Castel Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 But there is no other than Bakker that makes it abundantly clear that justice is inevitable. Bakker’s world is inescapably just, moreso than Tolkien’s or Lewis’s. I will tread no further than that for fear of spoilers. But Bakker’s world is the 100% opposite of moral relativism. The genuinely interesting thing is how such world—one where measure is unceasing, justice is absolute—actually turns out to be. Moreover, Bakker’s entire story centers around a shining beacon of hope and salvation Who has come to save us. Book aren’t done yet, but so far, it seems to be going in the right direction. I can see nothing like that in Abercrombie, whose stories are just bleak and depressing and cynical. I have a question for you and only you HE: Are you a demon or djinn? Because this is the exact sort of thing they would pull before revealing that what they said was only technically correct and taking your first child anyway. I imagine the stories genesis in tabletop RPGing is responsible for the look of the character, hence Bakker's comments. That does not mean the character is the author or that the character speaks with the author's voice. Twas a joke, but one that I think only makes sense because we can clearly see Bakker shining through Kellhus at times, especially if you didn't just stop at the books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jo498 Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This has always been the silliest complaint. I wonder if the people who say it ever realise they are essentially dismissing the entire genre of historical fiction. I am also impressed that most readers are historically so well versed that they know the details of the 1st crusade by heart (I sure did not, and I am pretty sure that I know more about history than the average reader, although of course less than people with special interests or college majors in the subject). Also the stuff leading to the Holy War and a lot of other things (like MAGIC) are quite different from the real first crusade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 But there is no other than Bakker that makes it abundantly clear that justice is inevitable. Bakker’s world is inescapably just, moreso than Tolkien’s or Lewis’s. I will tread no further than that for fear of spoilers. But Bakker’s world is the 100% opposite of moral relativism. The genuinely interesting thing is how such world—one where measure is unceasing, justice is absolute—actually turns out to be. Ie, whos justice is inevitable? Justice always sounds singular. But it aint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 For Castel, a spoiler about my true identity: I am neither a demon nor a djinn. At least, that’s what I want you to think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sToNED_CAT Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 This has always been the silliest complaint. I wonder if the people who say it ever realise they are essentially dismissing the entire genre of historical fiction. Historical fiction is not fantasy. Close adherence to historical facts is expected in HF (in fact if author messes up with them in HF book I'm quite upset!) For me fantasy is about creating unique new worlds/settings/stories, so fantasy world should be completely detached from real one. If it's not, something simply feels wrong with it. So I generally don't like Alice in Wonderland kind of stories where reality and fantasy mix. The exception is if such books are very well writen, like Gaiman for example. My problems with fantasy authors who are too lazy to create their own worlds (or military campaigns in this case). I have no problem if fantasy author finds inspiration in real life history (like ASOIAF is inspired by War of Roses), but slavishly rewriting whole military campaign is too much. I actually quite liked the books, before they got into that Nansur capital (I forgot the name), precisely because the were original and I never knew what was going to happen in next chapter. Kellhus alone in the woods, his enounter with Nonman, that hunter, Cnaiür, Achamian little spy story, Nansuri imperial politics it was all pretty interesting. After that, the whole main storyline became too predictable and boring (for me). Characters were not good enough to carry the story and I did not care much for whole philosophy and religion, so I finished it, but I'm not planing to reread it again like some other books (at least for some time). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 For Castel, a spoiler about my true identity: I am neither a demon nor a djinn. At least, that’s what I want you to think. Well, as long as you limit your interest in seeds to the type dropped by plants I take your word for it. Though I shall be watching...closely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serious Callers Only Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 But there is no other than Bakker that makes it abundantly clear that justice is inevitable. Bakker’s world is inescapably just, moreso than Tolkien’s or Lewis’s. I will tread no further than that for fear of spoilers. But Bakker’s world is the 100% opposite of moral relativism. Not at all. It is inescapably unjust. By not 'relativizing' circumstances true justice is impossible - not to mention that it's ignorant bigots demiurg-ing it. You can apply whatever deductions pertaining to my worldview you want from this statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Not at all. It is inescapably unjust. How? I don’t understand, in particular since this thread wants to compare Bakker and Abercrombie. Abercrombieworld is unjust in the sense that what you do doesn’t matter. It’s hopeless, bleak, cynical. Bad things happen to good people. Bakkerworld is the opposite. What you do matters to an extent we aren’t used to seeing in fantasy. It’s the morality that we thought we lived in before the