House of Chains and what it takes to make a god

I think Erikson tapped onto something deep here:

Among a people where solitude was as close to a crime as
possible. Where to separate was to weaken. Where the very
breaking of vision into its components — from seeing to
observing, from resurrecting memory and reshaping it
beyond the eye’s reach, onto walls of stone — demanded a
fine-edged, potentially deadly propensity.

There’s this one book I read long ago and that still today is the framework of all my convictions. In about 160 pages, it explains EVERYTHING. The title is “Theory of Society” but it’s far from a cold academic book. It explains what humanity is, it explains god, it explains existence and its meaning. It gives answer to everything and it does it through the most rigorous theory you can imagine. It admits no flaws and yet it is incredibly powerful.

A lot of what I read from Erikson echoes what’s written in that book, probably because his ideas come from an anthropological background, and so a study of humanity (and when something is true it doesn’t matter anymore who arrives to the conclusion, as everyone else says exactly the same thing). I would gladly share and recommend this book but it seems it only exists in Italian.

The wikipedia entry about Niklas Luhmann says: “Luhmann wrote prolifically, with more than 70 books and nearly 400 scholarly articles published on a variety of subjects, including law, economy, politics, art, religion, ecology, mass media, and love. While his theories have yet to make a major mark in American sociology, his theory is currently dominant in German sociology, and has also been rather intensively received in Japan and Eastern Europe, including Russia. His relatively low profile elsewhere is partly due to the fact that translating his work is a difficult task, since his writing presents a challenge even to readers of German, including many sociologists.”

The book I read, whose initial 160 pages are the door to everything, is listed as:
1992 (with Raffaele De Giorgi): Teoria della società, Milano: Franco Angeli

I don’t know if there’s another book that so succinctly explains the theory at its core and reading Luhmann is, indeed, as complicate as reading complex math problems. But it’s language and I could deal with it.

One important truth, not directly related to Luhmann but true to the spirit, is that we exist INSIDE the language. Language is perceived as something we use but in truth language is what we are made of and it defines the perimeter of what we can experience. Next time you read a book just remember that it can contain all aspects of existence and that language is omnipotent (as long your senses are human).

From the wikipedia:

Furthermore, each system has a distinctive identity that is constantly reproduced in its communication and depends on what is considered meaningful and what is not. If a system fails to maintain that identity, it ceases to exist as a system and dissolves back into the environment it emerged from. Luhmann called this process of reproduction from elements previously filtered from an over-complex environment autopoiesis (pronounced “auto-poy-E-sis”; literally: self-creation), using a term coined in cognitive biology by Chilean thinkers Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela.

I have an inkling that Erikson’s complex system of belief, where gods are made and destroyed in cycles, is near to the same concepts explained by Luhmann. Like a concrete metaphor of the power of “meaning” and all its subtleties.

I don’t think even for a second that Erikson is aware of Luhmann theories, but I do think that he tapped onto something “true”, deep down, and so a common ground.

(and I actually bask in the delusion of following links between the most disparate stuff, looking for something true)

Lost (-2) Vs Malazan (It’s turtles all the way down)

Comparing Lost and the Malazan series comes natural. Because I’m watching Lost right now as well reading the fourth book in the Malazan series. But also because they have various points of contacts in the way the narrative is being shaped.

For example the interconnections of the plot. The kind of satisfaction that comes, in this last episode of Lost, when we’re being shown who are the skeletons that Jack found in season 1. Parts that move and lock into position. Then how the mythology is filled with mysteries and yet grows exponentially from the initial premises. This kind of vertical expansion that becomes staggering and awesome when you are on top and look back.

But every time I bring this up as the type of quality I admire in Lost, I can also see that Malazan tries to follow similar patterns, on an even bigger scale, and does it more successfully. Every mystery revealed in Lost is followed by some delusion. And then the examiner in me wants to dissect these structures to understand what works in one and what doesn’t in the other.

