Jump to content

White-Luck Warrior


Calibandar

Recommended Posts

I love that, actually, because Ghu knows there's not much to distinguish this forum from a half-dozen other SFF forums.

The difference is that this forum, uniquely, strongly discourages criticism of the way GRRM behaves on his blog. That’s the opposite of how it should be.

Any links to critiques which may light the way, HE?

There are internet fora and blogs devoted to mocking us. I won’t link to them, as I’ve been under censure for linking to much weaker stuff. After some soul-searching I have prioritised my enjoyment from this forum over my principles, so I will play by the rules.

Anyway, this discussion doesn’t belong here. You know that I’d be thrilled to have it somewhere else, and that I have previously expressed my concerns about westeros.org’s policies regarding GRRM and his blog to the moderators directly. I also understand that the moderators themselves are divided on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthmail,

I think he understands views are different. I was reviewing his blog posts and he seems quite firmly to understand that writers don't control the meaning of their work. But I suppose he wants the right to assert the meaning of himself, and so when people use his work to believe/state/claim certain things about him that are erroneous (as he argues), then obviously that's why he may be annoyed. It gets complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Getting a 4.0 in grad school is not very difficult. Completing a thesis is difficult. Dropping out could very easily have been the most sensible choice depending on how many years of funding he had and what school he went to. (Needless to say, the job market for philosophy PhDs is awful and highly tier-dependent.)

Yeah, I guess I was just cherrypicking evidence to support my prior biases. I just got the impression to from reading his books and his commentary on them that he isn't the type of person to let a point of principle slide for practical concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are quickly becoming the laughing stock of SFF internet fora.

Despite going OT, this deserves a response. I post on every SFF forum of note and this statement is total nonsense. The primary criticism given to Westeros is that we are way too 'harsh' on authors, with particular commentary reserved for the board's criticisms of Steven Erikson (which are not that unique to be honest, as recent threads on SFFWorld have also shown). Beyond that, the board is not seen as 'the laughing stock of SFF internet fora', certainly none that are of note anyway.

And even though I do share the distaste expressed on the above comments to a certain extent, let us not forget that RSB is one of the few authors who is willing to discuss Really Important Stuff in his books or on his blog. He is the genre's new hope. We have threads and threads about fantasy authors, say, addressing gender issues in their books. Bakker actually does that, with intelligence and authority.

So let's play nice. If we want to talk to him (he desperately wants to talk to us, his readers) then we should be thrilled about that, and do it.

I agree, but it is disappointing that Bakker does seem to have chosen to preach to the choir (the people following his blog) about how unfair criticisms of sexism are rather than come on here (he has an account) and engage with those criticisms directly. In fact, he did do this previously and the discussion, although robust, was also fruitful, or so I found.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't blame him. Building viewership to his own blog when it's rather nascent is probably a good thing, publicity wise. It also lets him focus on not getting caught up in large, multi-stranded, multi-participant conversations when he hasn't time/energy to do so. And he gets to be the one starting topics of conversation, rather than coming in after the fact, which may be of benefit for him.

Nothing prevents people from going over to comment, beyond convenience, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, but it is disappointing that Bakker does seem to have chosen to preach to the choir (the people following his blog) about how unfair criticisms of sexism are rather than come on here (he has an account) and engage with those criticisms directly. In fact, he did do this previously and the discussion, although robust, was also fruitful, or so I found.

You make it sound like he has an obligation to come here and defend himself to us or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Random thought:

At the time of the "Bakker and women" threads, TJE either had just come out or wasn't out yet. I forget.

I wonder to what extent Mimara's character would have influenced that debate.

I had that vague random thought too. I think they were either simultaneous or the "Women" threads were prior to the release of TJE. I don't think most folks who had a huge problem with Bakkerverse hung around for TJE, though. (with a few notable exceptions :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I post on every SFF forum of note [...]

And you do it well. What annoys me is that I have to go there in order to read your opinions on GRRM. I’d like it better if this board should be the authoritative forum for GRRM aficionados. It isn’t, because of censure. That ill becomes us.

