Coldfire re-read: When True Night Falls - chapters 9-11

[trobadora]

Three chapters today! And our heroes meet up again ...

Plot summary

Chapter 9
Tarrant summons Karril to get some answers. Karril's all ready to help out, but clams up immediately upon hearing Calesta's name. And Tarrant is rather pissed off to discover he can't actually control Iezu.

Chapter 10
Meanwhile, Damien attends the Consecration of the Faithful in Mercia's cathedral and gives a sermon. The Matria makes a brief visit, but is gone again before Damien can find out more about her. When he gets back, Tarrant has returned - and is quick to crush whatever hopes Damien had that all might actually be well in Mercia. Damien throws a shoe after him for his troubles. :D

Chapter 11
The Matrias communicate with the help of tidal power, and Mercia's Matria is instructed to take care of our heroes.

Quotes

• "Yes. He fed me his blood and his nightmares for half a year . . . and I starved, Karril. I starved. Even now the hunger still resonates within me. Why? It's never been like this before. Never been something I couldn't master. Until now."
  "You fed, I take it."
  He shut his eyes, remembering. "As soon as we landed, and many times since. Fear so rich it made me giddy to taste it, blood so hot with terror that leaching it of warmth should have cooled my hunger for a decade. This land is ripe for me, Karril, and its people are unprotected. And yet . . . I feel empty again. Desperately empty. The scent of a victim makes me tremble with hunger . . . even though I know that my physical need has been satisfied. Why? It's never been like this before."


• You have a complex soul, my friend. A human soul, for all its hellish trappings. Such a thing takes time to heal.


• "Go!" His shoulders were trembling, the motion slight but eloquent. In all the time that Karril had known him - nearly nine centuries now - he had never seen him this upset. Never seen him this close to losing it.
  It's the lack of control, the demon thought. The one thing he can't handle. The one thing he could never handle.
  "I didn't know you meant to fight him," he said. Softly, oh so softly, hoping that the words would reach him through his rage. "I would have tried to warn you. I would have tried to talk you out of it . . ." And why? he thought. Because I care? That's not supposed to happen at all. You see, I break the rules just by knowing you.


• He wanted to respond to what they had accomplished. He wanted them to see it through his eyes. He wanted to give them the gift of his vision, to help them draw back from their day to day life and see - really see - how great their triumph was.
  And more. He wanted to put all that in context, so that they knew how hard western man was struggling to find a similar peace. And - most of all - he wanted them to know what it would mean to the west when he brought home word of their triumph. For word of their success would surely spread, until all of Erna was inspired to devote itself to the Prophet's dream. At last.


• "Is that all you've seen? Faith and prayer, safety and order? I'm disappointed, Reverend Vryce. I thought you'd be a little more discerning than that." His hand on the curtain tightened as he gazed out into the night. "There's something wrong here. Something so terribly wrong I can't even put a name to it. But the symptoms are right there in front of you, there for the seeing . . . unless you don't want to. Unless you prefer dreams to reality." The Hunter turne'd back to him; the silver gaze was piercing. "Do you?"


• "Fact: there's an Order called the Sanctified. You know what they do. But do you know how they purify themselves for doing it? With a Vow of chastity, Reverend. For three years, for five years, or for life. Now, another man might applaud that - purity of the body equals purity of the soul - but you've read my writings. You know how destructive it is to build into any religion an assumption that natural, healthful urges are unclean. For every Sanctified man in this region there are at least ten who wallow in guilt each time they have an unplanned erection. Is that the kind of emotion you want the fae responding to? Not to mention the repressed energies of the Sanctified themselves."


• "And the Matria. Haven't you wondered about that? Doesn't it strike you as odd that only women can head the Church here?"
  "Why should it?" Hesseth demanded. "Division of labor according to gender is part of your human heritage. What makes this so significant?"
  "First, because the colonists who were chosen to come to this world had no such tradition. Each colony had its own socio-psychological profile, and that was part of ours. Second, because there are real biological differences between men and women, and those should serve as a template for any division of labor which develops. It did in my own time, when we resurrected the so-called "traditional" roles as part of the Revivalist experiment. Men competed for the reins of power and women adopted roles of protection and nurturing. That arrangement worked because it was compatible with our biological heritage; this one isn't."


