Kevin's Watch

I haven't had a chance to read this week. Just read five pages. I do like it a lot so far. Only 85 pages in, though. Heh.

It just gets better and better from where you are.

My cash is limited currently. Do you guys think it's worth getting the White Luck Warrior now as opposed to waiting, or should I look elsewhere for good reading? In other words, is it awesome?

Did you like The Judging Eye?

Picked up the White Luck Warrior last week, but I'm currently reading two other books, and I'll probably reread TJE before tackling it. How does it compare to TJE? I see there has been almost zero discussion about it so far.

Better than the Judging Eye. Prose is still fantastic, story lines move along nicely. Shit's starting to hit the fan. Once a few more people have read it I'd love to discuss it.

I would LOVE to get in the mindset to read some Bakker, but I just don't even have the time to buy a copy of the book right now. I'm too busy doing other things. I hope you guys get back to enjoying your Bakker at some point.

So tell me this. Is there any indication in the White Luck Warrior of the Heron Spear's return? Because, I was really hoping that Bakker would get around to killing the shit out of that evil No-God/Kellhus by now (already posted theory why they are the same). Hate what is evil, love what is good, amirite?

No mention of the Heron Spear quite yet. But I can tell you, a lot has changed since the last book and the last series. Things are no longer quite so clear as you may think they were.

Brinn wrote:No mention of the Heron Spear quite yet. But I can tell you, a lot has changed since the last book and the last series. Things are no longer quite so clear as you may think they were.

I agree, I did read the Judging Eye, and clearly I have to catch up on White Luck Warrior in order to have any hope of understanding where the series is going. But, I saw a definite trajectory of Kellhus, who was sort of initially isolated in a very limited world and then quickly expanding out into a wider one, becoming the very thing he was trying to destroy.

Brinn wrote:Things are no longer quite so clear as you may think they were.

Things were not clear.

--A

Av,

Have you read The Judging Eye? My comment might make sense once you do.

Holsety,

Not really a spoiler but just out of courtesy to all:

Spoiler

The powers that begin to array themselves against Kelhus in TWLW make you wonder, despite all his power and influence, how the hell he is going to have any chance of mounting any sort of defense.

Nah, I've only read the first trilogy. at the end of which things were not clear. I still can't decide if Kelhus is "good" or not.

--A

Spoiler

The powers that begin to array themselves against Kelhus in TWLW make you wonder, despite all his power and influence, how the hell he is going to have any chance of mounting any sort of defense.

Spoiler

Perhaps it would be best if he had no defense, given his aims, as long as his death is quick. Then again, as a sorcerer his sorcery means his soul is gone, and when he dies, IIRC, he dies the true death...

[/spoiler]

I just started White Luck Warrior. So far, so good. I'm a few chapters in, and the writing is on par with TJE. It's nice to see the aftermath of the Bakker-Moria (I can barely remember a fraction of his names, neither places nor people). The attention he gives to their dazed shock is a nice reminder of what happened last time (I didn't reread). The prose has his typical flourishes of brilliance.

Just from memory:

Dreams are the darkness that slumber illuminates.

Few emotions require as much certainty as spite.

I'm approaching the Big Forest (the Mop?), and it's interesting to see these shell-shocked Moria survivors start to dread something ahead of them, rather than behind. The contrast between "green darkness" and the darkness of Bakker-Moria is cool.

You're in for a fun ride! Lots of questions answered, lots of new questions arise.

I was also in awe of Bakker's prose and I'm glad to see that it's not just me. I'm truly stunned that more people don't comment on this aspect of his writing. He has some beautiful and lyrical passages that, IMHO, are as good as anything I've ever read.

Upon further consideration Bakker may be the reason why I have such a hard time reading Erickson. I read Bakker first and was spoiled. To me, Erickson's world is sprawling but paper thin when compared to Earwa. Additionally, I think Bakker's prose raised the bar to the point that even merely good prose is now not up to my expectations (and I'm not convinced that Erickson's prose even rises to the status of "merely good".).

Anyway, good reading and keep checking in. I'm interested, as always, in your thoughts and reflections.

My problem might be, (and of course I've only read the 1st trilogy) that I felt Erikson's concept was more original.

The 1st trilogy seemed too derivative of the Crusades for me...like all he did was change the names and religions, and reprised stuff that was already too familiar. (I still enjoyed it, and of course love the whole thing about the Logos though.)

Malazan on the other hand seemed much more unique.

--A

Avatar wrote:My problem might be, (and of course I've only read the 1st trilogy) that I felt Erikson's concept was more original.

The 1st trilogy seemed too derivative of the Crusades for me...like all he did was change the names and religions, and reprised stuff that was already too familiar. (I still enjoyed it, and of course love the whole thing about the Logos though.)

Malazan on the other hand seemed much more unique.

--A

agree 100%

and i never found bakker's prose the least bit poetic or engaging.
i really wanted to like it, kept thinking, as i read, that i was on the verge of liking it...but then...no. once i read gardens of the moon i lost all interest in bakker. funny huh, since i first heard of erikson on the bakker forum!!

I like Bakker's work, but I think some of the criticism levelled against him is right. The misogyny accusations I don't agree with, but the arrogance and pretentiousness when he defends against those accusations, and makes assertions about the importance and meaning of his work, yeah, those put me off him a little.

Won't stop me reading good books, though.

I do get the sense that this guy would be very pretentious to talk to in person, especially about his own work. At times, it's almost too "profound," like he's trying too hard. But this is only in rare instances. Most of the time, it fits the scene and the characters.

His writing is challenging. I'm not saying that people who don't like him aren't smart enough to "get him." I'm just acknowledging that he doesn't make it easy on the reader. Sometimes I literally have to stop and reread a sentence a few times, or the preceding paragraph, in order to absorb the meaning. I don't ever have to do this with Donaldson, except for those "thesaurus moments," but that's a different kind of obscurity. Bakker can create this obscurity with ordinary English.

For instance, take the second line I quoted above. Why does spite require more certainty than other emotions? Well, a lot of that has to do with the context of the scene: a daughter "reconnecting" with her mother decades after selling her into slavery as a child. She felt justified in giving her a hard time as long as the issue between them dealt with her past victimization, but when this justified anger slipped into spitefulness, when it dealt with subjects that had nothing to do with her victimization and more to do simply hurting her mother because she hurt, it required more certainty because it was on skakier ground. The justification for this anger was less obvious the further she moved into urelated topics.

That's not spelled out in the text, it's something you have to piece out yourself. It doesn't take an extremely clever person to do this, but it does take time. It takes a patient reader. And I think some people just don't enjoy the story or the characters enough to be that patient. That's not the reader's fault, it's just a matter of taste.

The poetic or profound nature of his prose lies in the concepts he's communicating, and the way he's communicating, not necessarily in the beauty or emotion of the scene itself. It's more left-brain or masculine than right-brain or feminine. It's more conceptual than emotional. There is a fine line between profound and pretentious, but I think that line is subjective. It's different for different people. Even if you get what Bakker is saying, even if it doesn't go over your head, I can still imagine not liking it because it feels "cold" or "sterile." It's almost as if Khellus himself wrote these books. There is something almost clinical, or perhaps professorial, about his style. His play on words and intentional obscurity often feels like a word game, cleverness for the sake of being clever. But underneath this manufactured cleverness is a deep understanding of what it means to be human. For me, it evokes strong emotions even though it's not very emotional in itself.

But I can easily understand how others might not feel the same connection. It can easily be interpretted as arrogance and pretentiousness.

To be clear, I was referring to his writing in response to critics, and in interviews when talking about his work, not to the writing in the books.