Comparing R. Scott Bakker with George R. R. Martin

[Arthmail]

Don't be stupid. We're all sinewy and tough by now. Gamey even.

Hahaha. Nice.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The smart-arse answer is that Martin is influenced by the War of the Roses, whereas Bakker is influenced by the Crusades.

But, seriously, I think Martin's characterisation is superior; in ASOIAF organic character interaction gives rise to the themes, whereas in Bakker, the characters are there to explore philosophy and metaphysics as much as they are to act out a story. Martin, prior to losing the general thread post-ASOS, also has superior plot: there are plenty of moments of genuine catharsis to be found in the first three books of ASOIAF, more so than appear in the Prince of Nothing.

Where Bakker excels is (1) the world, (2) philosophical depth, and (3) the fantastic elements. Martin's Westeros is populated by memorable, loveable (and hateable) people. But it is the people who make ASOIAF tick: without them, it's just a standard medieval setting with a few tinkerings here and there (the less said about Essos, the better). His names are often mangled real-world names, and feel more pedestrian than poetic. By contrast, Bakker's world is genuinely alien, more in line with what (in my opinion) secondary world fantasy should be, and far more authentic in its construction. Rather than writing historical fiction with ice zombies and dragons tacked on, Bakker gives us something truly inventive. ASOIAF's human villains (or even the Others) cannot compare with the nightmare that is the No God.

[Nukelavee]

Still haven't read any Bakker.

So, in theory, I got nothing...

But - I must say, from that position, absolutely nothing I've read about Bakker on this board tempts me to try him. Which means that I'm likely going to have to give him a chance, so, what ONE book should I try?

Back to why Bakker sounds like a writer that I've always ignored, and been lucky to have done so: I'm not big on books that are founded on exploring an exploration of a contrived philosophy.

[jurble]

contrived philosophy

Whoa whoa, them's fighting words.

[Werthead]

I think Bakker's work is more intellectually stimulating, whilst Martin's is more emotionally engaging. Bakker is more studied and more poised, for lack of a better word. His characters are there to further his themes and the plot, whilst with Martin it's more the case that if a story development requires a character to act unbelievably, then he'd ditch the story development and find another solution. The characters are truer to themselves, even when it damages pacing or the overall storyline.

As a whole I prefer Martin, but Bakker has certainly upped his game recently. I found The White Luck Warrior an altogether superior novel to A Dance with Dragons, and I liked ADWD a lot. ASoIaF has been becoming increasingly cumbersome since at least ASoS, and Bakker has deliberately and successfully avoided that problem so far (reading AFFC convinced him to abandon his original plan to introduce a much larger cast of brand new characters in The Judging Eye and retain the focus on the surviving characters from the first trilogy, with just a couple of newcomers).

But - I must say, from that position, absolutely nothing I've read about Bakker on this board tempts me to try him. Which means that I'm likely going to have to give him a chance, so, what ONE book should I try?

The Darkness That Comes Before. Starting anywhere else doesn't make sense, and his non-fantasy works are less accomplished.

Back to why Bakker sounds like a writer that I've always ignored, and been lucky to have done so: I'm not big on books that are founded on exploring an exploration of a contrived philosophy.

I was put off reading Bakker for a couple of years for the same reason. However, I found the impression given that Bakker was overly-philosophical to be misleading. Clearly it's there, but he's much less prone to it than Erikson (and the issues Bakker raises are more interesting than Eriksons, which can tend towards the obvious and occasionally banal). A philosophical discussion in Bakker usually lasts 1-2 pages, unlike in Erikson where they tend to go on and on, damaging the pacing, and certainly aren't anything on the same level as Goodkind's 75-page diatribes. I also don't find Bakker preachy, as he raises issues and ideas and interrogates them, sometimes with the characters reaching conclusions but often not, or characters reaching different conclusions and thus furthering the storyline and conflict.

Bakker's use of philosophy is more akin to Herbert's (at least in Dune; illuminating the storyline and characters but not overwhelming them).

I usually decide who I enjoy more by asking myself who would be the biggest douchebag to hang out with in real life. I prefer GRRM.

I've hung out with them both. Great guys and it's fair to say that neither are really like they portray themselves online. I think that's true of everyone, to be honest.

[Joe Abercrombie]

I've hung out with them both. Great guys and it's fair to say that neither are really like they portray themselves online. I think that's true of everyone, to be honest.

