Docstoc

scott_interview

Document Sample
scott_interview Powered By Docstoc
					nterview with R. Scott Bakker
Dylanfanatic - 6/27/2004 2:16:09 PM

Scott Bakker is author of the Prince of Nothing series, whose first volume, The Darkness That
Comes Before, was just released in the US on June 1st. This book was a Locus Recommended
Read for 2003 and his second book, The Warrior-Prophet, was just released about two weeks
ago in Canada. This interview was conducted via email, although many of the questions are
inspired by a face-to-face meeting by this interviewer with Bakker at a book signing in Nashville
on June 21st.

Thanks Scott for agreeing to do this interview. If you don't mind, could you give us a brief
biographical sketch to give us a clearer image of the person behind the pen?

I spent the bulk of my childhood on the north shore of Lake Erie, back in the day when "Be
home before dark!" counted as parental supervision. Throughout my youth, my father was either
a tobacco sharecropper or farm manager, so I've spent many a long season toiling in hot fields. I
have a BA in English and an MA in Critical Theory from the University of Western Ontario, and
if I could complete my bloody dissertation, I'd have a PhD in Philosophy from Vanderbilt
University. My favourite band is Black Sabbath, and has been since I was fourteen years old. I
drink Coke, not Pepsi. I refuse to wear clothing with corporate logos, and am inordinately fond
of my cat. I vacuum when I'm told and typically do the dishes without being told. As for the
bathroom, well, there's usually an argument. And last but not least, I tend to consume about eight
beers a night through the entirety of the NHL playoffs.

What was it, if "it" can be defined, that led you into reading and later writing fantasy?

I'm not sure it can be defined, but it can certainly be named: The Hobbit. When I was ten, my
grade five teacher read it from cover to cover for our class. I devoured The Lord of the Rings
immediately after - several times - and have never fully recovered. When I think back to my
sketchy memories of those times, I recall only a sense of breathless wonder, blue carpet, and
chincy wood panelling. Reading Dune as a teenager only made things worse.

Many of our readers have expressed curiosity about philosophy. What works would you
recommend for them to read?

This is a hard question, I think because the field seems to resist summary in a way others don't.
For those in college, I would urge taking a freshman philosophy course - this was pretty much
how I entered the labyrinth. As far as primers go, the most important thing is to find something
that will hold your interest long enough to get you some kind of footing in the debate. For me,
that was Wil Durant's The Story of Philosophy. Anything or anyone but Ayn Rand, who's left out
of philosophical dictionaries and anthologies for a reason. As a friend of mine likes to say, she
put the 'pluh' in 'please.'

You've mentioned on your site and in person that you spent a great deal of time writing
The Darkness That Comes Before. When did you start writing it and who were some of the
people that encouraged you during the process?
I started writing the first draft of the story around seventeen years ago - I actually completed the
entire Prince of Nothing trilogy when I was 23, before I knew how to write. The world, Eärwa, is
actually some seven years older: the first rudiments date back to when I was fourteen playing
D&D with my hairy-palmed buddies. As far as encouragement goes, my brother has been with
me since the very beginning - but at first I think he was just trying to ensure his character
wouldn't get killed. Flatter the dungeonmaster, just like in the real world... Jokes aside, there
really isn't anything major, either in the world or the story, that I haven't discussed at length with
Bryan. He possesses an unerring ability to uncover cheese.

I always regarded the whole thing as a pipe-dream, a juvenile fantasy, and as a result I never
actively sought publication. I just kept building the world and rewriting small sections of the
story, and now, after all this time, I find myself with this absolutely immense amount of material.
As far as getting published goes, the decisive person in my life, without a doubt, would be my
fiancée Sharron, without whom I'd likely be an addict or one of those irritating people who go on
and on about their squandered highschool potential. She gave me the drive to go back to school
(which had been touch and go before her: I quit both highschool and university twice).

Then there's Nick, my buddy from Vanderbilt, who talked me into sending the first draft of The
Darkness That Comes Before to his old roommate, who at the time was an agent in New York.
And there's Michael Schellenberg, an editor from Penguin who somehow saw through the mess
of manuscript notes my first agent gave him, and made an offer...