The image I got is of a table covered with cards, arranged in rows and face down. Every card is part of the bigger scheme and the more you turn and reveal, the more you get to see the big picture. Or, if you prefer, closed doors that hide answers. But the important point is that answers need to be interconnected to form a bigger picture, so let’s continue with cards (whose position is sometime more important than what they hide). What we have in this season of Lost is that mysteries/cards are turned and revealed, but then they are discarded. One item finally revealed and checked off the TO-DO list. It means that Lost is basically made by smoke and mirrors, curtains that are progressively drawn. The result is that the actual game is “shrunk”, reduced to the essential. The more cards revealed and discarded the more we approach a much simpler “core” of the show. Lost’s path is one of simplification, where every mystery doesn’t add to the big picture, but actually “leads back” closer to another mystery at the core. It’s essentially a backtracking, following a trail and discarding all the illusions that were built along the way.

The dissatisfaction that follows the revelation of a mystery is caused by the fact that the mystery revealed was just a “curtain” for another mystery that is higher up the trail we are following. So we get to know the origin of Jacob and the Man in Black, but that revelation only leads to another mystery: the pool of light. Originally it was: why the plane crashed? This lead to an infinite expansion/development toward science. Mysterious experiments with magnetism made by Dharma, that caused an anomaly, that caused the plane to crash. But that was just a circular pattern because the plane crash wasn’t an “incident”. It was instead orchestrated so that the passengers would arrive on the island and fulfill their destiny. The island (through Jacob) called them and brought them there. They are supposed to be there for a reason. So, as you see, we are still backtracking the same big questions. We know why the plane crashed? Not really, because we know the plane crashed because someone or something decided to make it happen. Why? Because it was required so that people would arrive and then be chosen as guardians to prevent “something” to escape from the island. But what is that they have to guard? Where’s the danger? The smoke monster. Why? What’s its origin? Why this island has all sort of magical powers? The mystery must be behind the guardian (Jacob) and what he guards (smoke monster). But now we get to see Jacob and his brother’s origin. Was the mystery finally revealed? Nope, because everything originated from a pool of light. And so on we continue backtracking answers without being given even a single real one.

Lost has moved, from the beginning of 2nd season onward, through a process of expansion. A mythology that got more and more complex and intricate. Mixing science with supernatural events. A mythology that seemed extremely coherent and solidly built. Driven by purpose. Now with the 6th season it is going through a process of contraption, like an infinite regression. Cards are removed from the play. We backtrack mysteries, lead toward a core. But we’ve been given no actual answers yet. Nothing is revealed because the nature of the mystery is constantly pushed back. Hoping that the final destination doesn’t coincide with the true origin of myth: “we can’t tell you [because there’s no answer]”. (which is also connected with the theodicy)

Or, better summarized than I ever could: “It’s turtles all the way down”. It would be rather sad if Lost really came down just to that.

How Malazan manages to do it more successfully? I’ve only read to 600 pages in the 4th book, on a series of 10, but even if it ended here the series would be already immensely gratifying and successful. Something that I could never say about Lost at any point. Malazan isn’t just one long, reckless chase toward an ultimate mystery that has to sustain and motivate all that came before. This because the cards that are turned up, STAY in the game. They aren’t removed. While the mythology in Lost was mostly misdirection as a whole (leading to a simpler core), in Malazan all elements stay in play and are all connected to a bigger picture. The books are deeply interconnected and layered but none of these are “smoke and mirrors”, if not smoke and mirrors that reveal different paths and motivations.

There was for example a lot of confusion about the “warren of Shadow”. It was at times referenced as “Meanas”, and at times as “Rashan”, or even “Meanas-Rashan”. Now, in the 4th book, it is revealed that the warren of Shadow is a shattered warren. Contested. And that it is being tainted (partially taken over) by the warren of Shadow. The warren of Shadow is called, simplifying, Rashan. While Shadow is supposed to be Meanas. And that explains all the ambiguity in the previous books. Shadow is not whole and tainted with Darkness, hence the confusion and blur between names. But it doesn’t end there, because we also discover that the “Whirlwind Goddess”, previously just the goddess of some tribes in the desert who are fighting against the Malazan colonization, isn’t just a local cult. It has deep roots in the overarching mythology. The Whirlwind Goddess is itself a “redress” of a fragment of the warren of Shadows, and this revelation leads to more things making sense. Everything is linked together, misdirection isn’t just smoke and mirrors because its motives are themselves revealing. The books are generous, offering plenty of answers and surprises and intuitions constantly through the narrative. The story doesn’t run out of steam because it is intricately woven and every part has its meaning and theme.

