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

[The Marquis de Leech]

Even though I have become significantly more impressed by Bakker's work over the course of that includes both AfFC and ADwD. Honestly, I think the only problem with those two books is that they should have been ONE book. Splitting them up was silly, and resulted in each of them containing a very unnecesarry amount of fluff.

Treating AFFC and ADWD as one entity, Jaime's storyline could have been cut altogether (as could Tyrion's), Sam's and Brienne's travelogues could have been cut back to the bone, Cersei could have suffered from a little less prophecy-induced giggling idiocy, Daenerys could have avoided her weird character regression, Jon's last chapter is ugh, and events in Dorne and the Iron Islands could have been scaled back. Plus GRRM has become far too fond of cliffhangers.

Theon's chapters were awesome, and ADWD could have been redeemed somewhat had we actually seen the climactic battle at Winterfell. As it is, AFFC and ADWD are weak books.

[Spring Bass]

Does Conphas count as a major character, or a secondary character? I think he and Saubon were both well-characterized, along with (weirdly enough) the skin-spy Sarcellus.

[Cirdan]

Don't you think that making such a statement after reading only 2 books of the latter is a tad bit early to make such claims?

If I compare the first two books of ASOIAF with the TPON ones I can allready came to such conclusion because I've read enough fantasy to give a (very personal) judgement on the potential of both series and because I do not believe that Bakker can became Cormac Mc Carty in the course of 5 years (especially if he is not in the condition to work on his style taking a little bit of time for polish and have to publish a book every year just to remain a professional writer).

Then, everything is possible and I will apologize if I'm wrong but I've allready started TTT and after 100 pages (I'm a fast reader) my judgement remains the same if not a little bit worst (in the sense that I do not see a serious effort on the part of the writer to solve some of the issues of his prose, charachterization and storytelling, while for example I could see that effort in Abercrombie's initial trilogy).

Over the course of this thread, several posters have commented on how these authors appear to be going in two different directions. Martin is losing the plot (or already has) and is in jeopardy of stumbling before the finishing line while Bakker's is working up into a full sprint.

I've read those comments but I do not agree with them.

First of all, on a more personal level, I do not read books only for plot advancement (wich is not the same as storytelling). I value the prose and the characterization more than it. I mean, I do not read books just to know how it ends or I could read a summary on the web. Martin has vastly improved under those aspects in the last books. When Bakker will be able to write something as fascinating as Tyrion's vision of the river's ruins in the fog or as heartbreaking as Bran's chapter or as terryfing as Reek's chapter in ADwD I could change my mind, but it does not seem the direction to me. With Martin I can have a vicarious experience, I live and breathe westeros even in his worst passages.

Secondly, even if you're right about him losing controll of the plot, the first three books of the series remain and nothing can change the fact that they are one of the best thing to happen in fantasy since LoTR, if not THE best thing.

Third, I do not think that GRRM is loosing control of the plot. I think that you and the others are overlapping your personal feelings over the narrative, due to the long wait for AFfC and ADwD. Those books have been problematic off course, we all know the story. Some solution he found to the the removal of the 5 year gap does not work prefectly, I agree. Some editorial choices are questionable. But still, after ADwD I'm pretty confident and optimistic about his controll of the story (I was a lot more worried after AFfC).

Fourth: being in full sprint does not mean a lot to me. Erikson is in full spint since the beginning of the Malazan series and I loathe his books. Terry Brooks has allways been in full sprint. The point is: while I'm really interested in TPON series and I applaude the author for what he is doing, ASOIAF narrative is a lot more complicated and original than Bakker's series. Books like ASOIAF are simply harder to write so I would be surprised of the opposite (Martin in full sprint and Bakker taking 5 years to write a book).

[Seraphimal]

Secondly, even if you're right about him losing controll of the plot, the first three books of the series remain and nothing can change the fact that they are one of the best thing to happen in fantasy since LoTR, if not THE best thing.

Yikes. It's comments like these that make me think GRRM is vastly overrated. I definitely think ASOIAF being the best thing since Tolkien is an overstatement. GRRM may have popularized "darker, grittier" fantasy, but I don't think he's really revolutionized or even really broadened the scope of the genre in a fundamental way.

Fourth: being in full sprint does not mean a lot to me. Erikson is in full spint since the beginning of the Malazan series and I loathe his books. Terry Brooks has allways been in full sprint. The point is: while I'm really interested in TPON series and I applaude the author for what he is doing, ASOIAF narrative is a lot more complicated and original than Bakker's series. Books like ASOIAF are simply harder to write so I would be surprised of the opposite (Martin in full sprint and Bakker taking 5 years to write a book).

