Philosophy in Science Fiction and Fantasy Novels

[Asraloth]

Is the critic advocating a subtle form of censorship? Is the writer arguing that he or she has no social responsibility?

bloody hell, don't get me started on censorship. that's another thorny issue.

 

[Leiali]

I accept and understand your reasoning there. I did not misinterpret your showing subjugation as supporting it! As I have previously stated, your treatment of female characters (especially Esmenet whom I really warmed to) shows a development and understanding that sits well with me. I just get a bit disappointed, and sometimes wish for an average woman in premodern fantasy to become extraordinary.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Sadly, I don't think most people are really ready to accept dramatic changes in their stereotypical expectations. Though so may say they are, when an author truly breaks the rules, they are often criticized and relegated to an even smaller corner of genre fiction. Look at Ricardo Pinto! He's a brilliant writer who just happens to have a leading character who prefers men to women. Many men find it difficult to read and they cannot relate to the main character's affinities. And, many women find it uninteresting. Though sexuality is not the theme of his beautiful books by any means, it becomes the dominant topic of conversation whenever anyone brings his Epic up.

Many of the women in my books are average women who become extraordinary, simply because the circumstances of their lives change, their purposes in life change, and they adapt. Some of the women are weak and succumb to primitive impulses, some are warriors, some are queens and some are quite plain and shy. All, I hope, represent different choices and different paths. My men are no different. Most are sensitive, though not all. Some are sexually ambiguous while some are quite ordinary.

I have thought seriously about dramatically crossing the accepted sexual lines that define most characters in fantasy, but I worry that this might overshadow the other themes that are so important to me as well. I see what happened to Ricardo Pinto and his fan base. Many people are afraid of his books because they are so unconventional and so subtle in their unconventionality. When you challenge the stereotypes you make a statement that often becomes more important than whatever else you might be attempting to do or say. You run the risk that your books become about that and nothing else, because as I said in the beginning, I don't think most people can see beyond those unexpected characterizations.

 

[Dawnstorm]

When you challenge the stereotypes you make a statement that often becomes more important than whatever else you might be attempting to do or say. You run the risk that your books become about that and nothing else, because as I said in the beginning, I don't think most people can see beyond those unexpected characterizations.

Doris Lessing's The Golden Notebook was first published in 1962. My edition contains a Preface written by Lessing in 1971; 9 years after the novel was first published. She talks about her disappointment about the novels reception as a "trumpet for Women's Liberation". She muses:

Some books are not read in the right way because they have skipped a stage of opinion, assume a crystallization of information in society which has not yet taken place. This book was written as if the attitudes that have been created by the Women's Liberation movements already existed. It came out first ten years ago, in 1962. If it were coming out now for the first time it might be read, and not merely reacted to: things have changed very fast.

...Emerging from this cystallization process, handing the manuscript to publishers and friends, I learned that I had written a tract about the sex war, and fast discovered that nothing I said then could change that diagnosis.

Yet the essence of the book, the organization of it, everything in it, says implicitly and explicitly, that we must not divide things off, must not compartmentalize.

'Bound. Free. Good. Bad. Yes. No. Capitalism. Socialism. Sex. Love . . . ' says Anna, in Free Women, starting a theme - shouting it, announcing a motif with drums and fanfares . . . or so I imagined. Just as I believed that in a book called The Golden Notebook the inner section called the Golden Notebook might be presumed to be a central point, to carry the weight of the thing, to make a statement.

But No.

Then:

Recovering balance, I understood the problem. It is that writers are looking in the critics for an alter ego, that other self more intelligent than oneself who has seen what one is reaching for, and who judges you only by whether you have matched up to your aim or not. [...] But what he, the writer, is asking is impossible. Why should he expect this extraordinary being, the perfect critic (who does occasionally exist), why should there be anyone else who comprehends what he is trying to do? After all, there is only one person spinning that particular cocoon, only one person whose business it is to spin it.

She goes on to identify social causes for this (which doesn't sound that relevant here), and then concludes:

Finally . . . this novel contues to be, for its author, a most instructive experience. For instance. Ten years after I wrote it, I can get, in one week, three letters about it [...] But one letter is entirely about the sex war [...]
The second is about politics [...]
These two letters used, when the book was as it were young, to be the most common.
The third letter, once rare but now catching up on the others, is written by a man or a woman who can see nothing in it but the theme of mental illness.
But it is the same book.
[...]
And from this kind of thought has emerged a new conclusion: which is that it is not only childish of a writer to want readers to see what he sees, to understand the shape and aim of a novel as he sees it - his wanting this means that he has not understood the most fundamental point. Which is that the book is alive and potent and fructifying and able to promote thought and discussion only when its plan and shape and intention are not understood, because that moment of seeing the shape and plan and intention is also the moment when there isn't anything more to be got out of it.

