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

[Kalbear]

I agree with everything here. I'll also throw in that Bakker's history is more convincing. GRRM has the bare backbones but is obviously making up a lot of it as he goes along. Whereas the rise and falls of Empire and civilisations in Bakker's world just feels more true. I think GRRM is building the world around his story, whereas Bakker built a world first and is writing a story in it.

I think this is a fundamentally incorrect reading of both series. GRRM only has the bare backbones? He knows who every king was for the last 300 years, combined with all their successors, relatives, stillborn children and other lineages. He has random things mapped out like fights for the crown 200 years ago in rebellions. Tell me - do you know the name of one king of Nansur beyond Conphas or Xerius? How about kings from 100 years ago of Galeoth?

We have two gigantic, well-mapped historical events in Bakker's world - the first apocalypse and the second. Between that is a morass of vaguely hinted at information with no real changes. Put this in perspective: the nations of Zeum, Nansur, Galeoth, etc have not changed in 2000 years. Only the rise of Fanimry has changed things, and that's been for a few hundred years - and only in one very specific place. Does that make sense, historically? This is a completely ahistorical vibe to me, personally, and reeks of the kind of fantasy tale almost everyone tells; real history has massive change outside of the plot. GRRM understands this and uses it constantly; Bakker doesn't at all. Which is fine, but it also means that Bakker's world is not remotely as deep historically as Martin's.

TELL ME… ARE WE NOT HARDWIRED TO SUBCONSCIOUSLY GAME AMBIGUITIES TO OUR OWN ADVANTAGE.

Ent, that was damn funny. Also, I MUST KNOW....WHY YOU THINK YOUR READING IS THE TRUE READING is up there as well.

[Tears of Lys]

Because I think GRRM has lost the plot. I had worries about how the whole thing could be pulled together even while reading the first three books, which is incidentally why I came to the board in the first place. Then, I thought Feast was poor and Dance was worse. So, in short, I doubt it will ever be finished, but if it is I doubt it will be finished in a convincing fashion.

With Bakker it's simpler. The real world is depressing enough. I need at least some light with my shade.

Or you could look at it as: The real world is depressing, sure, but at least we don't have to worry about Mog-Pharau and alien rape.

[Happy Ent]

Or you could look at it as: The real world is depressing, sure, but at least we don't have to worry about Mog-Pharau and alien rape.

But remember, dear children

That though the No-God would fell us

If things really turn ugly

We can all trust in Kellhus.

From the Night before the Second Apocalypse.

[Drowned Crow]

GRRM has the bare backbones but is obviously making up a lot of it as he goes along.

That is a bizarre assertion to say the least. The history of Westeros (since the Targaryen invasion) has been mapped out in remarkable detail. For example, Martin appears to have a fairly detailed biography for just about every Targaryen in the last 300 years. And those details have influenced the events in the books in any number of ways. How could he be making this stuff up as he goes? How would it all make sense and fit with the events in the books?

[Werthead]

In fairness, GRRM didn't have the detailed biography of every Targaryen king mapped out from Day 1. He created details as he needed them. The Blackfyre Rebellion is mentioned just as a vague name in the first few books and isn't fleshed out in any detail until THE SWORN SWORD (and I'm pretty certain that the three-eyed crow was not meant to be Bloodraven in 1996, that was a conclusion GRRM probably only reached after inventing him for the TSS six years later).

So now the Targaryen lineage is minutely and exactingly detailed, but it clearly wasn't back when AGoT first came out, and has indeed been made up as the author went along and as he needed the details. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. We're just seeing it from nearer the end of the process (touch wood) then the beginning, when most of the legwork has been done.

[Arthmail]

Ohhh.....buuurn.

[Sci-2]

But remember, dear children

That though the No-God would fell us

If things really turn ugly

We can all trust in Kellhus.

From the Night before the Second Apocalypse.

This should be submitted as fan-fic!

