[Abyss]

I still think both authors are totally worth reading, but on the degree of want/need, recently BEST SERVED COLD raised Abercrombie up to 'pre-order the tpb' list (not quite at the SE/ICE/Butcher/Morgan/Stover/GRRM pre-order-the-hb level but close), while 'THE JUDGING EYE' actually dropped Bakker down to 'library asap/wait for the mmpb' for me.

On a certain level i wonder if this isn't apples and oranges (or mercenaries and mage-emperors), but they are both within the genre.

[Tarcanus]

Abyss, on 28 July 2010 - 03:07 PM, said:

On a certain level i wonder if this isn't apples and oranges (or mercenaries and mage-emperors), but they are both within the genre.

I'm beginning to think this is correct. Also a matter of personal taste - which precludes all opinions. It's not like the great novels out there that most people agree are wonderful - the opinions are pretty well split in this case which negates any ability to draw a meaningful decision from our opinions.

[Abyss]

Tarcanus, on 29 July 2010 - 03:19 PM, said:

...the opinions are pretty well split in this case which negates any ability to draw a meaningful decision from our opinions.

Tho since the decision appears to be 'read both' one could argue that a meaningful decision was drawn from our opinions, split tho they may be.

After all we're talking about like/dislike opinions on books, so ANY opinion, however informed or knee-jerk, will be subjective.

- Abyss, notes that his informed AND knee-jerk opinion remains that Goodkind makes his eyes bleed...

[Ammanas]

My two cent analysis is if you find Kellhus interesting, you will love PoN and the philosophy won't seem heavy handed. If Kellhus doesnt appeal to you, the remaining cast probably won't carry you through four books. Personally, I think he is the single most intriguing character ever created in literature.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 26 July 2010 - 08:45 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 21 July 2010 - 10:53 PM, said:

Okay. I should elaborate.

The Prince Of Nothing...Book 1...I was enthralled for almost the entire thing. It really knocked my socks off in the originality dept...it was when I got to book two that I REALLY got put off. It was a much harder slog with that book, and his treatment of female characters (mostly poor treatment) was really upsetting to me. He had no strong female characters. Call Esme strong if you like but she was still a character that was tossed around and bullied. It was..offputting to say the least. I've never given the Warrior Prophet a second chance. 100 pages was all I could stomach.

Note: for the arguement that this is based on basically the Crusades and was a difficult time for women....perhaps I could introduce you to a woman named Eleanor of Aquitane...a woman who helped to shape the destinies of not just one country, but two. A strong, definitive woman from that same era. so don't tell me that an ancient era can't have powerful women who aren't wives of whores.

So my feeling are based on all of book 1 and a bit of book two....so perhaps I am not the best judge.

that said, I find Abercrombie is quite enjoyable all the time.

First of all the time period you use in your comparison is wrong. Secondly Eleanor of Aquitaine was a strong women in her own right? She was the most eligible bride in all of Europe but that is hardly a power in her own right. It helps being born a duchess don't you think. She wielded more power as the wife of the king of France and then the wife of the king of england. Comparing her to a prostitute is absurd. Without giving to much away women in the series do come to wield power but much like Eleanor seldom because of their own merit. Secondly what matters the time period, yes women were treated like shit in our past ages, some still are today in countries like Saudia Arabia. Some authors like Erikson choose to have every second soldier in the Malazan Army a women (something I personally find ridiculous) and others like Bakker go the other route. I personally enjoy Bakkers route as for me it creates a gritty and realistic take on what i imagine life in his world is like. I also think his handling of slaves is excellent. Esmi's powerlessness is a major theme of her character and a very important plot point throughout the books as it shapes her realtionships with the world, achamian and Kellhus.

@PolishGenius

Quote

Both of them are capable of being extraordinarily grim - Abercrombie leavens it with humour but I wouldn't say the overall sentiment of Bakker is any more so than Abercrombie. KJ Parker leaves both of them standing in that respect anyway from what I've read of her/him/it/them...

If your complimenting K J Parker please dont. I regret every book of his/hers I have ever bought.

