Jump to content

Shoved Down Your Throat


Cantabile

Recommended Posts

Ah, okay. I get you (although I think Firefly kind of made libertarianism a social imperative...). But I totally understand what you mean now.

I think that making your political view part of a very attractive setting is arguably something an author does unconsciously and not because of any motive and so it just doesn't come off quite as pushy.

Like, if anarchist resistance looks bad in Red Mars, that's just the plot and the setting, not the author, as opposed to Christian capitalism, which really takes an explicit beating by every character thought to have any sense in the series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

Compared to what other fantasy authors? Specific examples, please, rather than the dodge we recieved in response to "medieval authors/historians". And please, please do not put Robert Jordan, lest I spew water all over my keyboard.

In the genre, his prose is exceptional. While that might not be saying much overall, Bakker is certainly in the top 5%. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of any in fantasy in particular who can compare. (I'm not versed in SF to make such a claim).

EDIT: I ask this question, partially, because I want to read books at Bakker's quality or above. The last two series I read were Abraham's and Abercrombie's, neither of which came close (I will say the latter improved remarkably from his first to fourth book...) though both were enjoyable in their own right. But most genre books? I can't get past the first 2 or 3 pages, the prose is so generic or uninvolving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, okay. I get you (although I think Firefly kind of made libertarianism a social imperative...

lol. wideeyed.gif

I think that making your political view part of a very attractive setting is arguably something an author does unconsciously and not because of any motive and so it just doesn't come off quite as pushy.

This is where that weird duality comes in - New Crobuzon is really extremely attractive. Its one of the greatest genre worldbuilding efforts, like, ever. Its also totally evil. I guess its kind of the question why didn't Meiville take his remarkable imagination and considerable talent for prose and use them to build an utterly beguiling socialist utopia? (I don't think he should have, though. That would be (apart from boring) very un-message-y. I'm not really sure what I think of Meiville as a socialist writer anymore. Its probably time for a re-read.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the genre, his prose is exceptional. While that might not be saying much overall, Bakker is certainly in the top 5%. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of any in fantasy in particular who can compare. (I'm not versed in SF to make such a claim).
Hal Duncan, Gene Wolfe?

On pretentiousness and showing stuff down your throat: some people said Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex was pretentious and tiresome. Maybe Goodkind will actually find more recognition in the future, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the genre, his prose is exceptional. While that might not be saying much overall, Bakker is certainly in the top 5%. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of any in fantasy in particular who can compare. (I'm not versed in SF to make such a claim).

Mieville.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to what other fantasy authors? Specific examples, please, rather than the dodge we recieved in response to "medieval authors/historians". And please, please do not put Robert Jordan, lest I spew water all over my keyboard.

In the genre, his prose is exceptional. While that might not be saying much overall, Bakker is certainly in the top 5%. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of any in fantasy in particular who can compare. (I'm not versed in SF to make such a claim).

EDIT: I ask this question, partially, because I want to read books at Bakker's quality or above. The last two series I read were Abraham's and Abercrombie's, neither of which came close (I will say the latter improved remarkably from his first to fourth book...) though both were enjoyable in their own right. But most genre books? I can't get past the first 2 or 3 pages, the prose is so generic or uninvolving.

Jordan is a bit like Bakker actually, he writes a few things really well but most of the time his prose wobbles between laughable and unassuming.

Martin I think is a better prosaist (interestingly enough despite his writing feeling very much like a TV-show, especially the rapid-fire dialogue, rather than a book) but he has far fewer examples of when I went "Wait, what the hell!?"

I think it's part a matter of what you want: I prefer my prose either to be beautiful (again, very little fantasy does that except in a few passages maybe, Tolkien has some beautiful stuff though) or at least invisible (IE: I don't notice it) Bakker does some things very beautifully (Battle scenes, some setting-the-scene type narrations) but his prose feels weak when writing characters and thoughts. (Mind, writing thoughts is itself a kind of weird thing, since thoughts aren't like that but Bakker's feels especially noticeable)

And by the way, I didn't mean that Shakespeare writes manipulation well: I meant that SHakespeare is trying to manipulate you. Karlskrönikan is another fantastic piece of medieval propaganda.

And of course there's Caesars diaries for the more classically bent.

