(no subject)

[salinea]

So, I've been wondering for a few weeks now, how much I hate Bakker's answer to this interview (led by Pat of Pat's Fantasy Hotlist, Larry of Blog of the Fallen and Adam of the Wertzone; three SFF review blogs I follow). And each time I go back to it, I see, that, yes, it is that bad, and even worse.

- Are you baffled by the fact that, though you have pleaded your case several times, some readers continue to interpret your writing style as misogynic?

‘Disappointed’ would probably be a better word than ‘baffled.’ It’s human nature to mistake depiction for endorsement, I think. And I actually think the criticisms of more sophisticated readers, that negative depictions reinforce negative stereotypes, have a valid point to make–one that I would take quite seriously were I writing after-school specials. You know, stories about an Elfen child having difficulty growing up in a Dwarven home.

On the one hand I understand that many readers require overt ideological fidelity to enjoy books–why else would there be religious bookstores? People find agreement agreeable–full stop. On the other hand censoriousness is simply a fact of human nature, no matter where a person falls on the political spectrum. Since we all implicitly understand the power of representations, we often fear them as well. And of course, we all naturalize our values. So you have well-meaning fools like those behind the hate-speech legislation here in Canada, who have no real sense of just how prosperity-dependent democracy is, and so design legal tools to illegalize the public expression of bigotry, all under the daft assumption that those tools will always be used the ways they want them to be used.

I mean the question isn't asked in the most intelligent way in the first place, of course, but there's just no excuse for Bakker's patronizing superiority in his answer. It's simply disgusting to see him dismiss any critical reading of his text along sexism as well-meaning idiocy, that even what he calls the "most sophisticated" readers get called daft and dismissed as wanting afterschool special. It's insulting to all his readers.

And, you know, I love those books. I read them twice, now, and I find them fascinating and intriguing, very well plotted and with some deep explorations of power dynamics in relationships, the impact of philosophies on societies, and some great characterisation.

I love those books, but when I read this answer I wonder if I want to buy the next one. Sometimes writers should really learn to STFU if they don't know how to stay classy. :(

See previous entries on the sexism in Prince of Nothing here; and my overall review of the series here.

Comments

[alanashinean.livejournal.com]

I read the PoN series, and I recognise that they are something fairly original, ambitious, and well written but... I did not enjoy them. And the reason I did not enjoy them- well, one of the biggest reasons- was I could not stand the depictions of women in the book. I know all the arguments, and I understand them. But it doesn't make for fun reading for me.

His response is what I hate about a lot of the response that you get when you criticise the PoN series on any note: if you have a problem with it, then it means YOU just didn't GET IT. I get it. I just don't like it.

He comes across as a tool to me.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

It took me a very long time before I enjoyed reading PoN, but I finally did by the third book, and when I re-read the whole series last year, I actively enjoyed all of it.

His response is what I hate about a lot of the response that you get when you criticise the PoN series on any note: if you have a problem with it, then it means YOU just didn't GET IT.
Yes! And it's just silly. I do get that he was trying to do something with specific female archetypes, and I do get that he addresses the institutional opression of women in the societies he chose to depict (themselves highly inspired from the European middle age) - and I think he's marginally successful; Esmenet is a great character, and Serwe shows very efficiently that insitutionnal sexism will make to the psyche of women. And he also fails, because Esmenet is the only sympathetic female character; because Serwe's so dislikeable, and because female characters as a whole are so absent, and because every single societies he depicts have the same level of oppression of women whereas he managed to show a lot of different cultural handling of samesex relationships. And he should aknowledge those criticism in another way that "LOL stupid PC brigades". For someone so smart and educated, he should have learned how to take criticisms somewhere along the way, for fuck's sake.

He comes across as a tool to me.
To say the least.

[hamsterwoman]

I haven't read the books in question (though I've been intrigued by what you've written about them) so I don't have an opinion on any misogyny therein. But: who the hell would think answering the question in such a patronizing and dismissive way would be a good idea?

I'm increasingly coming to the belief that many writers would benefit from an Authors Etiquette class taught by Neil Gaiman...

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I'm increasingly coming to the belief that many writers would benefit from an Authors Etiquette class taught by Neil Gaiman...
That sounds like an excellent idea!

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

Haven't read his books, don't want or plan to...but apparently he doesn't realize that promoting negative stereotypes is basically writing an after-school special in favor of misogyny?

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

He has a more *ahem* constructive defence of the sexist elements of his books in the other post I linked to, where he said what he was trying to do was problematising misogyny. Not that it makes his comment about after-school special any less stupid. Those books have a lot of philosophy in them, so you could easily call them "preachy" in any case.