I quite like that view of a book. Something alive that might even alienate the author. Like kids, really. Book's got a life of its own.

If I'd go for publishing my stories, that's what I'd want to produce. Something that shows up things I wouldn't have guessed it could show up. Something alive.

If I thought something was good for a book, I'd put it in, aware that my intention in including it may not push through.

Also, I shudder what could have become of The Golden Notebook, if Doris Lessing had avoided the Women's Lib content, for a more focussed perception. I wager, it'd feel less alive.

***

Sorry for the lengthy post, and for going a bit off topic (is it related enough to remain?)...

 

[Leiali]

Hello there Dawnstorm,

It seems a bit off topic but I can't resist commenting! it seems that you are intrigued by what I consider (well, what I was taught at university anyhow) modernist thought. The modernists writing in the early to mid twentieth century very much believed in 'Art for Arts sake', that whatever they produced was separate from them, had a life of it's own, and therefore their own personal lives were irrelevant. I have never got on particularly well with that idea myself as I felt whilst reading 'The Waste Land' by T S Eliot, that to understand the poem, one had to understand the man, that his life at the time of writing it was as fragmented as the poem itself..I think it is possible to argue that both view points are relevant however because what Lessing states seems equally valid now.

 

[Dawnstorm]

It seems a bit off topic but I can't resist commenting! it seems that you are intrigued by what I consider (well, what I was taught at university anyhow) modernist thought. The modernists writing in the early to mid twentieth century very much believed in 'Art for Arts sake', that whatever they produced was separate from them, had a life of it's own, and therefore their own personal lives were irrelevant.

Hi, Leiali. Glad I haven't "contaminated" your thread.

You're right about that. I've always been intrigued by those ideas. Also, by ideas like "organic form" and such...

I have never got on particularly well with that idea myself as I felt whilst reading 'The Waste Land' by T S Eliot, that to understand the poem, one had to understand the man, that his life at the time of writing it was as fragmented as the poem itself...

I wouldn't argue that this is not a valid approach to understanding the poem in question. As a reader, it's not one I'm interested in. This could mean that (a) I'm not a good reader of the poem or that (b) I'd put the experience over the understanding for that one. (Don't know which as I've only ever read quoted excerpts of the poem.)

But, I was talking from an author's perspective; if I wanted to publish the stuff I write, I wouldn't want people to be interested in me, I'd want them to be interested in the work.

That poses interesting questions in this thread; especially concerning socially relevant philosophy like the portrayal of women in a work of fantasy. Should an author conform to what s/he perceives to be the target readers' moral code, possibly compromising the integrity of the artistic content? Or should you doggedly stick to your vision and claim "artistic licence", risking a morally dubious public image.

Your attitude to this question (from an author's point of view) may vary according to what kind of author you are. Posing as an author, I would say that social responsibility is not part of the writing process. It's in the publishing and PR; it's in the stance I take towards my writing; it's in the way I treat criticism; it's in the forword of second editions. But I need to have the licence to write as I see fit, or I couldn't write at all. (That doesn't mean that everything I write should be published, and that - in turn - may have an impact on the writing - with respect to expected income...)

But: if you - the author - want to be understood, your attitude may differ. If you want to make a point, you would be more prone to consider your social responsibility while writing.

As a reader, the question is less ambiguous, as you're only faced with the product, and the people responsible for the thing are (a) the author and (b) the publishing house.

From a reader's perspective, I'd say this:

I want a writer to write what he wants to wants to write. I want a work "uncontaminated" by perceived reader demands. I want them to break rules, if they think it's good for the story (but not for the sake of breaking rules). I want them to be as close to their "vision" as possible. If this produces a work, the morals of which don't sit well with me, I'd still want them to write the book that way. I'd want to read it and - possibly - have a conversation with the author about what bothered me.

The question I have, then, would be: would you have liked Scott (is it okay for me to use first names?) to portray women differently in the way you specifyed, or do you - actually - want the book to be what it is so that you can bring up the subject? Or is this a phony difference created by me talking?

