[Itwæs Nom]

Mentalist, on 30 September 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 30 September 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 05:51 AM, said:

I keep on forgetting to ask this:

I am going to start Bakker by the end of this year - November hopefully. I just bought The Great Ordeal yesterday.

Now I have heard a lot about him - some good, some bad. Many say he is the only other author who comes close to SE in terms of complexity and philosophy.

So what I am asking is, what should I expect? Also any Dos and Don'ts?

DO:
Throw the books away, take the financial hit and forget you ever heard of Bakker.

DON'T:
Read his books.

QuickTidal, on 30 September 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

High Geek of Crawfish, on 30 September 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

It's my 1st reco to you I'm actually nervous about but I think if you can stomach the lovey dovey parts the overall gritty, dark disturbing shit will be that much better. I seriously don't know why now that I'm reading these they were labeled romance. That hurt sales but since they show started that stigma has been lifted. I still say if you have access to show in India then read 1 watch 1, read 2 watch s2. QT and me give both seal of approval. I'm on pg 400 of 3 tonight.

And the lovey dovey bits get fewer and farther between as the books go on. It's simply a great series!

Tiste Simeon, on 30 September 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 05:51 AM, said:

I keep on forgetting to ask this:

I am going to start Bakker by the end of this year - November hopefully. I just bought The Great Ordeal yesterday.

Now I have heard a lot about him - some good, some bad. Many say he is the only other author who comes close to SE in terms of complexity and philosophy.

So what I am asking is, what should I expect? Also any Dos and Don'ts?

DO:
Throw the books away, take the financial hit and forget you ever heard of Bakker.

DON'T:
Read his books.

I second this!

Now what did Bakker do to rile up you two?

Re: Outlander, what is the pacing like in book 1?

Bakker is another author with drama surrounding his online postings

He's also a philosophy grad/prof (I think) which shows in his books. His world is quite mysoginistic, he's got a hos of despicable main characters, nd not in a Mark Lawrence-y "Ha-ha, look at how fucked up and evil/morally dark grey we are!" a la Jorg and that other prince from the Red Queen's war.

Bakker's main character is a certifible psychopath ubermensch. The biggest reason I still read the books is to see him suffer horribly at some point, because I find the very idea of him despicable, and basically an anti-thesis of my own professional training and ethics.

That being said, Bakker's got some neat and intricate world-building concepts, and although I hate the plotting, he manages a very good re-imagining of a fantasy First Crusade in the original trilogy.

So in short, my opinion of Bakker is very mixed. Did I just break the Internet with that?

I don't really wanna think about it again too much but I recall feeling deep disdain for both the trilogy and Kellhus but I sad to myself that I'll finish it and I felt immensely happy when I did. But now I'm feeling weird twisted urge to read his other trilogy when it's whole out. I also do want to see Kellhus suffer but likely everyone else around him will be instead and I don't find it itself worth the reading so it doesn't explain why I want to go through that again.

[Andorion]

Mentalist, on 30 September 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 10:53 AM, said:

Tiste Simeon, on 30 September 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 05:51 AM, said:

I keep on forgetting to ask this:

I am going to start Bakker by the end of this year - November hopefully. I just bought The Great Ordeal yesterday.

Now I have heard a lot about him - some good, some bad. Many say he is the only other author who comes close to SE in terms of complexity and philosophy.

So what I am asking is, what should I expect? Also any Dos and Don'ts?

DO:
Throw the books away, take the financial hit and forget you ever heard of Bakker.

DON'T:
Read his books.

QuickTidal, on 30 September 2016 - 09:56 AM, said:

High Geek of Crawfish, on 30 September 2016 - 04:06 AM, said:

It's my 1st reco to you I'm actually nervous about but I think if you can stomach the lovey dovey parts the overall gritty, dark disturbing shit will be that much better. I seriously don't know why now that I'm reading these they were labeled romance. That hurt sales but since they show started that stigma has been lifted. I still say if you have access to show in India then read 1 watch 1, read 2 watch s2. QT and me give both seal of approval. I'm on pg 400 of 3 tonight.

And the lovey dovey bits get fewer and farther between as the books go on. It's simply a great series!

