Jump to content

Shoved Down Your Throat


Cantabile

Recommended Posts

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?

You should have specified that in the OP, then. In a thread about messages in fiction, Bakker was almost certainly going to come up. Particularly considering the rather vehement fandom and hatedom that he has here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bakker is just very, very good. It’s no surprise he comes up in many of our debates. He has thought long and hard about a lot of the meta-themes that a nonspecific thread in this forum might want to discuss (world-buildling, language, meaning, plot, story, characters, depiction/endorsement, feminism, culture, rape, race, the Other, motivation for bad guys, modern mindsets in premodern-world fiction, etc.). Bakker is extremely conscious about these issues, and uses his fiction comment on them. The fact the he comes up when we discuss these things is only natural.

There are some other authors who are similarly didactic. It could be argued that we should see more discourse about these authors in meta-threads. Goodkind comes to mind as a bad example. China Mieville would be a good example; he certainly has things to say about fiction, and uses his books as a platform for it. His view of how alien aliens ought to be is fascinating, and the Weaver is a well-executed example that stands proudly besides Bakker’s Inchoroi. Even so, I think Bakker is much, much better: his Inchoroi are essential parts of the story, while the Weaver, for all its qualities, is just a gimmick. The story would be the same without it (some other deus-ex-machina would need to be invented.)

But, sure, we could talk more about Mieville. I’m game. No problem. I think he does good things, also in Iron Council. (But he’s even more ham-fisted than Bakker. And we have to swallow much bigger characterisation-by-authorial-edict camels.)

Similarly, Hal Duncan might come up more. (But I don’t like his stuff at all.) Or Pullman. There are many authors who want to say something beyond spinning a good yarn. (I say that with the utmost respect towards the ability of spinning a good yarn. I’m very didactic myself and normally read for characterisation and story, not for being talked down to.) They would typically populate a meta-thread. Morgan, maybe. (Though I think his own attempt to comment on fantasy tropes, Steel Remains, fails on exactly that count.)

Even Martin has a few glimpses: his Brienne character is very much a conscious comment on genre tropes. (Of course Martin is such an awesome craftsman that he almost never comes off as didactic.)

Moreover, I think Bakker is unique in actively wanting to challenge his readers. It’s his whole point. (Of course, he mind just be rationalising post the fact that he has found out that he isn’t making any friends…) He is some kind of lifeblood for this forum, his energies are what vitalises us. He’s exactly what we (pretend to) want. That he appears in many threads is not a problem. It’s to his credit.

(Except there are no sentient trees in it. Yet.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post, HE.

Bakker certainly has a place in this thread, as to whether or not he "shoves his message down readers throats," but the whole whether or not Kellhus is realistic argument that has been had a thousand times is best had in the Bakker thread, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Mieville and "shoving a message down your throat" I know a lot of people got upset while reading him, because he is very pro workers and pro unions. In other words; a 100% commie who wields Marx as a sledgehammer. Or is he?

The communist/sociality events and actions rarely, if ever actually achieve real change. Nor even a revolution of any sort of decent size. So apart from the obvious "the good guys are workers/in a union" and people in power exploiting the less fortunate, you could also argue that according to Mieville, this is the inevitable state of things. The small people will always be trodden on, regardless of them being the most fabulous beret wearing, cigarette smoking, cafe visiting super cred commies. I almost feel the opposite of what people claim about Mieville: he shows the struggle and the fighting the good fight, but it never actually achieves anything and it remains an ideal to dream of while actually not being REAL. Time and time again it is emphasised how it's a dream or an ideal, and the status quo reigns supreme.

The glorification of revolution is also at least to my eyes completely absent.

I'm not sure how this, in particular is shoving a political stance down your throat. I actually think there is a very strong ambiguity in his writing if you look slightly deeper than what's written on the surface. In my view he uses his literature to explore socialist themes, but it's hardly shoving socialism down your throat reading, if you actually pay attention.

