New R. Scott Bakker interview

[Sci-2]

This forum should be the last place on Earth to criticise an author for coming off a bit whiny on his blog…

touche. :-)

[Kalbear]

Am I saying something that I'm missing? All I tried to say was that Kalbear is the most articulate, rational person accusing Bakker of misogyny. I'm sure there were far more vehement people doing so as well.

I think you're missing the part where I didn't actually do that.

[Madness]

Lol, alright. I've definitely read at least two of the Bakker & Women thread from start to finish and I would like to know what your argument actually was/is concerning that subject, Kalbear?

[Kalbear]

Well, in those threads I was arguing against Happy Ent and others that Bakker's world was a reasonable depiction of what medieval times was like for women (HE's argument) vs that Bakker purposely exaggerated the bleakness of women and specifically exaggerated the emphasis of misogyny in his novels (my argument). And Bakker basically confirmed that after Aoife asked him about the Archie Bunker effect.

My view nowadays is that his books are very, very misogynistic. There are few women with much agency, and while they might have strength it is the strength to endure, not to act. That he's remarkably consistent in writing women and how men interact with women over several novels and genres seems to illustrate this more. I think that he does so with purpose - to illuminate certain issues with gender relations and biological vs. rational imperatives. But I also think that he doesn't handle it as well as he could and ends up alienating quite a few readers simply because of the misogyny and constant threat of rape and violent death to women. I don't think Bakker's specifically a misogynist or that he has issues with women; my wife disagrees with me on that, but I don't want to ascribe motive to him.

I also think that he has some problems expressing himself in anything other than a teacher talking down to his students; the dust-up with Vandemeer is a good example of that, as are some of the preachier aspects of WLW. That actually bothers me more than his depictions of women, though at least I tend to gloss over the parts where he goes nuts about The Argument yet again. It would help him immensely to learn how to do interviews in a more conversational tone.

[kuenjato]

Ha I just noticed the part where he said he used to dream about this while playing D&D. Some people here probably just had some major illusions shattered.

...except he mentioned how he developed Earwa with his brother during early-80's DnD sessions in his very first interview (archieved at sffworld), so no, no illusions shattered... at least here.

[Grack21]

Is The Argument something from the books(I've only read two so far) or is that something he actually talks about in interviews.

I agree he doesn't come across too good in his interviews, although I've seen authors much much worse. To be honest though, I don;t understand what he's talking about in his interviews have the time. :P

As for reasonable depiction of medieval times, that argument is what got me to start reading them in the first place. So far it doesn't seem to be THAT exaggerated, although it certainly is a bit. Again, I'm only up to book 2, so maybe something crazy go nuts happens in book 3.

Edit:

...except he mentioned how he developed Earwa with his brother during early-80's DnD sessions in his very first interview (archieved at sffworld), so no, no illusions shattered... at least here.

Hey that's cool. I just know there are a lot of people on this board who automatically dismiss anything that was thought up during D&D. Some Erikson haters in particular tend to harp on it, and I think a lot of them are Bakker fans.

[Madness]

Thanks, Kalbear. That does help to have a better perspective of your opinion. Perhaps, you don't care but for my own benefit:

That Bakker purposely exaggerated the bleakness of women and specifically exaggerated the emphasis of misogyny in his novels (my argument). And Bakker basically confirmed that after Aoife asked him about the Archie Bunker effect.

I agree with this. There are plenty of historical examples where woman have an enormous amount of personal agency. However, most times my examples would focus on instances of husband's dying and personal house's need to be maintained or a woman operating, with much freedom, on behalf of, rarer, morally balanced men of any historical period.

Bakker, obviously, is depicting the worst of the plethora of cultural and social examples at our historical disposal. But I would definitely say that he isn't portraying an entirely fictive society either.

My view nowadays is that his books are very, very misogynistic. There are few women with much agency, and while they might have strength it is the strength to endure, not to act. That he's remarkably consistent in writing women and how men interact with women over several novels and genres seems to illustrate this more. I think that he does so with purpose - to illuminate certain issues with gender relations and biological vs. rational imperatives. But I also think that he doesn't handle it as well as he could and ends up alienating quite a few readers simply because of the misogyny and constant threat of rape and violent death to women. I don't think Bakker's specifically a misogynist or that he has issues with women; my wife disagrees with me on that, but I don't want to ascribe motive to him.

