Shoved Down Your Throat

[Happy Ent]

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 finally found the relevant passage for this dead horse about this oft-quoted inferiority. It's Bakker at his most didactic, his most shoving-down-your-throatish:

"Perhaps," he said in a manner that reminded Esmenet of an axe biting into wood. "Have you ever wondered why the Gods hold men higher than women?"

Esmenet shrugged. "We stand in the shadow of men," she replied, "just as men stand in the shadow of the Gods."

"So you think you stand in the shadow of men?"

She smiled. There was no deception with Kellhus, no matter how petty. That was his wonder.

"Some men, yes..."

"But not many?"

She laughed, caught in an honest conceit. "Not many at all," she admitted. Not even, she breathlessly realized, Akka...

Only you.

"And what of other men? Aren't all men overshadowed in some respect?"

"Yes, I suppose..." Kellhus turned his palms upward—a curiously disarming gesture. "So what makes you less than a man?"

Esmenet laughed again, certain he played some game. "Because everywhere I've been—every place I've heard of for that matter—women serve men. That's simply the way. Most women are like..." She paused, troubled by the course of her thoughts. She glanced at Serwe, her perfect face illuminated by the wavering light of the fire.

"Like her," Kellhus said.

"Yes," Esmenet replied, her eyes forced to the ground by a strange defensiveness. "Like her... Most women are simple."

"And most men?"

"Well, certainly more men than women are learned... Wise."

"And is this because men are more than women?" Esmenet stared at him, dumbfounded. "Or is it," he continued, "because men are granted more than women in this world?"

She stared, her thoughts spinning. She breathed deeply, set her palms carefully upon her knees. "You're saying women are... are actually equal?."

Kellhus hoisted his brows in pained amusement. "Why," he asked, "are men willing to exchange gold to lie with women?"

"Because they desire us... They lust."

"And is it lawful for men to purchase pleasure from a woman?"

"No..."

"So why do they?"

"They can't help themselves," Esmenet replied. She lifted a rueful eyebrow. "They're men."

"So they have no control over their desire?"

She grinned in her old way. "Witness the well-fed harlot sitting before you."

Kellhus laughed, but softly, and in a manner that effortlessly sorted her pain from her humour.

"So why," he said, "do men herd cattle?"

"Cattle?" Esmenet scowled. Where had all these absurd thoughts come from? "Well... to slaughter for..."

She trailed in sudden understanding. Her skin pimpled. Once again she sat in shadow, and Kellhus hoarded the failing sun, looking for all the world like a bronze idol. The sun always seemed to relinquish him last...

"Men," Kellhus said, "cannot dominate their hunger, so they dominate, domesticate, the objects of their hunger. Be it cattle..."

"Or women," she said breathlessly. The air prickled with understanding.

"When one race," Kellhus continued, "is tributary to another, as the Cepalorans are to the Nansur, whose tongue do both races speak?"

"The tongue of the conqueror."

"And whose tongue do you speak?"

She swallowed. "The tongue of men."

This is grade A feminist dogma. How is this not "exploring a theme" or reflecting on something in real life? You think the observation that dominant social policies are perpetuated by tradition, oppressions and language are irrelevant? You think women today are no longer bound by these shackles? (No, of course you don’t. I’m using a rhetoric figure to express my bafflement with your position.)

You can fault Bakker for being overly modern in this passage. In fact, I hold that criticism, but since Kellhus is speaking, the modernity is warranted. It's an aesthetically legal way of putting these didactic ambitions into the story. It's throat-shovign by proxy. (And since we treated to plenty of other viewpoints on women in the books, some of which reprehensible to us, I think this authorial self-insert is forgivable. (I do remember it grated on me on first reading, though.))

But—and Bakker shines here—the passage even leads to a plot revelation and character study. Bakker doesn't just put this speech in there for the sake of it. No. The dialogue continues to one of the most heart-breaking revelations about Esmi's character, with repercussions far into the story. (Book IV owes chapter after chapter to what Kellhus will tell, or rather coax out of, Esmi on the next page.)

