[SteveF]

(crappy title for a thread, but I couldn't think of anything better)

I just read Prince of Nothing and decided I'd post a few thoughts (no spoilers). I have greatly enjoyed the series so far, however I did begin to get somewhat frustrated during PoN, which gets rather bogged down in the middle IMHO (before redeeming itself at the end).

I have two problems; firstly, Kellhus. Whilst he is undoubtedly an excellent character, Bakker keeps hammering away at him with all the subtelty of a brick in the face. Yes we know he can read people incredibly well, but is there any real need to repeat the point in pretty much every encounter we have with the guy? For me, this endless repetition actually begins to undercut his impact, which is a real shame.

Furthermore, I know we have to accept him as an incredibly powerful, magnetic character, but I began to lose count of the number of occasions in which a character (often the same character) undergoes some kind of soul shaking, life changing, body shuddering experience, every time he talks to them.

Secondly, I have a problem with over-philosophising. In my opinion, real characters and real people, whilst they spend time considering the deeper meaning of life and the universe, they also devote some energy to less heavy material. I guess one could argue that in a time of holy war (and presumably the second apocalypse), people have issues. Nontheless, not every thought should be preoccupied with metaphysics.

To me, the problem is summed up in the inside cover, to paraphrase; 'R. Scott Bakker is a writer of fantasy and philosophy, though he often has trouble distinguishing the two.' This is an outrageously pretentious thing to say! I'm worried that in going so far in the other direction from simplistic sword and sorcery, Bakker risks being just as unbelievable.

As you will have noticed, this thread hasn't really been an Erikson vs. Bakker contest. However, Erikson is the kind of writer I hope Bakker will mature into. Their books are kind of similar, however Erikson handles his weighty concepts with more subtetly and a lighter touch. I still think Bakker is a damned fine author, I just think he has a little way to go yet.

I'm sure that these aren't especially original or insightful thoughts, but I decided to get them off my back anyway.

[zorobnice]

Hey Steve

I think I have to agree, I've read all three now, and yes the philosophizing is a bit much. Firstly they were great let's not all into a misunderstanding here. We keep getting the same information repetitively, and I cannot put my finger on it but there was something about Kellhus which left me a little unsettled in my tummy. Maybe it was the indescriminate abuse of those around him for his own goals. Am I supposed to see him as the hero of the story?? He seems kind of remorseless (if there is such a word). Still all in all good story and will buy the next one when it comes out.

[SteveF]

Hey Steve

I think I have to agree, I've read all three now, and yes the philosophizing is a bit much. Firstly they were great let's not all into a misunderstanding here. We keep getting the same information repetitively, and I cannot put my finger on it but there was something about Kellhus which left me a little unsettled in my tummy. Maybe it was the indescriminate abuse of those around him for his own goals. Am I supposed to see him as the hero of the story?? He seems kind of remorseless (if there is such a word). Still all in all good story and will buy the next one when it comes out.

Yes, I think its worth stating that I really like Bakker. I also think Kellhus is really cool, although I haven't read the final book of the series.

In PoN, I think a decent editor should have pulled him up on the middle section, removed some of the flabby repetition and substituted it for a bit of narrative thrust.

At the end of the day its a fantasy novel, so things should be a bit different. However, fantasy authors are still required to create real people. Real people are not totally preoccupied with metaphysics and are not walking, talking versions of a Descartes treatise.

[Radone]

I don't think there are such things as 'heroes' in Scott's world. Or at least not as it is popularly defined. Kelhus is the focus of the story but he is most definitely not a hero. He is an amoral Nietszchiean, but convinces others to see him as a hero and saviour. This may be why he is so unsettling as a character: he takes what we hope and want and believe is good and twists them for his own purposes. He convinces others that to kill in his name must be a good thing because he is good. How does belief and faith fit in when the object of those passions is so utterly faithless?
I think Scott, who frequents these parts, would actually be quite happy that Kelhus bothers you. I think that was his point.
I am of the opinion that he must be anti-Christ and his books should be burned. He'll get that I think.(think Amazon reviews Scott) :)

[FuzzBunneh]

I've just started on the Thousandfold Thought, that I'd been waiting for for the past week. During the wait, I read my first Steven Erikson book - Gardens of the Moon.

