|
General Battuta posted:Ironically it's the kind of psychology Bakker has built his work on evo-psych and continental philosophy. Abalieno posted:And this doesn't look to you a persecutory and deranged behavior to you? You are free going accusing random people of whatever passes through your mind (or that you think you're delusionally reading in a book as the real purpose of the writer), and then hide yourself under the untouchable status of "reader" when such person tries to defend himself from these accusations. I don't think that the author has a monopoly on the interpretations of a text. The question is "are these readings of misogyny supported in the text." Personally, I find the argument compelling. Bakker has strongly denied those readings, which of course he has a right to do, but he cannot say they are invalid. In her post, A Cracked Moon primarily engaged with Bakker's words about the text, not the text itself. In Mamatas's blog, Bakker refused to acknowledge this distinction, and attempted to cast ACM's criticisms as only being on "six pages" of the first book and not his interview at Pat's Fantasy Hotlist. quote:What about humility? Is it in your vocabulary? Aren't you able to conceive the notion of doubt when you make strong claims about your own guesses on someone else you don't even know? What's gotten you so upset? Are you perceiving criticisms of Bakker and these books as a personal attack? Why?
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
fritz posted:Personally, I find the argument compelling. Well, I'm glad for you. quote:Bakker has strongly denied those readings, which of course he has a right to do, but he cannot say they are invalid. So who has the right to say they are invalid if Bakker can't, nor can those flagged as "Bakker's supporters" (so obviously not reliable)? I guess this leaves those who confirm those readings as the only ones who can say they are wrong. And they don't, obviously, since they confirm them in the first place.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:Well, I'm glad for you. v. classy, dude. quote:So who has the right to say they are invalid if Bakker can't, nor can those flagged as "Bakker's supporters" (so obviously not reliable)? Where did I say anything about Bakker's supporters? You can propose an alternative reading, or you can try to show that someone has made mistaken statements of fact about the text. Abalieno posted:Let's try an experiment and COMPLETELY switch the context so that it is cleared of all pre-existing judgements: I find it revelatory of your interpretation of creation, criticism, and debate.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
I do too, but it doesn't answer the question. Usually the author's interpretation isn't directly considered because it's not there. Most writers don't explain their work, or resist this in interviews. Bakker was no different. He started explaining only when he found out his work being misunderstood. I guess it's comprehensible why he became defensive (and that's what my example wants to show, a situation that forces you to come out). And usually if an author is generous enough to give his interpretation I actually trust it, instead of believing I have more insight and a better perception on my own. Like, you know, the very popular DVD commentaries. People enjoy them because they expect a better insight into some work, they never come pretending they know better. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 06:24 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I do too, but it doesn't answer the question. To continue with your (flawed, reductive) movie analogy, if Orson Welles came back to life and released a commentary on Citizen Kane saying it's just a movie about a guy with a paper, I'd think it absurd to give any credence to that as the definitive interpretation of the film just because he said so. A fundamental principle of literary analysis is that subtext exists, whether we want it to or not, and all the wishy washy appeals to authorial intent in the world can't do more than willfully ignore centuries of basic critical thought. Abalieno posted:Let's try an experiment and COMPLETELY switch the context so that it is cleared of all pre-existing judgements: I find a lot wrong with this because the offered analysis is completely devoid of merit and internal logic!! Not all interpretations are equally valid, and an author is welcome to defend his works, but he has to engage his critic from a framework that meets his opponent's in depth - and I didn't think about this when I was writing it is the shallowest poo poo imaginable!! Dammit Whom fucked around with this message at 06:40 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:33
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I do too, but it doesn't answer the question. You've loaded your example up with all sorts of emotion and that's destroyed any explanatory power it might otherwise have had. quote:And usually if an author is generous enough to give his interpretation I actually trust it, instead of believing I have more insight and a better perception on my own. Like, you know, the very popular DVD commentaries. People enjoy them because they expect a better insight into some work, they never come pretending they know better. And that is, literally, an 'appeal to authority' argument.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:37
|
|
|