EDIT: Mieville, yes. He writes beautifully. It's fun just reading his stuff.

I only read Wolfe in swedish, s I can't really comment on him. (the translation was... So so) Pratchett is an entirely different beast in terms of tone but has some very nicely crafted sentences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol. wideeyed.gif

So...does social imperative mean socialist imperative? I took it as meaning ones duty vis a vis one's place in society. That would still be a little ironic, but not a total non sequitor.

We do this all the time, but fantasy authors who write better prose than Bakker would include Martin, Mieville, Kay, Gaimon, and, yes, Rothfuss (I know, I know, it dies off as the book progresses).

I'm sure there are more. Please don't count Ysabel in there either, as, IMO, it is just like everything after Heroes, Season 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting responses. I have read Wolfe (well, BotNS) and loved it. I don't agree about Rothfuss, or GRRM for that matter. The former is pretty good for the genre but not exceptional (IMO) and, as Raidne points out, his flaws grow as the book progresses; and though I feel GRRM is perhaps one of the most gifted storytellers of the genre, his prose is usually quite basic or 'invisible' for the most part (which, perhaps, fits some people's criteria) with only rare (if vivid) passages. People, I feel, tend to enjoy Martin for what is said rather than how it is said... if the former is good enough, which it certainly is for ASoIaF, then the weaknessness or invisibility of the prose is more than acceptable.

I feel Bakker is probably the strongest in description, battle sequences, and variety of language, though he does tend to flog certain words to death, depending on the book ('piled' and 'piling' for TDtCB; 'woollen' for TJE).

Kay... is hit or miss, for me.

Any others? Note, in terms of sheer numbers, we've only mentioned less than 1% of the genre.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the prose is an integral of the book (I mean like it's something that you're supposed to notice, maybe even moreso than the storytelling), I don't want to be noticing it all the time. One of the things that I disliked about PoN was that I was never able to forget that I was reading someone else's words - it was a barrier to getting fully involved in the book. Besides, I felt that Bakker changes styles too drastically between personal scenes and battle scenes.

If it's true that Bakker is "exceptional" among prose writers, that's a pretty sad thing for fantasy, and I guess it deserves to be considered "not real literature".

Mieville fans (of which I am one), do you feel that the end of Iron Council was at all a cop out? I think that it was good in the context of the story - it was almost necessary to bring Judah's setup to a resolution. (And IMO it demonstrates that Mieville does not think of cool bereted commies in smoky cafes as the heart of the revolution). But like Lyanna said, he stops short of showing any real success. This could be a sign that he's nuanced and not pushing the propaganda in his novels that following his political stance will automatically have a positive outcome. But where I think that Mieville kind of falls short is how he fails to show how socialism works at any stage except as "underground unionist resistance" (as Datepalm said). I don't mean how the philosophical/political theory of socialism works, but how it works through characters and their plot-relevant actions. Even in Iron Council, most of the time it seems more like an oligarchy (although of course, he addresses this through Judah), and the entire decision making process seems to be Judah and Ann Hari although he give lip service to a collective process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

interesting responses. I have read Wolfe (well, BotNS) and loved it. I don't agree about Rothfuss, or GRRM for that matter. The former is pretty good for the genre but not exceptional (IMO) and, as Raidne points out, his flaws grow as the book progresses; and though I feel GRRM is perhaps one of the most gifted storytellers of the genre, his prose is usually quite basic or 'invisible' for the most part (which, perhaps, fits some people's criteria) with only rare (if vivid) passages. People, I feel, tend to enjoy Martin for what is said rather than how it is said... if the former is good enough, which it certainly is for ASoIaF, then the weaknessness or invisibility of the prose is more than acceptable.

I feel Bakker is probably the strongest in description, battle sequences, and variety of language, though he does tend to flog certain words to death, depending on the book ('piled' and 'piling' for TDtCB; 'woollen' for TJE).

Kay... is hit or miss, for me.

Any others? Note, in terms of sheer numbers, we've only mentioned less than 1% of the genre.

Cat Valente is an exceptional stylist. Patricia McKillip is really good too. Le Guin, of course.

No idea whether they are better than Bakker, since I haven't read him yet. ;)

Mieville fans (of which I am one), do you feel that the end of Iron Council was at all a cop out? I think that it was good in the context of the story - it was almost necessary to bring Judah's setup to a resolution. (And IMO it demonstrates that Mieville does not think of cool bereted commies in smoky cafes as the heart of the revolution).

