[Dolorous Menhir]

I've just finished the third book in Bakker's trilogy. Readers of my post on the first two installments will already know what I think of this author, but I wanted to go through the criticisms again after the refresher course this book provided.

Basically, it all boils down to one thing. Bakker doesn't know how to tell a good story. He can philosophize all day long, and even build some good characterisation, but can he write a coherent, easily followed and interesting plot? Nope.

It is plain that Bakker only has one interest: using his dialogue to discuss philosophical concerns the average reader has no interest in.

He has created a novel with a cast of thousands, but his disinterest in all but a bare handful of characters is obvious. This leads me to one of the most insanely annoying things about this book: Bakker never ever introduces characters, races, nations, places. Ever.

Let me try to illustrate this.

These books consist of a limited number of stock scenes, with a few supporting variants.

1. Battles
2. Speeches by Kellhus/meetings where Kellhus dominates
3. Sex-scenes
4. POV's from different characters, most of them involving Kellhus dominating them utterly


A typical Bakker battle:

Book: Lord X and his men met Earl Y and his men on the field of battle. I'm not going to tell you anything about X and Y, what weapons they use, how many men they have, where they are fighting, what the conditions are like, or any of those boring details.

Me: "Who the hell are X and Y? Why has the author never mentioned these people before?"

Book: Lord X was valiant and angry, but Earl Y won the day by rallying his men. It was a great victory. Now forget X and Y, because I'm probably never going to mention them again.

Me: Thinks. "So who won this stupid battle? Since the author never told us who X and Y were or what side they were on, I don't even know if the Inrithi or the Fanim won this one. And Bakker's battles suck. So what if Earl Y was courageous. That doesn't win victories. Numbers, tactics, technology, magic, they win victories."


A typical meeting of the Holy War:

Book: Kellhus says something. Everyone agrees. If someone does disagree, it's a noble who's been mentioned once or twice but you know precisely nothing about. Kellhus says something else, and he is convinced. If there is even the slightest possibility of dissent, the author crushes it.

Me: "ARRRGGH. Someone stand up to Kellhus already. Someone oppose him. Anyone!"

Ok, Ikurei Xerius and Conphas tried. And where did that storyline go? Oh yeah, they both got killed for no good reason, and WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING. Cnaiur isn't fooled by Kellhus, but he supports him in public until his final conversation with Achamian.


A typical Bakker sex scene:

If involving Esmenet - lots of tedious mulling over how she used to be a WHORE. Thanks for drilling that one home. I got the message in the first book, you know.
If involving anyone else: a few references to erect phalluses, "her sex". Otherwise dull. The word "peach" should be removed from Bakker's dictionary.

What I'm trying to say is that Bakker is a bad author.

His worldbuilding is derivative. We're lucky he didn't give Inri Sejunus the initials JC. The Holy War is just a big blank. The reader is not capable of caring about the conquest of a heathen land when he is NOT TOLD ANYTHING ABOUT THAT HEATHEN WORLD. Bakker doesn't tell you anything about the lands of the Fanim. Until the Holy War is besieging a city or facing an army, that city or army IS NEVER MENTIONED. I found it impossible to care about battles because it was painfully clear the author was just making up generals, armies, even races on the fly.

How many times did you see the Holy War face up against a general that had never been mentioned before? How many times did the author refer to a race (such as the Anoni) without telling you if they were Inrithi or Fanim? How many times did you follow one group in a battle, only to realise that they were actually on the opposite side to what you thought? Quite often they are members of the Holy War that Bakker just never bothered to refer to earlier. Sorry, but this is just bad writing.

I wish to anticipate any retorts mentioning the glossary. The glossary is not a substitute for good writing. An author who spends 140 pages of a 620 page book on a glossary is an author who has failed to write an easily readable book. Nobody should have to refer to a glossary several times per page just to find out whoever they are reading about actually is. That's something that should happen naturally in the story, and would happen if Bakker was any good.


His storytelling is weak. His characterisation (with a few notable exceptions) is non-existent. The only concession is to occasionally refer to a noble as proud, fierce, legendary, or other lonely descriptive words. That's not enough for the reader to remember these people. It's not enough to make them care.

