# The Problem of Karsa Orlong



## Steerpike (Apr 25, 2013)

And excellent essay by Steven Erikson regarding his character Karsa Orlong, the barbarian trope in fantasy, civilization, moral absolutism, and the like.

Even if you haven't read any of Erikson's Malazan books (which are well worth reading), you'll probably enjoy this:

http://www.stevenerikson.com/index.php/the-problem-of-karsa-orlong/


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 25, 2013)

I'm not sure I buy the distinction he makes between the civilized and the uncivilized. Any society that can support its own continued existence will create rules and rituals to hold its population in line, and those that think of themselves as free are often so tightly controlled they can't even recognize the burden they labor under. It seems more accurate to portray the warrior with his axe and the soldier with his gun as equivalent rather than opposed.


----------



## Nameback (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm gonna sit down and read this, but the first thing I thought when I saw the thread title is:

"The problem with Karsa Orlong is that I just had to trudge through a quarter of a book reading about this character I don't give a poop about to get to everyone I'm actually invested in!"


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 26, 2013)

I don't think you're reading that correctly, Feo. He's talking about a fantasy trope and how it is set up, particularly in historical context in the genre.

I like Karsa, Nameback. I even enjoyed the first part of the novel that was all about him


----------



## Feo Takahari (Apr 26, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think you're reading that correctly, Feo. He's talking about a fantasy trope and how it is set up, particularly in historical context in the genre.



Well, he does keep invoking history and anthropology. (Besides, if you're gonna viciously take something apart, and that something is based on a misconception of real-world societies, it's usually better to approach it in terms of the real world rather than to assault it entirely in in-genre terms.)


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 26, 2013)

Feo Takahari said:


> Well, he does keep invoking history and anthropology. (Besides, if you're gonna viciously take something apart, and that something is based on a misconception of real-world societies, it's usually better to approach it in terms of the real world rather than to assault it entirely in in-genre terms.)



Unless your whole point is to take apart the existing genre conception, which is what he says he's doing with the character. 

The 'noble savage' idea is very often used with Native Americans, as you say. And it is entirely wrong. Unfortunately, those cultures are still taught from the 'noble savage' point of view, particularly when taught to children.


----------



## Nameback (Apr 27, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I like Karsa, Nameback. I even enjoyed the first part of the novel that was all about him



I grew to like him, too, but man was it jarring and sort of annoying at first. I think I would have rather seen his story introduced more gradually. I cracked open House of Chains wanting to read about Paran and Quick Ben and Silverfox and Kalam etc etc, and instead I got a guy I've never heard of. Fine for the first chapter, annoying for a quarter of a book. 

Even though I like him as a character, and I enjoy reading his chapters, I think it was a huge mistake to start HoC that way.


----------



## Xaysai (Apr 27, 2013)

I guess I'm doing it wrong, I've tried to read Erikson several times and can never get in his characters.


----------



## ThinkerX (Apr 27, 2013)

Ok...

...I've read some of the Malazan books.

...I've read the essay.

...I've also read a great deal of 'new' and 'old' fantasy.

I almost don't see what the excitement is about.  The barbarian hero goes way back in fantasy literature. Liebers 'Fafhrd' was a barbarian with a dang high body count.   Howards 'Conan' was a pretty brutal character, get right down to it.  Many of Lin Carter's MC's were barbarian warriors, and they too could be quite nasty. Same goes for other authors.  The 'barbarian warrior hero' used to be real common. The issues Erikson brings up used to be mentioned fairly frequently in those old line stories.

USED TO BE.  

Note how Erikson in his essay had to keep going back to the work of Howard and his contemporaries for comparisons in his essays. Something on the order of thirty years ago or so, the Barbarian Hero...went out of style.  People forgot.  Apparently being reminded again is something of a disconcerting experience.


----------



## Ankari (Apr 28, 2013)

ThinkerX,

The thing about Karsa is that he isn't the noble savage/barbarian that other authors used.  The opening chapters that introduce this fully pants Karsa as a barbarian in the derogatory light.  He symbolizes the true clash of a savage people and a civilized people.  To me, he is the conflict of man against nature.

He isn't evil, or good.  He isn't shades of anything.  He exists because he is strong, and he seeks to challenge anyone who would think him lesser.


----------



## Nameback (Apr 28, 2013)

I agree that Erikson does a good job of dismantling the existing barbarian tropes with Karsa. You can definitely draw some parallels between Karsa and the Teblor and certain documented hunter-gatherer cultures, such as the tribes of papua new guinea, or certain Amazonian tribes. Of course, not all h/g cultures were like this, but it's got more anthropological reality to it than your typical noble savage.


----------



## Jabrosky (Apr 28, 2013)

Nameback said:


> I agree that Erikson does a good job of dismantling the existing barbarian tropes with Karsa. You can definitely draw some parallels between Karsa and the Teblor and certain documented hunter-gatherer cultures, such as the tribes of papua new guinea, or certain Amazonian tribes. Of course, not all h/g cultures were like this, but it's got more anthropological reality to it than your typical noble savage.


Are you sure those were really forager cultures though? There is a habit of confusing any small-scale "tribal" societies (e.g. horticulturalists) with foragers. I know many societies in New Guinea and the Amazon Basin actually do grow crops and have a slight degree of social stratification, so they're not really ideal examples of prehistoric forager cultures. Come to think of it, even today's genuine foraging cultures have had substantial intercourse with socially stratified, patriarchal agriculturalists, so they're hardly pristine Paleolithic survivals either.

