I Need Support for This Whole Bakker Thing

[Luzifer's right hand]

Furthermore, I absolutely objected to the characterization of females in the books. Esmenet had seemed to have some promise, but good god, the woman sold her own daughter at a very tender age. And that's the most likable female character with any spirit at all in the book.

Bakker's women seem to exist to be raped, murdered, or be child-bearing vessels.

I find the lack of female school"man" disturbing. Nice of Bakker to keep the one thing that could make some women equal to man in a medial fantasy setting away from them.

Yeah, Bakker is *awesome* in describing magic. (Better so, than Eriksson, even if Eriksson probably has the more powerful stuff)

I love how the Gnosis doesen't call fire, it calls the essence of burning itself. Awesome stuff.

SPOILER: Sun Kellhus

I like the magic until the Dragonball Z fight at the end of the last book.

Edit for spoiler.

[Galactus]

find the lack of female school"man" disturbing. Nice of Bakker to keep the one thing that could make some women equal to man in a medial fantasy setting away from them.

Actually (from the appendices) I gather that women *can* be sorcerers just fine.... It's just that the school's won't teach them an unaffiliated sorcerers (wizards/witches is the term used I believe) are pretty swiftly hunted down. (though some remain "uncaught", they seem to do so only far, far away from any schoolmen.

[Balefont]

You forget, the first book starts out with child rape. So we already have an on-screen male child rape in the very prologue itself

uhm, shit I guess I have to read this for the third time. I spose I glossed over this part?

[Stego]

No, I think it's attempted child rape, isn't it? Need to reread.

[Stego]

That evil little boy! He deserved it!

All lunacy aside, rape happens. Murder happens. The world is not a good place, and Bakker's world might even be a bit harsher than our own.

It only lends to its believability.

Most people read to be transferred to a seeting, to live vicariously through another's adventures. If you do not want to vicariously live through rape or the constant possibility of such, I completely understand and do not judge you for it.

That said, these books are wonderful. Pure magic.

[Arakasi]

Ehh, don't care for them. Although not so much for the negativity. More for the fact that almost no one is sympathizable and I believe Kelhus is just way too powerful. Well compared to any of his competition anyway. He rode over everyone in the first 2 books and it doesn't look like that changes in the third. Maybe gets even worse since he's now the uber magic user too. Add in to that I'm a person who is very wary of manipulation and Kelhus' storyline is filled imo of unconvincing manipulation (Bakker even in an exchange he had told about how writing for him is about manipulatiing the reader, something which I noted and was was put off by). Sure Erikson's characters for the most part might not be very deep, but then again neither is anyone in the Silmarillion and I love that book too.

[Happy Ent]

The world is not a good place, and Bakker's world might even be a bit harsher than our own.

See, I don't even think that. If anthropologists can be believed, the Yanomamö tribe of our own world make the Scranc look like pussies. Or the civilised forms: Gulag, concentration camps, Pol Pot, the Spanish Inquisition, comfy chairs and all. The capacity of our species for violence and degradation towards the powerless seems boundless. Bakker takes this very seriously, as he should. After all, the axioms of morality are one on of the major philosophical themes of his work. The degradation of Serwë (who is treated no worse than Pretty Pia, for that matter) even breaks Kellhus' conditioning, even though he does not recognise this strange emotion. (Hint to the Warrior-Prophet: that is pity you are feeling.)

Interesting: Arya is a lot colder when she sees Pretty Pia at the gallows in Harrenhal's yard (who is tied up to be raped by every passer-by) than Kellhus is when he sees Serwë being raped.

[Galactus]

See, I don't even think that. If anthropologists can be believed, the Yanomamö tribe of our own world make the Scranc look like pussies. Or the civilised forms: Gulag, concentration camps, Pol Pot, the Spanish Inquisition, comfy chairs and all. The capacity of our species for violence and degradation towards the powerless seems boundless. Bakker takes this very seriously, as he should. After all, the axioms of morality are one on of the major philosophical themes of his work. The degradation of Serwë (who is treated no worse than Pretty Pia, for that matter) even breaks Kellhus' conditioning, even though he does not recognise this strange emotion. (Hint to the Warrior-Prophet: that is pity you are feeling.)

