Shoved Down Your Throat

[Shryke]

The thing is, I've actually read medieval documents And when they try to manipulate people (which they do, often) they are far better at it than Kellhus is.

Again, suspension of disbelief. At some point, the author is probably gonna need to portray someone being good at something the author himself is not good at.

They might not be equally wrong, but they are equally simplistic.

I don't see how.

[Galactus]

Again, suspension of disbelief. At some point, the author is probably gonna need to portray someone being good at something the author himself is not good at.

Agreed. But he has to be good enough at it to at least fool me, or it (naturally) is going to violat my suspension of disbelief.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

So how did people manipulate each other in medieval times?

And why does every thread in literature turn into a thread about Bakker?

[Jon AS]

And why does every thread in literature turn into a thread about Bakker?

Manipulation.

[alguien]

I don't know why, but I found the Dune Mentat training and Bene Gesserit reading/manipulation with the Voice to be far more believable than Kelhus's Dunyain super-profiling powers.

Maybe because in a far advanced future the idea that psychological profiling science had advanced to that degree seemed more believable than the Dunyain. But I also think that Herbert just wrote it better. (at least in the first three books)

ETA: on topic... the last book I read where I felt the author was hammering me over the head was actually Stephen King's The Dome. I just wanted to shout out, "OK. I get it. People are shitty. Society can fall quite easily. Your first and second town selectmen are Bush and Cheney. Understood. FFS."

[Eponine]

The thing is, I've actually read medieval documents And when they try to manipulate people (which they do, often) they are far better at it than Kellhus is.

THIS.

Also,

It's like when an author writes about someone being a military genius. Unless the author is himself a military genius (or a huge history buff and just rips it straight from the real past), he's gonna be bullshitting. And frankly, the readers knowledge of that time-period is probably so poor they wouldn't know what a real medieval military genius looked like anyway.

Yeah, but you can't fault someone who does know a lot about military history for not buying into an inaccurate story. (It would be interesting to me to find out if finding Kellhus' ability to manipulate more or less believable has any correlation to exposure to or study of real life religious manipulation).

And it's not necessarily a shortcoming of the reader to not be able to suspend disbelief. We all have different thresholds. While there's no cut and dried point that defines how much of that is on the author vs. on the reader, it's generally accepted that a good author is one who can overcome that threshold for most readers. Maybe if the author is really ignorant about something, that's not a good thing to write about.

In a novel, for a character to be convincing, he has to be MORE than a psychological construction in which a theoretical being operates using a deductive process. It's very very hard to successfully create a character whose processes don't mirror real life experience, so at the least, the writer has to go to additional lengths to show how his manipulations work differently (whereas Kellhus makes a lot of unconvincing speeches). Beyond that is the problem of charisma. This is something that shouldn't be different for Kellhus than for real life leaders, but IMO, he shows precious little of it.

***

I listened to all the RRetrospective stories via audiobook. I do like almost all of George's earlier work to some degree, including Dying of the Light, but if I hadn't read ASOIAF, I probably would not be breaking down the doors to read more.

[Galactus]

So how did people manipulate each other in medieval times?

I'd classify it as renaissance, but you might start with one of Shakespeare's historical plays.

Or heck, read some speeches, or any chronicle or history really.

[Eponine]

That’s preposterous. One guy is saying “It’s all simple! I know everything. Believe!” and the other is saying “It’s all complicated. I know nothing. Doubt!” and you find them equally wrong?

Not his position about life the universe and everything, but his position on how people are easily manipulated is simplistic, since he appears to find it sufficient to set up a character in the right circumstances and talk about how masses of people flock to him rather than showing than showing any real insight into how that character operates.

[Shryke]

Agreed. But he has to be good enough at it to at least fool me, or it (naturally) is going to violat my suspension of disbelief.

Yes, but this is basically a personal threshold. There really seems little that can be said on it.

I'd classify it as renaissance, but you might start with one of Shakespeare's historical plays.

Or heck, read some speeches, or any chronicle or history really.

I'm not seeing the huge difference here.

[Wras]

So which do you all think is worse? When an author beats you over the head with their message, or when they overshoot the subtlety angle and you have absolutely no idea what they're trying to say (if anything)?

[Happy Ent]

Not his position about life the universe and everything, but his position on how people are easily manipulated is simplistic,

Thanks for the clarification. Still…

You find Kellhus simplistic? Bakker invests a complete monastic order, invests 2000 years of selective breeding, weird neuropuncture science, insane training that would make Asian parents blush, a metaphysic that allows you to really connect to people’s soul (which also really exists and is the same as your soul) and Makes. Him. God. And you find that simplistic? It’s not as if Bakker claims that Conphas can do what Kellhus can. Bakker invest a lot of care into building up some kind of explanation for why Kellhus works.

