Philosophy in Science Fiction and Fantasy Novels

[Leiali]

My first thread in ages, but I wanted to ask Scott Bakker about the question of philosophy. The two writers I have read that who seem to fully explore philosophy in Science Fiction and Fantasy are Scott Bakker and David Zindell (Neverness Series).
I wondered what people think of the fact that the basic questions in life are constantly asked and explored in Sci Fi and fantasy, and why Scott Bakker chooses such a shady character to represent the 'true philosopher' in his stories.

This is a bit garbled but make of it what you will!

 

[Scott Bakker]

I'm not at all familiar with Zindell...

I think SF's privileged relation to 'ideas' has to do with the way it automatically 'recontextualizes' our modern dilemmas, and so offers different angles of interpretation. I think F's privileged relation has something to do with this as well, but I also think that the fact so many F worlds are pre-scientific also makes them ideal settings for overt philosophical ramblings: before science, philosophy could still claim that it was the king of the knowledge mountain. Philosophers actually had credibility!

If by 'shady character' you mean, Kellhus , then there's a sense in which (and I know this will likely strike you as impossible) he's actually the least philosophical character in the book. Once you give up on reason as a means to finding answers to the 'big questions,' then it simply becomes the way of getting what you want. A tool of self-interest.

 

[Leiali]

If by 'shady character' you mean, Kellhus , then there's a sense in which (and I know this will likely strike you as impossible) he's actually the least philosophical character in the book. Once you give up on reason as a means to finding answers to the 'big questions,' then it simply becomes the way of getting what you want. A tool of self-interest.

I think I see what you mean! I always thought that communication skills could be honed to a very intricate level - I work with counsellors and there is just no point getting into discussion with them sometimes, they always know exactly how to make a point in such a way...

I think going back to the philosophy thing though, that it has always been a bit of a thorny issue for me. In various experiences at university and in some reading in the past, I have been frustrated by the pedantic approaches used to language in exploring the 'big questions', ! Splitting hairs is all well and good, but it doesn't solve the question! However, I respond to it with enthusiasm in Fantasy and Sci Fi. I am guessing that you have a little more patience than I, but can I ask what drew you to writing this series in such a light? What your influences have been and where on earth Kelhus comes from in your experience - you must have started somewhere...

 

[Scott Bakker]

I always thought Kellhus just leapt into my head whole-cloth until someone on my fansite pointed out all the parallels to various things you find in Dune. I remember first coming up with the idea after reading Douglas Hoftstadter's Metamagical Themas, particularly with reference to his essays on psychics and something called memes. I now think those combined with the Bene Gesserit in Dune sparked him in my imagination. It truly was one of those 'Eureka!' type moments.

My philosophical influences as they pertain to the book are eclectic - where to begin! Nietzsche and Aristotle are definitely the biggies, with Heidegger a very close third, followed by Sextus Empiricus, perhaps. What I tried to draw from these three jokers was a sense of how alien (and yet familiar) ancient approaches to the big questions could be. Since I worked on the book while I was working on my graduate degrees (in theory & criticism and philosophy) it was probably inevitable that the story be philosophical in its own right. Fantasy and philosophy are my two passions, and it just so happens they fit, hand-in-glove. Perhaps because they're versions of one another.

 

[Leiali]

I imagine he was lurking around in your brain waiting to exist. I must confess quite a serious lack of knowledge when it comes to philosophy, so you kind of lost me after Aristotle. I did a degree in English Literature and only dabbled in a bit of political philosophy...My knowledge is encompassed by Sophie's World, and of course, The Monty Python's Philosophers song.

Can you tell us more about the Metamagical Themas? I am not familiar with that either and it sounds quite intriguing. First things first, is it a medieval text?

 

[Scott Bakker]

Definitely not Medieval! The subtitle to the book is, 'An Interlocked Collection of Literary, Scientific, and Artistic Studies.' It's essentially a collection of his Scientific American essays with addendums attached. It's somewhat dated now (sinces he continually references science to make his arguments), but still a very interesting book.

As for philosophy, I think the Monty Python song says it all!

 

[Asraloth]

My philosophical influences as they pertain to the book are eclectic - where to begin! Nietzsche and Aristotle are definitely the biggies, with Heidegger a very close third, followed by Sextus Empiricus, perhaps.

ahh, yes, i knew it. as i read TDTCB, I could see some Nietzche thrown in there, especially with regards to Kellhus. a "superman" if ever i've seen one.

 

[Scott Bakker]

It's actually not what people think, but I'll have to let The Thousandfold Thought sort it all out. Here's my favourite review on precisely this topic (amazon is the only place where it's posted).

Books in Canada

Lemme know what you think...

 

[Asraloth]

Ok, now that i read that review, i can sort of see how Cnauir more than Kellhus represents that Nietzche ideal. hmmm, interesting, i suppose i was seeing Kellhus that way because he could do "super" things.

 

[saintjon]

That isn't the first time I've seen Cnaiur referred to as another shade of superman, but I never really clued into him in that light when I read The Darkness That Comes Before.

I did pick up on the bestial aspect of him, Cnaiur seems to be all about passion. There don't seem to be shades of grey in Cnaiur's mind, it's like his thoughts flare around a big blast furnace.

I know Cnaiur made an effort to be the most scylvendi of all scylvendi as a recompensation sort of thing, but when he fights, is that his true self (as I originally figured) or is it only the best example of him trying to fulfill his concept of the Scylvendi ideal?

 

[Scott Bakker]

Ah, just wait for The Thousandfold Thought...

I'm getting pretty close to finishing a draft. After so many years!

 

[saintjon]

the only thing that dulls the edge of all these "read and find out" type comments I've seen is how unbelievably fast you seem to be able to write

 

[Scott Bakker]

Remember this has been in the works for 20 frickin' years! I actually have a completed - and misbegotten - draft of The Prince of Nothing (it was trilogized in the rewrite) from long ago.

 

[saintjon]

Ah well I'm just glad that I picked up on a key distinction lol. Seems like some of those fellows at the 3 seas forum have a way better grip on things than I do sometimes.

 

[Leiali]

Ah, just wait for The Thousandfold Thought...

I'm getting pretty close to finishing a draft. After so many years!

That's just cruel

I like Saintjon did not consider Cnaiur of the same ilk, a formidable character may be, but not at the same level as Kelhus.

The review is pretty damned excellent. Not just in it's praise, but also in its explanatory nature for the likes of us non philosophers! I have to admit though that I do in part agree about the female characters - In your defense though, I was pleasantly surprised with the development of the character of Esmenet by the end of the book when usually I am just deeply disappointed. I remember being quite excited about a meaty female character who was believable and intelligent. One has to just look at the thread raging in the Robert Jordan section about female characters in the WoT books to know how difficult a subject it can be.

 

[Scott Bakker]

I've taken quite abit of heat on the fansite about this very issue. I'm sticking to my guns though! I think The Prince of Nothing is a powerfully feminist work... (In fact, I used to worry that it was too much so, and contemplated on scaling things back - I'm glad I didn't!!) You just have to start asking the right questions of the different power relationships.

There's nothing inherently 'profemale' about representing women in dominant roles - in fact, such representations can be thoroughly misogynistic. It all has to do with the way the roles are explored.

 

[Leiali]

You just have to start asking the right questions of the different power relationships.

But the power balance starts with the women in subjugated roles, and not all women begin as prostitutes. I understand that the development of the female characters shows that there is more to them than meets the eye, but it is still a flaw in the book.

[/QUOTE]There's nothing inherently 'profemale' about representing women in dominant roles - in fact, such representations can be thoroughly misogynistic. It all has to do with the way the roles are explored.[/QUOTE]

I agree with you, there is nothing inherently feminist about representing women in dominant roles. But why choose extremes? Most women are not an extreme, just as most men aren't.

Sorry - but I can't get the quotes in the right bits to look neat and tidy!

Sorry to rant. The darkness that comes before was one of the best books I have ever read in fantasy, and I wouldn't enjoy a sexist book. So you are obviously not mysogionistic at all! It just niggles at me sometimes....

Right, I had better stop now. I have managed to bring this topic up in two threads now, and I am sure I am going to be teased mercilessly for it.

 

[Scott Bakker]

But the power balance starts with the women in subjugated roles, and not all women begin as prostitutes. I understand that the development of the female characters shows that there is more to them than meets the eye, but it is still a flaw in the book.

This is very point I'm disputing. I'm not saying you're wrong - to many have made the complaint for me to assume that - I'm just saying I don't understand the justification. I'm really not that prickly about my work - there's all kinds of things I ache to rewrite in The Darkness That Comes Before, but this isn't one of them.

The assumption here is that I'm violating some kind of criterion for the representation of women. From what you say, that criterion seems to be something like: 'female characters should fairly represent all the types found in human societies.' But that can't be, can it? Are there actually rules determining character selection?

It seems clear this isn't the case. But since characters serve both theme and story, it's not simply a free-for-all either. In this case, I think my female characters are actually quite ideal. It's a war narrative set in a fantasy world that strives to be as historical as possible. Prostitutes and concubines are a natural fit.

We moderns keep returning to premodern fantasy worlds, I think, precisely because these are the kinds of worlds we tend to cook up for ourselves in the absence of scientific discipline. They resonate with us at some fundamental level. But rather than give readers a sentimentalized, thoroughly sanitized version of this 'lost world,' I wanted to give them an example of what such a prescientific world - given the way we humans are - might really look like. I wanted to explore all the ugliness - the brutality, the inequity, the misogyny, the racism - with the wonder. And I wanted to do it with an eye for detail and depth that rivalled Tolkien.

The idea was to pack something as cruel as our real premodern world into our epic fantasy expectations, as if to say, "Here are the wages of your wonder."

Sorry, Leiali, I didn't mean that to turn into a diatribe!

 

[Asraloth]

i am a man, and i love women. i'm not a misogynist and i wrote heaps in university about feminist topics, especially in regards to fiction.

one thing that annoys me about female characters in fantasy, which was thankfully absent in TDTCB, is the way females in this genre have, gain or attain power.

most of the time, you have either the "barbarian chick" or the "tempestuous, tree-hugging sorceress." there are too few women characters in fantasy who are normal people in common, realistic situations, that actually use their wits to survive.

being good with sorcery or being good with a sword is usually (not always) a lazy technique of writers to empower a female character, and this is also done with male characters. i'd rather see a woman (or man for that matter) who uses her brain to get out of trouble, rather than magic or a big sword.

we should never deny that women were and still are subjugated, but does that mean we have to ignore it in fiction, by ignoring certain character types and not others? a princess is essentially just like a prostitute, sleeping with a man for money AND status. does that mean we can't have princesses in fantasy?

so, my point, if i have one , is that lots of feminists misinterpret "showing" subjugation as "supporting" it.

 

[Scott Bakker]

I agree entirely, Asraloth. What makes the situation dicey though is the power cultural representations have to reinforce or subvert types and expectations - to bestow 'identities.' Life imitates art as much as vice versa.

So on the one side, you have writers and directors arguing that they are simply representing 'how things are' when they make women passive, blacks criminal, and homosexuals ineffectual, and on the other side you have critics arguing that those writers and directors are making choices which possess social consequences (type-reinforcement, etc.) for which they are responsible.

You can see how this debate can get pretty thorny pretty quick. Is the critic advocating a subtle form of censorship? Is the writer arguing that he or she has no social responsibility?

I think the debate is healthy, since it forces us to continually revisit our assumptions and cultural productions. But I also think it's clear that, as you say, 'showing' does not automatically mean 'advocating,' and that, conversely, if a writer is running the risk of reinforcing negative types, he or she should have some justification for doing so. I think I do.