They just showed this picture and called it "The Machine", or "The System".
On Twitter @MrSkimpole
Books/mythology/stuff discussions moved to: loopingworld.com
Saturday 30, April
They just showed this picture and called it "The Machine", or "The System".
Sunday 17, April
I'm going to respond about this claim of post-modernism that has stirred more than one discussion and it is now added to the group of "satiric innuendoes" used against Erikson.
As I said myself to Erikson, discussing what is "post-modern" and what is not is already complex because there's not a strict definition of "post-modern". It's a relative term, so it's used in relationship to something else: "modern". And in a genre like Fantasy there's no established convention on what can be considered "modern", even less on what POST-modern could be. If someone has an idea of what those terms mean he should also be aware that they depend on context. So, for example, post-modern could mean the breaking of tradition as it can mean a return to it.
So, since we do not have an agreement or an established convention on what "modern" and "post-modern" mean in respect to the Fantasy genre, we can stick to the canon and see if there's something in common: Michel Focault. We can agree it's a name that represents postmodernism the most. Now, on the widest level possible, postmodernism is itself a point of view toward reality. It deals with morality and truth, and how the two mingle. It's about how men position themselves in the world, how they perceive it, how they draw meaning from it. (1)
Men and environment.
Already at this point it should be obvious to Erikson's readers how his work is closely related to the most classic idea of postmodernism. But let's continue.
Extrapolating again, I'm taking this quote from a review where the writer does some "destructuring" of Lovecraft, but the specific quote, I think, summarizes what Postmodernism is at its core:
In bold I highlighted the core idea of postmodernism: again the relative perspective (POV) of men within an environment, and the way they see "truth" and draw meaning from it.
Society is a point of view, an observation and a system of meaning (see the works of Niklas Luhmann if you want insight on this).
Erikson himself stated as much in a recent interview:
Another technique that exists at the foundation of the whole series that Erikson writes is: metaphor made real.
Reiterate long enough the principles of "men and environment" mixed with "metaphor made real" and you'll have the whole Malazan series remade in front of you, block by block (or page by page).
It's not just a tool or device to use in a story, it is a mean to go at the symbolic core of what you are representing. What Erikson specifically writes, and what Fantasy, as a genre, represents in potential, is the symbolic power. Or: the world as seen from the human perspective. A symbolic world. Made of language and meaning.
If you study some Wittgenstein you'd know that the world does not exist outside language. And, to not lose the link to postmodernism, this is again about reality seen as a social construct. A symbolic system of meaning.
Let's move to Jung and James Hillman (I'm using only wikipedia's quotes, so you can see I'm not making them up). Read the following quote while considering Erikson's "metaphor made real".
Malazan's pantheon of gods is a "metaphor made real". That relationship, between men and deities, is the "true" theme of the series. The message buried within. Gods are a manifestation of systems of meaning.
See Niklas Luhmann:
This should remind you of the cycles within the Malazan world, how the gods disappear or are replaced in cycles, how they transform.
Janny Wurts, in regard to the Fantasy genre, says:
The heart of the issue is that Fantasy allows us to "experience" a story from a level we can relate to. A linguistic, symbolic level of myth that is truly human. It's not a factual description of the world (the world is in truth unattainable, because our minds aren't made to perceive complexity, but only to reduce it).
"Fantasy" is how we see the world from a point of view that is within us.
Quoting Bakker again:
We are made of that symbolic, mythological level whether we are (or want to be) aware of it or not. So "Fantasy" allows to deal with it directly, with the "gloves off", or through "metaphors made real".
Take another signature idea of the Malazan series: the T'lan Imass. What defines them? They are undead and immortal, yes, but another core idea is that they share one mind, the ritual made all them connected and linked together. See this:
Metaphor made real.
And you can see that rule being repeated, for example in the T'lan Imass sense of humor. They are one mind. Single-minded. If you read the books you'll know how Erikson plays with this. Not only the T'lan have only one mission (kill all Jaghut), but the "arrogance" is born of "certainty". They have no doubt. And in having no doubts they also can appear as quite stupid, which triggers the sense of humor in certain scenes though the book.
Erikson plays with those levels. The "seriousness" and drama of the T'lan, as well as the comical absurdity (Toc calls them "laconic dessication on two legs").
And what are the Jaghut if not another metaphor made real? Ice. Absence of movement. Time that stops. Absence of life. And then also opposite forces of nature in a war.
We use to think that Fantasy = the past, and Sci-Fi = the future. But the point here is that the Fantasy Erikson writes is not "before" or "after", it's above time. It's, if you want, the Platonic level of ideas. It describes the human condition OUTSIDE TIME. As in: always valid because archetypal true. we can't escape it as we can't escape mortality or the adversity of the world outside.
The point is entirely symbolic, the meaning universal. And in general the Fantasy genre "enables", if you want, to deal directly with myth. Myth seen from the perspective of human creation of meaning and morality. The world reduced to the human level. The war with the environment.