[Galactus]

To distance myself from the Bakker thing, I'm always fascinated by the politics (and lack of politics) in superhero comics. For something that is meant to just be entertainment it (and I'm talking your "average" stuff, not the more consciously political things like say, Delano's Hellblazer (Yuppie Thatcher-loving demons!)) It is at the same time a very political genré (more or less routinely discussing issues such as usage of force, privacy, and other ethical-political questions) yet the fanbase often displays an almost pathalogical aversion to it.

It's quite fascinating really.

[Lyanna Stark]

It's certainly something that's best to form your own opinion about. Besides, nothing wrong with portraying misogyny and all the other nasty social realities in fiction. If Bakker were actually advocating for misogyny then I myself would be turned off by his works, but it's nothing but portrayals.

Don't feel too bad about your giant book collection, my sheet music collection is currently living in the garage because my wife couldn't handle it consuming our house anymore :P

I think we had a 5-6 thread discussion about this issue, because a lot of us feel that this is not so clear cut. Especially with women being described as metaphysically inferior. This is, so far, one of the best examples of "author shoving something down our throats" and we disagree on what it is.

Personally, and I know with 100% certainty as I took part in the first round of "Bakker and Women" that I am not alone in this. Regardless of what Bakker actually MEANT, we have an issue here with message because:

1. The author meant to convey a specific message

2. A majority of the readership got the opposite message

Now, I guess we're stuck here as Cantabile seems to argue that it's fully up to the reader to grasp the meaning of the writings, and if we don't, then tough shit and the author can come and tell us we're not as clever as he is. :)

However, as it turns out, China has another idea about this:

I don’t generally publicly respond to reviews, no matter how wrong-headed or perspicacious I think them. Nine times out of ten, writers’ responses to critics seem to me at best undignified. One of the usual arguments authors level is the foolishness that ‘I know better than you because I wrote it’. To make my position absolutely clear: authorial intention be damned. I do not necessarily know best.

From his response here: http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/11/with-one-bound-we-are-free-pulp-fantasy-and-revolution/

Clearly, Mieville and Bakker are on opposite ends of the spectrum here with regards to literary message and how it's interpreted by the readers. I find myself firmly on Mieville's side here. Sure, there is a possibility that people just are too dumb to get it, but my guess is that won't hold for most of the readership. It may be that a novel isn't to somebody's taste, which is fine, but to claim the readers as a group are mostly to dumb to get it makes one wonder what that actually says about a piece of writing. To me, it means it partially missed the goal it set out to achieve.

[Happy Ent]

He also seems pretty adamant that he doesn't want to push his political ideas down people's throats, which is probably one of the reasons there hasn't been a successful revolution anywhere in Mieville-land. :)

I’m happy we’re talking about Mieville, but I wasn’t actually that much interested in his political throat-shoving. I get the remade, and I get the “political physics” behind the crisis engine, and it’s all fine. As already said on this thread, it seems to me that Mieville uses socialist tropes for setting, not so much for propaganda. I like that.

(On the other hand, the gender politics of the insect people was simply too ham-fisted for me. I rolled my eyes. Same about the garuda morality. So, to show a really, really alien morality you take something from post-modern relativism that a large part of your readership will easily identify with? Gah!)

I also like his stylistic exercises. The middle part of Iron Council was splendid. (I forget what happened to the prose there. It starts in a swamp.) It does draw a lot of attention to itself, and hence away from the story, but that’s fine by me. Maybe when he gets older, these adolescent games will stop, but I enjoy watching people show off, provided they’re good at it. It’s like a needlessly virtuoso cadenza in a concerto.

Mieville, as far as I understand, thinks a lot about genre fiction, just like Bakker. I’ve read some opinion pieces of Mieville, where he writes about non-human mindsets. (Or have I? It’s been many years, and maybe I’m making stuff up now.) As far as I understand, the Weaver is some kind of example of how Mieville thinks a non-human should behave in fiction. So he puts the Weaver into his story. (Same about the vampire-monsters whose name I forget.)

My criticism of Mieville is that the Weaver doesn’t do anything. He’s there because Mieville wants to make a statement about fiction. More generally, Mieville’s stories suck and characterisation is erratic at best. They’re gimmicky. In a world with purposefully alien moralities I lose all connection to the characters, and with multidimensional arachnids-ex-machina and fucking time golems I lose all investment in the story. It’s utterly unexciting. And all of this just because he lacks narrative discipline. Just because he wants to make statements about fiction inside his story.

