|
Yeah, it doesn't so much reveal anything as make a lot of the clues hinted at so far a bit more plain. I think this is the first time we've learned anything about the Inverse Flame, though? loving Inchoroi are pretty creepy man
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2012 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
General Battuta posted:Yeah, it doesn't so much reveal anything as make a lot of the clues hinted at so far a bit more plain. I think this is the first time we've learned anything about the Inverse Flame, though? Regarding the inverse flame, I JUST finished re-reading Thousandfold Thought and the skin-spies with Cnaiur claim to be servants of the Inverse Fire, but either will not or cannot elaborate when pressed on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 00:25
|
|
|
Yeah, I remembered that when it came up in this story. When I read TTT I just assumed it was some cool-sounding bullshit phrase that would never really get explained, a way to add some mystery and obfuscation to the Consult. I'm pretty impressed at the significance it turned out to have. What do you think it is? A window into Hell? Some kind of ship's AI for the Inchoroi vessel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
I've read the first three books twice. They aren't my favorite series, but I find it interesting (when not wading though Philosophy 101). About 6 months ago I picked up and put down about halfway through The Judging Eye. It was awful, I don't even remember any of it, and now I'm upset because I may have to slog through that again to get to something that may be good? Thanks a lot, guys.  Speaking of, is there a decent wiki someplace on the internet or webpage I can read to catch up on all the stuff I half remember? I last reread the first trilogy about a year ago and I'm sure I've forgotten interesting things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
frood posted:I've read the first three books twice. They aren't my favorite series, but I find it interesting (when not wading though Philosophy 101). About 6 months ago I picked up and put down about halfway through The Judging Eye. It was awful, I don't even remember any of it, and now I'm upset because I may have to slog through that again to get to something that may be good? Thanks a lot, guys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
frood posted:I've read the first three books twice. They aren't my favorite series, but I find it interesting (when not wading though Philosophy 101). About 6 months ago I picked up and put down about halfway through The Judging Eye. It was awful, I don't even remember any of it, and now I'm upset because I may have to slog through that again to get to something that may be good? Thanks a lot, guys. Honestly I think White Luck Warrior was only a little better than The Judging Eye. It was definitely better! But it was still occupied mostly by a long bleak monotonous travel story, interspersed with some weak characters back home. Only the parts following the Great Ordeal were really awesome, and since the Sranc aren't very interesting enemies compared to the Fanim, even the battles there were a little weak. It did get pretty cool near the end, though. e: decided none of this is a spoiler, please yell at me if otherwise
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
There's a segment at the end of Judging Eye that redeems every less than ideal part of the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
Nothing is a spoiler at this point, the book has been out for months. vvv Read a real book. Maytag fucked around with this message at 03:44 on Jan 13, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 01:37
|
|
|
Maytag posted:Nothing is a spoiler at this point, the book has been out for months. Not for kindle! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 02:40
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:There's a segment at the end of Judging Eye that redeems every less than ideal part of the book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2012 07:27
|
|
|
I can't guarantee you'll not miss anything important but...start at page 296 and go from there. I DREAMED I WAS A GOD
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
The Sharmat posted:I can't guarantee you'll not miss anything important but...start at page 296 and go from there. Wait holy poo poo, I don't remember this Is that the No-God talking? drat, that sounds like some fourth wall poo poo there
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:34
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Wait holy poo poo, I don't remember this Is that the No-God talking? drat, that sounds like some fourth wall poo poo there  I really need to reread these books before TUC comes out. Has Bakker mentioned how close it is to being done?
