The Line Between Author and Ink

[Old Nan]

Almost no one today admits to being a monarchist, rather. Even to themselves.

Sympathy, "I feel for you."

Empathy, "I feel with you."

Good, so there's nothing wrong with my lack of sympathy.

[Cantabile]

Good, so there's nothing wrong with my lack of sympathy.

So long as it's not negatively affecting your reading experience. Personally, being able to harmonize my feelings with those of a character through sympathy, I am far more immersed in the work due to that emotional component. But to each his own.

[Foreverlad]

I don't think we can make these kinds of assertions until the series is over, really. We can identify points Martin has made, but it's hard to say what points he hasn't until he's finished. For instance, so far it seems somewhat anti-monarchist: the government doesn't work all that well for most people, and there's no "perfect king" character or suggestion that everything would be gravy in Westeros if only the "rightful" ruler was put on the throne. It's possible that in the future Dany (or someone else) will become the "rightful" ruler and the series will end on a "if these people hadn't thrown out the Targs, none of these terrible events would have happened." In the book discussion forums, there are certainly people who expect it to end this way. OTOH, it might not go that direction at all (and I think most of us hope that it doesn't). But until we know, it's hard to say what the ultimate message of the work is.

The problem is, many people don't show Scott Bakker the same faith. A common arguments made is "If Bakker isn't sexist / misogynist / whatever, he shouldn't make the reader wait X number of books to prove it."

They're not necessarily wrong, in that no reader should have to wait 3, 5 or 7 books to get a sense of the theme or intent of the author, but, if an author manages to keep a reader entertained, it shouldn't really matter.

[Liadin]

Almost no one today admits to being a monarchist, rather. Even to themselves.

I suppose it's possible that a lot of fantasy authors really like the idea of a monarchy, even though they don't think about it much in the real world because they don't see it as a serious political option. But a lot of the idealism is in the idea of a "perfect king" itself, as much as the idea that a monarchy can be a great form of government.

The problem is, many people don't show Scott Bakker the same faith. A common arguments made is "If Bakker isn't sexist / misogynist / whatever, he shouldn't make the reader wait X number of books to prove it."

They're not necessarily wrong, in that no reader should have to wait 3, 5 or 7 books to get a sense of the theme or intent of the author, but, if an author manages to keep a reader entertained, it shouldn't really matter.

There is a distinction between arguing that an unfinished book does have a particular bias, versus arguing that it expresses no opinion on a subject one way or the other. It's perfectly possible to see some biases in an unfinished work especially after a few books--as in, we can tell that Martin thinks medieval war is awful. What's much harder is to make the claim that some opinion doesn't exist, based on an unfinished work, when the plot isn't really finished dealing with it yet--as in, claiming that Martin's work expresses no political opinions. It could ultimately wind up with either a monarchist or an anti-monarchist message, because Martin hasn't yet resolved the question of Westeros's monarchy. One could argue either side up to this point, but I don't think one can successfully argue that "ASOIAF takes no position on monarchy."

[kuenjato]

I suppose it's possible that a lot of fantasy authors really like the idea of a monarchy, even though they don't think about it much in the real world because they don't see it as a serious political option. But a lot of the idealism is in the idea of a "perfect king" itself, as much as the idea that a monarchy can be a great form of government.

There is a distinction between arguing that an unfinished book does have a particular bias, versus arguing that it expresses no opinion on a subject one way or the other. It's perfectly possible to see some biases in an unfinished work especially after a few books--as in, we can tell that Martin thinks medieval war is awful. What's much harder is to make the claim that some opinion doesn't exist, based on an unfinished work, when the plot isn't really finished dealing with it yet--as in, claiming that Martin's work expresses no political opinions. It could ultimately wind up with either a monarchist or an anti-monarchist message, because Martin hasn't yet resolved the question of Westeros's monarchy. One could argue either side up to this point, but I don't think one can successfully argue that "ASOIAF takes no position on monarchy."

This is one of the problems with the sexist claim. Bakker's slant is clearly misanthropic; the characters are all shades of grey (or black as pitch) and the philosophy often draws correlations to the bestial characteristics of humankind. I've also noted that RSB is a divisive sort of figure and people tend to exaggerate or skew their arguments in relation to his work from what often feels a personal (insulted/injured/inarticulately upset) take... note how often "pretentious" is affixed to PON, a dubious and rather exposing opprobrium. Given that Bakker's conclusions as to how we process information and exercise our "will" (or lack thereof) are inherently threatening, though, it's not terribly surprising.

As for me, I found Esmenet and Serwe sympathetic characters, but then I don't require "NON-SEXUAL AGENCY!" necessary...

[Zap Rowsdower]

After reading The Ash-tree and noticing a certain description in Canon Alberic's Scrapbook I was able to ascertain with a fair degree of certainty that M.R. James was not particularly fond of one species of lifeform.

Granted, it wasn't a Sherlock Holmes style deduction, but I was still slightly pleased with myself that my impression was confirmed after reading S.T. Joshi's annoted edition of Ghost Stories of an Antiquary.

[Guest Other-in-Law]

After reading The Ash-tree and noticing a certain description in Canon Alberic's Scrapbook I was able to ascertain with a fair degree of certainty that M.R. James was not particularly fond of one species of lifeform.

There's plenty of hints of M.R.James' views in his writing, particularly wrt religion. Papist dabblers in the black arts of one sort or another occur in quite a few of his stories. Also making his Aleister Crowley surrogate in Casting of the Runes a bad speller just goes too far, I say!

[Curethan]

There is a distinction between arguing that an unfinished book does have a particular bias, versus arguing that it expresses no opinion on a subject one way or the other. It's perfectly possible to see some biases in an unfinished work especially after a few books--as in, we can tell that Martin thinks medieval war is awful.

Awful but interesting. The only definite idiosyncracy I would venture about the author's personality from an unfinished ASOIAF (that isn't a deliberate theme) is that he likes esoteric cuisine.

[Curethan]

opprobrium

Fantastic word, thanks. :thumbsup: