Bakker - A Discussion of Rectal Miracles

[Kalbear]

The question (which you brought up) is this: do most women read Kellhus's manipulations as rape which then turns them off the series?

Actually no; I think that's not true. The question I brought up is that if you think Kellhus was raped, it's clear that you also must think Kellhus is some form of uber rapist. If you don't, you're making some odd artificial distinction between chemical/biological compulsion and mental/social compulsion. If you do, well, then it's an obvious result that women would have some discomfort with the feeling overall.

Personally, I think that the books aren't approachable by many, period. Those who do tend to get into it tend to be the people (again, anecdotal) who are interested mostly in worldbuilding and metaphysics and rules. Our conversations here and on three sees and other forums tends to inform this as well. There is very little talk about the character of Esmi beyond 'is she a good one or a cipher?' and much more on whether or not a Cishaurim can be salted with a chorae and how that works, or what the No-God is. That he's writing at a time when self-promotion, internet presence, engagement with fans, conventions and other extratextual discussion are hugely important is a big knock too, since he completely sucks at it.

[Castel]

Actually no; I think that's not true. The question I brought up is that if you think Kellhus was raped, it's clear that you also must think Kellhus is some form of uber rapist. If you don't, you're making some odd artificial distinction between chemical/biological compulsion and mental/social compulsion. If you do, well, then it's an obvious result that women would have some discomfort with the feeling overall.

I'm really not following you kalbear. Now you're saying that women would be discomfitted by us creating an artificial line wrt rape? How does that match this:

So madness, you have no issue with Kellhus being a rapist on a massive scale then? If you do, what is the difference between his use of his power and Aurangs use of his power?

If not, do you see how a book that basically has two competing institutionalized rape camps might be a smidgen discomfiting to those who are fairly likely to be raped in their lifetime?

[Rhom]

I think there's maybe 3 funny scenes in the whole series. Kellhus imitating Cnauir, the skin-eaters and the beggar, and... okay, 2.

There's a scene in TDTCB where Esmi overhears Kellhus and Xinemus at the latrine joking about the water being cold and deep. Its not overtly funny, but it is a moment of levity in an otherwise dreary slog.

[Kalbear]

Sorry; I was rushed. HOpefully this'll be more clear.

If you think Kellhus was raped, one of two things is logically reasonable: that you think that Kellhus is some sort of uber rapist because being dominated against your will (or being compelled to do things and want to do them when you wouldn't otherwise) is what you define rape as. Or, that there is some odd like between being compelled via chemical/biological means and being compelled via social/psychological means.

If you think that what Kellhus does is also rape it is not an odd thing to reason that women would be put off by the books, given that it's a fight between two giant rape cultures to see who gets to rape more.

If you don't think that Kellhus rapes but do think that Kellhus was raped, you should probably explain what the demonstrable difference is between being compelled via chemical or biological means is to being compelled via social or psychological means.

I don't think Kellhus was raped, and i think that using it in that way seriously diminishes what rape is. At best it was attempted rape, but even that seems odd; does VIagra attempt to rape you? If someone comes up and says 'hey, wanna fuck' is that a rape? Both are compelling to have sex, and if they fail both are against your will.

[Baztek]

There's a scene in TDTCB where Esmi overhears Kellhus and Xinemus at the latrine joking about the water being cold and deep. Its not overtly funny, but it is a moment of levity in an otherwise dreary slog.

And the worst part is when Bakker tries his hand at GRRM-isms, he's actually kinda funny. Dude just needs to stop laying on the misery so thick. Why should the reader want Earwa to be saved if it's populated by a bunch of horny boors?

[Shryke]

Dune is never funny either. I don't see the problem.

[Madness]

+1 Baztek & David.

I still like documented notation, David, even if it seems obvious.

An interesting test would be to put Bakker in with other depictions of misogynistic dystopias and see where it falls.

What makes people suspect the work is a celebration of, or at least not a rebuke of, misogyny rather than a critique?

...

Sadly, however, I've not seen anyone go through all the Earwa novels and make a definitive comparison.

What bullet-points would that paper need to hit to satisfy, Sci?

Well, presumably it's worse than rape. Kellhus causes people to not just want to have sex, but want love. He causes people to kill themselves because they're doing it for Kellhus.

If causing Kellhus to want to have sex is rape, what is causing people to want to have sex, love, worship and sacrifice?

After all, we don't care if a child claims to "consent" to sex with an adult nor do we ignore the power difference between say, a prison guard and an inmate, why should we do so here? Does any of this require actual free will?

...

We can call it domination or enslavement come up with some other word.

...

The question (which you brought up) is this: do most women read Kellhus's manipulations as rape which then turns them off the series?

