Dec '05 BOTM: The Darkness That Comes Before by R. Scott Bakker

[Erfael]

The northern hemisphere is in the darkest time of the year, and it's time to discuss Bakker's The Darkness That Comes Before. So what did you think? Were there any insights into the human condition that particularly struck you? Love the characters? Hate them? What did you think of the naming conventions? Are you looking forward to the subsequent books?

(NOTE: We understand that many have read The Warrior-Prophet and some have been lucky enough to read The Thousandfold Thought. Please respect that the book club experience is the first chance some people have had to read Bakker, so keep discussion to Book 1 only. Punishment for spoiling things for people will be severe and may include, but is not limited to, the following: wet noodles, razorblades and vinegar, stern talkings-to, public shame, the ridicule of your friends and fellow forumites, a free weekend in Consult custody, or a lifetime supply of toe fungus.

Seriously, though, please be considerate of people who haven't read past book 1 yet.)

[Severn]

Well...being in the Southern Hemisphere I'm ahead of the whole lot of you (even those Aussies) so I guess it's fitting I rumble on ahead...after my nice warm summer day, spent lounging in the sun...

I really enjoyed The Darkness That Comes Before for many reasons. I had a few niggles though, and since I've been obsessing over one niggle for a fortnight and wanting to discuss it very badly, cursing every time I read another discussion on the book, I'll venture ahead with that first.

My chief niggle involves pigs, Winston Churchill and Homer.

Homer first: Please refer to pages 88 & 433 (this is for mmpb UK orbit edition. For others - a few pages into chapter 3 & halfway into chapter 13).

Quote from page 88: 'Stung by this thought, he lowered his head, stared into the wine-dark depths.'

Quote from page 433: 'And his voice! Deep, wine-dark like the sea.'

The first one was met with sinking disappointment. The next with near-horror. I'm not a fan of repetition in any event. (The most startling case of repetition? Martin describing how Daenerys likes hot baths because they make her feel clean, word for word in the same long sentence found twice in A Game of Thrones. Horrid).

Rant: But this particular case? The wine-dark depths, as I'm sure many will know, is a metaphoric phrase and image utilised heavily in both the Iliad and the Odyssey; in fact, it's arguably his most well-known comparison. Why then, is Bakker using this so casually? Claiming it for his own even? This really bothered me, very strongly indeed and I couldn't step away from that - it nagged like a sore tooth. It feels blasphemous!

Then it got worse.

Quote from page 534 (halfway through chapter 16): 'Have you heard the saying, Skeaos? Cats look down upon Man, and dogs look up, but only pigs dare look Man straight in the eye.'

Exact quote from Winston Churchill: 'I like pigs. Dooks look up to us. Cats look down on us. But pigs treat us as equals.'

Hm, unless Xerius has had some contact with the old guy himself and heard the saying from him, well...I think Bakker went a little too far borrowing that one.

I don't have an academic background in philosophy, nor do I read philosophy for fun, so my ignorance in that area had me worrying that the other neat little philosophical phrases I so enjoyed may have been filched from somewhere as well. Not a nice way to go about a reading experience that I otherwise enjoyed greatly - but it was always there, after page 88, in the back of my mind.

Does this bother anyone else? Or is just me? Perhaps I am too fussy, and should have squelched my inner-critic and read on with nary a care in the world. Read for reading's sake?

On the upside now: I care greatly for prose, and word-usage and turns of phrase. They're as important for me as the plot and characters, and Bakker had some marvellous examples. My favourite, on page 107, being 'the masses had become an impatient ground, slowly quieted in anticipation of the footfalls about to tread upon them.'

For a debut novel I'm very impressed with the language (minus filched bits) and how I was able to feel moved even by somewhat dry characters. I've seen it mentioned here and there that the characters aren't ones that are easy to care about. In part I agreed. There's no rogue hero, gusty heroine, sweet old lady waiting with stew in the endless deprivation/restoration cycles that fill fantasy. I like this - I like ambivalent characters; weak, reluctant heroes; conflicted angry tribesmen; enigmatic bastards who manipulate those around them, and complicated, grief-stricken whores.