Dammit Whom posted:To continue with your (flawed, reductive) movie analogy, if Orson Welles came back to life and released a commentary on Citizen Kane saying it's just a movie about a guy with a paper, I'd think it absurd to give any credence to that as the definitive interpretation of the film just because he said so. I made my example entirely fictional because it must be credible (it could happen exactly like I said). Your example is made by taking back Orson Welles and making him say things you want. It is very likely if that Orson Welles really came back and released a commentary on Citizen Kane HE WOULDN'T say it's just a movie about a guy with a paper. If not as a joke that everyone would get. Yet there are plenty of actual, real examples you can make about writers dismissing certain speculative interpretations. Usually there's a tendency to trust these more than whatever fantasy randomly comes up from a random guy. quote:A fundamental principle of literary analysis is that subtext exists, whether we want it to or not, Whether the author wants it or not, you mean. And you believe a critic has more insight into some work than the original writer who wrote it. I consider this delusional, but you're free of holding onto that, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:
I would say denying basically the entire act of thoughtful criticism is way, way beyond delusional, personally. For someone accusing others of "kid-level rhetoric", you seem shockingly unable to provide anything of depth at all.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
fritz posted:You've loaded your example up with all sorts of emotion and that's destroyed any explanatory power it might otherwise have had. Uhm, an example is explanatory when it simplifies a point to make it self-evident. If even the example is complex and ambiguous then it isn't explanatory at all, nor it is a good example. But you missed entirely the point. I didn't ask you to consider the example while thinking about the Bakker situation and tell me whether or not my example is an accurate description of it. I've asked you to FORGET the whole debate, set it aside, and just consider the example on its own. As if nothing more than that happened. And I want you to tell me if you find anything wrong with it or not.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I made my example entirely fictional because it must be credible (it could happen exactly like I said). By the way like I tried to explain to you, it's not credible, it's wildly incredible, unless the "critic" is intentionally engaging in sophistic bullshitting, which I think you are!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:04
|
|
|
Dammit Whom posted:I would say denying basically the entire act of thoughtful criticism is way, way beyond delusional, personally. I would too. But I don't deny "thoughtful criticism". I think thoughtful criticism would require going line-by-line with a very specific analysis of a book. ACM has taken a couple of interviews, read an handful of pages, and suddenly decided it was enough material to express a judgement of the whole breadth of Bakker's work. Strikes me as quite preposterous and indefensible. Personally, this doesn't fall in my definition of "thoughtful criticism". I don't deny thoughtful criticism, I deny that ACM can be considered like that.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:05
|
|
|
Dammit Whom posted:By the way like I tried to explain to you, it's not credible, it's wildly incredible, unless the "critic" is intentionally engaging in sophistic bullshitting, which I think you are! In my example I didn't reveal the intention of the spectator who makes that claim. You don't know it. You only know the claim. He could say that because he truly believes it, or maybe he slept through the documentary and decided to have fun by releasing that kind of statement to see the reactions. You can speculate as you want on what's his actual purpose. The example is credible because I made someone say something. Happens everyday that people say smart things, stupid things, idiotic, superficial etc... This is just something that someone could have said. That's all you need to know to work with the logic of the example.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I would too. But I don't deny "thoughtful criticism". Really. What's the specific word length required, let's say in a ratio to the author's total output of words, before we can examine something. Five to one? Fifteen to one? Or can we maybe, and this is getting a little radical for the thread I guess, look at and consider the words in front of us that exist instead of the hypothetical Perfect Ideal Critique? Because dismissing someone because they're working off a sizable chunk of data instead of the ~breadth of a human being's work~ is ridiculous. Abalieno posted:The example is credible because I made someone say something. Happens everyday that people say smart things, stupid things, idiotic, superficial etc... This is just something that someone could have said. That's all you need to know to work with the logic of the example. No it isn't! Your (absurd, reductive) example isn't automatically credible just because you insist it is! I insist it isn't! It's pretty obviously something someone could have said, in that it's physically possible to write them down and say them, but it's certainly not something that I have to consider as worthy of serious analysis as something that actually makes any drat sense at all! Your example, as written in that post, is bad, because the arguments made are bad, and the arguments made by that blogger aren't bad the way yours are bad. How do you not get this? Dammit Whom fucked around with this message at 07:12 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Dammit Whom posted:Really. What's the specific word length required, let's say in a ratio to the author's total output of words, before we can examine something. Five to one? Fifteen to one? It is required you read the thing you want to analyze. Is this excessive? Do you properly judge a book by the cover blurb? By the index? First two pages? I'd say whatever critic is pertinent to whatever amount was sampled. You read two pages, you express your opinion on those two pages and just that. 100 pages, and it's 100 pages you can