Like you said, I am not a part of the social group most likely to be raped so I cannot speak about how they would take it but I suspect that I'm not the only one that differentiates in my head between rape Galian-style and rape (or domination or whatever) Dunyain-style.

Actually no; I think that's not true. The question I brought up is that if you think Kellhus was raped, it's clear that you also must think Kellhus is some form of uber rapist. If you don't, you're making some odd artificial distinction between chemical/biological compulsion and mental/social compulsion. If you do, well, then it's an obvious result that women would have some discomfort with the feeling overall.

I'm really not following you kalbear. Now you're saying that women would be discomfitted by us creating an artificial line wrt rape? How does that match this:

We'd really benefit from working out some distinctions. Are violations of individual autonomy rape?

[Kalbear]

Are violations of individual autonomy rape?

You think so, no? Otherwise, how can you see Kellhus being raped? He wasn't actually physically attacked, he wanted to do the thing that was being asked, he wasn't penetrated; all that was done to him was to compel him physically to do something he mentally did not want to do.

I'll ask again, Madness - how does what Aurang does to Kellhus via Esme differ from what Kellhus does to the followers that he compels to kill themselves?

[Castel]

Sorry; I was rushed. HOpefully this'll be more clear.

Yup, I follow you now.

If you think Kellhus was raped, one of two things is logically reasonable: that you think that Kellhus is some sort of uber rapist because being dominated against your will (or being compelled to do things and want to do them when you wouldn't otherwise) is what you define rape as. Or, that there is some odd like between being compelled via chemical/biological means and being compelled via social/psychological means.

If you think that what Kellhus does is also rape it is not an odd thing to reason that women would be put off by the books, given that it's a fight between two giant rape cultures to see who gets to rape more.

Well, that's the thing; I doubt that many people look at it as 'rape'. Enslavement, mind control, whatever, but not the flavor of rape people are likely to be exposed to in their every day lives. Do people also get turned off when Professor X fucks with someone's mind and makes it impossible for them to consent? I think that people treat them as different things. I see your point, and I fully accept that my experience is not universal, especially when we start talking about things like the rapist claiming -and being right- that the victim enjoyed it,that would probably ring a bell. But I think there's some compartmentalization going on.

I don't think Kellhus was raped, and i think that using it in that way seriously diminishes what rape is. At best it was attempted rape, but even that seems odd; does VIagra attempt to rape you? If someone comes up and says 'hey, wanna fuck' is that a rape? Both are compelling to have sex, and if they fail both are against your will.

Viagra makes you...tumescent. Kellhus was going to fuck a demon dedicated to extinguishing all human life. He wasn't just a bit horny, he was not only going to have sex with an alien possessing his wife (who could not consent herself) he was going to betray his cause because it willed it. And this is perhaps the most self-possessed and mentally robust character in the series.I can't think of many other situations where he is driven like that by others. It's completely different from getting a hard-on from a drug.

I'll ask again, Madness - how does what Aurang does to Kellhus via Esme differ from what Kellhus does to the followers that he compels to kill themselves?

Kellhus can't be blocked by a ward? :dunno:

[Sci-2]

It's completely different from getting a hard-on from a drug.

Yeah, that's how I read it. Kellhus had a charm spell put on him that specifically makes him dtf Aurang.

I liken it to given [giving] someone a drug that turns off the part of their brain that would control inhibitions.

[sologdin]

him dtf Aurang

did HE write a jersey shore meets RSB vaudeville yet?

[Kalbear]

Cute, but doesn't fly. I've read many, many critiques here and elsewhere from female readers complaining about the lack of agency, how they want more variety / why is it only from the prostitute POV, etc. -- alongside the other complaints about the prose, supposed pretentiousness, poor pacing ("hard to get into") etc. Now, as I stated earlier, this might not be representative of the mass opinion; it's simply the loudest and by far the most propagated in the usual echo-chambers.

Most of us here are fairly well-read, and most of us are aware that best-selling & popularity is not a proper yardstick for quality writing. (I suppose the last part was tongue in cheek with the inclusion of the smiley, but c'mon...) Cormac McCarthy, as someone mentioned on here as an interesting influence on Bakker's prose style, didn't become a highbrow-household name until All the Pretty Horses, or arguably The Road, when Opera selected it for her book of the month, no matter that his best work (Suttree, Blood Meridian) was published in his lean years. Now, I doubt Bakker will have a career surge later in life like many challenging authors: this is an issue with infusing literary techniques in genre, in that the audience that appreciates them do not appreciate all the baggage that comes with the genre label. And Bakker in particular, with his strange online ineptitude, would have benefitted by remaining silent and thus remote a la Cormac or Pynchon.

