Date: 22 January 2008 06:56 pm (UTC)
First of all, I totally agree on the phrasing of the question.

I also agree with Bakker that there's nothing wrong with purportedly exaggerating current society's tendencies in order to pick them apart more easily. I can understand why he picked the three archetypes he did, certainly. But I do think you're right that Esme's the only one who's actually a character. (Which isn't to say all of the male presences are characters, of course - they aren't.)

Mostly, though, what I don't understand is this willful self-separation of 'what I meant' from 'what I wrote' -- for someone who is lauded for using his words so precisely, and for being willing to confront the ugly truth, then why is he so reluctant to admit that some of those "self-validating interpretations" are of the nasty type? Not of him, but of those very characters he said weren't being criticised by his work?

Of course, I also disagree with Pat's assertion that Bakker's highlighting of the patriarchal nature of modern and 'idyllic earlier' society isn't part of what he wants to talk about. If he didn't want to talk about it, he wouldn't admit to making it such a big, deliberate inclusion in his work.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

If you are unable to use this captcha for any reason, please contact us by email at support@dreamwidth.org

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12131415161718
19 202122232425
262728293031 

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
Page generated 8 Jul 2025 07:10 am

Style Credit