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Last I heard it'll drop in July. I am so hard for this final book.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 01:55
|
|
|
That soon? No loving way. I wonder how many hard answers we'll get. I assume at least one character will reach Golgotterath and will finally get to see what's inside, which is probably one of the two things we've all wanted from day 1 of the series - the other being 'what the gently caress is the No-God.' But there's two, maybe three books to go after this, right? Maybe this trilogy ends with the No-God resurrected and it's all Second Apocalypse from there on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 03:47
|
|
|
I'm pretty excited for the next book too, but is TUC really the last book? I don't remember seeing/reading anyplace that said there were only 2 trilogies. I'll admit that the first three books were far superior to the last two, and I'd hate to see the quality continue to drop, but I can't see the whole story wrapping up in only 600 more pages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
JLightning posted:I'm pretty excited for the next book too, but is TUC really the last book? I don't remember seeing/reading anyplace that said there were only 2 trilogies. I'll admit that the first three books were far superior to the last two, and I'd hate to see the quality continue to drop, but I can't see the whole story wrapping up in only 600 more pages. There's going to be at least another duology and I suspect it'll balloon into a trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:That soon? No loving way. Ever since Bakker has said that the title of the third trilogy is a spoiler, i've just been taking it for granted that it's going to be called "The Second Apocalypse" and that TUC will end with the No-God coming back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Wait holy poo poo, I don't remember this Is that the No-God talking? drat, that sounds like some fourth wall poo poo there I feel bad now. It's just from Cil-Aujas. I just thought it was a bad-rear end scene. My guess for the title of the final cycle for no good reason other than symmetry: A God of Nothing
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 19:37
|
|
|
The last two books were excellent. It's building toward something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Am I a moron or did other people have trouble catching this? I only just got it on a re-read of the Judging Eye. Sweet little Kelmomas/Sarmamas is/are one of the Few. It's only one little line that doesn't have all the subtle cues writers slip in that say "REMEMBER THIS" on a subconscious level. When Kelmomas/Samarmas are sneaking out of the palace for some unwholesome mischief, Kelmomas happens to mention that it's really easy to avoid the sorcerous wards around the place, because he can see them. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 22:44
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, that's bad. Also...bad/weird/unpleasant, there's a sort of Twitter/blog meltdown going on right now re: misogyny and Scott, and you can tell it's affecting him personally. I actually really don't want to take sides as I think both Mr. Bakker and Requires Only Hate have some valuable points, but neither of them are going to find any common ground and it makes me anxious.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 22:51
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:Oh poo poo, that's bad. I've been following that to an extent. Bakker should really know better than to feed the trolls. Popular Human fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I think both Mr. Bakker and Requires Only Hate have some valuable points, but neither of them are going to find any common ground and it makes me anxious. I think that in addition to having some valid points, ROH smells blood in the water and is out to ruin Bakker's day regardless of her actual opinions on the topic. She's really being disingenuous with when she chooses to invoke versus ignore the whole "death of the author" card, and revels way too much in the reaction she gets from people who take offense at her rants for me to really take her seriously. That said, Bakker isn't doing himself any favors as he insists that none of his writing should (or even can) be read as mysogynist just because he didn't mean it to and thought really hard about it, all while blowing off specific textual references people give him with what boils down to "you just didn't get it" or occasionally "the next book will make everything clear". Just because he wrote something with a mysogynist reading doesn't automatically make him one, but if he's seriously trying to claim that there's no reasonable way to read some parts of those books as being a bit mysogynist, then I think he needs to look again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Why is anyone paying attention to this?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 00:13
|
|
|
TouretteDog posted:That said, Bakker isn't doing himself any favors as he insists that none of his writing should (or even can) be read as mysogynist just because he didn't mean it to and thought really hard about it, all while blowing off specific textual references people give him with what boils down to "you just didn't get it" or occasionally "the next book will make everything clear". I dunno, it seems more to me that he's saying not that the misogynistic reading isn't there, but rather that it is, and there are textual reasons for it being so. I don't think the text itself makes this perfectly obvious, and he seems to acknowledge that too, flipping through these comments. I mean I can appreciate being frustrated at just how common the jump from 'the text is misogynistic' to 'the author is misogynistic' but the troll-feeding doesn't help either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 00:40
|
|
|