I think it is possible to argue that both view points are relevant however because what Lessing states seems equally valid now.

Re-viewing my thread, I'm not sure I've been fair to Lessing (selective quoting and all). After all, it's more like a "case study" in an author-work relationship. And the conclusion she arrived at comes from having to deal with aberrant reactions to her work (something that probably wouldn't have bothered me in the same way in the first place - but then who knows).

 

[Scott Bakker]

I not a fan of New Criticism myself, which actually tries to make the 'autonomy of the work' into a prescriptive maxim rather than descriptive statement.

For what its worth, I think textual works are analogous to sculptures, insofar as what they DO to readers depends upon the 'position' the reader occupies relative to that work. The difference is that the 'positions' taken are not spatial, but refer instead to the social, educational, historical, and dispositional backgrounds of those reading. This is just to say we all possess a certain perspective informed by a number of different contexts. Though I occupy only one position relative to my own work, the same as my readers, it is privileged by a compositional comprehensiveness that no other perspective can share, save by reference to me. Since we generally assume that more comprehensive perspectives trump less comprehensive ones, knowing an author and his/her historical conditions is a typically taken as a good. We accept that an architect 'sees more' when they look at a building, or that a musician 'hears more' when they listen to a tune, and that this 'more' - though it by no means trumps our tastes in buildings and tunes - is a plus. New Criticism is in the embarrassing position of trying to argue that a more narrow perspective is better.

No perspective is 'essential,' but then neither are all perspectives equal. This is what allows me to make my argument against misogynistic readings of my work: they literally turn on a limited perspective.

 

[Dawnstorm]

The author-work relationship is quite complex, and every author has to deal with "divergent" interpretations. This is, what I find interesting; and in that respect I find it useful to look at a work of fiction as something independant from its author, once it's "finished".

I'm not trying to take a New Critic's stance; I'd plead autonomy for methodological reasons:

See, this post I'm typing, it's a text, too. There are things going on within me, as I type this. I have something to say, and I want to be understood.

Writing fiction, to me, is different. While I won't pretend that there aren't any readings of my fiction that I don't like (and much less want to be held responsible for), being understood is not nearly as important there, as it is with arguing points. Actually, I'd prefer a reader not to guess at my intention and instead try to maximize his/her enjoyment of the text. The result can be as amusing as it can be distressing, but it'll certainly be interesting.

You see, what you call "compositional comprehensiveness" can be a boon, but it also takes something away from me. I'm unable to read my own works like I read other peoples works. Getting hold of "divergent readings" doesn't exactly give this back, but it's as close as it gets. It returns novelty to something that feels familiar.

Viewed like that, it's not as simple as seeing "more". Just like a reader would need access to me (intentions, biography, whatever), I need access to a reader's perspective to explore the text's full potential. There are things I can't (or could but most likely won't) see, because the fact that I've produced the work blocks my view. The author in me blocks the reader in me.

This view of a text scares me when I'm talking, arguing a point, and the like. I simply don't want to be misunderstood. But this view of a text is what keeps me writing fiction.

 

[Scott Bakker]

But then that's why writing is the art of the gamble, isn't it?

What you say is the reason I scowl at expressivist accounts of writing even more than autonomist accounts. Take Anne Rice for example, claiming that she 'earned the right' to not have to accept editorial feedback, and to write something 'more pure and true' as a result. 'Expression' is a hopeless metaphor to explain writing. It seems clear to me that it's about doing something to readers, and as you say, short of continually checking in with your readers, there's no way of knowing whether you're doing it right.

But still, this isn't to say that all reader's reactions are equal. Some see more, some see less. Misinterpretation has to be possible. It's a necessary condition of linguisitic communication.

 

[Dawnstorm]

But still, this isn't to say that all reader's reactions are equal. Some see more, some see less. Misinterpretation has to be possible. It's a necessary condition of linguisitic communication.

I'd be a fool to claim this. It would mean neglecting my own history of misunderstandings.

Actually, I need misinterpretations to be possible, or I wouldn't be able to argue that they're more scary in a discussion than in fiction.

 

[Leiali]

I am on Chapter Five of The Warrior Prophet and do you know what Scott? Esmenet dared to say that she belonged to Drusas Achamien. Tell me, do you think that is a feminist way of thinking? that she belongs to him rather than with him rather than they belonged to each other or with each other....I am a bit cross as I am really enjoying the book, but I keep wanting to throttle her and Drusas, though he I can accept as being a product of his surroundings, her intelligence and marginalisation mean that I can't see how she can't take a more extraordinary view and at least partly identify her person with her intelligence, and not her body or who she loves. I know her identity is tied up in being a prostitute, but I think the development of self in a woman who is no longer young and therefore has some experience of the world has been severely stinted here. The fact that she is interested in the world, has a keen interest in what exists oustide of herself surely indicates that she will not be likely to objectify herself or have the narrow view of the owned and subjugated. I hope I am making sense here, because I really enjoy the exploration of all the characters, but this particular issue is bothering me.....

Taking a deep breath

Other than that though, and that has obviously got more of a reaction out of me than many other books, I am loving it!

 

[Scott Bakker]

Keep reading, Leiali... And keep in mind that women in traditional, patriachal cultures do in fact think of themselves in patriarchal terms - even as chattel. The vast majority refused to see themselves as oppressed at all. The norms involved are naturalized, and seem every bit as 'obvious' as the norms that are making you grit your teeth now.

Just think of Cosmopolitan!

 

[Leiali]

I come from an extremely patriarchal background, not western liberal at all. My mother firmly sits in the camp that you talk of. She finds it astonishing that I or my sisters could possibly be so particular on certain points - she went from father to husband like chattel in early seventies Africa, so please be aware that I have virtually first hand experience of that way of thinking.
My point was that Esmenet in trying to widen her world view has completely omitted the possibility of her own emancipation - a strange omission when considering the development of the other characters.

And I'll give you two guesses as to whether I read Cosmopolitan or not!

 

[Scott Bakker]

My point was that Esmenet in trying to widen her world view has completely omitted the possibility of her own emancipation - a strange omission when considering the development of the other characters.

I'm still not sure I see your point, then - especially the comparison to the other characters. She would have to realize women were oppressed to think of gender emancipation, and she would have to believe the existing order was superceded by a higher, more egalitarian order, in order to even conceive that oppression. There's precious few opportunities for that in traditional societies, isn't there?

And there's all kinds of other motives at work as well. Such as the desire for normalcy.

As for Cosmo, er... No?

 

[Leiali]

But someone who sees that their identity is tied up with their sexuality, and yet manages to function outside of that by looking at the world view rather than their own individual space surely would initially need to examine their place in the world first? And then I think some part of her would perhaps question the role of women. I'm not saying she would be completely feminist and go off on her own mission, but surely it would have crossed her mind a teeny weeny bit? I'm sorry I am not as articulate as you Scott!

I also find it really interesting what you say about the existing order being superceded by a higher, more egalitarian order. It was the case in Eritrea (which I have been reading a lot about lately) that feminism came about due to war and marxist education. Too late for my mum, who brought her views intact to the UK. Anyhow, war often precipitates change, and someone smack bang in the middle of it I would have thought would have some pretty radical ideas - like the end of the world for example?

And Cosmo....No. What a ridiculous magazine! One page telling you you are your own master, the next telling you how people will love you more if you change this this and this. Give me straightforward celebrity gossip not pretending to be anything else any day!

 

[Scott Bakker]

It actually has crossed her mind in a fashion, in her reminiscences of Pirasha, who was her 'mentor' in her more youthful days as a harlot, and also a terrifying reminder of what lay in store for her. But not in a thematic way, which is quite important.

I do think you're judging her (or me ) prematurely. From the standpoint of the destination, the journey always seems easier. But since I'm not a woman, I realize this is more a work of imagination for me than you, so all I can really do is try to explain the way I see her character.

First, she suffers from depression. One of the principles I took for all my characters can be summarized as 'That which does not kill makes one stranger.' The typical human response to sustained stress is far, far more likely to be pathological than redemptive. I wanted to bring psychological realism to my characters - as far as I'm concerned it makes them much more interesting. (I probably receive more complaints on this point "too much whining," "no likable characters," and so on, than any other, but this simply tells me that my books are reaching readers who haven't learned to appreciate characterization like this - which for me is good thing). This is just to say she suffers more than her fair share of self-hatred.

Second, there's what I call 'ignorance squared.' Since people don't know what they don't know, it doesn't even exist for them. Just try to think what the next great insight will be, and you realize quickly that it's impossible, even though 50 years from now, it could very well seem as obvious as 'human rights.'

