R Scott Bakker's :The Great Ordeal (spoilers)

[Darth Richard II]

See, this is why I get peeved on here sometimes. Bakker doesn't MAKE mistakes, he does it on purpose.? Cmon.

[themerchant]

What mistake are we discussing being made here?

[Darth Richard II]

...

read the thread?

[kuenjato]

20 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

See, this is why I get peeved on here sometimes. Bakker doesn't MAKE mistakes, he does it on purpose.? Cmon.

Except these "mistakes" are a matter of opinion.

I quite liked the dialogue on history and dead children, for example. It was a nice way to open the novel and I'd prefer it to some declarative-sentence-panic-staccato.  It was all the other stuff right after that I sort of checked out, but that is because the Momemn story isn't much to my liking & obviously have little sympathy for junior psycho Kelly.

I do tire of the EVER DO MEN stuff, and thought it was integrated much better on PoN. But by this point, the repetition is sort of stylistic tic, and at least does play into the thematic elements he was exploring in the sample (particularly Proyas's learning the preliminaries of the deception that is the God of Gods & damnation.

[Darth Richard II]

[themerchant]

10 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

...

read the thread?

I did and cannot see a mistake, folk seem to be talking about a preference, as opposed to a mistake.

That's why i'm asking I cannot see a mistake.

Can you point to it please?

[kuenjato]

1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said:

When you can't form a cogent argument, emoticons work wonders. like so:

[Darth Richard II]

edit: redacted

Carry on.

[themerchant]

3 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

You alright buddy? We're only talking about an excerpt, i'd not let is affect you negatively so much.

[Hello World]

Where is the marked slip into third person? you mean in the Outside section?

[themerchant]

Wait? I'm dense, so please don't get angry with me.

Are we debating whether Bakker wrote the first paragraph in third person deliberately or by mistake?

That what it seems like when i read the thread. Not sure how he could write it by mistake.

[themerchant]

2 minutes ago, Hello World said:

Where is the marked slip into third person? you mean in the Outside section?

The first paragraph i believe. Esme section, thats what Kallbear mentions and Gorg speaks on... I think, i'm also not 100%. Walking on eggshells in case my ignorance causes a stroke lol.

[JGP]

Relegating the criticism as opinion [preference, whatever] has the whiff of the dismissive to it [even if that's what it actually is]

It's a perfectly legitimate gripe to complain about about Esmi's EAMD inner dialogue given the situation and emotional strain of that scene. His to make, his to learn from, sure-- but it is/was a bad choice. Jarring, disruptive, out of character in the circumstance, these are things any author would agree are a no no. 

[Darth Richard II]

Eh no, I'm not going to get drawn into this argument again, it's just going to end like all the others. I'll let kal handle this one if he wants.

I withdraw to me tower of causticness.

 

[themerchant]

Just now, JEORDHl said:

Relegating the criticism as opinion [preference, whatever] has the whiff of the dismissive to it [even if that's what actually it is]

It's a perfectly legitimate gripe to complain about about Esmi's EAMD inner dialogue given the situation and emotional strain of that scene. his to make, his to learn from-- but it is a bad choice. Jarring, disruptive, out of character in the circumstance, these are things any author would agree are a no no. 

I think it has validity as it relates to each person. folk's tolerance/enjoyment of it will be on a scale and like everything will be relative to our own  frame.

For me the things you describe don't exist when i read the excerpt. I can see how they would exist for you though.

But to be fair the argument any author apart from Bakker woud agree is really compelling.

[Calibandar]

Preview chapter also confirms a WLW re-read is definitely in order.

The book may have a 27 page "what has come before ( determines what comes after) " section, but that is not going to cover it by any means.

[Hello World]

Imagine the reactions if we all got for an excerpt was the prologue...

[Kalnestk Oblast]

23 minutes ago, themerchant said:

The first paragraph i believe. Esme section, thats what Kallbear mentions and Gorg speaks on... I think, i'm also not 100%. Walking on eggshells in case my ignorance causes a stroke lol.

Actually, no. It's not the first paragraph. The first paragraph is mostly fine, as we aren't in the moment at that point. That's even what I said - that you can simply state the mantra of 'in riots and sieges princes die' if you want to call back to it. 

It's later, where it refers back to the first paragraph and is in the middle of Esme running around and trying to figure out what the fuck to do and ignoring the Giant Danger so she can save Kel - that was the part that was jarring to me. 

[themerchant]

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Actually, no. It's not the first paragraph. The first paragraph is mostly fine, as we aren't in the moment at that point. That's even what I said - that you can simply state the mantra of 'in riots and sieges princes die' if you want to call back to it. 

It's later, where it refers back to the first paragraph and is in the middle of Esme running around and trying to figure out what the fuck to do and ignoring the Giant Danger so she can save Kel - that was the part that was jarring to me. 

Cheers for the clarification. I now understand. it's this paragraph. Specifically the first two lines.

" Our knowledge commands us, though our conceit claims otherwise. It drives our decisions and so harnesses our deeds—as surely as any cane or lash. She knew well the grievous fate of little princes in times of revolt and overthrow. The fact that her husband’s Empire crashed down about her was but one more goad to find her son. "

Yeah seems standard Bakker , i imagine it will permeate the book to various degrees. As it has the previous 5. Were you expecting it to stop?

 

EDIT: I barely notice it now. However if it is something you do not enjoy or feel disrupts the book, then i can certainly see where the criticism comes in.

[Gormenghast]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I'm simply saying that the two things are at odds, and that conflict isn't good in writing in general. When you are wanting to convey panic and rash decisions based on emotions while simultaneously depicting rational thought about why you've been thinking this way and how it came to you...those don't work well together. One robs the other of narrative focus. 

As I said, that's something perfectly fine to reflect on after the action has passed and you're in a safer spot. I'm not objecting to having EAMD at all - but in that specific moment it was incredibly jarring, because it had been previously so incredibly sympathetic. 

I don't even see it as a "timing" problem. That's definitely third person out-of-character.

So for me the discussion is whether or not it is deliberate. And, if we say it's deliberate, why it's really a problem.

The two things are at odds, indeed. You give priority to the raw emotion, but maybe that wasn't the actual point. If Martin wrote that scene you'd be right. That's what Martin writes about and how he would structure that scene. But I just don't think Bakker's narrative focus and intent is that one.

In that case it wouldn't be a "slip". There are things bubbling up in Bakker's prose, and those things are more important, if not completely revealed, then the explicit plot and immediate actions.

There are indeed two voices overlapping.