Tiste Simeon, on 30 September 2016 - 09:53 AM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 05:51 AM, said:

I keep on forgetting to ask this:

I am going to start Bakker by the end of this year - November hopefully. I just bought The Great Ordeal yesterday.

Now I have heard a lot about him - some good, some bad. Many say he is the only other author who comes close to SE in terms of complexity and philosophy.

So what I am asking is, what should I expect? Also any Dos and Don'ts?

DO:
Throw the books away, take the financial hit and forget you ever heard of Bakker.

DON'T:
Read his books.

I second this!

Now what did Bakker do to rile up you two?

Re: Outlander, what is the pacing like in book 1?

Bakker is another author with drama surrounding his online postings

He's also a philosophy grad/prof (I think) which shows in his books. His world is quite mysoginistic, he's got a hos of despicable main characters, nd not in a Mark Lawrence-y "Ha-ha, look at how fucked up and evil/morally dark grey we are!" a la Jorg and that other prince from the Red Queen's war.

Bakker's main character is a certifible psychopath ubermensch. The biggest reason I still read the books is to see him suffer horribly at some point, because I find the very idea of him despicable, and basically an anti-thesis of my own professional training and ethics.

That being said, Bakker's got some neat and intricate world-building concepts, and although I hate the plotting, he manages a very good re-imagining of a fantasy First Crusade in the original trilogy.

So in short, my opinion of Bakker is very mixed. Did I just break the Internet with that?

So this misogyny, does it come with the "Views of the character do not reflect views of the author" disclaimer?

Otherwise you got me with the First Crusafe mention

[amphibian]

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

So this misogyny, does it come with the "Views of the character do not reflect views of the author" disclaimer?

Otherwise you got me with the First Crusafe mention

Bakker basically takes a Lord of the Rings style world, deepens it in every way - including the racism and the misogyny - and then breaks it into pieces. You will enjoy his stuff, even as grim and ugly as it can be, because he has that crucial quality: imagination. There is some truly wild stuff in the books and there's many reasons why the people who quit early or halfway through hate it and most of the people who stuck it out (slogged through) love it.

What would you do if you were born and bred to manipulate everyone and everything around you - and your goal was to save the world? Become an emperor? Would you be nice? To whom? What would that conquest and saving the world process look like in a world of magic and non-humans?

I've read all Bakker's works and it's clear that he thinks women are great, yet stuck with some horrible things and concepts due to society in our real world and in his worlds too. He almost always gets them power and volition in the story and has them do cool things independently. Bakker himself is not misogynistic or racist. He's more like a comedian who works in uncomfortable territory than you'd think.

[Andorion]

amphibian, on 30 September 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

So this misogyny, does it come with the "Views of the character do not reflect views of the author" disclaimer?

Otherwise you got me with the First Crusafe mention

Bakker basically takes a Lord of the Rings style world, deepens it in every way - including the racism and the misogyny - and then breaks it into pieces. You will enjoy his stuff, even as grim and ugly as it can be, because he has that crucial quality: imagination. There is some truly wild stuff in the books and there's many reasons why the people who quit early or halfway through hate it and most of the people who stuck it out (slogged through) love it.

What would you do if you were born and bred to manipulate everyone and everything around you - and your goal was to save the world? Become an emperor? Would you be nice? To whom? What would that conquest and saving the world process look like in a world of magic and non-humans?

I've read all Bakker's works and it's clear that he thinks women are great, yet stuck with some horrible things and concepts due to society in our real world and in his worlds too. He almost always gets them power and volition in the story and has them do cool things independently. Bakker himself is not misogynistic or racist. He's more like a comedian who works in uncomfortable territory than you'd think.

Oh cool this is something I can work with.

[End of Disc One]

Speaking of Bakker's online postings, he just signed up at Westeros yesterday and started a thread: http://asoiaf.wester...rdeal-feedback/

I'm firmly in the "Bakker is awesome" camp.

[acesn8s]

I enjoyed Bakker's first trilogy. I plan on picking up books 1 and 2 or the second trilogy soon. Based on my recollection of the series, I don't see him as a misogynist, he created a world based off the crusades era Europe and Middle East, made it a patriarchal society, had one female POV character an aging prostitute and another a young slave. He created a barbarian tribe that viewed women as 2nd class citizens/chattel. The characters were used and raped. He didn't shy away from that, but I don't believe (until Kellhus) that he made it exciting or something that the characters secretly desired. It was something he wrote to make you feel uncomfortable and helpless. If that is something you don't want in your story, I would suggest skipping it.