Not necessarily advocating for the "noble savage" trope here, but for all that people complain about it, I find it's far more common among non-anthropologists to vilify "primitive" people as grunting and brutish troglodytes who drag women by the hair. Heck, even the very term "barbarian" still carries negative connotations as it always has historically. To be honest, the caveman stereotype bothers me even more than the noble savage one.


----------



## Creed (Apr 28, 2013)

I did enjoy Karsa's evolution throughout the series. As mentioned, he starts out as a very arrogant jerk, for lack of a better word. And we all remember his hatred for the "children" outside the mountainous region he occupied.*And then after all the raping and the pillaging and the insulting and the freeing of Sister Calm he got a wonderful little crash-course in civilisation. Did it shatter his "barbaric" views? No. Did it make him hate civilisation more? Yes. For the most part.*
And the whole thing with the chains? I'm sure the symbolism was lost on nobody. Nevertheless he does quite a lot in the name of civilisation, doesn't he? Or at least in the name of the people- usually subjugated people, that is. It seems to me that Karsa's goal is not necessarily to eradicate civilisation as he chooses to believe (such a barbaric motive!), but perhaps he's just driven to break chains wherever he finds them. It could be freeing slaves and breaking literal chains, avenging that tribe (I forget their name) that was brutalised by the Tiste Edur, and his sort-of fellow half-giants conquered by the Letherii, or (SPOILER if you haven't finished Reaper's Gale) freeing Rhulad from the hoary chains of the sword. Perhaps that strengthens his noble persona, perhaps not. Recall this:
‘I have looked upon the face of civilization, and I am not impressed.’
‘There is no flaw in being critical.’*
‘He’s not just being critical,’ said Samar Dev. ‘He intends to destroy it. Civilization, I mean. The whole thing, from sea to sea. When Karsa Orlong is done, not a single city in the world will remain standing, isn’t that right, Toblakai?’*
‘I see no value in modest ambitions, witch.’
He was a good character. Not my favourite, but good, nonetheless.


----------



## Nameback (Apr 28, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> Are you sure those were really forager cultures though? There is a habit of confusing any small-scale "tribal" societies (e.g. horticulturalists) with foragers. I know many societies in New Guinea and the Amazon Basin actually do grow crops and have a slight degree of social stratification, so they're not really ideal examples of prehistoric forager cultures. Come to think of it, even today's genuine foraging cultures have had substantial intercourse with socially stratified, patriarchal agriculturalists, so they're hardly pristine Paleolithic survivals either.
> 
> Not necessarily advocating for the "noble savage" trope here, but for all that people complain about it, I find it's far more common among non-anthropologists to vilify "primitive" people as grunting and brutish troglodytes who drag women by the hair. Heck, even the very term "barbarian" still carries negative connotations as it always has historically. To be honest, the caveman stereotype bothers me even more than the noble savage one.



Fair point. Although the Teblor seem to be not quite foragers also. And you're definitely right about that perennial issue of how much relevance to history can be extracted from the few existing forager cultures today, given that they have surely changed, and their interaction with agricultural and industrial societies. 

And then of course there's a lot of variation. The !Kung bushmen, for example, seem to have a fairly peaceful society, from what I've read. What I mean though is that the Teblor seem plausible, as a society. And of course they've been interacting with agricultural societies for thousands of years and they're not pure foragers, so I think the New Guinea and Amazon comparisons fit well. It's a brutal society, but plausibly so.


----------



## ThinkerX (Apr 28, 2013)

> Recall this:
> ‘I have looked upon the face of civilization, and I am not impressed.’
> ‘There is no flaw in being critical.’*
> ‘He’s not just being critical,’ said Samar Dev. ‘He intends to destroy it. Civilization, I mean. The whole thing, from sea to sea. When Karsa Orlong is done, not a single city in the world will remain standing, isn’t that right, Toblakai?’*
> ‘I see no value in modest ambitions, witch.’



Strangely, this reminds me of the attitudes of the nomadic cultures on my own world.  Most of the time, they roam about the 'unknown southern plains' as the northern civilizations call the region.  But sometimes they form up into huge hordes bent on destruction.  Partly this is for the loot, but a lot of it is because some of the tribes, at least really loath civilization.  (part of this goes way back into the ...prehistory... of my world, bit complex to go into).

Somewhat ironically, some of the tribes do give up the nomadic life, settle down, and become at least quasi civilized.  A couple of the larger nations on my world started this way.


----------



## Creed (May 1, 2013)

Like the "barbarians" of old. If I recall the word "barbarian" was originally Greek for anyone who spoke a different language. Though the question ancient history class failed to raise (but I see there's no shortage of it here) is whether this was really the sort of behavior Karsa Orlong demonstrated/aspired to? I say no. Karsa wants to eradicate civilization (at least that's what we're told). The Vandals, Goths, Austrogoths, Picks and a veritable plethora of other tribes simply wanted to fight Roman civilization- that is, civilization as Rome saw it. Ask any historian- or student who took an Ancient History course- Roman culture was self-consuming. It grew and thus demanded more, and when it got more it grew, until the whole cycle became dangerously unsustainable. And then it collapsed. 
I seem to remember the "barbarian" Aleric played a part in that. And yet my teacher and the History Channel painted him to be pretty noble for a proclaimed savage.


----------