There’s intent in the narrative of the single book, with stories coming to a resolution and some assertions of themes fully developed and “delivered”, then there’s a contribution to an overarching structure, a vaster movement that links every book together winding intricately story threads back and forth. There’s a definite progression but the motives are never constantly pushed back and unanswered. You are instead brought to cower since what is revealed always opens on a vaster scenario that couldn’t be previously fathomed. It’s like something buried in the ground. The mystery is: what is it? You try to guess. But then when you start digging you discover it’s HUGE, and far, far beyond what you could ever imagine.

Which all leads to a final element that makes Malazan superior to Lost. In the Malazan series the “knowledge” you acquire, can then be used to understand more and more. The stories rely on what you learn. This gives a satisfying idea of progress. You embrace what is going on and slowly understand. With Lost instead, two episodes from the end, our guesses are worth the same as everyone else’s. What we learned? Not much. We now know we didn’t know anything. Distracting details and derails. Clinging on the hope there’s something redeeming in the last episode that finally gives us a proper answer. The more is revealed, the less we know: we are still at the point of a mythical island containing a mythical power.

The rest was just an elaborate castle of cards woven with human drama.

“We must make sure no one ever finds it.”

“It’s beautiful.”

“Yes, it is. And that’s why they want it. Because a little bit of this very same light is inside of every men. But they always want more.”

If it’s immortality then the theme was explored much more deeply and meaningfully in Malazan. In Lost we are still wondering, two episodes from the end, why it’s wrong that men want more of that light (whatever it is).

Brought to: we can’t be happy because someone decided so. Good. Let’s go challenging whoever decided it, once for all. Let’s make a revolution. (this is also being handled in Malazan)

The smoke monster has to be freed from the dumbness of this story and its vapid motives and justifications. The world will end, but it will be for a good cause.

Someone is whining on the Internet

George RR Martin is butthurt.

What I find utterly unbelievable in this whole story is that these authors want to have the illusion of control. What a big fucking delusion. Going against fanfiction is akin religious fanatics who poke you and say you can’t, absolutely can’t have naughty thoughts, or a woman who pretends you do not look at her and imagine her naked. You can’t!

Imho, this is more a product of a writer’s hysteria than anything that makes sense.

Sure, you can go against someone who uses your characters and stories and tries to make money on them. “Making money” is for me the line not to cross when it comes to freedom of speech in all forms. Culture is universal, and it’s not universal because the law or another single individual decides so. Culture IS UNIVERSAL. It’s a fact that defies all challenges. It’s not an opinion.

So, the real point is that it’s PATHETIC that these writers believe that it’s enough to post a “FAN-FICTION POLICY” on their blogs to stop fan-fiction. This happening means that they have some huge delusion of control and the problem is their own.

You can’t control what other people think, say or write. And thanks god you can’t, even if it’s about your dear characters.

You say: if you want to write fan fiction then make your own characters.
I say: if you are so jealous of your characters then keep them for yourself.

Don’t publish them and you can be TOTALLY SURE no one will ever get them into tentacle rape without your permission.

What happens when someone makes a parody? I guess parodies exist even in commercial products. What if to make a parody one had to be authorized? It defies its purpose, like asking a politician if he would like satire being created about him.

Claims such as: When you mess with my stuff, you’re not messing with my characters—you’re messing with _me_. Are utterly ridiculous. Look somewhere else if you are so emotional. Claiming that fan fiction confuses readers and messes with your characters is disrespectful of your readers and pathetic. It’s not your choice, it’s the choice of those who decide to read it. Sure, you can suggest not to read it, but that’s the whole range of your power. The fact that people read your books doesn’t mean that now you have ownership on some of their thoughts.

What’s next? Marvel suing a kid because he drew spider-man on his diary?

Coming soon: the Bill of Rights of Fictional Characters, and a reader suing the writer because of a rape scene that was messing with _him_.

P.S.
About Martin: I will continue to read your books and recommend them in the case I think they are good recommendations.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged:

The Crippled God – Latest updates

I wasn’t going to post, but there are various tidbits.

