Jump to content

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


Francis Buck

Recommended Posts

GRRM is much better at crafting Points of View. I find one of the more fascinating things to look for when reading ASOIAF is see how characters appear both from their own POV and from the POVs of others. They can be strikingly different, when you consider the whole "everyone is a hero of their own story" factor. Some of the world-building issues (such as the dates) actually make sense in this context, because it's an in-universe history, and thus probably quite suspect in terms of actual in-universe "historicity" (in the same way that Roman accounts about seven Etruscan Kings who each conveniently ruled for 30+ years is probably dubious, since we don't have any written Roman accounts from the period in question).

Bakker's not as good about that. While I think he integrates religiosity much better into his characters (Proyas is an excellent depiction of a devout but conflicted soldier), he also has a major tendency to muddle the voices of his characters with his interjections of philosophy (which often feel like the third-person omniscient view he uses to describe battles). He could really take a note from GRRM about POV-crafting.

On the other hand, I think Bakker's political geography feels a lot more realistic. Sure, it seems kind of lifeless at times, but the actual countries don't feel "simplified" in the way that the polities of the Martinworld feel at times.

EDIT: I would love to hear Happy Ent's view on this comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respect Bakker's work. I think there's something monumental about parts of it. It's certainly ambitious, but in some places I think it's an ambitious failure -- which, you know, you need. Better to strive to achieve something and fail than to make an effort to do no more than get by.

But I don't love it. It hasn't captured my imagination as Tolkien did, a similarly monumental writer (maybe the ur-monumental writer of fantasy), while GRRM's work has (and I don't mean just ASoIaF here -- I mean Fevre Dream and Dying of the Light, the Great and Powerful Turtle, the short stories like "With Morning Comes Mistfall", "And Seven Times Never Kill Man", "A Song for Lya", etc.)

There's a number of reasons for that, but as it's all subjective I think, so I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not argue that Bakker's characters are better. I feel they are often bludgeoned into being vehicles for his philosphy, and the amount of hate that he shows towards them - towards humanity - can be a bit much. The switch from not knowing Jamie Lannister, to knowing him, was a fairly profound shift from child flinging, sister fucking asshole, to someone that had made numerous mistakes and was not in truth that bad of a guy. Martin has better characters, for sure.

As for world building, i am at a bit of a loss. I mean, on the one hand, Bakker has a richly detailed Byzantine like world, respledant with cultures that we so rarely see in fantasy. On the other hand, its fairly devoid of the basic day to day that fills Martins world.

The best way to sum it all up is that in Martin's world, people shit. While in Bakker, they are shit on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure how to compare them, other than the fact that Bakker is better at timelines than GRRM. I like Martins books more, they feel more natural to me and they are one of the few books in the world to actually make me cry or feel attached to the characters. Bakker is different. In Martins Westeros most of the time it felt like the characters were there so he could tell a story, in Bakkerverse it felt like the story was there so he could philosophize about human nature. I like them both, but Martin is more enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Oh, I'm not saying he did. But, at least to me (and I would wager to the vast majority of the western population), Martin's sort of castles-and-knights reads as the accepted norm. When I think of fantasy I think of a fantasized medieval Britain. So even shifting it to Byzantium already makes it feel more exotic and fresh (for lack of a better term) because we're not as well acquainted with and accustomed to that area. Not that there's anything wrong with medieval Britain, especially with Martin structuring it closer to history than the romanticized view fantasy tends (or tended) to take. But that's just me preferring one place over another, which is hardly valid praise/criticism towards either author.

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.

True, true. Part of that is just the sort of story Bakker writing, I think - it feels more along the lines of a traditional epic than Martin's hundred interwoven narratives, which will maybe eventually come together to a single climax (but probably not). As much as I would like to have seen more of the common man, his struggles, his customs, there's not much place for that in this story. That's an absence felt in a lot of fantasy, really (they remain subaltern, excuse the academic jargon). Martin writes them in by placing his noble characters in contact with them (Arya and Brienne, off the top of my head). In Bakker, we have Esmenet as a peasant, but she doesn't read like one by virtue of spending most of her time with the protagonists.

