The Line Between Author and Ink

[Old Nan]

Mmm, yes, you're probably right about her. Though I doubt her treatment would be too much different in Earwa than Westeros. Possibly. It's a different time period, less use (and protection) for knights in general.

[Cantabile]

Bakker already argued why he couldn't change any of the main characters to women.

And changing the gender of characters just to be politically correct seems absurd to me, the same as when companies insert one of every ethnicity into something.

[Galactus]

Honestly, what really bothered me about Bakker's women was Istriya. (who, admittedly is a skin-spy, but presumably was not always thus) that's where he goes over from "a bit shady" to "What the fuck?".

[Old Nan]

How's Istriya any different from the Queen of Thorns, or whatever the Tyrell dowager's name was?

[Cantabile]

I thought she was a great piece of characterization, and the "what the fuck?" effect was a big chunk of that. Namely seducing and being a fuck-buddy to her own children.

[Curethan]

Honestly, what really bothered me about Bakker's women was Istriya. (who, admittedly is a skin-spy, but presumably was not always thus) that's where he goes over from "a bit shady" to "What the fuck?".

Historically, royal famalies and lineages are chock full of inbreeding, incest and blind eyes turned to weird indulgences, taboos and fetishes. I assume GRRM drew inspiration from this type of thing (egyptian/mesopotamian pharoahs, european royalty, harems, sacrificial consorts etc etc) and isn't actually subconciously revealing his true desire to bone his siblings via his writing.

But hey, whatever piques your interest.

Many of these 'observsations' seem to rely on inference and texas sharpshooter 'proofs' more when the author is deliberately and effectively exploring themes, paradigm and traditions, whether to encourage critical thought or to add authentic and humane texture. A clumsy writer can and should be criticised, their bias' may seem obvious because they employ gross archetypes and prefabricated dogma but to those that find them novel or share and/or endorse their veiws see no wrong in them. (I'm thinking of Tairy here. <_< )

However, a good writer can make you sympathise with a fundamentaly bad character, like GRRM or Dostoevsky. Hemingway's work has been characterized as misogynistic and homophobic, yet the man's works offer insight rather than encouraging acceptance and perpetuating generalization.

On to Bakker. In my mind, he is exploring the opressive nature of social paradigms and entrenched sexism is possibly the one that we have made the most progress with and are most open about in western society. I suggest that those who take issue with the way he uses it are those that have adopted the counter-paradigm that (in its most extreme form - not calling anyone militant) refuses to entertain debate or exploration of the subject, because it is very hard to see any attempt to endorse or excuse the sexism beyond its actual depiction. I find the idea of touring those holocaust museums in Germany repellant and will probly never go to one, but I understand that it is important that they exist.

The line between author and ink is a lens and a mirror. A mingling of the author, their subject and the reader. A good writer reveals things about themselves, the worlds we share and the reader through shared exploration. The writer, the ink and the reader are the variables that determine what is learned and revealed.

I am 100% that all authors have flaws. Great art comes from tormented minds, struggling to recognize, interperet and transcend the flaws and faults of mortality.

The benefit of reading is to learn from the mistakes of others, whether fiction or non.

[Liadin]

On to Bakker. In my mind, he is exploring the opressive nature of social paradigms and entrenched sexism is possibly the one that we have made the most progress with and are most open about in western society. I suggest that those who take issue with the way he uses it are those that have adopted the counter-paradigm that (in its most extreme form - not calling anyone militant) refuses to entertain debate or exploration of the subject, because it is very hard to see any attempt to endorse or excuse the sexism beyond its actual depiction. I find the idea of touring those holocaust museums in Germany repellant and will probly never go to one, but I understand that it is important that they exist.

Again, I haven't read Bakker (and again: would really like this discussion to go to a Bakker thread), but based on what I've seen in the various threads it creeps into, it sounds like it's not really clear from his work what he's doing--i.e. you could see it either way depending on what you bring to the work. And, not to put too fine a point on it, but he is a man. If you want to deal with oppression of a group you're not part of by a group you are part of, generally you're expected to do it in a sensitive and cautious fashion. If I as a white person want to write a book dealing with African slavery, I can't write in a whole bunch of unsympathetic and brutish African characters and expect real-life black people I've never even met to be okay with that because I explain on my blog that I'm a complete anti-racist.

Again--I don't know a lot of details about Bakker's characters (or want to know--really!), but it's a form of discrimination in itself when a member of a privileged group thinks it's up to them to define what is and what isn't discrimination against a non-privileged group. When a man thinks his opinion that a work isn't sexist is more valid than that of a woman who thinks it is, that's just plain sexism, or at any rate it certainly comes off as male privilege in action much of the time. And that's a vibe I get from a lot of these Bakker discussions--a lot of guys, including apparently Bakker himself, insisting it's not sexism, but wait a minute, guys aren't the ones in the best position to determine what is or isn't. Just like I might be unconsciously racist, something that's acceptable to a man who doesn't have to deal with sexism much can raise a lot of red flags for a woman who does. Maybe Bakker was intending to be anti-sexist, but wasn't very careful about how he did it and so some unfortunate tropes and unconscious biases made their way in anyway. Which is something people should generally be careful of when they're dealing with any kind of prejudice in their writing.

Of course, to a certain extent, we're getting back to the "what the reader brings to the table" aspect. For some people, a work might seem to be arguing sexism is wrong, while to others it might seem straight-up misogynist, and it's possible that those two views could both be legitimate if there are conflicting indications in the work.

Now: can we please move on?

EDIT: For qualifiers.

[Curethan]

I understand your exasperation with Bakker infecting other threads, but it is relevant to the discussion at hand here. Obviously less so to people, like yourself, who haven't read it. The varied perceptions of him as an author based on the content he has produced juxtapose with the contempory nature of those same issues to and the enduring nature of the discussion make him an effective example to illustrate my point, which is not whether he is or is not sexist but that the reader is so inclined to discuss their opinion on the matter.

At no point did I intend to imply that those who regard his work as sexist would be of any particular gender, that is wholly your inference.

It suggested a particular type of attitude that does not need to justify itself. Which is precisely the type of attitude that enables repression. This isn't a bad thing, patriachal oppression is a paradigm that is still entrenched and we as a society need people who will force people to examine their behaviours. At the same time, we need people, like Bakker, who are exploring what enables entrenched social oppresion to occur. But there is also an obligation when offering criticism, especially when you are using your critical analysis to apply labels to individuals to realise that your social views and bias impact on what you infer from someone else's writing.

But yeh, I'm sick of talking Bakker too, hehe. So how about that Hemmingway? Or E A Poe, there was a lot of speculation that he was a closet serial killer or something during his time because his work was so evocative, and he was a fairly mixed up, drug adled soul... Or good ol' P K Dick, one could argue that he was schizophrenic to some extent, he certainly suffered from many psychoses which repeatedly crop up in his work.

[Liadin]

At no point did I intend to imply that those who regard his work as sexist would be of any particular gender, that is wholly your inference.

Actually, I wasn't implying that you said only women would see sexism, that was wholly your inference. ;) I was pointing out that the vast majority (if not all) of the people who defend Bakker in these threads are men, and that as men, both Bakker and his defenders should consider that perhaps they shouldn't insist on having the last word in sexism discussions (particularly when their opinion is that sexism isn't present), and perhaps they're not as equipped to recognize or write about sexism as women who've actually had to deal with it. Doesn't mean men can't write about or have opinions on sexism, merely that when a lot of people find said opinions/writings offensive, the most appropriate thing to do would not be getting defensive and insistent, but rather rethinking things and being more cautious in the future. Speaking of things that cause entrenched social oppression to occur, one that's fairly obvious is letting the oppressing (rather than the oppressed) group define what is acceptable and what isn't.

On Poe (and similar authors) though, it's obviously going a bit far to speculate that someone is a serial killer based on gruesome things in his work. I certainly think it's fair to conclude that he was fascinated by the grotesque, given what he chose to write about.

[Curethan]

Ah, apologies then. You are quite right too. I'm not inclined to agree that the oppressed should define what is acceptable but rather they need to define what isn't acceptable ... and challenge things that approach the line. We do need art that challenges and reminds us though.

As a (resonably) educated, free-thinking middle class white guy I really didn't realize how widely entrenched racism and sexism still are until I began working in the blue collar industry in a role that brought me into contact with a much more broad and acurate cross section of our 'enlightened' western society. It's amazing how many people think their peers are 'the norm' when it comes to social paradigms, and I think this is what has damned Bakker to some. Hopefully in the future, when sexism really is a thing of the past, people will be able to read his stuff without becoming agrieved by the lack of overt internal counterbalances and critisism and instead appreciate what I see as the intent - an investigation of how people can allow such obviously inequal and obressive behaviour to continue simply because they have been conditioned to accept it, and when it is addressed it isn't really acceptable if the motivations are not right.

Back to Poe, this is why it seems almost laughable that there should have been an even larger storm of controversy in his own time about what the nature of his work suggested of his character. Although his work still resonates and thrills, we are accustomed to encountering mental unbalanced killers and their motives in our fiction. Being able to resonate with their emotions and motives is not strange at all any more and its acceptable to see the latest Saw movie that doesnt even bother with motive but instead concentrates on outdoing even the sickest murderer...

Hemmingway seems very interesting to me too. We know that he had some pretty crap attitudes and yet his work apparently transcends them whilst illustrating them. I haven't read any of his work yet but was reminded of his reputation by this topic and I have resolved to put him on my xmas reading pile with this angle in mind. Should be interesting.

[Touchstone]

To move the discussion away from Bakker, the cheekiest and also most intelligent toeing of that line I've ever seen was in a graphic novel, Jonathan Hickman's The Nightly News. Before every chapter (or installment, I suppose, since it was originally released in several parts), Hickman included a short statement that originally made it clear that he in no way supported the actions of the main characters (which, for those who haven't read it, amount to domestic terrorists). As the series progresses, the admissions in the statement grow more and more heinous until they match the actions of the characters. I thought it was singularly brilliant writing.

[Old Nan]

However, a good writer can make you sympathise with a fundamentaly bad character, like GRRM or Dostoevsky.

While I agree with the thrust of your point here, I'm curious about your examples, because I honestly can't think of a single character in ASOIAF or the several books of Dostoevsky's I've read with whom I sympathized.

As Patton said,

The difficulty in understanding the Russian is that we do not take cognizance of the fact that he is not a European, but an Asiatic, and therefore thinks deviously. We can no more understand a Russian than a Chinese or a Japanese, and from what I have seen of them, I have no particular desire to understand them except to ascertain how much lead or iron it takes to kill them. In addition to his other amiable characteristics, the Russian has no regard for human life and they are all out sons-of-bitches, barbarians, and chronic drunks.

and I've found this observation (aside from the funny ethnic bits) to be more apropos after every piece of Russian 'literature' I've had the misfortune to read. Martin, of course, is emulating such to make a political point about how unbearable preliberal societies were.

[Jon Sprunk]

Maybe Bakker was intending to be anti-sexist, but wasn't very careful about how he did it and so some unfortunate tropes and unconscious biases made their way in anyway. Which is something people should generally be careful of when they're dealing with any kind of prejudice in their writing.

In a word, no. Writers aren't supposed to be careful in their writing, not in any sense of the word. They are supposed to challenge, to defy, to slap you in the face and spit on your shoes. When an artist leans toward safety, he/she loses authenticity, and that -- the authentic exchange of experiences -- is what art is all about.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Nan,

While I agree with the thrust of your point here, I'm curious about your examples, because I honestly can't think of a single character in ASOIAF or the several books of Dostoevsky's I've read with whom I sympathized.

As Patton said, and I've found this observation (aside from the funny ethnic bits) to be more apropos after every piece of Russian 'literature' I've had the misfortune to read. Martin, of course, is emulating such to make a political point about how unbearable preliberal societies were.

The brothers in The Brothers Karamazov all have sympathetic moments (that said I'm only about half way done with the book).

[Spastic Plastic]

make a political point about how unbearable preliberal societies were.

How do you even come up with this?

There's absolutely no political point in ASOIAF, except to show the horrors of living in a medieval world. And even then, he's being very realistic* (as opposed to Bakker's exaggreated protrayal). Imagine an ASOIAF without the brutally honest take on the medieval times, and it wouldn't be ASOIAF anymore. I'd call it "premodern" rather than "preliberal", and it's not even a political point, since absolutely no one believes we should return to the Middle Ages.