speak about. quote:Because dismissing someone because they're working off a sizable chunk of data instead of the ~breadth of a human being's work~ is ridiculous. "Sizable chunk" for you is two interviews and eight pages? About a cycle of several books? You comment what you read. If you don't read a cycle from the beginning to end you can't go inferring what the cycle's arc wants to represent. If you read two pages you comment two pages and it will be as pertinent as that. quote:it's certainly not something that I have to consider as worthy of serious analysis as something that actually makes any drat sense at all! Well, you inadvertently answered my question. Your answer is: "I wouldn't consider that guy's claim as a serious analysis because it makes no sense to me". Is that right? Perfect. Now I can tell you that it's exactly my opinion about ACM's claims: make no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
I don't understand why you keep claiming that some critics assign intent to an author's work, when the tradition of literary criticism that you're talking about is about the reader offering their own interpretation of the text. There is no hidden meaning to be discovered, just different subtexts added to the discussion when someone experiences the text differently. No work is produced in a vacuum, and an immeasurable amount of cultural influences go into any given text, regardless of what the author consciously intended. So, it's not a matter of "what did he mean when he wrote it?", but rather "what can we as readers see in this text?". If you only try and understand specifically what the creator meant to include, then you're imposing an artificial limit on your understanding of the text, because the author inevitably includes more than they consciously intend!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:36
|
|
|
For god's sake. This again? Nobody's even talking about misogyny in the books anymore, you are literally arguing about an argument other people had on the internet. No matter who is right, everyone loses. How about those jizz-aliens, guys?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:38
|
|
|
neongrey posted:For god's sake. This again? Nobody's even talking about misogyny in the books anymore, you are literally arguing about an argument other people had on the internet. No matter who is right, everyone loses. But...this is the forum for talking about...books?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:But...this is the forum for talking about...books? I just feel like at this point the argument has very little to do with the books at all anymore, and is just a slapfight about a slapfight. The first time the argument came up it was barely about the books, and now I just don't see that it's about anything other than the argument anymore. Misogyny or not in the books is one thing, but the minute the Bakker/ACM flamewars get brought up, any chance of any meaningful discussion just feels like it's out the window.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
tatankatonk posted:because the author inevitably includes more than they consciously intend! I personally believe otherwise, but it could as well be true (Bakker does believe it is). But I ask you: why do you believe that YOU, you specifically, are able to understand more and better some work you spend an handful hours with, than the author who made said work, maybe for years, and obviously knows it in much more precise detail? That's the question of humility I raised before. Personally when I watch a movie or read a book I believe I understand them when they make sense and I understood a majority of the themes involved. I usually miss millions of little things that the author or other readers can point out to me. A lot of times I figure out I'm completely wrong. And I don't think I could ever claim I understand some work better than the original author that made it.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
Abalieno posted:I personally believe otherwise, but it could as well be true (Bakker does believe it is). Again, it's not about understanding something better, or more deeply. There is no "true" interpretation to unlock, because the reader imparts as much meaning onto a text as an author does! We all experience language and culture subjectively and uniquely, and everyone reads a text differently, leading to differing interpretations. Nobody has a monopoly on a text's meaning, because nobody has a monopoly on language. You can't understand something "better" than someone, only differently. The validity of an interpretation can always be argued about and strengthened or weakened by that reader's ability to articulate themselves convincingly, but there's no "one true meaning" in any text, because no two people look at a book or a film or a play and see exactly the same thing.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 08:04
|
|
|
This whole English 101 author vs. reader argument is pretty neatly short-circuited by the fact that the author himself believes his books are unreadable by women. He has out and out and stated that he thinks they demand too much of female readers - whether because women are sensitive doves and don't like the idea of a world where they are literally morally inferior, or because he believes he's actually fumbled something. Bear in mind that the guy's entire project is to write a fantasy series where morality is determined by consensus and the patriarchy actually is 'objectively right'. He isn't trying to write a realistically, historically bleak setting, he's trying to write Gor. The problem is not that he's depicting horrifying misogyny - depiction is not endorsement - it's that he's misogynistic in his depiction of horrifying misogyny. I didn't actually catch on to this until I'd read Neuropath and White-Luck Warrior, but all it takes is a pretty simple