Let's go with a standard Bakkerist style of interrogating this.

What makes you think you've won the magical belief lottery, kuenjato? You flatter yourself, saying that you're well read (and flatter us as well in order to what - ingratiate yourself in with us?) and thus are able to better judge what good literature looks like. Other critics disagree with you, however. Both are professionals as far as rating books; what makes you (and us) more right than them? What makes your opinion somehow more correct? Especially given the other data - Bakker's flagging sales, his poor outings into non-genre books, his monolithic themes throughout all of his stories. Given that women are smarter than you, better educated than you, more well-read than you - why is it that you would dismiss their opinions and promote your own?

You claim that you've read many critiques about wanting female agency - but that's just cherry picking anecdotes. That's not real data to back your claim up; there are those who have written graduate level theses about Earwa, and there are those who have said their favorite part of the series was the rape of Conphas. Why not bring them up? Why are random critiques on a board dedicated to another author somehow more relevant than ones written on feminist blogs or on neo-fascist blogs?

As to the comparison to McCarthy - what do you think is more likely: that Bakker is a secret genius that did not get popular acclaim and has thus not spread to the vast majority of people - or that Bakker is a fairly mediocre author and has not gained that popular or critical acclaim because the books are not that great? McCarthy is just another cherry pick, just another way of filtering out all the other authors who didn't hit it big because they weren't good and pointing out the few exceptions that show otherwise. The human brain is great at being able to filter out what doesn't agree with their suppositions and focus only on what does reinforce their belief system; why do you think that you are any different?

:P

[lokisnow]

Yes, Kellhus is an uber rapist. I've mentioned at length in previous threads how his mind-rape of everyone he meets is all the more disturbing on a reread. And yeah, that's why I sort of felt like he was a villain after the first time I read TTT, I felt like the author had inverted the whole series to reveal the Ender Wiggin/Jesus Christ character to be the Hitler/Anti-Christ all along.

and I sort of think that we're supposed to say, "wait a minute, what's the difference between these two rape cultures of the Dunyain and Inchoroi, they both exercise power in identical, equally appalling ways"

[Madness]

You think so, no? Otherwise, how can you see Kellhus being raped? He wasn't actually physically attacked, he wanted to do the thing that was being asked, he wasn't penetrated; all that was done to him was to compel him physically to do something he mentally did not want to do.

I'll ask again, Madness - how does what Aurang does to Kellhus via Esme differ from what Kellhus does to the followers that he compels to kill themselves?

I already wrote that I would likely side with HE.

I don't have the books on me but there's a trifecta you seem to referencing that nicely highlights something: not quite sure what.

Aurang uses Glamour/Compulsion on Esmenet in TDTCB. Esmenet's POV is not her own.

Aurax* uses Glamour/Compulsion/pheromone on Valrissa. It is absolutely horrifying from Aengelas' POV because, not only is Valrissa's agency completely co-opted, she reacts exactly as Esmenet does - as if it's something she wanted, when we know that isn't the case.

Aurang uses Glamour/Compulsion on Esmenet/Kellhus. If anything, both characters are raped by Aurang (if I recall correctly, there is a moment of penetration?).

In each case, characters are made to feel, think, and do things that they absolutely do not consent to and all three involve sexual volition - not strictly, questions of agency (we might liken Compulsions to rape depending on our perspective here).

Aside, Sci, here are some 2004, 2005 conversations that definitely suggest Bakker didn't rationalize after the fact:

Women In the Three Seas

The Status of Women and Some Real World Comparisons

And shameless bump of TSA's version of this conversation:

Bakker, Feminism, and Slavery

[Castel]

And the worst part is when Bakker tries his hand at GRRM-isms, he's actually kinda funny. Dude just needs to stop laying on the misery so thick. Why should the reader want Earwa to be saved if it's populated by a bunch of horny boors?

Why should the reader want them saved at all? Mathematically isn't is better for them to get wiped out now before they have any sort of population explosion like us, leaving billions more to the mercies of cruel demons gods? :dunno:

[Kalbear]

and I sort of think that we're supposed to say, "wait a minute, what's the difference between these two rape cultures of the Dunyain and Inchoroi, they both exercise power in identical, equally appalling ways"

Well, I think that's one of the things Bakker mentioned as one of his goals - to show that modernity is just another form of control of women, and both are horrible to women. That's what he'd like to go with. We've discussed at length how deeply flawed is the notion that feminism and women's rights came about as part of modernity, but I agree that this is where he'd like us to go. At the end of the day there's very little difference between feeling orgiastic release while being tortured to death and feeling spiritually fulfilled while killing yourself. The only way that it is different is if Kellhus is right and everyone who follows him is going to be saved in the afterlife.