The tale has been told in such a way through Bakker's prose that I do care what happens to these people, and I can see humanity in all of them (though Khellus a little less - is that name a play on words from Bakker do you think?) For once we have a love story that seems genuinely ill-fated, between two people who just can't get it together, who just can't admit the importance of the other; I hope against hope that this doesn't end squeaky-happy for them because I feel that would undermine the nature of their relationship. An uneasy alliance would be the best I would want for Akka and Esmi.

I have no problems with the treatment of women in this novel. That's the world where they live; that's the culture, that's what happens. It is not gratuitous, it is not tawdry, it just is. I think, personally, any arguments that suggest the treatment of women was inappropriate are misguided and fueled by personal social beliefs, not from a critical treatment of the novel. (Nothing wrong with personal social beliefs per se, just not always helpful when applying them to created, fictitious worlds).

The world is familiar enough to relate to, yet just that little bit alien too. What with weird creepy things erupting out of people's faces...brrrr...

I see the potential for more depth in the next two books. Some of The Darkness...was scene-setting, which doesn't bother me - I rather like that myself. I disapprove of telling-not-showing, but don't think that happened here. Rather it seems Bakker created a gradual knowing of his characters, and the world they live in as seen through their eyes.

Smaller niggles: the Serwe, Khellus and Cnaiur triangle. It's bugging me, but not out of prudishness. I think it's because painting Serwe as the love-struck manipulated victim of Khellus, nobly enduring Cnaiur's rough embraces, comes across a little false given that she's really just a whiny, self-sabotager; she would probably sleep with Cnaiur anyway because she felt she deserved the punishment. Sure she's traumatised, but...I'm just not 100% convinced by her character. That may change.

I'm not sure Skeaos was enough of well-developed character before the face-thing happened. Do you think that was intentional so that his true nature might be more of a shock? Or do you think that a little more mystery around him could have been a good thing?

Anywho, I've rambled enough for now. Please let me know what you think about the Homer And Winston Incidents because I need to get some sleep at night again!

Cheers

K

[Erfael]

Does this bother anyone else? Or is just me? Perhaps I am too fussy, and should have squelched my inner-critic and read on with nary a care in the world. Read for reading's sake?

Well, Sev, I am familiar with the Homer quote, but wasn't with the Churchill. I have to say that this doesn't really bother me in the least. It's not like he's ripping them off for his reseparch paper and presenting them as his own, really. Think of it more as him taking some great gems of the past and setting them in new mounts so we can look at them from other angles. It seems a little too fussy to me, but I won't fault you for it. Certainly Homer doesn't have a monopoly on "wine-dark," and cribbing fro him certainly seems more appropriate than doing the same thing from, say, Men Are From Mars or The Atkins Revolution. As far as you worrying that he took things from philosophy, well, he probably did, but should that bother us? I haven't had time in my life to do an extensive study of philosophy, so if he takes some of the important thoughts from some of the great philosophers, I don't consider that he's taking from them, but rather saying to me, "These are some things you should maybe think about." Or in the case of Homer, "I'm telling a story that is very much in the vein of the Iliad, so here's a little nod in that direction. You can read it, and we can smile together because we both understand the reference."

Smaller niggles: the Serwe, Khellus and Cnaiur triangle. It's bugging me, but not out of prudishness. I think it's because painting Serwe as the love-struck manipulated victim of Khellus, nobly enduring Cnaiur's rough embraces, comes across a little false given that she's really just a whiny, self-sabotager; she would probably sleep with Cnaiur anyway because she felt she deserved the punishment. Sure she's traumatised, but...I'm just not 100% convinced by her character. That may change.

The thing that bothers (and not necessarily in a bad way) me about this trio is the relationship between Kellhus and Serwe. With everyone else, you get some insight into the fact that he's manipulating them. With Serwe, Kellhus's perspective is closed a lot more, so I can't really figure out if he's manipulating her to an end of some sort or if there's actually a chink in his armor and he cares a little (I really don't see this happening) or if he's using her to manipulate Cnaiur or what.