Clearly you haven't studied Eleanor of Aquitane. first of all. I was NOT comparing her to Esme. I was saying that Bakker's books take place in an era similar to the crusades, and I was saying that Eleanor (I don't give a crap that she was born a duchess), did more with her wealth and power than any other woman of the time. Do you know how many royal born daughters sat on their asses and did next to nothing? Alot. Aquitane didn't, she took the goddamned reins and led the control of two entire countries via two kings. She is well known as one of the most widely recognized and powerful women to have graced the era. that's sort of textbook brother.

But let's not stop with her. How about some more powerful women from fedual era's in our history...

Marco Polo travelled with a women named Aijaruc (daughter of a Tartar chieftain), who was such a fierce warrior that she was said to have not wanted any man she could best in combat, and she bested quite a few.

Boudicca, I don't even think I need to mention her...but you may know that she and her celt warriors held off and trapped the Roman Empire many times....The Roman Empire....that would be one of the greatest empires to grace the face of this planet.

Aethelfaed (Daughter of Alfred The Great) actually LED men into battle many times and had some significant victories.

Scathach, was a Scottish warrior from a tribe of women warriors from near the Isle Of Skye who actually treated men as the subservient because though men were stronger, the female warriors were far quicker and more agile.

Augustina of Aragon was a Spanish soldier who fought for Spain and during a fierce battle went to an unmanned cannon, loaded it and fired, destroying a whole squad of French soldiers, the sight of a lone woman holding them at bay and manning a cannon gave hope for the Spanish to recoup and turn the tide.

...so you see, in many different feudal era's, strong women have fought convention and gotten to the forefront. So don't try to tell me that Bakker HAS to make his world the way he does, populated with whores and subjugated women. He certainly doesn't, and shouldn't. In fact, to me, he comes off as quite the sexist.

Also, the fact that you find every other soldier in the Malazan series a woman to be "ridiculous" is not something I think you should broadcast dude. Firstly, you may not get a date again, and secondly you don't come off all that well saying it. I know of thousands of women in armed forces around the world who would take serious issue with such a comment. So you know...just a heads up.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 30 July 2010 - 03:25 AM

[Grief]

I think you're interpretting that comment quite harshly, actually. Finding it ridiculous doens't necessarily mean he finds the idea of women serving in an army ridiculous, just that he doesn't think it fits in the context of eriksons world.

I don't think he's being sexist, just saying that he finds it more believeable to have a feudal-type world where women are oppressed, than one where they are equal.

The way I read it, he is commenting on the way it seems to be out of context, given the general(yes, there are examples to the contrary) attitudes towards women of the time periods that the books seem related to.

[MTS]

QuickTidal, on 30 July 2010 - 03:20 AM, said:

Do you know how many royal born daughters sat on their asses and did next to nothing? Alot.

Case in Cause's point?

[Roland_85]

Ooooh, goodie, I just LOOOOVE it when a writer HAS to or SHOULDN'T write this or that. Cause every book is a bout social comment of course, and nothing else Ah, the joys of the internetz.

[drinksinbars]

first law - didnt like bakkers books... what? am i not allowed to go back on topic

[Cause]

QuickTidal, on 30 July 2010 - 03:20 AM, said:

Clearly you haven't studied Eleanor of Aquitane. first of all. I was NOT comparing her to Esme. I was saying that Bakker's books take place in an era similar to the crusades, and I was saying that Eleanor (I don't give a crap that she was born a duchess), did more with her wealth and power than any other woman of the time. Do you know how many royal born daughters sat on their asses and did next to nothing? Alot. Aquitane didn't, she took the goddamned reins and led the control of two entire countries via two kings. She is well known as one of the most widely recognized and powerful women to have graced the era. that's sort of textbook brother.