I believe the main difference with Arya visavi Kellhus is that while Martin shows decidedly nasty sequences of events there are *also* moments of happiness and revelry.... There is no scene that I can recall analogous to the scene where Sansa witnesses a young hedge-knight (?) and his pregnant wife.

Arya is a lot colder when she sees Pretty Pia at the gallows in Harrenhal's yard (who is tied up to be raped by every passer-by)

I think partially this might be because Arya is a lot younger and simple doesen't realize the full implications.

But as to the treatment of women specifically, Bakker is probably a bit more misogynist than the real world was. Even during the darkest Middle-ages there were still abbesses, (in some cases) guild-mistresses, widows, and women who, for one reason or another, played an important role. Even in wartime.

[Happy Ent]

Even during the darkest Middle-ages there were still abbesses, (in some cases) guild-mistresses, widows, and women who, for one reason or another, played an important role. Even in wartime.

But Esmi and Istriya fit that niche very nicely, don't you think? We can't say too much without spoiling...

[W]hile Martin shows decidedly nasty sequences of events there are *also* moments of happiness and revelry....

True that. Bakker is seldom cheerful, neither does he want to be.

Of course, revelry may be a poor choice of words, we see Inchoroi constructs revelling all the time... If ever there was a race made for unfettered frivolity, it is they.

But as to the treatment of women specifically, Bakker is probably a bit more misogynist than the real world was.

Sentiments like this have been expressed several times now on this board. I finally understood why I don't like it.

If I write a book about how terrible the Warsaw ghetto was—does that make me anti-Semitic? No. So when Bakker gives a very unpleasant description of the plight of women in a fictional feudal society, he is not being misogynist. Quite on the contrary.

[Galactus]

But Esmi and Istriya fit that niche very nicely, don't you think? We can't say too much without spoiling...

To some degree they do, and we'd probably see more women in other areas (what seems to be lacking in Bakker's world though, is female saints and abbesses, at least we've not seen any.... Given how important monastic life was in our world this isn't to be underestimated) but even in war there seems to be a definite lack of women other than the standard "whores". (Disregarding the fact that many men, the rich, but even more notably the common soldiers, would bring their wives and children along to war, we have the huge number of women who would follow an army doing lots of odd jobs as camp-followers, not neccessarily synonomous with prostitutes)

To some degree Bakker's world is kind of skewed (we have a limited number of characters and situations) But it *seems* his world is still a bit more misogynistic than Crusades-era Europe ever was.

I think Martin (partially because he gives us a "broader sweep" of society, perhaps, has a more "realistic" society in that way. (Catelyn I think is a fine showing of how a woman in the middle-ages could and did excercise authority) Note even, that there were actually women who took up arms themselves (IE: not just brought their men-at-arms) during the various crusades. There was at least one female bowman in the Second Crusade, for instance.

Sentiments like this have been expressed several times now on this board. I finally understood why I don't like it.

If I write a book about how terrible the Warsaw ghetto was—does that make me anti-Semitic? No. So when Bakker gives a very unpleasant description of the plight of women in a fictional feudal society, he is not being misogynist. Quite on the contrary.

Ugh, typo. I of course meant to write that *his world* was more misogynist than Martin's. I apologize to anyone (including Mr. Bakker) for that error.

[Caligula_K]

There was at least one female bowman in the Second Crusade, for instance.

Notice the "one." I know women characters are nice when they're strong, like the men, but really, to remain true to a fictional feudal society that mirrors Western European society at the time of the Crusades, and especially during the course of the Holy War, women aren't going to realistically be powerful, besides the odd one. There's no reason why Bakker should give us that one female bowman POV just because she's a female bowmen and we "need strong feminine characters."

[Xray the Enforcer]

Sentiments like this have been expressed several times now on this board. I finally understood why I don't like it.

If I write a book about how terrible the Warsaw ghetto was—does that make me anti-Semitic? No. So when Bakker gives a very unpleasant description of the plight of women in a fictional feudal society, he is not being misogynist. Quite on the contrary.

Yeah. I totally can understand where some people will not like the lot that women get in Earwa. But I also agree that Bakker himself is not a misogynist (well, that I can tell through his writings, anyway. For all I know, he's got 100-strong Hot Hussy Harem up in the Canadian Wastes, or wherever the hell he hides out.) And I say this as someone who's pretty sensitive to that particular aspect when I read a book (plenty of authors have gotten the thumbs down because their view of women was stunted). I dunno -- I just never got the misogyny thing. Life sucks for women (even those of the Few) in Earwa, even without the Sranc running around raping everyone to death.

