Shoved Down Your Throat

[Eponine]

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..."???

In addition to those things. When I first gave the book a negative review, I didn't mention feminism, philosophy or shoving things down my throat at all (although I was aware of those things). I can't say that the books are badly written, but there's almost no individual aspect of them that I personally enjoyed.

I didn't like the characterization, I didn't find there to be much differentiation between all the minor rulers, as I already said, I didn't find Kellhus convincing...

And that was when I found out that Bakker is a dick:

I sometimes think that those people who find Kellhus’s manipulations unconvincing are those who are the most oblivious to all the ways they themselves are controlled. Since they assume they would be immune to Kellhus’s manipulations, they end up thinking all the characters who do are implausibly weak-minded, or they are simply not convinced by the moves Kellhus makes. But the fact is that all humans are weak-minded.

... and I found the prose in most of the places that attempt to describe feelings to be completely unmoving:

At first she'd barely noticed the desert. She'd been too drunk, too juvenile, with joy. When Kellhus walked with her and Serwe, she'd laughed and talked much as she always had, but it seemed a pretense somehow, a way to disguise the wondrous intimacies they now shared. She'd forgotten what it'd been like in her adolescence, before whoring had placed nakedness and coupling beyond the circle of private, secret things. Making love to Kellhus - and Serwe - had taken what was once brazen and made it demure. She felt hidden and she felt whole.

The only things that I really liked were the ideas behind the Consult and the no-god. But I'd just as soon read a summary or appendix of the mechanics of all that instead of slogging through any more books.

[Dr Spoon]

For what it's worth (not much) the whole good prose thing is probably totally subjective. I'm very much of the view that good prose is like a window pane, and window-pane prose is very hard to write. I'm not sure I've ever read a book for its prose either, but then each to their own, I suppose.

Got to say that Bakker passage was a bit, well, "lecturey", though.

[Happy Ent]

Got to say that Bakker passage was a bit, well, "lecturey", though.

Everybody, including me (who posted it) has said this now.

In fact, Bakker himself was originally afraid that his books were too bluntly feminist. In fact, I thought so, and found it grating, just as with Mieville.

[Happy Ent]

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)?

I think we are sure of that. Kellhus tells us that it is so, and why, in the passage I quoted. A later character in Judging Eye makes a similar statement, and speaks with some authority; possibly with more authority than Kellhus (I can’t expand on that without spoiling a minor plot point). Finally, it would make sense if you follow my understanding of the fundamental principle of Eärwa’s metaphysics [Happy Ent, De principiis IV.8-27, exegesis of the sacred early works of R. Scott Bakker, 2010]: belief begets reality, so societal conventions lead to real and objective metaphysical differences. (This is unlike our world, where pigs don’t fly, no matter how many people believe it.)

Of course, I could be wrong. No matter how many people believe the opposite.

[Guest Raidne]

I guess I find that kind of surprising that writing style and plot do not factor in. I'm of course not trying to tell you how you ought to evaluate things, but is it that those things never factor in? Or is it that the characters and premise are just overwhelming so as to crowd out the writing and the plot?

The latter, yes. I do care a lot about writing style and plot generally. I forgive Kay many, many things because I really like his prose, for instance.

In fact, Bakker himself was originally afraid that his books were too bluntly feminist.

That does not surprise me in the slightest.

In fact, right now, I'm reading a book called The Help for a book club that is about race relations in the deep south with POVs from household help during the early civil rights area but written by a white woman. I suspect she was not worried about going overboard with the whole racial equality thing, but instead was probably highly concerned with whether or not she got it *right* - true this is different because it's not based on people who actually existed, but in that statement is the sort of presumptuousness I have come to identify with Bakker.

But, I'm sure that's my fault. Great quote Ep. Ha.

Having said that, I do not need to like an author to like their books. As far as that goes, I like reading Bakker's blog more than his fiction - I think the ideas are often still very interesting even though I don't really like his personality as it comes through and don't generally agree with his premises. The reasoning itself is still good though - I find Bakker to be pretty valid, just not very sound.

And so there are two ways in which authors fail to convince us - either they reach a place with the characters that we don't feel is a convincing outcome, or they start from a place that we just don't buy from the start. Gallileo's Dream had the former problem, for me.

[Shryke]

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"?

I think the problem is people being confused about the nature of didacticism. (Admittedly HE, imo, chose a very poor quote) Didacticism is a work designed to teach. But nothing about that means it's teaching by some character just flat out saying it.

That type of didacticism, I would argue, is EXACTLY the kind that sucks that this thread exists to complain about. When it's obvious the character is just a mouth-piece for the author and it stops being a story and starts being a lecture from the author about what you should think or believe.

If a story has a theme or message or the like, it should be conveyed through the story as a whole and not through the mouth of a single authorial stand-in.

Didacticism also in no way necessitates that the author believes in what he is conveying either. I can write a story about how awesome communism is without actually believing communism is awesome. I'd say it's only shitty authors using the book as a mouth-piece where it becomes obvious that the author must believe what's being conveyed so ham-fistedly.

Anyway, to get back to HE's passage for a moment, this is in fact not a didactic passage at all. All Raidne's comments about the issues with what Kellhus is saying are the point. Kellhus is using a veneer of feminism to bring Esmenet under his control.

Also, it's not didactic in the way people are thinking because Kellhus is not a stand-in for Bakker! If anyone in the story is a stand-in for the author (in the way that people accuse Tyrion of being a stand-in for GRRM) it's Achamian, the man of perpetual doubt. (Who, it should be noted, ultimately loses the clarity of his doubt)

The message of PoN, like in any good book, is not in the mouth of the characters, but in the whole of story.

Someone brought up the speech from AFFC here and that's another example of this. The speech isn't the whole of the message, it's more of a capstone to a long-running theme through the entire book (and series up to that point) and delivered from a source that makes perfect sense in the story. If occasionally we can sorta see a character being a mouth-piece for the author, it can work so long as it works within the plot and the themes of the book that are evident everywhere else.

[Happy Ent]

(Admittedly HE, imo, chose a very poor quote)

C’mon, Shryke. Lyanna asked about metaphysical inferiority, I posted the perfect quote in response to that. The. Perfect. Quote.

And I’m the only one here to gives that kind of service to his readers. Quotes. Examples. It takes time and effort and energy to find that.

Please, people, fucking stop criticising me for it, in particular, repeatedly. It’s facile and rude and gets on my nerves.

[The Evil Hat]

I find it odd that prose is a simply quantified and mono-dimensional trait in this discussion; there is more than one way to create great prose. Martin excels at the kind of writing that strives for invisibility and clarity at all times; Bakker, Mieville, and others are after doing different things. Among those with more "noticeable" prose I wouldn't put Bakker at the absolute top of my personal scale, but he wouldn't be that far off, either. To me, VanderMeer, Mieville, Gilman, Gaiman, and, at times, Erikson are superior, but all are rather excellent (though if we're bringing horror authors into this, I'd rate Lovecraft and Ligotti far above anyone in SFF; I consider Ligotti's prose unmatched in anything I've read).

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.

Exactly. Theme has to come from the story, not the other way around.

I think this is the difference between Parker's The Folding Knife and her Engineer Trilogy. In The Folding Knife, we're shown Basso being amoral and ruthless, and, as a result, benefiting those around him. When Parker then comes out and says that only amoral bastards can really do good, the message hits home because it's already been proven to us. In the Engineer Trilogy, on the other hand, Vaatzes's belief that people are easily manipulable and that decisions are not a result of conscious thought but rather of those around them (making us gears in a machine), it's inherently unconvincing because the declaration comes before the proof. When we're then shown people acting exactly like that, it doesn't ring true because, having been forewarned that we're about to be manipulated, the characters just come across as constructions; Parker can, after all, do anything she'd like to prove her point in her world.

[Guest Raidne]

I actually thought it was one of the best instances of Kellhus manipulating someone. I did pretty much believe it, in that particular case, except for the way Esme's "feminist awakening" is written, ugh. That's not what it's like. But appealing to a woman on the basis that she is "special" and not subject to roadblocks of sexism is an extremely effective method of manipulation.

[gladius]

There can be at least two layers. One easy to understand for general consumption and one hidden, so that only those with enough knowledge and understanding can find it.

The one for general consumption is the easiest to include, but the hardest to get right. It can be perceived as preaching, if you repeat it often or include a mouthpiece character and it can be misunderstood, if you try to be too fancy about it.

The second layer is the opposite. You must display a high degree of creativity, but once you do it, it's safe, because only the right people will discover it.

And of course you can have another layer, which you keep vague and leave its interpretation to the reader. You can even intentionally mislead the reader with it.

[Shryke]

C’mon, Shryke. Lyanna asked about metaphysical inferiority, I posted the perfect quote in response to that. The. Perfect. Quote.

And I’m the only one here to gives that kind of service to his readers. Quotes. Examples. It takes time and effort and energy to find that.

