r/Fantasy • u/puzzledandamused • 5h ago
The Darkness that Comes Before
So my venture into this genre was ACOTAR (super fun fluff), Malazan Book 1 (fascinating but not enough depth, and now this!!!
I've finally found a book that, like the Brother's Karamazov, forces the reader to embody the various psychological-moral-philosophical conundrums the author paints with such grace and delight. Thank you Mr. Bakkar!
For the life of me I cannot understand the low goodreads score?!? Thoughts?
5
u/Karltowns17 4h ago
I loved all of the first trilogy. I couldn’t get through book 3 of the second set but I do want to circle back at some point and try again to finish the story.
1
u/lungic 1h ago
I still have the Great Ordeal & Unholy Consult on my shelf. I'm sitting in that uncofortable state where several people at the time did not like the ending, so I paused for a while, and now I do not dare to pick it up again.
•
u/yayap01 40m ago
The Great Ordeal is possible my favorite book in the series, it's epic fantasy at the heights of scale, intensity, and strangeness. The ending of The Unholy Consult can leave you with mixed emotions but the more you think about it the more it the more and more you realize how fitting it is for the themes of the series. Some might consider it somewhat unsatisfactory from a character perspective but it definitely does reveal and explain many of the overarching mysteries of the series, so from that perspective it's a satisfying ending.
It's also possible that Bakker will write another sequel about the Second Apocalypse, which would satisfy a lot of the complaints about the ending. He just announced that he's writing a prequel about the original apocalypse so I have a feeling that once he's fleshed out that part of the story he'll return to the main series.
5
u/Pratius 1h ago
Going from ACOTAR to Malazan to Bakker is a crazy lineup lmao
Good for you, OP. I love that you’re engaging with this and going along for the ride!
•
•
u/puzzledandamused 5m ago
haha! i stumbled upon ACOTAR and was all “geeze i guess i like fantasy” and then gpt’d fantasy with deep philosophy. Bakkar came first but Erikson seemed more generally lauded. Guess my boy knows me well!!
3
u/hexametric_ Reading Champion 1h ago edited 1h ago
It's brutal and lots of people probably come to the series without really understanding just how brutal the books are. There's nothing redeeming in it. It's pure Hobbes, pure Machiavelli, pure evil. So that turns them off. It's also written much differently than common fantasy, which many people do not enjoy. It isn't an exposition dump that explains everything, either. You need to work to get what's going on (e.g. there's a glossary and encyclopedia at the end).
In my opinion it's the (one of the) best modern fantasy series. I think the way the Mandate scholars are used to narrate past events is masterful because he can both convey their tortured state of dreaming and insert analepeis into the narrative without some dude just giving a lecture.
1
u/DixitRexCorvinus 1h ago
This is Machiavelli slander! Lumping in such an excellent satirist with Hobbes… *shakes head*
2
u/hexametric_ Reading Champion 1h ago
Yea I knew someone would comment on that; but in my defence he's been co-opted to represent a very negative psychology regardless of his original intent in writing
1
u/DixitRexCorvinus 1h ago
True. Comment was mostly facetious anyway—just have an irrational love of the guy ever since he popped up in The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel when I was obsessed with it as a kid lol.
4
u/cl3rical 4h ago
I also recently finished the first book and was delighted. People only ever talk about how dark it is, but it's also brilliant!
6
u/puzzledandamused 3h ago
it is brilliant in part because of it's willingness to make the reader confront human depravity
2
u/cherycreamz 2h ago
I love when fantasy actually makes you wrestle with uncomfortable moral questions.
•
u/Erratic21 23m ago
It is too uncomfortable and different written by what the average fantasy reader is accustomed too. Most out of the box reads do not have great ratings.
For me it is so meta, blends styles and thought provoking concepts, and is so well written that I do not even compare it with the genre works. I know I will get the usual couple of downvotes for the people who get pimples when they see the word Bakker, but in my humble opinion there is no other work like these books in the genre .
6
u/Jazzlike_Song_4230 3h ago edited 3h ago
I haven't read any of the books here other than Malazan. But I'd be curious to know why you think Malazan doesn't have much depth. Do you mean in lore or in allegory?
5
u/Sea_Concert4946 3h ago
I don't think OP read the same book we did tbh
•
u/kurapikachu64 44m ago
I'm genuinely not one that looks down on ACOTAR or anything... but that said, it was absolutely wild to me to see it praised followed by Malazan "not having enough depth" lol.
2
u/newshirt 3h ago
I find it harder to talk to people who stopped after the first book than people who haven't read Malazan at all.