If Bakker had written just about his principals (Cnauir, Kellhus, Esmenet, Achamian) and not tried to create a grand storyline in addition to their storylines, he might have succeeded.


Other criticisms?

Several battle sequences ended with the phrase "and death swirled down". After a few repetitions I was laughing when it appeared. Along with "peach" and all the rampant erections, it betrays a lack of sophistication, of variety in Bakker's writing. I agree with those who have noted that The Darkness That Came Before was by far the best book, and that it is no coincidence he spent years writing that first, far more accomplished work and then forced out the following two in very short periods, to their clear detriment.

Kellhus remains too powerful. Nothing can stop him. He can pluck arrows and crossbow bolts from the air. He knows what all humans think. No human can resist him, and even those who do in his absence (Achamian, Conphas) ultimately do nothing to stop him. Cnaiur is the only one free of him, and what does he do? For most of the book he acts as Conphas's jailer and does nothing. And death swirled down.

This book resolved nothing. Only one story line was ended - Moenghus. Everything else remained up in the air, literally everything. He didn't give us any resolution regarding the Consult, and even they don't matter because guess what? Kellhus can anticipate and control them too! We weren't told what the Thousandfold Thought was (except in the vague sense that it was Moenghus's plan for the future or something like that).

The treatment of Serwe as some kind of tragic ultrafeminine figure just doesn't work. She was an idiot when alive, and all later Serwe's are Consult skin-spies. And death swirled down.

Only four people are fully physically described - Kellhus, Esmenet, Cnaiur, Achamian. The rest are just names. Nothing else is described. I have no picture in my head of what Nersei Proyas looked like, of what Shimeh looked like, of how the Fanim differed in appearance from the Inrithi.

The principle criticism remains this: that Bakker has written a book that is genuinely hard to follow. He just doesn't give you enough information to piece events and individuals together into a plot. I don't expect him to hold my hand and devote chapters to descriptions of personal relationships and personal histories. I do expect to be able to glean those things in the course of a story without having to read a separate glossary. It is simple poor writing.

Another argument to anticipate - since this is an Erikson forum, how do I answer to the fact that he has faced the same challenge of inaccessibility? The reply to that is simple. GotM may have a reputation for difficulty, but Erikson is a master of dripping information to the reader, allowing him to discover the world for himself. Bakker does none of this. He has no subtlety outside of his philosophical concerns. It's all surface, and that surface is opaque.

This has ended up being a rather unfocused review, but I hope I don't give the impression that the book was all bad. Bakker seems to have a lot of interesting philosophical ideas to discuss. It's just a shame that he thinks a bad fantasy novel is the correct venue to promote them.

Thanks for reading.

[McLovin]

Re: the battles, the ending, and the glossary, I completely agree. And death swirled down.

[paladin]

i see it about the same as glen cooks latest series.. mostly political with little care to battles unless the main characters are directly involved in it, otherwise its just aides briefing a general.

i found the books intriguing but disappointing, especially the ending

[Flawed]

Im having to agree with Dolorous, I enjoyed the first book as it was different, the 2nd one was ok but much of the same and the third i was left wanting.

He needs to sort it out really

[Chiblade]

The first book was awesome... his philosophical musings aside I really liked it. My only problems with it were the fact that he didn't describe anything, giving the book a sense of real detachment. But then again, he left his magic vague so it wasn't cheap (a'la WoT).

I never got past the third mammoth chapter of the second book. That's how much the quality dropped. I think he used up all his good book writing points on The Prince of Nothing and worldbuilding and then hacked out the other two books just to finish the story.

[sinag55]

I think this is the same thread: http://malazanworld.com/forums/showthread....ighlight=bakker.

[mxlm]

Quote

The principle criticism remains this: that Bakker has written a book that is genuinely hard to follow. He just doesn't give you enough information to piece events and individuals together into a plot. I don't expect him to hold my hand and devote chapters to descriptions of personal relationships and personal histories. I do expect to be able to glean those things in the course of a story without having to read a separate glossary. It is simple poor writing.

