[BarVybe]

Scott - i couldn't agree more on the mutability of fantasy. So long as one sticks to the obvious requirement of adherring to the rules you create, one can move as far away from convention, from making things recognizably earth like, from following certain literary forms as one likes without breaking genre rules. Of course, the more things are markedly different, the more difficult a read it might become - but that's half the fun!

Homer - i agree with you pretty much. Cnaiur in particular shouldn't be much of a surprise since he's clearly an exceptional individual for his race in many ways. He's been forced by his tribe's attitudes toward him to hold things close to the vest and dwell on them, and as time has passed since Meonghus (sp?) had been there he's had the influence of deciphering, over time, how he was manipulated, how there can be forces outside of and greater than the tribe, etc. etc. Of course, many men would have failed to expand this way, but he doesn't and there's every logical reason for him to have done so.

[Scott Bakker]

Cnaiur is obviously gifted - you have to wonder about all the Aristotle's and Einstein's born into preliterate pastoral cultures - which is why Moenghus homed in on him and introduced him to the wonderful world of metacognition. It's the curse of reflection that makes him seem so 'unScylvendi' - this is one of the reasons for his slipping sanity. Always thinking one thought too many.

I feel confident about Esmi, as well. Her intelligence is the primary reason Achamian was so attracted to her. I do worry, however, that I inadvertantly romanticized her life to a certain extent. I've seen a couple of documentaries on third world prostitution that have since convinced me that I flinched from the brutality of her circumstances.

[Brys]

Scott, have you been surprised by the number of people who've given up on you're books mainly because of the names? When discussing tDtCB, it seems the primary criticism is that the names are too difficult, which I personally don't see at all (surely having modern, easy to pronounce US names isn't realistic?)

Esmi romanticised? I wouldn't say that her life's romanticised much at all - it seems a generally pretty brutal life from the series. But then I haven't seen these documentaries on third world prostitution either.

[Jack]

I feel confident about Esmi, as well. Her intelligence is the primary reason Achamian was so attracted to her.

I agree, Esmi has the kind of intelligence which, say, would cause one not to run away from one's long-lost love when one travelled across great distances to find him amongst a Holy War just because he did not immediately respond to your presence via aural stimulation - the kind of intelligence that would know the Achamian she loves and realize he is prone to zoning out into his deep thoughts and becoming sensorily disconnected from his surroundings, thus the best way to get his attention would be to grab him by the shoulders and shake the heck out of him.

Homer <--is not letting this go. :D

[Scott Bakker]

Scott, have you been surprised by the number of people who've given up on you're books mainly because of the names? When discussing tDtCB, it seems the primary criticism is that the names are too difficult, which I personally don't see at all (surely having modern, easy to pronounce US names isn't realistic?)

Yeah, this debate is so old and ubiquitous that I rarely think of it anymore. I wanted my books to be realistic. In real life, when you encounter real foriegn names, you find them challenging. People who don't think my names are realistic haven't eaten at enough Thai restaurants. If you think about it, none of my dipthongs are any more challenging than those you find in proper names like 'George,' 'Louis,' or even 'Hawaii.'

It's just a classic case of familiarity bias.

I'm resigned to spend the rest of my natural born life defending myself from this complaint. It's worth it, I think. I've made many, many small decisions that I think will limit the immediate popularity of the books, but I was hell bent on remaining 'true to the vision,' as corny as that might sound. And I think by doing so, I've managed to create a rather unique reading experience, as well as something that might find its way into some modest corner of the fantasy canon.

I agree, Esmi has the kind of intelligence which, say, would cause one not to run away from one's long-lost love when one travelled across great distances to find him amongst a Holy War just because he did not immediately respond to your presence via aural stimulation - the kind of intelligence that would know the Achamian she loves and realize he is prone to zoning out into his deep thoughts and becoming sensorily disconnected from his surroundings, thus the best way to get his attention would be to grab him by the shoulders and shake the heck out of him.

LOL! There's a big difference between intelligence and rationality, and unfortunately, people suffering clinical depression (or specific to this case, acute rejection sensitivity) tend to do irrational things, especially when they're intelligent (because they're so good at cooking up convincing rationalizations).

I hate to say it, Homer, but I don't think there's anything about that scene that's remotely unrealistic. People under that kind of sustained psychological stress do far stranger and far more self-destructive things, trust me.

[Jack]

I hate to say it, Homer, but I don't think there's anything about that scene that's remotely unrealistic. People under that kind of sustained psychological stress do far stranger and far more self-destructive things, trust me.

"Yeah, well, thats just like, your opinion, man!"
-The Dude, The Big Lebowski

Alright, alright, I'm letting it go!

[Jekyll]

Funny story first - a couple of months ago, Scott's wife (who works for the same company as my girlfriend), came up to the head office (where said girlfriend works). In passing she (girlfriend she) mentioned I read and really enjoyed the first two books, to which she (author's wife she) jumped up and said "Yes!!!" :D

I suppose the thing I liked most about this book is that it jumps into the middle and lets you figure out things for yourself. A lot of books seem written to the 'tv audience' where every character has to be stock, and the action and ideas have to be fully explained to make sure you don't confuse anybody. For me, it's one of those books that get better with multiple readings.

As an aside, I was reading "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels after finishing the 2nd book again, and was rather struck by a similarity of the religion in Bakker's world, and of some of the gnostic 'ideals' in Pagels research book. Just an interesting thought. :)

Finally, I just wanted to comment on a post from earlier in the thread by Nevyn -

Sure mate, I'll do my best to answer. The quote is from page 118. It hit a nerve because it is a very narrow view of what is involved in faith.

No offense, but this is one characters *belief and opinion* of his actions. I find it distressing that personal 'real world' faith can make people so ready to be offended by things they read in a fantasy book. Hopefully my statement does not come off wrong, as I do not mean it as a flame or put down. I'm just attempting to understand why a comment in a fantasy book would 'hit a nerve' over your real life faith, especially given that it's written to explain what an individual character was thinking / feeling about his life.

Some people like to think that when you have faith, you have given away thought and reason, hence a thirst for knowledge. Not true!

However, 'some people' didn't make the quote, so what others think shouldn't even come into play here. To be honest, it sounds like you were trying to find offense from what you truly believe, instead of taking it in the true spirit of the book - of one character's motivations.

[Nevyn]

No offense, but this is one characters *belief and opinion* of his actions. I find it distressing that personal 'real world' faith can make people so ready to be offended by things they read in a fantasy book. Hopefully my statement does not come off wrong, as I do not mean it as a flame or put down. I'm just attempting to understand why a comment in a fantasy book would 'hit a nerve' over your real life faith, especially given that it's written to explain what an individual character was thinking / feeling about his life. No offense taken :) but to better understand where I'm comming from you would be best served by checking out Scripture: History or Fantasy? (http://www.sffworld.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10153&page=1&pp=15) it's all to do with Scott's "hardwiring" ;)

[Mathias]

As a philosophy student, i was amazed by the way this book brought in "real world" philosophers and philosophy to prove a point. The Dunyain are a extremely empirical. They only believe in the material world and reject the arcane. Another example in this book is the character(?) Ajencis. All of Ajencis's writings are "translated" works of previous philosophers like Pythagoras, Aristotle , and Plato. I spent all my time trying to match which philosopher said this. Amazing ;)

As an aside, was I the only one who thought the similarities between the Dunyain share a resemblance to the Mentats of Dune fame?