White-Luck Warrior

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

They are warriors or their support personnel. Your whole list is nothing but nobles/warriors. Except maybe the Sorcerors, but that's debatable.

Maithanet and Inrau are warriors/nobles? Not all the nobles fought. And all these male characters had agency apart from sex. All the female characters use sex to express their agency. That is the sticking point. Furthermore, you acknowledge that they have "support personnel." What stopped any of these support personnel from being women with non-sexualized agency?

Fuck if I know. That's one of the things I love about the series, I have no idea where it's going. But, as I said to Kalbear, given the nature of the enemy, sexuality seems to be part of a larger theme in the over-arcing story.

You keep saying that, but you have not explained how. If you were to just take the Prince of Nothing, how would you explain the theme of sexuality? And to what end do the three female characters serve this theme?

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I thought the sex was to expand on the theme of domination that runs through the book: People are normally dominated by the society's conventions. Kellhus dominates them by subverting those conventions. The Consult dominates people more viscerally.

[sologdin]

sexuality, again, does seem to be a fairly overt theme in the books. Maybe there's another purpose to it.

a thematics is usually something that can be expressed as propositions, and we might reasonably propose a number of alternative and inconsistent thematics for PoN that address the above and foregoing concerns. (sexuality, with no predicate, is simply subject matter, or mise en scene, even.)

thing is, we don't need bakker's opinion (or purpose, or whatever) to propose the sexuality-related themes of the novels. that's wimsatt & beardsley stuff, FFS.

[Shryke]

Maithanet and Inrau are warriors/nobles? Not all the nobles fought. And all these male characters had agency apart from sex. All the female characters use sex to express their agency. That is the sticking point. Furthermore, you acknowledge that they have "support personnel." What stopped any of these support personnel from being women with non-sexualized agency?

Nothing. Hell, maybe they ARE. What you are not taking into account is that we know nothing about these people. We never see them either way. We have no basis for supposition on their sexuality. And frankly, we have no reason to see them, which is my point. I mean, we could have had a POV from one of them, and have it be a women even, but it's not necessary and the book doesn't suffer for the lack of some more random POVs.

And to your first point, Maithanet and Inrau are either not POVs or barely in the book at all.

You keep saying that, but you have not explained how. If you were to just take the Prince of Nothing, how would you explain the theme of sexuality? And to what end do the three female characters serve this theme?

Kalbear already mentioned the basic framework above. The Inchoroi are essentially passion without intellect and Kellhus is essentially intellect without passion. Although these aren't entirely accurate either, since we know Kellhus does feel, as his conditioning did break while outside Ishual. And then you layer on top of this the whole idea of the world being deliberately ordered and ranked and I have no idea where it's going in the end.

As to what end do the three female characters serve in that framework? Not sure. I don't remember if Bakker has commented on this or not.

[Finn]

sexuality, again, does seem to be a fairly overt theme in the books. Maybe there's another purpose to it.

a thematics is usually something that can be expressed as propositions, and we might reasonably propose a number of alternative and inconsistent thematics for PoN that address the above and foregoing concerns. (sexuality, with no predicate, is simply subject matter, or mise en scene, even.)

thing is, we don't need bakker's opinion (or purpose, or whatever) to propose the sexuality-related themes of the novels. that's wimsatt & beardsley stuff, FFS.

Yeah, I agree that we don't need Bakker's authorization to expound on thematics, or anything else for that matter. (Not that I'm completely on board with W&B's notion of "the intentional fallacy," mind you).

With Bakker though, so much of what we think we know about the series comes from extra-textual authorial statements. It really muddies the waters - sometimes for the better, sometimes not so much.

[Kalbear]

As to what end do the three female characters serve in that framework? Not sure. I don't remember if Bakker has commented on this or not.

He did, somewhat. He mentioned that they represent certain facets of womanhood and the world. Serwe is Earwa, IIRC, and represents the innocent and organic being corrupted. Istriya is the old world, and Esme is women in general. And he makes note of how both Serwe and Istriya are replaced by inorganic, but Esme is not.

Or something like that. It was an odd theme, and a bit muddled. I'm finding I agree with Bakker's assessment of himself more and more as I talk about things; the biggest problem with his writing is that he wants to do too many things at once. He wants women as archetypes and as representations of the world at large and as actual characters, but he also needs to put in tentacle rape demons and glistening cocks. And while a bit of spicy cock adds something to the dish, there's only so much you can take.

So to speak.

[Shryke]

He did, somewhat. He mentioned that they represent certain facets of womanhood and the world. Serwe is Earwa, IIRC, and represents the innocent and organic being corrupted. Istriya is the old world, and Esme is women in general. And he makes note of how both Serwe and Istriya are replaced by inorganic, but Esme is not.

Or something like that. It was an odd theme, and a bit muddled. I'm finding I agree with Bakker's assessment of himself more and more as I talk about things; the biggest problem with his writing is that he wants to do too many things at once. He wants women as archetypes and as representations of the world at large and as actual characters, but he also needs to put in tentacle rape demons and glistening cocks. And while a bit of spicy cock adds something to the dish, there's only so much you can take.

So to speak.

Ahh yes, I remember this now. I also remember going "WTF? I never even thought of that." and agreeing with his assessment that he threw a few too many thematic things into PON.

[Mathis Waters]

I'd much rather an author err on the side of too many ideas. To say that Bakker's put too many questions and ideas and themes into his work sounds like a backhanded recommendation.

[Kalbear]

It's more that he expected so many people to get it, and then seemed downright offended that people would take a book that had almost no women in it, raping, huge cocks, objectively inferior women, and where every woman used sex as her sole means of power in the world as something other than a representation of modernity and class struggles? CRAZINESS.

Having a lot of ideas is one thing. Bakker didn't add a lot of ideas; he added a lot of themes he wanted to explore. Unfortunately some of those themes were too subtly represented, and others were simply contradictory to each other. I agree that more ideas would have likely been okay. But general notions of premodernity vs modernity isn't an idea. It's just a postliterate talking point.

[Shryke]

It's more that he expected so many people to get it, and then seemed downright offended that people would take a book that had almost no women in it, raping, huge cocks, objectively inferior women, and where every woman used sex as her sole means of power in the world as something other than a representation of modernity and class struggles? CRAZINESS.

Having a lot of ideas is one thing. Bakker didn't add a lot of ideas; he added a lot of themes he wanted to explore. Unfortunately some of those themes were too subtly represented, and others were simply contradictory to each other. I agree that more ideas would have likely been okay. But general notions of premodernity vs modernity isn't an idea. It's just a postliterate talking point.

This is where you go completely off the rails Kalbear and, frankly, sound like you've got nothing but some petty grudge going on.

He wasn't offended that people didn't get it. He was offended that, after some people didn't get it, they then accused him of being a sexist.

Who WOULDN'T be offended at that? Seriously?

I mean, when someone, say, calls GRRM a pedophile after reading ASOIAF, you don't think he's like "What? What the .... what hell?" and then quickly followed by "No, you know what, FUCK YOU!".

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Nothing. Hell, maybe they ARE. What you are not taking into account is that we know nothing about these people. We never see them either way. We have no basis for supposition on their sexuality. And frankly, we have no reason to see them, which is my point. I mean, we could have had a POV from one of them, and have it be a women even, but it's not necessary and the book doesn't suffer for the lack of some more random POVs.

We nothing of these people because, for whatever reason, Bakker chose not to do so. What you are not taking into account is that Bakker COULD have done so to add further layers to the Holy War. Bakker COULD have had non-combatant men or women from their ranks, but he did not. Instead, all his female characters eke out their existence in this sexist world through sexualized agency. Overly sexist society or not, that is the sole expression of female agency that Bakker chose to present in the books.

He did, somewhat. He mentioned that they represent certain facets of womanhood and the world. Serwe is Earwa, IIRC, and represents the innocent and organic being corrupted. Istriya is the old world, and Esme is women in general. And he makes note of how both Serwe and Istriya are replaced by inorganic, but Esme is not.