Cover: Soon we should have at least the cover for the book (The Crippled God, the very last book to come out in the 10-book series). A year ago we got the cover for book 9 as soon as someone received an early copy of the paperback edition of the previous book and this year the paperback comes out the 27 of May, meaning that someone should get the book one or two weeks before that date, and so post the new cover.

Manuscript: In February Hetan, one of Erikson’s advance reader, said Erikson planned to be done with the manuscript of the book around the end of May, early June. Pat (of Fantasy Hotlist) mailed Erikson in the last couple of days and got a direct response from Erikson: he says the target for the final manuscript is mid-June, so confirming that there haven’t been substantial delays. In the last blog update he stated he had 10 chapters left to write. The blog appeared the 10 April but evidence reveals that it was actually written almost a month before that date, so Erikson should be closer to the end.

Publication date: Amazon says the book is now planned for January but Erikson states no release has been set by the publisher. If we look at what happened a year ago, the book was done around the beginning of May and the release was even anticipated to mid-August, so this time there are good chances that the book could be ready for November. The quick release a year ago also lead to no maps being added and no appendices, so it’s not unlikely that the final volume in a long series requires extra time with polishing. It would be surely well accepted since we aren’t looking at Martin-like years of delays.

In the meantime you can read the latest blog post he wrote, where he offered us an excerpt (out of context) that was cut from the book. And it’s wonderful.

“It is said the stars are without number, and are in eternal motion,
and that the heavens forbid all comprehension. It is said that
the universe breathes as would a bellows, and that we are now
riding an exhalation of a god immeasurably vast. And when all
these things are said, I am invited to surrender to the immensity
of the unknowable.

“To this I do rail. If I am to be a mote lost in the abyss, then
that mote is my world. My universe. And all the great forces
beyond my reach invite neither despair nor ennui. In what I
am able to measure — this is the realm of my virtues, and here is
where I must find my reward.

But if you would mock my struggle, crowd not close. The
universe is without measure and the stars are without number.
And if I invite you to explore, take no offence. Be sure that I
will spare you a parting wave as you vanish into the distance,
never to be seen again.”

There’s more in there.

House of Chains and Lost (TV)

Maybe I have hallucinations but I’m seeing recurring themes everywhere. Today I watch “Angel Beats!” (anime, check my twitter) and there was a dialogue about the nature of god that seemed to resonate with some themes in House of Chains.

Then there are some obvious analogies directly between the book and Lost. Especially this last season of Lost. Consider also that the book came out in 2002, so well before the TV series could influence it.

Some strict analogies in House of Chains with Lost:
– there’s a mysterious island (Drift Avalii) said to be inhabited by spirits.
– this island moves. It “drifts”, moving in a kind of elliptical path.
– Not openly stated, but it’s almost sure that time passes differently on the island.
– Some boats end up crashing against it (and disappear).
– The island holds some kind of power, and there are guardians stationed there protecting this power.
– Interesting: contrarily to Lost, the guardians have failed their mission. Only one guardian is left.
– These guardians are very sad and miserable, since they had to sacrifice their whole life to the task.
– The guardians are obviously immortal (if they aren’t directly killed, I guess).

Then there is this other main plot thread:
– A god is trapped unjustly and only wants to be free.
– The god, who originally wouldn’t want to mingle with human affairs, is forced to seek allies.
– He finds his allies through analogies between theirs and his own story. So people who also were trapped or suffered in their lives.
– If the god is freed, the world ends.

Some of these themes have already been dealt more clearly in the 4th book of a 10 book series than Lost four episodes from the game over. And in the books this is just a small part of a much bigger picture, as if you take everything that Lost is and then attached it to a much bigger universe where there are a huge number of gods struggling for power instead of just one.

The majority of themes in Lost, like faith, belief and destiny, are also heavily featured in the Malazan series, with more facets and perspectives added.