neongrey posted:I dunno, it seems more to me that he's saying not that the misogynistic reading isn't there, but rather that it is, and there are textual reasons for it being so. I don't think the text itself makes this perfectly obvious, and he seems to acknowledge that too, flipping through these comments. Maybe I'm remembering selectively, but even when he acknowledges a "misogynistic misreading" he seems to imply that people aren't reading it closely enough, or are reading it with an axe to grind, or shouldn't pass judgement on any of the books until the series is finished. He's really resistant (understandably so, I suppose, given the places people have gone with it) to the idea that people can honestly, intelligently, and in good faith read chunks of PoN as being misogynist without having it turn into an in-group versus out-group issue. He takes a swing at a few of the criticisms (most of the women are prostitutes, the rape is frequently depicted as sexy, even the non-prostitutes are frequently depicted as sex object to or by the men), mostly by talking about the setting, but never seems to tackle the problem that the viewpoint of the books are almost always focused on the men, even (especially) when the horrific poo poo is actually happening to the women. I'm willing to grant him the premise that he's sort of trying a reductio ad absurdum on the entire Old-testament-ish metaphysics of the world, but even given that (which I definitely don't think he did a stellar job at making clear in the text), there are still issues with the way that the books are written. Maybe patriarchal is a better word than misogynist, but in either case it applies to the book, not the author. quote:Why is anyone paying attention to this? Because as drama-ridden and sort of silly as the comment section meltdown is, the actual question over ways to read the book is an interesting one, and one worth kicking around? If it bugs people I'll drop it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
No I don't mind you talking about it of course! But is it just one blogger who's being a bitch, and people are responding to her? Would you mind very briefly summarizing what's interesting about it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Uh, well, if you're not interested in the issue of misogyny (I am), from a pure self-interest standpoint Scott says he believes it's affected his sales since the blog is in page 1 of his Google results, and he also says he thinks about this criticism more and more when he writes. So it has a material impact on his motivation, mood, and maybe output? He certainly gets really engaged in the arguments and seems to take them personally. It's not...really 'one blogger being a bitch' (and this is just me but I am a little uncomfortable with that term; you can regard that as you like). In fact in this case Scott brought the issue up again several months after his last exchange with her. It's a long-term argument a few people have had with Scott for quite a few years. I agree pretty strongly with what TouretteDog is saying. I personally feel that the books are both interested in examining misogyny and also unintentionally misogynistic, which is a pretty pickle to be in. On the one hand, PoN is all about depicting and criticizing a horrible world in which the patriarchy has total control and women's lives are miserable. This is written on purpose to make a point. On the other hand, Bakker writes almost all his female characters as objects of angsty lust or cuckold-pain for men or as rape objects, and rape of women is often eroticized, whereas rape of men (when it occurs) is usually something the narrative tells us about rather than showing. So I think he's both interrogating the problem of misogyny and falling victim to it, at the same time. I think if he just acknowledged that his books support a misogynistic reading he'd score a lot more points with his opponents...if there's any actual dialogue to be had. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
Maytag posted:Would you mind very briefly summarizing what's interesting about it? The short version is there's basically been a pissing match between Bakker and his readers and "acrackedmoon" of ROH and her readers over whether or not Bakker and/or his books are misogynist. The initial review that sparked it wasn't a terribly well-done or thoughtful one (though it doesn't seem intended to be), and subsequent comments and arguments even less so. Which is a shame, because the question of whether or to what degree you can read the books as misogynist/patriarchal is interesting. Even more so because his stated intent was to try and use the setting -- where a fantasy version of the Old Testament is literal, scientific, capital-T Truth -- as a way to interrogate questions of sex and gender in our own culture, which is full of people who claim to believe that a non-fantasy version of the Old Testament has similar status. It's a tall order to start with, and (in my opinion) he fell way short of the mark, but is it something he had any chance at all of succeeding at, to any extent? For my own part, I think that trying to do it in a fantasy setting -- where there's already other issues around representation of women -- was probably a bad choice; it's way too easy to read the sexism that he intended to be a result of the moral aspects of the universe (i.e. women are literally objectively inferior) as being instead part of the usual pseudo-medieval grim-and-oppressive fantasy package. The fact that (IMO) his writing starts out inherently somewhat patriarchal didn't help him much insofar as it made it look like the sexism might be due to a combination of that and the genre rather than to the actual point he was trying to make. I don't think that I guessed at what he might be trying to do (with respect to sex and gender, at least) until the end of The Judging Eye. I wasn't being a super-careful reader, but still... four books for someone who at least occasionally thinks about these things to catch up with you probably means that you didn't sell it too well. (Also, what General Battuta said; "rear end in a top hat" maybe, or something a little less overtly gendered than "bitch" at any rate.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 04:01
|
|
|