As I have said I think your time period comparison is wrong. They are clearly modeled on a host of civilizations but more than medieval Europe I would say the inspiration was ancient Rome, ancient Greece and Mongols. Yes even back then you could find Eleanors but remember every Strong women you have mentioned is the exception not the rule. Further how can you say you dont care she was a duchess and then speak of her wealth and power? Did she make it some other way I am not aware of. Ikurei's mother was obviously very powerful in her way, she manipulated an empire, but she never ruled it. It would have been impossible in the world Bakker created just as in ours Kings had fits over inability to concieve sons.

Quote

But let's not stop with her. How about some more powerful women from fedual era's in our history...

Marco Polo travelled with a women named Aijaruc (daughter of a Tartar chieftain), who was such a fierce warrior that she was said to have not wanted any man she could best in combat, and she bested quite a few.

All evidence points her being fictional

Quote

Boudicca, I don't even think I need to mention her...but you may know that she and her celt warriors held off and trapped the Roman Empire many times....The Roman Empire....that would be one of the greatest empires to grace the face of this planet.

Her contemporary, the roman historian Dio says that she was "possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women". Her achievements not withstanding that quote tells you about the lot of women in those times.

Quote

Aethelfaed (Daughter of Alfred The Great) actually LED men into battle many times and had some significant victories.

And when she left her title to her daughter and it was in fact acknowledged that her daughter was the rightfull heir she was non the less forced to concede her power to her uncle.

Quote

Scathach, was a Scottish warrior from a tribe of women warriors from near the Isle Of Skye who actually treated men as the subservient because though men were stronger, the female warriors were far quicker and more agile.

Scathach is completely fictional and in fact mythological. The true hero in her story is the hero Cú Chulainn a male whom she taught the use of arms. By the end of the cycle in which he appears he has sex with her, her twin sister and her daughter.

Quote

...so you see, in many different feudal era's, strong women have fought convention and gotten to the forefront. So don't try to tell me that Bakker HAS to make his world the way he does, populated with whores and subjugated women. He certainly doesn't, and shouldn't. In fact, to me, he comes off as quite the sexist.

You say it yourself they fought and overcome convention but the convention was to oppress them. Whats wrong with Bakker creating a world where his characters do the same. The schools of magic refuse to teach women, though Achamian knows at least one female practitioner. The thousand temples seems to be quite oppressive to women baring a few priestess to female gods, even the priestess of Gita are prostitutes. We see only through a small window into Bakkers fictional world and through what we are shown we see a world where women are oppressed and a man might by a fellow mans life for cheaper than a horse.

Quote

Also, the fact that you find every other soldier in the Malazan series a woman to be "ridiculous" is not something I think you should broadcast dude. Firstly, you may not get a date again, and secondly you don't come off all that well saying it. I know of thousands of women in armed forces around the world who would take serious issue with such a comment. So you know...just a heads up.

I know women are in the armed forces too but how many are front line combat troops and this in a world where we do our killing by shooting people. In Eriksons world where fighting is done by ramming shield wall to shield wall we have female heavy infantry. I dont mind powerful female mages, I dont mind that the 2nd greatest assassin in the world is female but I find it beyond peculiar that a significant portion of the malazan armies front line force is female. I have met women who could bench press a truck but like powerful women in the crusades they are a rarity. Also one my most hated tropes of fantasy is the female archer, they portray women as too weak to wear armour and wield swords but then have them pulll back bows when military bows have draw weights over 50 kg. IF you can pull a bow you can hold a sword. Does this view make me sexist? I dont think so, its a reality of the olympic games.

Grief, on 30 July 2010 - 04:16 AM, said:

I think you're interpretting that comment quite harshly, actually. Finding it ridiculous doens't necessarily mean he finds the idea of women serving in an army ridiculous, just that he doesn't think it fits in the context of eriksons world.

I don't think he's being sexist, just saying that he finds it more believeable to have a feudal-type world where women are oppressed, than one where they are equal.

The way I read it, he is commenting on the way it seems to be out of context, given the general(yes, there are examples to the contrary) attitudes towards women of the time periods that the books seem related to.