But he has sentient trees (or close enough), so all is forgiven.

[Lyanna Stark]

This is grade A feminist dogma. How is this not "exploring a theme" or reflecting on something in real life? You think the observation that dominant social policies are perpetuated by tradition, oppressions and language are irrelevant? You think women today are no longer bound by these shackles? (No, of course you don’t. I’m using a rhetoric figure to express my bafflement with your position

Ah yes, I remember that passage. :)

The REASON I remember it is because I thought it jarred with the rest of the story. I think this is where the "show, don't tell" comes in. Bakker TELLS us this is how it is, but there are very few proofs that this is actually the cases. Plus of course, the way he talks to Esmenet is like she is, in fact, a complete idiot with the brain the size of a pea.

The women in the story are:

1. Extremely few, so our selection is very limited

2. One is a crazy abusive hag

3. One is the most annoying, frustrating and horribly tormenting portrait of womanhood ever written. I feel embarrased that any woman can ever be described in this way. She has 0 redeeming qualities. I am talking about Serwe. She actually works in the opposite fashion: with her as one of the main female protagonists, I don't WANT equality for women. She is unable to create any type of sympathy in me. I am not sure if that is the purpose of her, but despite all her misery I could feel nothing for her.

4. Esmenet. A jolly whore who suddenly turns out to be extremely intelligent, yet doesn't show almost any sign of this intelligence. We are told she is, but when does she solve any huge issues?

Of course, this is just my take on it. I completely understand that other people have a different take on it. That's ok by me.

What I think is less OK is for the author to come and tell me I am a dumbarse for not "getting" it. To me, he failed to communicate the message to me.

I also like his stylistic exercises. The middle part of Iron Council was splendid. (I forget what happened to the prose there. It starts in a swamp.) It does draw a lot of attention to itself, and hence away from the story, but that’s fine by me. Maybe when he gets older, these adolescent games will stop, but I enjoy watching people show off, provided they’re good at it. It’s like a needlessly virtuoso cadenza in a concerto.

I think it starts with Judah and the Stiltspears? It is indeed a beautiful bit of writing. I actally loved reading "Iron Council". The more I read it, the more it grew on me. To this day, I think "Iron Council" contains China's finest writing and most vivid, evocative prose. I was a bit wary to start it since what I remember of the threads about it when it was released, it was basically "It's just a bunch of gay commies onna train, total rubbish". Needless to say, my opinion is quite different.

My criticism of Mieville is that the Weaver doesn’t do anything. He’s there because Mieville wants to make a statement about fiction. More generally, Mieville’s stories suck and characterisation is erratic at best. They’re gimmicky. In a world with purposefully alien moralities I lose all connection to the characters, and with multidimensional arachnids-ex-machina and fucking time golems I lose all investment in the story. It’s utterly unexciting. And all of this just because he lacks narrative discipline. Just because he wants to make statements about fiction inside his story.

:lol:

Yes, I can see why that could be a complaint. The lack of narrative discipline I think is a bigger issue in PSS than in TS and IC. Kraken is full of that lack while TC&TC is probably his best work here.

I got the impression that The Weaver is mostly inserted because Mieville wanted a cool monster. The Weaver is like a mixture of Shelob, Edward Scissorhands and Charles Baudelaire.

The Time Golem I think fits the story really well. The more I think about it, the more it fits. I know people hate foreshadowing as well, but doesn't Mieville harp on through the story about "The Perpetual Train". It's bloody well RIGHT THERE in black and white. :lol:

[Galactus]

I think Mieville is a lot more... Playful, than Bakker. Sure, he has a message (of a sort) but he mostly does what he does because he *likes* genré fiction. He likes weird-ass magic and crazy monsters and steampunk robots and everything. He loves them for it's own sake (often I think, to the detriment of his message) That's actually a point: Mieville doesen't push his message down your throat becuase he's too busy nerdgasming about dream-eating moths.

Bakker, for all his Cil-Aujas-is-Moria thing uses a fantasy setting as a vehicle for his message: Mieville uses a fantasy setting for the sake of a cool story, and then throws in a couple of nods to politics on the way.