I apologize if "bitch" offended but I would've used it for a male blogger as well if that helps. Probably doesn't considering the history of the word. I can't even for a second fathom how anyone can see the rape scenes as being in any way sexy and I believe that hints at underlying issues for the reader. I found those scenes horrific and assumed he meant them to be repulsive, even when the character in question seemed to be getting some twisted pleasure. There's nothing sexy about his sex demons and anyone who thinks so probably has some issues. Men are the focus, and they are in charge. And the world isn't in any way a Good Place. The capable and intelligent women (Esmenet and Mimara) are shat upon and that doesn't seem to turn out well for anyone. Doesn't seem like Bakker is in any way advocating or glorifying such things. And maybe people could wait till the series is finished to get worked up about it. Kinda hard to judge the message when there are what, four books to come?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:14
|
|
|
TouretteDog posted:Maybe I'm remembering selectively, but even when he acknowledges a "misogynistic misreading" he seems to imply that people aren't reading it closely enough, or are reading it with an axe to grind, or shouldn't pass judgement on any of the books until the series is finished. He's really resistant (understandably so, I suppose, given the places people have gone with it) to the idea that people can honestly, intelligently, and in good faith read chunks of PoN as being misogynist without having it turn into an in-group versus out-group issue. Honestly having just read over one of the most recent flame-outs in its entirety (well, I skimmed a lot), I kind of have to say... no, not really. I saw people insisting that very thing over and over through those comments, but it didn't really seem to hold up when looking at his responses. I can't speak for earlier debates on the subject but he seemed really very clear in acknowledging that the misogynist reading is very much a valid one, and that he really hasn't done a bang-up job of making it clear that there are reasons that a reader is intended to be thinking about for it to be this way. What seems to get his hackles up is when it's put forth that it's the only possible reading of his work. Then he has to have a bad habit of tangenting off to muse about why people do that. And that's pretty much a terrible way to go about it because the internet just does not react well to such things. But the claims that he denies all validity to the misogynist reading seem largely fabricated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
Maytag posted:I can't even for a second fathom how anyone can see the rape scenes as being in any way sexy and I believe that hints at underlying issues for the reader. I found those scenes horrific and assumed he meant them to be repulsive, even when the character in question seemed to be getting some twisted pleasure. There's nothing sexy about his sex demons and anyone who thinks so probably has some issues. This has nothing to do with the reader finding the scenes sexy. It has to do with them being written using eroticized imagery, imagery present in the text, not in the interpretation or reaction of the reader. Scott has said, flat out, that he intended to mix revulsion and beauty. I would really, really rather not dissect the scenes for you as I find them stomach-turning, but if that's what is necessary for you to stop accusing me of having 'underlying issues', I'll do it. Or I can link you to acrackedmoon's analysis of this topic, I guess, since it is an area where I agree with her. I would really prefer to avoid ad hominems here. This is a nasty topic that often disintegrates into equally nasty debates. We're all in this thread because we enjoy the series and have found worth in it. We've also all probably been told that anyone who can enjoy Prince of Nothing is a sexual pervert. Do we really need to aim these allegations at each other? General Battuta fucked around with this message at 05:27 on Feb 8, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Mixing revulsion and beauty makes sense at least for the Inchoroi sex aliens, due to their very nature as, well, sex aliens that can actually make you like it. Anyway, in regards to issues of misogyny, Bakker did sort of trap himself with the setting like some here are suggesting. It's an inherently patriarchal society and that results in the women being viewed more as objects than characters a lot of times. I'm guessing that in writing the setting, he might have gotten too caught up in it and wound up in this pitfall of accusations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Maytag posted:And maybe people could wait till the series is finished to get worked up about it. Kinda hard to judge the message when there are what, four books to come? I'm not worked up, it's really more intellectual exercise for me than anything else. But then I'm a white, straight, middle-class guy, so that's kind of the point: I can afford to be intellectual about it, since I never have to experience misogyny for myself. The people who are affected by it directly have the right -- I think -- to be worked up about it. And even if he's only half-way through the series, I think it's perfectly fine to interpret the series as it stands now, particularly when his writing of women has been so consistent throughout. The reading might change as the series goes on (I hope it will), but the series as it stands now is fair game, IMO. neongrey posted:I can't speak for earlier debates on the subject but he seemed really very clear in acknowledging that the misogynist reading is very much a valid one, and that he really hasn't done a bang-up job of making it clear that there are reasons that a reader is intended to be thinking about for it to be this way. Did he ever say what those reasons were? I like the series and I'd like to read them as charitably as possible, but I don't remember him providing an alternate reading, only saying that one was there (and sort of implying if we didn't see it we weren't looking hard enough). Crimson Dragoon posted:Mixing revulsion and beauty makes sense at least for the Inchoroi sex aliens, due to their very nature as, well, sex aliens that can actually make you like it. I don't remember a scene where a man is made to enjoy being raped, at least in as much detail as the female rapes are portrayed; women are not