comparison of the way sex and rape affect men vs. how they affect women in his books to see it. Bakker knows about post-hoc rationalization. He'd be the first one to argue that he has no access to many of the heuristics and biases that inform his writing. It's not hard to read his work as evidence of some deeply hosed up attitudes towards women. He comes right up to the edge - he says his books ask too much of women - but he doesn't seem willing to ask himself if this is because they depict a world that's horrifyingly bleak for women (why, then, Neuropath, which claims to depict the pervasive nature of modern misogyny by literally destroying women with sex) or because women are, you know, actual thinking beings who can parse his work and detect what he's missing? e: Here's a useful comparison that arises in Neuropath. This book is set in the real world, so it's not subject to Earwa's consensus morality. Several of the characters in Neuropath are the titular neuropaths - humans who've been surgically altered into sociopaths in order to serve as high-efficiency agents for the government. A male character (Neil) becomes a neuropath. He goes rogue in order to make a philosophical argument. He masterminds the entire plot of the book, seduces women with his dashing charm and good looks, successfully evades government pursuit, and hits up a number of Bakker's philosophical talking points. At one point he is raped; he is completely unaffected by it, walks away and never mentions it again. He also rapes at least two women; he is not particularly affected by this and uses it mostly as a philosophical argument. A woman character becomes a neuropath. She does this so she can stop worrying about people thinking she's a slut. She is given a mission by a government agency to capture an important rogue neuropath. Operating with the full support of her handlers and their effectively unlimited surveillance and tactical resources, she pursues this man by loving another male character to gain his trust. When she captures the target, she decides that the best way to interrogate him is to: (a) Bring him in to her handlers, who have been established as masters of the human brain (b) Question him and try to outwit him (c) Tie him up fully clothed, strip completely naked, and rape him on the floor of a cabin, while leaving guns strewn about unsecured and allowing another character to escape his bonds Congrats, it's C! And she enjoys raping the man so much that she actually has a full psychotic break. Raping someone is so enjoyable that it completely destroys her, a trained and neurally modified field agent who, by all rights, should have had more effective tools than 'get naked, ineffectually rape dude'. She explicitly says that she wishes that she was a man and her victim a woman because then it would be even more pleasurable. The main character then shoots her in the head mid-rape, killing her, and keeps her panties in his pocket for the rest of the book. Bear in mind said main character is just an everyman college professor and this bit of weird trophy-taking is treated as a haw haw bit of slapstick humor. Her body is left on the floor of the cabin for the rest of the story and nobody really thinks about her again. Compare the way Bakker thinks a neurally modified government agent man and a neurally modified government agent woman would behave. The woman is literally driven insane by the sexual pleasure of rape. Even the writing of the scene is skewed - we get endless descriptions of her body and the sounds she makes and no concern at all for the person she's raping (of course, he's completely unaffected by it.) And, on the broader level, we see again and again that the female characters have basically one tool (sex) and the male characters access to a far broader range of options. Dude has issues. Don't read Neuropath, it's poo poo on every level. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 13:02 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Dude has issues. Don't read Neuropath, it's poo poo on every level. okay but this is the second apocalypse thread. i'm not saying bakker doesn't probably have some things to talk to his therapist about but i'm getting so loving sick of book barn's moral crusade against fantasy authors who they adore but cannot go one thread page without skewering some inane blog post to reveal their hidden sexist/racist/pedophilic agenda. grrm's obsession with rape as revealed through food? come on bro it's to the point where the detractors are getting as creepy as the authors they so vehemently denounce. there are some awful things in the world but when literally everyone is a perpetrator of something it's kind of ridiculous. Edged Hymn fucked around with this message at 13:19 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 13:16
|
|
|
Yeah I'm down with talking about all the cool poo poo regarding Second Apocalypse (which is a lot). It's just frustrating to see people who still think the issue is 'he writes about a misogynistic setting'. I don't really think the issue here is that 'everyone is a perpetrator of something', it's that big fat fantasy writers tend to be misogynistic neckbeards. Similarly, military SF writers tend to be neoconservative loons; these fields just draw certain people. e: You think it's ridiculous to talk about GRRM's obsession with rape as revealed through food? Just this last Sunday we got 'these women are in for a bit of a rape. they're like delicious slices of cake. waiting to be eaten.' GRRM explicitly related rape and food, it's a metaphor he loves. It could only have been more perfect if he'd written 'lemoncake'. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 13:23 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 13:20