I agree all the way that Martin does supporting characters far better as characters. I get a sense people from him that goes beyond anthropological overviews. At the same time, I don't get those anthropological distinctions from societies as a whole. I'd say that Bakker handles culture on a macro scale - economics, dress, mannerisms, stereotypes - while Martin handles in on a micro scale - individuals, their struggles, beliefs, histories, etc. I like both, but as a sucker for worldbuilding, art, and history, the macro view appeals to me more in this case. Again, just my opinion.

I guess I should back all that up with textual evidence. Doing a re-read of Darkness right now so I'll list things from the first 5 chapters: we know that low castes wear their hair short, and that the upper casts tend to oil their hair. The eastern Ketyai braid and dye their breads, while the Nansur shave theirs and consider beards to be "brutish." Prostitutes are known by a tattoo of intertwined snakes on their left hand. A common laborer is likely to wear brown, while blue appears to be the color of the upper and middle classes. The Cishaurim get great description, but they're not peasants.

The best way to sum it all up is that in Martin's world, people shit. While in Bakker, they are shit on.

I love this as a saying, but GRRM has been shitting on the Starks since the second half of GoT :(

I'm not entirely sure that this post makes sense. I'm blaming it on the celebratory drinks if it doesn't :uhoh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer Martin my self. But I will agree with the earlier post that said Bakker has gotten better, while Martin has stayed stagnet(which does not meand bad). And I love the way magic works in Bakker's world, with the cants and the feeling that there is logic to it, without the logic being infodumped on you repeatedly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bakker's characters are interesting, but not life-like. I've never felt like I know any of Bakker's characters the way I know Tyrion, Catelyn, or Arya. Probably because Bakker focuses on big ideas at the expense of detail. Details, often inconsequential to the actual story, are what make characters seem real and unique. Martin's ability in this regard is almost unparalleled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy Bakker's villains more - both the mundane and the existential villains. Conphas and his uncle are just so out there compared to the punch-clock villainy of Martin's bad guys (who just happen to be on the otherside of our protagonists, aside from the Bloody Mummers). Moreover, I don't think Martin made the Others existential danger to humanity apparent enough. Given the confines of the world he created, I'm not sure what he could have done - neither the Wildlings or the Watch really have any sort of idea about the magnitude of their power or any insight. The undead sea-monsters attacking the convoy to Hardhome is a great example what he needed more of over the course of the series. I think Bakker does way better in conveying the fact that the Consult are out there with the capability of killing everyone on the planet, and that they're holding the sword over humanity's neck.

On the otherhand, Bakker doesn't give me fist-pump moments. Moments when a character does something so badass and cathartic. Martin does that awesomely, building up emotions and then allowing release. Unless he massively screws up how old Walder Frey's demise, in which case I will hate him with the fury of a gorillion suns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd agree with that, Jurble; the threat that Bakker describes is a lot more real and more terrible. Like I said somewhat comically the first time, I think Bakker does a good job of showing us how horrible the world is, and that includes how close they are to apocalypse. With Martin there's no feeling that the Others are even all that bad. The apocalypse in Bakker is real and there and it affects everyone in some way for 2000 years; the Others are an old wives tale barely remembered and not particularly feared. I think this was a big mistake of pacing for Martin, honestly; the Others needed to be relating with humans a lot earlier and a lot more publicly then they were. We needed to get that external threat sooner. The consequences are never that large for Westeros. Heck, it's hinted that no one outside of Westeros cares about the Others other than the red priests - and why would they? They're in the land of basically fine weather and no connection to the great white area. The external threat is always, always there in Bakker, and is only improved on by later events with the Gods.

That being said, both Neuropath and Disciple had pretty shitty mwahhaha villains, so there's that. And Martin's villians or antagonists in other books are a hell of a lot better in that respect.