In a world with purposefully alien moralities I lose all connection to the characters,

Now you're just being silly: You've numerous times lionized Bakker and the Inchoroi specifically for their alien morality :P

and with multidimensional arachnids-ex-machina and fucking time golems I lose all investment in the story.

I really don't see any difference between this and Kellhus-ex-Machina teleportation.

EDIT: Or to put it this way: Mieville is far more concerned about the aestethics of his work than the message. Bakker is the opposite.

Which is not to say that either of them fails at the other thing, but they do have noticeably different focus. (Martin, btw. is somewhere in-between, although his message is more meta-fictional than political)

[Datepalm]

HE, you complain Meiville does ham fisted gender politics but you quote that...thing from Bakker? (I'm not sure if i'd call it prose. Seriously, I don't remember the prose from PON at all, either way, but that passage is just dreadful, IMO.)

[Happy Ent]

Bakker, for all his Cil-Aujas-is-Moria thing uses a fantasy setting as a vehicle for his message: Mieville uses a fantasy setting for the sake of a cool story, and then throws in a couple of nods to politics on the way.

Good way of saying it. I enjoy both, and Mieville, as you say, is playful. Bakker is serious stuff.

Now you're just being silly: You've numerous times lionized Bakker and the Inchoroi specifically for their alien morality :P

But they do something. Their alien morality is an essential pillar of the whole story. Same with the other alien morality: the Dunyain.

And my point was the disconnect. I can’t emote with Kellhus or the Inchoroi. Put too much of of these things in there, and connection is severed. And Mievielle puts alien moralities in there just for the sake of it. Exception: the garuda.

I really don't see any difference between this and Kellhus-ex-Machina spoiler.

No? Strange. We understand the mechanics of magic in Bakkerworld very well, so when Akka confronts Conphas, it’s exciting. No time-golems or Weavers. Kellhus’s spoiler has no huge effect on the story, the confrontation could easily have had the same outcome without the spoiler. (But it makes metaphysical sense, within the confines of the mechanics of magic, that Kellhus would be able to develop exactly that spell. It’s not ex machina at all.)

[Happy Ent]

HE, you complain Meiville does ham fisted gender politics but you quote that...thing from Bakker?

And complain about Bakker’s ham-fistedness when I quote it. I don’t see the contradiction.

[Lyanna Stark]

HE, you complain Meiville does ham fisted gender politics but you quote that...thing from Bakker? (I'm not sure if i'd call it prose. Seriously, I don't remember the prose from PON at all, either way, but that passage is just dreadful, IMO.)

Well yes, rereading it now while not on the phone, it's further exacerbated by Esme's breathless "Only you" there in the middle. The feminist sledgehammer speach, but with a bit of Mills & Boon thrown into the middle for some extra effect in amongs all the random rape and pillaging? :lol:

I'm sorry HE, Bakker just doesn't do it for me in that regard, I am afraid. :)

Which is not to say that either of them fails at the other thing, but they do have noticeably different focus. (Martin, btw. is somewhere in-between, although his message is more meta-fictional than political)

Absolutely. I don't want to come across as a total Bakker hater (I am definitely not). The discussions he has managed to spawn have been very interesting and in that alone he is doing us all a great service. Plus Mog-Pharau is awesome. It's just hard not to be a bit awed by a hugely destructive being speaking in CAPS LOCK.

[Galactus]

I actually think the thing was rather clumsily foreshadowed. (although I kind of see why Bakker does it that way) the moment Akka sat down and explained stuff I knew the "rule" was going to get broken/overridden (this, incidentally is one of my pet-peeves in fiction, so I'm probably a bit unfair to Bakker here)

[Happy Ent]

The REASON I remember it is because I thought it jarred with the rest of the story. I think this is where the "show, don't tell" comes in.

That's not reasonable, I think. We are shown Esmi's superior intellect quite a few times. And it sounds as if you think Esmi remains a whore after Kellhus's revelation.

Is not your distaste grounded in the fact that for us it is difficult to imagine how Esmi could not have known before? That, to me, is the real message. Kellhus tells Esmi something the reader presumably already knows. The surprise is not the contents. The surprise is Esmi's incredulity.