[Shryke]

I think this is a fundamentally incorrect reading of both series. GRRM only has the bare backbones? He knows who every king was for the last 300 years, combined with all their successors, relatives, stillborn children and other lineages. He has random things mapped out like fights for the crown 200 years ago in rebellions. Tell me - do you know the name of one king of Nansur beyond Conphas or Xerius? How about kings from 100 years ago of Galeoth?

We have two gigantic, well-mapped historical events in Bakker's world - the first apocalypse and the second. Between that is a morass of vaguely hinted at information with no real changes. Put this in perspective: the nations of Zeum, Nansur, Galeoth, etc have not changed in 2000 years. Only the rise of Fanimry has changed things, and that's been for a few hundred years - and only in one very specific place. Does that make sense, historically? This is a completely ahistorical vibe to me, personally, and reeks of the kind of fantasy tale almost everyone tells; real history has massive change outside of the plot. GRRM understands this and uses it constantly; Bakker doesn't at all. Which is fine, but it also means that Bakker's world is not remotely as deep historically as Martin's.

Wha? Zeum we know little to nothing about, but Nansur has changed considerably over the last 2000 years. Shit, Nansur is only about 500 years old, expanded considerably for a bit and then was thrown back in the face of the Fanim.

Just because you don't know the details doesn't mean they aren't there Kal.

And yes, GRRM has a list of kings all mapped out, but beyond that everything is fairly vague, both further back and in other areas. Bakker's world is definitely less detailed in the specific names of rulers and such, but the larger outlook of the rise and fall of various empires and such is much more convincing.

[Gormenghast]

You seem to want to dance around the fact that some people (or at least me) are saying Erikson often handles his themes in a trite and shallow way by acting like simply engaging the same ideas makes those forms of engagement equal. It doesn't. Ideas can be handled badly.

Yes, things can be approached in different ways. That's why I don't think it's a matter of measurable "depth" and more a matter of "flavor" and styles that one appreciates more.

Yes, the difference is of depth. It's the same thing as saying it's about the "approach used" or about "the way it's done" or whatever other turn of phrase you choose that means the same damn thing.

Now, beside the fact that one who states that Bakker is "deeper" than something succumbs to the same traps that Bakker denounces (Magical Belief Lottery, thinking of knowing the right answer). Which made me think that people are quick to subscribe to Bakker's ideas: as long they don't apply to themselves.

But beside that, Bakker is indeed a philosopher, and it shows in his work like for DF Wallace (in different ways). His work is built around and to sustain a thesis. It's the main point driving it, the main theme. (and I wouldn't change a thing since I appreciate Bakker for what it is and not for being "as good as")

Erikson instead has more the traveler / explorer attitude. Themes are not "built" the way of Bakker, and are more discovered and then faced. He's not trying to drive a point or tell you a solution.

Now BOTH works get DENSE at times in introspection, symbolism and philosophy, that's why you either hate this and so read things like Abercrombie, Rothfuss, Sanderson or Lynch, whose prose isn't bogged down as much, or prefer one or the other (Bakker or Erikson) because you prefer one's different style and approach.

Because I continue to say that they both handle things on a similar level, but in a specular way. Opposite in the way they rise questions and suggest answers. They are indeed antithetic, (as far generalizations can go), but on similar levels.

Let's say that Erikson and Bakker are two different religions, with two different, antithetic ways of seeing the world. It should be obvious that religions in general are not weighted on a matter of "depth". Is Christianity "deeper" than Islam? It's not a matter of depth, as religions in general are supposed to give answer to very similar problems. It's instead a matter of style and flavor, depending on the path that you like better and that answers your questions in a way you find more satisfying. But thinking that you picked a path, and it's the RIGHT one in the objective sense is exactly the religious kind of stance that Bakker denounces as a delusion and misconception.