I certainly wouldn't say ASOIAF is more complicated or original than Bakker's series. Perhaps more convoluted and somewhat less linear. Even though Bakker rips history and uses conventional fantasy tropes, he does so in an innovative and insightful way. ASOIAF is essentially, "What if the War of the Roses, but the Romans rode dragons and looked like Elric of Melnibone? And there are frost zombies that never do anything?" While the blow-by-blow particulars of the narrative might be more "original" because they don't make use of high fantasy tropes, I never felt them to be breathtakingly original. They just seemed more mundane, that's all.

Which, again, is fine, there's nothing wrong with that, and in some cases I prefer it. I actually really like reading GRRM for the pure soap-opera entertainment value. But I don't think that merits GRRM being the greatest thing to happen to fantasy since Tolkien.

And by what standards are we assuming that books like ASOIAF are harder to write?

[Pineapple]

lol, did not mean to post this. How do I delete here?

What has been written can not be undone!

@Cirdan

While I don't agree with your points, I can understand where you are coming from.

[Kalbear]

Since TDTCB, everything from the cultural norms of Earwa to the very Heavens themselves have been altered. And there's that whole Great Ordeal 'saving the world' thing going on, too.

Right, but Akka and Esme haven't changed a bit. In 20 years, they're the same people and hung up about the same things that happened 20 years ago. Those events completely and utterly define them.

Think about what has happened in your life since 20 years ago. Do you think that you're the same person you were 20 years ago?

[Reek]

The difference to me is that it feels like GRRM is making it up as he goes along and Bakker has known where he was going from page one.

I like them both don't get me wrong, but lets be honest here... if Martin knew the ending of the story it wouldn't have taken him so long just to get through book 5.

[TerraPrime]

I like them both don't get me wrong, but lets be honest here... if Martin knew the ending of the story it wouldn't have taken him so long just to get through book 5.

This doesn't even make sense.

[Kalbear]

The difference to me is that it feels like GRRM is making it up as he goes along and Bakker has known where he was going from page one.

I like them both don't get me wrong, but lets be honest here... if Martin knew the ending of the story it wouldn't have taken him so long just to get through book 5.

Yeah, that's hugely stupid. Sorry.

GRRM is making up some of the internal details of the story as it goes along. The individual interactions with characters, the dialog, that's all being made up. But the main beats of the story have been laid out since day one. Just because you are ignorant of the writing process does not mean that it is made up.

Bakker does get to things faster because he is not true to his characters and allows them to do things that don't make sense to further the plot. This is called inconsistency. This isn't sommething to be lauded.

[Arthmail]

Reek:

Your point is not stupid, but its not right. GRRM's fucked himself up a little, however, in that what he thought was going to be the main tempo of the series and how it progressed did not end up working out as well as he thought by the time he got there.

I do think Bakker's plot is more thought out. He focuses on it immensely. His problem lies in that he gets his characters to dance to his tune depending on which little bit of philosophical screed he wants to lay down at the moment, even if it is inconsistent with the character.

And i do agree that Akka and Esme have not changed in 20 years, though i suppose Akka has become more of a hard ass over time.

[Shryke]

Right, but Akka and Esme haven't changed a bit. In 20 years, they're the same people and hung up about the same things that happened 20 years ago. Those events completely and utterly define them.

Think about what has happened in your life since 20 years ago. Do you think that you're the same person you were 20 years ago?

No but neither are they.

However, events from 20 years ago can still have a huge impact on you.

Bakker does get to things faster because he is not true to his characters and allows them to do things that don't make sense to further the plot. This is called inconsistency. This isn't sommething to be lauded.

:huh: ?

[Kalbear]

Esme and Akka are pretty much the same people as far as their motivations and decisions go. Akka is still hung up on Kellhus, though for some reason he's not done anything for 20 years about it other than hide in a hovel for a while. Esme's still a whore, and that affects her considerably in her reactions.

And yes, you can fanwank this away by saying it's all Kellhusian manipulation and whatnot, but it's one of the ways the story felt very odd to me - that after 20 years we don't get much character change. Imagine all the things that have happened to Esme in that time as Empress - why would she be recognizable to us? It's very strange.