That, to us modern readers, is the provocation: Bakker's claim that modern feminist dogma has not been self-evident to all sexes, classes, and castes throughout all times. We seem to live under the implicit assumption that Esmi ought to already have know this. Right? Bakker's insistence on the opposite is a provocation in itself.

We think that any person with brain above pea must have figured out egalitarianism. It's so obvious to us, that Esmi comes off as dumb for not already have gotten it.

But this position then invalidates the idea that tradition shapes opinion. You can either say "(a) Yes, power structures in society—patriarchy, language, tradition, laws, etc.— have real effect on self-image" (which perfectly explains Esmi's reaction) or "( b ) No, clever people are immune to power structures, words are wind, etc." (thus, Esmi must have already figured this out, and hence Kellhus is insulting her, and the female readership, by his monologue.)

But (a) is a political axiom of feminism. Our modern values predict that Esmi should react just like she does. That it takes real cognitive effort to cast away the shackles of societal mores. Convention has an effect on how people think.

You all may read much better books than me, but I simply haven't seen this level of consistency in other epic fantasy. Martin's modernist nuggets (Dany's internal monologue about democracy, Brienne's reflection on gender, maybe Asha) are utterly laughable in comparison. But they are much better written, in particular because it is easy for us to emote with characters whose mindset is shaped in the same ideological framework as our own.

Esmi, for all her qualities, is an alien in this scene because society has shaped her in a way to we do not understand. Emoting with Brienne is routine.

[Zoë Sumra]

But we know that modern feminist dogma has not always been evident. Esmi's viewpoint here is extremely familiar.

[Lyanna Stark]

That's not reasonable, I think. We are shown Esmi's superior intellect quite a few times. And it sounds as if you think Esmi remains a whore after Kellhus's revelation.

Is not your distaste grounded in the fact that for us it is difficult to imagine how Esmi could not have known before? That, to me, is the real message. Kellhus tells Esmi something the reader presumably already knows. The surprise is not the contents. The surprise is Esmi's incredulity.

That, to us modern readers, is the provocation: Bakker's claim that modern feminist dogma has not been self-evident to all sexes, classes, and castes throughout all times. We seem to live under the implicit assumption that Esmi ought to already have know this. Right? Bakker's insistence on the opposite is a provocation in itself.

We think that any person with brain above pea must have figured out egalitarianism. It's so obvious to us, that Esmi comes off as dumb for not already have gotten it.

But this position then invalidates the idea that tradition shapes opinion. You can either say "(a) Yes, power structures in society—patriarchy, language, tradition, laws, etc.— have real effect on self-image" (which perfectly explains Esmi's reaction) or "( b ) No, clever people are immune to power structures, words are wind, etc." (thus, Esmi must have already figured this out, and hence Kellhus is insulting her, and the female readership, by his monologue.)

But (a) is a political axiom of feminism. Our modern values predict that Esmi should react just like she does. That it takes real cognitive effort to cast away the shackles of societal mores. Convention has an effect on how people think.

You all may read much better books than me, but I simply haven't seen this level of consistency in other epic fantasy. Martin's modernist nuggets (Dany's internal monologue about democracy, Brienne's reflection on gender, maybe Asha) are utterly laughable in comparison. But they are much better written, in particular because it is easy for us to emote with characters whose mindset is shaped in the same ideological framework as our own.

Esmi, for all her qualities, is an alien in this scene because society has shaped her in a way to we do not understand. Emoting with Brienne is routine.

HE,

I think you misunderstand me. During my read of PoN, I never thought of Esmi as stupid. That she doesn't know any different is not strange. I think my objection is instead: she is somehow elevated due to being special, giften, intelligent and just wow. Yet, what does she actually do? I read the novels some time ago, and I can't remember anything she did that stood out as being particulatly clever or different. She is busy fawning over Kellhus most of the time. Kellhus makes her his wife/partner sort of thing. What is her agency? Her own motivation? I think she is at her best when she reflects on her daughter and on her relationship with Akka, because she is not fawning over Akka like she is over Kellhus.

Esme is not a bad character, I just think the way she is written skews your perception of her ("your" = mine and readers who agree with me). It makes her look like something Bakker did not intend. She is described as well versed in many things, yet she comes across as incredibly naive and often as a follower. I guess this is again my "show, don't tell". What Bakker says, and what we are actually shown, don't really match up. I don't think she does throw away the shackles. We are TOLD in the above dialogue that is how it is, but where does she burn her metaphorical bra?