And “easily”? I simply don’t understand you frames of reference. To me, it shows how a uniquely extreme character could manipulate people, and with great difficulty. Bakker all but gives us a very, very rich view of various characters that are not manipulated. Neither easily nor difficultly. It takes up a big part of the book, makes for great character studies, and a central part of the story. It’s not as if Serwë is the only POV.

[Eponine]

You find Kellhus simplistic? Bakker invests a complete monastic order, invests 2000 years of selective breeding, weird neuropuncture science, insane training that would make Asian parents blush, a metaphysic that allows you to really connect to people’s soul (which also really exists and is the same as your soul) and Makes. Him. God. And you find that simplistic? It’s not as if Bakker claims that Conphas can do what Kellhus can. Bakker invest a lot of care into building up some kind of explanation for why Kellhus works.

But those things that you've listed aren't Kellhus. I'm not criticizing Bakker's plot ideas or his world building. All the things you mentioned - the history, the breeding, the training, the concept of the soul... they're part of a complex world and story. But as far as Kellhus is concerned, they're props, because the background isn't the character. You have all this incredible shit centering around one man, but then when it's time for Kellhus to do and say anything, it falls flat. The actual character doesn't live up to all the background that Bakker creates around him. He's a simplistic character who has been dropped into a framework that tells us he's a god.

[Liadin]

Seriously, have you read Ursula le Guin? She does this is a really fascinating way. Try The Left Hand of Darkness. Try anything in the Hainish Cycle. I love the Hainish - they're like intergalactic hipsters. Yeah, been there, done that, whatever.

I have every intention of getting around to those books one of these days. :) At that point it's possible that my opinion may change.

[Shryke]

Yeah, that was what I was thinking Triskele.

I think part of the problem is people seem to be thinking of weird examples of "better manipulation then Kellhus". Like, guys like Littlefinger aren't even doing the same sort of thing at all.

I mean, the first example that came to my mind was this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward

He's real. Shit, there was a whole prime-time show devoted to him fleecing people. Hot/Cold reading works really well and it's basically an unsuperpowered version of what Kellhus does. (This also, for those of you paying attention, makes Kellhus like a record-breaking winner for The Biggest Douche in the Universe)

The problem, I think, is back to the issues with these kind of behaviors and suspension of disbelief. There's no way you can claim hot/cold reading doesn't work, but trying to convey that is virtually impossible because often the reader isn't gonna fall for it. Just because the reader might not be the kind of person to fall for David Koresh or John Edward's tactics doesn't mean that people don't.

But in virtually any medium it's almost impossible to convey this because it relies on the reader being the type of person who'd fall for this in the first place. And if they aren't, it's not gonna work. And so you, the reader, have to accept that, hey, lots of people do.

I can sit there watching "Crossing Over with John Edward" and laugh at how stupid it all looks and how it would never work, but people eat that shit up.

[Grack21]

I mean, the first example that came to my mind was this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Edward

He's real. Shit, there was a whole prime-time show devoted to him fleecing people. Hot/Cold reading works really well and it's basically an unsuperpowered version of what Kellhus does. (This also, for those of you paying attention, makes Kellhus like a record-breaking winner for The Biggest Douche in the Universe)

Haha oh crap. You made me squirt soda out my nose!

[Eponine]

I think part of the problem is people seem to be thinking of weird examples of "better manipulation then Kellhus". Like, guys like Littlefinger aren't even doing the same sort of thing at all.

He's supposed to be a religious leader, so there are a lot of examples to compare him with.

[Shryke]

He's supposed to be a religious leader, so there are a lot of examples to compare him with.

And no ones making them.

Well, Triskele mentioned David Koresh, which I thought was a decent one.

How about John Smith and the Mormons?

[Liadin]

Eh, since you people insist on having your Bakker discussions in threads about other things, a question: does his character manipulate a self-selecting group of gullible people, or everyone he runs across that he needs to manipulate? Because of course there are people in real life who will fall for anything, and they're the ones who gravitate to cults and scam artists and so on. If one of these modern-day scam artists you're talking about showed up in, say, Congress, or in front of any non-self-selecting group for that matter, their results would be very different.

[Old Nan]

So which do you all think is worse? When an author beats you over the head with their message, or when they overshoot the subtlety angle and you have absolutely no idea what they're trying to say (if anything)?

Oh, absolutely the former. Of course, I'm with Nerdanel about the preeminence of the story. If the story is entertaining, or the craft in writing superb, I find no need for a message and do my best to ignore any that present themselves.

As far as Kellhus goes, it's not surprising that Raidne's criticism of Bakker is entirely scientistic. If you already have the idea that things or people must behave in a certain way, you'll naturally find it hard to suspend disbelief. Pitting one set of evolutionary psychologists against another will result in bitter conflicts.

[Cantabile]

And why does every thread in literature turn into a thread about Bakker?

Seriously. Bakker is my favorite author, and I enjoy talking about his works, but I didn't create this thread to be another discussion about Prince of Nothing. We already have threads entirely devoted to the series, why not bring the arguing there, guys?