[MeanMrMustard]

You're a towel!

[diabloblanco18]

Life sucks for women (even those of the Few) in Earwa, even without the Sranc running around raping everyone to death.

As we know, though, the Sranc are equal-opportunity rapists.

[Xray the Enforcer]

As we know, though, the Sranc are equal-opportunity rapists.

True that. I was trying to keep things focused on the plight of women, but the men certainly weren't immune to sexual violence (both at the hands of the Sranc and, uh, certain other characters) in Prince of Nothing. (also wanted to add that when I said "raping everyone" I really did mean both men and women).

[Galactus]

Notice the "one." I know women characters are nice when they're strong, like the men, but really, to remain true to a fictional feudal society that mirrors Western European society at the time of the Crusades, and especially during the course of the Holy War, women aren't going to realistically be powerful, besides the odd one. There's no reason why Bakker should give us that one female bowman POV just because she's a female bowmen and we "need strong feminine characters."

Actually they *are* realistically going to be powerful, although probably not in the way the men are. As pointed out there were lots of women who could and did wield power. (Eleanor of Aquitaine, Margarethe I.... And these are only two examples of reigning queens: Completely ignoring the case of queens who did not rule in their own right wielding significant influence, or abbesses, widows, guild-members or merchants, or even prominent wives)

Women weren't any more stupid in the middle-ages than they were today (although far less educated).

Notice the "one."

Notice the "at least" That's just the one we know of. Given how many soldiers there were who we know *nothing* about it's not impossible to assume a few were women (even if they might dress as men. Monstrous Regiment might take that to some extremes, but it really wasn't *that* uncommon.... And as for routes to power, at least one woman managed to become a general without anyone finding out her real gender )

[Benjen Stark]

A quick note... It is entirely possible the holy war did have a smattering of female warriors in disguise, but the one person who would see through it did not seem to consider gender important outside of breeding requirements and manipulation of others.

[Ser Paladin]

Actually they *are* realistically going to be powerful, although probably not in the way the men are. As pointed out there were lots of women who could and did wield power.

I think Bakker nails the proportions nicely in the Prince of Nothing. Serwe and Esmenet both have some significant influence, simultanteously, which is probably about the number of women simultaneously in positions of influence in the Crusader era. And who knows whether the civilization on the other side of those southwest mountains (name escaping me right now) might be ruled by a woman.

But, for a crusade we've got a set of monks in a monastery (all men, check), an army (nearly all men, check), a priesthood (surprise, surprise, all men), and a stand in for the real world academy, the schoolmen. Women were rarely allowed to be educated in the middle ages, and the same holds true for Bakker's schools as well.

If you were to read a history of the Crusades, how many powerful women would be represented? About as many as in this series, I'd warrant.

[Stego]

If what you're looking for is vastly unbelievable strong female characters, I would suggest Elizabth Moons The Deed of Paksenarrion and Mary Gentle's Ash: A Secret History.

[DolByc]

I think Bakker nails the proportions nicely in the Prince of Nothing. Serwe and Esmenet both have some significant influence, simultanteously, which is probably about the number of women simultaneously in positions of influence in the Crusader era. And who knows whether the civilization on the other side of those southwest mountains (name escaping me right now) might be ruled by a woman.

But, for a crusade we've got a set of monks in a monastery (all men, check), an army (nearly all men, check), a priesthood (surprise, surprise, all men), and a stand in for the real world academy, the schoolmen. Women were rarely allowed to be educated in the middle ages, and the same holds true for Bakker's schools as well.

If you were to read a history of the Crusades, how many powerful women would be represented? About as many as in this series, I'd warrant.

Mmmm, I don't think Serwe had any influence, unlike Esme.

And I know that there were more powerfull women in the Crusader era, that there are in the Prince of Nothing.

But you should understand that inrithism isn't an analogue of Christianity. It's actually hinduism. And in hinduism women were much less significant than in any Christian nation.

Disclaimer: this post wasn't intended to degrade hinduism in any way, but truth is truth.