As a newly published writer, what are some of the surprises that you've experienced in the
year or so since The Darkness That Comes Before was published?

This writer thing certainly is strange, there's no doubt about that (or as we Canadians would put
it, no doot aboot...). The first surprise has been the steady stream of rave reviews, from small
webzines to mainstream publications. I always assumed the bulk of reviewers would find the
book too dense (in either sense of the term!). The second has been the sales: once I realized I was
going to be published, I just assumed The Darkness That Comes Before would at best become a
cult success, something that world-junkies - you know, those who've read the Silmarillion more
than once - would primarily dig. But for several days now, The Warrior-Prophet (which has just
been released here in Canada) has been neck and neck with Stephen King's latest Dark Tower
novel on amazon.ca... Truth be told, it's messing with my head.

I guess, in short, what's surprised me most is the widespread appeal the books seem to have. I
literally feel as though I've been bushwhacked by good fortune, and it makes me very nervous. It
just seems, well, inconsistent.

What were some of the historical influences that went into the writing of the Prince of
Nothing series?

The original idea way back in 1987 was to write something that combined the depth and
grandeur of The Lord of the Rings with the intrigue and thematic sophistication of Dune, through
a story modelled on Harold Lamb's narrative history of the First Crusade, Iron Men and Iron
Saints. Now many, many things have changed since then, but under the layers the skeleton of
this original plan still exists. I stole a lot of licks from Lamb, and I still find myself referencing
him.

The other historical influences are more generalized or inchoate: historical readings on the
Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Mongols, Indians, Arabs, medieval Europeans - too many to keep
track of actually. Then there's the period readings, which seem to stand out as more significant
for some reason: Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Aristotle, Plato, Xenophon, Thucydides, Plotinus,
Virgil, Tacitus, and bits and pieces of others.

Interesting that you mention Dune as being an influence, because on reflection after
reading The Warrior-Prophet, I noticed that there were certain surface similarities to
Herbert's story, in particular the way you explore the characters' interactions with their
religions and the idea of the effects that a jihad/holy war can have on people. Was this a
conscious decision, or one borne of subconscious thoughts?

The similarities are more than superficial, I would say. The skin-spies, for instance, are
obviously inspired by Herbert's face-dancers. The way I've developed the various factions,
giving them histories and coherent belief systems, is heavily influenced by Dune as well. But the
religious themes I would have to attribute to Lamb more than anyone else: reading his Iron Men
and Iron Saints as a youth was a seminal experience for me. The story of the First Crusade with
all its triumphs and atrocities is nothing short of spectacular. All our actions, save the rare
occasions we find ourselves doing the funky chicken, arise from a combination of desire and
belief. This is why the only way for us to understand impossible acts, like 9/11 for instance, is to
examine the desires and beliefs that gave birth to them - and to do so without lapsing into
sentimentalism or flattering rationalizations. Given the right beliefs, we humans seem to be
capable of damn near anything, be it demonic or divine. This is one of the things I set out to
explore in The Prince of Nothing.

How many books are you planning on writing in the PoN Universe? Also, are there any
other writing projects you're considering in the near future?

I'm presently working on The Thousandfold Thought, which concludes The Prince of Nothing.
Following this, I have a draft of a near future thriller entitled Neuropath, which I hope to gussy
up and shop around before returning to fantasy, which is my first love.

When I originally conceived the whole story (The Second Apocalypse) way back when, it was a
trilogy with The Prince of Nothing as the first book, The Aspect-Emperor as the second, and The-
Book-that-Shall-Not-Be-Named as the third. But of course The Prince of Nothing has since
become a trilogy in its own right, which would seem to suggest that The Second Apocalypse will
be nine books long! I honestly have no idea how long it will ultimately be. My best guess is that
The Aspect-Emperor and The-Book-that-Shall-Not-Be-Named will both be dualogies - if that's
really a word...

