I am so in love with R. Scott Bakker's series. Or whatever the plural of series is. The Prince of Nothing was amazing, it was the first thing that really made me think that I could enjoy this "new fantasy" in a way that Martin and Erikson just didn't. (Btw, as a side note, upon re-reading Martin's novels, I've found that the tone that I found so offensive is actually not as bad as I recall, and I find myself somewhat sheepishly pulling back on my vehement criticisms that I posted in a previous entry.) I've told all my friends about it, even though I highly doubt any of them (with the possible exception of David) would be even remotely interested. It's so brilliantly written, and from a critical standpoint, vastly interesting, even if it does become a bit ponderous and bloated on itself. It's one of the few books I absolutely HAD to read twice to understand fully....that's how awesome it is. I literally read all of the Prince of Nothing and The Judging Eye back to back because I was so hungry to delve deep into the world.
Having said all that, though, it makes me a bit afraid for myself. Bakker poses many questions about the nature of humanity and free will, indeed the belief that we are all free-thinking individuals acting out of deep truths that we believe with our souls. But for all that, I feel....I feel like I'm missing something. His work, while interesting, doesn't seem to make me "question" things in the intense way that the author himself, and many critics and reviewers, seem to think that I should. It doesn't come as any surprise to me that humans are constantly serving their own needs, blinding themselves to things that are contrary to their view of the world...isn't that like, obvious? Maybe I'm even more cynical than I thought, but I am not at all surprised that humans are automatically dismissive of anything that doesn't confirm their own ideas about morality. The only thing that made me stop and go "Whoa" is the idea that there is no absolute morality. Kellhus has no moral framework, only a goal that must be achieved in the most effective way possible. The things that society considers morally abhorrent-- infidelity, murder, disregard for the life and well-being of those you consider close-- are only tools. The idea that there is only a goal, to distance yourself from all things that bind-- and that morals are things that bind-- made me reel. I grew up Christian, and in this society, many of the Christian ideals are also societal norms...kindness to others, putting yourself last, being humble and meek, etc. But the concept of those things not being somehow universally correct, the idea that these are just THINGS that keep me going around in the same circle, and that there is no reason to think of things as "right" and "wrong" other than because someone decided what those terms meant, was a bit of world upheaval for me. Picture it like this: murder is wrong, right? Taking a life is wrong. Everyone knows this. But people only know it because the idea that someone could take YOUR life is unsettling, and therefore all lives must be protected. What if we lived in a world where murder wasn't wrong, it was simply a means to get what you needed? And some people DO think like that, certainly, but we think of those people as abnormalities...but only because we have been conditioned to believe that taking a life is wrong. What if there were no stigma on murder-- try to imagine a world in which there was no moral judgment, in this life or any number of afterlives. See? Messes with your head.
In his blog, Bakker repeatedly talks about how his goal is to do just that-- to make people question their assumptions. He proposes that the sometimes violent negative reactions that he receives from his work is due to the way that what he paints challenges a person's viewpoint, leading them to automatically despise and belittle it. Isn't it possible to just dislike something? But anyway, regardless...I DO love his work, but I think he sometimes gets a bit...preachy? He takes a lot on himself, certainly...an endless crusade to show the blind masses just how blind they are. Do his assertions mean that we are incapable of changing our minds, of ever recognizing that we are wrong? Sure, it's painful, and I catch myself deceiving myself about things all the time...but does the fact that I recognize the deception mean that I am simply reinforcing my own beliefs, like everyone does, or am I one in a billion in that I am able to recognize the apparent validity of a system that differs from mine?
Bakker's philosophy means that, no matter what happens to you in your life, no matter how different experiences apparently change you, they never really do...because who we are, and what we believe, is a function of a worldwide and societally blind conditioning. You are never cultivating an opinion based on careful reasoning or a weighing of facts...you believe only what you have been taught, and that forming an opinion from any other means is impossible. You can never escape the conditions you were born into, unless you step back and deliberately expose yourself to things that are contrary to your beliefs...and even then, most people will never change, because most people believe, in their core of being, that they are correct, and while listening to opposing viewpoints is interesting, we automatically assume that they are incorrect. So how do you break free?
And how is his criticism of "literati" any different than what he claims people take issue with in his novels? His usual reaction to negative criticism is to, well...I don't want to say "belittle", but lets, for lack of a more appropriate word. He claims that people dislike his work because it challenges their assumptions, and that university canon is disdainful of fantasy and sci-fi because it breaks from the traditions that said canon has cultivated over centuries, despite the fact that the themes that fantasy and sci-fi explore are the oldest in history. But isn't that a little bit, I don't know...chip-on-the-shoulderish? It's like saying "Well you don't appreciate it because you don't understand it." Or am I misinterpreting? Isn't that exactly what he takes issue with? Couldn't he recognize the possible validity of their arguments about his work? Or is he so convinced he's right that he dismisses their criticisms? See? It's unnerving, once you see your conditioning, because the implication is that, even if you can see it, you lack the tools to beat it. But isn't recognizing it the first tool?
No comments:
Post a Comment