That's one of the reasons I think that Kellhus can't be right - because if he is, that undermines the overall theme of 'how would you like to be screwed over' that he's promoting.

[Kalbear]

In each case, characters are made to feel, think, and do things that they absolutely do not consent to and all three involve sexual volition - not strictly, questions of agency (we might liken Compulsions to rape depending on our perspective here).

Not true at all. As far as Esme is concerned, she wants to desperately fuck that guy in the kilt in the alleyway. She doesn't know until the end that it might be magical. Before that, it's just about getting fucked - and she has enough personal agency to want to get paid for it, anyway.

Remember also the rationalization Bakker uses for the Cants of Compulsion: the dirty secret is that it doesn't and can't make you do something you didn't want to do anyway. Remember how Kellhus lies to Esme and tells her she didn't want to do that, when he knows she did? Again, how is this different than Kellhus lying to people to make them believe that he is God, and that if they kill themselves they will be saved? How is making people love him different than making people want to fuck?

[Castel]

Not true at all. As far as Esme is concerned, she wants to desperately fuck that guy in the kilt in the alleyway. She doesn't know until the end that it might be magical. Before that, it's just about getting fucked - and she has enough personal agency to want to get paid for it, anyway.

Remember also the rationalization Bakker uses for the Cants of Compulsion: the dirty secret is that it doesn't and can't make you do something you didn't want to do anyway. Remember how Kellhus lies to Esme and tells her she didn't want to do that, when he knows she did? Again, how is this different than Kellhus lying to people to make them believe that he is God, and that if they kill themselves they will be saved? How is making people love him different than making people want to fuck?

Say what now? Are we thinking of the same Cants? I'm pretty sure that the secret is that there is no way to distinguish between your desires and those foisted on you, so any action the person being controlled takes will be seen as natural and organic because...BBT I guess.

[Sci-2]

Remember also the rationalization Bakker uses for the Cants of Compulsion: the dirty secret is that it doesn't and can't make you do something you didn't want to do anyway.

I thought it was the opposite, that making you do things you don't want fucks up the mind even after the Compulsion wears off?

@Madness

Aside, Sci, here are some 2004, 2005 conversations that definitely suggest Bakker didn't rationalize after the fact:

Just to be clear, I'm in the camp that believes the gender related themes were always there. I'm just not sure how effective the execution would be [has been], which leads to:

What bullet-points would that paper need to hit to satisfy, Sci?

I think it'd be interesting to see what makes an Atwood or LeGuin dystopia a feminist novel, and what makes Bakker's either an unsuccessful attempt to do the same or, as some would say, not just a failure but a book that perpetuates misogyny/sexism.

I mean, there must be something in the text that we can use to judge these works?

[kuenjato]

Let's go with a standard Bakkerist style of interrogating this.

What makes you think you've won the magical belief lottery, kuenjato? You flatter yourself, saying that you're well read (and flatter us as well in order to what - ingratiate yourself in with us?) and thus are able to better judge what good literature looks like. Other critics disagree with you, however. Both are professionals as far as rating books; what makes you (and us) more right than them? What makes your opinion somehow more correct? Especially given the other data - Bakker's flagging sales, his poor outings into non-genre books, his monolithic themes throughout all of his stories. Given that women are smarter than you, better educated than you, more well-read than you - why is it that you would dismiss their opinions and promote your own?

You claim that you've read many critiques about wanting female agency - but that's just cherry picking anecdotes. That's not real data to back your claim up; there are those who have written graduate level theses about Earwa, and there are those who have said their favorite part of the series was the rape of Conphas. Why not bring them up? Why are random critiques on a board dedicated to another author somehow more relevant than ones written on feminist blogs or on neo-fascist blogs?

As to the comparison to McCarthy - what do you think is more likely: that Bakker is a secret genius that did not get popular acclaim and has thus not spread to the vast majority of people - or that Bakker is a fairly mediocre author and has not gained that popular or critical acclaim because the books are not that great? McCarthy is just another cherry pick, just another way of filtering out all the other authors who didn't hit it big because they weren't good and pointing out the few exceptions that show otherwise. The human brain is great at being able to filter out what doesn't agree with their suppositions and focus only on what does reinforce their belief system; why do you think that you are any different?

:P

Let's look at it another way: [edit: I'll be nice]

I'm not claiming some authoritative position, merely stating my opinions, like everyone else on the internet.

But really, your satire on RSB's tiresome BBT obsession is spot on, kudos.

As for McCarthy, I used the analogy for someone who is difficult to get into by the masses but achieved great success later in his career (success outside the ivory tower). I also stated that I don't believe this will happen for RSB for the various reasons already discussed.