I agree, the ending was fitting in the context of the story and worked for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great topic.

I think you should always write about something you would like to read yourself. I think it should be an idea and progress of action that has a good hook to it and is interesting.

Through this idea you can see the limits of background messaging in stories. I give as an example of this C. S. Lewis. When reading his stories, the main line of the action and plot are usually so compellling that you don't care if Aslan is God or what the heck the deep magic is. The best overt or covert themes lay themselves comfotably at the end of the day over the plot like a blanket upon a child tuckered out from play.

Plot dragging is what occures when an underlying theme emerges as the central focus instead of the story action. When themes emerge, they should only break the surface of the water like a fish's fin, and only for a moment, or glide by majesticly in the distance like an iceberg out on the open sea. A good example of this is when Gandalf is monologing about the "pause before the plunge" in The Return of the King.

You have to tie the themes into the plot so well that for that moment of realization or observation, the overt and covert stories mesh and are very hard to seperate. I guess it could also go the way of The Headless Horseman, where there is a two page note afterwards regarding one of the listeners who protests that the story had no moral. Like a Leiber Fafhrd and Mouser story, some good hooks don't need a real deep philosophical point. They are just wicked fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless the prose is an integral of the book (I mean like it's something that you're supposed to notice, maybe even moreso than the storytelling), I don't want to be noticing it all the time. One of the things that I disliked about PoN was that I was never able to forget that I was reading someone else's words - it was a barrier to getting fully involved in the book. Besides, I felt that Bakker changes styles too drastically between personal scenes and battle scenes.

Prose styles are of course a matter of taste, but I for one would rather be appreciating prose for how striking and captivating it is, rather than not even noticing it because it's dull and normal. It leads to a finer appreciation and indulgence in the work for me, rather than acting as a barrier, but as I said that's all in the taste.

There should be a contrast between viewpoints, however. An omniscient narrator (used in many of his battle scenes) should not be the same as a limited third person viewpoint, for they simply are not the same. The prose of a limited third person viewpoint should be a reflection of the character, as it is on their character that the lens is fixed, and as there is an abyss between an omniscient view and the view of a single character, prose should likewise reflect that.

If the contrast feels too jarring, is that a flaw with the prose, or a flaw of the reader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prose styles are of course a matter of taste, but I for one would rather be appreciating prose for how striking and captivating it is, rather than not even noticing it because it's dull and normal. It leads to a finer appreciation and indulgence in the work for me, rather than acting as a barrier, but as I said that's all in the taste.

Of course, but I'd rather have an "invisible" prose than one that makes me giggle (when thatis not intended) is too stylized, or just sounds weird.

Like Bakker's. It works occasionally, but most of the time it's fairly annoying.

There should be a contrast between viewpoints, however. An omniscient narrator (used in many of his battle scenes) should not be the same as a limited third person viewpoint, for they simply are not the same. The prose of a limited third person viewpoint should be a reflection of the character, as it is on their character that the lens is fixed, and as there is an abyss between an omniscient view and the view of a single character, prose should likewise reflect that.

If the contrast feels too jarring, is that a flaw with the prose, or a flaw of the reader?

That's not my issue with Bakker's prose. It's much simpler: He's *good* at the omniscient narrator style. He's atrocious at writing POV, or more limited third-person stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, but I'd rather have an "invisible" prose than one that makes me giggle (when thatis not intended) is too stylized, or just sounds weird.

Like Bakker's. It works occasionally, but most of the time it's fairly annoying.

Why does the prose make you giggle, exactly? I can't recall any prose that I found humorous. As for stylized, and "weird," personally that is what I found sublime about his prose: it evokes a very characteristic atmosphere, and is unlike most prose out there, especially in the genre. I find those to be virtues rather than vices, but to each his own.

That's not my issue with Bakker's prose. It's much simpler: He's *good* at the omniscient narrator style. He's atrocious at writing POV, or more limited third-person stuff.