Beyond that, the board is not seen as 'the laughing stock of SFF internet fora', certainly none that are of note anyway.

Yeah, I guess I was just cherrypicking evidence to support my prior biases. But the cherries exist.

(My involvement in this topic ends here, at least on this thread. I’d be thrilled to debate it somewhere else.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make it sound like he has an obligation to come here and defend himself to us or something.

Not at all, and in fact he already did so in the prior discussions. I got the impression from those discussions that Bakker found people's opinions on the issue of value, but from this blog post, maybe not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The accusations of sexism had to have given him pause. The fact that he's blogging about it shows that it's still on his mind. A true sexist would just dismiss it out of hand, I would think. And his comments on his blog to me seem more like a person who's been disturbed by what he's read, gone back and reexamined his life experiences and reactions, and is now somewhat indignant.

In his blog his frustration shows a bit, and it's understandable. Particularly the situation with the female professor. As a child, I was once accused by a male teacher of smiling at him to try to manipulate him - I think I was all of eight years old. My smiles were a nervous habit (still laugh when I'm nervous.) But I remember how at first shocked and dismayed I felt and then angry at the unfairness.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never got the sexism issue. There's 3 women characters in the first 3 books. The Emperor's mother, Serwe and Esmenet. The Emperor's mother is a (male) genetically engineered monster, Serwe was a concubine, and Esmenet was a whore. Not exactly role-model professions for women, but it's not like any of the characters had a choice in the matter. Esmenet and Serwe are both totally reliant on male characters and such, that's true, but Bakker was trying to be realistic about how women would be dealt with in his world. What do people want? A woman warrior like Brienne? She wouldn't last a day in Bakker's world (and in our equivalent, the 1100's). She'd have been raped and murdered on the first page. Maybe a woman character with more of a spine, more self-reliant? That's possible, but we're dealing with camp followers and concubines, not with some tough peasant woman working the fields after her husband was taken by plague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never got the sexism issue. There's 3 women characters in the first 3 books. The Emperor's mother, Serwe and Esmenet. The Emperor's mother is a (male) genetically engineered monster, Serwe was a concubine, and Esmenet was a whore. Not exactly role-model professions for women, but it's not like any of the characters had a choice in the matter. Esmenet and Serwe are both totally reliant on male characters and such, that's true, but Bakker was trying to be realistic about how women would be dealt with in his world. What do people want? A woman warrior like Brienne? She wouldn't last a day in Bakker's world (and in our equivalent, the 1100's). She'd have been raped and murdered on the first page. Maybe a woman character with more of a spine, more self-reliant? That's possible, but we're dealing with camp followers and concubines, not with some tough peasant woman working the fields after her husband was taken by plague.

A non-sexualized named woman with agency.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never got the sexism issue. There's 3 women characters in the first 3 books. The Emperor's mother, Serwe and Esmenet. The Emperor's mother is a (male) genetically engineered monster, Serwe was a concubine, and Esmenet was a whore. Not exactly role-model professions for women, but it's not like any of the characters had a choice in the matter. Esmenet and Serwe are both totally reliant on male characters and such, that's true, but Bakker was trying to be realistic about how women would be dealt with in his world. What do people want? A woman warrior like Brienne? She wouldn't last a day in Bakker's world (and in our equivalent, the 1100's). She'd have been raped and murdered on the first page. Maybe a woman character with more of a spine, more self-reliant? That's possible, but we're dealing with camp followers and concubines, not with some tough peasant woman working the fields after her husband was taken by plague.

Yes, it makes sense that Bakker portrayed the concubine/whore the way he did, but it's not like they HAD to be concubines/whores, after all, is it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-sexualized named woman with agency.

But what would she do? There's 0 non-sexual roles aside from 1. peasant 2. witch. And the latter would have gotten you burned alive in the first 3 books. Kellhus legalized witches after the first 3 books, so yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A non-sexualized named woman with agency.

The Empress is most certainly a women with agency.

But are we really gonna drag this up again. Blah blah Tokenism blah blah Sexism, endless circles.

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...