House of Chains highs and lows

About the lows, I’ve rambled a bit on the forums. The summary is that there are some small aspects in this book that are a bit disappointing and that seem to form a pattern since they all have in common the use of the more supernatural/fantastic elements of the plot. Previously I got a similar feel from the Seguleh in book 3, that I consider a rather arid concept that made my suspension of disbelief creak. This third book keeps a very high level that particularly shines when it comes to “down to the ground” characters and plots (all the scenes in Aren and around Tavore) or evocative and cryptic ones (Trull and Onrack in the Nascent), but seems getting a bit dull and dumb when the fantastic elements and badassery show off comes into play. And it seems coming into play more often and more bluntly than in previous books. In particular a scene that had a great potential was kinda wasted and thrown away (meaning that the magic element completely killed the dramatic intensity, instead of enhancing it).

Then I read a few pages further that redeemed the little perceived damage that was done. Not only the “banter” between Trull and Onrack is amusing because of how the two characters clash while yet having things in common (and sometimes think themselves different while they are similar, so a great job with subtle perceptions of both), but the dialogue is revealing and also rooted into something deep and true. I loved the tone and implications, and admire the presence of humor even when the theme is serious, without ruining it.

Some quotes that stay true out of context:

‘It is believed,’ he said slowly, ‘by the bonecasters, that to create an
icon of a spirit or a god is to capture its essence within that icon. Even the laying of
stones prescribes confinement. Just as a hut can measure out the limits of power for a
mortal, so too are spirits and gods sealed into a chosen place of earth or stone or
wood… or an object. In this way power is chained, and so becomes manageable.’

‘Do your bonecasters also believe that power begins as a thing devoid of shape, and thus
beyond control? And that to carve out an icon – or make a circle of stones – actually
forces order upon that power?’

Onrack cocked his head, was silent for a time. ‘Then it must be that we make our
own gods and spirits. That belief demands shape, and shaping brings life into being.’

After a moment, Trull Sengar followed. ‘I imagine you know little of what it is like to
see your kin fall into dissolution, to see the spirit of an entire people grow corrupt, to
struggle endlessly to open their eyes – as yours have been opened by whatever clarity
chance has gifted you.’

‘True,’ Onrack replied, his steps thumping the sodden ground.

‘Nor is it mere naivete,’ the Tiste Edur went on, limping in Onrack’s wake. ‘Our denial
is wilful, our studied indifference conveniently self-serving to our basest desires. We are
a long-lived people who now kneel before short-term interests—’

‘If you find that unusual,’ the T’lan Imass muttered,’then it follows that the one
behind the veil has need for you only in the short term – if indeed that hidden power is
manipulating the Tiste Edur.’

‘An interesting thought. You may well be right. The question then is, once that
short-term objective is reached, what will happen to my people?’

‘The stone has been shaped to encompass them, Trull Sengar. No-one asks the spirit
or the god, when the icon is fashioned, if it wishes entrapment. Do they? The need to
make such vessels is a mortal’s need. That one can rest eyes on the thing one worships
is an assertion of control at worst, or at best the illusion that one can negotiate over
one’s own fate.’

‘And you find such notions suitably pathetic, Onrack?’

‘I find most notions pathetic, Trull Sengar.’

Then, everything fits so nicely

So I finished writing down my Warhammer 40k hype, coming on the blog after my rant about genre prejudices (and prejudices in general), and then I discover this awesome conversation abut tie-in fiction between Mark Charan Newton (new kid on the fantasy block) and Dan Abnett himself:

Mark Charan Newton: For an author to write tie-in fiction – that is, fiction connected to a franchise or character, that isn’t technically owned by the author – it is still treated as a gaucherie by the majority of genre fans. The books suffer by not getting proper review coverage, and sometimes they are not even considered as ‘real’ works. Why do you think tie-in fiction is treated as the second-class citizen of the genre world? I mean, the same could often be said about the treatment of genre fiction and the literary world.

Dan Abnett: There are any number of contributing factors, and many of them are inevitably contradictory. Let’s start with a basic assumption: if you write as a hired gun, you must be in it for the dosh. You don’t really care what you’re writing. Therefore (obviously), you’re just crapping it out, words per square inch. In other words, tie-in fiction MUST by the very nature of its manufacture, be poor, disposable and second-rate.
It’s possible that an awful lot of people think this. They may not even mean to think it. There’s also a possibility (actually, a very high probability) that an awful lot of people in what I’m happy to refer to as “my line of work” believe that’s what other people think.