[Drowned Crow]

In fairness, GRRM didn't have the detailed biography of every Targaryen king mapped out from Day 1. He created details as he needed them. The Blackfyre Rebellion is mentioned just as a vague name in the first few books and isn't fleshed out in any detail until THE SWORN SWORD (and I'm pretty certain that the three-eyed crow was not meant to be Bloodraven in 1996, that was a conclusion GRRM probably only reached after inventing him for the TSS six years later).

So

now

the Targaryen lineage is minutely and exactingly detailed, but it clearly wasn't back when AGoT first came out, and has indeed been made up as the author went along and as he needed the details. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. We're just seeing it from nearer the end of the process (touch wood) then the beginning, when most of the legwork has been done.

I have no idea when Martin made up certain details or how you know this. But is there anything about the books that makes it "obvious" that stuff is being made up as he goes along. As far as I can see, everything suggests the opposite.

[The Imp's Advocate]

***SPOILERS***

***SPOILERS***

The climax was AWESOME. No big fight, no major deaths, just a bunch of high lords and a verbal duel between Proyas, Conphas, Xerius and Cnaiur, with Kellhus coming in at the end. I thought it was very unique for an ending to an "epic fantasy", and managed to feel JUST as important and climactic as your typical big war scene. That single goosebumps moment I mentioned earlier? This is where it happened, when Conphas started realizing he was fucked. Very cool.

Sorry to bring up a point from several pages back, but the finale of TDTCB really fell flat for me. It seemed like Bakker still hadn't figured out how to portray Kellhus' abilities in a really convincing way.

***SPOILERS***

***SPOILERS***

Kellhus wins the argument using his amazing debating/face-reading skills, but the way it all goes down feels very flimsy, so flimsy that Bakker has to break the fourth wall and hang a bit of a lampshade over it. Kellhus thinks to himself, if Conphas would just mention that, although Cnaiur and Conphas are both untrustworthy, a Nansur war-hero is much less untrustworthy than some Scylvendi who just showed up, the entire argument would fall through.

I get that it's another reinforcement of Bakker's thesis, that the lords want to believe in Cnaiur because it suits their purposes (they really, really don't want to sign the Indenture). But Kellhus didn't come up with a very stunning speech. Like, at all. The disconnect between how Bakker wanted me to see Kellhus' speaking skills, and Bakker's ability to convincingly portray them at that level was too much for me to handle.

He learned though. Throughout the series, Kellhus has been seen at more and more of a distance. This keeps the story interesting, because we have no clue what his motivations are, but it's also less of a burden on Bakker to convincingly portray a supergenius all the time.

[Kalbear]

And yes, GRRM has a list of kings all mapped out, but beyond that everything is fairly vague, both further back and in other areas. Bakker's world is definitely less detailed in the specific names of rulers and such, but the larger outlook of the rise and fall of various empires and such is much more convincing.

Okay, convince me. What was Nansur before it was there? Who was the first Nansur king? How has it changed in 500 years? How about Galeoth? Ce Tydonn? Zeum? What was Shimeh before Fanimry?

To me, there's very little there there. It's similar to what you say about me and Bakker - just because you don't know about martin's history doesn't mean it's not there. We've seen multiple sources of various histories and tales, references to various lines long dead, kingdoms long destroyed, rebellions and usurpations. Where is this in Bakker's world?

Who were the original nations of Man that challenged the nonmen?

Even if I don't know it, it certainly isn't a pervasive part of the novels. People only pretty much bring up the apocalypse in their historical thinkings; they don't bring up kings long ago, rulers, battles, etc. When we get to Mengedda we don't see the countless thousands of battles fought there; no, we only get the battle in the Apocalypse. It's things like that that point to its ahistoricalness, the feeling that things have stayed largely stagnant.

More importantly, to say Bakker does it better than Martin is insane. Bakker doesn't remotely have the details that Martin does, nor does he have the information. And I think Werthead is likely wrong about the reigns of the Targs et al - I think that Martin has stated that he mapped out the great houses through the Targ years for precisely this reason, along with the big events in the last 300 years.