All I can say with certainty is this: First, The Prince of Nothing does stand on its own - The
Aspect-Emperor picks up approximately twenty years afterward. I look at it as The Hobbit of The
Second Apocalypse. Second, all the books in The Second Apocalypse will be written in service of
the original story. I've been thrashing and dreaming the thing for twenty damn years, and I'm not
about to compromise it for any reason, commercial or otherwise. The grooves are just too deep.

Now you have me being very curious: That book-which-shall-not-be-named, is it because
the very title would have major spoilers for the present series?

Ah, yes... The-Question-That-Cannot-Be-Answered.

Let's start with discussing a major hot topic on the fantasy forums these days: China
Miéville's comment about Tolkien being "the wen on the arse of fantasy." What were your
reactions to that? What did you think about the response that question provoked on the
forums that you've visited?

I'm afraid this answer has turned into something of a short essay, so let me apologize in advance.

What were my reactions? I laughed, of course, then I went running to the dictionary to look up
the word 'wen' (just to be sure). I can certainly understand why Miéville might say this. The
degree to which Tolkien has become the rule for so much fantasy is sure to antagonize those who
style themselves 'rule-breakers.' Add to this a socialist bent and the sheer nostalgia of Tolkien's
work, and the wen becomes very inflamed indeed.

All fantasy is a response to modernity of some kind, so it seems fair not only to ask what kind of
response it is, but whether it's a positive or negative one - especially if you think, like Miéville
and Tolkien, that modernity is somehow in crisis. In this respect, I think it's clear that there's
something regressive about Tolkien's approach. By yearning for 'simpler times,' you not only risk
drawing on the anachronisms and prejudices belonging to those times, you also become less
inclined to participate in the present. Pining for the days before a problem is generally not an
effective way of resolving it.

So I understand and in many ways sympathize with his complaint. Tolkien - and perhaps more
significantly, Tolkienesque fantasy - can be seen as one of many 'social opiates,' a way to cope
with social problems that reinforces rather than transforms the dominant institutions behind those
problems.

Let me go into some detail, since statements like this can seem alienating in the absence of an
explanation. Imagine what life was like for the average person some 400 years ago. They knew
who stitched their clothes, who grew their food, who raised their houses, and so on - all the ways
they depended upon others simply could not be ignored, and as a result some sense of
community and communal responsibility was inescapable. Not anymore. As a result of
technological innovation and the concentration of production, pretty much everything we depend
on, from our blue jeans to our fried chicken, is provided anonymously. Not only can we ignore
our multifarious dependencies, we can even pretend they don't exist. We are in fact the most
interdependent generation in the history of the human race, and yet somehow we've come to
think of ourselves as the exact opposite, as the most independent - as 'individuals.'

Contemporary consumer culture continually bombards us with images of this: "Everything you
need," the commercial tagline runs, "comes from within." Just think of all the ways in which this
message is repeated - and no wonder, given the way the media caters to our conceits. SUV's and
rugged individualism. Cigarrettes and rebellious individualism. Shampoo for that 'individual
look.' Few people make money telling people those things they don't want to hear, like the
systematic way wealth often depends on poverty, or how our cars dump their own weight in CO2
into the atmosphere every year, or how we're becoming the greatest extinction event to hit our
planet since the comet that took out the dinosaurs.

For people like Miéville, we already live in fantasy worlds - that's the problem - and what we
need is a literature that will mitigate rather than aggravate the problem. Think of the way so
many men style themselves as a 'rebel' or 'warrior' - I know I did. I remember congratulating
myself day after day for being such a badass, even while I shuffled down aisle and queue,
thoughtlessly doing what my boss told me to. 'Travel light,' the movie suggested. 'Wherever I lay
my head is home,' the song crooned. 'Your future is what you make it,' the teacher insisted. The
slogans go on and on. We've even been convinced that embracing these sayings - which are
essentially marketing shout-lines - is what it means to be a rebel! Buy this CD and those hair-
care products, look after you-know-who and spurn all things cooperative and collective -
especially if they're political, which is to say, capable of effecting real change.

