Misanthropology 101
by rsbakker
Aphorism of the Day: Never forget the ‘more’ in moral, because it will never forget you.
So I am an honest-to-goodness sexist. I literally believe that women are marginally more trustworthy than men, more empathetic, more giving, more cooperative, more competent, more reliable, and so on in the majority of modern contexts. I’ve believed–and have been troubled by–this for many years. I don’t want to believe it, because bigotry is bigotry, but I’m not quite how to argue against it. For me it fits into the ‘ugly but true’ category.
At the same time I find myself regularly accused of misogyny.
I imagine TPB regulars are rolling their eyes and thinking, “Oh, please. Not again.” The reason I bring this up is twofold: first, the amount of traffic from Requires Only Hate has spiked for some reason; and second, because Larry at the OF Blog recently mentioned how much he admires the site. As much as the first puzzles me, I find myself deeply troubled by the second, even moreso after some link chasing took me to Schellenberg’s blog, The Cultural Gutter.
For those of you who don’t remember, ‘Dude,’ the name I gave the self-proclaimed troll who runs ROH, declared last year that I was a misogynist on the strength of the first six pages of The Darkness that Comes Before, and because (s)he had been assured (by hearsay) that I acted like one in ‘real life.’
I had some real fun with the topic, especially with the attempts several of the Dude’s admirers made to show me the error of my ways. In most cases, it only took three or four simple questions before they withdrew into the e-ether. I had just finished a far more protracted battle with an extremist blogger on the right and was actively looking for a left-wing counterpart, so the Dude literally seemed like a stroke of fortune. Calling someone a misogynist on the strength of six pages and hearsay? This is more than reckless–it’s… well, immoral.
Now, I’m not a popular guy. Part of it has to do with personality, I’m sure. I’m foul mouthed, and I have the bad habit of carving someone the instant I decide I like them (and only being polite to those I dislike). I’m a horrible know-it-all. I’m chronically disorganized and typically unreliable as a result. I can be lazy and cruel. And I take perverse delight in playing the Devil’s Advocate. Few things give me more pleasure than poking calloused thumbs into pious eyes.
Why? Because we’re hardwired for piety. As David Dunning writes in Self-Insight, “of all the ways that people tend to hold themselves as superior to others, moral superiority seems to be one of the strongest and most pervasive forms of the effect” (114). As it turns out, most of our judgments about others are moral. Likewise, everyone tends to think they are generally more moral than the next guy. We all like to think we’re the winners of the Magical Morality Lottery–I know I do. Blaming others is effortless, whereas blaming oneself either involves intellectual work or takes an emotional toll.
The reason I’m so keen on poking piety in the eye is simply because I think it will be the end of us. We are presently stumbling into an unprecedented technological age, one with existential implications, win or lose. The more we know about our weaknesses, the hope is, the greater our chances of meaningful survival. What I write, I write in the hope of contributing to a self-critical culture. For me, nothing is quite so tragic, quite so dangerous or self-serving, as blanket, facile, moral condemnations.
Racism is complex. Sexism is complex. Throwing attitude and piety at them, I’m afraid, is simply not enough. Moreover, racism and sexism are simply subsets of what is the larger problem: our all too human tendency to think we and those who superficially resemble us are better than others.
In a word, our native sense of moral superiority.
Thus my books. In my fantasies in particular, I’m keen on writing that rubs against the reader’s moral presumption. I’m especially interested in the ways ancient and contemporary piety diverge in content while remaining so frighteningly similar in form. And I’ve ‘succeeded.’ I lost count of the number of moral judgments I’ve encountered a long long time ago. In a sense, people like the ‘Dude’ tell me I’m doing something right, that I’m not simply reinforcing the moral status quo by repeating the right truisms the right way at the right time. My books are meant to problematize gender, to ask the hard questions that have to be asked if we are to have any hope of getting a handle on social problems like racism or sexism.
But I’m always taken by surprise. Like a democratic campaign advisor, I keep forgetting the power of moral agreement, the way people use shared patterns of condemnation to decide who they can trust and who they like, regardless of the fairness or the rationality of the judgements made.
So for me, a site like ROH can only be a kind of joke, an example of one form of facile moral condemnation attacking another. Indiscriminate bigotry versus indiscriminate bigotry. And yet, here I find people whose intelligence and opinion I respect voicing admiration for the thing. If you don’t believe me, then I invite you, as an experiment, to simply take a tour of various politically oriented blogs. Who sounds smart? Who sounds stupid? Who sounds trustworthy? What you are literally witnessing is the way your brain sorts your world for you, the way most everything is preapproved or predisapproved, with nary a neuron involved in any genuine problem-solving.
No one likes to be poked in the eye. So we close them.
In the meantime, always keep this question, the one I posted on ROH but never made it past moderation: “Certainly all accusations of misogyny can’t be true. Given this, could you tell me the criteria you use to distinguish between serious and spurious accusations of misogyny?”
‘Feeling it’ doesn’t cut it afraid. The Nazis felt every bit as pious as you. More.
Three Pound Brain 
Well, we had a discussion about performance rage over on Requires, and people were in agreement that it seems the majority will just rationalize away any polite argument or use the opportunity to talk over the person who brought up complaints.
Heck, just see some of the creative responses on Pat’s blog, particularly the defender who uses “black lesbian raped by her stepfather” as a pejorative.
I have to admit what I like about Requires is it makes people like that show their true colors when comforted with loud minorities that won’t whisper their disagreements.
Prejudiced/Racist/Sexist/Homophobic depictions such as Song of Kali and Wind Up Girl (I asked the author to respond to the accusation made by Requires that the Thai is fake and don’t believe he ever did) are given awards in SFF ->
This to me is rather problematic, that the native voice of countries/genders/religions/sexualities are ignored in favor of caricatures which are then lauded by supposedly forward thinkers.
-Sci
People will rationalize away anything – that goes without saying. Attacking them on irrational grounds, on the other hand, confirms them.
As soon as someone ‘shows’ their ‘true colours,’ there’s no way for them to concede anything without losing face. You end up doing more damage than good, in multiple ways.
All the Dude is doing is providing a forum for more pious groupthink – everyone can clap their shoulders, shake their heads about how morally deficient anybody who disagrees is. There’s nothing good I can see in that.
You don’t think Three Pound Brain has it’s own groupthink brigade? 🙂
I don’t know, it seems any reasonable attempt to discuss issues with depiction are easily glossed over.
Just seems that without the childish outrage of the SFF community when its darlings are criticized these topics don’t get much attention.
Also, people will naturally assume they are not prejudiced against gays/women/etc but in the heat of anger turn into their true colors. Note the number of people on Pat’s blog offering up stories about their vacations to Asia being ruined by prostitutes harassing them as expert knowledge about a foreign country. One person manages to rate, sans evidence, Thailand as having the largest prostitution in the world.
And, just before going out for a bit of nightly exercise, here’s a nice fresh one:
“Well, I finally ventured over to her site due to Bakker’s recent post. Wow, that broad really is a shrill harpie. But she probably just needs to get laid and that would help her out.”
Even Pat’s little cartoon about “Post Racial America” suggests, even if not consciously meant this way, a longing for a time when minorities would STFU and laugh along with the privileged at their mockery.
Most certainly. But at least it’s antigroupthink groupthink!
The examples you give, Sci, actually support what I’m saying more than otherwise. Childish outrage begets childish outrage. So long as there is no rational engagement with the texts or her interlocutors, there quite simply is nothing critical about what the Dude is doing.
Do you really think she’s doing anything more than hardening views? There’s nothing quite like shouting “Us!” to get others rallying around “them.” Isn’t that just a sad fact?
I don’t know, it seems any reasonable attempt to discuss issues with depiction are easily glossed over.
How far does that go before it’s too far? Or as long as they aren’t listening, you can do whatever and it’s never too far?
How do you measure how far you can take it? Or does someone simply feel whether it’s too far or not?
It seems to me, the goal should be – if you really care about these issues – to make some kind of positive difference. Rallying the believers is a kind of difference, I suppose, but this also rallies the unbelievers. Taking a step sideways, saying, Isn’t it weird how everyone thinks they’re the better one? Well everyone can’t be better than everyone else… So what are the odds that you happen to the only one whose right? This kind of approach loosens (as opposed to tightens) the chains of conviction, makes it more likely that somewhere down the road there might be some kind of conversion. I’ve seen it happen many, many times now.
So what are the odds that you’re right, Scott?
What are the odds that writing stories about women being objectively worse than men is making the world a better place or is making people address sexism?
Heck, let’s get more specific – what are the chances that you personally writing this is helping things? I’m not saying that it’s impossible to improve the world by showing the horrors of sexism – I’m asking what are the chances that you’re doing a good job of it?
And do you think most of the people on this blog are going to agree with you that you’re doing a good job, or not?
“So what are the odds that you’re right, Scott?”
As far as the science goes. How about you? What odds do you give yourself?
As far as creating a fantasy world that parallels actual scriptural worlds as means to generate the kind of critical debate here, I think this is a good thing – don’t you?
I have to admit what I like about Requires is it makes people like that show their true colors when comforted with loud minorities that won’t whisper their disagreements.
You mean like insisting on referring to a Thai woman as ‘the Dude’, or resorting to a Godwin, of all things, to dismiss her and those who might feel the same way? Not to, y’know, name names.
‘Dude’ is what cartographers call a ‘trap street.’ It’s dangled to catch people thinking in simplistic terms.
The Godwin I do not see.
Objecting to someone insisting on calling a woman ‘dude’ is ‘simplistic’?
As for the Godwin, here:
‘Feeling it’ doesn’t cut it afraid. The Nazis felt every bit as pious as you. More.
Though I must admit that I’m surprised I have to point it out. You wrote it.
Yes! Because it’s the product of certain context. Given that context, why do you think I referred to him as Dude?
My bad. I thought Godwins referred to messageboard flame wars. If the term is simply used to ridicule anyone who uses the word ‘Nazi’ then I guess I stand ridiculed. Good for you.
“Given that context, why do you think I referred to him as Dude?”
I don’t know. Rampant ignorance? Willful desire to denigrate their tone or their position? Complete contempt for someone else?
Or possibly because a woman making those criticisms of you doesn’t fit into your worldview of women and thus you automatically lump them in with men?
Hmm. A self-professed troll calls me a misogynist, not only because of the 6 pages he had read, but because of ‘rumours’ he had heard about me IRL, and I should feel bad about calling him Dude! Rich.
Maybe, it was just my way of insulting someone who believes in the emancipatory power of insult and slander. But that’s just a guess.
I’ll admit that making so many of the named female characters into either sex workers or former sex workers made me a bit uncomfortable upon re-reading the series. It’s not that I don’t think they’re well-developed characters – it’s just that seeing so many of them in that particular role inevitably makes me wonder “Why?”
Why have both Esmenet and Serwe as concubines/whores? Why make the Captain of the Guard’s lover in White Luck Warrior into another whore? Istriya is one of the few female characters aside from brief instances (like the Gaunum Wives or Cnaiur’s wife) we get who isn’t a whore, and the next major one (Serwa) doesn’t appear until five books into the series.
I know Kalbear has done this argument to death over at Westeros, but he does have a point. Woman have had a variety of roles at all class levels even in the harshest, most patriarchal societies in real history, and making so many of the ones we see into whores seems like a strange choice on your part.
I know. All I can say is that the text is literally drenched with answers to that question. My first editor actually argued for token ’empowered’ female characters, btw. He suggested that I turn Conphas into a woman!
Istriya is actually a male skin-spy – as is Serwe in TTT. Once again, intentionally so.
I never got the sense that the text answers the question, and it’s not Tokenism to question why so many of the female characters are within a narrow societal role.
It does. I actually think I was too heavyhanded. I really think it goes to show just how powerful moral intuitions are (I certainly underestimated them!) that the complexity of intent vanishes as soon as we are tweaked. I’m convinced there really is something ‘coalitional’ going on.
It’s not tokenism to question, but what my editor was suggesting by way of answer was tokenism through and through.
I think the question is not why women are in so narrow a societal role, but why didn’t ancient societies officially allocate more roles to women?
This is definitely an important question. But when it comes to the confinement of female characters in PoN, the fair question, I think, is ‘What is he saying?’ The question I so often get, however, is, ‘What is he doing?!’
Adam, kinda like if men had 100 roles and women had 10, if you see female characters only in one role and male characters in about ten, then for the biased society depicted that’s actually kind of proportionate?
I also thought it’s because really you need dynamic characters, not sedentry characters. Sex workers are more dynamic than the other roles a patriarcal society generally offer. Serwa is an example of a new role opening up thats a female position and dynamic. I guess there would be abberations generating very unique femal positions that are dynamic, but all the roles of the males of the series seem to be ones which many other males hold. Everyones stuck in a generic role, no specialised ones.
Otherwise I don’t get it – drenched? Water? Passion? I’m a man of three pound brain and large worlds bother me. I don’t get it.
I know. All I can say is that the text is literally drenched with answers to that question.
Or, perhaps, it doesn’t get your message across as well as you think it does? For example, why was it necessary to allude to ‘lithe curves’ and ‘sunlit breasts’ in a rape scene, of all things? I was under the impression that stories about the evils of systemic male oppression weren’t supposed to read like Internet fapfic. Plus, there’s the fact that Valrissa’s rape served the exclusive purpose of Aengelas’s manpain (it’s kind of hard to explore someone’s reactions to being raped when they’re dead at the end of it).
I’m rather reminded of another author I recently read, John Scalzi. In The Last Colony, the third book of his Old Man’s War series, he introduced a new alien race who disappeared quite abruptly. He thought he’d explained what happened, but his fans disagreed. The conclusion that he reached was that he just hadn’t communicated his intent well enough, so he decided to write another, companion book to The Last Colony that fleshed this incident out a bit more, among others. The end result was Zoe’s Tale, which not only answered a great number of questions that its companion had raised and let dangle, but also contained some of the best emotive writing in the series.
Now compare and contrast to ‘the reason people keep misunderstanding me is because they’re bigoted and unintelligent, hurr’. Interesting, no? But then again, as someone said upthread,
Blaming others is effortless, whereas blaming oneself either involves intellectual work or takes an emotional toll.
But I’ve never said ‘the reason people keep misunderstanding me is because they’re bigoted and unintelligent, hurr’ in the manner you’re implying. I say that EVERYONE is bigoted and not nearly as intelligent as they think all the time – something which simply an empirical fact.
But otherwise, I’ve bitten the bullet you’re referring to more times than I can count. Far too many people missed what I was trying to say. My bad.
It’s only when people start arguing that their reading is what the text really means, that I start talking about the ways our psychology dupes into thinking our readings are canonical.
“It does.”
Perhaps ‘satisfying answer’ is a better statement then.
Similarly you go on this over and over without covering the basis: “It’s only when people start arguing that their reading is what the text really means”
I think more often than not what they’re arguing is not what the text really means – they’re arguing that this is what the text really implies. There’s no objective truth in reading; at best you the author can tell you what you meant to do, but how can you even be correct in that? You yourself say that everyone rationalizes what they do, why they do things. How are you to know that you wrote a world that makes women objectively less, where every lead female character is a sex worker or an alien rape demon and know what you actually mean? Isn’t that a good example of ‘ever are men deceived’?
Possibly. But it doesn’t make sexist readings any more canonical, or change the fact that I spend a lot of time thinking about all my representations of gender in the books, rewriting, rewriting.
To Neurovore, regarding the incongruity of textual style during a rape scene: people do awful things to other people, and you can bet that, in the act, they AREN’T thinking “This is highly unpleasant!” If someone is doing something, even if it’s something awful, then they find something pleasing about it, else they wouldn’t be doing it. Juxtaposing a sickening event with text that would be more appropriate in a consensual love scene is just acknowledging that sometimes urges drive people to terrible acts, whether or not the perpetrator of such acts is aware of that fact. The intent (I suspect) isn’t to glorify, it’s to make the reader uncomfortably aware that such notions DO exist.
It’s terribly unpleasant to think that people can like the rape. But the fact remains, some people do. Revealing that through the tone of text is just ugly honesty.
And just to clarify, when I say that some people can like rape, I’m talking entirely about the PERPETRATOR, not the VICTIM.
And there’s also the issue of prurience and complicity on the part of the reader. There’s not much I can say about this now, but mark this comment: by time the series is done, I’ll be able to talk about much more.
litg, that’d have a lot more weight if it was done by the perpetrator; it’s not. The PoV is from the woman’s husband, apparently admiring how hot she looks as she gets raped to death by a demon.
Imagine that. A contradiction. You would almost think that horror and beauty, revulsion and desire, were systematically juxtaposed throughout the books.
Revulsion and desire. The potential for both reactions to the same event exists within everyone. We’re just uncommonly intelligent animals. The only difference is that we BELIEVE we have the ability to critically assess our animal origins.
You know for me this is the crux: it really is the case that the picture emerging makes the kind of ‘authorial integration’ required to prosecute themes in text seem much less integrated than it ought to be. Push comes to shove, my unconscious wrote these books. All I can say is that as much as ‘intention’ can bear on a literary theme, it does in this case. But when the brain’s moral module gets a hold on anything as ambiguous as text, forget about it.
The PoV is from the woman’s husband, apparently admiring how hot she looks as she gets raped to death by a demon.
Is that a scene where the consult demon is using phermonal controllers on peoples minds? Including the husband, who is in range of that?
I guess the text could reiterate that “Compulsed by phermonal control, he saw sunlit breasts”. But it seems a bit heavy handed – the consults phermonal powers are described fairly bluntly prior in the text.
Or are you objecting to the description of a mind controled person (or perhaps emotion controlled person) enjoying viewing the rape, because he has no free will to not do so? I’m guessing that’s the moral, or one moral, of such a scene.
Or does the scene seem not to present a moral?
Oh, you need to figure out Larry 😉
He enjoys some internet flaming in a noncommittal way. For him everything is a joke and all he does is a form of bait.
The “admiration” for him simply lies in the possibility of rising a stinking cloud and counterattack the “fantasy” fandom.
I’m not so sure that’s true. He has his earnest moments.
He wrote a reply of sort on his blog. I asked him on twitter and he said he had read this post.
It matched what I expected. Honestly I made the same argument on my blog the first time I joined that discussion, then the second time too. She tried to reply to me as well but couldn’t even make a weak argument and only resorted to insults, getting bored of it quickly (thankfully, I should add).
I’m not dismissing her arguments because of her tones, yet it still appears to me it’s 90% troll and 10% actual arguments.
I guess I suck even at making a decent target or foe.