[Francis Buck]

Treating AFFC and ADWD as one entity, Jaime's storyline could have been cut altogether (as could Tyrion's), Sam's and Brienne's travelogues could have been cut back to the bone, Cersei could have suffered from a little less prophecy-induced giggling idiocy, Daenerys could have avoided her weird character regression, Jon's last chapter is ugh, and events in Dorne and the Iron Islands could have been scaled back. Plus GRRM has become far too fond of cliffhangers.

Theon's chapters were awesome, and ADWD could have been redeemed somewhat had we actually seen the climactic battle at Winterfell. As it is, AFFC and ADWD are weak books.

I wish I had the same magic powers as you, what with being able to see the future and all. How else could you know that all those character's story lines are completely pointless? Do you have any other secrets you can reveal about what happens in the next two books?

[Shryke]

Esme and Akka are pretty much the same people as far as their motivations and decisions go. Akka is still hung up on Kellhus, though for some reason he's not done anything for 20 years about it other than hide in a hovel for a while. Esme's still a whore, and that affects her considerably in her reactions.

And yes, you can fanwank this away by saying it's all Kellhusian manipulation and whatnot, but it's one of the ways the story felt very odd to me - that after 20 years we don't get much character change. Imagine all the things that have happened to Esme in that time as Empress - why would she be recognizable to us? It's very strange.

She isn't the same though. I mean, I guess she's got the same name. How is she still a whore? Is she hooking for pocket change on the side? Shit, probably the biggest thing that motivates her actions in the new trilogy is completely new (ie - family)

And of course Akka is still hung up on Kellhus. Their interaction has defined his life. It's probably the most important series of things to ever happen to him. He, like any crazy person, has devoted his life solely to this cause. He's done something about it too, he just hasn't done whatever you apparently desired. Probably because he's not stupid enough to think one guy can change anything. Also, the more or less death sentence on his head for being a wizard. Kinda dampens the opportunity for travel.

[Pineapple]

Akka went fro

Right, but Akka and Esme haven't changed a bit. In 20 years, they're the same people and hung up about the same things that happened 20 years ago. Those events completely and utterly define them.

Think about what has happened in your life since 20 years ago. Do you think that you're the same person you were 20 years ago?

I was nothing but a child back then :cool4:

Adulthood is different, no? King Robert was still moaning and groaning about losing his love Lyana, only difference was he turned into a pumpkin (we all know how common that is). Plus, he was still hellbent on eradicating the Targaryen line. Not much of a changed man.

Has Jon changed? I don't think so. Much like his father, he's gullible until the end despite all the injustices and backstabbings against them.

Eddard, Stannis, Jon, The Hound, The Mountain, Jaime, Tywin, etc. Not changed a bit.

IMO, only Dany, Sansa, and Theon have had significant changes throughout the book.

Nothing much has changed amongst our friends in Westeros. Only our perspectives.

[Kalbear]

Adulthood is different, no? King Robert was still moaning and groaning about losing his love Lyana, only difference was he turned into a pumpkin (we all know how common that is). Plus, he was still hellbent on eradicating the Targaryen line. Not much of a changed man.

Actually he had hugely changed, and that was a big problem with him and Ned. Ned was expecting the fierce, honorable warrior and friend he went to war with. Instead he found a fat guy who beat his wife and made decisions that were convenient. Robert is a GREAT example of what I'm talking about, actually.

Has Jon changed? I don't think so. Much like his father, he's gullible until the end despite all the injustices and backstabbings against them.

Eddard, Stannis, Jon, The Hound, The Mountain, Jaime, Tywin, etc. Not changed a bit.

IMO, only Dany, Sansa, and Theon have had significant changes throughout the book.

Yes, but the book doesn't have 20 years to go through. And I'd disagree seriously about quite a bit of that. Jon has changed tremendously and he's not much like his dad at all; he's doing things pragmatically, ignoring the bad laws and traditions when they don't apply and forsaking honor for both success and for the greater good. This is entirely unlike Ned, and it's a lesson Jon learns over the series.

Eddard doesn't change much in the one year we see him. You're right. I'm not sure how that compared with 20 years. Stannis chooses to serve the realm instead of following his dream of being a king. Jaime changed tremendously in the time we see him; did you actually read storm of swords or feast for crows? His arc is almost entirely about personal growth, often at the expense of family.

Tywin hasn't changed a ton. That's very true. Then again, we don't get as much glimpse into his life as we have otherwise.

She isn't the same though. I mean, I guess she's got the same name. How is she still a whore? Is she hooking for pocket change on the side? Shit, probably the biggest thing that motivates her actions in the new trilogy is completely new (ie - family)

Actually that's not true; we found out in the first trilogy that the prime motivator for her was her failure in Mimara. Her love of her family - more accurately, her guilt towards her family - has been a constant.

And of course Akka is still hung up on Kellhus. Their interaction has defined his life. It's probably the most important series of things to ever happen to him. He, like any crazy person, has devoted his life solely to this cause. He's done something about it too, he just hasn't done whatever you apparently desired. Probably because he's not stupid enough to think one guy can change anything. Also, the more or less death sentence on his head for being a wizard. Kinda dampens the opportunity for travel.

Yet he conveniently leaves when we start catching up with him. The death sentence is still there. The inconvenient travel is still there.

Here's something I don't get about Akka: we know that he loves teaching. This was a cornerstone of his character in the first trilogy. Why has he not taken any pupils on? He doesn't need to teach them the gnosis or anything like that, just philosophy and math and the like. I would have thought this would have been something he'd jump on. But no, he's got his slave and his slave's kids and helps them with reading a bit, but that's it.

[Shryke]

Actually that's not true; we found out in the first trilogy that the prime motivator for her was her failure in Mimara. Her love of her family - more accurately, her guilt towards her family - has been a constant.

Her selling Mimara into slavery was a big deal for her in the first trilogy, but it didn't motivate her. That was mostly Akka.She still thinks of him now, but she's far more concerned with safeguarding her family.

Yet he conveniently leaves when we start catching up with him. The death sentence is still there. The inconvenient travel is still there.

Well yes, he leaves because The Great Ordeal is starting. And because Mimara arrived. All of which has been arranged for to some extent. What's the issue?

Here's something I don't get about Akka: we know that he loves teaching. This was a cornerstone of his character in the first trilogy. Why has he not taken any pupils on? He doesn't need to teach them the gnosis or anything like that, just philosophy and math and the like. I would have thought this would have been something he'd jump on. But no, he's got his slave and his slave's kids and helps them with reading a bit, but that's it.

Geez, maybe he's changed Kal? Wait, no, you just claimed he didn't. Something about these complaints doesn't add up....

Actually he had hugely changed, and that was a big problem with him and Ned. Ned was expecting the fierce, honorable warrior and friend he went to war with. Instead he found a fat guy who beat his wife and made decisions that were convenient. Robert is a GREAT example of what I'm talking about, actually.

And yet the events of old are still a huge part of his character. He's still obsessed with them.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I wish I had the same magic powers as you, what with being able to see the future and all. How else could you know that all those character's story lines are completely pointless? Do you have any other secrets you can reveal about what happens in the next two books?

They're pointless if (in Tyrion's case) they don't progress the plot, or (in Cersei's case) actually weaken the characterisation. At the end of the day, each novel must be judged on its individual merits: yes, they're part of a series, but they're each individual parts, not one long novel cut into seven or eight pieces.

[Francis Buck]

They're pointless if (in Tyrion's case) they don't progress the plot, or (in Cersei's case) actually weaken the characterisation. At the end of the day, each novel must be judged on its individual merits: yes, they're part of a series, but they're each individual parts, not one long novel cut into seven or eight pieces.

Then what did Arya's, Sansa's, and Bran's chapters accomplish in a Clash of Kings?

[Antonius Pius]

Yet he conveniently leaves when we start catching up with him. The death sentence is still there. The inconvenient travel is still there.

But he wasn't holed up in the sranc-infested northern wastes for nothing. He went to live as far away from civilization in order to be left alone and to be forgotten by the Mandate and Kellhus.

Here's something I don't get about Akka: we know that he loves teaching. This was a cornerstone of his character in the first trilogy. Why has he not taken any pupils on? He doesn't need to teach them the gnosis or anything like that, just philosophy and math and the like. I would have thought this would have been something he'd jump on. But no, he's got his slave and his slave's kids and helps them with reading a bit, but that's it.

Because his favourite pupuils either died (Inrau), or betrayed him (Proyas and of course Kellhus). His betrayal by Kellhus and his subsequent hate for Kellhus has soured him on teaching. There's an inner monologue about that somewhere in TTT, IIRC.

Her selling Mimara into slavery was a big deal for her in the first trilogy, but it didn't motivate her. That was mostly Akka.She still thinks of him now, but she's far more concerned with safeguarding her family.

IIRC, her motivation was that she left Sumna for Akka. Her guilt over Mimara was definitelt there, but it didn't make her do anything, or perhpas just accept her life as a harlot out of punishment. But when she was visited by Aurang, she went off after Akka. For Akka.