But of course this is only pseudo-individualism. In truth you're simply a 'good consumer,'
working hard to make other people rich, reminding yourself over and over how unique and
special you are while verifying your identity with your credit card, and thinking of all the things
you could be, if only you had the time and money... If only... Because afterall, everyone is free to
be what they want, aren't they?

Of course not. We don't live in a meritocracy - not so long as wealth remains more a matter of
heredity than wit, grit and determination. The game is rigged - I think everyone understands this
at some level. But the winners, the ones who own all the bullhorns, (and thus the only ones who
are heard), crow on and on about how 'great' the system is. "I'm living proof!" they cry,
conveniently forgetting their trust fund, that someone has to flip the burgers, pump the gas, stitch
the clothes, man the assembly line - which is to say that someone has to provide all the goods
and services they enjoy. Like all winners, they're convinced the game is fair, and if the game is
fair, if everyone regardless of class has the same chance of becoming wealthy (and the facts
shout otherwise), then the problem must lie with the players and not the game. Afterall an
individual takes responsibility for their play... It's your own damn fault you're poor. You had all
this potential...

If I had a nickel.

The systematic roots of our predicament escape us, because the media caters to our weaknesses,
flattering us with images of illusory self-empowerment, papering over the complexities of
system we live in, and concentrating on the short-term, the short-sighted and the individual.
Afterall, each of us is our own person, with fiercely independant product choices to make. We
end up living in little consumer bubbles, only dimly aware of the great machinery churning away
in the darkness.
Given this dystopic picture, it becomes easy to see how Tolkien could be 'ideologically suspect.'
The nostalgia for 'better days,' one might argue, induces complacency. The celebration of
individual heroism and the identification with aristocratic values simply reinforces our false
sense of empowerment. The provision of alternate worlds gives us yet another excuse to avoid
the realities of this one. And so on...

Tolkien, understood in this light, is the return of the repressed, a way to express our
disempowerment without having to relinquish our illusions. A wen.

Now I agree with much of this picture (so long as we remember it's an interpretation and not
gospel), and yet nevertheless I would argue that Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece
- a founding work of genius and not a wen. One reason for this is that I take the business of
evaluating the value of a work's social role to be simply part of the business of evaluating the
value of a work as a whole. The second reason is that a work's social role is always a work in
progress, something that can be transformed by the reception of subsequent works. Tolkien -
rather obviously it seems to me - stumbled upon something profound, something which, even
when bound up in nostalgia and sentimentalism, simply has to be acknowledged. By casting light
on the world of Middle-earth, he has thrown into relief a world pressed to the edge - our world.
And the problem lies not so much in what he's written, but in how he is read. We determine his
social role.

And this is why I'm such an unabashed fan, and why I write Tolkienesque epic fantasy. I want to
continue Tolkien's exploration of our world, and to further it if I can. I'm not so interested in
'transcending the genre' as I am in exploring the possibilities within it - and I would argue that
these are far more vast and significant than most realize.

So what was my overall reaction to Miéville's comment? Understanding and disappointment.

As for what I've seen of the debate this comment has triggered, I found it both interesting and
heartening. As an epic fantasist, I've been stung by the 'laymen' versus 'literati' divide that seems
to be forming along the epic and urban fantasy lines - especially regarding the 'new weird.' It's
strange how little versions of this hierarchy seem to crop up in every sphere of human cultural
production. For my own part, too many people seem convinced of the superiority of their tastes
for me to have that much faith in the superiority of my own. All I like to point out to self-
professed rule-breakers is that in many cases they're not so much overturning a set of
conventions as they are buying into another. Post-modern works, for instance, have their own
stable of conventions: hybridity instead of purity, existentially subversive doubles instead of
dragons, displaced subjects instead of heroes, and undecidability instead of apocalyptic evil. I try
to test the rules I follow, but I'm not convinced that simply swapping one set of commonplace
rules for another set of arcane ones counts as 'original.' It's too mechanical. Originality, I suspect,
arises between the rules.

Great answer. As I was reading this, I couldn't help but think that the Scylvendi chieftain,
Cnaiür, would fit excellently as a badass who is a badass not because he resembles other
badasses of his time and place, but even more so because he feels compelled to break with
tradition to forge his own path. Did you have in mind this exploding of the badass
character myth when you created Cnaiür?