I'm not sure Skeaos was enough of well-developed character before the face-thing happened. Do you think that was intentional so that his true nature might be more of a shock? Or do you think that a little more mystery around him could have been a good thing?

I thought Skeaos was dealt with well enough. There was the little hint early on that not all was right with him, when he was walking up the stairs with Conphas and didn't get winded. Other than that, I would have to go back through some of his scenes to see if there were any other markers present. The thing that bothers me a little about it (and I may have to go back and read the last Andiamine chapters) are HOW and WHY Xerius knew about Skeaos being wrong. I get that Kellhus was looking at him funny, but other than that, it seemed like an over-the-top reaction (unless there was something else I missed that made Xerius think traitor.) It looked more like Xerius was pissed about things not going his way and he needed someone to blame, so he picked the advisor, who just HAPPENED to be Consult.

On to one of the things that I liked, the quotes at the beginning of chapters. I'm usually a sucker for these things, but in this case especially so. I liked the ones that broadened our perspective above that of the characters. That, more than anything else, made this book feel like it is a chronicle of the holy war more than it is about just the characters. There are quotes there that hint at the face-spies or Kellhus after the war and such that make one want to know how it all plays out, little hints of the future, things that the characters don't know, but we do. I just found that sort of interesting.

We'll probably invite Scott in a little later if he doesn't happen along himself before then. He could probably tell me more than others, but I was wondering what people thought about the ritual Kellhus had to endure to come before the darkness. The chant, and the dropping of the last word at each sunrise. Is that sort of ritual one that is performed for any purpose in the world? Is there a tribe or philosophy that advocates that sort of thing for any reason or is it just invented? And if it is real, what are the purposes and functions of such a ritual?

One last thought: I could have used more description of plant life. Just a little. I ended up with a vision (both times I read the book) of a barren wasteland, to the point that I was surprised to read about clovers under horse hooves before the battle between Conphas and Scylvendi. Other than the forest scene with the K/C/S triangle, the clovers, and perhaps a mention of larch at the very beginning, there is almost no mention whatsoever of any LIFE in the world. (I guess if it's a chronicle of a holy war, modeled after that sort of thing in life, those things aren't really mentioned, but by the end of the book I feel like a character from Little Shop, yearning for "Someplace that's green.")

[Erfael]

I just thought of another question I wanted to pose to everyone:

The Tolkien Connexion: I've read several reviews of TDTCB on various sites that mention that the book is very much in the Tolkien tradition. Something I read on Amazon.us basically says it's one stop nextdoor to Tolkien (don't remember if that was something official or a review). One reviewer at a website went so far as to say that it's just TOO MUCH like Tolkien and that one of the faults of the book was that it couldn't get itself out of the Tolkien rut (paraphrasing here.) Honestly, I don't see it. Not at all. So what do you all think? Why do you think people are feeling compelled to say this book is so much like Tolkien? Do you see any parallels. Is it just because they both have Appendices on language and such? Can people just not talk about fantasy any more these days without saying "Tolkien" over and over again? (Try and keep responses relevant to TDTCB, please.)

[Brys]

I don't see it as particularly Tolkienesque, but there are Tolkien elements there. I honestly didn't notice them until I read some of Bakker's interviews, where he mentioned how one of his main influences was Tolkien.

The most obvious element is that there is an evil God, that its an epic series with a fully imagined world and there are broadly the forces of good. But it's changed a lot - it may be, arguably, high fantasy, but it's a new take on high fantasy. Most of these elements are common in epic fantasy, and it isn't startlingly original. I think though that perhaps these comments came from readers who don't usually stray into epic fantasy, and finding that it wasn't as imaginative as an author like Mieville deemed it Tolkienesque, unfairly IMO.

