Jump to content

The Line Between Author and Ink


Cantabile

Recommended Posts

Being more realistic than most fantasy doesen't say very much. Bakker's society is not very much like medieval society at all. (nor is it intended to be, I suspect)

Fair enough appears more of a blend of ancient cultures with the medieval crusading ones.

If Bakker specifically stated he was exaggerating certain issues, then my apologies. My perception was that he intented to focus on certain areas rather than others, which is not quite the same as exaggerating, though I suppose it has the same effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Bakker has, hilariously enough, managed to insert sexism into almost every item of his world.

For example, the "whore's shell", a contraceptive used by the hookers. Sounds like an everyday contraceptive, right? It's a sorcery-powered object that prevents births by imprisoning the souls of unborn children in it.

I'm serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's on p.538 Penguin Canada edition of TWP at the bottom of the page.

It was why she'd cast her whore's shell, the contraceptive charm the witches, across the sands.

Like TFJ wrote, I'm pretty sure Achamian mentions it as well in TTT when he's thinking about the ways in which Esmenet wouldn't let herself be with him fully, like Kellhus.

I'm not sure about that sucking baby souls bit though. I mean, it's Bakker and it probably works something like a Chorae but I don't recall babies even being born while they're worn, let alone stillborn, or that embellishment even being specifically mentioned.

This is it, I guess, my foray into Westeros. I've been hovering around here as exams are dying down and since it seems to be the only Bakker speculation game left in proverbial internet town.

Continuing off topic, I have to add to the discussion, that we need to gauge, perhaps revise, our individual historical opinions. Just some food for thought.

There's a difference between studying history and making the necessary perspective changes, really internalizing the objectivity. The poker game will always remain a great metaphor for me; there is an objective state of affairs, that of which each individual player holds a piece, and the task for each player is to somehow divine that objectivity. I read anything that's not a prime source today, I'm separated from the event by certain degrees and thousands of little propositions. Even primary sources are completely taken in through our individual perspectival lens.

Imagine the two main concepts that unconsciously affect, yet that we consciously ignore in, our historicizations, that History has been decided, over and over again, by the historical winners and the rich and powerful. Then try to bring to mind any of the innumerable smaller ones which we neglect in our personal studies like context, projective narratives, or confirmation bias. Anyone conducting historical studies today inevitable colours the facts, whatever they might be objectively, with their own interpretation, further separating each of us "layman" from any sense of the actual state of affairs.

I think Bakker does better than most authors in attempting to account for some of these things. Historically, humans have accomplished feats of prowess and technology that we are often loathe to admit in our epitomized Western Empire. Bakker seems to attempt to being some of those to light. Likewise, while their individual neurophysiology and psychology were, obviously, different than our own today, we're not separated as we might wish. Throughout most of our recorded history, we've been pretty well physically indistinguishable, with, apparently, no major evolutions happening throughout. Our ancestors probably thought just like us, repeating for millenia our fatuous claims of belief, until we're little more than complex mirror of those societies. But my believes are more, you say? So might they.

Specifically, we have so many connotations on the word whore, we're projecting them on both the history and, in this case, artifact - an object of artwork - to assume that Bakker's sexist. It, like many other words and titles historically, does not hold the same connotative weight in history as it does in our minds today. That "whore," despite what we, or anyone in Earwa, think is now the Empress of the Three Seas. We, or her enemies, might refer to her history and though those experiences might have shaped her, but for all intensive purposes belief has made her something else, given her power unimaginable.

Bringing this back to topic, though, as I ramble on, I have to make a point on the Line Between Author and Ink.

It seems that we have to assume, at the foundation of our interpretations, that an author, or artist, cannot be separate from their works. The essay that sologdin posted raises some interesting points after this fact but before we can consider how an object exists differently and simultaneously in all our perspectives, I think we need to remember that all those words, consciously and unconsciously, are the authors. Art will always say so much more about its artist and that conduit's worldview than it ever possible can about whatever subject matter the artist was trying to highlight. And I think this has always been one of Bakker's points on small to large personally embodied belief. What we do and say exposes us more than we expose the content of our focus yet we continually ignore this small nagging idea, trudging on with "Ah, poo, poo, your conceptual expose of Midwestern American lifestyle is so well-formed. What poor lives those people live."

Anyhow, back to studying. One more exam. I guess, having popped my cherry here at Westeros, you can expect some WLW speculation from me soon.