I resent that. I'm just as much of a tool in real life as I appear to be from the internet, if not more so.

[Werthead]

I resent that. I'm just as much of a tool in real life as I appear to be from the internet, if not more so.

Every (unscientific, anecdotally-based) rule has its exceptions ;)

[polishgenius]

I was put off reading Bakker for a couple of years for the same reason. However, I found the impression given that Bakker was overly-philosophical to be misleading. Clearly it's there, but he's much less prone to it than Erikson (and the issues Bakker raises are more interesting than Eriksons, which can tend towards the obvious and occasionally banal). A philosophical discussion in Bakker usually lasts 1-2 pages, unlike in Erikson where they tend to go on and on, damaging the pacing, and certainly aren't anything on the same level as Goodkind's 75-page diatribes.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair to Erikson (at least to early Erikson). The philosophical diversions in PoN might not go on for as long individually, but there are a lot of them - and while most or all of them end up being somehow part of the plot and worldbuilding in some way, they did (for me, and I know I'm not the only one) detract from the pacing at the time they happened. That became much less the case in the second two books.

On the other hand the diversions make sense. The context of Kellhus as a fireside speaker and Akka as a teacher and all the rest is there as a setting for the discussions, so they're not really diversions, whereas in Erikson, the philosophy often comes out of nowhere from just about any character (especially in the second half).

And the philosophy itself is undoubtedly more complex - partly because, as you say, Bakker often details discussions rather than purely laying it out. That does mean that the rhythm has to pause to unravel said discussion, but that's a side-effect of that kind of story I suppose- greater intellectual engagement at the cost of some pure storytelling flow. Even Gene Wolfe bows to that- but he tells stories essentially dedicated to that kind of thing, so he can weave them in more precisely, whereas Bakker has to divide time between that and the epic fantasy story he's also telling. Like you say, they do eventually slide together, but in the early parts there's a lot of 'pause the story for a fireside tale'.

I remember a lot less of that kind of thing in Dune than in Prince of Nothing. But it's been a while since I read Dune.

[Arthmail]

I feel that the philosophy of Bakker does bog it down. I mean, i tried reading White Luck Warrior again before my other readings got in the way, and a walk through the forest was a bit much. He had to focus on the rot in the forest, the darkness, and on its own it would not have been a big deal. But as i have said before, the taint on everything in his books is wearrying. And then there is the character Cleric, who ranges from awesome to a complete authorial insertion so that he can spout more philosophy.

I would say that any fan of fantasy does need to read Bakker. He has a rich and interesting world, unique to fantasy for sure. I bought the first three books without reading anything, and my first time through i found it a total bore. But i tried again and was very pleased. All you have to do is get past all of the rape, black seed, and ground fucking and you'll be fine.

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

I think Bakker's work is more intellectually stimulating, whilst Martin's is more emotionally engaging. Bakker is more studied and more poised, for lack of a better word. His characters are there to further his themes and the plot, whilst with Martin it's more the case that if a story development requires a character to act unbelievably, then he'd ditch the story development and find another solution. The characters are truer to themselves, even when it damages pacing or the overall storyline.

As a whole I prefer Martin, but Bakker has certainly upped his game recently. I found The White Luck Warrior an altogether superior novel to A Dance with Dragons, and I liked ADWD a lot. ASoIaF has been becoming increasingly cumbersome since at least ASoS, and Bakker has deliberately and successfully avoided that problem so far (reading AFFC convinced him to abandon his original plan to introduce a much larger cast of brand new characters in The Judging Eye and retain the focus on the surviving characters from the first trilogy, with just a couple of newcomers).

The Darkness That Comes Before. Starting anywhere else doesn't make sense, and his non-fantasy works are less accomplished.

I was put off reading Bakker for a couple of years for the same reason. However, I found the impression given that Bakker was overly-philosophical to be misleading. Clearly it's there, but he's much less prone to it than Erikson (and the issues Bakker raises are more interesting than Eriksons, which can tend towards the obvious and occasionally banal). A philosophical discussion in Bakker usually lasts 1-2 pages, unlike in Erikson where they tend to go on and on, damaging the pacing, and certainly aren't anything on the same level as Goodkind's 75-page diatribes. I also don't find Bakker preachy, as he raises issues and ideas and interrogates them, sometimes with the characters reaching conclusions but often not, or characters reaching different conclusions and thus furthering the storyline and conflict.