I think it’s worth getting this out of the way right at the start: writers of tie-in fiction may, sometimes, involuntarily, feel slightly guilty. They may be, involuntarily defensive. They know what the perception can be, and it contaminates them slightly. Tie-in writers can be their own worst enemies.

Despite the odd and inevitable case of the Emperor’s New Clothes, surely readers can tell if something’s good or not by their gut response? They can tell if someone’s just banging it out and their heart’s not in it? Can’t they? Please tell me they can!

I should honestly admit that sometimes I doubt of myself ;)

Books at my door – Warhammer 40k edition

Volcano cloud be damned, but I’ve still got my 5-book order from the UK today. 1 wrap for each book, for a total of 5 wraps and 13 books (?) to unwrap with glee like if it’s Christmas again.

All of 5(13) part of the same lineage: Warhammer 40k.

One would think that books based on the Warhammer universe are in the same league of novelization of movies or books based on Star Wars, Star Trek or AD&D and similar, which means basically little more than garbage and totally forgettable. Instead the reason why I got interested in this (and invested enough to make this order) is because the premise is totally different. I read everywhere that these are damn good books that are worth reading even if one has not played Warhammer (the miniature wargame) or hasn’t a particular interest or knowledge of the setting. They say these books are good on their own terms and written well: read them, it’s cool stuff.

So: do not come with prejudices.

Which fits me. So I come, and with great hype! The great majority of this supposed quality comes from a particular writer who consolidated as the main pillar of the whole Black Library, and so of the Warhammer 40k universe in literary form: Dan Abnett.

After a lengthy and careful research among reviews and forums of every kind I narrowed a list of “best of the best” of these 5 books that I have then ordered in one block:

Eisenhorn – Dan Abnett – 760 pag
This is an omnibus, written small, and contains a complete series. It tells the story of an inquisitor, written in first person. This is considered by fans and reviews as the very best and most famous thing of the whole Black Library, recommended even to those who don’t have a particular interest in reading in the Warhammer universe. It should have a grand scale even if it focuses on one protagonist and should be filled with political intrigue.
Ravenor – Dan Abnett – 890 pag
Another omnibus even more massive than the previous. This is truly sexy with the black cover and the stylized silvery embossing, spectacular edition. It should be a sort of follow-up to Eisenhorn, with various characters reappearing. Ravenor is the name of the inquisitor featured in this omnibus. Quality-wise this is compared to Eisenhorn, the first series is still considered the better one but the quality is supposed to be similar and if someone liked the first he should like this too.
The Founding – Dan Abnett – 760 pag
Another omnibus, part of the series Gaunt’s Ghosts. There are two other omnibuses already published and a fourth in preparation. Quite a bit to read considering the others exceed the 1000 pages. It’s with this series that Abnett starts writing in the Warhammer 40k universe. Even if this is the earliest work, it’s here that Abnett got his reputation and in the introduction (all omnibuses have one) he says he’s absolutely proud of what he did here. I know the third book contained (Necropolis, which comes with a pretty map) got enthusiastic reviews and should tell the desperate story of a city under siege. From the handful pages I read I got the impression of World War II stories, down in the trenches and face to face with soldiers and their obsessions. The whole series has a good reputation, with the books filled with unrelenting action and good characters. It’s considered as some of the best military Sci-fi even outside the Warhammer setting (for example John Scalzi).
Ciaphas Cain – Sandy Mitchell – 760 pag
Another omnibus, but non-Abnett. Good edition with plasticized cover. From what I read this was heartily recommended as very good stuff much different from the dark, gloomy apocalyptic setting typical of Warhammer 40k. More lightweight and humorous. The subtitle reads: “Surviving the 4ist millennium, one battle at a time”. It tells the story of a “hero of the Imperium” written down by himself years later. The peculiar part is that this hero is in truth a coward who only tries to come alive out of the most desperate situations with a mix of luck and survival instinct. This even got notes at the bottom of the page and commentary written by the “editor”, so I guess with humor emergent from the interaction of these parts. The series doesn’t end with this omnibus since there’s already another out and a third in preparation.
Horus Rising – Dan Abnett – 412 pag
Back with Abnett but not omnibus this time. Meaning that instead of a 800 pages monster this one is 400 pages (written bigger). This should be the founding pillar of a series of 15 books “The Horus Heresy” (halfway through at this time) written by different authors. It’s the tale of probably the most important event in the whole 40k universe, with plenty of repercussions. The book is considered the best of the best Abnett wrote as of yet, on par with Eisenhorn (Abnett then has a total of three books of his own planned in this 15-book series, and even if quality depends on who’s writing, overall the series should stay high).