I don't think I ever refered to the glossary while I was reading.

[Shryval]

Dolorous - that's one of the most well thought out, elegant and precisely argued reviews I've ever read. Rep coming your way, as soon as I work out how to rep someone.

I wanted to review it too, but couldn't get past wanting to shout "Shimeh!" in a south park style. So I'm glad you're here

[caladanbrood]

Well written, shame you've said it all before:)

[Mulliman]

I cant agree to that, but to each his own .

[Dolorous Menhir]

Mulliman;204879 said:

I cant agree to that, but to each his own .

I was hoping some defenders would turn up.

[sinag55]

Dolorous Menhir;204911 said:

I was hoping some defenders would turn up.

Since you basically repeated what you wrote in your previous bakker-bashing thread, I suggest you just reread those pages.

[Dolorous Menhir]

Ok. It wasn't all repeated, and I think the offences were much worse in this last chapter. That's why I wrote another post about it.

[McLovin]

Anyway, here's hoping he redeems himself with The Great Ordeal. Despite the damnation that was TTT, I'm looking forward to Aspect-Emperor.

[paladin]

longhorn;204977 said:

Anyway, here's hoping he redeems himself with The Great Ordeal. Despite the damnation that was TTT, I'm looking forward to Aspect-Emperor.

Well, I think that's it ultimately. The story/characters/style/whatever is intriguing enough and he shows flashes of being good to great. I suffered through 10 WoT books before I gave up, and I find Bakker's work better and with more potential, so I'll stick with it

[Skywalker]

All righty then. DM wanted a defense... he gets one! But let me start with some agreement before I get to the defense/ disagreement. LOADS of spoilers if you haven't read the book.

I'm not saying Bakker is the best author in Fantasy today... and I agree with some of your criticisms such as:

1. The battle scenes... they sucked. I didn't notice death swirling down because I was busy turning pages.

2. Kellhus as uber-Neo (a la Matrix) sucked too. I hated the twist in the 2nd book where he became one of the 'Few'. If Bakker had kept him as the Probability Trancer triumphant over the Magicians, I would've enjoyed things more... his dependence on Achamian for understanding magic (something alien to his Dunyain) made him a bit human in my eyes... made him seem humbler.

3. Serwe was dumb.

4. Erect phalluses, peaches, rapes, et al were too many.

5. Yes, other than the principals, you really don't know/ care about the cast of characters.

I'll even add a criticism of my own:

A. The climax of the Thousandfold Thought was lame. Breaking up the battle between Kellhus and Moenghus into bits spoilt it for me. Having Kellhus appear at Shimeh as Deux Ex Machina was too much. Also, the Thousandfold Thought itself was pretty ho-hum, and there was very little thousandfoldness to it. Certainly not enough to account for a three book build-up.

That being said, I think Bakker has his merits... dont everyone eat me alive for what follows...

1. Philosophy - The guy's obviously a philosophy junkie. Although Inrithism and Fanimry seem a take on Christianity/ Islam on the surface, there really is a lot more to them. As someone who has studied real world religions passionately once long ago, I found it fascinating how he could bring out the at times self-contradictory conflicts between two faiths. It isn't just polytheism against monotheism... it is also about scripture vs innovation, about idolatry and abstract worship, and about charismatic leadership. Nuff said.

2. Magic - I loved how Bakker doesn't have one system of magic or two in his vision. Erikson has warrens, holds, and earth/ spirit magic. Same way this guy has well thought out 'schools'. I was delighted to hear some details on the Cishaurim in the third book. The reason why they are blind... their use of asps... it was so radically different from their enemy school (I forget their name) or the Imperial Saik or the Mandatii. I'd love to learn of more schools personally.

3. The Backstory - I didn't bother to read the so called Encyclopaedic glossary, because like DM says, I prefer authors that use the narrative to eliminate the need for homework (like dear old SE)... BUT, I loved the hints of how the non-men were destroyed by plague, that the Inchoroi came from the skies in a spaceship-city. That the non-men seem to have lost the ability to feel and consider pain and perverse sexual acts a way to 'be real' or some such. I also love how he has kept huge swaths of history tentative and unknown while hinting at the Celmomian Prophecy/ Heron Spear/ a mission to the Inchoroi Ship itself etc.