[werthead.livejournal.com]

That wasn't one of my questions ;-)

I think Bakker gets called out on this a lot and I think he gets tired of answering it (especially when both Pat and Larry have specifically asked him about it before, multiple times each). However, one of his other defences (invoking the 'women had a raw deal in the real historical period the books are based on' line) seems a bit suspect given that women don't come off too well in Neuropath (his modern SF thriller thing) either. The Judging Eye does improve on this, though, and there is actually one female character who isn't a prostitute and hasn't been subjected to vast amounts of abuse (gasp!). She is a total nutcase though, so that might not mean very much. Esme is more bearable this time around though.

I've met Scott and his wife in real life, and he's definitely completely devoted to her (and quite amusingly, as he's about 6'6 and his wife is quite short). However, she's not a big fan of his fantasy books and I wonder if this is the key reason.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

That wasn't one of my questions ;-)
Somehow I'm not surprised :) get a feeling it's not one of Larry's either.

I think Bakker gets called out on this a lot and I think he gets tired of answering it (especially when both Pat and Larry have specifically asked him about it before, multiple times each)
Really? I only know of Pat's other interview, where are the others?

However, one of his other defences (invoking the 'women had a raw deal in the real historical period the books are based on' line) seems a bit suspect given that women don't come off too well in Neuropath
:( I'm sad to learn that. I wasn't sure yet if I wanted to read Neuropath and that makes it way less likely.

The Judging Eye does improve on this, though, and there is actually one female character who isn't a prostitute and hasn't been subjected to vast amounts of abuse (gasp!). She is a total nutcase though, so that might not mean very much.
ROFL. That's... quite the endorsement XD

Esme is more bearable this time around though.
I *liked* Esme, before.

I wasn't really worried for Scott's own relationship with women I admit. I mean, banal sexism shows up so often in literature, I don't exactly expect every men who write books with sexism to be a crass misogynist in behaviour :)

[thebadlady.livejournal.com]

I think Bakker is the most overrated author EVER. He needs a bottle of wine and prozac.

I am astounded he is married, tho I guess I married a nutcase too. :/

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

LOL

He is very well rated in specific corners of the SFF genre, but totally ignored in most others.

tho I guess I married a nutcase too. :/
:(

[twistedsheets10.livejournal.com]

I haven't read Bakker at all, so I can't comment if his work is sesxist or not, but that reply? FAIL, Mr. Bakker. Fail.

...for a moment, when I first read that, I thought, "Oh, since when has been Tairy been this articulate?" And then I realized this was Bakker. *shoots self*

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

but that reply? FAIL, Mr. Bakker. Fail.
Innit?!

LOL at the Tairy comparison. Yeah, it does sound like the same logic :((

[ildrinn.livejournal.com]

It wasn't so much the *characters* of Bakker's women that bothered me, so much as the fact that every single one of them was ENTIRELY defined by their relationships to the men. Unlikeable characters are not necessarily a bad thing, but when even the intelligent Esme is treated (by the author) as just a prize to be fought over and lost/won, regardless of her secret-policing abilities (or whatever), you know something's going wrong. There's more than a hint of the Tairy in Bakker's reply, and that's never a good thing.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

That's an excellent point to make, which I hadn't even thought about.

There's more than a hint of the Tairy in Bakker's reply, and that's never a good thing.
I love the way that Goodkind is treated as the anti-model of fantasy writers XD

[the-corbie.livejournal.com]

I mean the question isn't asked in the most intelligent way in the first place

I'd agree with that - as stated, it simply presumes what alanishinean is talking about. "Mr Bakker, why is it that your critics just don't understand your work?" Tough question. *rolls eyes*

I couldn't make it past the beginning of book 2 of PoN, and the poor female characterisation was only one of many reasons. I could see that the books were clever and in many respects well written, but that isn't enough. More relevantly, I thought they were fairly intelligent books written by an author who thought they were *extremely* intelligent, and that's how Bakker comes across in the answer above - a clever man who nevertheless overestimates his own intelligence.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I had... errr stronger words about the question, then I thought it's not unlikely the interviewer might read this post, so I toned it down -_-

I thought they were fairly intelligent books written by an author who thought they were *extremely* intelligent, and that's how Bakker comes across in the answer above - a clever man who nevertheless overestimates his own intelligence.
That's probably very true, and never a good news about a book. I think really good writing requires a honesty with oneself and a humility that's obviously beyond Bakker at the moment, which I find very sad. (And for all the writers who I think are the same).

[guppyur.livejournal.com]

I have to chime in to support Bakker. When people make this assertion, they imply that because so many of Bakker's female characters are portrayed this way, Bakker himself must hate women! Which I think is an astoundingly broad and overreaching conclusion to draw without any more evidence to build on. And yes, I imagine he gets sick of being tarred with that brush, and I can't fault him for getting fed up and responding that way.

I also think his response is being interpreted as more condescending when it is. Bakker's comment about "after-school specials" is a suggestion that he feels he's writing for an audience sophisticated enough to not need everything to be a morality tale filled with sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.

Maybe it's because I'm male, but I see the vitriol directed at his response as far more problematic than the response itself.