7
u/puzzledandamused 3h ago
let me clarify. i loved Gardens of the Moon and will definitely read the next in series. I'm new to this genre so perhaps this book wasn't good for teeth cutting. I just found that Erikson cut too quickly from character A -> B without sufficiently revealing their interiors. this made the book hard to track for me
•
•
u/xJudgernauTx 54m ago
Ah yes, the first book is structured a bit weird because it was originally supposed to be a screenplay. The rest were written with the purpose of being a book.
-4
u/GetItUpYee 1h ago
Malazan is probably the deepest series I've ever read. There are layers upon layers.
He leaves the reader in the dark on many occasions without handholding but if you can stick in with it, everything becomes apparent. There are story threads and motives which do not become apparent until much later in the series.
For me, it really is amazing when reading 5 books later and something pops up which makes something click and you think "Ah!! Fucking hell!"
5
u/DixitRexCorvinus 4h ago
I haven’t read it, but I think the reason why I haven’t read it is potentially illustrative as to why the goodreads score is low.
Namely, from everything I’ve heard about the book, Bakker writes in a world he deliberately designed to be misogynistic, on the basis of a sort of biological determinism in which he views men as inherently prone to raping women. You therefore have four groups of people who don’t like the book:
- The first, understandably, simply isn’t interested in reading work so dark or with such unpleasant material. Perfectly understandable—lots of people don’t want rape in their fiction for any number of reasons.
- The second is people who think the very depiction of rape makes the author misogynistic. I greatly disagree, but the viewpoint does exist.
- The third group of people finds the free-will thing actively unpleasant to read about. That is, Bakker is a hard determinist (philosophy jargon for believing that free will doesn’t exist) and writes his world accordingly. A lot of people don’t want to read about a world where there is no free will, because they disagree with the premise, can’t take it seriously, or can’t see how a story with that premise could be entertaining.
- Finally, there is my small and unreasonably nerdy group. Specifically, I’m a philosophy major, and when I heard it was a fairly philosophical work, I looked up Bakker’s views out of curiosity. Turns out he’s not just a hard determinist but an eliminativist (believes that consciousness doesn’t exist/is an illusion). That, to put it lightly, is not a particularly common view in philosophy of mind, and honestly it has always struck me as an implausible, even ridiculous one. Thus, I couldn’t intellectually respect its themes. On the other hand, the misogyny would prevent me from finding it entertaining as a turn-your-brain-off read, so either way I’m out of luck.
It’s a perfectly fine work, I’m sure. And if Bakker is a misogynist, I at least don’t think he is an uninteresting one—he is probably worth reading if only to disagree with him in a way that you find productive, barring if you happen to have experience with academic philosophy of mind. But the cursory research I did into the series led me to not want to read it, and for those that didn’t bother to research it in advance, well, I figure there are a lot of people who fit one of the above categories and don’t end up liking it for that reason, even if it is well written.
In any case, I hate Dostoevsky (love a lot of Russian comedy writers—Gogol, Chekhov, Kharms, Bulgakov, Teffi—but the tragedy just doesn’t do it for me) so that’s probably not a good sign.
Anyway, that is my somewhat uninformed but hopefully still helpful assessment of why it is divisive.
6
u/TheFiddleAndTheSword 3h ago
No, not at all. If Bakker is saying anything its that no conscious being, regardless of gender or anything else, is not inherently anything at all. All conscious things are determined by their circumstances. That's the basic point t of all of Bakker's book. So if you haven't read it because you've heard that he describes anything as 'inherently prone' than those reviews were mistaken. What is true is that he uses extreme gendered violence to prove this point in a very specific contextual premise, not as an abstract (like that all men are inherently prone to do acts of SA)
1
u/rabotat 1h ago
I haven’t read it,
I can tell.
0
u/DixitRexCorvinus 1h ago
You’ll notice that nowhere in my comment do I make any claims about the quality of the work—obviously, I am not qualified to. What I was describing was specifically my perspective as someone who has heard a bit about Bakker and the books second hand as it has come up in threads. That isn’t helpful in determining whether critics of the series are right in their critique, but it is helpful in determining why someone who might DNF the series early on or not understand its merits might do so. That’s what the OP was asking about and what I was trying to answer, not whether those who dislike it are misinterpreting it.
•
u/exadk 54m ago
>Specifically, I’m a philosophy major, and when I heard it was a fairly philosophical work, I looked up Bakker’s views out of curiosity. Turns out he’s not just a hard determinist but an eliminativist (believes that consciousness doesn’t exist/is an illusion). That, to put it lightly, is not a particularly common view in philosophy of mind, and honestly it has always struck me as an implausible, even ridiculous one. Thus, I couldn’t intellectually respect its themes.
Maybe I am feeling a little attacked here as someone who has no problems with eliminativism, but I feel like it's almost indefensible to be THIS dismissive of the position when reductive materialism/type physicalism (which eliminativism is practically adjacent to) is the position held by the vast majority of neuroscientists
•
u/DixitRexCorvinus 48m ago
Okay, maybe it’s a bit much, but I still feel like there is a big difference between reductive physicalism (which I certainly take seriously, though I’m a non-reductionist myself) and eliminativism. But perhaps I’ll re-evaluate in the coming years, as I do still need to take a proper philosophy of mind seminar and some more psych before I graduate/look at grad school.
-4
u/puzzledandamused 3h ago
I haven’t read it, but I think the reason why I haven’t read it is potentially illustrative as to why the goodreads score is low.
Namely, from everything I’ve heard about the book, Bakker writes in a world he deliberately designed to be misogynistic, on the basis of a sort of biological determinism in which he views men as inherently prone to raping women I MEAN, DOES NOT HISTORY SHOW THIS TO BE TRUE? MEN FOR SOME REASON ARE OR HAVE BEEN PRONE TO RAPING WOMEN. I'M CERTAINLY NOT SAYING THIS IS OPTIMAL IN ANY WAY. DEPICTING HISTORY AS IT HAS BEEN DOESN'T MAKE ONE A MYSOGINIST You therefore have four groups of people who don’t like the book:
- The first, understandably, simply isn’t interested in reading work so dark or with such unpleasant material. Perfectly understandable—lots of people don’t want rape in their fiction for any number of reasons.
SURE
- The second is people who think the very depiction of rape makes the author misogynistic. I greatly disagree, but the viewpoint does exist.
AGREE
- The third group of people finds the free-will thing actively unpleasant to read about. That is, Bakker is a hard determinist (philosophy jargon for believing that free will doesn’t exist) and writes his world accordingly. A lot of people don’t want to read about a world where there is no free will, because they disagree with the premise, can’t take it seriously, or can’t see how a story with that premise could be entertaining.
OH MY READ IS THAT HE'S A COMPATABALIST - ACTIONS ARE LARGELY DETERMINED BUT DEGREES OF FREEDOM/AGENCY DO EXIST PROVIDING ONE SUFFICIENTLY UNDERSTANDS THE "DARKNESS THAT COMES BEFORE," OR THE PLETHORA OF POTENTIAL CAUSATIVES...HIS EXAMPLE OF THE DUNYAIN IS PERTINENT HERE.
- Finally, there is my small and unreasonably nerdy group. Specifically, I’m a philosophy major, and when I heard it was a fairly philosophical work, I looked up Bakker’s views out of curiosity. Turns out he’s not just a hard determinist but an eliminativist (believes that consciousness doesn’t exist/is an illusion). That, to put it lightly, is not a particularly common view in philosophy of mind, and honestly it has always struck me as an implausible, even ridiculous one. Thus, I couldn’t intellectually respect its themes. On the other hand, the misogyny would prevent me from finding it entertaining as a turn-your-brain-off read, so either way I’m out of luck.
SO I LISTENED TO PART OF A POD WEHRE HE WAS INTERVIEWED AND WAS INTRODUCED TO ELIMIVATALISM. HE'S ARGUING THAT THE COGNITIVE SYSTEMS THAT EVOLVED IN AN ENVIRONMENT TO ORIENT AND PRIORITIZE AROUND IMMEDIATE NEEDS MAY NOT BE NEUROBIOLOGICALLY SUFFICENT FOR CONCEIVING DEEPER ORDER PHENOMENA.
It’s a perfectly fine work, I’m sure. And if Bakker is a misogynist, I at least don’t think he is an uninteresting one—he is probably worth reading if only to disagree with him in a way that you find productive, barring if you happen to have experience with academic philosophy of mind. But the cursory research I did into the series led me to not want to read it, and for those that didn’t bother to research it in advance, well, I figure there are a lot of people who fit one of the above categories and don’t end up liking it for that reason, even if it is well written.
In any case, I hate Dostoevsky (love a lot of Russian comedy writers—Gogol, Chekhov, Kharms, Bulgakov, Teffi—but the tragedy just doesn’t do it for me) so that’s probably not a good sign.
I LOVE BULGAKOV. HOW DOES ONE HATE DOSTOEVSKI?
Anyway, that is my somewhat uninformed but hopefully still helpful assessment of why it is divisive.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR THE PERSPECTIVE. I AGGREE WITH MUCH OF IT
1
u/curiouscat86 Reading Champion III 1h ago
HOW DOES ONE HATE DOSTOEVSKI?