4. Seswatha - As far as characters go, this one has to be one of the most intriguing creations in fantasy. A prophet/ magician who died ages ago and witnessed world changing tumult, but lives on through vivid dreams among a school of magicians? Whoa... nice concept. Its like all the Hobbits of the Shire having dreams of Frodo's trials in the Fourth Age! It's like every mage in Letheras dreaming of the Ceda's rise and fall. Nuff said.

5. Mog Pharau - I love the concept of the No-God... there's something very spooky/ angsty in his query to Seswatha... "DO YOU SEE?" "DO YOU KNOW ME?" or whatever... his Inchoroi and Non-men followers notwithstanding, this guy commands the kind of interest that a Morgoth or a Crippled God (or, shudder... a "Dark One" a la WOT) would. Classy uber-evil villain if you ask me.

6. Story Arc - While I think he should've finished this present tale in one or two books rather than three, and told the tale a little differently... he did manage to grab my interest with the overall Second Apocalypse arc. I loved Moenghus' tale and why he had to call Kellhus. I even like Kellhus' tale when I think about it in the space of 5 minutes instead of reading it over three long books. I did not see the 'Maithanet as Kellhuses half-brother' twist coming. It delighted me. I liked Achamian's denouncement of all his masters at the end. I am curious about Akka and Kellhus' relationship's future.

So I finished the book frustrated at why this guy couldn't have been a better writer, but curious about where the story will go. I mean come on, even DM finished book 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ranted similarly on The Aspect Emperor when it comes out But he WILL read it!

I say cut the guy a break... let him take some time again and write a work worthy of The Darkness that Comes Before (which I had liked without much reservation). In a world where Terry Goodkind writes his 'stuff', a writer like Bakker is welcome. Arguably though... Bakker does deserve more blame than Goodkind, because you can tell that he has his plot, story, and principal characterization down... if only he could control his rambling and write a novel instead of a rambling philosophical thesis with fictional elements.

And if only he could forget about peaches swirling around

Peace... out!

PS: Hope this comes out as structured... started out that way, ended up being a ramble, and then got cut short cuz I'm at work

[Dolorous Menhir]

That's a nice defence. I agree with a lot of your positives, but I was so pissed off by the books that I wasn't willing to grant much praise to the author.

sky_walker;205021 said:

1. Philosophy - The guy's obviously a philosophy junkie. Although Inrithism and Fanimry seem a take on Christianity/ Islam on the surface, there really is a lot more to them. As someone who has studied real world religions passionately once long ago, I found it fascinating how he could bring out the at times self-contradictory conflicts between two faiths. It isn't just polytheism against monotheism... it is also about scripture vs innovation, about idolatry and abstract worship, and about charismatic leadership. Nuff said.

...I didn't notice that level of conflict between the faiths. I thought it was just a straight not-Christian/not-Islam battle with the names changed and not much else.

Quote

2. Magic - I loved how Bakker doesn't have one system of magic or two in his vision. Erikson has warrens, holds, and earth/ spirit magic. Same way this guy has well thought out 'schools'. I was delighted to hear some details on the Cishaurim in the third book. The reason why they are blind... their use of asps... it was so radically different from their enemy school (I forget their name) or the Imperial Saik or the Mandatii. I'd love to learn of more schools personally.

I would've liked more detail, especially about the Mandate Schoolmen. And I don't understand why Kellhus could use magic without the mark of the Few.

Quote

3. The Backstory - I didn't bother to read the so called Encyclopaedic glossary, because like DM says, I prefer authors that use the narrative to eliminate the need for homework (like dear old SE)... BUT, I loved the hints of how the non-men were destroyed by plague, that the Inchoroi came from the skies in a spaceship-city. That the non-men seem to have lost the ability to feel and consider pain and perverse sexual acts a way to 'be real' or some such. I also love how he has kept huge swaths of history tentative and unknown while hinting at the Celmomian Prophecy/ Heron Spear/ a mission to the Inchoroi Ship itself etc.