Bakker's use of philosophy is more akin to Herbert's (at least in Dune; illuminating the storyline and characters but not overwhelming them).

I've hung out with them both. Great guys and it's fair to say that neither are really like they portray themselves online. I think that's true of everyone, to be honest.

Two things I take a stand against- shopping at Walmart and portraying myself any different online than I would in real life. It takes too much effort. I'm just too lazy for that, really. It's probably why I am not a fan of anything that is intellectually stimulating in a philosophical, contrived way.

[Nukelavee]

Well, Joe... your turn in the barrel is close. Picked up Best Served Cold the other day at a used bookstore. It's my rule - an author I'm starting fresh with... I take a chance with a second hand book. After that...if all goes well, I start supporting your lavish lifestyle. :)

By "contrived", I just meant something somebody has come up with and is so enamoured of, they have to share it. If I feel like I'm sitting in a lecture when characters speak...yawn. It's worse when the philosophy is just some self-indulgent thought excercise that just doesn't relate to any real life attitudes.

On the other hand, writing that exposes a philosophy thru the plot and characters, with a minimum of sermonizing, has far more appeal (and is more personally satisfying). To me, a good example of that is the Green Priests/House of Responsible Life stories in Shetterly's Liavik anthologies. You get a more or less basic deathcult that evolves into an order of suicides, but members must fufill all responsibilities and obligations before they end it, meaning, most of them never do get to chose their end. But you never, ever, feel like you are reading a personal stand about suicide or euthenasia.

[Tears of Lys]

A question: People throw around the word "agency" a lot in this forum. What exactly are they referring to?

I always substitute "autonomy" in whenever I hear "agency." "Agency" took over somehow from "autonomy" in college sociology classes. It encompasses a whole lotta words that make your head spin.

Autonomy needs a better agent.

[Arthmail]

Think of agency as a cudgel, with which we bludgeon everyone with equal glee.

[Lady Nerevar]

But - I must say, from that position, absolutely nothing I've read about Bakker on this board tempts me to try him. Which means that I'm likely going to have to give him a chance, so, what ONE book should I try?

The Darkness That Comes Before is the first book...but I kinda hated it when I first read it. I was completely unprepared for the pacing and the way he just throws you into the world. I went through the first half of the book thinking "when is this awesome holy war action going to start," and the second half thinking "oh god the demon penises make them stop*." I was going to give up, but reading discussions on the board and spoiling the conclusion of Thousandfold Though on tvtropes convinced me to keep reading. I absolutely loved TTT, and Darkness holds up much better on a reread.

Plenty of people loved it, though. What I suppose I'm trying to say is that if you don't like the first book, it gets better. And if you like the first book, it gets better :P

*There really aren't that many dicks. And by TTT I had learned to filter them out.

[Hereward]

Well, they have one thing in common as far as I am concerned. I'm not going to be reading either of their next releases.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Hereward,

Why not?

[Happy Ent]

(waits for Hereward to be banned)

[unJon]

Hereward,

Why not?

Because he's not a Dunk & Egg fan? ;)

[Nukelavee]

Lady Nevare - seriously, I may nearly always finish books I start, but if a series is unsatisfying in the first book...done.

Jordan nearly lost me, his last book I enjoyed enough to continue to Sanderson's; GRRM gets a by on DWD for that reason, but Wild Cards is a never ever again series.

Bakker sounds more and more like a long shot; I'm not wading thru a book of lectures and demon weenuses just to get to the end and discover that none of it was worth it, for me.

One book is all he gets, unless it grabs me.

[Shryke]

Lady Nevare - seriously, I may nearly always finish books I start, but if a series is unsatisfying in the first book...done.

Jordan nearly lost me, his last book I enjoyed enough to continue to Sanderson's; GRRM gets a by on DWD for that reason, but Wild Cards is a never ever again series.

Bakker sounds more and more like a long shot; I'm not wading thru a book of lectures and demon weenuses just to get to the end and discover that none of it was worth it, for me.

One book is all he gets, unless it grabs me.

TDTCB is none of those things. Like, there's certainly philosophy involved, but it's not the random pseudo-deep wanking of, say, later Erikson.

The first book is satisfying and alot happens, it's just not a bombastic battle-filled actionstraveganza. (the later books in the series are much more of that sort of thing)