Balanced opinion, which I appreciate. Still is there no chance that the books might eventually have you considering a different perspective of this theme in the series?

I also think that he has some problems expressing himself in anything other than a teacher talking down to his students; the dust-up with Vandemeer is a good example of that, as are some of the preachier aspects of WLW. That actually bothers me more than his depictions of women, though at least I tend to gloss over the parts where he goes nuts about The Argument yet again. It would help him immensely to learn how to do interviews in a more conversational tone.

Again, I realize we've almost gotten into this before and I wish to have this discussion with you but I have to keep this short as I'm about to leave.

I think Bakker is offering a very viable perspective on our world today. Unfortunately, we breed and educate, on average, a society and culture, at least here in North America, of ignorant narcissists. And this will eventually, combined with advances in science and technology, which might outdistance even the most gifted of humanity's ability to understand, destroy our species-wide agency of any sort.

[Kalbear]

Well, I do think that Earwa is pretty fictive - but the Crusades was the model for the first series and the lack of women present vs. the historical picture was somewhat telling in that it was clear Bakker had read the history and decided to alter it to make it more oppressive for women. That he confirmed that this was indeed a purposeful act and not some accident or because he wanted to keep it real seems to point that out.

I think Bakker is offering a very viable perspective on our world today.

Ultimately I think he has an interesting worldview, but there are two problems with it that I see. One is that it's not particularly different than any time before. His argument has always been that humans - not just North Americans, not just anyone, but all humans - are implicitly wired to be ignorant narcissists. And that's probably true. This hasn't changed from before, this hasn't been different than anything else. It's just the way it is. SO if it's an observation into our world, it's not a hugely new one; as Galactus said it's not like determinism hasn't been around, and Freud talked about the id's role in determining what humans do quite a long time ago.

The second issue I have is that it's not really helpful. Ultimately I agree with most of his provisos about humans - our rationalization, our desire to be heard, our filters and confirmation bias are all there and very measurable, even if we try to hide it or ascribe the way we're thinking to be the One True Way. At the same time I don't think being aware of that actually helps that much. You can't change that behavior, and even if you were thinking you did you'd be wrong because it's self-modifying; if you said that you'll try to listen to others more you'd find examples of where you did it more and ignore the examples of where you didn't.

And yes, I know for a fact that I fall into this all the time. I try to be rational about things, I try to use evidence, but I'm sure I miss things that others see because of prior bias. I'm sure I do it on the boards quite a bit too, and I'm sure I rail against it when I see it in others. But...so what? Does that change anything? And does telling everyone that they're meatbags with no real control over their actions get the message out? The best reaction I think you can get to someone telling you that everything that makes you 'you' is a delusion is 'huh...thanks!' and then walking off. Even your reaction to them saying this is scripted!

Is The Argument something from the books(I've only read two so far) or is that something he actually talks about in interviews.

Grack, it's a conversation from Neuropath - well, okay, it's several from Neuropath as well as the premise of the book - where the notion is that what makes you you is simply a bunch of pre-wired rationalizations and learned behaviors, and all of it can be easily altered so that not only are you a totally different person, you wouldn't even miss the old one. It is what Kellhus is aware of that others are not.

[Sci-2]

I found the violence/horror of Neuropath got in the way of the Argument. I think Neuropath would've been better if it was done with two guys competing with each other at an ad agency. Or maybe one guy is in academia.

[Madness]

Ultimately I think he has an interesting worldview, but there are two problems with it that I see. One is that it's not particularly different than any time before. His argument has always been that humans - not just North Americans, not just anyone, but all humans - are implicitly wired to be ignorant narcissists. And that's probably true. This hasn't changed from before, this hasn't been different than anything else. It's just the way it is. SO if it's an observation into our world, it's not a hugely new one; as Galactus said it's not like determinism hasn't been around, and Freud talked about the id's role in determining what humans do quite a long time ago.

I should have been more specific in my highlights. Or, at least, expressed more specificity. I think, Bakker's schtick, his hope, really, is that our ethereal, nigh "improbable," consciousness selves can have actually some sort of positive effect on some severely ingrown biological and neurological wiring, to use the most common analogy. As much as Bakker himself seems to doubt this.

