Comparing R. Scott Bakker with George R. R. Martin

[Francis Buck]

Having semi-recently finished The Darkness that Comes Before and starting The Warrior Prophet, I'm curious what other people think about the series in comparison to ASoIaF.

I'd have to say that, overall, I think ASoIaF is better. The thing is, I'm not entirely sure why. I think that Bakker successfully created a group of characters who are perhaps more "realistic" than any other fantasy I've read...though I'm not sure realistic is the right word either. They're just much "grayer". No one seems genuinely evil, in a Gregor Clegane sort of way, but then no one seems genuinely good either (I suppose the closest would be Achamian and Esmenet maybe?). At least as of the first book.

One thing I like more about Bakker's series is that the world itself feels much more...fantastic, I guess? More exotic? Or imaginative? Earwa seems more like what an ACTUAL completely fantastical Earth would be like. This may just be because it has more of an Eastern influence than most fantasies, I'm not sure.

Prose-wise, I'm split down the middle. Bakker's style seems a little more "restrained", yet at the same time it sometimes comes off as being overly "fancy", like he's just trying to sound smart. Martin's prose, to me, is overly-descriptive at times, though his vocabulary and word-choicage is seems a little less "forced" to me than Bakker's sometimes does.

There's more I want to say but I have to think about it a little bit. I'll definitely add more, but mainly I'm just curious about what other people think as far as comparing the two authors.

[The Pita]

I think that Bakker is making an attempt at exploring untreaded themes, where Martin is just trying to tell a good story.

I also think that Bakker is much more in the vein of LOTR - the violet prose, the larger-than-life characters... they're two very different kinds of stories.

They're hard to compare. Abercrombie and Martin is a decent comparison, but Bakker and Martin is problematic.

However, I'd be more excited at a new Martin than a new Bakker, so I guess it means I prefer Martin.

[Arthmail]

Bakker actually puts out books in a steady stream. I do not look forward to Martin, because by the time the next one comes along i'll be nearly forty.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Arthmail,

I am forty. Get a grip.

[Little Valkyrie]

For me, the big distinction is in the engagement with the metaphysics of the world. Bakker is explicitly writing a world where the rules of the world--as he gets to define them, as that's one of the fun things about fantasy--are deeply engaged in all of the themes: personal freedom, causality, the nature of sorcery, etc. Martin's story is much more political and less fantastic.

For instance, when I ran into some philosophical Greek about 20 pages into Bakker, I kinda knew what I was in for...in a good way.

[Pineapple]

A quick glance at my screen name would reveal my bias.

IMO, Bakker has improved over time while Martin has not. Martin got me back into fantasy, Bakker is the one that keeps me going.

[Tears of Lys]

Arthmail,

I am forty. Get a grip.

QFT. By those standards, I'm officially dead.

/voice from grave

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Scranchammer,

given the close of Kellus' story in White Luck Warrior your name should be "Scrancroaster

;)

[Pineapple]

Scranchammer,

given the close of Kellus' story in White Luck Warrior your name should be "Scrancroaster

;)

Indeed! :cool4:

[Kalbear]

What Martin does that Bakker is really bad at, IMO:

describing the world. Martin's world is alive. Bakker's world has very few characters of note other than the main ones and they're fairly blank, the world seems quiet and shallow. It has description but it's like describing an empty room.

The people. Good gods, the people. Think about the cast of characters in Martin's books, the appendices, the PoVs. Then think about how little there are by comparison in Bakker's works.

Reasonable narrative based on personal decisions. Bakker's characters make a lot of bad choices because of who they are; there's very little actual agency in Bakker's books.

The women - Bakker can't write women for shit. Martin does a great job at this.

What Bakker is good at:

The phalluses. Martin doesn't describe them all that often and when he does it is done embarrassingly so - "fat pink mast" comes to mind. But in the Bakkerverse, phalluses abound. They are pendulous, turgid, obscene, curving, menacing and in general get a lot of screentime.

The metaphysics, though this is a bit of a 50/50. Martin doesn't describe magic and magic could do almost anything and is used mostly as a plot lubricant (IE, this guy is unkillable, so we kill him with magic to move the plot along). Bakker's magic is as much a part of the story as Kellhus is; it's everywhere, well thought out and interesting. That being said, a lot of people could rightly say that they like their magic more magical.

Battle scenes. Bakker does a very good job describing them, even with Death. Does it swirl down? I THINK SO.

Horror: Bakker evokes horror a lot better than Martin, possibly because his world is significantly more horrible.

[Arthmail]

Arthmail,

I am forty. Get a grip.

I have a grip. I'm not sure what you could not understand, but with a roughly five year publication cycle, the next book is a ways away. What i meant by my statement was that by the time he is published, i'll be approaching forty, which is by no means dead. It does means i don't look forward to something that is not coming any time soon.

[Arthmail]

On topic, however, they are too different to compare. Bakker presents some really great images, but gets bogged down in philosophy and dragging his characters through the mud. He makes a walk through the forest seem filthy and deplorable, which Martin does not. He does present a more varied and unique set of cultures, but for the most part i find it hard to tell them apart. There is a real eastern flair to the books that i like, but...

Martin, in terms of writing and story, wins out. When it comes to actually sitting down and working on his book to try and finish it before the end of time, not so much.

[Kalbear]

That's another good point: Martin is ridiculously better at writing a narrative that flows. Bakker does these infodumps in every single book he's written that completely rob any tension or pace. It was clear that Martin's work could be done to the screen because of this - because his narrative flows like breaks in episodes and breaks in stories, much like a script (with obvious reason.) Bakker's work often stutters.