Peace all, good to meet you,

Madness

Edit: Thought I'd add some of Bakker's own thoughts.

Three Readerly Illusions & Eight Writerly Fallacies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scott Bakker has, hilariously enough, managed to insert sexism into almost every item of his world.

For example, the "whore's shell", a contraceptive used by the hookers. Sounds like an everyday contraceptive, right? It's a sorcery-powered object that prevents births by imprisoning the souls of unborn children in it.

I'm serious.

I recall something about a whore "mak[ing] a pit of her womb" but that's just religious dogma.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whore's shell is mentioned several times that I can find, and a description of the mechanism is not to be found in the immediate vicinity. I don't discount the possibility that it might be mentioned indirectly, but that's virtually impossible to find offhand. That it works by the method TFJ claims is definitely plausible.

Pierce Inverarity redux?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pierce Inverarity redux?

That was my first thought, admittedly. Personally, I think that Bakker should just openly join this board. There's already a few authors floating around, and he obviously has many insights and opinions on everything literary. Would help for publicity, and he'd be able to reach thousands of potential readers.

Not to mention this forum is probably the largest collection of Bakker-ites now that the Three-Seas-board has been smitten :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was my first thought, admittedly. Personally, I think that Bakker should just openly join this board. There's already a few authors floating around, and he obviously has many insights and opinions on everything literary. Would help for publicity, and he'd be able to reach thousands of potential readers.

Not to mention this forum is probably the largest collection of Bakker-ites now that the Three-Seas-board has been smitten :P

Not to mention that it would (somewhat) rehabilitate his image of the fact that last time he was here he flounced off in a cloud of indignation and entitlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about that sucking baby souls bit though. I mean, it's Bakker and it probably works something like a Chorae but I don't recall babies even being born while they're worn, let alone stillborn, or that embellishment even being specifically mentioned.

I think this excludes the possibility of Madness being Bakker, unless he is being especially disingenuous.

As for whore's shell, it is mentioned it stops the soul from embodying, so no conception can occur, IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for whore's shell, it is mentioned it stops the soul from embodying, so no conception can occur, IIRC.

Okay. I might have read that wrong, but I doubt it. Probably my mind was so focused on Bakker hating women that it exaggerated the whore's shell part. But I'm still pretty sure it's the reason why whores are damned in the afterlife.

I still wouldn't put it past PON to say that all women are damned to hellfire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Whores Shells I remember some speculation that the mechanics of them were why whores were damned but I dont remember any textual evidence for this just speculation. Whorse are specifically damned because the Tusk says they "make a pit of their wombs" What exactly this means is never made clear.

In regards to Bakkerverse I guess this is part of his universe everything not just sexism is darker If Bakker takes a dim view of humanity, he also takes a dim view of God or at least the God of the old Testament . He has stated that part of his intent is to recreate a world in which the beliefs of bronze age people are fact rather than myths and in order to create such a bit one needs a bronze age God, but Bakker wanted his God to be what they believed but as he focuses on the worst aspects of people he also focuses on the worst aspect of God. This a world in which Abraham sacrificed Isaac The Inthri religion is Christianity with the nice bits about loving youre neighbor cut out.

Bakker always talks about layers of subtext some of which is right here some of what hes trying to say is that if you have a world dictated by the whims of a God like the one in the old testament this is what you get, hell or something awfully close. So maybe our own society and Bakkers rather depressing philosophy arent that bad at all when they are compared to the alternative.

Or at least that is my interpretation, its hard to separate works from authors I mean you can kinda tell but I know it when I see it isnt a very quantifiable qualification. If you didnt know anything about Terry Goodkind one could come to the conclusion that his works are a parody about self righteous Objectivists blind to their own failings. Its just hard to know without a larger context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In general, I think something of the author often seeps through in his work. If not always. How much that says, though, is often widely varied. Someone like the Yeard obviously uses his books to peddle his "philosophy", and he as a bad almost-rape-fetish. From an author like GRRM, you can tell (for instance) that he doesn't seem to think that idealism gets you anything besides kudos and that war is generally terrible for everyone (cue Broken Men speech by Meribald). Which are not life-shattering insights, to be sure.

Sometimes its better not to know too much about the people behind things you love. I don't want to know that Pete Townsend of The Who researched child porn, for instance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...