Third, there's what I think of as the 'Labyrinth.' All the characters, especially those close to Kellhus, find themselves in a spiritual labyrinth they must find their way through. Esmenet's labyrinth becomes very tricky indeed, and it's just starting in chapter five of TWP. I don't know if she's going to go where you want her to or not, but either way, her journey is just beginning.

Self-hatred. Self-denial. Self-identification through male desire. You name it. She has a lot of monkeys to throw off her back. I'm not sure it's as straightforward as you're suggesting. As it stands, her world is squared by her ignorance - but that's changing, gradually.


Back in my teaching days I used to spend a week, sometimes more, on Cosmo and Maxim, comparing and contrasting them, and interpreting them in cultural critical terms. I'd use it as a stark example of how patriarchalism is alive and well in post-feminist culture, showing them how the overwhleming tendency in Maxim is to show men how to deceive women into desiring them, the overwhelming tendency in Cosmo is to show women how to remake themselves so that men will desire them.

Creepy, creepy stuff.

 

[Leiali]

I have a tendency to judge which I have been working on for a long time to change. However, I think when I am reading I immediately work from my instinct, and by pass a lot of the rational thought processes that I would ordinarily go through.
It is interesting what you say about stress 'The typical human response to sustained stress is far, far more likely to be pathological than redemptive' as I think being lucky to work and live in an environment which is positive and redemptive (though not in a religious manner I must add) I think has made me view the world from my own biased point of view. Again.
I think the problem for me is that I have invested quite a lot in the characters, and instead of taking a step back and letting them develop to their hearts content (which is easier if it is the opposite gender) I have felt the need to guide and help them along myself. I promise I won't go on about it again Scott, though I don't necessarily agree with you entirely, and still think that there is a case for extraordinary circumstances allowing extraordinary behavioural changes in the women too, I will let you get on with the job of writing the stories and not having to listen to bees buzzing about your head.......

 

[Scott Bakker]

Naw, you're just keeping me sharp. You've forced me to reexamine some important issues, and to pay closer attention to Esmenet. The issues I'm dealing with are thorny, to say the least, and they only get thornier as things continue. You've already found your way into the acknowledgements of TTT.

I adore criticism, so long as I feel it's honest and not tendentiously motivated. Which I've never sensed in the slightest with you L, no matter how wrong, wrong, wrong, you may be!

Judgements are never the problem, only the ludicrous certainty we seem compelled to attach to them. That's my take anyway. Certainty is obvious poison, and we all seem addicted to it.

 

[Leiali]

Thank you Scott, that's means a lot to me!
I think that I have mentioned before that I work with counsellors, and the core principles of counselling are Congruence, Empathy and Unconditional Positive Regard. Working with counsellors makes me realise the power of words and how they affect people, and to some extent, how that can be used to manipulate (though that is obviously not done with all the checks and balances in place and ethical practice guidelines etc). It makes Anasurimbor Kellhus a fascinating read.
Though I am not a counsellor I have to work on these things too, and I find that in the work place, I have no problems whatsoever, I have liberal values and am accepting of anyone who walks through the door - and their views and values. But in my personal life, I forget and have high expectations of my friends and family, which I am constantly challenging. It is pretty hard work! And it has now seeped into my reading of books.....if my professor at University knew this, he would be shaking his head now (if he remembered me that is!). So judgment may not be a major offense to some, but I really must try for the sake of my own development I think, not to be so judgemental!

 

[alison]

Re the misogyny question: Scott, it seems to me that you get it almost right. I've seen writers I think of as among the most clear sighted about gender relations (Tennessee Williams, for instance) accused of misogyny because he portrayed misogyny so well. It's not interesting to just write "role models" (not that I'm suggesting Leiali is asking for that!) On the other hand, women might have sensitivities to the powers and subtleties of gender roles, having had to live within them and subvert them, that men might not. As you say, it's an incredibly thorny issue.

I must tell you my crackpot theory about Nietzsche one day (Nietzsche as secret feminist covertly working to create a Superwoman). He knew how men shaped femininity, and femininity was what he hated. Not necessarily women. Though he wasn't so good with women either...but how many men living in his age were? And re the review, it's always seemed to me a little unfair to blame Nietasche for Nazism, since he both predicted and loathed it.

Must stop babbling