Shoved Down Your Throat

[Lyanna Stark]

I think the thing is that Esmi doesen't come across as brilliant but uneducated: She just comes across as rather average (maybe a bit more clever than the norm) which cretes this weird (probably not inentional) misogynistic air is THIS all that is expected of a brilliant woman? Esmi who is touted as being very intelligent doesen't come across as such, which unintentionally sends the message that "women are stupid"...

Absolutely 100% this.

This is also what I mean with Bakker probably just missing his target. I am fairly certain this was not the message he wanted to get across.

All the major female characets in Bakker-land are problematic in this context, because you cannot be truly feministic if you basically descrive women as "not quite as human as men", because nobody will sympathise with them. Case in point: Serwe and the Emperors mum. They're both horrid characters. Nobody in their right mind could sympathise with any of them. That leaves Esme as our main barometer for womanhood, on whose shoulder our entire judgement will be based.

I guess in the world of uneducated whores getting somewhere, I like Mieville's thoroughly unpleassant Ann-Hari better.

Kuenjato:

I haven't read Mieville, so I won't comment on him. I've found Kay very uneven in the past and certainly do not recall anything spectacular about his use of language. Most of my reading in the past 3-4 years consists of history monographs, primary documents, and the odd candidate of the Western Canon, to give you an idea of my reading tastes. Before that, it was mostly "L"iterature of the 19th and 20th centuries. I mention this mostly as it is the comparitive template I have. For fantasy, in the past four years I've read Erikson, Bakker, Rothfuss, Lynch, Abercrombie, Abraham, Donaldson's latest, and GRRM. Bakker is pretty much a better writer, to my taste, than all of those listed above. Some, like Rothfuss, aren't even in spitting-distance.

Well, firstly, English is my second language, so a lot of the things I read and have read will not be anywhere near "Western Canon", I am afraid, if this pertains mostly to English speaking literature. That's not to say that I do not enjoy classics of various flavours, including works that are famous for nice prose, like "One Hundred Years of Solitude".

Of the ones you listed above, the only one I have not read yet is Rothfuss. Abercrombie, Abraham and to some degree GRRM write what I'd say his very highly functional prose. It does the job, it makes things flow and it does not get in the way of the story. Personally, since I've worked a lot with Technical Documentation, avoiding anything approaching purple prose is a huge plus in my book. I don't agree that Bakker is better than the above since I found his descriptions and characters just failed to make an impression, in most cases (Xerius and Ikurei Conphas being the exceptions, I feel). Like Galactus said, yes it works in the huge battle scenes, but on a smaller scale, it doesn't sit well with me. Martin on the other hand is a master at describing the intimate, I think. Hence why my favourite ASOIAF characters are Sansa and Tyrion. Such amazing inner journeys.

Erikson's prose is way too rambling and unfinished. Lynch I have mixed feelings about.

Also: try Meville. :) If prose is your thing, he shouldn't fail to at least make an impression.

Not sure what you've read by LeGuin, but you can always try "The Left Hand of Darkness".

Was it really distracting in PSS? Been a bit, but I remember it just being how the Kephri rolled. Wasn't anything feminist about it, it just was. So maybe it really is just all taste (or maybe I'm an unobservant reader).

The males are basically headcrabs and only needed for reproduction. If you don't know what a "Headcrab" is, I refer you to the Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headcrab

[Arthmail]

I agree with what some others have said. I don't want to be told a character is intelligent, i want to be shown. Esmi went from being average, to perhaps above average, but we are told that she is super intelligent. Of course, we are told this by a male character....so....

Meh.

Coltaine, however, from the Chain of Dogs sequence in Erikson, proved his military intelligence to me. I thought it was an excellent sequence, and it gave me some genuine respect for the character. For all of his faults, Erikson did well there.

[Galactus]

Also: try Meville. If prose is your thing, he shouldn't fail to at least make an impression.

You know, I'd probably describe Mieville's prose as "purple" (or at least purplish) which to me generally signifies "a surplus of adjectives".

Mind, I'd also consider Steinbeck and Lovecraft as writing fairly purple prose.

Though tvtropes has some examples. Bakker two writes rather purply.

Basically I'd say "purple" and "florid" are synonyms, more or less. It's the *opposite* of technical or "hard-boiled" prose.