I really liked this book, and particularly Kellhus. For me, Bakker's characterisation is his strong point. All the characters seemed internally consistent and particularly realistic, as well as varied, from the arrogant Ikurei Conphas, the manipulative Kellhus, the suppressed Achamian, the guilt-ridden Esmenet, the innocent Serwe, the horrible Xerius, the mysterious Consult - they all worked very well. It was an intelligent, philosophical fantasy novel, and Bakker is one of the few authors who is able to understand how a single event can seriously distort a person's life (eg Cnaiur). My only criticisms are that it is perhaps a little slow and doesn't focus quite enough on Kellhus, but it is absolutely necessary as this is an introductory novel and the stage has now been set for the rest of the trilogy.

As for the plagiarism suggested - there is a fine line between plagiarism and homage, but I think Bakker can easily be put into the latter category. Those quotes were not direct quotes, but I assume he was hoping that some readers would glance at least some of the parallels. Authors do it in a number of ways, sometimes mentioning another author or their creations, sometimes taking an aspect of their work, or perhaps taking a loose quote for the more perceptive readers. In this case, the references are few, minor and far between. If there had been more than one sentence at a time, that's when you start to worry, but when there's one sentence every hundred pages, there's nothing really to be concerned about.

One criticism that continues to confuse me is that of names - I've seen a number of readers give up on this book because they thought the names were too long or too complex. Of all the reasons not to like a book or read a book, IMO that's probably the worst. Perhaps the unusual names warranted the Tolkien comparisons, as many readers are used to the simplistic naming conventions adopted by Martin, Jordan etc - yet in the context of this world, having simpler names would seem completely out of place.

[AuntiePam]

Originally Posted by Severn

Does this bother anyone else? Or is just me? Perhaps I am too fussy, and should have squelched my inner-critic and read on with nary a care in the world. Read for reading's sake?

Like Erfael, I'm okay with this. If I recognize a phrase or a quote as being cribbed, I consider it an homage.

Jim Butcher quoted Tolkien in his first book, the line about wizards being subtle and quick to anger. I thought "Wow, that's a great line", and that was before I knew Tolkien said it first. It's good that writers appreciate other writers, and that's one way of showing it.

[Severn]

Originally Posted by Brys

As for the plagiarism suggested - there is a fine line between plagiarism and homage.

No, no, no - do not use that word! No!

I deliberately didn't use it, because that's a heavy accusation and not what I was meaning really (I should've mentioned that - tsk - people are not mind readers K!) Homage is the perfect word - I'm uncomfortable with that level of homage even I guess. Though having read Erf's pov, and your own, I have gentled somewhat. Perhaps I'm too much of a purist - I must meditate on that idea. As I said I needed to discuss it with someone, and whilst I am still rumbling, I am not now fuming...

An elaboration: What got me the most about the wine-dark image - tis true that it isn't exclusively Homerish, but heavily recognised as such. To me, the idea of homage sounds more romantic than sensible. So, if an author is going to use that phrase - associated with the sea no less - and twice (my unfortunate curse is to notice things like that - they stick out like flaring red beacons: Repetition alert! Repetition alert! Run for cover!) I find it somewhat cheapens the author's own creativity, homage or not. And Winston, it seemed like too much of an obvious homage. 'Oh well, he said it perfectly, I'll say it too!' Does that make sense? That's what made me mad, not the idea of 'stealing' exact phrases itself.

Tolkienesque? Rubbish. Pure rubbish. Aren't most new author's bandied about as being the new Tolkien; we've had many discussions that revolve around the idea of an automatic trigger for many to recognise Tolkien as the quintessential fantasy - so comparisons to the 'master' must mean that book is the New Big Thing. (Always thought that comparison to Terry Brooks was funny...) I don't see how anyone could've thought this was in a Tolkien rut. How? Where? What from? Do you have a link to that review Erfael?

Brys - I agree with you on the names. I think they're marvellous, wonderful creations in and of themselves. I am particularly fond of the name 'Serwe' actually, and some of those unpronouncable monstrosities as well heh.