• "I killed eight times in the cities," he said. Nostrils flaring as he spoke, as if he were recalling the scents of the kill. "Eight women. And each time the wards let me pass by with not even a murmur. You remember that, if you start to have doubts. If Mercia starts to look good again. You ask yourself what kind of power would welcome the Hunter into its stockyards."


• "Was that because he killed the women?" Hesseth asked. "Or because he told you about it?"
  "Neither."
  He sat on the edge of a couch and rubbed his temples; beneath his fingertips he could feel his blood pounding. "Because he's right," he whispered hoarsely. "God damn him. He's right about all of it."

Thoughts

• Hint, hint, hint: something's wrong with the Iezu - they don't follow the usual rules. Did you pick up on how important that was, when you first read these books? I'm pretty sure it went entirely over my head. *g*


• We get some intriguing hints about Tarrant's history with Karril here. I really wish we knew more about how they met. And of course we knew that Tarrant has a control fetish. But what impression did you get of their friendship here? I think it's quite obvious that Karril's feelings are genuine, but is Tarrant in denial, or does he really see Karril mostly as a resource?


• Damien is so awed by what they've accomplished in Mercia, and he so very much wants it to be real. But even so, he never completely succumbs; he always remains skeptical. Now, of course we know he's very wise to do so, but from his POV, what do you think is behind it? Just that it's all too good to be true? Just a few mysteries, which after all should be expected in a culture that's been separated from his for centuries? What feeds his doubts?


• Tarrant is fabulous here - exactly as Damien says at the beginning, like a splash of ice cold water. And his remarks on repression always brings a great big smile to my face. :D
  But sadly, his take on gender roles isn't nearly as cool.


• How much do I love the shoe-throwing? And the stated reason for it? "Beause he's right." That's why Damien is such a fabulous protagonist: He's always willing to acknowledge it when someone's right, no matter how little he may like it. No denial, no hypocrisy. Fabulous. :-)

And on Thursday, we'll be continuing with chapters 12 and 13 ...

Comments

[ladyphoenix9]

Did you pick up on how important that was, when you first read these books?
I had the unfair advantage of already knowing, but if I hadn't, I probably would have taken that more as a Tarrant character building scene on the first reading.

These are some of my favorite chapters out of WTNF (mainly Tarrant and Karril's meeting, because I like seeing Tarrant shaken up.)

As for the sexism, I promised I'd do this the next time it came up. It's Friedman's philosophy, quoted from the interview etrangere linked not too long ago:

So here is my true philosophy:

Men and women are different. Their brains are so different in structure that a scientist who is given one, with no other information, can instantly tell which gender it belonged to. And that's not even beginning to address all the myriad biochemicals which act differently in male and female, or which act the same manner but differ in quantities, timing, or context.

In the 60's and 70's, we wanted to believe that men and women were inherently the same, and it was only cultural and environmental factors that made us appear different. If you could somehow manage to treat boys and girls equally, they would turn out to be pretty much the same, give or take a penis. A lot of genre fiction reflects this philosophy, because that is the kind of world that many readers would live in if they had the choice. Not to mention it is a great setting for fantasy heroines, who (of course) are equal to their men in nearly every way, save perhaps for upper body strength and the ability to pee their name into the snow.

Science no longer believes that, however, and nor do I. This does not mean that individuals must be constrained by their biology. There have always been female warriors, just as their have been male nursemaids, though many cultures don't make it easy on them. But on the average, and reflected in society as a whole, the behavior of each gender has been shaped by evolution to serve specific needs, that maximize that gender's chance of passing down its genes to a new generation. How much of that is nature, and how much is nurture, and how much those differences might affect the genders' aptitude for sorcery, or any other magical enterprise...well, there is a lot of mystery about this stuff in real life, and so there will be a lot of mystery in my novels.