Men and environment. Men and truth. Men and meaning. A war made of pain.
So there are two levels that I'd recognize as postmodern in the Malazan series. The first is about the universality of the message, its being removed from a time, made symbol of. The second is about dealing with the "social construction of truth", or the relationship of men and environment, seen from the perspective if its (human) symbolic value. It's a description of the world from within (what Bakker calls worlds that complement our souls).
The other day I was watching on TV a dialogue between a movie director, a painter and a philosopher. At some point they started to discuss how their works were received by the public. All three agreed that their best and deepest works were not understood or not as well recognized as their most superficial ones. They said that the public will always pursue the shortest path. The least resistance. They glide over. If a story has more than one layer of meaning, the great majority will stop at the first level and go as far as refusing the existence of more layers. The majority approach a work with the certainty of their superiority. People look at the surface and will judge on what they see there.
Erikson is in a problematic position because his series unashamedly embraces its RPG origins and Fantasy tropes. It's blatantly a work of Fantasy, as opposed to other writers who step on the edge and are too scared to be lumped in the ignoble, low genre. On the other side Erikson also pushes Fantasy outside the "escapism". All the things I've written above are a fundamental part of the text as the sorcery conflagrations and flying mountains.
That position is problematic for the audience, because from a side the "literary" guys will look down and downright refusing to read something that has fireballs and dragons, while the other side doesn't want to read all the boring philosophical drivel and "padding" that distracts from the awesome, over-the-top battles.
The privileged ones, and I feel one, are those who can appreciate, without prejudices or mental fences, the freedom and power of the mix of "high" and "low". For sure I don't consider Fantasy as a "guilty pleasure". I'm very proud of reading it.
So let's have a discussion, if you want, about whether Malazan can be truly defined postmodern or not. But in order to join this kind of conversation you have to drop a lot of prejudices and snobbism, so to recognize themes that are indeed there for a specific reason and not to pad the text.
As Janny Wurts said: "The genre label is just the current convenient excuse for dismissal."
Submitted by Abalieno on April 17, 2011 - 03:33.
No, it's not extinct, it's rampant.
Even worse there's plenty of it even WITHIN the Fantasy fandom.
I saw a fan calling Fantasy a "guilty pleasure". And that's from someone who's this side of the fence of prejudice.
Friday 8, April
This is for me one of the most beautiful passages in Bakker's "The Darkness that Comes Before".
It is so accurate, and resonates on many levels. That last line seals it:
Saturday 2, April
Quotes that remind me something else, or another writer:
Friday 1, April
Pointing out this review of the Cyclonopedia.
Not a Battlestar Galactica sourcebook but a pseudoscience book that mixes all sort of absurd ideas. Something that usually gets my curiosity but in this case there's nothing that seems really serious or reaching for an actual truth.
More about mystification than struggling to look under the surface.
But it's not the review of book itself that got my attention here, it's the deconstruction of Lovecraft. This in particular:
Thursday 31, March
Everything in this cover is done wrong:
- Bauchelain (the one in the center) is described in the book as a lean, angular guy. Like someone you'd find in a library, and not like a bulky warrior. This one was more fitting but it looks like he put on weight.
- It's not an easy book to sell, this one. It's even worse when the cover gives bad expectations. Nothing in the cover refers to something in this book. The green hue isn't even close to the kind of tone the story could have.
- The forest makes no sense. As far as I remember there are no trees in all the book, and for the most part they move through a barren land/desert.
- What's written under the title is unacceptably misleading. This story has no connection whatsoever with the "Malazan Empire". It's so wrong that it's not acceptable even as a vague cover blurb. It's just completely false.
- I really dislike this new habit of using real pictures or 3D art for fantasy books. There are so many valid illustrators out there. Use them.
In general, it's very bad when your publisher has no idea of what he's publishing.
Tuesday 22, March
Some redundancy in this post, but I'm at it.
In a forum discussion I suggested to someone who couldn't suffer Erikson writing style to instead try reading Bakker. There's a reason for this. I believe that both have a similar approach to certain themes. Yet, they do it on the page in a completely different style and someone who can't digest one may have a good chance of enjoying the other.
I know that either writer would cringe if aware I'm drawing parallels, but I do this not to put them on a ladder of quality, but to try to underline qualitative differences.
It can be absurd to think I see Erikson series doing certain similar things to Bakker's Prince of Nothing, so I'm giving one example of what I see.
Specifically in the titles of the books, and their theme. Midnight Tides and The Darkness That Comes Before.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 22, 2011 - 16:33.
Post taken out a forum discussion. Every time you like something you are branded like a "fan" who lost all objectivity, and blindness is elevated to higher status than sight.