I can agree that Mieville is didactic, but not that he shoves things down your throat. I also think people simplify what it actually is he is telling us. It's definitely not a simple "Socialism is great and the cure for all evils. Now put on your beret." The socialist struggle just keeps on failing, over and over again. The workers and the poor remain down trodden. Sure, we still sympathise with them, but it creates a pretty bleak picture and is very far away from an idealised socialist society as the happy and appropriate ending.

(Can I have a beret anyway though? )

I'm probably going to offend Happy Ent by saying that what you appreciate with Bakker, i.e. his tendency to want to teach us so many things about so many themes just makes him seem pretentious to me. And possibly more of a "shoving things down your throat" sort of writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to offend Happy Ent by saying that what you appreciate with Bakker, i.e. his tendency to want to teach us so many things about so many themes just makes him seem pretentious to me. And possibly more of a "shoving things down your throat" sort of writer.

What is wrong with pretension? It is a virtue that an author holds conviction in the merit or importance of their work's goals and expressions. What author doesn't lay claim that their themes or ideas hold quality? If they didn't, then they wouldn't even be putting those ideas to paper, and trying to distribute them to the masses. What is the alternative to pretension?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong with pretension? It is a virtue that an author holds conviction in the merit or importance of their work's goals and expressions. What author doesn't lay claim that their themes or ideas hold quality? If they didn't, then they wouldn't even be putting those ideas to paper, and trying to distribute them to the masses. What is the alternative to pretension?

Pretension is a poor word choice, in that it implies the author has little to no idea what he is really talking about; the author is 'fronting'. Which is certainly not the case with Bakker: his technical writing skills are exceeded only by his understanding of the philosophical underpinings he is addressing/utilizing and his ability to condense complex ideas to palpable aphorisms/contextualized ideas.

But then, when one uses pretentious in regards to such works, it makes it easier to dismiss said opinion................ IMO, of course :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ep, I was referring to the second paragraph. And I agree with you about the similarities, actually. It astounds me to hear that HE thinks PoN puts forth a skeptical point of you (apparently an view representing Academic and not Pyrrhonian skepticism). That is something I actually know something about, so if HE would indulge me and just tell me why he thinks it's skeptical - spoilers are totally fine - I will, in fact, finish the series. I will have to purchase the third book to do so, so Bakker is counting on you here, HE.

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?

Can I be frank? I don't particularly like my quotes lifted out of context and used to start other threads either. If you don't want it to be about Bakker, how about just starting a thread on this subject with some other example instead of setting me up to defend my position about PoN AGAIN, without even bothering to let me know? Like I want to have this discussion for the 100th time. Note I have tried to bring up other authors throughout the thread.

And now I'm probably going to have to finish the thing. I 100% blame you. :P ;)

In all seriousness, the fact that you set me up like this and kind of got my concept wrong doesn't really bother me, but the fact that you'd have to nerve to then complain about how the thread went really does. These are things you can control if you are the writer of the OP.

ETA: Pretension, as defined, is sounding like you think you are smarter than you actually are. Therefore, the alternative would be humility. Some people can actually make humility sound like pretension, but that is a special (if deeply unfortunate) gift.

A third way out of the whole thing is to just *not think* about how smart you are relative to everyone else when you're framing the words that are coming out of your mouth/keyboard, see, e.g. Solo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably going to offend Happy Ent by saying that what you appreciate with Bakker, i.e. his tendency to want to teach us so many things about so many themes just makes him seem pretentious to me.

I, too, have no problem with pretension. (And no, you haven’t offended me.) For example, my reason to dislike Hal Duncan isn’t the pretentiousness, but that there’s nothing else there. Only style, style, style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I be frank? I don't particularly like my quotes lifted out of context and used to start other threads either. If you don't want it to be about Bakker, how about just starting a thread on this subject with some other example instead of setting me up to defend my position about PoN AGAIN, without even bothering to let me know? Like I want to have this discussion for the 100th time. Note I have tried to bring up other authors throughout the thread.

Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the spot. Your quote is just what got me thinking about the topic. I purposefully didn't mention you in the original post for fear that this would turn into another Bakker argument, but I later brought up the quote to clarify. My apologies.