Or something like that. It was an odd theme, and a bit muddled. I'm finding I agree with Bakker's assessment of himself more and more as I talk about things; the biggest problem with his writing is that he wants to do too many things at once. He wants women as archetypes and as representations of the world at large and as actual characters, but he also needs to put in tentacle rape demons and glistening cocks. And while a bit of spicy cock adds something to the dish, there's only so much you can take.

Ah, yes. I vaguely recall that. I am not sure how this necessitates that all three of his female characters to only have sexual agency. Why does the old world need to use sex? Why does the innocent and organic Earwa need to use sex? Is that the only way for her to be corrupted? Why does the woman in general only have sexual agency? What symbolic significance is brought to mind or gained through the sexual agency of these three characters?

[Kalbear]

Shryke, I don't have a grudge. But reading his blog (where we Westerosi are 'sharpening our knives' for the next novel he writes) and his responses, it was clear that he was bothered that so many people didn't see the themes and subtleties that he was writing. And it took a long time to tell him that maybe, just maybe, if he wants to be somewhat successful communicating his ideas he may need to not so overtly disguise them underneath the shock and awe of other things.

Hell, he's probably still not convinced. He's certainly as defensive as ever.

He wasn't offended that people didn't get it. He was offended that, after some people didn't get it, they then accused him of being a sexist.

Who WOULDN'T be offended at that? Seriously?

He can be offended all he likes, but he was genuinely surprised for a while. That was the more baffling thing. Like I said multiple times, while the subtext might be about premodern worlds and modernity, about corruption and about how phallocentric societies keep things that they covet under their power because they want them, not because they're inferior - the text itself was about rampaging cocks, rape, and weak women who can only use sex to get what they want.

He recognized that fact when Eef called him on it with the question about whether or not he would have done it with black people being inferior instead of women. And he wanted to do that, but he could never have done it and gotten published. He recognized that societally it wasn't going to work and people would call him racist. But he still felt some surprise at the accusations of sexism.

I dunno. It's hard for me to imagine writing a novel about the people and cultures he did and not expecting people to call me a sexist. Him being offended is especially odd; why would you take offense? They got it wrong, they were wrong, and while you can see where they're coming from it's not that big a deal.

I mean, when someone, say, calls GRRM a pedophile after reading ASOIAF, you don't think he's like "What? What the .... what hell?" and then quickly followed by "No, you know what, FUCK YOU!".

I think GRRM's been in the business long enough that if someone said that (especially someone ON TEH INTARWEBS) he'd simply laugh and slam them later, and not give two shits about it. His reaction at the con to the darkstar hate is a pretty good example of the kind of normal reaction I'd expect. "People hate Darkstar...why would anyone hate Darkstar?" He'd be bewildered at the idiocy of the argument. If someone came up to him and asked what the deal was with him and food, he'd probably have a good laugh about it and tell them what it was, and understand that the reader might think he has a case of the munchies all the time. :)

[jurble]

You know what needs to be discussed more? The fact that Achamian was a pedophile.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I am still puzzled by something he mentions in that post that I recall him mentioning in the Bakker and Women thread: "Given that I literally believe that males are – in the majority of modern contexts – the ‘weaker’ sex, I remain mystified." Isn't believing in the existence of any 'weaker' sex inherently sexist? Why would he use this statement as evidence that he isn't sexist? But part of the problem is that he does not communicate the superiority of the female sex in his books. I do not think that it even shines through, which is what you would expect from what he insists is a strong conviction. And despite whatever superior views he has of women, he deliberately chose the sole inclusion of three female characters, all of whom exist as sexual agents.

As a result I’m an equal opportunity discriminator: everybody is fucked up in my books. If you happen to be more sensitive to problematic representations of women, then these are bound to stand out for you, and you will argue that the women in my books are especially fucked up. And that thus, I am sexist.

He is missing the point from the Bakker and Women thread. The problem is not that women are fucked up, because as he says - everybody is fucked up in his books - but rather, the point of contention is the expression of female agency. It's entirely sexual.