[jurble]

Okay, convince me. What was Nansur before it was there? Who was the first Nansur king? How has it changed in 500 years? How about Galeoth? Ce Tydonn? Zeum? What was Shimeh before Fanimry?

Nansur occupies the Kyranean plain, before Nansur was Cenei. After the collapse of Cenei, Momemn became the paramount city on the plain. No idea about its first king except he was a Trimus emperor. It has changed by getting smaller and smaller over the past 500 years. Galeoth is a Norsirai nation of the Middle North, descended from White Norsirai who escaped the Apocalypse by hiding the Mop, iirc. Ce Tydonn is interesting because it's a Norsirai nation that conquered a Ketyai nation that once existed where it existed after the Apocalypse. At one point, the Captain mentions that Kellhus had a bunch of Orthodox blinded in order to send a message to the "blondies back in Ce Tydonn", yet in the White-Luck Warrior the one scalper that the Captain kills when he denounces Kellhus as a false prophet is described as being Tydonni and black-haired. Whether this is a mistake by Bakker, or someTydonni are mixed-race isn't explained.

Don't know much about Zeum except it's supposed to be Earwa's China, insular and large. Shimeh before Fanimry was a holy city to the Inrithi located in Amatou (sp?), in the Nansur empire.

Who were the original nations of Man that challenged the nonmen?

During the Breaking of the Gates and in the subsequent centuries before the nations developed, you had the Tribes of Ketyai/Satyothi/Norisai/Scylvendi. The Nonmen mansions were quickly over-whelmed. Following that is when human civilization developed.

[Kalbear]

'got smaller' isn't really a particularly descriptive history. If the history of France was 'it got smaller over 1000 years' would that be particularly useful?

Similarly, galeoth - galeoth is most notable for fighting sranc and otherwise...uh...being there for 2000 years. Really? There's a nation without basically any change in 2000 years?

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I could ask very similar questions of any of the 7 kingdoms and know the answers very quickly. With Bakker, at best you get a couple sentences here and there. And that's fine! He doesn't have to have the historical depth that Martin does, because honestly Martin's historical depth is similar to Tolkien's linguistic depth of the elves. It's great, but it's not required. That being said, saying Bakker has a more deep history is just insane.

[jurble]

Galeoth isn't 2000 years old, it's 500 years old. Up until modern-ish times, the Galeoth didn't have any polity above the tribal level.

[Kalbear]

Okay, Jurble. That's great.

Another question: what happened 40 years before TJE, or 20 years before Kellhus? The specific question I'm looking for is what was happening before Moe came on the scene? I ask this because one of the ways that Martin excels is by showing recent history - things like the war of the 9penny kings, or the blackfyre rebellion, or the usurpation or the Theon rebellion. There are lots of little events that happened fairly recently and we end up meeting people who talk about them; what was the last war the Nansur fought before Moe showed up? How about the last war that Xinemus was involved with? Things like that.

[Grack21]

Kalbear, have you even read more then one book of ASOIAF? Cause you said in another thread you didn't know who Molly was, and that indicates to me you haven't read past book 1.

[Kalbear]

Kalbear, have you even read more then one book of ASOIAF? Cause you said in another thread you didn't know who Molly was, and that indicates to me you haven't read past book 1.

HAHAHAH.

Molly was NOT THE RIGHT PERSON. You're not talking about Molly, whoever the hell she is, you were talking about Lollys Stokeworth. The fact that you don't even know her actual name gives you no remote basis to criticize my knowledge. Troll elsewhere.

[Happy Ent]

What I don’t like about this thread is that in the process of rationalising our preferences, we are bound to disparage either one of two very, very good books.

[jurble]

what was the last war the Nansur fought before Moe showed up? How about the last war that Xinemus was involved with? Things like that.

The Dagger Jihad; The war between Ce Tydonn and Conriya where Proyas' father was injured by Gothyelk.