[aimlessgun]

The males are basically headcrabs and only needed for reproduction. If you don't know what a "Headcrab" is, I refer you to the Wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headcrab

Definitely familiar with headcrabs, and that is what the males were. But it didn't feel political in any way. It was like watching the nature channel and seeing female spiders eat the males: that's just how it is.

[Datepalm]

I think both further a feminist position, and both are distractions. I do like didactism in fiction, and I acknowledge that it will throw me out of the story. (Didactism is not, of course, a prerequisite for good fiction, and if I had to choose, I would take characterisation over didactism.)

I dont think the passage you quote at least, from Bakker, is in any way effective didactism. Didactism alone isn't enough. What he's got there is Goodking level ideological awfulness: unless you're already converted, the very act of reading Gookind makes his entire philosophy seems that much more ridiculous. Bakker trying to be unambigous about women is apparently comically simplistic and unbelievably shallow. Do you really think its in some way a profound commentary that women internalize sexism? Or that, apparently, one patronizing conversation with some guy is all it takes to see the light (that is him, apparently, for bonus context)?

[Lyanna Stark]

You know, I'd probably describe Mieville's prose as "purple" (or at least purplish) which to me generally signifies "a surplus of adjectives".

Mind, I'd also consider Steinbeck and Lovecraft as writing fairly purple prose.

Though tvtropes has some examples. Bakker two writes rather purply.

Basically I'd say "purple" and "florid" are synonyms, more or less. It's the *opposite* of technical or "hard-boiled" prose.

I disagree here actually. Well, not 100%, but I think there is an essence of "purple prose" that Mieville (mostly) avoids by being more verbose than "purple", in that he uses a lot of words to describe things, often complicated words, but they don't degenerate into pointless adjective usage just because. I think it's also the lack of romanticism and "sturm und drang" that makes me think of him more as verbose and trying to be a word virtuoso than a writer of purple prose.

I think he sometimes landed on the side of "purple" in PSS, but I don't think he made any mistakes like that in the later publications.

Lovecraft definitely lands on the side of purple quite a lot, but I rather like his purple. :)

Haven't read Steinbeck so can't comment.

A good wiki article on purple prose: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_prose

[Happy Ent]

I took the passage in direct response to Lyanna's disgust with the claim that in Eärwa, women are metaphysically inferior. In the passage Kellhus explains exactly why that is the case.

Simultaneously, I also used it as an example of Bakker being at his bluntest.

What you're doing now, Datepalm, selectively deconstructing a passage, is facile and not interesting. I prefer discourse to be positive in the sense of using bandwidth so supporting own arguments instead of destroying those of others. It's difficult, and I often don't live up do it. But there's no way I'm going to play your game. Just as I am not asking you to come up with even a single example of a better piece of fiction in order to shoot it down. Which, unless you took Treebeard's dialogue in LotR, would be facile.

[Datepalm]

I took the passage in direct response to Lyanna's disgust with the claim that in Eärwa, women are metaphysically inferior. In the passage Kellhus explains exactly why that is the case.

Simultaneously, I also used it as an example of Bakker being at his bluntest.

What you're doing now, Datepalm, selectively deconstructing a passage, is facile and not interesting. I prefer discourse to be positive in the sense of using bandwidth so supporting own arguments instead of destroying those of others. It's difficult, and I often don't live up do it. But there's no way I'm going to play your game. Just as I am not asking you to come up with even a single example of a better piece of fiction in order to shoot it down. Which, unless you took Treebeard's dialogue in LotR, would be facile.

Screw Bakker then, (well, someone screw Bakker. Not me.) in the specifics. As a wider point on the uses and misuses of didactism in fiction - a passage like that one, in Bakker or Meiville or Card or wherever, does not exist divorced from the book its in. What authorial mouthpieces say is not the interesting bit and its not the effective bit. For a different example, that passage where the Septon is going on about how terrible war is to Brienne is maybe my least favorite bit of ASOIAF, becuase its frankly a bit hypocritical - three pages later, the banners are flying and blood is racing and war is just glorious all over again.

[Lyanna Stark]

I took the passage in direct response to Lyanna's disgust with the claim that in Eärwa, women are metaphysically inferior. In the passage Kellhus explains exactly why that is the case.