K

[Rob B]

Even thought it has been a couple of years since I read Darkness, I still remember the feel of the book. That is how Scott really managed to draw me into his world and feel like a fly on the wall of all of these events. Akka's motivations and overal felt particularly genuine to me.

[Jack]

Well I was hoping to dive into the discussion before the waters ran to high, and I regret I don't have time to wax for paragraphs on what I've already read in this thread.

Severn, I had issues with Serwe as well during my reading, but over the course of reflection upon the story, came to a satisfying peace with her, based strongly in the fact that Bakker's characterization is excellent, as previously stated here, so I knew Serwe couldn't just be some anomaly. She is a girl who was sold into the life of a concubine, basically, one who before dreamed of marrying a great man who was wonderful like her father, who she did seem to have fond memories of before he went and sold her off. Having then been a whore for many years, she escapes, meets Kellhus (who, lets face it, could woo any woman, or man for that matter, the only exception to this rule being Cnaiur, which is one reason why Cnaiur is my favorite character in the series), a truly great man. Therefore, I believe she would put up with anything, and I mean anything, for love of Kellhus.

No, Erfael, I do not see the Tolkien-esque qualities of the book, either. Bakker may be heavily influenced by him, heck, as readers I suppose we all are, but that doesn't mean his writing has to be loaded with allusions. I didn't seem them, anyway.

Now, for my part:

I've stated in another thread the one gripe I had in the book, which was when Esmi finally finds and approaches Akka after he has been exposed to the Skeaos skin-spy. She calls his name and is right in front of him and he "doesn't notice her" because he is "so deep in thought", so then Esmi assumes he doesn't love her anymore and runs away. OK, I'm sorry, I still think this is a pretty lame choice Bakker made, as the actions of both Akka and Esmi are not logical:

A) I don't care what Akka just saw: he has been dreaming about Esmi since he left her. He would have noticed her. Period.

B) But even assuming that Achamian was so deep in thought that for some reason he was blind and deaf , why would Esmi, obviously a strong woman, give up and run away like some silly court maiden after just calling Akka's name once or twice? The Esmi I came to know would have walked right up to Akka and shook him until he looked up at her, and only then if she had been verbally rebuked by Akka would she have been upset. But having left the comfort of her employment and her city, and to have endured all she had to endure along the path whose destination was Akka, and then just have her resolve peter out because Akka didn't immediately notice her? Nope. This scene wreaked of Jorkindian delay tactics, and the book would have been just fine had this scene never occurred at all.

I would really appreciate opinions on the above A and B points. So far, no one has agreed with me, so please tell me your opinions on this scene.

((also, my first post in the book club! ))

[Boll Weevil]

Yes I agree with you, one of the very few wrong notes in the book. He would eventually have noticed her, and she would not have given up without touching him.

This kind of thing always makes me think of Thomas Hardy, where the actors are kept apart by thin pretext.

Not that I like to think of Thomas Hardy...:shudders:

[algernoninc]

I have a very special category of writers in my library on an imaginary shelf labeled "Cartographers" - the ones who map not only new continents and turbulent oceans, but the depths of the human psyche. Bakker strong point is not world building or action scenes (the first book is patchy at best in painting a clear geographical picture) - but his mastery of metaphor. I will not compare him to George R R Martin or Steven Erikson. His poetic style and philosophical density put him close to my cartographers:
Michael Ondaatje, Antoine de Saint-Exupery, Peter Hoeg, Milan Kundera [i'm reading now "The Impossible Lightness of Being"], Guy Gavriel Kay, Sean Russell

My favorite character is of course Akka, who has the most difficult moral choices to make, but I won't go in details, because i read the second volume right after the first and i don't want to put spoilers.

[Gildor]

First off, i have to say i loved this book. I read it about a year ago, and so i haven't replied due to my book not being in my possesion, but here it goes ...

