This struck me as right on...

The following is a quotation from a book by Steven Erikson called Reaper's Gate. People who know me know I've been addicted to the series this book comes from for the past several months. It's a truly sprawling and grim fantasy series called the Malazan Books of the Fallen, so named because each book involves, to a lesser or greater extent, the Malazan empire and its armies. It's quite good.

But that's not the point. Erikson is prone to some amateur philosophy and a lot of economic and political analysis in his books that mirror our culture and situation in the books. Sometimes I find this tedious, but sometimes I like it. And in the beginning of this particular book, there is a conversation between Tanal Yathvanar, a high ranked torturer and inquisitor, and his superior. I have not edited the conversation at all because I wanted to be true to what was written, and this is from pages 56 and 57 of the text. This is kind of a long quote so bear with me...

"Who poses the greatest threat to the empire, Yathvanar?"

"Fanatics," Tanal replied after a moment. "Like that one below."

"Incorrect. Listen to his words. He is possessed of certainty. He holds up to a secure vision of the world, a man with the correct answers - that the prerequisite questions were themselves the correct ones goes without saying. A citizen with certainty, Yathvanar, can be swayed, turned, can be made into a most diligent ally. All one needs to do is find what threatens them the most. Ignite their fear, burn to cinders the foundations of their certainty, then offer an equally certain alternate way of thinking, of seeing the world. They will reach across, no matter how wide the gulf, and grasp and hold on to you with all their strength. No, the certain are not our enemies. Presently misuided, as in the case of the man below, but always most vulnerable to fear. Take away the comfort of their convictions, then coax them with seemingly cogent and reasonable convictions of our own making. Thier eventual embrace is assured."

"I see"

"Tanal Yathvanar, our greatest enemies are those who are without certainty. The ones with questions, the ones who regard our tidy answers with unquenchable scepticism. Those questions assaul us, undermine us. They ... agitate. Understand, these dangerous citizens understand that nothing is simple, their stance is the very opposite of naivety. They are humbled by the ambivalence to which they are witness, and they defy our simple, comforting assertions of clarity, of a black and white wolrd. Yathvanar, when you wish to deliver the gravest insult to such a citizen, call them naive. You will leave them incensed, indeed, virtually speechless ... until you watch their minds back-tracking, revealed by a cascade of expressions, as they ask themselves: who is it that would call me naive? Well, comes the answer, clearly a person possessing certainty, with all the arrogance and pretension that position entails, a confidence, then, that permits the offhand judgement, the derisive dismissal uttered from a most lofty height. And from all this, into your victim's eyes will come the light of recognition - in you he faces his enemy, his truest enemy. And he will know fear. Indeed, terror."


What I really loved about this quote is that it described the ambivalence and doubt I feel about most "true faiths" including much of politics, almost all of religion, and just about anything else. And that includes the ideas that come from the "sides that I'm on" and those that don't. And what I really really love is that this conversation takes place between evil people. It is as if Erikson is saying "Look, here is a way of looking at things, but this way doesn't automatically make you into a 'good person' or superior or anything." In doing it this way he avoids coming across as preachy, as necessarily mandating this idea, which of course would run counter to the ambiguity the quote is espousing. Based on the rest of the series I've read, I think that Erikson in fact is in favor of such a stance (because it comes up in some of his main characters, though not typically with a happy result) but he's not hitting you over the head with it.

So, if you agree, disagree, or are just bored with this, chime in, Give a comment :o)