Enlightenment. It is terribly, inescapably, harshly just. Nothing is relative, morality is absolute. What makes Bakker so awesome is that the cynical worldview comes off as morally better. We, you and I, don’t actually want justice. Justice is a terrible, terrible thing. What we want, you and I, is something much more specific. We want our justice. We want moral certitude that just happens to flatter exactly our own values. This, of course, isn’t justice. (Unless you think your values are universal, which makes you the center of the moral world. This would be somewhat of a surprise, since after all I am the moral center of the world.) See? This is exactly what RSB is harping about. And the comparison with the morality in Abercrombie’s books makes it very clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentRoamer Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 HE I agree with much of what you say there and you seemed to parse my own thoughts on that post. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 I would disagree slightly: Bakker's morality is arguably subjective, except that the subjective viewpoint in question is God's. You wind up with the old canard about whether the gods are good because they are gods, and can punish anyone who says otherwise. Not that this matters significantly though: the populace must treat it as de facto objective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Historical fiction is not fantasy. Close adherence to historical facts is expected in HF (in fact if author messes up with them in HF book I'm quite upset!) For me fantasy is about creating unique new worlds/settings/stories, so fantasy world should be completely detached from real one. If it's not, something simply feels wrong with it. So I generally don't like Alice in Wonderland kind of stories where reality and fantasy mix. The exception is if such books are very well writen, like Gaiman for example. My problems with fantasy authors who are too lazy to create their own worlds (or military campaigns in this case). I have no problem if fantasy author finds inspiration in real life history (like ASOIAF is inspired by War of Roses), but slavishly rewriting whole military campaign is too much. I actually quite liked the books, before they got into that Nansur capital (I forgot the name), precisely because the were original and I never knew what was going to happen in next chapter. Kellhus alone in the woods, his enounter with Nonman, that hunter, Cnaiür, Achamian little spy story, Nansuri imperial politics it was all pretty interesting. After that, the whole main storyline became too predictable and boring (for me). Characters were not good enough to carry the story and I did not care much for whole philosophy and religion, so I finished it, but I'm not planing to reread it again like some other books (at least for some time). If close adherence to historical narrative is ok in historical fantasy (and :lol: at that idea), then there's no reason it's not ok in fantasy setting. The only difference is in your own expectations and those expectations don't even make sense. Historical fiction is basically just fantasy without the magic anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Historical fiction is basically just fantasy without the magic anyway. You can have fantasy without magic (Gormenghast), but historical fiction is a different beast again. There is nothing fantasy-like about, say, Flashman. Bakker's first trilogy is historically-based epic dark fantasy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Bakker’s first trilogy is also an inversion of Tolkien’s work: Tolkien employs “prior art” from mythologies. Bakker employs “prior art” from history. (In the second trilogy, Bakker he uses “prior art” from literature instead, including Tolkien. He does this quite rigidly, so I’m sure it’s deliberate.) On topic, Abercrombie has a deliberate homage to Helm’s Deep, Bakker has one to Antioch. Bakker, to his credit, has sentient trees. I did get Joe Abercrombie to actually draw me an Ent into my copy of Red Country, but so far that’s the only Abercrombie book with a sentient tree in it. For shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diziet Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Bakker, to his credit, has sentient trees. He does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Ie, whos justice is inevitable? Justice always sounds singular. But it aint.in a world of objective judgment justice is singular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 He does? Oh yes. In White-Luck Warrior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Bakker’s first trilogy is also an inversion of Tolkien’s work: Tolkien employs “prior art” from mythologies. Bakker employs “prior art” from history. (In the second trilogy, Bakker he uses “prior art” from literature instead, including Tolkien. He does this quite rigidly, so I’m sure it’s deliberate.) To be fair, although to a much lesser extent, Tolkien also used history as a basis for some stuff (most notably, the Ride of the Rohirrim). He also included two major plot points just because he thought Shakespeare cheated with his prophecies in Macbeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Nothing is relative, morality is absolute. Ah, I get that - maybe that's what the whole 'it's an objective morality' is actually meant to be pitching - a morality that is absolute? Or enforced as such, anyway. I get that more than I got the whole 'objective morality' thing. Thanks for the intermediary/linking description, HE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 in a world of objective judgment justice is singular. Absolutely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diziet Posted October 17, 2014 Share Posted October 17, 2014 Oh yes. In White-Luck Warrior. Sorry, but what are you referring to exactly? I don't recall any trees... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.