WOW! what can i say that hasn't already been said, i'll agree with the thoughts of everyone above. What struck me throughout was the darkness that settled on my mind when i started reading this, the same happened when reading the Warrior prophet, but i found almost everything about the book was, dark, twisted, brooding, malevolent, decadent ... and it worked for me, i was really captivated by the nature of the book. Akka's constant remembrance of the return of the consult, his torture through his dreams, I was in complete sympathy really, can't wait for everyone to realise the Mandate have returned along with the No-god, hehe! I ripped through the book at breakneck speed, same with number two, it just had that compelling quality to it.

The book qgot me quite breathless, it compelled me to read as much as possible. And as a consequence i probabaly didn't soak up most of the book, i think a reread may be a good option. But Bakker is now a definitive peronnel fave.

Ok, lets relate what Achamain has actually seen, the return of the mandate and a skin spy at that ... his worst fears realised;

" What followed would haunt Xerius's dreams for the rest of his numbered days. As though gasping for some for some deeper breath, Skeaos's face unfolded like spiders's legs clutched tight about a cold torso. Twelve limbs, crowned by small wicked claws, unclenced and opened, revealing lipless teeth and lidless eyes where a face should of been. "

Yet not only is Akka faced with this, the grisly thing actually touches him;

" Like a womans long fingers, they embraced the astounded Mandate sorcerer about the head and began to squeeze. "

Well Esmi doesn't even say anything when she glimpses Akka, she has no reason not to go up to him and at least touch or talk. She then proceeds to run off and have a hissy fit, instead of chasing after him. In the context of all Akka's thoughts of her it doesn't make sense your right, but i think he was in a very very bad state.

Ah well, a small niggle, but it doesn't detract from a magnificent book! Thank you Scott Bakker!

[starry-eyed]

Well, I guess I get to be the lone voice of dissent. Bakker certainly has his redeeming qualities, but this novel just didn't do it for me.

First: Kellhus is hardly an endearing character. Amoral or not, he's just too perfect. Beyond the Consult, there is no one else to offset him. Even Cnaiur, who provided only a minor obstacle, seems to be being successfully manipulated. It's like watching the Road Runner outsmarting Wile E Coyote so many times that you start fantasizing about the little bugger getting violently squashed. (Did I say that?) I wanted the Consult to win and bring about the apocalypse. Now.

Second: Akka. Well, I did like this character. I was especially interested in seeing the dynamic between him and Inrau. 'Course, Inrau bites the dust pretty early on so there went that. As for the interplay with Esmi- that was definitely a highlight. It just wasn't enough to carry the novel for me. Then when Esmi finally meets Akka again- that felt pretty anti-climactic. I expected a little more meat than that.

Third: The treatment of women. This is a multi-cultural world, yet every culture I encountered in this novel treated their women in an almost identical fashion. Now, I can buy that some cultures would treat their women in such a manner as Serwe and Esmi are treated, but it gets a little overbearing to find that in none of the peoples we meet do we come across even one strong female character. Even in male dominated cultures, there are plenty of means for women to have influence and status: yet we don't see this anywhere. Istriya has the right role, but her portrayal is hardly favorable- she is allowed no mystery or dignity for her character. Esmi has the dignity, I suppose, and her character is as close as the novel gets to allowing strong female leads. For me this absence detracted to my ability to empathize and care about the characters in the novel.

In the end that's what ruined it for me. I just didn't care if everyone lived or died. I wasn't excited to know what happens next.

[Dawnstorm]

So am I the only one, then, who thought the non-encounter of Achamian and Esmenet at the end plausible tragedy?

I think they both acted within bounds of their characters (Achamian - blind obsession; Esmenet - confirmation of self-doubt).

It's certainly not what I want to happen, but unfortunately I can utterly believe it.

[Gildor]

Originally Posted by Dawnstorm

I think they both acted within bounds of their characters (Achamian - blind obsession; Esmenet - confirmation of self-doubt).

I can understand how Achamian would have, but Esment really let the whispers of Sarcellus get to her. So in effect it was her self doubt, yet murmurred to her, until it eventually seethed into her sub concious to become more real than it should of been until Achamian saw through her, she then gave in to her fears.