[alanashinean.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what the man thinks or feels, personally. But imagine reading a series of books written by a woman where the only three male characters were a rapist, a dumb jock, and a momma's boy. You might draw the conclusion that the writer had either an agenda, or some serious unresolved issues with the men in her life. YMMV.

[guppyur.livejournal.com]

Fair point, GoN.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

When people make this assertion, they imply that because so many of Bakker's female characters are portrayed this way, Bakker himself must hate women!
Bullshit. I'm entitled to say there are problematic issues of racism or sexism in any kind of literary text without my argument being treated as if I had just called their writer a Misogynistic Racist Pig. People unconsciously put in sexist subtext in a lot of their writing just because our own society is still sexist, and we sink in it. Given the themes that Bakker treats in his books, I'm pretty sure he's aware of that fact. He's got no excuse to overreact this way.

Bakker's comment about "after-school specials" is a suggestion that he feels he's writing for an audience sophisticated enough to not need everything to be a morality tale filled with sunshine, lollipops and rainbows.
False dichotomy and Straw man (two for the price of one!) You can write about settings which are gritty, realistic and violent without being sexist doing so. Nobody, and certainly not myself, who criticise the sexist themes in PoN are asking for a morality tale filled with sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Want some example of what I want? Check out the Book of Ash by Mary Gentle. The first chapter is about the main protagonist getting raped as a 8 year old girl and killing her rapist right after it. It's bloody, set in the Middle ages with some slight alternative history; and the protagonist is a female mercenary. And it's fucking realistic, and certainly not filled with rainbows and lollipops.

Maybe it's because I'm male, but I see the vitriol directed at his response as far more problematic than the response itself.
I think you do the male gender a disservice. Some men are perfectly able to do the effort of imagination to put themselves in the place of women, and the effort of educating themselves with sexism in our society and feminist thought.

[luzisrighthand.livejournal.com]

I can't say I dislike Bakkers books but I doubt I will read the new series.
After the end of the first series I wanted to read the next book when it comes out, but just because I wanted to know what happens to Achamian. I have lost that interest in the meantime.
I'm not overly fond of fantasy stories which are mostly vessels for ideas and do not focus on being a gripping tale.
To each his own.

Talking about how women are portrayed in a certain way because women of some "historical period" the books are based on is plain fail however. He might have a point if he wrote historical fiction(although I believe there were always strong women).
I think I know enough history to say that there is no historical period with crashed spaceships, magic and shapeshifting intelligent beings in it.
I find it kinda telling that Bakker included a magic system and kept it men only.
But if your intent is to avoid strong women(even just to keep it "historically correct") you certainly need to keep magic away from them, because even dense people will notice when sorceress do not kick remotely as much ass as their male counterparts.

The portrayal of women in Neuropath is not much better iirc.

[werthead.livejournal.com]

"I find it kinda telling that Bakker included a magic system and kept it men only."

In fairness, he didn't, and in The Judging Eye we learn that a school of magic for women has indeed been established, and we meet several characters who've come out of that school.

I also may have been too harsh on the new book, as I'd forgotten about the female members of the Cult of Yatwer, who were an interesting (if psychotic) bunch, and whilst Mimara starts off as Esmenet Mk. 2 she does rapidly become far more proactive than that. Esmi's passivity in the first trilogy was quite irritating, but her daughter is altogether more intriguing, although to say any more would be a spoiler.

[luzisrighthand.livejournal.com]

Must have missed that while reading the books.

[luzisrighthand.livejournal.com]

I just took a look at the glossary in The Thousandfold Thought.
"witches-The name given to women who practice sorcery, despite their persecution by both the Thousand Temples and the Schools."
That's even better.

[williamjm.livejournal.com]

I've not yet read Bakker, but one thing that has put me off a bit is having read occasional interview quotes. Even ignoring the dubious content of his quote, he does seem to tend towards unnecessarily verbose answers and if the prose in his books is similar then I'm not sure I'd really enjoy reading them. I've seen quite a few comments over time where people say that they admired his books more than they enjoyed reading them. I usually expect promotional interviews to be fairly conversational in style, and Bakker sounds more like he's writing an academic essay - or maybe he really does talk like that? ;)

I do have the first book somewhere so I probably will try reading it sometime, since quite a few people do like it so I may as well give it a try.

[etrangere.livejournal.com]

I'm probably more tolerant to unnecessary verbosity than most, and I'm also fairly tolerant to big philosophical dumps in the text, so those were not things I minded in PoN although I understand some people would find them an obstacle. I do object to the use of verbosity and specific vocabulary to mark one's superiority and be patronizing; that's just classism of the most worst kind. I don't think it's impossible to convey complex ideas and insert specific vocabulary in a text without making it unreadable by uninitiated but interested people. I find that's often by beef with Larry's writing style, which sometimes feel as if he was trying his hardest to be as cryptic as possible - I assume it's not intentional, but you've gotta wonder if he's even aware of it.

I think those books are very hit or miss for a lot of people. I loved them, but it was very close to miss for me as well XD