That was interesting stuff, especially Seswatha, but it was always peripheral wasn't it? And if he couldn't tie up the actual story, there was no way he was going to tie up the historical threads neatly. I lost a huge amount of respect for the Consult when Kellhus manipulated them so easily during the possession of Esmenet. It seems Bakker will allow Kellhus to dominate anyone, even genuinely scary ancient aliens.

Quote

4. Seswatha - As far as characters go, this one has to be one of the most intriguing creations in fantasy. A prophet/ magician who died ages ago and witnessed world changing tumult, but lives on through vivid dreams among a school of magicians? Whoa... nice concept. Its like all the Hobbits of the Shire having dreams of Frodo's trials in the Fourth Age! It's like every mage in Letheras dreaming of the Ceda's rise and fall. Nuff said.

I did like the bit where Esmenet discussed the book she had read, covering several interpretations of Seswatha's life. And the dreams of the Mandate Schoolmen are definitely a sterling concept. But they are another illustration of Bakker's strength in the forum of ideas, a strength absent in his execution of story.

Quote

5. Mog Pharau - I love the concept of the No-God... there's something very spooky/ angsty in his query to Seswatha... "DO YOU SEE?" "DO YOU KNOW ME?" or whatever... his Inchoroi and Non-men followers notwithstanding, this guy commands the kind of interest that a Morgoth or a Crippled God (or, shudder... a "Dark One" a la WOT) would. Classy uber-evil villain if you ask me.

Whirlwind with an identity crisis. Good concept. But as soon as it became obvious that the No-God was never going to appear or be fully discussed within the last book I discounted it as a plus in the series.

Quote

6. Story Arc - While I think he should've finished this present tale in one or two books rather than three, and told the tale a little differently... he did manage to grab my interest with the overall Second Apocalypse arc. I loved Moenghus' tale and why he had to call Kellhus. I even like Kellhus' tale when I think about it in the space of 5 minutes instead of reading it over three long books. I did not see the 'Maithanet as Kellhuses half-brother' twist coming. It delighted me. I liked Achamian's denouncement of all his masters at the end. I am curious about Akka and Kellhus' relationship's future.

Maithanet as half-brother meant nothing to me. You could count the Maithanet scenes across all three books on one hand, and he was never really dealt with. So the revelation that he was a son of Moenghus? Blah.

I hope Akka's future relationship with Kellhus involves them fighting each other at every turn. But based on Akka's performance in the books, even when he knew Kellhus reeked to high heaven, he'll just knuckle under and do whatever Kellhus wants.

Quote

So I finished the book frustrated at why this guy couldn't have been a better writer, but curious about where the story will go. I mean come on, even DM finished book 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if he ranted similarly on The Aspect Emperor when it comes out But he WILL read it!

It took me so long to read book 3 because I refused to give any more of my money to Bakker after the epic disappointment that was The Warrior Prophet. Eventually I got it for free from the library. I'm not going to pay for any more of his books, though the concept of Neuropath seems interesting. But if this trilogy has taught me anything, it is that you can sum up Bakker this way:

great ideas
abyssmal writing

Count me as pessimistic on the Aspect-Emperor.

[paladin]

The whole No-God and Non-Men shit really annoyed me. come up with better nouns. at least Not-Apsalar is funny.

[Mulliman]

paladin;205108 said:

The whole No-God and Non-Men shit really annoyed me. come up with better nouns. at least Not-Apsalar is funny.

I think that Non-Men was what humanity called everyone who is not man. They had names for themselves, obviously.

Other than that, the names were one of the strong sides of the books, in my opinion.

[Greymane]

Dolorous Menhir,

A lot of the questions and problems you had are answered in the books. Maybe because you disliked it so much you skimmed parts and missed the answers you were looking for?

I find the hatred of the 'philosophy bits' strange on a Malazan board to say the least. Erikson packs his books full of warrior poets bemoaning human nature and spouting their own philosophies, and IMO it's usually handled far more awkwardly than Bakker does. I'd like to hear a bit more detail on this complaint - what exactly is it about Bakker's use of philosphy that bugs people, as opposed to Erikson?