Maybe Bakker at some point tells us that she did, yet by the end of the three books, that is not how it felt.

Hence my point about there being a message, but how is it communicated? And does that communication work?

[MinDonner]

And truly, the device of having one (1) exceptional female character, who does not advance the plot other than as Prize To Be Won, and a short token speech about feminism, is not exactly a new strategy, and fails to bolster Bakker's feminist credentials much. Cos, you know, Richard makes plenty of speeches about how everyone should just stop blindly obeying people, and this does not stop the books' themes from being basically him killing everyone who doesn't blindly obey him. One bit of dialogue just ain't enough.

*bites tongue to save self from getting dragged into Bakker&WomenPartXXXX*

[Datepalm]

And complain about Bakker's ham-fistedness when I quote it. I don't see the contradiction.

You see it as furthering a feminist position, while being a distraction (though theres never anything that ridiculous in PSS that I can remember, while the bug politic ruminations actually flesh out Lins character) in Meiville. Either we like didactism, or we don't.

[Galactus]

HE,

I think you misunderstand me. During my read of PoN, I never thought of Esmi as stupid. That she doesn't know any different is not strange. I think my objection is instead: she is somehow elevated due to being special, giften, intelligent and just wow. Yet, what does she actually do? I read the novels some time ago, and I can't remember anything she did that stood out as being particulatly clever or different. She is busy fawning over Kellhus most of the time. Kellhus makes her his wife/partner sort of thing. What is her agency? Her own motivation? I think she is at her best when she reflects on her daughter and on her relationship with Akka, because she is not fawning over Akka like she is over Kellhus.

Esme is not a bad character, I just think the way she is written skews your perception of her ("your" = mine and readers who agree with me). It makes her look like something Bakker did not intend. She is described as well versed in many things, yet she comes across as incredibly naive and often as a follower. I guess this is again my "show, don't tell". What Bakker says, and what we are actually shown, don't really match up. I don't think she does throw away the shackles. We are TOLD in the above dialogue that is how it is, but where does she burn her metaphorical bra?

Maybe Bakker at some point tells us that she did, yet by the end of the three books, that is not how it felt.

Hence my point about there being a message, but how is it communicated? And does that communication work?

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"...

[Happy Ent]

You see it as furthering a feminist position, while being a distraction [...] in Meiville. Either we like didactism, or we don't.

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.)

[aimlessgun]

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.)

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).

[kuenjato]

Aaah playing total catch up with this subject. :)

No, he isn't.

If you want really good prose try Mieville, LeGuin or Guy Gavriel Kay. I think GRRM has a very deft touch when he writes as well which appeals to me a lot. Another fantastic work is "The Never Ending Story" by Michael Ende (sure it's YA but it's AMAZING) and also Beagle's "The Unicorn".

Sure, Bakker is no plodding, braid tugging Jordan, nor is he the chicken of all evil-Goodkind, but when it comes to those who are the finest in the genre, I wouldn't say he is in the top 5%. Certainly in the top 50% though, absolutely.

There has to be lots more since I don't even consider myself very well read in the SF/F genre.

Now can we please drop the Bakker defence mode here for the thread in general? Serisouly people, the guy ain't that interesting. :P

top 50%? Then why are a mere handful of writers listed (and the same names as given before) in a genre with literaly thousands of published options?

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.

LeGuin? I find her prose (not her storytelling or ideas) distinctly 'invisble' and rather average. GRRM can sometimes write powerful prose, but mostly it is prosaic and often (especially in Game of Thrones, which I've been re-reading recently) very much telling and not showing. Tyrion and Catelyn's trip to the Vale of Arryn was a notable exception.

This is the problem, though. We could spend hours and hours quoting our favorite passages from favorite authors, or comparing random passages, to little effect. This seems as subjective an argument as, well, when I compared Sanderson's prose to Bakker's (elsewhere) and was promptly told that Sanderson's was easier to read and thus far superior.

In any case, this has been an interesting discussion. I think there should be a catch-all Bakker rumble thread, though, so the never-ending argument doesn't continually derail other threads :)