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Yeah I'm down with talking about all the cool poo poo regarding Second Apocalypse (which is a lot). It's just frustrating to see people who still think the issue is 'he writes about a misogynistic setting'. if you think the issue goes beyond that, then by all means you are entitled to think that. but understand there is absolutely nothing bakker can say that will change your mind, so why are we arguing? I have yet to read anything gratuitously obscene that would warrant this blog crusade. if i told you i'm reading a series about black jizz aliens, you'd probably call the cops. But I appreciate what Bakker is doing with the Inchoroi in the larger context of the story, which is partly about the modes of human life and how demarcated it can be between base appetites and the higher aspirations. I can respect the larger point he is trying to make. I think the sex is what makes people jump the gun, but personally I don't get the sense it is masturbatory.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
Yeah, that's not really the issue either. The issue is how he writes his female characters (though it is interesting that there are no female Inchoroi or Consult that we've seen; Bakker thinks rape and sex are male through and through). You think you're sick of the Book Barn's crusade about creepy fantasy authors, you wouldn't believe how sick I am of reading creepy fantasy authors! and i don't have a blog
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 13:27
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Yeah, that's not really the issue either. The issue is how he writes his female characters (though it is interesting that there are no female Inchoroi or Consult that we've seen; Bakker thinks rape and sex are male through and through). but the fact is the rothfuss and grrm threads are huge (and although the asoiaf thread is a bit more tongue-in-cheek), I can't stand reading posts written by goons about how much they tsked tsked over rothfuss' new blog post, and how grrm is a creepy fat gently caress. it's like they're ashamed to enjoy something written by the kind of person this community shuns, so they have to constantly remind the fanbase just how repulsed they are by this author. while they're pre-ordering winds of winter or whatever the new kvothe poo poo is. Okay, I am almost done with book 2 so I am very open to hearing your opinions. What about Esmenet, Serwe, and whoever else is poorly written and misogynistic? They strike as women in incredibly lovely situations who still somehow derive some measure of inner strength to get them through the day. Granted, with Serwe she gets it from Kellhus, but as the reader we are meant to sympathize with her getting played. General Battuta posted:(though it is interesting that there are no female Inchoroi or Consult that we've seen; Bakker thinks rape and sex are male through and through). okay, you lost me. you want bakker to explore the darker side of female sexuality? okay. uh. take it away. cause I can't think of poo poo. male sexuality is definitely the more disturbing, controlling, and downright reviling. and if bakker did have some female inchoroi (I thought they were genderless?), we'd be hearing it about how sex-crazed he makes his female characters all over again. edit: I really want to stress that I'm not defending these author's attitudes towards women, whatever they may be, but that in the larger scheme of things I don't think a fantasy book is going to inform some neckbeard on his relations with women. Certainly, it might reinforce them, but it is the reader's actual history with women and the like that creates those views in the first place. there's definitely more hateful and disgusting poo poo to get angry about. but of course there we can disagree Edged Hymn fucked around with this message at 14:00 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
Edged Hymn posted:but the fact is the rothfuss and grrm threads are huge (and although the asoiaf thread is a bit more tongue-in-cheek), I can't stand reading posts written by goons about how much they tsked tsked over rothfuss' new blog post, and how grrm is a creepy fat gently caress. it's like they're ashamed to enjoy something written by the kind of person this community shuns, so they have to constantly remind the fanbase just how repulsed they are by this author. while they're pre-ordering winds of winter or whatever the new kvothe poo poo is. Bit of a derail: I can't stand those threads either, but there are basically two big themes for the SA forums: 1) Intelligent people discuss books/art they love. 2) Self-hating nerds mentally flog themselves. There is, not suprisingly, a lot of crossover, and stuff like the GRRM thread is a good example of it. There are other threads that are only one or the other. (i.e. the Bibeau thread is only #2, the McCarthy thread is only #1). This thread is more #1 but you can see how it can start to slip into #2.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 14:28
|
|
|
I don't think you need to delve into goon psychology to figure out this phenomenon. It's very possible for a work to present a lot of fascinating material but fall down hard on the race or gender front. So you end up with the set of people drawn in by the quality stuff and the subset of those people also aware of the race/gender/grim dark rape fantasy issues. Inevitably you've got to resolve the conflict between 'I like so many things about this series BUT' and 'I like so many things about this series!' Cormac McCarthy deserves his awesome thread though.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 14:40
|
|
|
Fair enough. Let's agree to disagree. It's a valid discussion but I only wish it stayed out of this thread, since your points apply to more than just this series. Can we please go back to the jizz-aliens? There is seriously no inherently funnier pair of words than jizz-aliens. Jizz-aliens. Hey can someone link to that new PoN forum?
