On his new blog, Bakker has posted about sentimentalism and emotion in general. He says:The weird thing is that not all of us experience this [emotional] complexity. Introspective access to our emotions varies between people: some of us can see something of the messy bolus, whereas other only see unitary shape - ‘low-feelers’ I’ve seen them called. Perhaps this is why so many people can think that Britanny Spears provides profound commentary on the human emotional condition – why sentimentalism, cartoon representations of emotional complexity, can reek of truth for so many.
His words seem to make sense for the most part. After all, the differences in how each of us experience the same emotions are vast. Still, I'm having a bit of trouble reconciling this with another of Bakker's frequent points of argument, namely that we each flatter ourselves and rationalize our actions. If you hold that to be true, than how is it possible to say that people enjoy cruder emotional products because they are "low-feelers," immune to the complexity of their own minds, and that their method of feeling is therefor inferior, without it simply being an example of you flattering yourself and your emotional complexity?
Bakker reasons that people disliked Neuropath, then rationalized their dislike by saying that the emotional portrayals were over the top, when they were, in fact, simply beyond what those "low-feelers" were capable of understanding. And yet, how is what Bakker says not a rationalization in its own way? People called him out on a facet of his writing that they found weak, and he rationalized his usage of it to himself through the language of emotional complexity.
Well, regardless or not of whether I agree with some of what he says, Bakker's writings are always interesting, and I'm damn glad that he's regularly blogging, now (though I think his anonymity on it's rather blown at this point). What most interested me about the whole post, however, was the final paragraph:
Anyway, in my next book, Disciple of the Dog, I experiment with a kind pseudo-sentimentalism to see if I can’t simultaneously ring both bells. I’m curious to see how it works…
I'm quite curious to see how Bakker tackles both "layers" of complexity and whether he succeeds at doing so. Disciples of the Dog is one of my most anticipated books, though I'm a tad apprehensive about it. After all, for me, Neuropath's brilliance was only matched by its flaws.
People called him out on a facet of his writing that they found weak, and he rationalized his usage of it to himself through the language of emotional complexity.
ReplyDeleteThat's one of the things that does annoy me about Bakker's commentary outside of his works. He has a tendency to respond to criticism by quoting neuroscientific concepts to obliquely say that the critic is irrational and without rational cause.
I'm quite curious to see how Bakker tackles both "layers" of complexity and whether he succeeds at doing so.
One can only hope. Of course, that's part of the reason why he'll probably never be a best-seller - it seems like he can't write without trying to make some heavily complicated philosophical point that half of his readers don't understand.
I agree with you on both points, but, at the same time, they're why Bakker's so interesting in the first place. Like him or not, Prince of Nothing without Kellhus (and all the questions he brings with him) wouldn't be particularly interesting. And imagining Neuropath without the "point" is not a fun endeavor...
ReplyDeleteI agree with the Prince of Nothing point, but not so much with Neuropath. There are a whole host of ways he could have made the book more readable.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'm not denying that at all. The first fifty or so pages of Neuropath formed one of the most electrifying, horrifying, and impossible to put down reading experiences I've ever had. After that, though... The Argument was interesting, but was restated more times than it was explored, and, more importantly, the thriller elements of the book fell completely flat for me.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it was a case of the message drowning out the rest of the work because there was too much focus on the message. That's what happened, but I think the reason is that the actual STORY elements of Neuropath fell totally flat, leaving the Argument pretty much standing alone.
Hopefully, Disciple of the Dog integrates thought and action with a bit more subtlety than a car crash.
The ultimate challenge for a thinking, creative artist with ambition to burn is to meld top shelf storytelling and subtle exploration of theme and message into a coherent, provocative and entertaining whole.
ReplyDelete