But I certainly do not feel any obligation to make gender balance in my novels "fair." To quote William Goldman, "Life is not fair."

Tough, and she obviously believes it needs pounding repeatedly and blatantly in every one of her books, but there we go. (I just wonder if what's she's saying is actually true. Anyone want to show me this research?)

[aubrem.livejournal.com]

I actually agree with everything she says. I still think she's got some other gender hangup going on in Coldfire though. (I haven't read her other books). I can buy the revivalist experiment. I can buy a reversion to earlier gender roles because of loss of technology. I'm just not impressed by her female characters or the attitudes toward motherhood in the book.

However, it's not enough to make me dislike the books at all and I actually applaud her not being afraid of gender difference.

[trobadora]

See, I agree on the biological part, and like you I can absolutely buy the Revivalist thing. But I question the shortcut she takes from biological differences to inherent gender roles. In my experience, men and women aren't different in any meaningful way.

[ladyphoenix9]

Agreed to a point (I have no problem with her depiction of motherhood, other than it seems like it was a cheap trick to make us like Hesseth more before she died.)

I just got to a scene in her new book Wings of Wrath which is an eerie parallel to what happens to Hesseth later in WTNF. It's like...she makes a good, strong female character, puts her on equal footing with the guys, and then kills her off brutally. It read like she'd created this character to die an ignoble and pointless death to traumatize the other character (and make the heroine moody and jealous, while we're at it.) I can't recall her killing off a minor male character (that we're supposed to like, at any rate) in quite the same pointless, gruesome way. Closest I think we get is Senzei, but his at least had lasting implications on the plot.

[trobadora]

I can't quote any research, but I don't believe men and women are inherently different any more than I believe slash and het are inherently different, and for much the same reason: it's simply not borne out by my experience. *rolls eyes*

[aubrem.livejournal.com]

I was curious so I just now googled "male and female brain differences" and it looks like there are a number of points. Here are a few sites I clicked on the first page:

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/heshe.html

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14685-gender-differences-seen-in-brain-connections.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070413212142.htm

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/tech/nextnews/archive/next050121.htm

I didn't look at them closely and even if they are for real, individuals aren't ruled by these general tendencies, I'm sure.

[ladyphoenix9]

Like all things, it's inconclusive. ;) In some things it sounds like there are differences, but not like you can say, "Hey, that brain in a jar over there is clearly male because of blahblahblah." It does not appear to be as cut and dried as she's claiming. Simplifying will get you in trouble every time. You'd think someone claiming all this to be fact would be more careful about sweeping generalizations.

[aubrem.livejournal.com]

I dunno - that first page talks about two clear differences in the hypothalmus.

[ladyphoenix9]

Noted. But it looks like it's hidden inside the brain structure...you'd have to cut it apart to tell. That still fails the "across the room in a jar" test for me. ;) *likes to be difficult*

The clear differences I've seen are the shape and volume of the hypothalamus, location and volume of grey matter, and images of the brains working on puzzles when hooked to MRIs. I can take those as the real differences. But in the end, the research usually shows the potential is the same regardless of sex. Like Shadowystar says below, you can't blame it all on the shape of your brain bits and hormones. I don't think telling your teacher, "I failed my math test because my hypothalamus is the wrong shape and I'm chemically disinclined to do algebra problems," will get you out of a failing grade. ;)

Of course, I brought up the quote not really to debate science, but show the assumption Friedman is working under. I still question the validity of her assumption, but in the context of her book I can handle it. I just think Friedman dismisses a lot of other important factors as irrelevant, and it's fine for her characters to make that assumption but disappointing she seems to hold the exact same views her character tend to spout off.

[aubrem.livejournal.com]

I don't think you're being fair. She doesn't discount other factors - certainly not nurture (as opposed to nature) or individual personality differences. She just isn't afraid to let nature be a factor in her worldbuilding. She's not discounting any factors that I can see.

[trobadora]

What it seems to me she is doing, according to that interview, is deciding that she knows which part is nature. That always bothers me.