Thank you. The cynic in me often wonders how much of the is fantasy authors trying to play to a wider audience. Even Robert Jordan who has a world in which women have become in many places the stronger sex and are at least mens equal everywhere else never has women warriors baring the Aiel. When Elayne tries to recruit some female soldiers all of Andor is outraged. A land where they can only have a queen and never a king. I think that also captures my point quite strongly. The bias towards men roles and women roles is as much psychological as it is practical.

[HoosierDaddy]

Well, I think that clears up that.

[Veilside]

Why is someone, with what can be called a "booth babe" avatar, essentially a woman who's paid to stand around an object in very little clothing, going on about women's rights?

[Tapper]

Veilside, on 30 July 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

Why is someone, with what can be called a "booth babe" avatar, essentially a woman who's paid to stand around an object in very little clothing, going on about women's rights?

That's a rather snide remark and I don't see personally what it has to do with the discussion on Bakker or Abercrombie - but then, I guess I might be taking it a bit personally seeing how I have a world renowned photomodel as my own avatar. I guess the short answer might be that maybe a picture does not say everything about the person behind it.


Back on topic. Neither are my favorite writer, neither would quite likely make the top 5, although i would put Abercrombie above Bakker on the basis that I think he delivers what he tries to achieve: a fun read.

To expand: I thought Abercrombie is rather simplistic in his approach. He sets out to do something, and he delivers exactly that: a story that's focused on several people, has an introduction for each of them, and an end for each of them.
Enjoyable, the kind of book you read with some music or with the tv on the background, with the occassional dry chuckle or laugh, but no sidelines that are explored. Don't get me wrong, I liked The First Law, especially Glokta and the merchant princess, and I thought the twist in book 3 was a good one, but as Abyss says, Best served cold is a much better read and in my humble opinion beats The First Law easily on all fronts.
Abercrombie writes books that would do great as movies, and I guess if there was going to be a Die Hard 5, they could do worse than let him write the script.

Bakker... completely different. I think I've already said in several threads that I started to loathe Bakker's main characters from very early on. I read the first two books, didn't like them at all. I'll make an exception for Cnaiur and the Byzantine prince, who in his arrogance is a great read (also due to the fact that he's a minor character).

That being said, the concepts are great - as a parallel magical historical world, it is nearly unrivaled.
On the other hand, any society as relentlessly selfish and exploiting as Bakkers setting would have fallen apart long before the novel... the little kindnesses, law and order and glimmers of hope that are not present in his novels are what keeps a society together.

This post has been edited by Tapper: 30 July 2010 - 09:21 PM

[Veilside]

Well yes, it was rather snide, but then when you objectify women, you really can not complain when fictional novels use historic precedent about the way it portrays women.

Anyway, I agree, enough of that.

Personally, I enjoyed PoN a hell of a lot more than TFL. TFL just seemed a bit bland, it wasn't a bad read by any means, it just wasn't outstanding, whereas I thought the world building in PoN was thoroughly engaging, the characters dislikeable (but in a good way), and it just appealed to me on more levels than TFL.

[QuickTidal]

Veilside, on 30 July 2010 - 09:33 PM, said:

Well yes, it was rather snide, but then when you objectify women, you really can not complain when fictional novels use historic precedent about the way it portrays women.

Anyway, I agree, enough of that.

Personally, I enjoyed PoN a hell of a lot more than TFL. TFL just seemed a bit bland, it wasn't a bad read by any means, it just wasn't outstanding, whereas I thought the world building in PoN was thoroughly engaging, the characters dislikeable (but in a good way), and it just appealed to me on more levels than TFL.

Haha. Dude.

First off, my avatar is an "in context" thing I put up due to someones else having a similarly mesmerizing avatar that was more about the repeated motion that is eye catching.

How goofing on a funny/mesmerizing gif makes me "an objectifier of women" is beyond me.

Do I like women? Yup. Do I like strong women? Yup. My girlfriend is actually a leader in the professional medical field and commands respect from those below her. So yeah, I'm good in that category.