Bakker continues to write himself into a corner. Considering his views, you would think that women and the feminist reader would be the ones to appreciate his writing. Then he acts surprised when they don't get it. Instead of taking a step back and critically examining these criticisms or the reasons for these misunderstandings, he shouts, "I'm not sexist! It's just confirmation bias. I am sexist if I do and I am sexist if I do not. I can't be sexist. I have female friends. I LIKE WOMEN! Now excuse me while I go write about giant phalluses and raging hard-ons."

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

He recognized that fact when Eef called him on it with the question about whether or not he would have done it with black people being inferior instead of women. And he wanted to do that, but he could never have done it and gotten published. He recognized that societally it wasn't going to work and people would call him racist. But he still felt some surprise at the accusations of sexism.

Not that I wouldn't love to have come up with that, but I am pretty sure it was actually needle who raised that point.

Don't think I'm not following this round of the discussion, btw. Just imagine my avatar doing the "I'm watching you" gesture.

[Old Nan]

I keep hearing people say that GRRM has some unnatural love for food but I have never, ever noticed it in his books.

I agree with you on that at least.

I'm sorry, Z and Q and H and B are held only by male characters. All the female characters (whore, harlot, concubine) are subtle variations of Type Y.

Well, Shryke has a point. If Y is normative and X is a radical, uncommon alternative then demanding X is "tokenism." Cnaiur, for instance, and Kellhus, and Achamian, and Proyas, and Maithanet, and Moenghus -- tokens one and all. But all this furious calling of "tokenism" only begs the question, then, and the question arises "why does he want Y to be overwhelmingly normative?" Sure, it's more fun to bypass this and get on with the "tokenism!" but it doesn't actually justify anything.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

I agree with you on that at least.

Well, Shryke has a point. If Y is normative and X is a radical, uncommon alternative then demanding X is "tokenism." Cnaiur, for instance, and Kellhus, and Achamian, and Proyas, and Maithanet, and Moenghus -- tokens one and all. But all this furious calling of "tokenism" only begs the question, then, and the question arises "why does he want Y to be overwhelmingly normative?" Sure, it's more fun to bypass this and get on with the "tokenism!" but it doesn't actually justify anything.

The men you listed are archetypes, but they are not necessarily tokens. The word "token" is thrown around tremendously in this discussion, and it is being severely misused. I do not think that "token character" means what you think it means.

More on the point: If you can prove to me that "X is a radical, uncommon alternative" in Earwa - with X being women having non-sexual agency - then Shryke potentially has a valid point. But I do not see how non-sexual agency is radical even in a oppressively sexist, pre-modern world. Throughout our sexist and patriarchal history, sexual agency for women is not the norm. Even Biblical women of the Old Testament historiography, and other ancient Near Eastern texts, have more non-sexual agency than in Earwa.

[Old Nan]

More on the point: If you can prove to me that "X is a radical, uncommon alternative" in Earwa - with X being women having non-sexual agency - then Shryke potentially has a valid point. But I do not see how non-sexual agency is radical even in a oppressively sexist, pre-modern world. Throughout our sexist and patriarchal history, sexual agency for women is not the norm. Even Biblical women of the Old Testament historiography, and other ancient Near Eastern texts, have more non-sexual agency than in Earwa.

Right. And for the record, I don't think "token" has any useful meaning at all. As I said, it's a bit piece in a circular argument.

[lokisnow]

shit. Now I remember why I never made it more than half a page through the raging of the bakker vs women threads.

*skim skim skim*

[koudoulis]

oook

prince of nothing question (no sex in it sorry)

i lend the books to my brother and i have been enjoying myself in his utter confusion for the last week. however he asked me last night why was akka so sure at the beginning of the holy war that if he revealed the presence of kehlus to the mandate they would take him and torture him and all the stuff that he envisioned would happen. the celmonian prophecy didnt say that the anasurimbor would bring the second apocalypse just that he would be there when the time came. is it partly what kehlus has imparted upon him to protect himself from an unknown faction that could divert him? or am i forgetting anything else important?