ETA: Pretension, as defined, is sounding like you think you are smarter than you actually are. Therefore, the alternative would be humility. Some people can actually make humility sound like pretension, but that is a special (if deeply unfortunate) gift.

That isn't the definition of pretension, though. A pretension is a claim made about a merit, quality, or fact, or more vaguely laying a claim to anything. It isn't pretending like you're more intelligent than you actually are, but can be interpreted that way by someone laying claim to knowledge, and others disagreeing with the validity of the pretense.

I like Bakker's definition, myself:

Pretentiousness: If you are smart, the knack for making other people feel stupid. If you are stupid, the knack for making yourself feel smart.

This aligns pretty well with my life experience of how people use "pretentiousness," that is, when the person uses complex vocabulary and expressions, and it goes over their head, so as a sort of self-defense mechanism they simply label the person as "pretentious" to make themselves feel better about their own ignorance.

Not that I am in any way saying that Lyanna Stark is not intelligent, I admire her posts. But I've certainly seen people call Bakker pretentious simply because he makes them feel unintelligent by means of comparison.

How does one even "sound more intelligent than they really are"? What qualities create that appearance? I don't really know how anyone who has read Bakker's blog posts, interviews, works, and speeches, can possibly say he's pretending to be intelligent. He's beyond a doubt a highly educated man, who has poured a lot of thought into the clockwork of our world. If someone believes that he is not as intelligent as he comes across, why not deconstruct what he's said as evidence, rather than simply throwing around meaningless labels like "pretentious"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This aligns pretty well with my life experience of how people use "pretentiousness," that is, when the person uses complex vocabulary and expressions, and it goes over their head, so as a sort of self-defense mechanism they simply label the person as "pretentious" to make themselves feel better about their own ignorance.

Not that I am in any way saying that Lyanna Stark is not intelligent, I admire her posts. But I've certainly seen people call Bakker pretentious simply because he makes them feel unintelligent by means of comparison.

How does one even "sound more intelligent than they really are"? What qualities create that appearance? I don't really know how anyone who has read Bakker's blog posts, interviews, works, and speeches, can possibly say he's pretending to be intelligent. He's beyond a doubt a highly educated man, who has poured a lot of thought into the clockwork of our world. If someone believes that he is not as intelligent as he comes across, why not deconstruct what he's said as evidence, rather than simply throwing around meaningless labels like "pretentious"?

I think we are disagreeing about semantics here. What I MEANT regarding Bakker was far more along the lines of (and online dictionaries support me here)

"Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed"

Not to beat a dead horse, but his description of women as metaphysically inferior and also in real terms horribly enslaved and abused isn't to me exploring a theme or reflecting on something in real life, it's just going way over the top and in many many cases not managing to convey the message well. I know there were a lot of posts basically saying "Oh you are just a bit of a thickie cos you don't understand his profound message here", but I strongly disagree with that. There was a huge disconnect with what he wanted to say and what was actually said. Chine Mieville actually discussed this in an essay I read: that is's incredibly cheap for an author to just claim that he knows better because "I wrote this so I know what it's meant to say". It's a cop out, and I think Bakker used it when he actually failed by biting off more than he could chew.

Hence my use of "pretentiousness".

I can still recognise the virtue of trying to achieve what he wanted though. Like HE, I also think Philip Pullman did a poorer job. That does not remove the problems that exist in Bakker's writing. Nor does it make people stupid for not "getting" it; nor does it make Bakker an un-intelligent man. (Not implying here that Cantabile thinks I am un-intelligent, in fact I am tickled pink that she thinks I write interesting posts. :P )

Risking sounding like a total China Mieville fangirl, I think the difference with what I percieve as Bakker's pretentiousness and China's "non-pretentiousness" can be found here: http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/003092.html

Actually, China probably fits the first description of "pretentious"(Cantabile's and HE's) FAR better than Bakker, as he can make me boggle at word choices and feverishly go through my dictionary. :P He does show a real humility though regarding how people perceive his works and what he was trying to say, whch he illustrates well with the discssion about Lin's treatment in PSS.