[QuickTidal]

Cause, on 30 July 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 30 July 2010 - 03:20 AM, said:

Clearly you haven't studied Eleanor of Aquitane. first of all. I was NOT comparing her to Esme. I was saying that Bakker's books take place in an era similar to the crusades, and I was saying that Eleanor (I don't give a crap that she was born a duchess), did more with her wealth and power than any other woman of the time. Do you know how many royal born daughters sat on their asses and did next to nothing? Alot. Aquitane didn't, she took the goddamned reins and led the control of two entire countries via two kings. She is well known as one of the most widely recognized and powerful women to have graced the era. that's sort of textbook brother.

As I have said I think your time period comparison is wrong. They are clearly modeled on a host of civilizations but more than medieval Europe I would say the inspiration was ancient Rome, ancient Greece and Mongols. Yes even back then you could find Eleanors but remember every Strong women you have mentioned is the exception not the rule. Further how can you say you dont care she was a duchess and then speak of her wealth and power? Did she make it some other way I am not aware of. Ikurei's mother was obviously very powerful in her way, she manipulated an empire, but she never ruled it. It would have been impossible in the world Bakker created just as in ours Kings had fits over inability to concieve sons.

Quote

But let's not stop with her. How about some more powerful women from fedual era's in our history...

Marco Polo travelled with a women named Aijaruc (daughter of a Tartar chieftain), who was such a fierce warrior that she was said to have not wanted any man she could best in combat, and she bested quite a few.

All evidence points her being fictional

Quote

Boudicca, I don't even think I need to mention her...but you may know that she and her celt warriors held off and trapped the Roman Empire many times....The Roman Empire....that would be one of the greatest empires to grace the face of this planet.

Her contemporary, the roman historian Dio says that she was "possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women". Her achievements not withstanding that quote tells you about the lot of women in those times.

Quote

Aethelfaed (Daughter of Alfred The Great) actually LED men into battle many times and had some significant victories.

And when she left her title to her daughter and it was in fact acknowledged that her daughter was the rightfull heir she was non the less forced to concede her power to her uncle.

Quote

Scathach, was a Scottish warrior from a tribe of women warriors from near the Isle Of Skye who actually treated men as the subservient because though men were stronger, the female warriors were far quicker and more agile.

Scathach is completely fictional and in fact mythological. The true hero in her story is the hero Cú Chulainn a male whom she taught the use of arms. By the end of the cycle in which he appears he has sex with her, her twin sister and her daughter.

Quote

...so you see, in many different feudal era's, strong women have fought convention and gotten to the forefront. So don't try to tell me that Bakker HAS to make his world the way he does, populated with whores and subjugated women. He certainly doesn't, and shouldn't. In fact, to me, he comes off as quite the sexist.

You say it yourself they fought and overcome convention but the convention was to oppress them. Whats wrong with Bakker creating a world where his characters do the same. The schools of magic refuse to teach women, though Achamian knows at least one female practitioner. The thousand temples seems to be quite oppressive to women baring a few priestess to female gods, even the priestess of Gita are prostitutes. We see only through a small window into Bakkers fictional world and through what we are shown we see a world where women are oppressed and a man might by a fellow mans life for cheaper than a horse.

Quote

Also, the fact that you find every other soldier in the Malazan series a woman to be "ridiculous" is not something I think you should broadcast dude. Firstly, you may not get a date again, and secondly you don't come off all that well saying it. I know of thousands of women in armed forces around the world who would take serious issue with such a comment. So you know...just a heads up.

I know women are in the armed forces too but how many are front line combat troops and this in a world where we do our killing by shooting people. In Eriksons world where fighting is done by ramming shield wall to shield wall we have female heavy infantry. I dont mind powerful female mages, I dont mind that the 2nd greatest assassin in the world is female but I find it beyond peculiar that a significant portion of the malazan armies front line force is female. I have met women who could bench press a truck but like powerful women in the crusades they are a rarity. Also one my most hated tropes of fantasy is the female archer, they portray women as too weak to wear armour and wield swords but then have them pulll back bows when military bows have draw weights over 50 kg. IF you can pull a bow you can hold a sword. Does this view make me sexist? I dont think so, its a reality of the olympic games.