Thinking about it further, I am not sure that Kellhus did address it in that speech. He does not touch upon the divine at all. If women are metaphysically inferior as being further from God, just letting you know that you internalise sexism won't really solve that. Or did I miss something? (I'm sorry for being disjoined in this discussion, I have been posting this mostly in breaks at work.)

Just thought of an example of poorly executed didactic fiction: "Brideshead Revisited" by Evelyn Waugh. Unless you are a die hard catholic the ending just blows on so many levels.

[Galactus]

Screw Bakker then, (well, someone screw Bakker. Not me.) in the specifics. As a wider point on the uses and misuses of didactism in fiction - a passage like that one, in Bakker or Meiville or Card or wherever, does not exist divorced from the book its in. What authorial mouthpieces say is not the interesting bit and its not the effective bit. For a different example, that passage where the Septon is going on about how terrible war is to Brienne is maybe my least favorite bit of ASOIAF, becuase its frankly a bit hypocritical - three pages later, the banners are flying and blood is racing and war is just glorious all over again.

Truffaut Was Right

[aimlessgun]

Some more thoughts on why ham-fistedness is not only bad for the story, but less convincing for portraying a message.

The basic state for genre fiction is this: while the telling of the story may be a construction, the story itself is Something That Happened, and the subjects are Things That Exist, because of suspension of disbelief.

If an author is too didactic or hamfisted, it breaks that, and the events and characters turn into constructions, and a construction can never convince us of a message because the author has created it, and can rig it any way he wants.

But if SoD is not broken, then an author's message can be supported by Something That Happened, and Things That Exist, and he can in effect trick us into thinking of his constructions as actual evidence for that viewpoint.

And that point where SoD is broken is wildly different for every person.

[Davieboy]

Sorry, wrong thread!

[Guest Raidne]

Happy Ent:

(1) Kellhus says all that in order to manipulate Esme, by buying into what he senses she believes and, in the manner that he did it, using it as way to make her feel as though she is better and more than other women, because she is "special" and has managed to become intelligent and wise even with the disadvantages placed in front of her.

(2) Women became less than equal because men ensalved them because of their sexual needs, akin to cattle and hunger, is not feminist dogma. Frankly, you kind of owe us an apology for saying that.

(3) Even if Bakker meant it to be a feminist message, it is a woman learning about her value from a man. Now, were it that the whole feminist movement were started by a men and perpetuated mostly by men, maybe that wouldn't send the same message, but, as a matter of fact, it was not, and it has always been based on thoughts had by women, perpetuated by women, and explained, yes, by women.

Now, if you'd like to take up something else, you never answered my question about why Bakker promotes skepticism, even though I said I'd buy the third book and finish the series if you showed me that skepticism is a major philosophical theme. At the outset, I hold no opinion one way or the other - never noticed it.

Lastly, I am always stuck by the fact that reading you write about Bakker when you really get into doing an analysis is a lot more enjoyable than actually reading Bakker, even when, just like Bakker, I totally disagree with what you're saying.

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.

Looking at George's earlier stuff, I now have a different opinion. The prose is super visible in his sci-fi (in a way that I mostly like with some noteworthy exceptions). At any rate, I think we tend to write his style off as casual if effective in ASOIAF, but I now think that it is very, very deliberate and done because he thinks that is what fits best with the tone he likes to develop for that genre.

Lastly, I was really waiting for Lyanna to see that comment about The Second Sex. :lol:

[Galactus]

Even if Bakker meant it to be a feminist message, it is a woman learning about her value from a man. Now, were it that the whole feminist movement were started by a men and perpetuated mostly by men, maybe that wouldn't send the same message, but, as a matter of fact, it was not, and it has always been based on thoughts had by women, perpetuated by women, and explained, yes, by women.

Precisely, I can think of precisely one significant male feminist philosopher, and his wife was his partner in most of what he did anyway. (Also, my history of ideas textbook oonce described him as a "the good poodle of liberalism" which I always found funny)

[Happy Ent]

Now, if you'd like to take up something else, you never answered my question about why Bakker promotes skepticism, even though I said I'd buy the third book and finish the series if you showed me that skepticism is a major philosophical theme.

Ah, sorry. I am probably thinking about a passage where Akka remembers his time with Proyas as a student. No idea where that was. I’ll get back when I find it.

Right after ADwD comes out.