That solves the mystery of 5 books for a total of 13. Four omnibuses with 3 books each.

Lots of stuff to read. I’m rather sure that I narrowed the best stuff to get here. I’ve read mention even of other good authors but this should be (way) more than enough to figure if it’s good stuff or not. I expect at the very least some good fun and a “calmer” companion while I tackle Erikson.

The circle of hypocrisy

I can get annoyed. I usually have a rather high tolerance to trolls, but sometimes it gets to the point that it is annoying and deserves a reaction. So this time I’ll voice an idea that I’m getting more and more, and that isn’t circumscribed to trolling.

It seems that nothing can be learned and that everyone is destined to commit the same mistakes. We think we’re better, but we aren’t. This happens inside the fantasy community at large. The fantasy community has a predominant trait of being discriminated and be seen through prejudices, yet the fantasy community, at large, discriminates and is filled with prejudices itself. How can this be? I am dismayed.

It seems everything is trapped in a circle of reaction where what you suffer you have then to retort precisely onto someone else. Is that what gets us satisfaction and makes us feel better? Why one can’t, simply CAN’T, enjoy a book and an author without feeling the impelling need to go on a holy crusade against similar writers? And why this is more typical in the fantasy genre than it is outside of it?

Why is the word “fan” being constantly used with a negative connotation? What’s wrong with liking something? Why the constant need of oblique and sly remarks to diminish or ridicule a certain writer? I mutiny against this stupid idea. Having a taste, ideas and preferences can’t mean that one is biased and comes with prejudices. This premise can’t be accepted.

I have tried to find some answers. Being branded as a “fan” implies being considered “biased”. It means your opinion is worthless because you are unable to express it in a balanced and true way. You aren’t reliable, your opinion is automatically discarded, useless. You may have a taste and ideas, but by being a fan you are also a liar.

I am a declared “fan” of Erikson. This doesn’t happen because I’m born in a geographical region and so lead to root for a specific home soccer team. I am a fan because I prefer Erikson much more compared to other fantasy writers. There are motives. Being a fan is a consequence of motives, not a cause (of biased opinions). I haven’t rolled some dices to pick who was going to be my favorite writer. I read the books. Found things in the books. The fact that I (or whoever else) enjoy a particular writer is a positive. It means that I can at least relate to it in some way. But what are instead the motives of “haters”? What are the motives of those who HAVE to jump in every forum thread and spill sly and oblique remarks that they believe being soooo veeeery subtle but that instead are really not? They HAVE to make known how much they hate this and that, again and again.

Yes, I’m talking about YOU. No one is innocent. It doesn’t matter whose side you’re on, there’s always a foe deserving the unleashing of hate and scorn so that the other side can enjoy moral superiority. It can be Goodkind, it can be Stephanie Meyer, or whoever else. There are always hate & scorn festivals to be celebrated so that people can feel better.

Why this happens specifically in fantasy, a genre that already suffer discrimination and that, for this reason, should at the very least learn to not discriminate? Maybe the answer is in there:

Fantasy readers seem to suffer a form of insecurity. They try to hide their shame for loving fantasy because, deep down, they are are hollow with self-doubt and shame. The more they negate that shame and the more it spreads and fills and rots. So the need for a target that has to appear universally, objectively beyond all doubts, lesser and inferior (unable to defend itself and instill self-doubt). By marking this difference then can then affirm and elevate their moral superiority because they read fantasy but they don’t go so low as liking Goodkind, or Erikson, or the moody vampires. And then round and round. Goodkind’s fans will proclaim that what they read isn’t even “fantasy”, and Stephanie Mayer’s fans will reread the books 20 times, but always say that the books weren’t all that good.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Tagged: