Philosophy in Science Fiction and Fantasy Novels

I've resigned myself to the fact that for some readers, depiction just equals endorsement. L is arguing something different: that I'm short-shrifting Esmenet's ability to see through the naturalized oppression she find's herself immersed in.

Hand's down, I feel the most anxiety when it comes to Esmenet. When I set out so very long ago I promised myself I would never flinch, that I would portray a relentlessly unsentimental premodern world - "to show readers the wages of their wonder" I would say. I've since watched a couple of docs on prostitution in the developing world, and I know think that I've actually flinched quite a bit, that's there's several ways in which I've romanticized Esmenet's predicament with a masculine eye.

I really don't trust myself when it comes to this. Yet I plunge fearfully forward!

Now a feminist rehabilitation of Nietzsche is something I would like to see! I'm don't even find his political rehabilitation all that convincing...
 
I don't even like to talk about Nietzsche and political rehabilitation in the same breath.

Interesting to read how some of you feel about Esmenet. God, I thought she was so strong and quite liberated in her role, relatively speaking. It is Serwe whom I cannot see clearly. She's a blur to me no matter how hard I try to understand her and find some characteristics that give her meaning for me, other than as a metaphor. As everyone waxes real and personal, she remains vague and superficial.
 
I was wondering when someone was going to bring Serwe up!

Somedays I'm convinced she's the most important character in the book. Keep it cryptic, that's my motto...
 
Scott Bakker said:
I've resigned myself to the fact that for some readers, depiction just equals endorsement. L is arguing something different: that I'm short-shrifting Esmenet's ability to see through the naturalized oppression she find's herself immersed in.

Hand's down, I feel the most anxiety when it comes to Esmenet. When I set out so very long ago I promised myself I would never flinch, that I would portray a relentlessly unsentimental premodern world - "to show readers the wages of their wonder" I would say. I've since watched a couple of docs on prostitution in the developing world, and I know think that I've actually flinched quite a bit, that's there's several ways in which I've romanticized Esmenet's predicament with a masculine eye.

I really don't trust myself when it comes to this. Yet I plunge fearfully forward!

Now a feminist rehabilitation of Nietzsche is something I would like to see! I'm don't even find his political rehabilitation all that convincing...
Click to expand...


I'm not qualified to discuss Nietzsche, but other than the fact that I am glad that Esmenet is making you feel anxious - being a character with a great deal of potential! Something you have just written has jumped out at me - I work with prostitutes, not many, and it is not exactly a life choice for some but a drug driven necessity. It perhaps has an impact on how I perceive Esmenet, however, she certainly is idealised to me because it is a completely different society she lives in. Though to be honest, I reckon views haven't changed much in the past thousands of years when it comes to prostitution.

I have a whole Mary Magdalene image of her going on at the moment....but that is quite clearly being manipulated by the author. I must resist ;)
 
Oh Scott, what have you done to Esmenet?! That 'Spiritual Labyrinth' really is kicking in big time and I am so unhappy with it!! Will read on in deep disappointment :(

And can you elaborate on Serwe? I have been fairly dismissive of her character because she is a little two dimensional in comparison to Esmenet, and certainly plays second fiddle to whoever else is in the room. I have met several people in the past who are perhaps such a stereotype but not to such a degree, even those who are quite subservient in character still have some meat to them, Serwe seems almost a caricature of the idea of a subservient woman....What made you create her? Was it necessity or wanting to explore an idea?
The Warrior Prophet seems to shift from philosophical undertones to religious ones quite drastically and I feel as though I am reading about Abraham or Moses....

I am quite seriously rambling now, but further points I'd like to make : Battle scenes - Is it just me or are they confusing?! And did you know that Mengedda means 'Her Path' in tigrinya?
 
I haven't read any of your work, Scott, but what people say here make it sound interesting. I've always thought fantasy was an excellent medium for philosophy as well. It might not be immediately recognizable in my first book, but the story is supposed express a strong theme about eclectic spirituality.

Which I bet does not surprise you in the least. :D

Can you point to a link or something where I can out more about your books?
 
Well, my first published book is called The Defiler's Rule: Pure Intensity, but it was self-published so I've rewrtitten it and changed the title hoping to publish traditionally (I like the new titles for the series better). I'm trying to blend dark, urban and quest fantasy into the whole work. It is set in an alternate world very similar to ours. The main difference is the forgotten prehistoric people of Hunjan and their mythology. I will either imply or somehow directly state that their religion is the "common ancestor" for some Eastern and Western religions.

The first book has a relatively tight plot and only leaves a few loose ends to keep the reader guessing. In the sequels, I'm tossing a bunch of people (including the main character from the first) with different religious backgrounds together and sending them on a quest to end the Defiler's rule on Earth. Some of them won't get along too well, will they?

Then I plan to follow this one (it's planned as four books) with a trilogy about the Hunjan Tiger Clan 10,000 years in the past (in progress too).

EDIT: I had a look at the sites. I've read some of the excerpt for TDTCB and it looks very interesting. I'm going to read more once I've had a little more coffee. Thanks!
 
Last edited:
I just read your article Why Fantasy and Why Now? and I have a few comments and questions, and also regarding your novels.

In regard to the article, it was thought provoking, but at the same time I have a criticism. I think you may have mischaracterised the Enlightenment, suggesting that it ushered in an age of rigid scientific rationality, and that this is a bad thing. I would argue that the Enlightenment philosophers themselves did not exclude other ways of knowing the world. They did not limit it to a scientific framework. There was room for myth.

I think it is only fair to note that science was an alternative to religious superstition at that time. The Enlightenment philosophers said, with the help of science, that "I can know the world" instead of being spoonfed theories of the universe from an oppressive Catholic Church. So science in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, in my opinion.

One thing that interests me is the expression of Enlightenment thought in the work of recent fantasy fiction. It seems that most characters exhibit Enlightenment ideals, even when in a pre-modern environment. They think for themselves.

I should add that I came across your article when I was searching out info on your books. I haven't read them yet (just finished Martin's) but they came highly recommended and they sound very interesting. I will definitely have to buy them.
 
In regard to the article, it was thought provoking, but at the same time I have a criticism. I think you may have mischaracterised the Enlightenment, suggesting that it ushered in an age of rigid scientific rationality, and that this is a bad thing. I would argue that the Enlightenment philosophers themselves did not exclude other ways of knowing the world. They did not limit it to a scientific framework. There was room for myth.
Click to expand...

I don't recall saying all that much about the Enlightenment, aside from using it as a historical reference point for the gradual institutionalization of science. Otherwise, what scientists, enlightenment or contemporary, themselves believe, is actually irrelevant to my argument.

It's not that science is good or bad thing, it's that science is the only thing when it comes to the generation of reliable, efficacious, consensus commanding truth claims.
 
Scott Bakker said:
It's not that science is good or bad thing, it's that science is the only thing when it comes to the generation of reliable, efficacious, consensus commanding truth claims.
Click to expand...

Thou shalt not kill.

Science came up with this?
 
I take it you mean a truth-claim of the form, 'Killing is usually bad,' or some such. I think it's pretty clear that it belongs with claims like 'Cooperation is usually good,' or 'Lying is usually bad,' and so on - in other words, that set of normative truth-claims which many different institutions take up, but no institution can take credit for because they are the result of our biological makeup. This is why so many religions, for example, tend to share the same basic moral values, even though the narratives they give and the claims they make to rationalize those values differ wildly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Sponsors


We try to keep the forum as free of ads as possible, please consider supporting SFFWorld on Patreon


Your ad here.

Latest posts

Back
Top