Grief, on 30 July 2010 - 04:16 AM, said:

I think you're interpretting that comment quite harshly, actually. Finding it ridiculous doens't necessarily mean he finds the idea of women serving in an army ridiculous, just that he doesn't think it fits in the context of eriksons world.

I don't think he's being sexist, just saying that he finds it more believeable to have a feudal-type world where women are oppressed, than one where they are equal.

The way I read it, he is commenting on the way it seems to be out of context, given the general(yes, there are examples to the contrary) attitudes towards women of the time periods that the books seem related to.

Thank you. The cynic in me often wonders how much of the is fantasy authors trying to play to a wider audience. Even Robert Jordan who has a world in which women have become in many places the stronger sex and are at least mens equal everywhere else never has women warriors baring the Aiel. When Elayne tries to recruit some female soldiers all of Andor is outraged. A land where they can only have a queen and never a king. I think that also captures my point quite strongly. The bias towards men roles and women roles is as much psychological as it is practical.

Whether Aijaruc and Scathatch are fictional is conjecture. Unless you have a time machine? So I'll leave them aside for now.

My point wasn't that there wasn't a strong male domination of society in any of those ages...or that a lot of women didn't get to show their strength, but that there were a few who rose to the top and fought in every era and generation...some of who we may not have heard about. My point, which you missed sir, was that the absolute absence of any sort of strong female character in Bakker's works leaves a significantly bad taste in my mouth. To me it's like the author is saying that it's OKAY for humanity to have a subjugated gender. That because the world he designed is like that, it's okay and no woman would stand up for herself. I am pretty sure that though the masses may bow to this, there have always been women who fought it. Bakker decides no woman would do that. The second book actually is unapologetic about this treatment. Let's put it into context: Jim Butcher has characters in his Alera series that are subjugated, but he makes you know that this is unjust and wrong. Bakker walks in and doesn't give a crap. There is no mention by anyone really who feel that this is wrong. sorry, but Bakker is just an ass who felt that it was okay. To me that's a bad thing. But that's only MHO.

That's not to say that there aren't female authors guilty of the same thing though. Rachel Caine comes to mind, her Weather warden series treats men on the level of only eye and butt candy and that pissed me off just as much when I tried to read those. Or how about Orson Scott Card's card carrying homophobe agenda?

To the person who mentioned about what authors should and shouldn't do ect....You know what? If this factor of the PoN series wasn't this way, I would certainly have finished the series, as I didn't find a lot else to complain about. So lets' say that 40% of people who read the first book, put the series down due to this factor or something similar kept going...the guy would have WAY more readers and he wouldn't have polarized his intended demographic so wholly in his first step out of the gate.



Anyways, back full on topic. I never read the third book, but I doubt I will.

Abercrombie is awesome.

[Roland_85]

Quote

My point, which you missed sir, was that the absolute absence of any sort of strong female character in Bakker's works leaves a significantly bad taste in my mouth.

I'll just leave that here ^ _ ^

Quote

His mother's beauty had been legendary once. While his father yet lived, she'd been the Empire's most celebrated possession. Ikurei Istrya, the Empress of Nansur, whose dowry had been the burning of the Imperial Harem.

...and reiterate that the very thought that every work of fiction should be judged on some pretentious sociological comment base is offensive to me as a human being.

[Demonic Weasel]

QuickTidal, on 30 July 2010 - 10:50 PM, said:

Cause, on 30 July 2010 - 11:29 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 30 July 2010 - 03:20 AM, said:

Clearly you haven't studied Eleanor of Aquitane. first of all. I was NOT comparing her to Esme. I was saying that Bakker's books take place in an era similar to the crusades, and I was saying that Eleanor (I don't give a crap that she was born a duchess), did more with her wealth and power than any other woman of the time. Do you know how many royal born daughters sat on their asses and did next to nothing? Alot. Aquitane didn't, she took the goddamned reins and led the control of two entire countries via two kings. She is well known as one of the most widely recognized and powerful women to have graced the era. that's sort of textbook brother.