only treated as primarily sexual objects by the setting, but also by the text itself. It's not that I'm saying that "describing rape as erotic is misogynist", more that when a rape happens 1) it's almost always of a woman, 2) it's often described in explicitly erotic terms, and 3) the person whose emotional reaction to the rape is treated by the text as most significant isn't the woman who just literally got sexually brutalized to an often ludicrous extent, it's the man who saw someone he cared about (or just lusted after, or felt possessive of) get raped. Women's interior reactions to rape are almost invisible; it's the pain of the men that really matters in the book. I'm willing to buy that 1 is a function of setting and part of his intentional overt critique. Bakker has said that he's trying to juxtapose horror and eroticism for point 2; I think he failed, but I'll let his reading lie for the sake of argument. The thing that a lot of people seem to consistently read right past is point 3, which seems to really invite a point-blank patriarchal reading to me. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 14:27
|
|
|
TouretteDog posted:It's not that I'm saying that "describing rape as erotic is misogynist", more that when a rape happens 1) it's almost always of a woman, 2) it's often described in explicitly erotic terms, and 3) the person whose emotional reaction to the rape is treated by the text as most significant isn't the woman who just literally got sexually brutalized to an often ludicrous extent, it's the man who saw someone he cared about (or just lusted after, or felt possessive of) get raped. Women's interior reactions to rape are almost invisible; it's the pain of the men that really matters in the book. You've said this much better than I could, thanks. This is also how I feel. And it's interesting to note that (Atrocity Tales spoiler) when we finally do see sex between a man and an Inchoroi it's a consensual thing, as sort of a weird, hosed up alliance. And it's not eroticized at all; the narrative's male gaze isn't interested in the erotic imagery of a homosexual coupling. I think it's important to remember, in discussions like these, that 'misogyny' isn't a total condemnation; it's not a seal you put on a work to write it off. Something can be a little misogynist, it can contain misogynistic overtones, it can be full of both positive and negative things about gender. Of course debates like these tend to go past the text and to the personal traits of the author.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 14:48
|
|
|
I don't even know why Bakker bothers getting into these debates. He could come up with the most coherent and convincing argument against this person's viewpoint and they're still not going to concede anything, they're just going to get more attention and the whole reason why Bakker says he responds just keeps growing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 16:36
|
|
|
This is really stupid behavior from a published author. The more readers he gets the more often poo poo like this is gonna happen and trying to argue with it, and in this instance, stupidly bring it up yourself, is just gonna make it worse. I get the mix of beauty and horror thing though. Having little bits of language that's almost erotic makes it even more horrifying. Sort of a psychological uncanny valley thing. Plus it makes sense in context since the Inchoroi have sorcerous compulsions coupled with wholly biological pheromones they've grafted to themselves. I will admit I occasionally get the idea from the reading that Bakker might, just might, be getting off a bit on a couple of the things that happen in the series. I don't think he included them as titillation, but I suspect that he probably has a bit of a sadomasochistic bent. Not that that makes him a misogynist, but it could very easily give that impression. I don't care for part of his defense apparently being "I can't be a misogynist. I'm already a misandronist."
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
TouretteDog posted:Did he ever say what those reasons were? I like the series and I'd like to read them as charitably as possible, but I don't remember him providing an alternate reading, only saying that one was there (and sort of implying if we didn't see it we weren't looking hard enough). He didn't say what they were in the overall sense, no, and I'd be surprised if he did say so outright right now. He didn't really seem to be saying that it was possible to get the full picture of why as yet, either, but that it's quite central to what is yet to come. 'It's something you should be thinking about' right now, rather than 'it's something you should be able to figure out', more or less, I think. Either way it's not very helpful a position to be in during these kinds of discussions/debates/flame-outs since now the state of it pretty much is 'there's good reasons but I can't tell you what they are yet'. I think he kind of went into it trusting that people would expect there to be reasons for it that would come out eventually (and frankly outright calling women spiritually inferior in the text is the sort of thing that screams to me that there is more coming on the subject) and not to have so many people going for the the-writer-must-be-a-misogynist throat. I mean obviously part of it is related to how the story is a direct takeoff of Tolkien, who in vast part didn't even acknolwedge women at all but that's not terribly helpful to this kind of discussion either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
He's writing about despicable men doing despicable things in a despicable setting and suffering for it. He's not glorifying or advocating any of this behavior, in any way. Seems like a "These are the negative consequences" kind of thing to me. Are people not allowed to do this? I'd understand if there was some sort of kick-rear end hero scoffing at rape and flexing his oiled muscles all over the place, but there's not a single good person in the entire series and they're all in a cesspit. As for the "you should be thinking about it right now" thing, I don't think he owes an explanation to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2012 01:34
|
|