I Need Support for This Whole Bakker Thing

[Lord Baelish]

He may have had the campfire roaring with laughter, but not me. I found the Bakker (I always pronounced it Backer too ...) books to be completely and utterly dull. I have read the first two and didn't like them much at all. The first book is one of the slowest books I have ever read. And judging from what I've heard about TTT, I might not even bother buying it.

As well as being dull, the other major problem is the characters. They are either boring (Achamian, who is still probably the best character, and nearly all the others) or Kellhus. And I hate Kellhus with a passion. He is completely unsympathetic, selfish, and all-powerful. Seriously, in the first two books I've read he hasn't had a decent challenge. No one in the books can match up to him.

I don't agree with what Stego said about coddling, either. Steven Erikson certainly doesn't coddle you when you read Gardens of the Moon, either, but I still found his books to be immensely enjoyable. At least something happens in his books.

[Decius]

all-powerful

This bothers you as Erikson-fan?

Kelhus is not all powerful. Unlike Erikson's characters he just hasn't been up to someone stronger than him yet, but they are definitely there, but still outside of the focus (Consult, Inchoroi, Nonmen).

[Ser Paladin]

Kelhus is not all powerful. Unlike Erikson's characters he just hasn't been up to someone stronger than him yet, but they are definitely there, but still outside of the focus (Consult, Inchoroi, Nonmen).

Yup. All he has done so far is prove he is the biggest fish in the relatively small pond of his area of Earwa. He's barely seen any of the non-humans, not to mention the other human kingdom over the mountains. He's also "pure intellect." Which is great for mastering the Gnosis (as opposed to the Psukhe), but leaves open a whole host of potential vulnerabilities to be mined in the Aspect Emperor books.

[Hark]

I read Bakker's first book a few months back. I thought it was so-so. His prose is beautiful, but for me it was so ornate that it got in the way of the story. The story was hard to get into. I did get into it eventually, but when I finished the book I didn't feel it lived up to the hype.

Been trying to get my hands on the second book.

[Stego]

Steven Erikson doesn't coddle you, that's true. Steven Erikson doesn't know how to write a sentence properly either, and has no concept of storytelling.

If you like Erikson, that's fine. However, it's time for the comparisons with Bakker to end.

Bakker's characters are complex people, Erikson's are dungeons and dragons pastiches. If there aren't any characters to like, it's because you want simplified spoon fed fantasy with one guy wearing a white hat, the other a black. Stick to Goodkind or Jordan or Brooks or Salvatore -- or Erikson -- for that sort of simplicity.

Erikson fans too often confuse a lack of storytelling ability with complexity. It's almost become nauseating. GoTM and Deadhouse Gates are unreadable garbage, and I submit that all four authors mentioned previous to Erikson in the third paragraph of this diatribe are technically better writers than Mr. "Let's make everyone Level Ub3r!!!11" Erikson.

[RaceBannon42]

I agree, Erikson cant hold Bakker's inkwell.

[Hark]

kinda lame to see this degenerate so

[Lord Baelish]

Steven Erikson doesn't coddle you, that's true. Steven Erikson doesn't know how to write a sentence properly either, and has no concept of storytelling.

If you like Erikson, that's fine. However, it's time for the comparisons with Bakker to end.

Bakker's characters are complex people, Erikson's are dungeons and dragons pastiches. If there aren't any characters to like, it's because you want simplified spoon fed fantasy with one guy wearing a white hat, the other a black. Stick to Goodkind or Jordan or Brooks or Salvatore -- or Erikson -- for that sort of simplicity.

Erikson fans too often confuse a lack of storytelling ability with complexity. It's almost become nauseating. GoTM and Deadhouse Gates are unreadable garbage, and I submit that all four authors mentioned previous to Erikson in the third paragraph of this diatribe are technically better writers than Mr. "Let's make everyone Level Ub3r!!!11" Erikson.

Yes, thank you for the condescension and arrogance. It's quite amazing how you know exactly what sort of book I like without ever having even met me. If you think Erikson's characters are all black and white, it just goes to show you haven't read much of his work. Whose side is K'rul on? Or the Queen of Dreams? Poliel? Draconus? Shadowthrone?

Quite a few of Erikson's characters are fairly flat, but he does have some real gems in there as well. Karsa Orlong, Felisin, Crokus/Cutter, Fiddler, Quick Ben, Cotillion (especially after reading the Bonehunters). It would be near enough impossible to make all of his hundreds of characters as deep and colourful as you think some of Bakker's are. The reason I don't like his characters has nothing to do with "greyness". It's to do with the fact that they bore the arse off me. Kellhus just wraps everyone round his little finger, Achamian moans, Esme started as a whore and still is one, with no interesting development between. The other characters all just roll into one in my mind. The only one I liked was Ikurei Conphas, and he didn't get enough screen time.

I find Erikson's style of writing to be interesting and, during his action scenes, very enthralling too. Far more interesting than Bakker, IMO. Of course, we're never going to agree on this. You clearly think Erikson is the worst author outside of Terry Goodkind, while he rates as easily my favourite fantasy author of all.

[Luzifer's right hand]

There are people which like the characters created by Goodkind, Jordan, Brooks or Salvatore? Strange world.

I don't like Cnaiür at all however I like to read about what he thinks and does.

I neither like Anasûrimbor Kellhus nor do I enjoy reading what he does and thinks, I was always glad when his part was finished and I could read something with Drusas Achamian, Esmenet(she is rather boring though) or Cnaiür.

I'm a simple man and a good storyteller is someone for me who makes me want finish a book in one go because I want to know what happens next.