This would feed more into my own schtick but we'll try and tackle this organically.

I can't possibly pretend to understand what Bakker is, ultimately, trying to conceptualize but the view I think I can take as most obviously expressed is that if humanity took an honest responsibility for living and, basically, truly advanced the next generation, rather than however we might define that mechanism today.

I think Bakker, humbly, is suggesting that we honestly accept what a limited tool, science, has taught us and develop more such tools, hand the sum of all knowledge to the next generation and say teach us, who've lived, something. That art should serve as a mechanism of social change rather a self-aggrandizing addiction. That trends in neuroscience have the real possibility of naturally evolving into more ingrown versions of all the social and cultural mechanisms that already exist, rather then furthering human ability and understanding.

Then again, this is my perspective, and especially fallible. But I get the feeling that Bakker thinks all his optimism should be self-evident in his perseverance and, even, the simple choice to present these ideas.

The second issue I have is that it's not really helpful. Ultimately I agree with most of his provisos about humans - our rationalization, our desire to be heard, our filters and confirmation bias are all there and very measurable, even if we try to hide it or ascribe the way we're thinking to be the One True Way. At the same time I don't think being aware of that actually helps that much. You can't change that behavior, and even if you were thinking you did you'd be wrong because it's self-modifying; if you said that you'll try to listen to others more you'd find examples of where you did it more and ignore the examples of where you didn't.

I've always respected you, Kalbear, in your interactions, despite whatever disagreements I imagined we had. I'm not sure how much you are down to debate this but I would value your insight or, of course, anyone else with mind to join in. You've brought up your perspective and I'd like to highlight some of my own, much I think Bakker is wise to himself and expressing in his fiction. I continue to find analogies in his books to my research.

This might generically break down into the nature vs. nurture argument but I would present a culminating option.

What if behaviors are self-modifying and eternally damning only so long as we don't actually utilize our minds? I mean, it's proven that we can, consciously, change physical brain matter and, in my opinion, we can pretty much do this in any direction we choose. Some avenues, like magic, are darker than others, for sure. It's been proven that when we apply active attention, dubbed directed mental force by Jeremy Schwartz, to any activity that we exponentially increase the neuronal structure devoted to that activity. And, honestly, I don't think that the brain has even been remotely been pushed to it's potential. There's many more maxims I might employ in my theories concerning the brain. It is a most incredible evolution.

I digress. I think, Bakker may even take the books here? But I would just sound the boarders on some neuroscience. Ranty.

Do I have a point? No. Definitely, aching to debate though. Lol. Feel free to only respond to the Bakker part, Kalbear.

[Grack21]

Yay! Neuroscience and Philosophy! I don't know whats going on! I just like the crusades and that era of history.

And dragons. Everything needs dragons. Think how awesome twi-er THE SERIES THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED would be if bella got eaten by a DRAGON.

[Borque]

@Pat et al - many thanks for the interview. Very interesting reading.

I will surely miss Scott's blog if he decides to take it off the air.

The second issue I have is that it's not really helpful. Ultimately I agree with most of his provisos about humans - our rationalization, our desire to be heard, our filters and confirmation bias are all there and very measurable, even if we try to hide it or ascribe the way we're thinking to be the One True Way. At the same time I don't think being aware of that actually helps that much. You can't change that behavior, and even if you were thinking you did you'd be wrong because it's self-modifying; if you said that you'll try to listen to others more you'd find examples of where you did it more and ignore the examples of where you didn't.

I disagree here. It is helpful.

Being aware of biases we have does actually reduce their effect. Not by 100%, but the effect is measurable.

And even if we - hypothetically - wouldn't be able to affect our behaviour by any currently known methods, being aware of the biases would definitely be a prerequisite for fighting them in the future.

[lokisnow]

THE SERIES THAT SHALL NOT BE NAMED

Bakker is such a cunt. If the title of the third series was a spoiler, he should/could have just said he hadn't thought of a title for a third series because he never imagined it going to that many books, cross that bridge when he comes to it, sort of thing.