I have no idea where you got "liberal" from. You just have to work in modern US politics into everything, don't you?

* This was many people's gripe with GRRM's blog a few years back - how he described his fictional characters in ambiguous ways and gave them character depth, while childishly demonizing the Republicans on his blog.

[Old Nan]

Was that good for you?

There's absolutely no political point in ASOIAF, except to show the horrors of living in a medieval world.

:stillsick: That's exactly what I said.

I'd call it "premodern" rather than "preliberal", and it's not even a political point, since absolutely no one believes we should return to the Middle Ages.

Evidently he disagrees, since he feels the need to make that political point. There are many people who find modern society distressing; some of us read fantasies based in earlier times, before certain mistakes were made, that brush over other mistakes that had been made. Martin, like Bakker, obviously finds this ridiculous.

I have no idea where you got "liberal" from.

Really? None at all?

You just have to work in modern US politics into everything, don't you?

No, and in fact I wasn't.

[Cantabile]

While I agree with the thrust of your point here, I'm curious about your examples, because I honestly can't think of a single character in ASOIAF or the several books of Dostoevsky's I've read with whom I sympathized.

There are different forms of sympathy. One can sympathize based upon their own frame of reference (i.e. your beliefs of how one should act in the fictional circumstances, and your moral compass based upon that) or using the character's frame of reference (i.e. projecting yourself into their mind to determine why they are undertaking their actions, and whether or not their actions are sympathetic based upon their moral compass and psychology, not your own).

With the latter, I find it impossible not to sympathize with a character. Even thieves, rapists, and serial killers are human beings, like ourselves, and the mark of good writing is that the author presents to us a character's humanity in a way that we feel akin to them. And thereby can produce sympathy.

HBO's prison drama "Oz" is a good example of this, making their audience feel sympathy for people that have committed the most heinous acts in society.

Whether or not you ultimately feel sympathy is subjective to yourself, but I personally can't imagine not sympathizing with Martin's or Dostoevsky's characters.

[Old Nan]

The difference between sympathy and empathy confuses me, because honestly I'm too lazy to look it up.

[Wras]

The difference between sympathy and empathy confuses me, because honestly I'm too lazy to look it up.

Sympathy, "I feel for you."

Empathy, "I feel with you."

[Liadin]

There's absolutely no political point in ASOIAF, except to show the horrors of living in a medieval world. And even then, he's being very realistic* (as opposed to Bakker's exaggreated protrayal). Imagine an ASOIAF without the brutally honest take on the medieval times, and it wouldn't be ASOIAF anymore. I'd call it "premodern" rather than "preliberal", and it's not even a political point, since absolutely no one believes we should return to the Middle Ages.

I have no idea where you got "liberal" from. You just have to work in modern US politics into everything, don't you?

I don't think we can make these kinds of assertions until the series is over, really. We can identify points Martin has made, but it's hard to say what points he hasn't until he's finished. For instance, so far it seems somewhat anti-monarchist: the government doesn't work all that well for most people, and there's no "perfect king" character or suggestion that everything would be gravy in Westeros if only the "rightful" ruler was put on the throne. It's possible that in the future Dany (or someone else) will become the "rightful" ruler and the series will end on a "if these people hadn't thrown out the Targs, none of these terrible events would have happened." In the book discussion forums, there are certainly people who expect it to end this way. OTOH, it might not go that direction at all (and I think most of us hope that it doesn't). But until we know, it's hard to say what the ultimate message of the work is.

The monarchism thing is interesting in fantasy though: almost no one today is a monarchist, but most quasi-medieval fantasies are chock-full of pro-monarchy tropes. There's a "rightful king," who's also usually perfect for the position, and anyone else who tries to take over the kingship is generally evil, and there's this myth that if a good-hearted person rules, they'll be able to do everything right and the government will be good for everyone. A lot of people have written about what this means and I don't think it's generally assumed that the authors are actually monarchists. It is often seen as a display of conservatism though, and nostalgia for the imagined past (and romanticization of the Middle Ages). In plenty of cases I'm sure there is that, although in a lot of others I think it's more that the author is throwing together a lot of traditional story elements without thinking about them (or about the way the real world works) one way or the other. Which may be true of a lot of attitudes that come out in highly derivative works.