Erickson does that to me. Do I know how he does that? No.

[Stego]

Not outside Terry Goodkind.

I've actually enjoyed a Goodkind novel or three, even if I had to check my brain at the door.

I rate Erikson in the same boat as Clifford Bowyer and Robert Stanek.

[Ran]

Ehn. Erikson is just fine. He has some issues, and I think he's growing as an author (but in directions which I don't care for, so he's becoming -- seemingly, and nominally -- a worse author from _my sole and personal perspective only_).

I would not heap the abuse Stego is heaping upon him. Erikson's one of the better and more ambitious authors working in the epic fantasy genre.

[Hark]

There's a difference between heaping abuse on an author, and heaping abuse on his fans (says the guy who posts on the GioG board).

[Werthead]

Well I'm slowly moving towards the Bakker pile. Finished off Last Light of the Sun yesterday (best Kay book since Al-Rassan) and cracked open American Gods today. After that I've got Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. However, since at the moment I only really have time to read during breaks at work, it may still take me some time to get to Bakker.

As a massive fan of GRRM and an appreciative fan of Erikson (whilst acknowledging his faults), it'll be interesting to see how Bakker fares in comparison. As I understand it Stego's given Erikson several tries and still dislikes him, which is fair enough. Saying he's as bad as Goodkind (and Goodkind is just shit, not even in the same 'good if you check your brain in at the door' mode as early Salvatore, Feist or Gemmell) is just amusingly daft, though.

And saying he divides things nearly into black and white like Jordan does shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the books, even just taking the first two by themselves.

Oh yeah, and to quote Spaced, "Brooks, Goodkind and Salvatore make Jordan look like fucking Shaft."

EDIT: IMO!

[Ixodes]

As I understand it Stego's given Erikson several tries and still dislikes him, which is fair enough.

From earlier posts, I think "dislike" may be an understatement!

[Stego]

Nah, I don't *hate* Erikson. I just hate his writing.

Some of the ideas are neato. I'll probably give him one last try when his series is complete -- try to read it through to the end.

[Caligula_K]

Just finished The Darkness That Comes Before and I completely reccomend it. I'll be reading The Warrior Prophet as soon as I'm done The Bonehunters.

[Ser Paladin]

I read Erikson later and I found it can be a fun romp in fantasy land if you are in the mood for it. I tried Bakker again, still didn't like it. Tried Bakker again , still didn't like it. If that makes me mentally defective, so be it.

Bakker's trilogy has two things going against it. First is the complexity. It's not an easy read. But the hurdle you seem to have stuck on is that his world is just unrelentingly dark. If your "hero" is insufferably superior, and Machiavellian in the extreme, his right hand man is the "most violent of men" and your two most relateable characters have emotional horror after horror visited upon them, well, Earwa is not a nice place.

As I said in another thread (applauding a "lighter fare" writer), "If I had read Gene Wolfe right on the heels of Bakker's trilogy, I'd have needed therapy."

[Mind Elemental]

... If you like Erikson, that's fine. However, it's time for the comparisons with Bakker to end.

Bakker's characters are complex people, Erikson's are dungeons and dragons pastiches. If there aren't any characters to like, it's because you want simplified spoon fed fantasy with one guy wearing a white hat, the other a black. Stick to Goodkind or Jordan or Brooks or Salvatore -- or Erikson -- for that sort of simplicity.

Stego, I didn't mention Erikson in this thread, and I love greyish characters. That's why I'm a GRRM (and Jaime, etc) fan. I would consider Kellhus and the Ikureis, and to some extent Cnaiur, far more "black" than the typical Martin protagonist/POV.

ETA: For the record, I dislike Salvatore, and I haven't read Goodkind/Jordan/Brooks. I also said I thought Bakker was good, just no GRRM.

[Decius]

Why do such thread always make me feel that I have to choose a side?

I love both Erikson and Bakker, albeit I would rate Bakker higher in my regard, I still see them at the top tier of modern Fantasy literature.

Bakker is hard to get into (same is true for Erikson). His characters are difficult to like. Somone on this board put it so apt: "Where Erikson and Martin paint their characters in shades of grey, Bakker paints them in shades of black". All the characters are deeply flawed and have heaps of bad sides. Even the person most root for (Akka) is so deeply flawed that I often think that the reason we root for him is because he is in a powerless position (despite being probably the most powerful human sorceror

SPOILER: TWP/TTT

beside Kelhus, and the third most revered person in the Holy War.

Yes, the characters aren't very likeable, but they are incredibly well fleshed out and written, and make me think more than any other Fantasy literature.

Erikson's characters are far simpler, especially the secondary cast. There are a couple of well written characters too, but far more one-dimensional than Bakker's. Even Bakker's secondary characters like Saubon or Xerius are leap and bounds above many of Erikson's "primary" secondary characters. I disagree that "they wear black and white hats". They are as grey and ambivalent as you expect from modern Fantasy, not less than Martin's but (like Martin's) a lot more likeable than Bakker's. It is easy to find characters to root for in Erikson's books, and even the ones you might not like (I care for Karsa for example) are bearable.

Erikson and Bakker satisfy different things I like in Fantasy. Bakker gives me great character studies, a wonderful magic system, intrigue, and intensive read and more to think, plus great, great battle scenes and a wonderful prose.

Erikson has a much more epic scale, worlds and gods clashing, characters which are likeable and accessable, good battles and an excellent world building. Erikson is for the lighter mood, Bakker if I want something to brood over.

That's why I adore Martin, he gives me the best of both worlds

[Mind Elemental]

Decius, that's exactly what I meant WRT characterisation. Thank you.