Jump to content

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


Francis Buck

Recommended Posts

I was commenting on the "payoff". The fact that the narrative has a point instead of running in circles or proceeding at random.

Neither Bakker nor Erikson wander aimlessly, so, no matter of inconsistencies, you can expect that what they write is not an hoax.

They both deserve that much faith.

They don't deserve anything. Why should they? I don't owe them a thing.

As for Khellus, i don't hate him. I think he's probably one of the worst characters put onto page, basically being an empty shell from which the philosophy of Bakker shines out. He is, and always has been really, a thing. Perhaps in one sense he's an incredible creation, being so distant as to be alien, but being an incredible creation does not make him a good character. Or compelling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it is amazing how Kellhus went from being my favorite character in the first book and is inverted into something of a tyrannical monster by the end of the third book. It's basically the reverse of what GRRM did with Jaime. ;)

Ah, kinda when he betrays the fur trapper I was "Wha?" and then when he murders the child shortly after...lets say early on, he ceased being my favorite character! Took chapters, not books.

And I don't want him to die. Not yet. Because who the heck else can beat the consult? Not that I know he intends to beat them. But I'm pretty certain he's the only dude who can enact that. It would be most convenient if he did beat the consult, then died. But after beating the consult, of course, the odds of anything killing him are low.

Though have we already seen determinism in action with the white luck warriors future echo? And if there is no trump card to beat that determinism?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Khellus, i don't hate him. I think he's probably one of the worst characters put onto page, basically being an empty shell from which the philosophy of Bakker shines out. He is, and always has been really, a thing. Perhaps in one sense he's an incredible creation, being so distant as to be alien, but being an incredible creation does not make him a good character. Or compelling.

Your arguments against him are the ones I'd use to argue for him being a good character. I think he's purposefully meant to become less of a personality (as opposed to character) as the series progresses.I also like how we have lost his POVs in the second trilogy as not knowing what he's thinking makes him more interesting (there's also the fact that we shouldn't be able to comprehend the thoughts of such a high intellect. It's a bit like how we probably shouldn't have a littlefinger or Varys POV as they'd likely give the game away and are far more compelling when we don't fully understand they're thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Kellhus' arc ending in a supreme sacrifice, something along the lines of Jesus only with more alien rape.

But do we really know that there weren't any alien rape involved in the death of Jesus? I remain skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...