I'm glad you've mentioned Cnaiür. He is indeed the battleground for this question.

I remember reading somewhere that 19th Century literary scholars had a difficult time dealing
with Homer's Achilles, primarily because of the way he weeps to his mother after Agamemnon
seizes his concubine. Here's Achilles, the most martial of all men, crying like a baby... How
could this be?

But this is the thing: our present concept of what it means to be a 'man' is largely a historical
artefact - and a very troubling one at that. Think of all the terms we use to impeach someone's
manliness: pansy, bitch, queer, fag, girly-boy, pommy pufter, and so on. Almost all of them are
accusations of femininity, which would suggest that the worst thing for a man to be is... a
woman! Which is to say, soft, weak, passive, and emotional... Huh? This, I think, is an absurd
and destructive way for men to value themselves. Strength is found by owning and
understanding one's weaknesses, not by displacing and denying them. Think of all the supposed
badass warriors out there, checking people in at hotels, clearing tables, posturing in front of
mirrors, bragging to sceptical significant others about how lucky so-and-so is because... We live
in strange times.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be an implied statement that we humans
find it necessary to create our own rules and hierarchies to meet our needs. Could it be said
that fantasy is in one sense our attempt to experiment with the rules to see what we can
make of it?

Are rules and hierarchies inescapable? Certainly. Cooperative action would be impossible
otherwise. All societies are made up of human beings doing things in concert - the repetition of
interrelated actions. That's what we do when we go to work everyday: we repeat actions that fit a
greater network of repeated actions. Rules and hierarchies serve to regulate individual actions to
ensure that they meet the requirements of the greater system. Since beliefs and desires are the
bases of action, any given system requires the proper beliefs and desires in order to function.
Imagine, for instance, if we all stopped believing in property or pointless consumption. Our
whole system would come crashing down.

Nowadays we belong to a vast 'global machine,' one with six billion parts. Make no mistake, all
the numbers you carry with you in your wallet perform the same function that the numbers serve
in a car parts warehouse. They keep track of you, define your position relative to the whole.

The problem is that we evolved living in small systems where the people we knew were also the
people we depended on to survive. Suddenly we find ourselves living in this immense system
where we rarely depend on the people we know, at least not in any immediate material sense. For
the first time in our history it is quite possible to survive without knowing anyone - this is
extraordinary if you think about it. The 'shut-in' is a recent historical development. What this
means is that we're living in social environments that cut across our evolutionary grain in what
are likely profound ways. It's no accident that the feeling of alienation or 'not belonging' is the
malaise of the modern world. And this is the reason, I think, why nostalgia rather than
experimentation characterizes what one finds in epic fantasy: fantasy worlds tend to be places
where individuals have an unambiguous social role, where they can clearly see where they fit,
not only in the cosmic order of things, but in the social order as well. If we have to look to the
past to find those orders, then it's because they no longer seem to exist.

Recently, many people (Margaret Atwood being one) have begun to shun the title of "sci-
fi" or "fantasy" writer for the catch-all term of "speculative fiction." You had an
interesting response to this at the signing. Would you please elaborate for the readers who
were not present?

Did we do an inordinate amount of drinking afterward? Because I'm not sure that I recall...

In all fairness, I've been told that Margaret Atwood has since recanted many of her earlier
comments regarding Oryx and Crake - though long after the media spotlight had moved onto to
bigger things. Back when I was in grad school and The Prince of Nothing was simply a shameful
little hobby, I used to describe what I wrote as 'speculative fiction.' Nary a label passes through
our heads without some kind of value judgment attached to it. Anyone who's ever felt a pang of
shame when telling another their occupation knows exactly what I'm talking about. We are social
animals, wired to be exquisitely sensitive to estimations of status. I think it's obvious, particularly
now that she's reconsidered her position, that Atwood was simply positioning her novel in the
marketplace. To the general ear, 'literature' sounds much more impressive than 'SF.'