[trobadora]

Thank you - I was aware of that in general terms, but didn't have anything concrete to quote. I think the main problem is that we still don't even know exactly what consciousness is, and how/why it happens in the human brain, so it's very hard to discuss what a different brain structure means without speculating.

[prettyarbitrary.livejournal.com]

Well, there are some things about the brain's function that are very clear to us. And some of the discrepancies between male and female stats regarding brain function are far too large to explain away.

Very good article on the male vs. female brain: He Thinks, She Thinks (http://discovermagazine.com/2007/brain/she-thinks/article_view?searchterm=male%20female%20anger%20response&b_start:int=1).

The interesting thing, to my way of thinking, is how often they find that men and women seem to develop along very different paths to get to the same result.

[trobadora]

But all of those differences are a matter of percentages and degree; they're not absolute. You can't predict any one woman's or man's abilities from them. And in my experience they're not nearly as often true as these studies make it seem. Maybe my experience is an outlier, but it's still my experience. *shrugs*

[prettyarbitrary.livejournal.com]

You can't predict any single person's behavior from those stats, but you can begin to predict the pattern of a society. I'd say that from those numbers, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say "Women are more suited to be nurturers," though I wouldn't be prepared to comment on Ciani, Damien, or Ms. Friedman in particular.

And we can't, of course, discount the fact that to some extent, our brains develop to do what we demand of them. If patience is not a gendered trait but women by and large are asked to mediate and be patient more often, their brains are likely to adapt and then reflect that. (Though between the extensive circumstancial evidence of history and many cultures, and the known effects of testosterone, I wouldn't be surprised if that particular trait is gender-relevant.)

[shadowystar.livejournal.com]

I agree with you here.
The physiology of men and women differs as does their biochemistry but what defines the roles is the society in which a child grows up. The process is called socialization and works by encouraging wanted and discouraging unwanted behavior. Agents of socialization such as the family, schools, and the media make it clear to the child what is expected of the child by society. Thus, we learn by interaction which social behavior is acceptable and which is not. When the parents tell the child that boys don't cry, this is, by definition, gender-specific education. Roles (and social behavior which is ultimately influenced by roles), however, can change - what was unacceptable two centuries ago can be acceptable now. What's allowed in one country, can be forbidden in another. Therefor, according to the interactionist approach, roles (including gender roles) are not fixed, but are constantly negotiated between individuals. With 'constantly' being the constructive word.
Take away that gender-specific education and you have really few (biological) differences left...
(topic change)
Ahh yes, I wondered about the Iezu the whole time since Karril made his appearance. And them acting 'wrong' had on me something of the icy splash effect Gerald has on Damien. I just *felt* this being important! But then again, I'm a very experienced fantasy/sci-fi reader and perhaps know what to look for?

[trobadora]

I agree, one of the problems is that it's well-nigh impossible to sort apart what is nature and what is nurture. Which is why it always bothers me when someone simply decides they know which.

[fallintosanity.livejournal.com]

I think that at least some of what she's saying is true, and I can point to two specific pieces of research:

The case of David Reimer (http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html). This link is a summary; if it intrigues you, go look up the full story. It's horrific and terrible, but a fascinating and poignant example that nurture does NOT a gender make.

The absolutely fascinating book Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters (http://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-People-Have-More-Daughters/dp/0399533656). Evolutionary psychologists point out that evolution didn't stop at the neck - that is, men and women evolved differently in response to different ancestral scenarios.

There's a lot more out there, but these two are the ones that make the most sense to me.

She's also right that there is still a LOT of mystery in the gender differences. Yes, we can point to specific structures of the brain, or evolutionary necessities, or socialization, or whatever, but the blunt truth is that we still don't really know why men and women behave differently. If we did, a lot of love-advice doctors would be out of business. :)

[trobadora]

but the blunt truth is that we still don't really know why men and women behave differently

Add to that that we can't even all agree on just how they behave differently, and the problem becomes even bigger. *g*