[Eponine]

(1) Kellhus says all that in order to manipulate Esme, by buying into what he senses she believes and, in the manner that he did it, using it as way to make her feel as though she is better and more than other women, because she is "special" and has managed to become intelligent and wise even with the disadvantages placed in front of her.

Thinking about it further, I am not sure that Kellhus did address it in that speech. He does not touch upon the divine at all. If women are metaphysically inferior as being further from God, just letting you know that you internalise sexism won't really solve that.

Furthermore, just because a character says something that agrees with our philosophy, how do we know that that is a reflection of the author's beliefs? We don't know whether women are metaphysically inferior in the world that Bakker created - does Kellhus speechifying that women are equal mean that Kellhus is right (within the context of the story)?

Either Kellhus is a stand-in for the author in which his philosophies are identical to Bakker's (the worst kind of shoved down your throat!) or else we can't say that just because a character, even the protagonist, makes a speech that we like, that's what the author is telling us is the real actual message of the book.

I got in an argument about this about Stranger in a Strange Land. The character Jill says, “Nine times out of ten, if the girl gets raped, it’s partly her fault”. It was argued that this was just a character, not Heinlein's opinion coming through in his writing. Yet the character was a heroine of the novel, definitely not a bad guy, and her opinion about rape isn't addressed again as a former character flaw. So what's the standard? If a protagonist says something that's feminist, they're showing that the author isn't really sexist, but if a protagonist says something that's misogynist, they're just a character? Why should we read Kellhus' speech as being Bakker's "real views"?

[Guest Raidne]

Not sure I get you. Bakker's writing style does not factor into my like or dislike of the book. Neither does the plot really. It's the characters and premises of the world that are not attractive to me as a reader.

[Eponine]

This is something that really interests me too. I thought the ending to Iron Council works really well. At the time, I think In was of two minds about it, but the more I let the novel sink in, the better it fits. China himself apparently sees it more as revolution as a myth and inspiration, and a bit of a "socialist dream", i.e. you can have your revolution, but also constantly expect it, in a slighly messianic fashion (and yes I lifted that from an essay, but it really is the truth: there is something strangely messiah like about the Iron Council always approaching New Crobuzon).

This is also why Ann-Hari gets so oncredibly upset with Judah at the end. He takes the decision out of their own hands and completely removes their freedom of choice, their decision making process and everything they have fought for. Of course, we as readers can see why he did it and that it is the "right" decision, but also an incredibly "wrong" decision since it goes against everything the Council is, were and have fought for.

I think it works symbolically, but in the reality of New Crobuzon, I don't think he ends up with either the inspiration or the revolution, and therefore isn't the "right" decision at all. Even before the Collective fell, the Iron Council wasn't their one great hope. When Judah and Cutter come back to New Crobuzon before the train, they find that the Caucusers are ambivalent about their return. The Iron Council had become largely irrelevant to the Collective as they had to continue with their own plans. And the train is described as "hard to see, or hard to think of, or difficult to remember, instant to instant". I don't think that it would stay in mind as a messianic myth moreso than if they had actually been martyrs.

And then as far as the rightness of it, Judah doesn't know how long it will last, he says perhaps till things are ready. With the way things are in New Crobuzon, if things are ever ready and the Iron Council actually came unfrozen, it would no longer be their revolution. Imagine how helpful you'd be to a revolution 200 years in the future. Even from the perspective that as a socialist, that doesn't matter because you're one of the people, I'm not even sure you'd be one of the people anymore, but something else entirely. It's likely that either they'd have no real place in the revolution because they couldn't understand the way the world had changed, or else they'd be a sort of idol, probably a diversion. If they never come unfrozen, it's as if they died. And if they come unfrozen in a world that's not theirs, they missed their chance. So I don't think there's any aspect in which it was the right decision.

[Galactus]

For those that do have a problem with Bakker's musings, do you dislike the books because of those things or in addition to those things?

That is to ask, is it more of "A lot of the rest of the book is cool, it's too bad about X...", or is it more "I think the whole thing is overrated, and I especially don't like X..."???

To me it's "It's a fine book, shame about X and that it's so overrated."

[Datepalm]

To me it's "It's a fine book, shame about X and that it's so overrated."

I see it more as "X is so intrinsically intertwined in the story that its impossible to evaluate it without reference to X.". Its like going "Yeah, I would have liked 1984 if it weren't for all that stuff about totalitarianism and language and stuff."