Men, the cracked vessel from which the Gods drank most deep.
Some had been petty unto murder in their past lives, knifing brothers for the merest slight, while others had been generous unto folly, abiding faithless wives, starving to carry witless parents. It did not matter. Gluttons and ascetics, cowards and champions, reavers and healers, adulterers and celibates—they had been all of these things ere they had taken up their Holy Aspect-Emperor’s Great Ordeal. And for all their numberless differences, they need only look to fathom one another, to know whether they would be greeted or ignored or attacked. To be a Man is to understand and be understood as a Man, to blindly honour expectation so that others might gamble accordingly. For it was the way they repeated one another that made them Sons of Men. Despite their numberless feuds and grudges—for all their divisions—they stood as one before the heinous image.
The Great Ordeal ... nay ...
Humanity, horrid and beatific, frail and astounding, come to collect their future from wicked debtors.
One race, come to fathom the Ark with sword and fire, and to at long last exterminate the Unholy Consult.
- R. SCOTT BAKKER, The Unholy Consult (Canada, USA, Europe)
16 commentaires:
Oh my damn!
It still baffles me, how you can not only find the patience to wade through such literary tedium, but that you so thoroughly enjoy it as well. To each his own. May you enjoy the book as highly as you hope to!
It is truly fitting that you chose such a long-winded, rambling "quote" of Bakker's to post... His philosophy seems to be "why say something in two sentences when you can say it in three paragraphs!?"
All in good fun. Take care.
Oh man, such a great series. Get HYPED for TUC.
...Tastes differ. For me and many others, Bakker is the best author ever.It baffles me how a book not being stupid popcorn turns it into "literary tedium".
I've been reading Moby Dick for 10 years, about 60% done. It's excellent.
To me, Bakker's writing is like Lawrence Olivier acting Hamlet... his acting is soooo self-aware and self-important, I can't handle it for more than a few minutes. Now, Hamlet is a favorite of mine - I can watch Mel Gibson act it all day. But Olivier's style is so overdone and pretentious, it makes watching it excruciating.
Bakker's isn't "smart" because he knows his way around a thesaurus... he's the literary equivalent of Olivier mooning and over-acting on stage. Bakker doesn't tell a story, he hides it and makes you tediously dig and sift it out. Kinda like China Mieville on steroids. Some people seem to enjoy it. I say, go for it. You do you. For me? I'll take Abercrombie, Lawrence, Parker, Pressfield, Rothfuss, Stover, Hobb, Kay, hell, even Sanderson every day of the week. No "stupid popcorn" in that author list.
(((Wicked Debtors)))
Its cause you have a low iq David
It's on now! Consult better watch out!
Mel Gibson's "Hamlet"?? Yeah, great taste in Shakespearean actors, pal.
Ummmm Sanderson is stupid popcorn.
Yeah Sanderson is about as Popcorn as you get lad.
Sanderson doesn't stand in the way of his story. He spins compelling, rich stories, and his style lends itself to flying through them. He doesn't needlessly clutter things up with flowery, obtuse language and presentation. Hey, I enjoy flowery language when it's employed properly (see Steven Pressfield to see it done right), but Bakker turns it up to 11, to the detriment of his story, in my opinion. The only author I've seen do it worse than Bakker is when I tried to read John Brunner's "The Compleat Traveller in Black" (his spelling, not mine)...
As to Gibson's Hamlet, "Unknown", please go to YouTube and pull up any Gibson clip from Zeffirelli's Hamlet and any clip of Olivier's Hamlet and compare. You'll see what I mean.
Sanderson pontificates about how moral values of tradition and if that is your thing so be it. But here is my thing there are a lot of things I dont enjoy such as Bruce Springteen's music, Terry Goodkind's moralizing, or Sanderson's "writing". Yet I do not run around trying to ruin the experience for others by posting negative comments. So my question is why do you try and this? What fullfilment are you receiving from doing so?
Honestly, I would love someone to explain to me the appeal. This is why I don't point any attack at Bakker personally, or name-call any fans of his... I've widely read and written most of my life (I'm in my mid-forties), and I can certainly recognize and appreciate quality writing when I experience it. I love to tout great writers, whenever I find them. But I am honestly baffled by the apparently-wide-spread appeal of Bakker, and I would love for someone to make a case for it, beyond "I just like it, so f-off!"
I read "The Darkness That Comes Before" through to the end, and I kid you not, from the opening paragraph of the prologue, I knew there was a problem. Nevertheless, I finished it, determined to try to find out what the appeal is. I didn't see it then, and I still don't. I'm not an idiot - yet I'm obviously missing something. Someone tell me what you find so impressive about his obtuse, overly-crafted, rambling, self-impressed writing? "Fulfillment"? No. An answer to this endless niggling conundrum would be nice... where else to search for such an answer than a place where his fans assemble?
No David you are not missing anything. The book series is not for you and Bakker is not an author that you enjoy. This certainly is an opinion that stands completely on its own and needs no justification.
As an example Millions of people love the sitcom "Friends" and for the life of me I cant understand it is completely taxes my patience to suffer through an episode of it. To your point no can help me understand the appeal, yet if people enjoy it fair enough.
The fact that you do not like Bakker's writing style does not speak to a lack of intelligence or poor taste. Bakker is writing in a style that I believe is in the vein of the Odyssey or Beowolf with lots of adjectives and adverbs, which seems to put you off.
Post a Comment