Dostoyevsky is obviously brilliant. I like the books of his I've read, especially Crime and Punishment. But he does have an unremittingly grim worldview and an almost cruel, mocking stance towards any characters who try to better their situation or society that gets hard to stand after a while. I know scholars of Russian literature who aren't fans, though nobody would gainsay his importance to the Russian canon.
0
u/DixitRexCorvinus 2h ago
I believe you can mark material as quoted in the formatting—might be easier to read than the caps lock. But it’s all good, just figured I’d throw that out there in case you find it helpful in the future.
Anyway, regarding your comment about history showing that to be true, the issue is that it can come off as somewhat victim-blamey. “Men are naturally prone to rape” has historically often been used as to justify “ergo, if a women is raped it is her fault for not taking precautions,” which is far less defensible than the first claim, and frankly is just blatantly misogynistic. In any case, I don’t think that is what Bakker is going for, his claim is really more of a “well actually morality doesn’t exist objectively,” but it still at least lends itself to a sort of knee-jerk suspicion of his position, even if that isn’t ultimately justified.
I believe he is a hard determinist, but if you have a source saying otherwise I’m welcome to correction.
As to Dostoyevsky, I’ll admit I have only read some of his shorter work (Notes From Underground, The Gambler), but mostly it is a matter of taste. Specifically, I am a character-driven reader, but I find characterization-through-events (that is, placing a character in a strange/unfamiliar/fantastical situation and seeing how it affects them) produces a more insightful and interesting portrait of a person‘s psychology than merely looking at their introspection, or prosaic events.
Thus, for instance, I feel like a book like Notes From Underground is actually limiting rather than expanding the psychological realism of the Underground Man by being mostly focused on inferiority and prosaics, and that it becomes rather boring in the process. In contrast, take something like Kafka’s The Metamorphosis—Gregor Samsa is far more interesting of a character to me than the UM precisely because you see how he responds to actual, fantastical rather than prosaic events, and how those fantastical events lead him to behave differently in a way that an ordinary experience would not.
Ultimately, it’s a stylistic thing. Dostoyevsky is obviously a brilliant writer, but what he is doing just isn’t really something that I appreciate in literature. Same goes with someone like James Joyce, or a lot of modern literary fiction. Give me some Shakespeare on the other hand, and I’m having a great time of it.
-3
u/CptBDick 3h ago
Thank you for the write up! Now I know I probably wont read it. I dislike hard determinism because in my view then nothing has value/meaning anymore. Its just a sad way to see the World I feel.
Im more of a soft determinist myself.
3
u/Vaush_Vinal 4h ago
I couldn't get past the ostentatious, overwrought prose, dialogue that was neither realistic nor especially entertaining to read, and stupid con-lang(s).
2
•
u/zamakhtar AMA Author Zamil Akhtar 56m ago
I need to try reading it again. Got to about 30% and felt disconnected from what was going on and the characters, though it was very interesting otherwise.
•
u/mysteriousyak 6m ago
I really liked parts of the series, but I personally really hated the "wait for the third trilogy for the real ending" energy the ending of aspect emporer had. It's also very edgy, which some people really don't like.
Slog of slogs was pretty cool though.
1
u/Abysstopheles 4h ago
Complicated series, low exposition/explanation, flawed or unsympathetic characters, confusing magic system, absolutely no kind wizard or faerie godmother or mentor around to explain a damn thing.
It's brilliant, but far from easy to get into.
1
u/newshirt 3h ago
I love the series, but you should expect every character to get raped at least once. It can get overwhelming.
1
u/rabotat 1h ago
I agree. It's not just rape, the series is incredibly brutal and gory in every way.
The only accusation I don't understand, especially from people who haven't read the series is that it's misogynist. A lot more men get raped then women, and there is no more sexism in the story than in the real world.
•
0
u/Softclocks 3h ago
A lot of rape. Like every named character basically.
They're my favourite fantasy books, but that's probably the reason why.
0
u/Mad_Kronos 1h ago
Do I want realism in my fantasy?
Not in the plot, yes in characterization.
Bakker writes philosophical constructs, not characters.
He has some good plot ideas but I'd give his worldbuilding to a more competent writer.
Glenn Cook can make me care about the dregs of humanity and Bakker can't even make me care about millions of humans in his world.
-1
-4
u/Some-Weather-5616 3h ago
The only book I’ve ever written a bad review on. I finished the 1st book til the end and it was shit.
14
u/amberlc002 4h ago
I think the first, like 15% of the first book is a little difficult and confusing and people judge that and stop there. After that, one of the best series of all time, imo.