Please, people, fucking stop criticising me for it, in particular, repeatedly. It’s facile and rude and gets on my nerves.

I have no idea WTF you are talking about or where you suddenly developed this martyr complex from.

I was merely commenting that the passage you linked it not didactic at all, except in the way that it shows the power of manipulation through flattery and controlled revelation.

As for the purpose of you quoting it, I'm not sure it worked for your purpose (although I'm kinda confused about what Lyanna was complaining about and what you were trying to say in response)

As for metaphysical inferiority, I think this gets back to what I was saying above a bit. The book exploring this idea in no way necessitates that the author believes it (and I'd find it ridiculous to suggest he does believe it in the case of Bakker).

But the larger issue, imo, is it's one of those ideas people are just squicked out about. And so people have trouble with any work that explores those type of things, no matter how it's portrayed. It reminds me of that thread we had a bit back on alien moralities or anachronistic characters.

[Guest Raidne]

Also, anyone else think it's awesome to talk about feminism in a thread with this title? :lol:

[Happy Ent]

I have no idea WTF you are talking about or where you suddenly developed this martyr complex from.

Well, and you just ended a sentence with a preposition.

[Shryke]

Also, anyone else think it's awesome to talk about feminism in a thread with this title? :lol:

Are you suggesting that the author shoving his ideas down your throat is akin to a man dominating a women via forced deep-throat fellatio and that we, the reader, must rise up in a feminist-esque revolution and demand the right to be asked before having the author's ideas shoved down our throats in a purely consensual and mutually enjoyable fashion?

[Guest Raidne]

Bwahahahahaha. That lived up to everything I was hoping for with that set up, thank you.

[Eponine]

As for metaphysical inferiority, I think this gets back to what I was saying above a bit. The book exploring this idea in no way necessitates that the author believes it (and I'd find it ridiculous to suggest he does believe it in the case of Bakker).

But the larger issue, imo, is it's one of those ideas people are just squicked out about. And so people have trouble with any work that explores those type of things, no matter how it's portrayed. It reminds me of that thread we had a bit back on alien moralities or anachronistic characters.

This is an interesting issue to me, because I do have a problem with how Bakker explores metaphysical inferiority. However, I grew up in Bakker-philosophy world, "knowing" that I was metaphysically (i.e. spiritually) inferior to men. And it's a fairly wide-spread real life belief.

Maybe the flaw is on my part, that I find it hard to believe in a manifestation of metaphysical inferiority that really doesn't jive with my experiences. Or maybe Bakker is flawed in not really understanding everything that goes into it. But I kind of feel that it's... gratuitous isn't the right word... but something like that... to "explore" a concept in a fantasy world, but the way that he explores it doesn't shed any new light on how that concept plays out in reality. Because what I see in Bakker threads are people arguing about feminism. What I don't see is how his exploration of the concept opened anyone to new ideas of what believing in metaphysical inferiority is like.

[Cantabile]

I did pretty much believe it, in that particular case, except for the way Esme's "feminist awakening" is written, ugh. That's not what it's like.

A "feminist awakening" is not a universal phenomenon with strictly controlled variables and results, but a complex psychological phenomenon like any other "awakening" to concepts, and thereby subjective to the individual. How can one possibly say that's not what it's like based upon their own personal annecdotes and those of others?

[Grack21]

I always find the idea that only females can talk/discuss feminism to be gutbustingly hilarious, in an ironic Shakespearean sort of way.

[Cantabile]

It is certainly ridiculous, but I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything to that effect. There are males that major in gender studies and teach classes on feminism, just as there are Caucasian scholars that specialize in racism towards African American.

It often happens that when I tell someone that I am a feminist their reply is, "...but you're a dude." :rolleyes:

[Eponine]

A "feminist awakening" is not a universal phenomenon with strictly controlled variables and results, but a complex psychological phenomenon like any other "awakening" to concepts, and thereby subjective to the individual. How can one possibly say that's not what it's like based upon their own personal annecdotes and those of others?

No one can say what a subjective experience is like for someone else, but if you talk to a few hundred feminists and start to see certain major themes and experiences in common, pretty soon you have a good idea of "what it's like" for a whole lot of people. And if someone describing the experience in fiction doesn't hit on any of those shared themes and experiences, they need to show awareness that their description falls outside the norm. If I were talking to someone who'd had a completely different type of experience than most other people, I'd ask them more questions about it - what do they think made their experience different? I wouldn't be telling them they were WRONG or that their experience was less real, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing more.