I think Bakker's ideas are often a lot more original and interesting to think about. The notion of attempting to figure out a world where the misogyny that we have in our world actually makes logical sense is an interesting one to talk about, even if the execution wasn't as great. Same goes for objective value, modernity and neuroscience. I think he often does not apply these ideas that well.

[Francis Buck]

A question: People throw around the word "agency" a lot in this forum. What exactly are they referring to?

But awesome replies, I agree with a lot of what you've said. The thing with female characters is a BIG one for me. Both of Bakker's main female POVs, Esmi and Serwa, are easily the two least interesting characters in the book in my opinion. On the other hand, GRRM has some fantastic female characters (Arya, Cersei, Melisandre, and later even Sansa). And I agree that the two authors are difficult to compare, but nonetheless I think there's a lot to talk about in their contrasts.

[Lady Nerevar]

describing the world. Martin's world is alive. Bakker's world has very few characters of note other than the main ones and they're fairly blank, the world seems quiet and shallow. It has description but it's like describing an empty room.

For me, the opposite is true. With a few exceptions, Martin's world feels very cookiecutter fantasy setting wise, and not just because it's Europe-esque. Winterhold? Big castle with towers in the snow. Red Keep? Smaller red castle on a hill. Harrenhal? Really big castle on a lake. Martin has better side characters to give his world charm, but I feel that the world itself doesn't really stand out in my mind. The look and feel of Westeros was probably the biggest improvement for me in the series. On the other hand, I can tell that Bakker's world has three thousand years of history built in just by how he describes it (the presence of arches versus plain post and lintel construction, for instance), and I can instantly distinguish the look of it from other books I've read. The appendix in TTT makes me just has happy as the book itself (same thing with Tolkien). I guess it's just a difference in the sorts of things we like to see to make the world "real" to us :dunno:

But yea, in general, they're not two authors I'd compare.

P.S. But I like Esme... :unsure:

[Grack21]

You can't compare the two. They shouldn't even be shelved in the same category in a sane world. It;s like trying to compare Gene Wolfe to Harry Potter. It's doesn't work or make sense.

And if they ever bring Bakker to the screen, they totally need to get HR Giger to do the design.

[Kalbear]

Bakker's world has three thousand years of history built in just by how he describes it (the presence of arches versus plain post and lintel construction, for instance

This is not meant as criticism, but I'm going to go on a hunch: you've read a lot of history and know a lot of European history, don't you? I say this because if you actually read the books they're essentially lifted from descriptions of Byzantium crusaders- and not great descriptions, at that. That's not that different from GRRM, but it isn't like he came up with this out of whole cloth.

Also, I wasn't saying that the world was special that Martin wrote; as you say, it's European. But it's populated. It's bristling with people and life and culture. Bakker's world isn't. It's been remarked on often how lifeless his world is, and you kind of agree - you can describe easily what the buildings look like, but can you describe what a peasant looks like? How the folks from Fanim lands dress compared to the Inrithi? How the Galeoth look compared to the Yunkai? And do we see any of these people outsside of war? Not a lot.

[jurble]

A question: People throw around the word "agency" a lot in this forum. What exactly are they referring to?

Agency refers to agency.

Basically: Whether people make choices or things just happen to them.

[Francis Buck]

You can't compare the two. They shouldn't even be shelved in the same category in a sane world. It;s like trying to compare Gene Wolfe to Harry Potter. It's doesn't work or make sense.

And if they ever bring Bakker to the screen, they totally need to get HR Giger to do the design.

Honestly I don't see why two authors within virtually ANY genre can't be compared (with the exception of maybe children/adult stuff). What makes it so wrong to compare and contrast the differences between two works of epic fantasy? Obviously there's at least something to say about the comparison, looking only at the few posts there already are in this thread.

[Nerdanel]

I much prefer Bakker to Martin. It's probably relevant that Tolkien is my favorite author ever and I don't hold Jordan is a high regard at all. Bakker is far more Tolkienish of the two authors under consideration while Martin is sort of Jordanish except low in magic and much grittier.

I think Bakker has better worldbuilding by far. He has an awesome magic system and there is a real sense of history and interconnectedness. I think it's only a good thing he doesn't get bogged in trivial details that bog down the narrative. Like Tolkien, Bakker gives enough information to make the setting vivid without describing what everyone in the room is wearing and what every meal consists of.

I think Bakker's characters are better. This one is hard to put into words, but I think the heart of the matter is that I think Martin's view of human nature is excessively cynical. Bakker has actual white in there with the gray and the black. Also, Bakker's characters feel more rounded and human to me.

Bakker has fewer POV characters. I think that's a good thing as it keeps the plot moving and reduces the need for setup. I think this also contributes to me liking Bakker's characters more, as the POV characters have more room for their development.

I think Bakker's plot is better. This one is entirely subjective, but I just happen to like big flashy magic and get bored by excessive political intrigue. In fact, I think even Bakker can be a bit high on intrigue especially in The Darkness that Comes Before, but he is far from the Martin levels. And from what I've heard, Martin has lost control of his plot as of late while Bakker hasn't. Also, I honestly like dark lords and the fate of the world hanging in balance no matter how unfashionable they may be. That kind of thing puts the epic in the epic fantasy.

I think Bakker's prose is better. This one is also highly subjective, but I like the elevated diction. I probably have a higher tolerance for purple prose than the average, but I think Bakker has some really nice turns of prose.

I think Bakker's names are better. I know a lot of people think Bakker's names are difficult, but I think they provide a great sense of culture, history, and alienness and are just all-around more inventive and vivid than Martin's modern English with variant spellings. And I don't think Bakker's names are even all that difficult. I'm guessing those who complain about Bakker's names are monolingual English speakers.

I think Bakker's mood is better. Mood is very important to me but it's hard to explain so I'll just leave it at that.

So in short I think Bakker is better in just about every aspect.