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
Edged Hymn posted:Hey can someone link to that new PoN forum? I believe it's this one. (at least, this is the one Bakker's been pimping out on his blog)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
I was hoping that Bakker might have announced the completion of TUC after seeing all the new posts in this usually slow thread, at least there was some good news with there being a new PON forum. I liked reading that old 3 Seas forum, hopefully this new one has more activity.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:He has out and out and stated that he thinks they demand too much of female readers Very long post to write based on a variation of "Bakker has said". Once again all the arguing is based on misquotes. Bakker hasn't stated any of that. General Battuta posted:big fat fantasy writers tend to be misogynistic neckbeards. Similarly, military SF writers tend to be neoconservative loons; You must enjoy your simplistic categories (biases, prejudices). I'm sure the world appears as much more intelligible when you see through everything. And then you want to demonstrate a writer has biases against women. Seldom Posts posted:Bit of a derail: I can't stand those threads either, but there are basically two big themes for the SA forums: They're called "guilty pleasures". On the other side I'm proud of everything I read and feel no need to separate Serious Literature from some other by-product. I don't see any clear, or even meaningful division. Reading GRRM threads sometimes shocks me. It goes from being funny to being creepy. But then GRRM has big shoulders and more money than he could hope for. Otherwise it's an issue for less known writers who deserve better. Abalieno fucked around with this message at 18:59 on May 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
I just finished the first series, and for whatever reason, Achamian and Esmenet's bittersweet story struck a chord with me. It was almost my favorite part. Part of me wants to ask you guys (spoilering for people who are still reading the first trilogy) if they ever end up finding happiness together, or if Akka's (rather unconvincing) "I renounce my wife" speech was the nail in their relationship's coffin. On a separate subject, it seems like Kellhus' powers are never fully explained. We get that his training means he can read people and is essentially a REALLY good manipulator... but there's also several places where he catches arrows mid-flight or holds people over cliffs single-handedly or battles off dozens of opponents and it feels like Bakker is toeing the line between making Kellhus just a Dunyain or actually giving him REAL super powers.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:It's very possible for a work to present a lot of fascinating material but fall down hard on the race or gender front. The way that this whole series falls down on the sex and sexuality front is actually one of the things I've come to like about it, oddly enough. Granting RSB the claim that he was trying in part to write a feminist work (in the same broad direction as The Handmaid's Tale, maybe) by what amounts to a reductio ad absurdum argument against the notion of objective morality and women's inferiority, it's really interesting to take a look at when and how that attempt falls apart. It seems to me to be a pretty clear case of his reach exceeding his grasp, and a really good showpiece for how unexamined privilege and biases can pop up in subtext. The more so because I think in other places his digs at notions of objective morality actually play pretty well. syphon posted:On a separate subject, it seems like Kellhus' powers are never fully explained. We get that his training means he can read people and is essentially a REALLY good manipulator... but there's also several places where he catches arrows mid-flight or holds people over cliffs single-handedly or battles off dozens of opponents and it feels like Bakker is toeing the line between making Kellhus just a Dunyain or actually giving him REAL super powers. I think that the physical side of things is more or less supposed to be straight-up super powers. The section that introduces him I think has him going weeks without food, and the battle with the Sranc a few pages later has him pluck an arrow from a fusillade where he's the only target, take a moment to study it, and then go on to kill a bunch of them single-handedly. You can explain it vaguely with him being the result of generations of breeding or whatever, but for all practical intents and purposes he has basically superhuman speed, strength, and intelligence combined with incredibly grueling training up to the very limits of his already superhuman abilities by a group of utterly amoral, similarly superpowered peers. And then he learns magic. I'm actually kind of wondering what happens if Ishual is still there and the external world comes knocking. In the beginning of TDTCB, the lack of order in the outside world was so distracting that Kellhus spent a full day staring at a leaf, and several days staring at fish. It's only after spending a while with his trapper buddy that he comes to grip with the world and abstracts huge chunks of it away so that he can cope.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