I read the interview (http://www.sffworld.com/interview/164p0.html) with R. Scott Bakker just a few days ago. One of the answers he gives is, I feel, relevant in this discussion :

I used to read everything, years and years ago, but the deeper I wandered into university, the more and more I became addicted to ‘primary texts.’ I lost the ability to read for pleasure’s sake, but I think I’m on the slow road to recovery.

I'm greatly enjoying the Prince of Nothing series, but I do share some of your misgivings. The line between philosophy and fantasy is often blurred, sometimes excessively so; some paragraphs, if taken word-for-word, wouldn't be out of place in an essay. I agree with the idea that PoN isn't for everyone - it does get extremely heavy and bogged down in parts. I've heard a lot of people say that reading fantasy sometimes felt like a "guilty pleasure". Judging from that exerpt above I'd be tempted to say Bakker experienced something similar, and in writing his book wanted to do more than simply please his readers and himself.

I'm sorry the above post isn't terribly insightful, but I really haven't read enough to have an informed opinion.. *sad*.. I'll crawl back into the woodwork now and see where this leads.

[zorobnice]

I think you might be right there Steve, maybe Kellhus was supposed to an unsettling character, and if that Was Scott's idea he pulled it off. I must state again though, good story.

[SteveF]

I've just started on the Thousandfold Thought, that I'd been waiting for for the past week. During the wait, I read my first Steven Erikson book - Gardens of the Moon.

I read the interview (http://www.sffworld.com/interview/164p0.html) with R. Scott Bakker just a few days ago. One of the answers he gives is, I feel, relevant in this discussion :

I'm greatly enjoying the Prince of Nothing series, but I do share some of your misgivings. The line between philosophy and fantasy is often blurred, sometimes excessively so; some paragraphs, if taken word-for-word, wouldn't be out of place in an essay. I agree with the idea that PoN isn't for everyone - it does get extremely heavy and bogged down in parts. I've heard a lot of people say that reading fantasy sometimes felt like a "guilty pleasure". Judging from that exerpt above I'd be tempted to say Bakker experienced something similar, and in writing his book wanted to do more than simply please his readers and himself.

I'm sorry the above post isn't terribly insightful, but I really haven't read enough to have an informed opinion.. *sad*.. I'll crawl back into the woodwork now and see where this leads.

Personally, I don't have a problem with incorporating philosophy into these novels. Bakker has a lot of interesting things to say and it certainly makes a change from your average Eddings novel (actually I've only ever picked up Redemption of Athalus and I had to stop reading that).

However, there are ways and means of conveying your thoughts and I don't think he has quite hit on the right balance between narrative and ideas. I'm sure he will though.

[FuzzBunneh]

Sorry, I wasn't terribly clear with what I said in that post. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the balance between ideas and narrative isn't perfect, nor is their integration in the flow of the book. I was just wondering, really, if that statement he made in the interview could be used to explain why he got somewhat 'carried away' with the over-philosophising, as you said.

The Darkness That Comes Before is a very, very promising first novel though; there's no doubt about that in mind. I'm looking forward to his next books.

(on an unrelated note, there's a paragraph I absolutely loved; page 326 of the UK pb edition. Achamian sits down to read a book in the Sareotic library, and muses about whether a book 'is read').

[SteveF]

Sorry, I wasn't terribly clear with what I said in that post. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the balance between ideas and narrative isn't perfect, nor is their integration in the flow of the book. I was just wondering, really, if that statement he made in the interview could be used to explain why he got somewhat 'carried away' with the over-philosophising, as you said.

The Darkness That Comes Before is a very, very promising first novel though; there's no doubt about that in mind. I'm looking forward to his next books.

(on an unrelated note, there's a paragraph I absolutely loved; page 326 of the UK pb edition. Achamian sits down to read a book in the Sareotic library, and muses about whether a book 'is read').

Don't worry, I understood. I was just repeating myself for no real reason! I agree about the quote, it could well explain a lot (though it is easy to read too much into these things).

[zorobnice]

Have you guys read any of Gary Wassner's stuff. He is a Philosophy major as well. Did he perhaps do the same thing. I have ordered his first book, so I am curious.