Also, I think Martin does human villains so very much better. Kellhus doesn't demonstrate his awesome intellect nearly as much as he talks about it, for instance. Tywin shows us how he's outthought his enemies and what he's willing to do to get what he wants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm leaning towards Bakker having the better "existential enemies", but really it's an apples-and-oranges thing. The Others feel more elemental - opposing them is almost like shaking your fist at an oncoming storm. The Consult, on the other hand, seems much more personal, being driven by the agendas of individuals and so forth with clear motivations. Both do a good job of showing the alienness of the Big Bads, although I think Bakker manages to make the Inchoroi both more alien and vile at the same, while making them understandable.

One thing Bakker does better is in conveying a kind of skin-crawling, claustrophobic sense of certain doom. Think of how Tolkien portrayed Gondor in the wave of Mordor's relentless assaults. Perhaps they could hold out temporarily, but without the Ring's destruction Gondor would eventually just be swamped. I didn't really get that sense with GRRM until re-reading parts of A Storm of Swords and The Winds of Winter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, GRRM has been hard on his characters. And bad things happen to them. But metaphysically, theologically, Bakker degrades them at every turn. And i mean degrades. There is not a scene where they can just be human beings doing something, they have to be aware of the filth around them, and the filth that covers them and even fills them. If one were to read authorial intent into works, Bakker loathes people. It is certainly hard to believe that he does not loath his characters. Every instant, every moment that he can grab them and make them eat shit he does. Not just a few deaths, but during everyday events like walking and breathing. His characters constantly realize they are hypocrites, analyzing their flaws but doing nothing about it, etc.

Bakkers characters constantly betray themselves. I do not like, or really think there is a great deal of truth, to Bakkers characters. They are too problomatic, and inhabit a world of endless darkness. I have no idea how they don't all just kill themselves for want of love and friendship. Bakker has a cool world, but it is not one that i would even want to visit. It taints you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to compare the Others to the Consult. We know quite a bit about the history and motivation of the Consult and essentially nothing about the Others. They could be an embodiment of absolute evil like Robert Jordan's Dark One or a sympathetic nemesis like Tad Williams' Ineluki or anything in between. Of course the fact that we're 5/7 of the way through the series and don't know a damn thing about them may speak to their weakness as a main antagonist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AWESOME posts guys, very enlightening. Ironically, this thread has actually made it harder for me to decide why exactly I like Martin more than Bakker (though there's really not a huge gap there...both of these series are easily the best fantasies I've ever read, and I truly, genuinely hate most fantasy). I find myself agreeing with almost everyone somehow...

But I think part of the reason I'm drawn to Martin is simply that his stories feel more...epic? I know, I know, that word has practically lost its meaning these days. But I don't mean epic as in, the Rohirrim arriving on the Pelennor Fields and smashing the Orcs' army. It's the "smaller" moments, the personal ones, that manage to feel amazing. Of course, there are the "big" epic parts too, like Tyrion's charge during the Battle of the Blackwater, where he remembers Jaime talking about "dancing through enemies, blood drunk and laughing".

For me, the defining sensation of "epicness" is that giddy feeling in your stomach, when various characters or plots have come to a head and it just makes your hair stand up and gives you goosebumps. That's when I know I'm reading an amazing book, watching an amazing movie, listening to an amazing song, etc. This happened to me once that I remember in The Darkness That Comes Before, whereas it happens four or five times per book with A Song of Ice and Fire.

One thing I will say about Bakker's first outing though is...

***SPOILERS***

***SPOILERS***

The climax was AWESOME. No big fight, no major deaths, just a bunch of high lords and a verbal duel between Proyas, Conphas, Xerius and Cnaiur, with Kellhus coming in at the end. I thought it was very unique for an ending to an "epic fantasy", and managed to feel JUST as important and climactic as your typical big war scene. That single goosebumps moment I mentioned earlier? This is where it happened, when Conphas started realizing he was fucked. Very cool.

Also this is the first thread I ever made that was actually on the little right-hand sidebar on the front page. Should I proud? I kinda am... :blushing:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dammit, you stole my line. Snagged it like a filthy little magpie....

Again, not an indictment of aging, but a statement on how long it takes for him to get his books out. Perhaps you guys are a little too tender about the subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...