I love his schools of magic. I love his main characters, with the exception of Kellhus (which puts me in great company here, it seems).

[Itwæs Nom]

amphibian, on 30 September 2016 - 04:14 PM, said:

Andorion, on 30 September 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

So this misogyny, does it come with the "Views of the character do not reflect views of the author" disclaimer?

Otherwise you got me with the First Crusafe mention

Bakker basically takes a Lord of the Rings style world, deepens it in every way - including the racism and the misogyny - and then breaks it into pieces. You will enjoy his stuff, even as grim and ugly as it can be, because he has that crucial quality: imagination. There is some truly wild stuff in the books and there's many reasons why the people who quit early or halfway through hate it and most of the people who stuck it out (slogged through) love it.

What would you do if you were born and bred to manipulate everyone and everything around you - and your goal was to save the world? Become an emperor? Would you be nice? To whom? What would that conquest and saving the world process look like in a world of magic and non-humans?

I've read all Bakker's works and it's clear that he thinks women are great, yet stuck with some horrible things and concepts due to society in our real world and in his worlds too. He almost always gets them power and volition in the story and has them do cool things independently. Bakker himself is not misogynistic or racist. He's more like a comedian who works in uncomfortable territory than you'd think.

The Lord of the Ring feel is probably my favourite aspect of the trilogy

[amphibian]

acesn8s, on 30 September 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

I love his main characters, with the exception of Kellhus (which puts me in great company here, it seems).

Kelhus is one of the more interesting people in recent literature to me. Bakker has somehow created a character that divides people like Thomas Covenant does - except Bakker's making Kelhus the "person who continuously does horrible things in order to save the world" instead of a reluctant hero who did an inexcusable thing in the very beginning. It's fascinating to me because I don't like Kelhus, but he's the one who's actually capable of saving the world, so I gotta go along with him to a certain extent, while rooting for Achamanian and the others to do what they do - without them succeeding before the world gets saved. Complicated stuff.

That dynamic sets off some people in a very specific way. Add in that Bakker is very clearly doing some grim and unsettling things to a world with strong Lord of the Rings stylings - then we get frothing rage in some people.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 30 September 2016 - 07:18 PM

[polishgenius]

It's LotR invaded by HR Giger with the philosophical attitude of Rusty from True Detective.


The misogyny stuff is definitely a storytelling choice by him - 'dripping acid in the male gaze' is how he's described it in the past- but I can see why some people feel he takes it too far and/or doesn't quite succeed in his examinatory aim.

I love the series, though.

[Mentalist]

amphibian, on 30 September 2016 - 07:17 PM, said:

acesn8s, on 30 September 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

I love his main characters, with the exception of Kellhus (which puts me in great company here, it seems).

Kelhus is one of the more interesting people in recent literature to me. Bakker has somehow created a character that divides people like Thomas Covenant does - except Bakker's making Kelhus the "person who continuously does horrible things in order to save the world" instead of a reluctant hero who did an inexcusable thing in the very beginning. It's fascinating to me because I don't like Kelhus, but he's the one who's actually capable of saving the world, so I gotta go along with him to a certain extent, while rooting for Achamanian and the others to do what they do - without them succeeding before the world gets saved. Complicated stuff.

That dynamic sets off some people in a very specific way. Add in that Bakker is very clearly doing some grim and unsettling things to a world with strong Lord of the Rings stylings - then we get frothing rage in some people.

I didn't like the First Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, but it wa more just Donaldson's style and pace in those books (I loved the Gap series, which is much, much messed up). The rape thing didn't really phase me.

Kellhus I probably the only character in literature I genuinely loathe. It's a personal thing, but my background is in psychology, and combined with law, it comes with a whole code of ethics specifically designed for prevent people to be like Kellhus- using their higher level of understanding of human motivation to take advantage of people for your own gain and benefit. And in Kellhus, this skill is combined with a personality conditioned from birth to be a complete psychopath. Which makes him (to me) basically an image of a worst nightmare, precisely because on a certain level I understand how Kellhus does what he do, but i've been conditioned to never use those skills and knowledge to their full extent. While Kellhus has no such ethical barriers, and he's million times better at it.