While I have no interest in that discussion, nowhere has Bakker ever said that women can't get his work, and he's actually attributed any misunderstandings of it to personally feared deficiencies in his own writing. As for the Dunyains' physical prowess, I think they are legitimately super human. Kellhus remarked that their millenial breeding program focused on mental acuity and fine motor control. The latter can explain a lot of the physical feats that they perform in the series, but some are just examples of incredible brute strength.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Tekne posted:While I have no interest in that discussion, nowhere has Bakker ever said that women can't get his work, and he's actually attributed any misunderstandings of it to personally feared deficiencies in his own writing. He has said that his work asks too much of women, not in the intellectual sense but in the sense of 'why would I put up with reading this poo poo'
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 02:22
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:He has said that his work asks too much of women, not in the intellectual sense but in the sense of 'why would I put up with reading this poo poo' But that's a totally reasonable statement. Bakker haters don't actually poo poo on him for this, do they?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 22:09
|
|
|
I don't know, I'm not really up on the rhetoric of people who define themselves as 'I hate R. Scott Bakker'. I do think it's a pretty reasonable statement, and I think it helps contribute to a more useful dialogue about sexism in fantasy writing. The whole discourse is still hung up on the idea that the only acceptable evaluation is '0% sexist' and the only other evaluation is 'misogynistic piece of poo poo, burn before reading'.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I don't know, I'm not really up on the rhetoric of people who define themselves as 'I hate R. Scott Bakker'. I do think it's a pretty reasonable statement, and I think it helps contribute to a more useful dialogue about sexism in fantasy writing. The whole discourse is still hung up on the idea that the only acceptable evaluation is '0% sexist' and the only other evaluation is 'misogynistic piece of poo poo, burn before reading'. Okay, there we can definitely agree. The PoN books isn't some infallible trilogy - Kellhus is drivel outside of his role in the story and hia powers of manipulation, Bakker has a fetish for bordering single lines with huge paragraphs for emphasis. and the violence is a little campy sometimes - but it is enjoyable enough that I almost wish Bakker would sacrifice some of the philosophy for mainstream accessibility. The series isn't perfect and I'm glad we can acknowledge its flaws without the stupid sexism shitstorm that make some of these threads loving insufferable.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Sorry in advance if I didn't put certain things in spoiler text where they should be or put stuff in spoiler text when I shouldn't, not sure about some things. Let me know if I should change that around if applicable. I've just finished reading The Warrior-Prophet the other day and wanted to post some thoughts without reading the bulk of this thread (I apologize but I don't want to be spoiled, accidentally or not). I read most of the first page and agree that the first book was quite the slog to get through and Warrior-Prophet was a lot better and a great/fun read. My issue is with Kellhus and it has more to do with the fact that he seems utterly perfect and nothing ever goes wrong with his plans. I get how it's a specific device Bakker is using with the character and will assume something will eventually go wrong for him but this ties into my one true annoyance/hatred of W-P. Page after page of fawning/loving over Kellhus and oh isn't he wonderful and oh isn't he great. Again, I know the reasoning behind it but it took a lot of willpower not to skip/skim over those sections. Does this continue in the future books or toned down at all? My two favorite characters in the series so far are Esmenet and Achamian and I'm pissed at (book 2 spoiler): Kellhus for seducing Esmenet from Achamian even though he was a prisoner of the Scarlet Spires but I still think Kellhus would have done the same thing regardless. I also hate the straight up manipulation that Kellhus can get away with and no one beyond Cnauir knows about it, I guess Conphas sees it but from a wrong assumption of who he (Kellhus) is.. I'm going to at least finish the original trilogy and I've read the book blurb about the third that will focus on my issues with the first part in the spoiler. There are parts I really love about the series, like when Achamian unleashes his inner Super Saiyan and proves why Mandate Schoolmen are feared. The whole two sides to your faith/religion and what it means in relation to both sides of the Holy War. In the end I guess I just really want a happy ending for Achamian and Esmenet, sucker that I am.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2012 16:38
|
|
