[Use Of Weapons]

Quote

I noticed some thinly veiled sexual allusions under the surface. It's not that I'm obsessed by this stuff and I don't want to provoke anyone, but I think you don't have to be a blind follower of Freud to see a trait:

I think you're reading too much into very little.

Fishergirl: she is, actually, a fishergirl.
Prod and pull: not sexual, but an equivalent to 'push and pull', the twin actions of the fates, the two sides of luck's coin
Horses may be a symbol of manliness in modern western culture, but they aren't in fantasy, and weren't in mediaeval times, where they were simply considered a means of transport or beast of burden, valued for the work they could do.
The relationship between Ammanas and Cotillion is one of intimate knowledge and association, but nothing sexual.
I don't see anything 'quasi-orgasmic' in the loss of consciousness as written. But then, I've been strangled unconscious a few times, and I know how it feels.

I think your reaction is more projection than authorial intent, I'm afraid.

[detritus]

jitsukerr, on Jul 13 2009, 01:23 PM, said:

Quote

I noticed some thinly veiled sexual allusions under the surface. It's not that I'm obsessed by this stuff and I don't want to provoke anyone, but I think you don't have to be a blind follower of Freud to see a trait:

I think you're reading too much into very little.

Fishergirl: she is, actually, a fishergirl.
Prod and pull: not sexual, but an equivalent to 'push and pull', the twin actions of the fates, the two sides of luck's coin
Horses may be a symbol of manliness in modern western culture, but they aren't in fantasy, and weren't in mediaeval times, where they were simply considered a means of transport or beast of burden, valued for the work they could do.
The relationship between Ammanas and Cotillion is one of intimate knowledge and association, but nothing sexual.
I don't see anything 'quasi-orgasmic' in the loss of consciousness as written. But then, I've been strangled unconscious a few times, and I know how it feels.

I think your reaction is more projection than authorial intent, I'm afraid.

agreed

[mouser06]

Hello guys! Long time lurker, registered before, forgot the password and registered again.

Anyway just want to comment on Deren's post. I don't know really what to say. First of all, I'm a bit shocked, because I've read the Gardens of the Moon a few times and I've never noticed the parts you alluded in your post. At the time I read them I just took them at their face value.

Deren, on Jul 12 2009, 05:41 AM, said:

-"Fishergirl" to start with. A fish was already in medieval times a sexual symbol

Fishergirl really means just that, a girl who fish for a living. But then again, maybe SE deliberately used that, he's an anthropologist after all, he knows weird stuff like that.

Quote

-The witch was talking of the way of the empress and the gods, which is: „prod and pull"

I think Erikson deliberately used the term prod and pull as a tool to characterized the old woman.

Quote

-There is a contrast developed between the unpleasant old witch and the pretty girl: when the old witch treats the girl roughly to speak of her prophecy, one soldier hits her with his gauntleted hand, with the sexist comment "Leave the pretty one alone, hag"

I think that just fits the world SE wants us to see. Girtty. Brutal. Sexist.

Quote

-The fishergirl stares dreamy-eyed at the soldiers on horseback (and horses: symbol of manliness)

There's too many men on horseback in fantasy, there's nothing special about it.

Quote

-When Ammanas and Cotillion appear, the reader can witness some of that „prod and pull", by way of the playful, almost flirtatious cat-and-mouse behaviour between the two and the life of the girl

Actually, I don't see any prod and pull going on at that scene at all. Prod and pull requires more subtelity. That was out right intervention. The girl has no choice at all.

Quote

-Out of fear the girl loses her composure and one passage goes:

"She felt herself go wet between her legs and quickly sat down on the ground. 'I've done nothing!' Shame rose through her and she put her hands in her lap."

I know what is meant, but it reads nevertheless very similar to something else.

SE doesn't mince with words. He describes it as is. . . sometimes. Or it's just a good example of his fairly bad writing early on his career.

Quote

-The whole scene ends with this quasi-orgasmic loss of consciousness:

"Her last fleeting sensation was of the soft wax of the candle in her right hand, and how it seemed to well up between the fingers of her clenched fist."

I never taught of it the way you just implied! When I read that line, my taught was, that candle imprisons a spirit, it melted, does that mean that it was release and maybe did something to the girl . . .

Quote

But my question is: do you think Steven Erikson was aware of this, that he was applying a certain literary mode, as part of writing mythology?

Yes.

Quote

Are these deliberate allusions by way of a coming of age story?

No.

Quote

Maybe it's just the result of writing too fast and leaving many mixed impressions which develop their own meanings when linked to each other.

The first part of Gardens of the Moon was written ten years before he wrote the second half and it was his first fantasy novel. I think that just goes to show that his writing style wasn't as polish then as it is now. But yeah, reading up to TTH, I think every word written there was meant to be that way together will all those connotations.

This post has been edited by mouser06: 14 July 2009 - 05:22 PM

[Deren]

Well, I think this was kind of on the wrong side. However, there is one more aspect that would give this interpretation a near-perfect rounding. Because one of the gods is taking possession of her. I forgot that.

And I want to add that the whole point of this is that it's mostly not obvious and about possible meanings round the other corner, as hinted by some philological, structural or symbolic aspect. I'm afraid I took it too serious, because it's just an interesting theory, although the "sexuality" of it all is certainly one-sided, outdated and perhaps easy to fall into. It may be that a poet or an author uses this or related theories deliberately, but I strongly doubt this is of relevance here.

Perhaps it has to do with Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast that I read recently, something where weird and strange meanings are everywhere, because anything that happens never means just one thing (although not really sexuality). It's loaded with meaning, so to speak, and at the same time the plot seems overly simplistic, in its own strange way.

[HoosierDaddy]

What are the differences between sexual allusions and power allegories? That entire scene is merely the discussion of two beings of terrible power, discussing and implementing a scheme, after a horrific scene of slaughter. Could there be some male/female dynamics there because of the roles? Possibly. Odds are, however, SE meant it exactly as it was read.

Innocent young girl is corrupted by a man of dubious ethics and yet unquestioned power.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Like your analysis, Deren. I think you should apply the same eye to some of the other famous scenes in the book. The Sorcery Enfilade?

[Deren]

Dolorous Menhir, on Jul 15 2009, 08:17 PM, said:

Like your analysis, Deren. I think you should apply the same eye to some of the other famous scenes in the book. The Sorcery Enfilade?

I think my point has been proven wrong, but I'm actually not sure which scene in the book you mean. Do you mean the siege and fall of Pale? Anyway, my approach has to do with the general field of semiotics. If you find it interesting, I think you could read into it yourself.

This post has been edited by Deren: 17 July 2009 - 05:31 AM