tourneys possible is still going on in the background. EDIT: Even JORDAN I feel is a better world-builder (although not, obviously, where characterization is concerned :P) than Bakker. *Mind, as a student of history I guess you learn to look for different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophelia Posted February 23, 2009 Author Share Posted February 23, 2009 [quote name='Eefphrodite' post='1696568' date='Feb 23 2009, 17.54']I didn't say that - I said it's the one that made me laugh. :P[/quote] He's teasing, antisexistically-exaggeratinglysexistly ;) (Yet one feels compelled to answer anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.