As I have said I think your time period comparison is wrong. They are clearly modeled on a host of civilizations but more than medieval Europe I would say the inspiration was ancient Rome, ancient Greece and Mongols. Yes even back then you could find Eleanors but remember every Strong women you have mentioned is the exception not the rule. Further how can you say you dont care she was a duchess and then speak of her wealth and power? Did she make it some other way I am not aware of. Ikurei's mother was obviously very powerful in her way, she manipulated an empire, but she never ruled it. It would have been impossible in the world Bakker created just as in ours Kings had fits over inability to concieve sons.

Quote

But let's not stop with her. How about some more powerful women from fedual era's in our history...

Marco Polo travelled with a women named Aijaruc (daughter of a Tartar chieftain), who was such a fierce warrior that she was said to have not wanted any man she could best in combat, and she bested quite a few.

All evidence points her being fictional

Quote

Boudicca, I don't even think I need to mention her...but you may know that she and her celt warriors held off and trapped the Roman Empire many times....The Roman Empire....that would be one of the greatest empires to grace the face of this planet.

Her contemporary, the roman historian Dio says that she was "possessed of greater intelligence than often belongs to women". Her achievements not withstanding that quote tells you about the lot of women in those times.

Quote

Aethelfaed (Daughter of Alfred The Great) actually LED men into battle many times and had some significant victories.

And when she left her title to her daughter and it was in fact acknowledged that her daughter was the rightfull heir she was non the less forced to concede her power to her uncle.

Quote

Scathach, was a Scottish warrior from a tribe of women warriors from near the Isle Of Skye who actually treated men as the subservient because though men were stronger, the female warriors were far quicker and more agile.

Scathach is completely fictional and in fact mythological. The true hero in her story is the hero Cú Chulainn a male whom she taught the use of arms. By the end of the cycle in which he appears he has sex with her, her twin sister and her daughter.

Quote

...so you see, in many different feudal era's, strong women have fought convention and gotten to the forefront. So don't try to tell me that Bakker HAS to make his world the way he does, populated with whores and subjugated women. He certainly doesn't, and shouldn't. In fact, to me, he comes off as quite the sexist.

You say it yourself they fought and overcome convention but the convention was to oppress them. Whats wrong with Bakker creating a world where his characters do the same. The schools of magic refuse to teach women, though Achamian knows at least one female practitioner. The thousand temples seems to be quite oppressive to women baring a few priestess to female gods, even the priestess of Gita are prostitutes. We see only through a small window into Bakkers fictional world and through what we are shown we see a world where women are oppressed and a man might by a fellow mans life for cheaper than a horse.

Quote

Also, the fact that you find every other soldier in the Malazan series a woman to be "ridiculous" is not something I think you should broadcast dude. Firstly, you may not get a date again, and secondly you don't come off all that well saying it. I know of thousands of women in armed forces around the world who would take serious issue with such a comment. So you know...just a heads up.

I know women are in the armed forces too but how many are front line combat troops and this in a world where we do our killing by shooting people. In Eriksons world where fighting is done by ramming shield wall to shield wall we have female heavy infantry. I dont mind powerful female mages, I dont mind that the 2nd greatest assassin in the world is female but I find it beyond peculiar that a significant portion of the malazan armies front line force is female. I have met women who could bench press a truck but like powerful women in the crusades they are a rarity. Also one my most hated tropes of fantasy is the female archer, they portray women as too weak to wear armour and wield swords but then have them pulll back bows when military bows have draw weights over 50 kg. IF you can pull a bow you can hold a sword. Does this view make me sexist? I dont think so, its a reality of the olympic games.

Grief, on 30 July 2010 - 04:16 AM, said:

I think you're interpretting that comment quite harshly, actually. Finding it ridiculous doens't necessarily mean he finds the idea of women serving in an army ridiculous, just that he doesn't think it fits in the context of eriksons world.