[polishgenius]

Considering that this started off from Andorion saying he hasn't read the books yet, are we not veering a little too far into spoiler territory here?

[amphibian]

polishgenius, on 30 September 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

Considering that this started off from Andorion saying he hasn't read the books yet, are we not veering a little too far into spoiler territory here?

Not really. He knows now what Kelhus will do in a general sense - not how or why or to whom.

[Mentalist]

Only spoilerific thing we did was give a

Spoiler

fairly good impression that Kellhus survives the PoN trilo

I'm not sure if that's a big Bk2 spoiler or not.

[Andorion]

Whoa Outlander has a lot of books. Is the series still ongoing?

[Andorion]

High Geek of Crawfish, on 01 October 2016 - 01:48 AM, said:

I believe so. There's 7 or 8 but I've not read any of the cover blurbs to avoid spoilers so idk if the latest says the final vol or not. It's a massive series currently for sure with bks in the 1k pg range. Bk 3 is at 1059. They are bricks.

You have read them all?

BTW I am also going to be starting Blood Meridian as soon as I finish Gravity's Rainbow

[Kruppe of Darujhistan]

Gonna take another crack at Neal Stephenson's REAMDE. I've owned this book since it came out, but for whatever reason I never got past the opening chapter. Very strange to my mind, since Stephenson has long been my favorite author. I've read Snowcrash a half dozen times and Cryptonomicon probably 20+ times. I've also read the Baroque Cycle and Anathem, so I know that Stephenson ALWAYS delivers.

[Andorion]

Started Blood Meridian. Three chapters in. I quite like it. The simple straightforward style is a great contrast to Gravity's Rainbow.

Also started Outlander. About halfway into the first chapter.

[Andorion]

Kruppe of Darujhistan, on 02 October 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Gonna take another crack at Neal Stephenson's REAMDE. I've owned this book since it came out, but for whatever reason I never got past the opening chapter. Very strange to my mind, since Stephenson has long been my favorite author. I've read Snowcrash a half dozen times and Cryptonomicon probably 20+ times. I've also read the Baroque Cycle and Anathem, so I know that Stephenson ALWAYS delivers.

Cryptonomicon is the only Stephenson I have read, and I loved it. About 60% of the time I had no idea where the story was going but I did not care as I was entertained.

[Kruppe of Darujhistan]

Andorion, on 02 October 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

Kruppe of Darujhistan, on 02 October 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

Gonna take another crack at Neal Stephenson's REAMDE. I've owned this book since it came out, but for whatever reason I never got past the opening chapter. Very strange to my mind, since Stephenson has long been my favorite author. I've read Snowcrash a half dozen times and Cryptonomicon probably 20+ times. I've also read the Baroque Cycle and Anathem, so I know that Stephenson ALWAYS delivers.

Cryptonomicon is the only Stephenson I have read, and I loved it. About 60% of the time I had no idea where the story was going but I did not care as I was entertained.

Stephenson always has me laughing, regardless of how serious the overall subject matter. That's what I most love about his books. And I think that Bobby Shaftoe and Goto Dengo are just about the greatest characters ever created.

[Andorion]

High Geek of Crawfish, on 02 October 2016 - 07:02 PM, said:

Andorion, on 02 October 2016 - 05:20 PM, said:

Started Blood Meridian. Three chapters in. I quite like it. The simple straightforward style is a great contrast to Gravity's Rainbow.

Also started Outlander. About halfway into the first chapter.

Keep reading I doubt you think it's straightforward long.

Bout fucking timr

Ed I just had to put 3 down cause it's so large my hands were cramping up.

Another chapter of Blood Meridian. That was one gruesome massacre. And the author has started to favour very long sentences.

Finished the first chapter of Outlander - spooooky. Also why do I get the feeling there was some foreshadowing in there?

Spoiler

That sudden spat about marital fidelity and the intrusive thoughts it introduces into an otherwise happy relationship felt a bit abrupt. That topic of research about an ancestor who was in the area in the 18th century, followed up with an apparition of a man in old Scottish costume. I feel that both of these are plot relevant and are signals to future events.

This post has been edited by Andorion: 03 October 2016 - 01:52 AM