Instead he absolutely ensures that potential series titles will be actively debated, that trends in titling will be studied, particularly of the series as a whole, etc etc. He's being coy just to provoke discussion, I've always thought.

It's entirely possible the title is a "spoiler" in the sense that Half Blood Prince or Deathly Hallows is a spoiler or "the Judging Eye" or "White Luck Warrior" could be considered spoiler titles. Yeah, it's possible to consider them spoilers, but you have to read the damn book to find out what the in-world explanation of the title is.

On the other hand, the other two series titles did not require much of an inworld explanation, so perhaps the third will not as well, fans would not need the "the No God" "The Dead God" "The God Emperor" "The Resurrected God," "The Awakened God" "the Risen God," "The Self Moving Soul," "The Prince of Everything" "The Cannibal King". But non-fans would see such titles as equally pseudo cryptic as Prince of Nothing and Aspect Emperor. Common words in odd, oddly meaningful phrasing.

Still, it could go either way, but it obviously something Bakker wants us to speculate about. But there was no way for us to speculate what in the seven hells The Judging Eye meant before the release of that novel, so its entirely possible that there is no way for us to speculate what the third series title will be/mean either. In this case, Bakker is a gym teacher who enjoys seeing us get a good mental workout on his say so. :-p

[Happy Ent]

In this case, Bakker is a gym teacher who enjoys seeing us get a good mental workout on his say so. :-p

Squatting, like a dog, he hovered over his octogonal laptop, following debates on Westeros. He pummeled his groin, his face a mask of ecstasy.

[Herr Fick]

Well, I do think that Earwa is pretty fictive - but the Crusades was the model for the first series and the lack of women present vs. the historical picture was somewhat telling in that it was clear Bakker had read the history and decided to alter it to make it more oppressive for women. That he confirmed that this was indeed a purposeful act and not some accident or because he wanted to keep it real seems to point that out.

Strangely, though I appreciate Bakker's historical allusions to medieval society, technology and religion, it was always my impression that The Prince of Nothing (its prose as well as its mores and morals, social conventions and traditions) was meant to "feel" like the far-away tales from the Tanakh or similarly ancient writings. To me, it has an odd but very interesting and powerful "Old Testament" with added "Ancient Greece" feeling to it, even though most technologies and societies depicted are quasi-medieval. But that might just be my idiosyncratic impression or interpretation.

Squatting, like a dog, he hovered over his octogonal laptop, following debates on Westeros. He pummeled his groin, his face a mask of ecstasy.

Priceless.

[navrat]

Squatting, like a dog, he hovered over his octogonal laptop, following debates on Westeros. He pummeled his groin, his face a mask of ecstasy.

Heh heh. So eerily good. You must be Bakker in disguise!

[pat5150]

You guys are making my head spin! ;)

Gotta love Bakker! The man leaves no one indifferent, it seems!

Patrick

[Sci-2]

You guys are making my head spin! ;)

Gotta love Bakker! The man leaves no one indifferent, it seems!

Patrick

Yeah, I think if nothing else the man deserves credit for provoking strong responses. Even the criticism of misogyny seems to stem from his ability to get under people's skin by making his female characters seem pathetic...which is funny, because Esmi might be the character I identified with most in PoN despite being male.

HE: more win from your corner. :-)

[Calibandar]

I see Bakker has dodged the question about how far he is with Unholy Consult, and has equally dodged the question of when he thinks it will come out. When he is asked about his plan for the next books to be published, he starts to ramble about the canlit novel that he's failed to get published by a small press and then proceeds to fully ignore what we actually want to read, namely what about TUC? Surely it wasn't lost on him that people want to know about TUC?

I'm inclined to take his silence on the topic as a bad sign. Meanwhile, Orbit has a new date for the book, July 2012. Fictive, I have to suppose.

Other than that, no comments from Bakker that are of interest with regards to plot or characters in the books themselves, so for this first part of the interview is a major disappointment. I am holding out for a meatier second part.

Which is not to say that I don't appreciate the three guys sending him questions, no one else on the net seems to either do it or attempt it. It's just that we now have Bakker showing us more of the same self again, and no info to work with.

[Galactus]

Heh heh. So eerily good. You must be Bakker in disguise!

We already had that once.