That's Erikson explaining his approach to writing, including an example of dialogue out of GotM that I consider very well done. You can see that as an example like one of those you provided to prove the opposite. That's for me good writing, and in the first book.
That said you can even read Adam Roberts articles on the Wheel of Time.
He almost exclusively analyzes prose and proves how dreadful it is. It's not the occasionally clunky, it's that sometimes it doesn't even make sense and there's verbiage that leads nowhere. For me the gap between Jordan and Erikson is already considerable. Jordan is one who's not rarely *praised* for his command of language and flowing prose, meant as positive qualities of his writing. Other people may clump together Erikson and Jordan as very bad, but for me there's enough a distinction to make.
Also, and I can comment on this, Erikson among fantasy writers is one who uses a rather rich language. Jordan or even Martin are easier to read for someone who's not a native speaker. The language is usually easier and requires less attention. Say, from easy to hard: Jordan - Martin - Erikson - Wolfe
Gene Wolfe is the one considered the best prose stylist among those. I can definitely recognize that. But the bravura comes with its flaws. I've said in the past that Wolfe can sometimes say a very simple concept in a very complicate and ornate way. In my book that's not a "talent". In what I read I enjoy complexity, but complexity that is not there for its own sake.
DF Wallace is one writer whose prose is incredibly convoluted and layered. He knows this.
But the complexity to be found there is one of value. The content is DEEPER than the surface. That's what I want from a book. Not something that lulls and dulls me, nor something that complicates without a reason.
Which brings me to Scott Bakker. This is a writer that to an extent I like even *more* that Erikson. He's also the one who's usually considered a better "writer" than Erikson by those who have read them (including the previous page of the thread).
Well, the aspect I like in Erikson MORE than Bakker is language. Bakker's prose is flowing smoothly, well written and sometimes poetic even. But it's straightforward and, to an extent, simple. It has no shadows or undertones. The complexity in Bakker's work is in the concepts that rise from the page and the characters. The language is simple and usually undemanding. It does one thing.
What instead I like specifically in Erikson, and like above all writers in the genre and often outside it (DF Wallace is a case I put above), is that Erikson's prose is often densely layered. It needs to be interpreted and read on different levels and from different points of view. It does more than one thing, and sometimes hidden from the immediate attention.
Wallace and Erikson don't write with a similar style, but I see a specific similarity in this layering of prose and complexity that is hidden in the text (in plain sight for me). Wallace opens universes with his writing. Is infinitely complex and gives me the impression I'm "falling in". It opens the mind. I like Wallace because the prose is not complex for complexity's sake, but because it opens up to meaning within.
Erikson has some of that layering and complexity. Scenes that you read "echo" with scenes coming before and sometimes across books. There's resonance and there's use of a number of key words that return and bring significance. The way Erikson writes the single scenes and structures whole books is similar to the idea Wallace uses of "refracted light". A ray of light (meaning), that is refracted through scenes and characters. Every time it brings along what it was, and says something anew.
That's the complexity I like, and that's why I enjoy Erikson not just for what he writes, but HOW he writes it. It can take some time to adjust to the style and discover those qualities. They are there for me, I'm sorry if you don't see or don't want to see it.
Erikson on "writing":
It's not that Erikson put a spell of me and made me a brainless fan who lost all awareness and objectivity. It's simply that I recognize those qualities in what I read. And it is rather presumptuous to state that NO, those qualities do not exist and I'm the one who's blind.
I see stuff, you don't. I'd say you are the one more indicate to have some doubts.
Friday 18, March
This article represents EXACTLY what's wrong, specifically nowadays about all genre discussions.
The most important TRUTH is how those who suffer discrimination have no restraint about becoming the discriminators without having the perception that they are moving through the same patterns.
The same patterns. There's just repetition done by different subjects.
So Fantasy books, how they get discriminated by "serious" literature. Prejudices and everything.
But this kind of compartmentalization and affiliation is a pattern that always repeats. It is the constant across all forms of culture and all human categories. And the debate itself is ALWAYS an endless and pointless repetition. A pattern itself. It's Internet redundant ceremony. A kind of meme itself that builds identity and gratifies those people who belong to the group.
Basically people discriminate as a form of defense from discrimination. Us versus them. You are assailed and so answer in kind (while bathing in hypocrisy).
Hence, the "literary" branch of Fantasy builds its own self-praising group putting on the altar the China Mieville, Catherynne M Valente, Gene Wolfe. As indication of names and books that are "better" than Fantasy and because only those names have the courage of dealing with "truth" and adult literature.
The rest, as it is well known, is for kids.
Erikson: "the critics invariably practise exceptionalism: these writers are not fine representatives of their genre; by virtue of their fineness, they have left the genre." (source)
Specifically about Truth, I gather three quotes:
Adam Roberts: Flattering the readers’ preconceptions and prejudices isn’t the same thing as telling them the truth. (source)
» DaveBrendon's Fantasy