Unfortunately, 'epic fantasy' has even less cache than 'SF' - I would guess it's presently
somewhere between 'porn mag' and 'harlequin romance.' Perhaps this will change, and 'epic
fantasy' will gain something of the camp cache presently being enjoyed by, for instance, 'space
opera' - afterall, the rehabilitation of the marginal and devalued is a very postmodern thing to do.
Either way, the thing, it seems to me, is to be wary of the implicit judgments in the terms we use.
I find it amusing that the people most likely to complain that SF&F is a 'literary ghetto' are often
those most likely to devalue other regions of the barrio, particularly when it's as commercially
successful as Jordan's work. It's cool to be an iconoclast, I guess. It makes us feel oh-so
individual, when in fact we're simply being aristocratic.

So now I stubbornly say 'epic fantasy' whenever anyone asks me what I write. I am officially out,
and resigned to never being reviewed in The Globe & Mail.

Excellent points about the subjectiveness of labels, especially as it applies to genre writings.
So in other words, 'epic fantasy' is still a dirty phrase in many circles, but there seems to be
some positive progression toward acceptability?

Not any way that I can detect. It's a hope more than anything else. I feel like a poser for saying
this, but this is one of the things I was hoping to do with The Prince of Nothing - not to make
epic fantasy 'respectable,' because I think it already is to those who matter most, but to prove that
it hasn't exhausted its resources.

You wrote a piece on SFF World recently giving your take on fantasy, focusing on the
reader's perceived need to find "meaning" in a world that's been stripped of most
meaning. Can you list some of the books/authors that have provided the most "meaning"
for you?

Actually, it was back in 1999 when I submitted that piece, and though I largely stand by it, I
think I would retreat from the strident tone I take. Society and culture are super-complex
systems, which means that all theories regarding it are doomed to be underdetermined by the
facts - to be interpretations.

In my writing, Tolkien obviously looms large, followed closely by Herbert. If it weren't for
Dune, I sometimes think I would have never gone to university. In my life different writers,
mostly philosophers, have been important at different times - the kind of stuff you might expect
from an egghead. Derrida in the early days - I spent several years as a 'branch Derridean,'
irritating professors and classmates alike with my clever deconstructive turns of thought. Then
came Heidegger, and to a lesser extent, Nietzsche and Hegel. Then came Wittgenstein and
Adorno. But lately, everything seems to be dominated by Kellhus...

Kellhus indeed is an unnerving character, so much so that he has made me consider how I
order my thoughts, at least during those times that I dwell on what he's saying and doing.
Very unique character, as I said in my review.

As for a final question, I thought I would invert this question/answer order and give you an
opportunity to ask questions to us. Are there any questions that you as an author want us
readers to consider?

One question: "What makes me right and other people wrong?" If you think about it, there's
something almost embarrassing about assuming oneself to be 'in the know.' For one, it's
extremely improbable that out of billions, one person called 'me' could monopolize the truth -
especially when we take into account of all the ways (such as confirmation bias, social-proof
bias, deprivation bias, and so on) we humans are inclined to delude ourselves. For another, it
seems fairly certain that thousands of years hence our descendants will think us as deluded as we
think our ancient ancestors were deluded. The fact of the matter is that we know so very little -
it's just the invisibility of ignorance that makes this so hard to see. All we need do is own up to
that fact. With the suspension of judgment comes learning, tolerance, and openness to the new.

Thanks again Scott, for taking the time to reply at length to these questions. I really
appreciate the effort and thought put into these and I believe the readers will as well. It's
been a pleasure conducting this interview and best of wishes with the series.

I must say, I've immensely enjoyed this!

scott/


And for more information on the Prince of Nothing series (and where Scott Bakker himself often
answers reader questions, visit The Three Seas Forum, link below:
Dylanfanatic

Alana's Partner - In All Things™, even if she smells like a girl

MJJ Sedai's Left Hand of Darkness

Charity is certainly greater than any rule. Moreover, all rules must lead to charity.

                                               Three Seas Forum

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:1
posted:6/26/2011
language:English
pages:10