Have you seen how Abercrombie answered to similar things? I think it was a praiseworthy reaction, at least. He knows how to be the friendly, humble writer 😉 (while avoiding being hypocritical, I think) :
http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/60165-violence-rape-agency-the-rapiness-that-comes-before/page__p__2864601#entry2864601
Larry did? I’ll have to check it out.
I have too many rough edges to ever go the Path of Joe. I’m not friendly, and my humility is too much a yo-yo.
Look, this is not as analytical, or as reasoned as perhaps it should be. And I apologise for that. But for me this whole thing comes down to one thing. I LIKE the Prince of Nothing, I enjoyed reading it, and found it engaging and challenging. But I’m a dude. You’re really prepared to say that the people who think the “whore whore whore, exploited, exploited exploited” thing is problematic are just objectively wrong?
You clearly disagree with them, but people read texts from different perspectives, and people can be upset or angry about something you think is fine without being completely irrational.
Not at all. But I think it’s pretty clear that it’s meant to be problematic. Don’t you? And if so, that’s a cue to ask questions, not level accusations, isn’t it?
You’re the author. Again, have you not considered that you might be communicating those ideas poorly?
Most definitely. Like I said below, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve bitten this bullet.
“Not at all. But I think it’s pretty clear that it’s meant to be problematic. Don’t you? And if so, that’s a cue to ask questions, not level accusations, isn’t it?”
Clearly not. It’s definitely not very clear; I had to spend pages and pages convincing people that the reason that Earwa was so sexist and ahistorically so was because you had a reason. Most thought that you were doing it because you wanted to represent historical times more realistically.
Maybe that’s a better question. You’ve mentioned the token Conphas-as-woman thing (I think Akka would have been better, but whatever) – but now knowing what a reaction you get for your work, now knowing that when people google your name or your work the first hits are associated with misogyny – what would you change to make that message more explicit and more clear?
Good question. I really don’t know what I would do, Kal. I know this has done damage to the sales, and that me and my family will economically suffer for it. But that’s the thing when you take risks. Sometimes you lose. I think I was naive in innumerable ways, but I did what I did for very deliberate reasons. I’m not making these ‘rationales’ up – at least not POST hoc. And it really has generated so much discussion. I actually think it had quite an impact on you, for instance.
I simply don’t get it.
The book describes a misogynistic society, does that make the author a misogynist?
Does it make the TEXT somehow misogynist? You think Scott approves of scholars getting tossed into an eternal burning fire too? Wait… bad example. *grin*
Pointless speculation:
How our unconscious urges, biases, and instincts control our actions is one of the major themes of first part of the trilogy. Given this, it makes sense the text would revolve around sexuality. Indeed, what is it that Kelhus calls it? The most ancestral darkness? The deepest urge? Something then even the Dunyain couldn’t master at any rate. A historical dependance that literally couldn’t be bred out (given the contradiction in terms).
I’m not sure, but I think the answer is in the third book when Aurang ‘possesses’ Esmenet. I’ve re-read that scene at least a dozen times, and I’m still not 100% sure I understand everything that happens in that chapter.
Another possible explanation for the ‘drenching’ (ewww, gross) of the text with sex workers and sexual acts is that the metaphysical struggle of the gods is predominated by Yatwer, goddess of fertility. Or maybe it has to do with the fact that the Inchoroi exploit sexuality. Or I don’t know.
Whatever.
There are valid stylistic criticisms that can be raised against the trilogy, but the whole “it’s SEXIST!” strikes me as particularly vapid. I find it interesting that no one claims it’s racist, given that Kellhus is pretty much an Aryan poster boy. (Note: such a criticism would be equally vapid, but whatever)
Well, to be fair, there’s two general criticisms. The first, which you describe, falls under the ‘depiction is endorsement’ category, and this seems to be a natural reaction for many readers. As the psychology shows, we are primed for moral judgment, not aesthetic or theoretical judgment. The second, which Kalbear has stitched into a leisure suit, is a second-order criticism, that failing to counter this ‘natural reaction’ means the books are maladroit when it comes to gender and the bulk of readers.
But I’m locked in. This is the guantlet I decided to run – not realizing it would prove quite so acrimonious. But I haven’t changed a thing (from the get go I was determined to take my medicine and see the story through). And there’s a few revelations remaining that change the stakes of everything that has happened so far.
Either way, I’ll always be proud of this particular thematic angle, simply because it makes readers genuinely feel, which is to say, bump against the limit of their own tolerances and prejudices. And what better ‘truth’ could I turn into a manipulative tool for Kellhus?
I hate to state the perfectly obvious but clearly misogynist fiction doesn’t make a writer a misogynist any more than Tolkien writing about Hobbits makes him a Hobbit. Certainly a writers ideals and personality permeates through to their work, but people need to understand the difference between what’s a reflection of the writers character, and what they have simply written because they enjoy writing about it. And sometimes that writing dictates we have to write certain people in certain ways that may not reflect well on us. Writing a dark fantasy setting like yours I’m sure forced you to have all the females characters whores or something along those lines. Joe Abercrombie’s First Law trilogy was criticized for a similar reason, females not getting a strong enough role in the story. But there’s a good reason that was the case, because let’s face it, in the past females were rarely in positions of power, that is simply the way it was. It didn’t make sense for your books or Joe’s to have female characters in other roles. If they are misogynistic it is not a reflection of you, but our society. What was it that Oscar Wilde said? The books the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame.
Lovely quote, James. It shall have a place of pride in the Armoury.
I’ve encountered a number of counterarguments to what you’re saying. The first is that this is fantasy, not historical fiction, so verisimilitude carries no water. But I’m not sure ‘fem-washing’ the fantastic representations of the past does us more favours than fem-washing actual history. The second is simply that females did hold positions of power, if not in political space directly, then indirectly, via domestic space. So the question becomes, Why not give us characters of this variety? My answer? I wasn’t aware there was any quota I had to fulfill, that I came up with this plotline, one where a woman begins in absolute abjection, and in the course of ‘overcoming’ her oppressed origins, learns just how labyrinthine, how difficult, escaping patriarchy can be. My answer is that representations that make it easy to escape, that gratify the reader’s ‘If I were her…’ illusions, actually misrepresent the perniciousness of patriarchy, and so contribute to the bootstrap illusion that has convinced so many women that feminism should be a thing of the past.
Indeed, I wish it was mine haha.
Yeah that’s quite an easy counterargument to use. And you’re right. But I would also like to say that when certain settings are so similar to our own history, it could be quite jarring to have females as typically male roles, especially if it was purely to satisfy those offended by the fact that it’s congruent with the reality of our past. It also would simply not make sense a lot of the time, because let’s face it, contrary to what some extreme feminists may think men and women ARE indeed fundamentally different. It’s why female plumbers are harder to find than male plumbers, to use a simple example.
I like your answer there too. Should the characters a writer decides to portray tick a checklist or something? Of course not. Speaking of that though, it could be quite interesting to have a Hilary Clinton type in a fantasy story.
I still feel like captain obvious here but apparently it’s not that obvious…
JamesM, you don’t need females in predominantly male roles, nor is there a quota. The problem is simply that it’s unrealistic to not have women in other roles than ‘prostitute’. That isn’t what human history has, and as soon as you see it presented it clearly must be for a reason.
Now, one reason could be that the author is happy putting women in their place. See Frank Miller.
Another reason is that there’s a message to be stated. What’s the message? Not really sure.
But to not have women as queens and daughters and workers and herders and innskeepers and bookkeepers – that’s not asking for a quota; that’s just unrealism.
When are you going to give up on this. Realism is irrelevant. You choose the characters according to your narrative and thematic goals. Does a story about slavery have to include a noblewoman? Because that’s what Esmenet’s story is.
“I came up with this plotline, one where a woman begins in absolute abjection, and in the course of ‘overcoming’ her oppressed origins, learns just how labyrinthine, how difficult, escaping patriarchy can be. ”
This is the most FRUSTRATING thing about the kneejerk reaction to Esmenet in WLW. the Westeros board was abuzz with mutual moral outrage that she was thrown into a whorehouse, and if I tried to talk about how that turn of events worked out thematically, morally, character wise it was ignored. The important thing was that the event happened, there could be no discussion beyond “naughty Bakker!” of the event because the event was proof of authorial naughtiness. Thinking is short circuited by the circle jerk of orgasmic moral outrage. Though you should congratulate yourself, you did get a lot of people off with that one.
It really suggests that some kinds of narratives are forbidden for men. I put a lot of time, thought, and art into this subplot, but still I get pilloried for ‘execution.’ The research shows that when moral intuitions are tweaked, reason becomes almost entirely ductile. So what am I supposed to assume? That my execution is substandard? That my themes really are post hoc rationalizations or unconscious expressions of crypto-chauvinism? Or that I have actually tweaked a large number of readers?
Or maybe all three, to varying degrees?
Honestly, Esmenet’s return to the whorehouse didn’t register with me at all when it happened as any sort of thing to be outraged over. I certainly didn’t feel outrage, and it never even occurred to me that others would. Maybe I’m practicing “revisionist interpretation” after reading these discussions, but I seem to recall my first impression was that it didn’t seem to be as easy for her to escape her past as she’d imagined. The whorehouse seemed meaningful because it was HER past, her MISERABLE past, not because it was symbolically representative of oppressed women in general. I just looked at the whole thing on a much more person level than some people must.
But if you have a moral case to make, especially if your commitment is public, the cherrypicker takes over. People begin inserting narrative oughts into the story (such as, Esemenet OUGHT to escape her past, OUGHT to bootstrap herself), then interpreting the texts refusal to deliver those oughts as various kinds of failure. It’s just what happens – and all behind the scenes. I know I’ve caught myself doing it.
“But if you have a moral case to make, especially if your commitment is public, the cherrypicker takes over. People begin inserting narrative oughts into the story (such as, Esemenet OUGHT to escape her past, OUGHT to bootstrap herself), then interpreting the texts refusal to deliver those oughts as various kinds of failure. It’s just what happens – and all behind the scenes. I know I’ve caught myself doing it.”
But Esmenet does do that. Multiple times. She’s nearly killed for it each time. Whether it’s a stoning, or a royal coup, her attempts to dominate the patriarchy are constantly thwarted. Men have an issue with this–look at just now pernicious, ongoing and contemporary the attempts to chain Elizabeth I are. It’s great in one sense that some modern representations give her a healthy sex life, but it’s probably unrealistic that she had such a life given the ways men and culture approached sex. Could she realistically risk sex given that any proof of sex would be casus belli to oust her? And, universally, how do modern representations of a sexually liberated Elizabeth portray her sexuality? That her choosing to have sex generally resulted in her worst decisions as a ruler or her weakest political positions, that only by becoming a man and not caring about sex could she overcome her feminine weaknesses and feelings. So while we try and liberate her we lash her down with different and new chains that try and keep her in her place. Elizabeth was never ‘in her place’ during her rule, and we are STILL uncomfortable with that.
In any event, one of the first things Esmenet does as a POV character is leave her life behind to try to reach Akka and become his wife. It’s people like Kalbear that insist on lashing her permanently to her initial role, because they can’t see past the tattoo. 😉 (I jest in irony here, not meaning to raise hackles with a personal attack). Apparently, in fantasy one is allowed to have whores but one is not allowed to have whores rise above their station. If whores do rise above their station the author is criticized for having whores and not having housewives and farmer’s daughters.
I’m tempted to go through TJE and WLW and make an empirical count of how many times Mimara remembers being a whore and how many times she remembers being a princess. I imagine there is not the discrepancy that the selection bias crowd believes there is (to hear it on Westeros, every single memory of Mimara is about being a prostitute).
As for Serwe, we get her life story and she doesn’t ever think about it again. The more interesting thing is the contrast between how Kellhus treats her like a person and Cnaiur treats her like a thing (but Kellhus is still treating her like a thing, she just perceives it differently). The interesting thing is how her entire inner monologue is dedicated to convincing herself of a self-evident lie, that she is carrying Kellhus child. Note that the whore-mongers like Kalbear et al that insist that all the female characters think about is their sex past always seem to ignore Serwe, except for citing her background, which was two or three pages out of 18 different POV sections that encompassed probably over a hundred pages of her perspective. The interesting thing about Serwe is how Cnaiur tries to use her as his ‘proof’ and Kellhus also winds up using her as his ‘proof’. Cnaiur is just trying to prove his sexuality, Kellhus his divinity, and isn’t it interesting that the two are deliberately contrasted, almost as though you could draw a connection between men’s belief in their own awesomeness and their belief in their sexual prowess?
One question I’ve posed before is where is an example of a sexist or racist text? Where is an actual example (and I got the reply something like “The onus is on YOU to prove this, I don’t have to produce this”…hehe…onus…)
I mean, the nazi’s must have produced atleast one story that was racist. I’m not sure what group to pick out for a definately sexist story (someone rhyming with Pox Lay comes to mind as possibly producing a candidate)
Some people see the piss christ as a really serious statement on christians being oppressed or such. Take a nazi text, strip the nazi connection and maybe someone reading it will see it as a treatise on racism in our culture? Or maybe not – but if so, why not? What’s the edge? The deliniator?
Though sometimes when I think about this I get flashes of that scene in monty pythons holy grail, when they are figuring the way to determine if someone is a witch.
Scott’s books turned me into a newt…
The Turner Diaries is probably the most infamous. I haven’t read it, but I bumped into it all the time researching Christian Identity cults for Disciple.
Racism and sexism crop up all over the place, but one of the most famous overtly racist writers in speculative fiction is the father of cosmic horror, H.P. Lovecraft. As an example, here’s the final twist of Medusa’s Coil, a story that he ghost-wrote for someone else, but is pure Lovecraft nonetheless:
[She] was faintly, subtly, yet to the eyes of genius unmistakably the scion of Zimbabwe’s most primal grovellers…. [T]hough in deceitfully slight proportion, Marceline was a negress.
Meanwhile, ‘The Shadow Over Innsmouth’ was a thinly-veiled polemic against miscegnation, ‘The Call of Cthulhu’ features native tribes who are practically demonic in and of themselves, and even Robert E. Howard, no saint himself, called him out on his admiration for Mussolini.
This is not to say, though, that you have to take things that far in order to have racist elements in your work, or that such sentiments are well in the past – the noble savage and magical negro, for instance, are still alive and well.
I absolutely agree with Scott’s point that acrackedmoon’s used of such vitriol simply undermines any arguments she makes. Using such strong words will only reinforce group think in the sense that only those who agree with her will bother following her. It stands no chance of persuading someone on the fence to her point of view.
As I posted on Pat’s blog, to use such strong and disrespectful words (not just about Pat but numerous other books) seems to imply that she has the one and only ‘right of it’.
Or as Erikson pointed out on the dangers of certainty. Finally, Scott’s phrase – she thinks she has won the ‘magical morality lottery’
In fact, it may even turn those who agree with her against her, as it gives an impression of her ‘certainty’.
Demogoguery is vanity. Justice becomes a pretext for being the loudest voice in the room.
OK, I’ll bite. What is complex about racism? It’s bad, end of. No?
The complicated bit is in what counts as racist, and how pervasive it is. You’d be surprised by how tough it can be for minority folk to explain to non-minorities how and why something is offensive and damaging to them, and by how many things there are that we take for granted, but are actually quite rare privileges. For the latter example, I’m reminded of something that acrackedmoon once posted – a picture of a beauty shop in Thailand, where all the models on the billboards were white and Caucasian. I believe she mentioned how hard it was to get make-up appropriate to her skin-tone, as opposed to the shelves upon shelves of stuff for white people. In Thailand.
And then there’s intersectionality, the way it ties into other prejudices like sexism and classism, and that’s where things really start getting complex.
I’m not familiar with intersectionality. Part of the problem is that the brain literally seems to be a ‘bigotry machine,’ bent on doing as little work as possible. Whenever you find yourself visibly on the bottom of a public authority gradient, all the brains you meet ‘type’ you according the most superficial criteria. It’s automatic and unconscious: the people who do it feel as open and as fairminded as you, and yet they are passing instantaneous and quite arbitrary judgment (the same as you). We know all this…
So why is none of it taught in school?
Racism is extraordinarily complex – as is bigotry more generally. We seem to be hardwired for it, for one, which means its only as complex as cognitive neuroscience. But more importantly, it means the simplistic, blunt instruments like blanket condemnation will only take you so far. Consider how many kinds of racism there are.
Think about it. When someone makes a racist comment at a dinner party, are they silenced because they made a mistake in reasoning, or because they committed a faux pas? Kids need to learn their own brains, their weaknesses and vulnerabilities, so that when something racist is said, they can be reminded of the perils of exceptionalism, parochialism, and over-generalization. So that the error is factual – otherwise, you have what you see happening now. Racial tolerance becomes the orthodoxy, and it actually becomes cool to defect from it.
Everywhere I turn, ‘Political Correctness’ is on the cultural defence. Since no one knows the underlying facts, this is actually quite scary.
By way of conceding that racism is complex after all – is there any prospect that this educational approach could work? Doesn’t the Dan Sperber stuff suggest that reason is for winning arguments, not thinking better? Isn’t there research that suggests people don’t care that much about factual errors, and moreover that being aware of these problems doesn’t make any difference?
As far as the current situation goes, I know exactly what you mean about it being cool to be “politically incorrect” ie racist, but, and I don’t say this to try and catch you out, I think it’s too soon to say racial tolerance is really the orthodoxy. Wouldn’t a lot of African Americans be incredulous at the idea? Maybe in Canada, it’s better.
I’m not sure how many working class types you hang out with, but I would that yes, from the standpoint of certain demographic groups, PC is perceived to be an intolerant, self-righteous, oppressive orthodoxy. And I’m not sure I could imagine a bigger cultural disaster.
You’re right about facts being ‘motivationally inert’ in many ways. But in this instance, I think this is a actually a good thing. The type of tribal regression you see in morally loaded ‘debates’ can be side-stepped altogether. If parochialism was taught in school along with photosynthesis, you actually have a chance at generating real cognitive dissonance. Parochialism is an obvious fact of human psychology, one that makes racism and sexism look very foolish. Universally taught, I think it would have a profound, even if indirect, impact.
“So why is none of it taught in school?”
I learned it in two classes, Race, Class, and Gender in American Film and another one called The Perils of Common Sense.
I think one of the biggest problems is the destructive power potential in the new vocabulary that studying racism, sexism etc gives a person.
It is problematic to empower brains with a new vocabulary that lets them win in any game theory scenario of calling someone racist or sexist no matter the actual text or context. That’s the amazing thing about mastering the vocabulary of sexism and racism, you can win every time. That’s why it’s so seductive, imo.
So you really also need a caveat to go along with the new vocabulary about how the brain can delude and deceive itself. Just by happenstance the two above classes coincided in the same semester, but I think it was essential in helping me transform my observance of my own thinking.
Terry Prattchett has termed it best in his Young Adult Tiffany Aching Series: Second Thoughts: Thinking about how you are thinking (and the rarer Third Thoughts, which is thinking about how your second thoughts are going…).
You were actually taught parochialism and coalition psychology and so on? Most race and gender courses take some politicized, social-constructivist, semiotic approach – which, as you say, allow you to claim the moral high ground for the low, low price of a handful of theoretical terms. But again, this is why I keep pressing the issue of criteria.
@Murphy, I’m not certain teaching that sort of thing would work, but given the how things stand currently, I certainly think it would be worth a try.
“You were actually taught parochialism and coalition psychology and so on? Most race and gender courses take some politicized, social-constructivist, semiotic approach – which, as you say, allow you to claim the moral high ground for the low, low price of a handful of theoretical terms. But again, this is why I keep pressing the issue of criteria.”
The race, class, gender course was definitely the semiotic approach. The mostly white class openly joked throughout the entire semester that “everything was racist.” Eventually someone challenged the black professor to ask him if there was anything he knew of that wasn’t racist, he had no answer, but the next class brought in Dave Chappelle Show as his answer. Mostly the class was eye opening for the vocabulary and terminology and just seeing a new perspective.
However, the other class, The Perils of Common Sense, taught by James Kincaid, definitely encompassed parochialism and coalition psychology. One of his favorite examples was Michael Jackson, who everyone knows is guilty, who everyone condemns with vitriol that reinforces and strengthens with each iteration (despite that noone was ever in the room). The theme of the class was more along the lines of “how do you know what you know” and every class we investigated the ways our minds would leap to conclusions of its own volition, that we were reasoning after the fact to justify our initial thought.
He’s got a couple books you might be interested in: http://www.amazon.com/James-R.-Kincaid/e/B000APHMRE
That’s excellent to hear. I’m going to check out the link now…
A Godwin: “Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin’s Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.” In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by comparing it to beliefs held by Hitler and the Nazis.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
I’d say this almost doesn’t count, though, since Scott isn’t comparing Requires Hate to a Nazi, simply using a polemic example of moral certainty to demonstrate how universal it is.
My wife works at a center where abused children are treated, and she assures me the women are just as capable of abusing kids as men…on the other hand I would be astonished if men weren’t the overwhelming majority of the abusers (of course many of the abusive women have been abandoned and left alone to deal with the kids by the “fathers”… all pretty fucking depressing). My point in bringing this up is that, while I tend to agree with you Scott, that women are just basically better than men, it turns out that women can be just as awful… I guess if you shit on anyone socially and genetically hard enough, they’re going to end up being monstrous, whatever their gender. I think that the reason with why men are so much more likely to be monstrous, is that, in addition to everything else that’s fucked up in the world, men are (so to speak) shot full of testosterone…We have a built-in imperative to IMPREGNATE, which is generally moderated by social pressures, but which is ALWAYS there. And if you put THAT together with someone whose mom drank during her pregnancy, and who was then generally abused and shit on…OR if the poor bastard just HAPPENS to have some twitch in his brain…well, men are MUCH more likely to be the sort of creatures that just need to be PUT DOWN. But it’s all the luck of the draw, seems to me… meanwhile, may I suggest: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irKLzbOzUFU ?
He plays so fast you can’t see his fingers move! But like you say, it depends on the man and it depends on the women. A bunch of Maggies might be hard on the world I suspect.
Maggies? ROFL…oh Jesus.
Did anyone else find it interesting that she only read the first 5 pages of PON, but then turns around and cites an entire section of TWP. The most classic part of the whole situation is that she states that the section she is citing is from the TJE. When i was in college if you cited a source inappropriately, the professor would take at least 20% off of your overall grade.
It’s funny how almost everyone who shares her intuitions simply overlooks this. I have relatives who actually fault Nixon, not for abusing his office, but for being caught. This really is the way it works: morally, we only care about the conclusions, and nothing for what purportedly justifies them.
I just scrolled through the Westeros conversation and it was the same deal. My personality defects are noted. My aesthetic shortcomings (apparently I can’t write female characters). Despite directly referencing the fact that I suffer all the same cognitive shortcomings, I apparently think I’m immune. The claims I make are labelled ‘pop neuroscience’ rather than actually engaged. My explanations are written off as post hoc rationalization (and trust me, there is nothing I’ve thought through more while writing these books – how could I not!?). That I’m running roughshod over feelings I should validate (?). Maybe all these things are true. I just don’t see how any of them bear on the point I’m making: that the moral condemnation game is an irrational one, and that playing it simply sorts people.
That’s reason I ended with the question about criteria – the one that no one has yet to address: to show that this is a domain where being guilty and being accused are one and the same. It’s like Hauser says in Moral Minds: It really does seem to work on its own track quite independently of reasoning. Like so much else, it seems to have more to do with identifying affiliations than anything rational.
HA!
You brought up Hauser. He’s like, a perfect example! He writes about morality and then he goes and just fakes a bunch of research.
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/category/by-author/marc-hauser-retractions/
And now that I’ve found Hauser morally defective, I can dismiss his entire body of work in less time it takes you to say ” calcium-mediated synaptic vesicle fusion”. (This is only half a joke.)
Thanks for that! It certainly cast doubt on his research, but Moral Minds is chock full of research nuts.
No need to talk dirty.
My explanations are written off as post hoc rationalization (and trust me, there is nothing I’ve thought through more while writing these books – how could I not!?).
I could turn that back against you, remembering the discussion back about DFW, and you claiming that what I saw in that book he wrote, all the complexity and multi-layered stuff, wasn’t really there, but mostly seat of the pant kind of intuitive leap 😉
True enough. Except that I spent ten years working on The Darkness that Comes Before – another two rewriting it while debating these very issues with my first editor. Then after it was published, the furor about this issue started immediately, meaning that I simply could not but scrutinize every turn of phrase. On any other topic, I would throw my hands up and say, you know what, you’re probably right.
But I agree.
My point was in saying you weren’t right at the time. I do believe in the work you put in your book. But I also do believe that DFW did his own, and he also “scrutinized every turn of phrase”. He was as absorbed by what he was doing as you are, and he worked on IJ for a very long time, I guess most of his life, in a way or another.
In fact, after that old discussion, I do believe that the post-hoc rationalization you made was about fabricating a reason to dislike his work. Because you needed to create a distance between what he did (and failed) and what you did. Same as your need to create another distance between what you’re doing now and the philosopher you were. That’s the narrative you need to ride 😉
Regarding the issue of “immunity”, i t almost seems like people expect that when you admit fault in some way (as you do by stating you suffer the same shortcomings as everyone else) that you will cap off the admission by quitting. Maybe you should become a pundit like some disgraced ploitician forced to resign! In all seriousness though, no one seems to know how to react when I accuse humanity of some fault then cap it by saying I’m the same way. It’s like by refusing to give voice to the fact that I’ve OBVIOUSLY won the Magical Belief Lottery, I’m cheating somehow.
The real problem is probably just selective attention. They just see what they need to see to confirm what they thought in the first place. I admit, it gets surreal sometimes, as in this case. We’re what? 200+ posts and no one has even acknowledged the question of criteria – which is to say, what the post is about.
Studies have shown that intelligence is one of the things that we are the most defensive about – which means I’m screwed by my message as much as my technique.
I find it somewhat amusing, on a personal level, that I find myself in discussions on discrimination based on internal aspects (gender/race/sexuality) when I strongly suspect it is class more so than anything else that is the ultimate institutionalized injustice.
One of my great worries, unrelated to Three Pound Brain or Requires, is that people use other forms of discrimination to ignore this possibly ultimate arbiter. In the US at least we’ve seen people making at least superficial acknowledgement w.r.t other forms of tolerance.
Note that when I say I’ve yet to see reasoned discourse have efficacy over performance rage, this isn’t something that I enjoy. I think the problem is polite protest is ignored or run roughshod over, while performance rage is seen as an excuse to deny the argument on basis of tone. However, it does seem the latter spreads the word, pushing the issues into more people’s faces.
Anywho, my handwringing IRL is about the chains of class over anything else really. Note even sure how to get people talking about that one.
I agree. I think there’s more than a little classism invested in some charges of sexism or racism. I also think that once women finally do hold the economic upper hand, that the nature of these debates will be quite different.
Well, one thing that I thought about this morning was the whole “anti-elite” meme in both the conservative and in some cases OWS-type movements. It redirects questions of economic and academic status into questions of personal worth.
This then becomes a distraction and a strategy of false appeasement IMO, because it simultaneously causes people to ignore disparity because raising themselves up would only make them elite AND, on a more leftist side, it allows people to believe their economically-ignorant views are equivalent to those of trained economists.
Throw in either the deliberate or unconscious gaming of ambiguities by economists themselves and we’re left in a sad, and likely deadly for many quagmire.
-Sci
Nancy Fraser has some great papers on this, the way the social politics of recognition have served to obscure the fiscal politics of redistribution.
“I also think that once women finally do hold the economic upper hand, that the nature of these debates will be quite different.”
I’m not so sure.
Just think of the faux-moral outrage if Obama appoints yet another woman to the Supreme Court to replace a man. “What does he have against men!” they will scream. (note he’ll get a pass if he replaces Ginsberg with a woman, but there’ll be some minor grumbling if he replaces her with a man, but no outrage because a male judge is the default).
Can you imagine the insanity if we approach the point of a female majority court? Republicans will be going hari-kari over the injustice of too many women on the court. 😉
“So I am an honest-to-goodness sexist. I literally believe that women are marginally more trustworthy than men, more empathetic, more giving, more cooperative, more competent, more reliable, and so on in the majority of modern contexts.”
In the past couple years, the Dalai Lama has made frequent comments in his public lectures/teachings on how he would like his successor to be a woman. His main reason for this is his belief that women, by virtue of giving birth and nursing young, are naturally more compassionate than men.
After my sister had her first child, she did a lot of her own research on the pros of breastfeeding and she found out about the hormones oxytocin and prolactin, which are supposed to make the mother feel more nuturing towards the child.
I was raised to beileve that traits like compassion, charity, empathy were by nature feminine traits. But these were traits that I wanted to cultivate. This caused a lot of problems for me growing up. My step-mom used to accuse me of wanting to be a girl (literaly, she used to tell me that I was a girl in a boys body) because I chose to cultivate those traits. According to her, compassion and empathy lead to problems for men because men may need to one day compete for resources to provide for their family and things like compassion and empathy just get in the way of men doing what they need to do.
Sorry for all the rambling… 🙂
It’s the violence. Nature doesn’t give a damn about reproductive strategies, so long as they work. We need to have a long, sane discussion about this as a society.
hey, the really frustrating thing about this blog, is if you try and keep up with all the comments, all it takes is a day missing comments and suddenly there is forty more comments on the comments stream.
all of my replies are failing. I’ll try again later.
To my favorite writer,
Why do you care? You write your feelings on paper, share your dreams with others and that’s it. Some don’t appreciate it, or don’t like it or feel offended by it and some feel the opposite, and that’s fine. That’s the way art has always been. If some people are too shallow and self absorbed to see past the surface, or for whatever reason don’t even want to look, so be it. You can’t change that and you know it.
But If you want to please everybody, then you will please only mediocrity. And no matter how popular a mediocre thing is, it won’t be remembered.
If I was aiming to please I would taken a hard turn a long time ago. The fact is, I’m aiming to unsettle, to prick and to provoke. And since I think everyone is shallow and self-absorbed, I’m not inclined to use it to justify what I’m doing. Also, I think the internet has changed the very nature of the book, transforming it into a kind of communicative space. And I happen to be an insufferable loudmouth!
Thanks though!
I love it, I love your thoughts, and opinions, and your insatiable appetite to provoke thought. Thanks.
Thanks, man. This is what it’s all about, being confused together.
This is sidestepping the question of criticism entirely, regardless of tone, which IMO threatens to reduce the efficacy and importance of art.
This leads to, IMO, a disturbing glorification of the artist sans judgement of quality.
(And just to note, this isn’t a passive aggressive critique of Scott’s works. As I’ve said on Westeros, though I don’t always see eye-to-eye with him I do think he is among the few fantasy writers attempting to write what I would consider literature.)
Sci, a claim of sexism seems a different subject to criticism? It’s like if I do performance art where I pour watermelon pulp on myself, you could critique it (as crap!). But if I throw water melons at people, it’s just assault! The latter is entirely outside of critique.
The claims of sexism seem to be a call to act, not criticism.
I think for something to be criticism, it actually has to validate the subject to some degree. To even call something rubbish is to validate it as being allowed to exist as much as other rubbish does. Curiously I think even Vox validated TDTCB (6 out of 10, IIRC).
I’m guessing, but it seems acrackedmoon would not have the books exist at all?
Gentlemen, you are – I hope – aware, that describing women as more “trustworthy”, “giving”, “reliable”, “nurturing”, “compassionate” and other such normative stuff, is sexist from a feminist perspective, too, yes?
This is what makes the question I ask regarding criteria so important. Everything can be interpreted as ‘sexist.’ The problem of interpretative underdetermination has to be acknowledged and addressed.
The fact remains that there ARE differences between men and women. Biological differences. Otherwise there would be no genders, we’d all be hermaphroditic. At what point does pointing that out become sexist? If what Scott is saying is true, the answer is something like “immediately, and that’s the point.” If people take offense at EVERYTHING said, then rational discussion becomes impossible.
Well, since we’re all bringing out the hatchets at once for some reason, what were you trying to say with that line that went something like “the honey of their unwashed anuses” in TTT?
You owe me a peanut butter and honey sandwich, but I’m kind of afraid to ask for it.
That the most surprising things go well with soda crackers…
If you ruin soda crackers for me as well in the next book I’m going to be so pissed.
God damnit now I’m thinking about “honey” on soda crackers.
Enough internet for today.
I think I’ve cracked it:
(Kellhus + Woody Allen)/2 = rsbakker
…spoken as a fan. Think about it! Woody Allen in Hannah and Her Sisters: neurotic, obsessed with sex, twice too clever and self-sabotaging. Remember in that movie when Woody targets Alan Alda? Mix in a heavy dose of epistemological-semiotic jibber-jabber and some curly prophet-locks and you’ve got our own, pugnacious Scotty. As personalities go, a learned taste, and to be consumed in small quantities initially.
But once you got the hankering…
I don’t even again want to encounter the mental picture of someone getting a hankering for a sex obsessed Woody Allen.
But just reading this makes that image pop into your mind … NOW.
The one with Alan Alda is “Crimes and Misdemeanors”, one of my favorite movies.
It’s like the opposite of Earwa: god, if it exists, is blind and isn’t judging anybody.
TELL ME, WHAT DO YOU…ah, n/m, tis cool…
Jorge, you’re right of course! Love that one too. In “Hannah” he is a having the existential crisis that ends with a viewing of the Marx Bros’ “Duck Soup”. Given that Allen plays the same character more or less, regardless of the movie, I suppose the equation stays the same.
There’s no long division in my makeup, man. It’s all multiplication!
@Cher Yiing:
You’re saying that Moon’s harsh words will make people who agree with her turn against her?
But this, I think, highlights the reality of privileged faux-liberalism. I think most people want to not-racist/not-homophobic/not-classist/etc. This is morality of absence, as opposed to the desire to be egalitarian and just.
For example, if people were more concerned about prostitution in Thailand rather than the ruining of their vacations, you think their first instinct would be to comment on the varied organizations in Thailand that combat prostitution, and then providing a link to somewhere that they’ve donated to and encouraging others to do so.
Instead we get lots of remarks about how racism against white people and sexism against men is bad. Is Moon’s tone really more important than giving a genuine examination of prostitution in Thailand from a native voice? Than not unconsciously contributing to the denigration of women/minorties/LGBT members?
And can we really blame her tone for people rushing to say she just needs to get laid, that she’s a bitch (who is black, gay, and was raped “by her stepfather”), that Thailand should be cut off from any aid (?) that it receives from the US?
Or are people more rushing to ensure their sense of “not-X” is preserved so they can go back to enjoying reviews about SFF novels after shaking their heads at how Political Correctness almost made them confront internal prejudices…you know, after jumping to the tried and true stereotypical insults used against women and minorities? (One of them an antigroupthink Bakker reader no less!)
=-=-=
@Scott:
“I know this has done damage to the sales, and that me and my family will economically suffer for it. But that’s the thing when you take risks. Sometimes you lose.”
I think we’re going from your suspect accusations of group think to sob story here, and missing that bit where your response to feminist critique was to “blame the reader”.
Honestly, the only two SFF authors in recent memory that have offered up self reflection about their depiction of the other in recent memory are Abercrombie and Valente.
For example, the rape scene with the “lithe” woman. I think if we were supposed to get that there is something going on with contradictions regarding sexuality and morality from that scene then, in short, my first instinct is that section was poorly written.
There’s also the fact that this idea of forcing someone to enjoy, partially or wholly, terrible actions has been more than enough in US comic book publications.
@saajanpatel:
Not sure if I get you 100% – you are saying that I was saying people will turn against her because they are politically correct and not because they have thought through the issues?
That’s not my point. I am saying that people will be less convinced about her argument because she comes across as too certain that she is right in everything she says.
This applies not just to her post regarding Pat, but all her other posts that spectacularly denigrates everything she doesn’t like through extremely strong language. She leaves little room for any sense of humility – to acknowledge that there may be a valid viewpoint different from hers.
Ah, apologies Cher Yiing, I believe I’ve misread your post. I do acknowledge as a problem with performance rage, that people will be unwilling to hear you because it seems all discussion is choked off.
Perhaps a good cop, bad cop approach is best as someone suggested on Requires. Larry actually has a good response on his blog:
http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2012/02/un-forastero-sentado-la-mesa-inquieto.html
The problem being that it seems people are going to seek to wall off anything that might suggest they are prejudice in anyway or, in some cases, that they have privilege on their side.
I think the challenge here is that it seems only when people are pissed off does anger force them to reflect at all about the counter argument. Otherwise rationalization makes it easy to deafen any disagreement against you.
I do wonder if beginning with some admission of fault is best. I sometimes try to preface criticism with either a past prejudice I’ve held or by noting privileges I benefit from (which, truth be told, is almost all of them.)
Well, we do know, Sci, that humans use moral outrage to other-sort and self-identify. You identify with her because of a degree of moral agreement. This is why you want to defend her – why would you bother with a troll otherwise? Are there any other trolls with dissenting views you’ve defended?
But you have to admit, trolls make debates less rational. So in a sense, you’re defending someone who makes it more difficult to rationally discuss what are serious social issues. Whatever the ‘upside’ could be, I guarantee you she has simply cemented a certain dismissive caricature of feminists and feminism in the minds of many people who were neither here nor there.
The faithful may be rallied, but everyone else is alienated.
“Well, we do know, Sci, that humans use moral outrage to other-sort and self-identify. ”
No. This is one of the things I dislike most about your posting, Scott.
We do not KNOW this.
We have some sociological evidence that some humans, some times, have a correlation between the two. Assuming the sociological evidence is sound (which it often is not), assuming the tests are reasonable and actually testing what they say they are (which often they don’t). We think this. We don’t know this.
The notion that things are completely 100% known and this is the way things are is one of the best ways you troll people. And it is as dishonest and misleading as anyone else who believes they’ve won the magical belief lottery.
Who said anything about 100%? How about from here on in you substitute ‘to the best of our knowledge’? Do I have to link the caveats on my About page for every claim I make? No. Because you knew this already. So then why waste your time writing this? Should I assume it’s because ‘catching me out’ or whatever it is that has created this ‘setting-people-straight-on-Bakker’ hobby/obsession of yours is more important than anything else?
Please, Kal. If you want to debate, then show some charity.
“Is Moon’s tone really more important than giving a genuine examination of prostitution in Thailand from a native voice?”
What? how is she “giving a genuine examination of prostitution in Thailand from a native voice?” Haven’t noticed that at all in her blog. No mention of the economic conditions that send thousands of Isan girls to Bangkok to support their farmer families. No mention of how the western sex tourist market is approx. 5% of the prostitution industry in Thailand, and how a long-standing cultural norm for males is to have as sex with as many women as possible to be ‘manly’ (hence the largeness of the industry). Rather, it’s much easier to rage on Pat’s iane travel blogging. Now, those blogs *are* stupifyingly shallow and banal and in some cases culturally insensitive in the extreme. Pat’s great flaw is that he likes to visit exotic places but does little to no research about them. But I’m not seeing much of substance from Acrackedmoon, either, except the usual hysterics and her follower’s associative bleating. To wit:
I see this commonly among ‘sensitive’ people tumbling/stumbling to uphold an ‘authentic’ voice because said voice comes from this place or that, when the facts are that there are just as many zealous, cherry-picking self-selecting self-righteous bigots and blowhards from any country in the world, not merely the north american region. Acrackedmoon is Chinese-Thai and thus very likely emerges from an ‘unearned privilaged’ background the sensitive contingent so piously pontificates about; she has about as much in common with a Patpong bargirl as a Manhatten WASP has with an Oklahoma lot lizard.
What I find most intriguing are her attacks at western culture and (deliberately?) ahistorical POV. I do value that she brings contextual issues traditionally upheld in SF/F, but she’s far far from a legitimate voice given the methods of her calculated madness.
Patpong bargirl as a Manhatten WASP has with an Oklahoma lot lizard.
Fuck, and I thought the D&D monster manual had weird shit in it!
I don’t remember the original context, but ‘sob story’ strikes me as pretty uncharitable. The discourse of victimization becomes problematic precisely when it begins to victimize – this is the whole point of the post, and what makes the question of criteria so important. It is the case that ‘moral outrage’ flips some kind of cognitive switch, that people become less tolerant of nuance and more prone persecute the condemned. It has the effect of tribalizing groups of people – of clearing out the moderate middle – rather than changing ‘hearts and minds.’ It makes the situation worse.
And you of all people Sci should know that my “response to feminist critique was to blame the reader” is a deceptive, simplistic characterization.
Otherwise, of course that was your instinct. What other instinct is there? How many reviews on Amazon begin with “I failed this book”? It’s always the writer who fails. So in this instance my writing failed you. I have no problem with this whatsoever. The difficulty arises from the next, inevitable step, where ‘you failed me’ becomes ‘you failed everyone.’ That’s when I begin wagging my finger and saying, ‘No, your reading is your own.’ And this gets regurgitated into a handy and entirely tendentious argumentative tool – which is to say, an efficient way to make me look bad in the eyes of others without actually honestly, let alone rationally, engaging the actual, much more complicated picture. I become the arrogant and ridiculous, ‘Reader Blamer.’
It’s a crock of shit, man. Don’t you think?
In truth Scott I think your problem has always been one regarding the perception you give rather than any serious defects of character. (Mind you, note that I think that *my* problem is defects of character.)
It just seems like you are talking down to people who disagree with you, as here you wrote an entire post that pretty much is telling us how brainwashed you think Larry is because he likes a blog that you do not. Uncharitable, no?
It also feels like there is an unwillingness on your part to acknowledge that the text, as written, contains sections that depict female characters in a manner that parallels commonly held negative stereotypes against women. You’re concern seems to be clearing your name against accusations of misogyny, which is understandable, but ideally would go hand in hand with examinations of how the male gaze might distort your depictions of women.
Also, heh, I mean, you managed to piss off Vandermeer and he seems like a pretty cheery guy.
But I think part of the problem here is you thinking of the situation in absolute terms. I have, as have others, thought that the depictions of women have, in certain plot arcs, become caricatures for one reason or another. Having read other works where women are subjugated, I do think this is based on deficiencies of the text.
Naturally the books haven’t failed me in other regards.
Let’s keep this simple. When and where did I say Larry was ‘brainwashed’? How did I even imply it?
“But I think part of the problem here is you thinking of the situation in absolute terms. I have, as have others, thought that the depictions of women have, in certain plot arcs, become caricatures for one reason or another. Having read other works where women are subjugated, I do think this is based on deficiencies of the text.”
Esme: Prostitute, attempts to leave behind her career, is nearly murdered for daring to do so.
Esme: Thrall to an alien rape monster who “protects” her
Esme: Wife to Achamian
Esme: Widow
Esme: Lover to Kellhus
Esme: Wife to Kellhus
Esme: Head of Espionage
Esme: Empress
Esme: Mother
Esme: Deposed royalty in hiding
Esme: Coup leader
Serwe: Girl child who is property of her father because she is female and therefore property not a person
Serwe: Slave
Serwe: Concubine/sex slave
Serwe: Spoils of war/captive
Serwe: Cnaiur’s thrall and mother of his child
Serwe: Kellhus’ lover
Serwe: Kellhus’ wife
Serwe: Kellhus’ human sacrifice used to “prove” his divinity
Istriya: A male skin spy
Mimara: Child of a Prostitute
Mimara: Slave
Mimara: Brothel Prostitute
Mimara: Princess
Mimara: Princess in Exile
Mimara: Student of Sorcery or Avatar of the Judging Eye
Theliopa: Princess
Theliopa: Chief of State
Serwa: Princess
Serwa: Sorceress
Serwa especially is clearly authorial sexism, obviously once she had sex on screen, she stopped being anything else than a whore. (note I think that scene is far more humiliating of men, then of women).
***
So overall, we have a bunch of people who insist on defining women who grow beyond sex roles only by their sex roles–why do they insist on lashing women to roles only defined by sex when there is clearly a variety of stages in these women’s stories that are far beyond being defined by sex? This is a problem for these people because it is farmer’s daughters and merchant ladies and princess-fair who are supposed to grow beyond their roles in a contemporary fantasy. Whores are supposed to stay in their place. The fact that Bakker doesn’t keep whores in their place and has them grow beyond their prostitution roles in his society and the mutual fact that he DOESN’T have a farmer’s daughter doing the same growing is the proof of his sexism! WHERE IS THE FARMER’S DAUGHTER WHO MARRIES THE SECRET PRINCE AND BECOMES QUEEN BAKKER YOU SEXIST!?
(oh my GOD it is so much fun to indulge in moral outrage, I’m feeling the adrenaline pump now!)
Deep breathing helps. My eyes used to roll around in my head, the ‘evidential’ readings were so selective.
[…] thoughts were sparked while reading a recent post on the blog of fantasy author R. Scott Bakker, “Misanthropology 101”, in which Bakker is defending himself against charges of misogyny based on a reader’s […]
Almost a case in point example of what I was just bitchin and moanin about to Sci – a quote taken out of context and repurposed. Realism is irrelevant – not to fantasy, as the column suggests – but to who you select to be your characters.
@saajanpatel:
“In truth Scott I think your problem has always been one regarding the perception you give rather than any serious defects of character.”
How is it that your perception (and interpretation) of Mr. Bakker’s statement’s is Mr. Bakker’s problem?
I think a quick glance at Westeros, or a google search for “Bakker Misogyny” will show this isn’t limited to my perception.
Scott was complaining about a fall in sales and potential sales due to the stigma surrounding PoN. I am pointing out a different possibility than simply that is was the risks he took in his writing.
Kalbear proudly stated above that he spent pages and pages recruiting people to that point of view because people couldn’t see it without Kalbear’s specialized instruction and training. Once they “got it” though, the moral pile-on became a circle jerk tsunami.
Either that, or upon reflecting upon his arguments, they freed themselves from their privileged male group think which had, up until then, clouded their minds?
Like you’ve been freed? Probably something you hold dearly and so maybe don’t doubt whether what appeared to occur, did?
The whole area seems pitted with things that can’t be emperically measured. In such instances, it seems an act of faith to believe oneself freed.
Actually I think Kalbear and I disagree on the flaws of the series’ depiction of women. I think the failure lies largely in WLW, if I am reading him right he believes it is more spread throughout all the novels.
@Callan:
“At least Two possible outcomes, no emperical metrics (currently). Have you decided to use your gut feeling here to determine which is the case and then try and impress just that case? Or has your gut feeling dragged your intellect along with it in the direction it’s just headed?”
I think this is the crux. At least two possible outcomes. Now I think the thing I am getting at the importance is not intent, but the outcomes.
If you can are perpetuating negative stereotypes/tropes, even unintentionally, then is there a way a passage can be better written? Given that all writing of an other is, in some sense, appropriation, then does it not behoove the author to take in criticism and at the least make some better in the future?
This of course leads to the question of what depiction has been done well, which thankfully we’ve had several threads about on Westeros. Larry also has a post about it here (it also links to the Westeros thread for those interested):
http://ofblog.blogspot.com/2011/12/problematic-issue-of-graphic-violence.html
Sci, we’ve approached this here, before
If you can are perpetuating negative stereotypes/tropes, even unintentionally, then is there a way a passage can be better written?
How is it perpetuated? Does the person with a sexist attitude have it that that attitude wanes and reduce over time unless a book boosts it back up again? Or do they maintain their attitude or even reinforce it over time, all by themselves, whether a book is presented to them or not? Yet another scientific test opportunity.
If such a study were conducted, I’m pretty sure Scott would read it carefully. And isn’t that the key thing – he does not just assume he’s right and so doesn’t have to read such a thing? He might argue against the sexist claims here without leaving open any sense of uncertainty (due to naming his intent), but in terms of this as far as I can tell, he’d read it carefully. In this sense, there is uncertainty granted. When, as you say, you look at outcomes. Instead of interrogating intent.
I’m inclined to think someone with a negative stereotype (which tends to inform their resource decisision in regards to other people), without contact with any media, will self perpetuate their stereotype all by themselves. That’s just my guess and if a study showed I was wrong, I’d be in for a big rethink.
It may just be an overkill effect – what literary bullet might penetrate the hardened, armoured heart of a sexist person utterly blows in half a soft target bleeding heart!
In the end, I know it’s not as great a discussion topic “Scott, we aught to have a scientific study about this stuff!”, I get that. Maybe there’s some way of raising the topic of potential negative outcomes without simply insisting, sans any measurements, that someone just knows it produces bad outcomes? Keep pushing that potential, until we get an actual study happening.
No, it is a good topic for discussion, don’t get me wrong. Or rather, perhaps I seemed overly dismissive of the idea when I do think it is a good one.
So the books are sexist then, and all other readings are misreadings?
No, but you don’t seem to want to accept that even ONE possible reading of your books is sexist, and therein lies your problem.
I think you missed the previous thread. I’ve bitten this bullet many times, Jordan.
The possibility being I’m an obvious online ass?
Am I wrong to find this line of criticism absurd, given that we are talking about acrackedmoon here. You’re defending her approach by impeaching mine?
Note that I don’t have a problem with unrealism. I have a problem with people characterizing the argument of mine that in order to be realistic the book needed more women in male roles. IT didn’t. In order to be realistic the book needed more women in female roles typical of the period. As it didn’t have those, it was unrealistic and thus attempting to state something through that unrealism.
That’s fine! But don’t claim that everyone who is a critic is saying they want more women warriors or whatever.
What does realism have to do with selecting the characters through which I tell my story? You’ve already said you don’t approve of quota characterization.
So we need a milk maid who falls in love with the secret prince and becomes Queen?
The above would be a rather fun atrocity tale, or maybe I’ll write a fanfic about the milkmaid Kalbera who falls in love with Dunyain Kelmoghus and becomes queen of the Dunyain?
I do hope you’ve been working on this since you posted and it wasn’t just a throw away gag!?
Yeah, comments are broken! That was in reply to Adam, above.
Owlbears >>> Kalbears. Word.
Nice!
Larry and Thai-gers and Kalbears, oh my!
Larry and Thai-gers and Kalbears, oh my!
hehe
@saajanpatel:
Yes I believe the ‘start with admission of fault’ may actually work better.
If you read “You are not so smart” blog, I don’t think using strong words will help. I believe one of the more recent articles talk about the fact that the more strident the contrary opinion, the more it reinforces the reader’s existing opinion
i think the challenge is admission of fault can be read as “Everyone is prejudiced, it’s just who we are.” and leave no room for genuine examination of who is holding the reins of power. (This was my problem with the movie Crash, for example.)
Though one might question a blog post whose title could be accurately exchanged with “Larry likes something I don’t, and thus he is brainwashed.” 😉
It’s called ‘belief/attitude polarization.’
Scott, no doubt there’s a segment of the white working class (and middle class) which finds it a burden to be less racist and perceive PC as a tyranny. They’re quite vocal about it. I’m just saying the black working class would probably like to know when this orthodoxy started. I suspect they would be surprised to hear that racial tolerance had won the day, you know what I mean?
They are perceived as ‘moral inferiors’ and they know it, so they respond (and vote) accordingly. This is the dilemma, and why I think the concept of ‘literature’ needs to be exploded and reassembled.
So racists vote for racist parties because they don’t like being condemned for racism? And the solution is to stop condemning them? That’s not a dilemma. Racists vote accordingly because there are established interests which, to say the least, are not particularly opposed to racism, and lay on political options for those that agree. You’re right, condemnation won’t change their minds, but that’s because nothing is going to change their minds. They have to be opposed, blocked, shut out and shut down, and the forces in society which support racist views should be confronted. What else is there, other than compromise and concession with bigotry?
Murph, you really think I’m proposing something so simplistic? You would save so much time (and a tonne of straw!) if you would give the most charitable interpretation you can to what I’m saying.
People self-identify according to values among other things. ‘Political correctness’ has become the marker of a certain kind of social identity – a group. If that group is viewed as a competitor, well then, coalition psychology takes over. You have no idea how powerful ingroup bias can be. Suddenly sexism and racism don’t seem like such a big problem. Suddenly you become more amenable to bootstrapping arguments and more anti-affirmative action.
Moral outrage only works if it intimidates. Otherwise, it simply leads to polarization. The question of gender and race needs to be decoupled from coalition thinking, not cemented to it. Liberalism is on the retreat in America for a reason.
Murphy, well, how are you going to force convert these people on the other side of the polarisation line? Or try and block them out until their natural life span ends, and hope they didn’t teach their children similar values?
I’d never come across acrackedmoon’s blog until reading this post. Having read through some of her posts, I have to wonder why you’re bothering. You’re a good, successful published author. She’s an angry nobody spitting venom into the ether. A fevered ego tainting our collective subconscious. (She’s actually rather a pathetic figure; seriously, isn’t the overwhelming emotion you get from reading that blog a sense of pity for somebody who is that uncomfortable with the world?).
You were the winner here before the debate even started.
Agreed, I read it earlier today….it’s just really painful to take in. Everything about the writer just comes off as spiteful and childish.
Example:
“Well I don’t know about your prose, boyo, but you know what you sound like right now? Trite. Preachy. Whiny. Stupid. And pretentious, while we’re at it. You see, sonny, people are not obliged to read your work the way you want them to.”
“Eat shit. The first bite tastes like shit? Keep going, eventually it’ll become cake.”
“Oh my goodness can you get any further up your own anus. MY BOOKS CHALLENGE YOU, THEY ARE SO COMPLICATED. What a self-important little roach.”
I caught this on a blog about Pat Rothfuss too..
“I wish he had tried to punch someone and ended up knifed and bleeding from his guts in a dark corner somewhere. And nobody’d have given a shit, because this man’s douchiness is so evident it radiates off him in waves.”
Wow……I really don’t know what to say.
Noisms, JamesM, don’t make the mistake of assuming that just because you find her words pathetic that there aren’t plenty of others eager to leap on her bandwagon. It’s so EASY to be that angry, especially when you are joining a rant ‘already in progress’, and so intoxicating. Someone mentioned You Are Not So Smart earlier, and one of my favorite entries on that blog is how venting or ranting actually is self-rewarding and addictive. That good feeling you have isn’t because you’ve gotten something off your chest, it’s because all the rage has sent you on an adrenaline high.
And the angriest people always make the most noise, and so attract the most notice. The people trying to have calm, rational discussions get drowned out. You see it in politics (especially presidential primaries in the U.S.) all the time.
Rothfuss is actually SUPER NICE.
It’s funny. It’s funny the same way that Lewis Black is funny.
If Scott asks readers to give him a charitable interpretation, you can do the same with other writers.
You have no idea how many people sympathize, even celebrate her. Like I say, moral agreement shuts thinking down.
I would argue that you don’t have any idea either.
I don’t remember the context, I know that much! Too many comments…
I take the wider point that moral agreement shuts thinking down. You are, without doubt, absolutely right about that. But pointing that out to these people makes no difference. By definition, self-criticism and self-awareness are not part of their make-up.
I should add, though, that it’s not just moral agreement. There’s also an element of the charismatic leader at play, here. acrackedmoon writes with brio, and clearly has a superficially high level of confidence (masking her obvious insecurities). These are two things that are crucial in developing a personality cult, which seems to be what she’s in the process of doing. And in giving her the oxygen of publicity I think this post feeds into her hands.
That’s a worry I have – the same as with Vox. But the way I see it, these facts (and the need for epistemic humility they imply) simply have to become part of the cultural atmosphere. Ten years ago, I was literally a voice in the wilderness, and I’ve watched – with more than a little amazement – as this way of considering problems has crept (due to the efforts of people far more successful than myself) more and more into the mainstream. I now think it’s entirely possible that people like her won’t be able to open their mouths without being deluged with uncomfortable facts of human nature. I certainly hope so, because like I say, we’re pretty much doomed without some kind of wholesale cultural transformation.
noisms, eh, I thought people were coming over here from ‘requires’? In a way, producing publicity for this blog.
While purely reading here, they’ve sort of broken away from the other blog. Yeah, they’ll pick and choose to confirm their ideas, but atleast for awhile acrackedmoon wont be able to do it for them – they’ll have to do it for themselves. And for a start, they might do it differently than she would, creating a dissonance when they get back. Never mind if selective memory lapses for a few lines.
Scott wrote:
“The difficulty arises from the next, inevitable step, where ‘you failed me’ becomes ‘you failed everyone.’ That’s when I begin wagging my finger and saying, ‘No, your reading is your own.’ ”
I think some of the same mental assumptions that allow us to not be solipsists are at work here. “My mind works this way, so everyone’s mind must work this way.” And when you meet minds that disagree on interpretation, then it’s easy to go into moral condemnation mode and dehumanize. The slippery slope into atrocity is just so easy from there on out.
This is cool because it ties into one of my favorite philosophical questions posited on this blog: is there are a root to morality that is due to more than just our shared neuro-biological heritage? The BBH answers: “No.”
Completely unrelated note:
I’ve been reading The Laundry series by Charles Stross. It’s good! In a super-nerdy way. His short story “The Concrete Jungle” is legally available online for free.
Yep. It’s called consensus fallacy. It’s one of the easiest to catch yourself committing.
Off topic, but what if there was some moral root and you knew it, but you distanced yourself from it with doubt? And thus didn’t enact a real moral root?
Just a weak ass attempt at devils advocate! I find the question kind of fascinating, probably that I’m screwed in terms of it.
This is precisely why doubt is generally culturally denigrated – because it seems to undermine the will to act.
No, I didn’t really think you were being that simplistic, to be honest, but I did have a nervousness about the tendency of the argument you’re making, and somehow still have a twinge. Not “oh my god, awful argument”, but it just seems a bit optimistic. There’s going to be a polarizing element to the race debate if it’s ever addressed in its full dimensions, there’s no way to avoid it. It’s going to be a bitter fight, don’t you think? And liberalism is surely in retreat because it keeps ducking the conflict. In any case, how can an in-group/out-group mentality be overcome when ultimately there is an overshadowing conflict between the have-little and have-lots, of which racism is only a part? One way to overcome working-class racism would be working-class solidarity (as in Blue Collar) but it’s still an in-group. Would it be such a bad in-group?
Actually, it’s far, far more pessimistic about the status quo than what you’re suggesting, don’t you think? I’m saying that the discourse is almost exclusively irrational, and that the PC movement in the process of failing. Otherwise, I’m offering a constructive alternative, one that begins by acknowledging the matter of fact inevitability of parochialism. Why should that make you uncomfortable?
No question PC is failing, and the dialogue is irrational. But that’s why pointing out the irrationality is a doomed exercise. It’s not fundamentally a psychology question. The backlash movement is a funded and organized social manipulation. Anyone who says “do you know the research about parochialism and bias?” will find their name on talk radio and Fox News as part of a story starting “Have you heard the liberal poindexters think you’re stupid for not wanting to lose your job just because you’re white? Oh, the research proves it, they say!” And so on. It goes back to your post on anti-intellectualism.We can’t WIN this way. We can’t cut the strings until the crutch is out of the puppeteer’s hands. That’s where the fight leads.
This is the old narrative, isn’t it? It’s the System. We fight and we try, but the System keeps shutting us out. This was the narrative I was told, and bought into over the years. No more. The left didn’t have political momentum ‘stolen’ from them, they gave it away by defining themselves AGAINST the labouring classes. Fox is a perfect example: Murdoch’s (evil) genius was realizing just how deep the resentment ran and how to monetize it.
Sci,
but ideally would go hand in hand with examinations of how the male gaze might distort your depictions of women.
Do you consider the other side of that ‘might’ you mention, that the ‘male gaze’ might not be involved? Is it possible to depict X without this male gaze stuff being involved? If it’s possible, then you have atleast two possible outcomes and….only a feeing that you really need to press one as being possible?
Alteast Two possible outcomes, no emperical metrics (currently). Have you decided to use your gut feeling here to determine which is the case and then try and impress just that case? Or has your gut feeling dragged your intellect along with it in the direction it’s just headed?
“Let’s keep this simple. When and where did I say Larry was ‘brainwashed’? How did I even imply it?”
This post starts off with the concern you have that Larry likes something you don’t. From there you go into a whole thing about moral blindness. Read to me like he was the Exhibit A of this entire post.
I disagree with Larry’s estimation of ROH. I cite him as my motivation for revisiting the topic at all. These are the facts.
Now where does the inflammatory ‘Scott says Larry was brainwashed’ come in? This is a caricature, isn’t it?
Maybe I missed the part where you noted Larry might have valid reasons for his opinions…scrolls up…well I did find this:
“As much as the first puzzles me, I find myself deeply troubled by the second, even moreso after some link chasing took me to Schellenberg’s blog, The Cultural Gutter.”
Not saying you intended it to be insulting, but it did read that way to me.
Since I can’t actually reply to topics but can post:
@Adam: my blanket objections aren’t that Esme is a whore – it’s that she (like every single woman in the series) is a sex or maternity object. Esme goes from being a whore to being a wife to being a broodmare. We’re told of her massive intelligence but she consistently fails again and again to do…well, anything successful as a queen. Her being forced to go from empress to whore again was just another annoying part in her arc.
What I would have preferred is for her to have some measures of success here and there. Not change the narrative where she beats the Dunyain or anything like that (though in some way she does, that ends up being a failure for her as well) – but at least being able to control the riots, keep the empire a bit less chaotic, perhaps have some victories over the Fanim. Or at least appear something other than totally incompetent. We’re told of her intellectual prowess and ability, told that she’s smarter than Akka; what we don’t do is actually see it.
“Note that the whore-mongers like Kalbear et al that insist that all the female characters think about is their sex past always seem to ignore Serwe, except for citing her background, which was two or three pages out of 18 different POV sections that encompassed probably over a hundred pages of her perspective.”
See this? This is completely bullshit. Don’t lump me with others; talk to me. I don’t insist that all the female characters think about their sex past (though they certainly do that often), I insist that the female characters are defined entirely by their ability to service men either sexually or maternally – at least until TJE. At that point we get Mimara (another whore, awesome) and Serwa. Serwa’s tale is almost interesting until Sorweel turns it into a literal wank fest; while I understand that the subtext is how men view women, the text is a guy jacking off to her as she has sex. Mimara’s more interesting, but also more troublesome; Mimara has this intrigue, knows how to use some of her appeal and is a great view into some of the objective world, but at the same time her arc at the end of WLW has her forgiving her rapist as he tries to rape her, which I hope Scott can at least see as just a bit troublesome as far as stereotypes go.
As to Serwe: we don’t get a lot of her PoV past the first couple of chapters, which are very vapid. After that she is used as a literal sex prize and used to manipulate others via sex. I’m not sure the argument you’re making here. Is it important that the most manipulatable character in the series also views Kellhus as the most holy? Perhaps. I’ve never stated the subtext wasn’t interesting; it’s the actual text that causes the most problem and is the most difficult to get past.
All these things I OUGHT not to have written. Is that it? Because they are immoral? Obviously sexist?
If you had to guess, how many words do you think you’ve written on this topic, Kalbear?
Well, be fair – like with Serwe I assume part of Kalbears writing is a reflection of his care about the characters plight. Atleast I hope it’s not all about you. She deserves alot of writing! It’s just a question of what the writing is aimed at.
@ Kal If you don’t see a reply marker scroll up, to the posts above yours, it might be a few, but you’ll eventually see “reply” next to “permalink” and that should drop your reply into the appropriate tree.
See I think Esmenet is phenomenally successful. She actively chooses to leave her life as a prostitute behind. She has a variety of travails before she successfully unites with Akka and later Kellhus. She learns to read, gains power and authority and exercises them judiciously in a world that is incredibly hostile towards her use of power and authority. If she is not sufficiently active, if she doesn’t have sufficient agency despite walking a route from a very low caste to the very highest cast I’m not sure what you want her to have done that would have been sufficient agency and activity. Her’s is the only classic protagonist viewpoint we get, it’s shockingly similar to a farm boy narrative. But how often have you blamed a farm boy for getting help from the master warrior who trains him at arms or from the wizened wizard who teaches him about the world? As I see it, in Earwa critics find it okay to blame the protagonist for getting help because she once was a whore. Critics find it okay to blame the protagonist for not being active enough in her own destiny, or for not being smart enough to do this or that ‘ideal’ behavior because she once was a whore. But no one seems to blame the protagonists of Osten Ard, Prydain or Tatooine when they’re given absurd amounts of assistance and guidance every step of the way. The insistence on trivializing the achievements of Esmenet is astonishing, and perhaps quite sexist. As for what she does, she may not realize it, but we damn well should be aware that she’s being manipulated four different ways by Kellhus, Inrilatis, Kelmomas and Maithanet. That she navigates this dynamic four way attempts to dominate her at all is enormously in her favor, that she beats Maithanet, and subconsciously defeats Inrilitus (by putting Maitha alone in a room with him) is pretty damn incredible. And even though she was inrilitus’ mother she still knew what a danger he was to her, although she avoided thinking about it. She was also ruthless enough to use her son as a playing chip to leverage Maithanet to fall in line, and also used her son’s death as political currency to allow her to raise the stakes of what she’s capable of doing. Her biggest failings relate to Kelmomas, who she doesn’t comprehend (or more likely, based on the text she’s actively refusing to comprehend the evidence she has) could be a threat.
And Why is it that Serwa becomes less interesting once a male has jacked off to her. Does Angelina Jolie have less agency because men have jacked off to her? This is just disturbing on your part to claim that a male character’s inappropriate invasive and predatory behavior towards a female character is indicative of an authorial attack against women.
Awww, Luke Skywalker as a sex worker on Tatooine! Yeah! C’mon, it speaks to you! Imagine the rest of the movies in that light? (or am I aweful to think they’d be any different?) Never mind if we make Luke female (or switch Leia and Luke around)!
But on the wanking you seem to see literary merit, but gosh you seem to be down on it? Preditory? Sorweel hardly plans the thing – he seems predated on himself and really in the worse position at the end, not Serwa.
“Are there any other trolls with dissenting views you’ve defended?
”
Yours, for one.
And I’m a troll because?
Dude, you admitted it! You said you like trolling. When you talked about acrackedmoon the first time and the right-wing guy Theo, you specifically stated you wanted to troll them. Your goal of these novels was to tweak sensibilities, to problematize gender; do you think that’s not trolling?
Troll the trolls. And? Did I heap insults and invective on them? Did I laugh at and ridicule anyone who tried to raise an honest voice? Did I ban their friends and fans from the board? In other words, did I behave like a troll? At all?
Kal. If it gives you a point to redefine trolling into something only you will recognize, then chalk one up. Otherwise, there’s far better ways to challenge my arguments. The best way is to begin by honestly considering them. How about you paraphrase what you think I’m saying so we can make sure you’re actually arguing against me rather than for some perceived audience? You just waste too much of my time otherwise.
“Troll the trolls. And? Did I heap insults and invective on them? Did I laugh at and ridicule anyone who tried to raise an honest voice? Did I ban their friends and fans from the board? In other words, did I behave like a troll? At all?”
I don’t know about whether you banned them or not. I do think you’ve gone to people like Vandemeer and made him pissed off enough to want you gone, and as far as I could tell did so deliberately. You’ve mentioned that you’ve wanted to troll. You’ve mentioned that you wanted to tweak sensibilities precisely for the tweakage. You’ve talked about how the more confrontational and more controversial you post, the more hits you get and whether you should do that more.
You also certainly respond more to the people that raise their hackles.
You’ve certainly ridiculed folks who have raised honest voice; you did that immediately to sciborg on his first few posts.
So…yes, you’ve behaved like a troll at times. I don’t see why this is a big deal to you; trolls started with Socrates. being a good troll is a good thing.
Compared to…
Tweaking in narrative. Tweaking with caustic asides (and then only irregularly) – are you really going to tell me these are the ‘same’?
And just to be clear, when I talk about ‘trolling the trolls’ I wasn’t talking about using fire to fight fire: I was talking about using real arguments and real questions to make them think.
Do I really have to cut and paste to give you a contrast in styles, let alone goals?
Please, Kal.
I’m really surprised by the power of wank. Such a reaction to that scene – I mean, it’s not like it wasn’t a bump for me, but when there’s a murder every five minutes, a wank is a bit of a relief moment in the story!
I also have this strange urge to run a scientific test that would have different groups reading various texts and describing the character of the text afterward. The texts would be mostly the same, with the same female character, but some texts would have her working as a sex worker. Some would have that distant, distant in the past. Some would have it recent, some would have her working as that throughout. And some would have it not at all. Meanwhile the character would do things like just spontaniously give up her life and head out, or become a master of spies, and such like. Again, some would have sex work alot in the text, some would have none, but the other events would always occur.
Then afterward the readers would be asked to define the character.
It’d be interesting to see how much the sex worker part colours.
How much that it’s not just that the character can’t escape a patriarchal society, but they can’t escape the very own readers bias. That these are whores. It doesn’t matter what they do – once you reach a certain threshold of sex working in the story, the reader can’t see anything but a whore, first and foremost, no matter what else the character does in the story. But the reader projects that as being an attribute of the pulp and ink in front of them. Not as a reflection of themselves/their own perception. And maybe think the author needs to be freed from his ‘male gaze’.
Man, the stupid science experiments I’d waste my money on if I was a rich man!
Me too! But it would be such an interesting laboratory! Frankensteinish.
Callan, your experiment seems to have reached its conclusion – blaming the reader – before it has even been conducted.
Bad science yo.
I say “How much”…and I describe what I’m getting at to get to the moral point (cause I’m a heavy handed writer). Yet I sit the whole thing on something that might disprove my moral point. Those reader descriptions, over a wide sample, simply describing sex work as one amongst many other attributes of the character. Bam, I’m down!
That hinge, that might go against me, isn’t clear? I felt like I was standing on a wobble board in saying the last bit. No solid ground for me. Maybe I got lazy in emphasising that hinge, but I did atleast put it in once.
Other than that, yeah, blaming the reader. Just not the traditional style of blaming, where…one just states that one is correct, evermore.
Do you ever worry that by directly addressing this nonsense, and engaging in (sometimes) vitriolic argument with what might amount to an internet troll you’re actually just legitimizing your detractors?
Evolutionary biologists have learned after a long time that debating creationists in public is just bad policy. It’s easier to rile up a crowd and make them hate you than it is to patiently explain to that crowd why their moral condemnation is incorrect.
You can dredge up as many facts as you want, provoking them only makes them RAGE HARDER.
“The possibility being I’m an obvious online ass?
Am I wrong to find this line of criticism absurd, given that we are talking about acrackedmoon here. You’re defending her approach by impeaching mine?”
Well, she doesn’t have books to sell, so there’s a difference of goals. Moon’s stated goals, IIRC, is to point out things that personally bother her. That so many people get drawn into debates and linked back to her blog, inviting discussion, seems to be an added bonus.
(If you’re interested, she published your comment and invited you to go to her site.)
You, as far as I could tell, implied that your lost sales were based solely on what you wrote in the books. I’m pointing out that you have a tendency to dismiss all criticism by mentioning the gaming of ambiguities, and how you’ve handled charges of sexism have reflected poorly for you in some people’s eyes.
For example, I don’t think you are a misogynist, yet I’m not really sure what evidence I could give of you genuinely engaging concerns about your works.
Search and replace “obvious” with “oblivious” and we’re closer to what I’m saying.
I think there’s an idea in your head that TPB is some sort of safe place for ideas. I think it is for some ideas, but Requires is a better/safer place to discuss depiction from a marginalized perspective.
Trust me, if this was about selling books, I wouldn’t be bothering with any of this. As you are becoming fond of pointing out, it doesn’t seem to be winning me any popularity points.
But impugning my motivations aside, “I’m pointing out that you have a tendency to dismiss all criticism by mentioning the gaming of ambiguities, and how you’ve handled charges of sexism have reflected poorly for you in some people’s eyes” is not my tendency at all – it’s the tendency of you and some vocal others who seem to need simplistic strawmen (“Bakker is a Reader Blamer”) to avoid debating the issues, put me on the defensive, or whatever the motive happens to be. Need I retype everything I just stated to you explaining why it’s a strawman characterization?
Scroll up this link, and you’ll see I’ve actually bitten a number of bullets. The only thing I refuse to concede is that sexist readings are canonical, or somehow more insightful than nonsexist ones. I’ve conceded the Archie Bunker effect, the damage to the sales – even that I come across as a prick on the net! So now I’ll ask you the question that I’ve asked Kal so many times: What else do you want?
If the Dude has forsworn trolldom, then I would only be too happy. By definition, only a fool enters into conversation with someone who openly admits she’s only interested in injuring her ‘interlocutors.’
In the meantime, perhaps you could give me an author in a similar position who could serve as a role model?
I’ll try this and see if it works. @Adam/lockesnow: I know about the ‘reply’ button; there is a limit to how many posts you can make in a period of time.
On why Bakker ought not to do things:
I think that they’re bad because they occlude any points you’re trying to make and make a poor argument. It is (for example) hard to argue that you’re a feminist or believe women are superior when a scene in your book has a woman forgiving her rapist as she gets raped. In the same way that acrackedmoon’s tone offends people; the difference there being primarily one of privilege. So my point, as always, is that you should not ought to have written them because they do you a disservice in actually talking about interesting issues. They are the gay rights or abortion rights issues instead of the economy.
Because that’s the real frustration I have – that there is quite a lot of goodness in these books. That I really, truly enjoy reading them and rereading them. But then I have to explain to my very intelligent, very astute wife why I enjoy this stuff when it’s filled with such vitriol, hate and obvious pandering. Why I enjoy a series that has so many scenes of violent rape porn. And it’s not just my wife, mind you; so many of my friends who I do care about and respect have tried this series on my (and other’s) recommendations and could not read any further because of various things like the proliferation of splatterhouse pulp fiction.
Someone else on Westeros said this a while back, and I agree – that it’s a real shame that I can’t share this with my friends because of the overt text.
As to how many words, gosh, I don’t know. Thousands, tens of thousands. Maybe even a few hundred thousand. Don’t get too excited though; I’ve written way more about World of Warcraft or whether Peyton Manning is better than Tom Brady.
“What does realism have to do with selecting the characters through which I tell my story? You’ve already said you don’t approve of quota characterization.”
Nothing! That was just the argument being made by fans of yours defending you – that your story was a gritty realistic fantasy and the reason it was so sexist was because you were just trying to be extra realistic.
Which according to you is incorrect.
It was also a problem with the world at large, not just the random sex trade women that you selected as the story characters. In that we don’t see the women we’d expect to see if it was realistic. We don’t see the queens or the princesses, the tradeswomen or the farmers. We don’t see the landed noble women or the aristocratic women or the women ruling cartels in cities. This was marked by people as your attention to realism; it turned out this was them missing the point entirely.
“Am I wrong to find this line of criticism absurd, given that we are talking about acrackedmoon here. You’re defending her approach by impeaching mine?”
I think it’s a bit silly to state that you’re all bothered by people liking acrackedmoon when you and her aren’t that much different. You both like tweaking sensibilities. You both like trolling in one way or another; you actively sought out people to troll earlier, one of which was acrackedmoon! How is that particularly different than what she does?
“So the books are sexist then, and all other readings are misreadings?”
Sure, if you choose to misinterpret everything everyone else says. And then you’ll say you’re just doing to them what they did to you, then someone else goes ‘nuh-uh’ and someone else says I’m rubber and you’re glue.
Can you understand that the sexist reading of the book is a fair reading of the book? That it is not that hard to understand why people read it as such?
I mean, so much of this would be defused if you simply said something like “While I can absolutely see people having a hard time with my books (because I tried to provoke with them) and I can absolutely see that my books can be read as a misogynist manifesto due to the overt sexism and use of stereotypical sexist characters and situations, that wasn’t at all my intent. I intended these to spur communication about sexism, feminism and modernity. It’s clear that I was not as successful as I would have liked to be. ”
There. Quote that, put it on your front page, and you won’t have to worry about it again. 90% of the issues will be solved.
“So we need a milk maid who falls in love with the secret prince and becomes Queen?”
Sure thing. I’ll start work on the Pretentious Author that Came Before, where every other paragraph begins with ‘ever are men deceived’ or ‘he gripped his curving phallus as her lithe body arched in anticipation she did not control’. Sound fair? Otherwise what you’re suggesting is similar to what M. Night did – where he got butthurt about his critics so he put a critic in his story and had them get eaten by the monster. Not exactly the best form of rebuking critics.
“And Why is it that Serwa becomes less interesting once a male has jacked off to her. Does Angelina Jolie have less agency because men have jacked off to her? This is just disturbing on your part to claim that a male character’s inappropriate invasive and predatory behavior towards a female character is indicative of an authorial attack against women.”
First, don’t think he’s making an authorial attack against women. You must have me confused with someone else.
Second, Serwa being jacked off to is another example of a woman being used by a man. She is being literally objectified, right there. The subtext is clear that this is not a good thing, that we aren’t supposed to sympathize with Sorweel at all here – but the text is still objectification of women. The subtext is that this is all that men can do when they see a woman, regardless of her power or her intelligence. The text is her being used as porn.
And to a certain extent, absolutely Angelina Jolie has less agency once guys see her as an object of wank. She’s marketed that way – as this totally hot woman that no man can resist. Do you think that improves her agency? Do you think that making her a sex symbol gives her more agency?
That whole scene is actually a really good microcosm of what Bakker’s trying to do and what he’s failing to do. On the one hand, I think the intent is to show how women are viewed by society and by men regardless of their success or their own personal traits; they are reduced to an object, to a possession to be coveted. We heard this before with Esme and Serwe and we see it over and over. On the other hand, we have the text where a guy wanks off to a woman having sex – she is actually objectified right there. What Bakker’s trying to do, I think, is to show the instinctual behaviors that men have towards women and how artifice doesn’t disguise it, and illustrate the difficulties that we will have in making true equality when men see women this way. What he actually does for a lot of people is write a squicky scene with a guy jerking off and feeling bad about it as he does so in lots of detail. One way to make it more effective is something that has been brought up multiple times; make it from the point of view of Serwa, not Sorweel. Same action, completely different feeling.
“In that we don’t see the women we’d expect to see if it was realistic.”
Most of the books take place:
1) Following massive armies
OR
2) Following a small band of armed men
OR
3) In a huge palace
None of these contexts involve women in prominent roles, outside of the central female characters, nor would they, in this world.
How many inns have they come across? How many times do you seriously think bookkeepers would seriously feature here? The female characters he uses are contextually appropriate. What you’re suggesting isn’t realism.
“How is that particularly different than what she does?”
She’s not intellectually honest, and, more importantly, is clearly entirely uninterested in what people who disagree with her say. It’s a fine thing to do, but comparing Bakker’s doing here to what she does there is like saying Ann Coulter is the same as David Frum. What they’re trying to do is clearly different.
“Do you think that improves her agency?”
Agency is instrumental. This is a problem with the left. There is nothing about having agency that is intrinsic.
“One way to make it more effective is something that has been brought up multiple times; make it from the point of view of Serwa, not Sorweel. Same action, completely different feeling.”
You write a book then. Obviously Bakker thought that the scene was more effective the way he wrote it. There’s nothing objective about your interpretation of the scene’s effectiveness.
“None of these contexts involve women in prominent roles, outside of the central female characters, nor would they, in this world.
How many inns have they come across? How many times do you seriously think bookkeepers would seriously feature here? The female characters he uses are contextually appropriate. What you’re suggesting isn’t realism.”
We’ve gone over this many times. We spend most of the first book in the capital city of Nansur. Plenty of opportunity for women there. We spend quite a bit of time in sacked cities and dealing with Fanim nobles and princes; plenty of opportunity for women there. We spend more time with Akka out in the boonies; plenty of opportunity for women there. We spend tons of time with Esme in her palace in TJE; are there any women of rank around her?
TJE and WLW are much better in this regard, but they’re still fairly barren. As to inns and bookkeepers and the like – well, TWP has Akka going to a completely intact library. The entire group marches along well-traveled roads for a good chunk of time. GRRM managed to have women around. It’s not that hard.
It depends on the reading and the claims made regarding it. I’m not responding to anything monolithic – don’t forget. The Dude’s ‘reading’ is preposterous – period. Any misogynist reading of my intent is a misreading. Any misogynistic reading that considers itself ‘best’ or the ‘truest’ is also wrong. Your reading is fair, but only so far as the series has been completed.
But there’s two things I just don’t get about you, Kal. First and foremost, this need to extract something from me over and over again. I’ve given the answer above in I don’t know how many ways how many times, but you just never seem to be satisfied. So you paint the goal-posts a different semantic colour – this time in terms of ‘fairness’ – and say, ‘No, no, you have to shoot again.’
The second thing I don’t understand is how someone so obviously intelligent as you can continue equivocate the way you do. The world is sexist, not the book. The characters are archetypes, not stereotypes (which indicate a failure to think). My ‘failure’ is specific to you and whole class of readers, not period. This is the talk I object to. If you don’t believe your reading is canonical, then why would consistently do this?
What I also don’t understand is why, realizing that there is an entirely original and obviously daring (‘reckless’ you would probably want to say) feminist critique embedded in the narrative, you spend so much time trying to convince people otherwise. Your reading detracts from the books, which you say you enjoy otherwise, so why are you so bent on proselytizing, so bent on convincing readers to interpret the books against the grain of my intention, and to so spoil their enjoyment?
In other words, why shouldn’t I just write you off as someone with an axe to grind?
Kal, it seems like a big part of your issue is that you’re embarrassed that you like these books because you feel they reflect badly on you. Given that Scott has said repeatedly that his aim is to unsettle, not to please, it seems as though he’s been pretty successful.
Let’s see if replies work today!
“First and foremost, this need to extract something from me over and over again. ”
I actually don’t want to extract a confession; I’d rather extract change.
“The second thing I don’t understand is how someone so obviously intelligent as you can continue equivocate the way you do. The world is sexist, not the book. The characters are archetypes, not stereotypes (which indicate a failure to think). My ‘failure’ is specific to you and whole class of readers, not period. This is the talk I object to. If you don’t believe your reading is canonical, then why would consistently do this?”
I don’t see a particularly different view here, other than going back into the ‘actually Earwa is realistic’ trope, which I hope you’re not doing. As to your failure, well, there are a lot of ways that I think this has failed, but ultimately I think it comes down to this:
Did you problematize gender to get people talking about the actual gender issues like you wanted to? Are people talking about the gender issues you desired them to, or are they talking about hot-button topics that you thought were ancillary?
Did you explore themes such as modernity vs. ancient times in such a way that people view this as a cross of modernity, or do they ignore that aspect?
Do you come across as a writer writing about misogyny to most people, or do you come across as a writer writing misogyny to most people?
Ultimately that’s up to you to decide.
” you spend so much time trying to convince people otherwise. Your reading detracts from the books, which you say you enjoy otherwise, so why are you so bent on proselytizing, so bent on convincing readers to interpret the books against the grain of my intention, and to so spoil their enjoyment?”
Uh…Okay. If you feel like I’m actually telling people that the books suck and that they shouldn’t read them, so it goes. As you’re happy to state, what makes you think that your reading of what I’ve written is canonical? What makes you think that this is the correct view of my intent?
After a while, Scott, I get tired of reading about all the rape and the tortureporn and the misogyny. After a while I get really tired of the prosletyzing by every character about neuroscience and human’s capacity for deception. It does detract from the book. Now, I also happen to think there’s a lot of enjoyable ideas in there and I like to see how things end. I thought the first 2/3rds of WLW was the best thing you had written. But then you have preaching dragons who are expositing while attempting to kill the heroes, you have interchangeable internal monologues, you have Esme going back to being a whore and…I roll my eyes at it.
Tell me, Scott, have you ever liked something that had flaws? Did it bother you when you saw the flaws and thought to yourself that if only it didn’t have those, it’d be so much better and it would be so easy to remove them? To just cut those things out a little bit and boom, insta-better story? I do that. And that’s what’s frustrating to me about this series – it has a lot of potential with so many great ideas, but the execution and certain writing ticks just get in the way. And that’s my view – it isn’t everyone’s. Happy Ent loves the philosophy on every page, for instance. But it still bugs me.
Your answer lies in your last two sentences. Maybe it is possible for someone to attempt what I’m attempting and to please everybody. But you pulled on your goggles a long, long time ago. I know you like to think you’re a sharp reader, the way I like to think I’m a sharp writer, but the sad fact is that you’re at least as predictable as me, Kal, if not more. Half the shit I write I write knowing that you’ll misread it! And in your peculiar, reductive way, where everything interesting gets lopped off in service of your ancient grudge.
I kinda think that people would like the author to bite that bullet so hard/admit so much that they poorly communicated, that the author provoked them to make a claim of sexism. They were provoked, and thus aren’t just horrible false sexism claim makers.
I doubt anyone is building gallows. And the idea of provocation via misscommunication could be payed to some extent (everyone think of the time they sent an SMS to the wrong phone…it happens!).
I thought I put this comment at the end of the comment list? How’d it end up here?
Did three pound brain break wordpress?
freaky. same thing happened here. RUBY IS NO LONGER ON RAILS.
Am I wrong to think that I’m already conceding more than most other authors would?
Most other authors have a transactional, mercantile approach to their careers, and their fans; thus sites featuring web stores, fan art, etc.and a mode of interaction with readers that is limited and particular. Honestly, I wouldn’t mind more of that from you; there is very little discussion here about your creative achievement, which really is unique and remarkable. Still, I respect the place you’re coming from.
I guess all I would say is – chin up. I hope this shit doesn’t impact your work. My biggest fear is that all this distraction will cause you to lose the “thread”. Standing on a whale… fishing for minnows…
I think these issues are the whales, and the books (and me) are the minnows. That said, I deeply appreciate your dissenting view!
I try to pick my moments when it comes to these particular things.
I understand Kalbear now. He has to explain to his wife and friends why he enjoys these books when there are so many icky non-PC scenes in it and OMG women are used for sex and are conditioned to see themselves as objects, OMG that never happens in real life.
It’s very similar to Pat’s buddys telling him he’s A-OK to bitch about wearing pants in a temple when its hot out, or his campfire complain sessions with other tourists that there are too many sex workers out in the open in Thailand (trust me, you usually have to go to specific places to really get bothered, and if you’re in those places you usually have no right to bitch. It’s not like there are prostitutes propositioning you everywhere you look, even in the tourist ghettos of Bangkok). My point is, those around us help define our worldview. You can’t escape it. Kalbear probably gets a lot of grief by the sensitive contengent for daring to recommend books that aren’t “rightthink” to specific conditions of depiction. Shame, really. Nothing is being endorsed in these books; even the ‘titillating’ description that has gotten some people in a tizzy just (for me) highlights how disgusting and sordid it is–it makes it *more* horrific, because it contains that language. One of the most awful scenes in PoN, for me, is Esme’s first encounter with the old father and the black seed.
A couple months back Kalbear complained at Westeros that all the men in TSA think about sex ‘all the time.’ This made him uncomfortable. I kept my reaction to myself because I only lurk around Westeros, but my reaction to this was, “yeah, and?” Why would I have this reaction? Well, I think about sex a lot of the time myself–a *lot* of the time, and I imagine Bakker does as well, and virtually every male I’ve ever had an indepth discussion with about sex thinks with their penis quite often if even on a subconscious level. That’s the consequence of biology coupled with the covert frenzy induced by advertising programming over decades. It’s just the way it is. Nothing to be ashamed about, as long as you recognize it and don’t use it to dictate your actions or energetic intention.
My point is, Kalbear may speak for his wife and circle of friends, and all the power to him for that, but he sure doesn’t speak for me nor should his opinions on TSA’s sexism be considered the gospel and be-all, end-all as some of the PC sycophants have claimed. Their own background biases are baldly stated.
What’s TSA? Are you talking about The Steel Remains?
“I understand Kalbear now. He has to explain to his wife and friends why he enjoys these books when there are so many icky non-PC scenes in it and OMG women are used for sex and are conditioned to see themselves as objects, OMG that never happens in real life.
”
Similarly, I understand Ian. He’s a douchebag.
No, seriously, you don’t understand me. I was afraid of making that point because of idiotic posts like this, and I was right on, but I’ll fill it out a bit. I feel ashamed about reading bad Star Wars books. I don’t have to explain to my wife why I like a book with rape and non-PC books in it; Lolita is in her view the best book ever written, and you don’t get much more PC than that. She laughed at Seven and Requiem for a Dream. She doesn’t have a problem with the rape and violence and murder; her primary problem with the series is the constant navelgazing, the lack of any good characters (female or otherwise) and the massive amount of bad description. She actually really likes the ‘What comes before’ section and thinks that that would make a really awesome story if it were written by a competent author. The sexism thing is not nearly as big a deal to her as the pretentious twaddle thing is. The comments on blogs haven’t exactly helped this view either.
As to my background – absolutely. We are all products of the Darkness that Comes before. That does not make my opinion or yours invalid. It just makes it an opinion. That being said, it’s very easy to dismiss opinions like that – just ‘oh, it’s your background, whatever’ – without seeing if there’s any relevance there. It’s a lot harder to ask yourself if the person actually has some points.
nice reply, simultaniously condescending and defensive. Nothing new, really.
where DO you dig up these absurd narcissists, bakker? i am so glad that i don’t read sff sites any more. if i want to listen to sociopaths and narcissists wrap their shallow pet philosophies and politics in the veneer of my hobby, i’ll just spend an hour and reddit (or until the burning sensation starts in earnest).
then again, like attracts like. is it really “fostering the dialogue” to track these idiots down during your monthly auto-Google episodes, and are you really learnin’ ’em but anything when you engage with them? no, you simply force them to fortify the wagon circle, and should one of your arrows get in, they simply get more creative in how they fill the margins. that’s not dialogue. it’s siege warfare; it’s just the clash of egos, and in the end, everyone dies. it’s also probably the LEAST interesting thing you could post, especially in light of, well, EVERYTHING else you post.
personally, i think intellectualism should be inclusive — that it should invite people to discussion and charm even the idiots. in my rather storied career, i’ve never won over an educated narcissist with contention, despite my arguments and credentials; but i’ve sure as hell suckered ’em into my way of thinking with consideration, cockteasing and bonhomie. if the goal is TRULY to extend the dialogue and force the proper regard for your arguments, then pride can NEVER be a factor. you, you’re too proud by halves to win against an even prouder ideologue. can your arguments truly exist independent of you?
eh, you’ve got your excuses. in utter selfishness, i wish you’d spend your time writing more of those atrocity tales or applied philosophy bon mots than tilting at broken windmills, even if the latter has your name papered on them from time to time.
I kind of agree with this actually. I am a huge fan of Scott’s work and I have been gifting and recommending these TSA books to everyone I know, but I don’t see how what’s happening here is productive. Sure, the discussion is interesting at times, but it is mostly Scott and the detractors saying the same thing over and over again. Scott has, now and in previous posts, agreed that he wasn’t entirely successful in getting his message across. So maybe people are just complaining about the tone of Scott’s admission, consciously or not? I mean, if you look at what Abercrombie said about his writing and what Scott said, they are essentially the same, except that Abercrombie comes off as more humble, and maybe that gives the impression that he means it more sincerely? Interestingly, even in the ROH blog, I think the tone drowns out the content (although I don’t agree with the content either). Appears so to me anyway. Reminds me of how I liked the stuff that Richard Dawkins said in his books, but when he did his fanatic act in The Virus of Faith, I got a bit annoyed. Tone is everything. More so in online communication.
Anyway Scott, do you really think this will work, trying to convince individual-by-individual about your intentions? IMHO, this blog post or the previous ones would have much better served their purpose if they didn’t bring individuals into it, and just discussed the issue. (Or it would have been better if you hadn’t done this post at all. There is no productive discussion here, it’s just dividing people into two camps and in 200 comments, the battle lines just get drawn clearer.) As you admit Scott, you can’t make everyone like what you are writing but I think you are very effective at a population level. That’s all that matters right? 🙂
But to generate so much thought and discussion about real world problems through a fantasy series, I think that’s no mean feat. These books may not be best-sellers, but they’ll last long. I am looking forward to TUC (and clicking on “I’d like to read this on Kindle” on Amazon many times a month, I don’t even know if it makes a difference!) and I like the blog too although many of the posts are too meta for me and go over my head.
best,
long-time lurker and fanboy
Thanks, anon. You probably are right. In a sense, you could say I am emulating one of the Dude’s tactics: everybody loves a fight. I see this as the draw, and I swear my approach has been seeping out into fantasydom little by little as a result. Even getting Vox to add cognitive psych to his toolbox is a major victory of sorts, simply because it forces to always leave a postern gate open.
I could be wrong. But guesses are all you have.
@ Kal: There has to be something to the fact that you’re critiquing some of the most important moments of the series that revolve around questions of sexuality.
When you rage against Mimara forgiving her rapist it makes about as much sense (in the larger sense of the Second Apocalypse) as raging against Jesus for saying “Father forgive them, they know not what they do.” with that scene I think we’re looking at one of the key moments of the entire series. Don’t try to take away and diminish the immensity of what she does in forgiveness in that sort of situation by demanding a more petty and typical response. I doubt that scene could be written any other way. but we’ll probably know more when TUC is finally published. (along these lines, this forgiveness scene builds upon the spiritual revelation moment in Cil Aujus where Mimara is forgiven (and perhaps experiences the God)).
As for Sorweel, I think you’re spot on with everything you analyzed, but I don’t think it’s badly done or poorly executed. Rather I think it’s so well executed as a commentary on pornographic voyeurism that it causes a Moral Response in readers (particularly male readers) and those readers, having a temporary Moral crisis are forced to respond either by blaming themselves and recognizing their own actions in the disgusting behavior of Sorweel (not bloody likely that someone will blame themselves) or they will blame the author for causing them discomfort. I think Bakker wants to create a moral response, and I think if you use a female perspective (Serwa) for that scene it would not create remotely the same effects of critiquing the male gaze and the objectification of women.
It’s been a while since I read it, but iirc, Laura Mulvey’s seminal essay, “Visual Pleasure in Narrative Cinema” rather effectively argues that simply using a different gaze or a female–as you suggest–will not resolve the problematics that arise from a male gaze. The problem is not just content creation but audiences as well. Quid Pro Quo. Men and women both are conditioned into the dominant devices (male gaze) and simply employing the opposite is remarkably ineffective and does nothing to address the actual problem which is that of how the lifetime priming of the audience is outside the control of the storycrafter. Bakker is clearly violating social and cultural norms when he presents voyeurism in this manner, go see the film Shame, the points when the audience gets uncomfortable are not the sex scenes, the audience is perfectly okay with that, that’s within the bounds of the dominant devices, the points when the audience gets uncomfortable are the scenes of masturbation (in a toilet stall, in the shower, sitting in front of the computer). The film opens with bold full frontal, continous nudity, but it’s the masturbation that seems painfully personal and far out of bounds.
We’re conditioned to view masturbation as hysterically funny (the girl, the buddy, or the parent discovering the boy wanking, for example) or “realist” (which deliberately distances from the act). But when works of art, like WLW or Shame make the audience complicit within the problems of masturbation we don’t know how to deal. We don’t have a frame for this…violation. Bakker literally explodes the cultural norms of what is acceptable with the masturbation scene and he does it artfully, by deliberately setting it up to interrogate and critique the objectification of women.
If it was from Serwa’s perspective it would just fall into the tried and true trap of the cute girl catches the bumbling teen jerking off–Hysterically funny!
On the other hand, it would be interesting to see if Bakker could explode those sorts of narrative traps…
“with that scene I think we’re looking at one of the key moments of the entire series. ”
That may be. Again, this speaks to the whole issue of subtext vs. text and handling issues more delicately. The subtext may be that through the One God you get to actually define morality and clean slates. (or, Mimara could be totally high). But the text is still a rape victim forgiving her rapist, which is a pretty standard romance-novel or porn fantasy trope and hugely problematic for sexual assault victims.
“Rather I think it’s so well executed as a commentary on pornographic voyeurism that it causes a Moral Response in readers (particularly male readers) and those readers, having a temporary Moral crisis are forced to respond either by blaming themselves and recognizing their own actions in the disgusting behavior of Sorweel (not bloody likely that someone will blame themselves) or they will blame the author for causing them discomfort.”
You might be right. I think that you could have had the same discomforting feeling, the same challenges while having Serwa have the PoV. My argument is that the actual act isn’t the issue, it’s the framing of the act as something of a positive thing by virtue of it coming from the wanker and not the so-to-speak victim. By having it with Sorweel, who is sort of a main character and sort of a hero, we’re conditioned to have it be in a sort of positive light. Perhaps that’s the issue; Sorweel’s PoV isn’t emphasized enough for its badness or its hypocrisy, at least to me.
Scott:
“The left didn’t have political momentum ‘stolen’ from them, they gave it away by defining themselves AGAINST the labouring classes.”
Where did I say it was stolen? I totally agree the left has made strategic errors and its defeat is partly self-inflicted. But passionate condemnation of racism is not among the positions to regret.
“Fox is a perfect example: Murdoch’s (evil) genius was realizing just how deep the resentment ran and how to monetize it.” How does the existence of Fox disprove the existence of a systematic effort to manipulate and, as you say, financially gain from resentments, which right-wing propaganda did a lot to stoke up in the first place? If you’re saying there’s no system to this, then we have very different frames indeed.
There’s a big difference between passionate condemnation of sexism/racism and what the Dude is all about. You literally think she’s doing feminism any good? I can tell you for a fact that she’s simply reaffirming a cultural stereotype, that the longer she does this, the more brains are going to sort claims that resemble hers as garbage. She makes Vox look like Socrates.
But the System is precisely my point: What people in academia and literary circles fail to see is their complicity. They think they are helping to change the System when there’s a damn good chance they are facilitating it, plucking critically-minded individuals from the community at large, teaching them how to rationalize under the auspices of a bogus ‘critical thinking,’ and convincing them that the only way to be taken seriously is turn their back on the greater community and communicate with the likeminded. I can’t think of a better way of sequestering a societies critical potential.
Anything that panders to or facilitates ingroup psychology, I would argue, is socially pernicious. Consider the sociological portrait painted in Coming Apart. The divisions keep getting deeper.
First thing. I’ve just realised I missed a comment addressed to me by litg. It wasn’t ignored! It’s just a very busy thread. So in reply: sure, it is worth a go. I don’t think it’s actively bad. I wouldn’t oppose trying it. It’s just a red herring.
To Scott: I wouldn’t consider myself to be speaking on behalf of Requires Only Hate, so I don’t have a view either way about whether she’s advancing feminism or not. But I expect we’ve all had the related experience of hearing someone say something we agree with in a way that is so awful, it makes you wish you were on the other side. I’ve had that reaction hearing certain Hollywood actors make proud little anti-Bush speeches and it was enough to make me consider subscribing to the National Review. I wouldn’t base a political strategy around the problem of the annoying people on our side, though. I admire your likeable, pleasant enough view that we shouldn’t have any enemies and avoid ingroup thinking and so on. But I think enemies do exist. And really, I know it’s a major part of your analysis, but if you think academia is a bigger problem than the conservative movement, you may find allies on the right, but I’m afraid I don’t think that’s realistic.
I think academia is a more tractable problem. Otherwise I don’t think I look at the landscape the way you do. The problem isn’t the ‘Right,’ the problem is the System, which uses ‘right’ and ‘left’ tribal self-identifications to prevent the consensus required to create any meaningful reform. I often don’t see any difference between the ‘left’ and those they wring their hands about. So for instance, I really don’t see much difference between the self-righteousness of the academic left and their favourite whipping boys, Christian Evangelicals. Once you understand just how difficult critical thinking is – once you realize nobody ‘has’ it – then you can see the discourse of the left for what it is: a way to secure assumptive moral and therefore social superiority. At least Christians don’t pretend to be ‘more open’! There’s something to be said for wearing your chauvinism on your sleeve. I also think the hypocrisy of the left is every bit as self-serving as the hypocrisy of the right – just easier to conceal because it tends to be more sophisticated.
For me, the landscape is better characterized as hordes of witless humans continually forced to adapt preindustrial psychologies to post-industrial contexts – and typically doing a horrible job at it at a time when we absolutely have to get our collective shit together.
At least you admit you are flawed, Bakker. I will always respect your humility and introspection.
Thanks, RIP.
“In the meantime, perhaps you could give me an author in a similar position who could serve as a role model?”
Abercrombie seemed to do a good job of reexamining his text without outright capitulating to his critics.
And I haven’t done the same?
Not really. A lot of it is tone. A lot of it is simply how many words you use on one subject compared to another.
For instance, did you ever make a long post about nothing but your capitulations? Without a single ‘ever are men deceived’ type of statement? Without any kind of ‘well, humans are wired to do this’ type of dismissal? I understand that this is true, but it is precisely this sort of thing that makes you sound particularly unapologetic and uncaring.
Abercrombie wrote a very good post which basically said ‘my bad’ without trying to deflect or defend it. He explained his reasoning but also saw exactly where he went wrong and why it was a problem, and even gave examples on how it would have been tremendously easy to fix with a little bit of thought. In that respect, no – you’ve not done that.
So, whats going on, whats with the two bakker’s. I don’t know if this has been covered but I didn’t feel like going through 200+ comments.
Yah, it’s odd. I think the comments system is starting to crumble and maybe changing the icon. Certainly Bakker A doesn’t have a problem with Bakker B! Damn groupthink!
🙂 ok fair enough
“My point is, Kalbear may speak for his wife and circle of friends, and all the power to him for that, but he sure doesn’t speak for me nor should his opinions on TSA’s sexism be considered the gospel and be-all, end-all as some of the PC sycophants have claimed. Their own background biases are baldly stated.”
So when people agree with Scott, they are using incredible insight as independent thinkers. When they disagree, they are ‘PC syncophants’ falling into the Nazi groupthink?
That’s the problem with writing a post accusing someone else for falling into groupthink, especially the reason they are being made an example of is that they like something you don’t. A more balanced ‘Misanthropology 101’ post that could be taken more seriously would examine and critique positions that benefit one as well. It’d be interesting to see Scott examine the whole ‘I vacationed in Thailand and now am an expert in its woes!’ phenomenon.
I’m taken aback by people whining about the horrors of the PC world they must suffer in- part of me can’t help but read it as ‘God I wish these minorities/gays/women would STFU.’
Perhaps it is because there is no real institutionalized depowering of anyone when ‘PC’ readings are pursued. Being subject to dissenting views on an SFF novel, last I checked, will not keep you from getting a job, being seen as a representative of your race (though largely only for your failures), nor will it perpetuate the role of women as objects for the male gaze.
Note that I do recognize a person can suddenly find themselves subject to an actual witch hunt despite their best intentions as we move toward an ideal equilibrium in race/gender/sexuality relations, but I have yet to see anything to make me think isolated incidents signal the dismantling of extant dominance of those, such as myself, benefiting from societal privileged.
I don’t even agree with Kalbear on all his points, but I think saying ‘his wife made him do it’ reduces the debate to slinging ad hominems.
ps. There’s something amusing about thinking the author who first introduced you to conditioning is falling into that very same trap….
“You always taught us to ask questions Professor. What if one of us started asking questions you didn’t like?”
-Grant Morrison, New X-men
How did I mischaracterize acrackedmoon in my post, Sci? How did I mischaracterize the problems pertaining to moral condemnation?
The thing is, you really haven’t dealt with the post outside of saying I accused Larry of being ‘brainwashed.’ I’ve yet to see your criteria for distinguishing between spurious and legitimate accusations of misogyny.
One major criteria: the source. Misogyny is much more likely to be correct if it comes from a woman than a man.
Multiple accounts vs. a single account.
Multiple witnesses vs. a single witness.
Different types of misogyny exhibited by example vs. a single example.
Documented statements of misogynistic value.
Different types of sources (for instance, if a writer wrote one series with a lot of misogyny but had no sign of it in another, that’d be one thing. If every book they wrote had examples of it, that’d be worse).
But hey, you can always ask her on her blog; she’s invited you to post there.
Theo was such a learning experience! I’m pretty sure that the other blog you referenced is in fact a joke blog, but in the same sense that you want to problematize gender perhaps these people wish to problematize the aforementioned desire, in other words I always thought of it as a ‘thinking about thinking about it’ sort of experiment. Does that even make sense? I’m not sure anymore.
“How did I mischaracterize acrackedmoon in my post, Sci? How did I mischaracterize the problems pertaining to moral condemnation?
The thing is, you really haven’t dealt with the post outside of saying I accused Larry of being ‘brainwashed.’ I’ve yet to see your criteria for distinguishing between spurious and legitimate accusations of misogyny.”
I think the replies are are jumping to the wrong places – anyway I was talking about the response, buried somewhere in here, that Kalbear dislikes the books because his wife dislikes the books.
As for this post, let’s see:
First paragraph is that stuff about you being a misandrist. I’m not even sure what this has to do with anything. Apparently its your proof that you aren’t sexist toward women – I think it was Steinem who said a pedestal is as much a prison as any other small, enclosed space. It also doesn’t keep you from having a male gaze.
Second paragraph is your being disturbed because Larry likes something you don’t. (I assume your problem with the Cultural Gutter is the same, when that blog specifically talks about your “mansplaining” in interviews.)
Third and Fourth paragraphs are rehash. I agree, you are not a misogynist. I just think you can sound like one. My defense of you would be that you talk down and hand wave the complaints of both men and women.
From there we go to your asking hard questions about gender in your books, but you don’t provide any examples. If you don’t want to talk about it before the series is done, then why keep bringing it up?
Next is the part where ROH is a joke. Have you looked at the books she likes? How she takes females to task as well? How she praises at least two white male authors – Vandermeer and Cory Doctrow, the latter specifically for his depiction of foreign cultures?
Or because she insulted you and some other SFF authors did you decide the site must be garbage, and if Larry finds value in it he must have fallen into the bad-Nazi groupthink?
Note I don’t agree with everything Moon says on a whole bunch of topics. We probably disagree on the importance of class, though I don’t believe we’ve ever really discussed it. There’s other posts she mentions you where I disagree with her or another poster, for example.
I find it interesting that I brought up the concept of herd mentality months ago, but only now that Larry likes something you don’t do you feel the need to go into the dangers of groupthink. I think I would take all this more seriously if you had accused someone of groupthink in a way that was neutral or even detrimental to you.
Finally, the apparently most important question of separating the serious and spurious accusations of misogyny. I think the question could be better framed in this manner:
“How can author, upon learning that members of the very female demographic he sought to engage with a feminist message find his work to possess elements of misogyny, come to learn where he might have gone wrong and possibly work to improve his writing in the future?”
You do realize how much the series fixates on the gaze (and the male gaze especially)? If the urge for a reread ever strikes you Sci, keep your eye peeled.
Her reading of me was the catalyst, the same with Vox. Actually everything you say about her you could say about Vox as well. For instance, Vox has his exceptions that prove the rule as well.
What I’m arguing against is coalition psychology – an old target of mine, and one that I will be arguing against to my dying day (for reasons I don’t need to repeat). I find her particularly interesting because she is such a glaring example of its ideological neutrality. The kind of irrational moral condemnation she engages in is an instinct we all share, and need to become mindful of, simply because, well, it lies at the basis of every major social conflict.
Otherwise, answer my question (which I’ve been asking over and over and over…), Sci, and I will answer yours (which I already have answered in various places and guises).
Don’t you find it curious that we’ve been debating a post that ends with a question and no one sympathetic to her view has so much as referenced it? Why is that?
Another thought just occurred to me. If you were to argue with her the way you’ve been arguing her, say, impugn her motivations (in my case, two: I’m doing this for money, and I’m doing this for revenge), how do you think she would respond? My guess is that you are – at some level – careful with your disagreements over at ROH. As an experiment, go over there and play the full on devil’s advocate. And play it quid pro quo: insult for insult.
I think this may be my fault in coming across as more of an asshole than I intend, but I don’t think you are doing this for the money, nor do I think you are doing this for revenge.
My point is that you have your own selection bias, and you have a way of alienating people, even people who’d agree with you. You think Moon does the same, and likely there are people who are alienated, but the observation I and others have is the issues she’s talking about would be glossed over if she never had those performance rage rants.
Recent evidence in my own RL experiences and on the Net show me that this is a reality – trying to politely discuss why you have a problem with some depiction or comment gets run over.
I don’t think Moon as a ringleader, I don’t think she thinks of herself as one either. I don’t think Larry liking her site means he has fallen into some mental trap only Three Pound Brain can rescue him from. I think this is the central error you are making. She posts rants for fun is my understanding, and others have spun off discussions from those performance rage pieces.
Yes, hypothetically if I was to insult her over and over again I’d likely be banned. The rules of discourse there are different, but I and others have disagreed with her. ROH is the gadfly, not the meeting ground for discussion which, at the moment, usually seems to be Westeros.
People don’t think Moon is the messiah of the marginalized. IIRC she herself has said her site is not a social justice website. What’s interesting is her efficacy in almost forcing confrontations between those who agree with the content but maybe not the delivery, and those who disagree with her because they think she’s wrong, or because they supposedly are really into social justice but wanted her to be nicer.
To me the interesting thing is the energy she is tapping – so many of her fans, even those who acknowledge not always agreeing with her, seem quite fed up with troublesome depictions and being talked over, being bullied out of discussions or just outright ignored. So really we are looking at two possible groups engaging in groupthink – those who enjoy Requires for the satire and counterpoint to the reality they experience, and those who are seeking to protect varied aspects of their privilege. Which one actually matters IRL?
“Don’t you find it curious that we’ve been debating a post that ends with a question and no one sympathetic to her view has so much as referenced it? Why is that?”
Because people don’t find it an interesting question? Because people don’t trust the intent behind the question itself? I realize this will come off as mean, but people on the receiving end of subtle/soft prejudice feel like the point of such a question puts the onus on the person made uncomfortable to justify themselves instead of being listened to.
As I’ve said numerous times, I have had too much privilege to ever claim to be a major victim of discrimination. But I do get why Moon’s satire appeals to so many people. There are, at minimum, two very different worlds people are experiencing. The comfort of so many people, specifically women, honestly talking to her about mental disabilities and sexual assault on her site speaks to that more clearly than anything.
I mean, given all the societal prejudices in the world, don’t you think it is a bit odd to use Larry liking something you don’t as the springboard for a discussion about the dangers of herd mentality?
Now it’s simply a comedy routine, huh? When she says that I’m a misogynist IRL, I’m supposed to just laugh that off? Holy double-standard Batman. Aren’t you the least bit uncomfortable with the ironies? Criticizing me for calling her Dude when she’s called me… Do I need to regurgitate the whole list? Criticizing me for being troubled by Larry’s complimenting of ROH (pretty mild, wouldn’t you say?) when she’s claiming to be up this or that bodily cavity of mine. Holy moly, you guys. I guess moral agreement really does shut thinking down. Your message is literally: ‘I find it “interesting” that you have a problem with being slandered…’
If you get a chance check out Jonathan Haidt’s new book The Righteous Mind. Obviously you’re not even going to entertain the facts when they come from me.
And in the meantime, maybe take a crack at the bloody question?
but the observation I and others have is the issues she’s talking about would be glossed over if she never had those performance rage rants.
Either A: thats because she’s competing with all the other people who only ever think they are right, never providing a way their claim could be proven to be wrong. Or B: Maybe even if a person provides a way their claim could be wrong, they’d have to performance rage. But atleast they’d have provided a way they could be proven wrong that could be engaged (thus Scott’s final question in this post, I guess, asking for such).
Sci, I think your trying to say, a few times now, performance rage is alright. In terms of reaching out, I’d say so too. But in terms of scientific claim making, no, that’s not alright. Bad science, yo!
If you hold scientific gathering of evidence to be important somehow, why does performance rage get to skip what’s important to you?
feel like the point of such a question puts the onus on the person made uncomfortable to justify themselves instead of being listened to.
The irony of wanting to be listened to is…maybe that the person stops listening to others?
How do you quantify that listening has happened? If the other person listens but then keep doing exactly what they did before, they haven’t listened? They have only listened if they change?
Really that’s just bullying. Keep pushing the other person till they change.
It’s providing no metric upon which the other person might be found to have absolutely no grounds to change. “All I want is to be listened to…and I wont acknowledge I’ve been listened to (nor will I listen to you) until you change”
If someone keeps demanding to be listened to, and will say they weren’t listened to unless the other person changes their behaviour…what am I missing that doesn’t make that bullying? Genuine question, I am listening, maybe there is something I just not getting right now? Maybe if your sufficiently a victim that makes you not a bully if you do that exact same thing?
I mean, given all the societal prejudices in the world, don’t you think it is a bit odd to use Larry liking something you don’t as the springboard for a discussion about the dangers of herd mentality?
Sci, I wonder if you’ve had so much privilege you can’t tell the difference between not liking something and a claim of sexism? For example, you like sports team A and I like sports team B. Those are likes. Saying something is sexist is not expressing a ‘dislike’. Supporting someones claim of sexism is not supporting a ‘dislike’.
Do you really find that the sports team example and claim of sexism example to be equivalent?
I could imagine someone living in such privilege that both seem equivalent, as they both provide about as much threat as each other, and so seem equivalent. I hope the someone I’m imagining doesn’t exist. But there are alot of people with a butt load of money around, I guess.
FYI: I really like the books. I dislike certain parts of them quite a bit. I’ll almost definitely not read a non-Earwa book by Bakker again. But the Earwa books are good, if flawed books. I talk about the flaws a lot because, well, I’m a talkative guy and people tend to discuss things they don’t like more than they discuss things they do like for longer periods of time.
“Now, I’m not a popular guy. Part of it has to do with personality, I’m sure. I’m foul mouthed, and I have the bad habit of carving someone the instant I decide I like them (and only being polite to those I dislike). I’m a horrible know-it-all. I’m chronically disorganized and typically unreliable as a result. I can be lazy and cruel. And I take perverse delight in playing the Devil’s Advocate. Few things give me more pleasure than poking calloused thumbs into pious eyes.”
I read this paragraph out loud to a good friend of mine and they asked “What was that, a paragraph describing yourself”?
Sometimes there is an almost comical correlation to the way you describe yourself, and the way I, and the people around me, describe me.
Brother!
Were you intentionally channeling Nietzche’s style with this piece?
You think this post is Nietzschean, unJon? I should be so lucky.
I generally have a rule of thumb that if the conversation revolves around myself and there is at least the potential for a lot of comments, it might be best to stay quiet for at least a while and consider what is being said. It is a good rule of thumb, but I suppose now is the time to interject a few observations.
I know it is difficult in the mass media/internet age to just ask someone privately what their thoughts and intentions are, but I do have a rather visible email address that I use for times when these sorts of conversations are necessary. It doesn’t hurt to ask me directly if you wanted more clarification than what I said in the linked post: “Requires Only That You Hate (one of my new favorites to read because her takes on social/cultural issues in genre fiction and video gaming often makes me reassess my own views).” Why in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster this is troubling is rather odd, considering the discussions we’ve had over the years regarding the need to re-assess one’s own views to make sure certainty hasn’t entrenched itself to the point of rigid thinking.
I must admit that it has been “interesting” to read some of the comments here and over at Pat’s blog over the past several days. The narratives being told are rather revealing. You and others note the tone in acrackedmoon’s comments without seeming to go much further beyond her use of the rant technique. She has made some interesting arguments regarding race and gender portrayals, especially how they appear to non-Western, female, non-heterosexual groups. It is disconcerting to see your pejorative use of “the Dude” and the dismissal of her points as being merely efforts to troll. Why not pause and consider what is underneath the vitriolic comments? I do not attempt to explain your reticence in this case, but I do believe you are failing to engage fully with what she notes in far more than just her post about your writing.
Look carefully at her post about a Justina Robson novel, <a href="http://requireshate.wordpress.com/2012/02/01/living-next-door-to-the-god-of-love-and-how-my-skin-crawled-off-my-bones-thanks-to-justina-robson/#more-1868?Living Next Door to the God of Love. Note how she explores her issues with the text and how Robson treats not just rape but also female agency within it. She makes more pointed comments that are supported by textual evidence than most online reviewers I’ve read over the past several years. I may not agree with all of her assertions (just as I would be scared if anyone agreed 100% with mine), but I do think she is making points that need to be made.
With all the talk of “hard wiring” and prejudicial systems and the weighting of texts while keeping in mind authorial desire (if not intent), I cannot help but think what’s happened here in this massive tangle of (at the time I began writing this) 220 comments is that the desire to defend one’s self from certain accusations by belittling the person making the comments or questioning why another, much more civil-toned (which is a privilege I happen to have in this particular case; I’ll dog cuss at other times if that’ll get the message across loud and clear to those who ignore politer discourse – which often is the case with women protesting the depictions of female (non)agency in various fictions) comment of vague support has superceded any apparent attempt to self-reflect some more.
Sure, I know you engage in self-reflection and fretting about (mis)interpretations frequently, Scott. I am not a very judgmental person by training and perhaps by temperament. What interests me is not justifying defense mechanisms as much as real consideration of the issues raised. Whether you re-assess and shift even a smidgen is up to you. But instead of making such a post in the future, why not just stop and listen a bit and see if there is anything to be learned? If there is, great, then enact changes. If not, then shrug and move on. After all, if I took some of the heated comments to heart, I’d be busy out there trying to fuck like crazy to release some tension that I didn’t know I had. But such comments, to me at least, reveal more about the persons making them than anything affecting me. But there are those few comments that do lead to further reflection. I suggest you think about this and not reply to me, okay? After all, not all who critique points criticize without some desire to communicate alternative vantage points that may assist the author. Keep that in mind and focus on the tenets of the Serenity Prayer, if that’ll help.
Second guessing motives is all well and fine, Larry. For instance: What should I make of the fact that no one defending the Dude (and again, I find it boggling that she can call me dozens of names, talk about my orifices and what not, and people are actually wagging fingers at me for calling her ‘Dude’ – it’s, well, pretty damn humourous, given that I started calling her that precisely to see how many fingers would be wagged at me! Like I said: it’s a trap street.) has bothered to answer any of the questions posed in the post?
What if it actually is the case that her insults and vitriol only serve to shut down what little critical thinking we have?
For that matter, what are the criteria she uses to distinguish serious from spurious accusations of misogyny?
Otherwise, Larry, tell me what she’s managed to accomplish other than serve as fodder for those inclined to dismiss feminist critique and to sow bad blood between a number of long time e-friends?
That’s all I’m saying, Larry. Stop and listen to the lines be drawn and the attitudes harden. The Dude is trouble, dude. She’s doing far more harm than good.
Let’s see if I’m past my quota.
A few years back I got into a few discussions with a black female friend of mine on the internet on what racism was and why certain things couldn’t be said. And she was polite, and nice, and kind, but firm in telling me that ‘no, racism against white people isn’t the same thing as racism against black people and talking about it when we’re talking about racism against black people is bad’. And I shrugged and got a bit annoyed.
And then this riot grrl came by and told me in no uncertain terms to fuck off. That I was entirely as bad as the racist fuckwads out there who were actively gunning for people and in some ways worse because I wasn’t as overt about it. Talking about privilege and how I exuded it, making it all about me. And I was hurt. I mean, wasn’t I a good feminist and egalitarian? Didn’t I march in equal rights demonstrations? But then I looked into things to see what she was talking about. And…there was a lot of uncomfortable truth there.
The nice, kind, neat way of talking to me didn’t challenge me. It coddled. And sometimes coddling just isn’t going to work.
Who said anything about coddling? ‘Medicalize’ this discourse, turn bigotry into what it is: a form of mental retardation.
Okay, Scott. Would it make you feel better if I told you you were mentally retarded? That you’ve often exhibited massive sexism that has harmed your career and then told people that you couldn’t stop doing it?
To me that sounds a lot like what acrackedmoon did, but maybe coming from someone else that’ll be better.
You know, I typed that on the fly with my daughter whining for immediate attention, and I told her, ‘Now Daddy’s going to get it!’
Either way, I can’t shake the feeling you’re just scrounging for points to score now, Kal.
@Callan S.
Hopefully this post can be found, really seems like replies are jumping to random locations. Perhaps we’ve hit the limit.
[b]”Either A: thats because she’s competing with all the other people who only ever think they are right, never providing a way their claim could be proven to be wrong. Or B: Maybe even if a person provides a way their claim could be wrong, they’d have to performance rage. But atleast they’d have provided a way they could be proven wrong that could be engaged (thus Scott’s final question in this post, I guess, asking for such).”[/b]
I think this is the thorny part. In dealing with race, I’ve noticed that polite requests or explanations are adhered to or accepted for a small time – like an hour or two – but the previously wired discrimination kicks in. Or none of this happens. I was pestered recently by a friend who wanted me to play some guy with a thick Indian accent for an indie movie he’s doing. He just couldn’t get why I thought even putting on the accent was offensive.
The problem, as Gourmet notes above, is how hard it is to explain something that offends you as a woman/queer-person/minority/disabled-person. And if you fumble, someone else grabs the ball and makes off with it.
This frustration, and again I’ve only been in the shallower parts of the cesspool, is what I think Moon is tapping into. What is interesting is how comfortable many women feel on Requires talking about past sexual assault, how women and others openly talk about disabilities they might have. It just makes me wonder if knowing that the privileged will be cut down in short order is what is necessary to create that level of comfort.
*Something* is making ROH a safe space for an entire different group of people.
Now, regarding the claims of sexism/racism/etc on Moon’s site. I think the kind of discrimination she is talking about and the one that’s being argued here aren’t the same things. There’s the active belief that women are inferior, that they are “wet holes” as Jill Scott uses the term, versus the subconscious cues/attitudes that we may not be aware of. I tend to think all men are sexist to some degree, or at least all straight men. It is something we have to actively train ourselves against.
As Larry points out in his comment, I don’t think anyone is seeing Moon’s opinions as holy writ. But there is a greater value to her blog than the initial dismissal it seems to warrant among sections of the SFF community.
Finally, heh, I don’t how privileged I am, my family never had a yacht or anything – just that I think it outweighed most prejudice that was or could be directed against me. My family transitioned from middle class to upper middle class as I grew up.
At the risk of interrupting a lot of serious thought, I just wanted to tell you that I like milk. I really do. Its got calcium.
Calling Godwin’s Law on the post though, RBS. Take it all down and start again.
We dealt with that canard about 150 posts ago. These little laws crack me up. Someone notices a tendency, then legions of people start crying ‘Gotchya!’ for no reason other than someone noticed a tendency. Even in this case, where strictly speaking, Godwin’s law doesn’t apply.
I always come to these things late. Its something to do with the time zone. And agreed on the Godwin.
Godwin was a Nazi, you know.
[…] and tone argument the shit out of everything. Author believes “accusations of misogyny” has damaged his sales. […]
Well, after 232 comments, I suppose it might be time to engage with the question. This doesn’t mean I’m on ROH’s side. I just thought I’d break the silence.
True vs false accusations of misogyny (or racism). Two preliminary points to get the ball rolling. Certainly the speaker’s avowed intention is not much use to us. Even the far right routinely denies racism. Secondly, an important factor in cases of doubt is pattern. One dubious comment may be acquitted (possibly with a warning) but where it connects with other actions or statements that are also questionable, a judgement can start to be formed.
Finally. I think your answer is a good first step: but do you see where the dilemma comes in?
I guess there are tons. One would be the tendency to see later actions as fitting with an established pattern when we wouldn’t see it that way if we weren’t looking for a pattern. I think that complicates it but not completely sinks it, though. There can clearly be repeat-tics that do betray prejudice and it’s useful to take them as a starting point.
I forgot to mention that I was using your answer for a new post.
This has to be some kind of record for TPB
A runnaway, I think! The funny thing is, I’ve been trying to correlate the bump in blog traffic to my amazon rankings with these political posts and I’m more convinced than ever that they just scare prospective readers away. The rankings just tank – every bloody time. Yeesh. You would think I would learn.
Dear Lord, Bakker, what is it that you don’t understand?
You are ACTING like a misogynist, and when you ACT like something, people tend to think you ARE something. So for God’s sake if it bothers you to be called one then stop acting like you are. Calling a woman ‘The Dude’ doesn’t help your cause — and I’ll remind you that I’m the same person who corrected you months ago when you assumed Moon was a male, so don’t try the childish ‘She started it!’ excuse on me (not to mention your buddies who went on to call her transsexual because she didn’t sound feminine enough, etc).
*You* started this whole fiasco by writing rape scenes in an incredibly offensive manner to some people, and then refused to even try and understand their point of view, and THEN brought the issue on to your blog so your equally unpleasant friends could attempt (and fail) to intimidate women with their masculine expertise on all matters on, well, women. Regardless of your intention, you read like a big male bully trying pushing girls around, and now you’re complaining that the kids in the schoolyard don’t want to play with you anymore. Boo hoo.
You think so?
As soon as the Dude starts referring to me like I’m something more than vermin, I’m afraid ‘the Dude’ will have to do. Do I really need to quote some of the things she has said? Why shouldn’t I think you’re applying a convenient double-standard?
If this makes me a misogynist, does that mean that anyone who responds to being called genuinely offensive names by adopting a relatively tame but intentionally ironic moniker for their accuser like I have is a misogynist?
As for me starting it by writing incredibly offensive scenes to some people that I refused to acknowledge as offensive to some people, that’s just not factually true. There’s interviews all across the web – I’ve lost count of the times I’ve said I should be questioned on these issues.
As for the ‘intimidation,’ what would you call what the Dude does? Maybe I’m wrong, but I think we’re the portrait of congeniality in comparison. So? How does your reading me as acting like a ‘big male bully’ (what are your criteria for that reading – is it just a ‘tone’ that you perceive?) compare to me having my orifices stuffed by the Dude?
Is it just me, or is this whole thing playing out EXACTLY the way Haidt describes in that interview?
It’s kind of remarkable, really.
This is a jumble of posts so I am not sure anymore to who I am replying and if it’s still relevant, but here goes.
ROH’s review of Justina Robson’s novel is completely different from her review of tDTCB (which set off this barrage of posts and counterposts), of which she admitted to only having read the first 5 pages.
Which sort of ties into my idea of what the blog represents. Sometimes she will take the time to review a book decently. But, as stated by others, the main idea is to attract attention to certain issues. Making noise so to speak. And I believe she does this to keep the discussion alive. Not to make meaningful contributions to it. We all have certain things we’re good at, or enjoy doing. And ROH is good at giving certain topics exposure and fueling the debate.
Whether that is good or bad in e-space I don’t know, but it is a technique that obviously works.
The whole “Dude”-calling debate is ridiculous. Sure Scott did that, and continuous to do that in a way to provoke, but it pales compared to the manner in which ROH refers to Scott and other authors. Although it would be better not to engage in such petty forms of vindication/insult, I’m opined to believe that in this case it doesn’t detract from the discussion either. But I’m aware that this is my opinion, and my fanboy feeling of ‘Scott’s allowed a little leeway in light of what is spewed his way by ROH’.
I forgot who said it, but it remains true: “Offense is taken, not given.” & more recently “Authors don’t owe readers shit.”
Combine those two and something interesting rolls out. I just don’t understand how the characters and world depicted in an author’s work automatically transfer 100% onto the writer. Then any recurring theme in fantasy is an inherent characteristic, in its worst possible interpretation, of the author in question?
Aerwa is full of women in degrading positions/’jobs’, basically at the whims of the male characters. But why does that make him a mysogynist? He is not writing a manifesto for his ideals. This is fantasy and an author writes what serves him, good or bad.
That he may have the idea/opinion that women-written-as-whores serve his purpose better is his LITERARY choice. Never does he condone or promote abuse/rape/degredation of women. Thát in my opinion would be misreading. Regardless of interpretation.
And yes, I am aware that by that particular “regardless” I pretty much sound like stating opinion as fact. If anyone wants to I am open to hearing arguments how his writing, objectively, shows that he actually condones rape. Because that would be mysogynistic. (sp?)
I am also surprised by everyone’s lack of asking what his wife has to say about all this. He is married after all and has a daughter, certainly his mysogyny can’t be hidden from them.
It all seems clear to me as well, Mostly, but not to others. That’s what makes all this such a fascinating example of just how rubbery perception, let alone justification, human meaning and reason can be.
[…] of bitchy, angry feminists: we hound offensive men to the end of the earth. So much so that their sales figures suffer and their family goes poor. (For your perusal and pleasure, try this bit of flash fiction by […]
Oh not again.
@RSB – i was mentioning this thread to my wife and how you are taking and have taken heat for being perceived as sexist/misogynist and she said, and i quote: “that is bullshit, does anyone ever mention what total assholes the men are in these books (shes referring to PoN)?
I laughed.. Shes on her third reading through PoN and i thought you might find a hint of amusement in a womans take on this subject.
And here I thought that all the rape – all the fucked up, burgeoning, prurient darkness, in fact – was “playing” with the reader’s expectations rather than mapping the author’s biases.
I’m sure a good number of people read the rape scene and can’t help but picture that moonlit breast – or whatever. Its like the scene in Haneke’s Funny Games. You know the youth in the white tennis gear is going to kill the dog. A part of you wants him to. You are privileged. You get to know what is going to happen. This is a satisfying feeling. Then the youth turns to look your way and winks. The little shit winks.
Great. Now your implicated. Your voyeurism and your susceptibility to genre tropes are exposed and you feel weirdly naked. Maybe this makes you stop and think about the way you consume media. Maybe the difference between porn and mainstream cinema feels uncomfortably obscured for a moment. Maybe you feel a bit naked, a bit guilty… Or maybe Michael Haneke is a dog hating monster…