To conclude, I think there are different levels here of "shoving things down your throat". Pullman and also Lewis does it by being preachy. Goodkind by being bad and Bakker to a lesser degree by over-shooting his target. I think Mieville by get it more right, but at the same time, what is he trying to teach/tell us? I'm not completely sure of that. (If I was Sologdin I probably would be sure of it though. :) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pretentiousness: If you are smart, the knack for making other people feel stupid. If you are stupid, the knack for making yourself feel smart."

My word, what a self-serving explanation that is! Essentially, "if you call me pretentious, it means you are stupid". Now, I have no interest in further debating the merits of Bakker or his works (I thoroughly enjoyed the first three, then post the Bakker-and-women debacle was put off from reading any more) but that quote is rather telling - clever-clever rather than actually insightful, slightly defensive, and a transparent attempt at undermining rather than addressing criticism.

This thread was interesting before it got all Bakker-y. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A third way out of the whole thing is to just *not think* about how smart you are relative to everyone else when you're framing the words that are coming out of your mouth/keyboard, see, e.g. Solo.

:lol:

That man keeps popping up everywhere, doesn't he?

Min,

I think you should read China's comment on how auhtors responds to criticism and what he thinks about it. Makes for a refreshing read after the Bakker-ville. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Pretentiousness: If you are smart, the knack for making other people feel stupid. If you are stupid, the knack for making yourself feel smart."

My word, what a self-serving explanation that is!

Totally.

Lyanna's definition is the standard one. IMHO. And I should know, as I am, like, an expert at affecting greater talent, culture, intellect than I actually possess. :) If I should have been taking it as a compliment all these years, then, well, I have some things to think over....

So, tell me more about Mieville. What point could Mieville possibly be putting forth? He was someone I kept thinking of throughout this thread as a fantasy counterpart to John Irving, i.e. a classic storyteller. I can see that he has literary goals, but not philosophical ones. I can see that, like Umberto Eco, he likes to push the boundaries of our ability to suspend disbelief.

I have to say, however, that I enjoy his restrained, City and the City, stuff more, even though The Scar has just really stuck with me and must have some Jung-grade archetypal imagery in there or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretension is a poor word choice, in that it implies the author has little to no idea what he is really talking about; the author is 'fronting'. Which is certainly not the case with Bakker: his technical writing skills are exceeded only by his understanding of the philosophical underpinings he is addressing/utilizing and his ability to condense complex ideas to palpable aphorisms/contextualized ideas.

But then, when one uses pretentious in regards to such works, it makes it easier to dismiss said opinion................ IMO, of course :)

I really don't think Bakker's technical writing skills are *that* exceptional. (with a few exceptions: He writes *fantastic* battle-scenes, for instance) that is, I don't think his prose is that good. It tend to be more than a bit giggle-inducing to me, actually. (mind, so is most fantasy)

He's great at plotting, has some interesting ideas and themes, and great world-building... His characterization is, I think, slightly weaker, and his prose not all that exceptional. (battle-scenes excluded)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Specifically, what book are you thinking of?

Accumulated impressions of Perdido, Iron Council and Kraken (which I still haven't finished.) I haven't read The Scar (though its on the list now), and The City and the City I think was actually a more effectively...social(ist) book, for all the lack of the spunky underground unionist resistance. He makes socialism cool the way...Firefly made being a space pirate cool. Theres not (or at least, rarely) a sense that being a space pirate is a personally inescapable moral imperative. (Of course, I view the revolution as an act of despair, while Meiville is, I think, above all a simply fantastic worldbuilder - I can see the difficulty of denying that creation.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is wrong with pretension? It is a virtue that an author holds conviction in the merit or importance of their work's goals and expressions. What author doesn't lay claim that their themes or ideas hold quality? If they didn't, then they wouldn't even be putting those ideas to paper, and trying to distribute them to the masses. What is the alternative to pretension?

Pretension and pretentiousness are not the same thing.

The glorification of revolution is also at least to my eyes completely absent.

I really don't think so. It's a kind of grubby, cynical glorification, but it's still there (at least in Iron Council) it's almost... And I use a Yeardism here :P Death-seeking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...