I don't think he's being sexist, just saying that he finds it more believeable to have a feudal-type world where women are oppressed, than one where they are equal.

The way I read it, he is commenting on the way it seems to be out of context, given the general(yes, there are examples to the contrary) attitudes towards women of the time periods that the books seem related to.

Thank you. The cynic in me often wonders how much of the is fantasy authors trying to play to a wider audience. Even Robert Jordan who has a world in which women have become in many places the stronger sex and are at least mens equal everywhere else never has women warriors baring the Aiel. When Elayne tries to recruit some female soldiers all of Andor is outraged. A land where they can only have a queen and never a king. I think that also captures my point quite strongly. The bias towards men roles and women roles is as much psychological as it is practical.

Whether Aijaruc and Scathatch are fictional is conjecture. Unless you have a time machine? So I'll leave them aside for now.

My point wasn't that there wasn't a strong male domination of society in any of those ages...or that a lot of women didn't get to show their strength, but that there were a few who rose to the top and fought in every era and generation...some of who we may not have heard about. My point, which you missed sir, was that the absolute absence of any sort of strong female character in Bakker's works leaves a significantly bad taste in my mouth. To me it's like the author is saying that it's OKAY for humanity to have a subjugated gender. That because the world he designed is like that, it's okay and no woman would stand up for herself. I am pretty sure that though the masses may bow to this, there have always been women who fought it. Bakker decides no woman would do that. The second book actually is unapologetic about this treatment. Let's put it into context: Jim Butcher has characters in his Alera series that are subjugated, but he makes you know that this is unjust and wrong. Bakker walks in and doesn't give a crap. There is no mention by anyone really who feel that this is wrong. sorry, but Bakker is just an ass who felt that it was okay. To me that's a bad thing. But that's only MHO.

That's not to say that there aren't female authors guilty of the same thing though. Rachel Caine comes to mind, her Weather warden series treats men on the level of only eye and butt candy and that pissed me off just as much when I tried to read those. Or how about Orson Scott Card's card carrying homophobe agenda?

To the person who mentioned about what authors should and shouldn't do ect....You know what? If this factor of the PoN series wasn't this way, I would certainly have finished the series, as I didn't find a lot else to complain about. So lets' say that 40% of people who read the first book, put the series down due to this factor or something similar kept going...the guy would have WAY more readers and he wouldn't have polarized his intended demographic so wholly in his first step out of the gate.



Anyways, back full on topic. I never read the third book, but I doubt I will.

Abercrombie is awesome.

I'm a bit hesitant to step into yet another one of these disussions of Bakker's percieved sexism, but I think there's a point worth making here. Bakker does have female characters who make informed choices, and struggle to get what they can. It sounds to me that what you found distasteful was the lack of agency on the part of any of the female characters (though Esmi certainly gets some later on, and I would argue that Istryia has always had some from where we see her) and that by putting his female characters into a situation in which they start off with no agency is somehow tacitly condoning the subjugation of women. In the series in question, I don't see how you could be more wrong. Bakker is doing more than saying that "well, historically, women have been discriminated against." He's coming right out and showing us that for most of human history, it sucked to BE a woman. Not because women deserve to have hard lives, but because the social institutions and assumptions of most of our history have been stifling. I fail to see how showing that clearly could be concieved as mysoginistic in any way, because in no place does Bakker say, "and so it should be" or, "and this is ok." It's exactly the same thing that Abercrombie does by making Jezal a POV in TFL, just the other way around; Abercrombie shows us why it's awful that Jezal has this kind of privilege, and despite the fact that Jezal is sexist, almost nobody claims that that makes Abercrombie sexist. I think that if Bakker focused on giving his female characters agency above anything else, he would be blunting the edge of the commentary on what makes most of our history so appalling. Anyway. Just for an alternate view of the subject.

As to the topic at hand, I liked both series and agree with the sentiment that they're very different. Personally, PoN is probably my favorite fantasy trilogy ever, so I'd reccomend it. But really, both are good.

[Salt-Man Z]

<Karsa>TOO MANY WORDS.</Karsa>