Atrocious in what way, precisely? Compared to, say, Martin's third-person narration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds fake, stylized (which is a much bigger problem in POV than in omniscient-narrator stuff) there are just way too many times I go "that sounds odd". Partially it's the way people "speak" in their heads: The thoughts themselves are OK (while I think Bakker is relatively limited, he *is* good at characterizing those limited character types he has chosen to include) they just come out wrong in the text, rendering it giggle-worthy.

It often feels a bit too "public", too much as if they re thinking for the benefit of others (which is neccessary because they are, it's just that Martin is better at hiding it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Cantabile' timestamp='1294879788' post='2330847'

There should be a contrast between viewpoints, however. An omniscient narrator (used in many of his battle scenes) should not be the same as a limited third person viewpoint, for they simply are not the same. The prose of a limited third person viewpoint should be a reflection of the character, as it is on their character that the lens is fixed, and as there is an abyss between an omniscient view and the view of a single character, prose should likewise reflect that.

If the contrast feels too jarring, is that a flaw with the prose, or a flaw of the reader?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prose styles are of course a matter of taste, but I for one would rather be appreciating prose for how striking and captivating it is, rather than not even noticing it because it's dull and normal. It leads to a finer appreciation and indulgence in the work for me, rather than acting as a barrier, but as I said that's all in the taste.

There should be a contrast between viewpoints, however. An omniscient narrator (used in many of his battle scenes) should not be the same as a limited third person viewpoint, for they simply are not the same. The prose of a limited third person viewpoint should be a reflection of the character, as it is on their character that the lens is fixed, and as there is an abyss between an omniscient view and the view of a single character, prose should likewise reflect that.

If the contrast feels too jarring, is that a flaw with the prose, or a flaw of the reader?

False dichotomy. It's possible to not notice prose not because it's dull and normal, but because it fits perfectly with the storytelling so that you're not constantly being pulled out of the story to notice the author. Also, it's possible to notice the prose all the time and NOT find it striking or captivating. I don't find Bakker's prose captivating.

But I get the rather obnoxious feeling from you that you will instantly dismiss any criticism against your favorite author by implying that the flaw must lie with those who don't like his writing. ETA: Also I feel that you ascribe to me a position that I never had by replying as if I said that all viewpoints should be written the same. I SAID that Bakker's style change is too drastic for me, not that I thought that the shift between first and third person shouldn't be different at all.

ETA2:

appreciating the subtle evocations of Bakker's prose requires the same eye as reading the poetry of Mallarmé. It's not a fault of the author if the reader is using strict logic to decipher the prose, but of the reader.

Touche.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds fake, stylized (which is a much bigger problem in POV than in omniscient-narrator stuff) there are just way too many times I go "that sounds odd". Partially it's the way people "speak" in their heads: The thoughts themselves are OK (while I think Bakker is relatively limited, he *is* good at characterizing those limited character types he has chosen to include) they just come out wrong in the text, rendering it giggle-worthy.

What is your means of comparison for how "odd" it sounds, though? I'm also not sure what your distinction between fake/authentic prose would be. It's my view that literature, as an art form, should be exploring every means of expression and evocation possibly through written language. Art is not to be caged into definitions such as "authentic" or "fake" as those conceptions can hardly exist where art is considered. If one is speaking of the common vernacular of any language, then we can discuss "authentic" and "fake" based upon how sentence structure and vocabulary compares to the standard use of the language. But literature is not people talking; it is an art form, and "fake" prose can exist no more than the idea of fake form in music.

An artist sticking only to the convention of their field creates nothing but repetition and monotony. Using only the standard prose of contemporary novels would be, to me, as dull as composers sticking to the sonata form for their compositions. Pushing the envelope of convention in art is precisely how art forms are able to evolve.

Bakker's prose often cannot be interpreted literally as well. I remember a thread on here with people making fun of a line about "the honey of anuses," for example. Playing with both the sensory and emotional associations of words, or even sounds of a word, to evoke images and feelings in the reader, rather than through literal writing, is one of the incredible possibilities of literature. It's a technique often employed in writings of the Symbolist movement, and appreciating the subtle evocations of Bakker's prose requires the same eye as reading the poetry of Mallarmé. It's not a fault of the author if the reader is using strict logic to decipher the prose, but of the reader.

And dammit, this thread both makes me want to try Bakker again and yet scares me off him at the same time :P

By again do you mean you tried The Prince of Nothing but didn't enjoy it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...