Is fantasy the most fascist genre?

I'm not referring to Tolkein specifically, but to tendencies in the fantasy genre as a whole.

orcs were mercilesly killed without any chance to surrender

humans and orcs were treated differently

It doesnt take a genius to see democracy is a failure. If one envisions a perfect fantasy world, democracy would not be part of that world.

you obviously haven't read Jack Vance's Lyonnesse books. go read them now, and then write an eight thousand word essay that contrasts King Casmir's politics with that of Aillas of Troicinet.

You should read The Iron Dream

Classic, high fantasy may be. Tokien may be. Most of the other stuff, though, (Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, etc.) tends to slide toward PC and other stupid shit.
Think about the basic ideas of fantasy: good and evil are well divided, heroes are such because they are chosen or born that way (divine right), etc. these sound pretty right-wing to me. Read some Evola and tell me if you don't get that fantasy flavor from Revolt Against the Modern World.

But again: if you like fantasy better start reading classics rather than indulge any further in badly written modern stuff from fat slow money-grabbing american authors.

Because that is the natural way and you are all autistic because of society trying to push nonsensical mental illness as equality, sameness, naivism and such.

This is a decidedly ahistorical analysis. Fantasy is a continuation of the long human tradition of epic tales that you see in many cultures around the world (Gilgamesh, Odyssey, etc). Fascism, however, is a thoroughly modern phenomenon; I would be more inclined to put superhero works, like Batman and Superman, and some parts of sci-fi in the area of fascism-lite. Fantasy is almost always fairly explicitly is set in a pre-modern world, so I think that is a strong barrier to being analyzed as fascist. I'm not even sure how some of your "evidence" for Tolkien being fascist is in any way indicative of fascism, aside from highly superficial resemblances to regimes and the ideas of writers who are sometimes associated with fashion. Your first one, for instance, is a notion much more commonly associated with aristocracy (feudalism, for instance), a decidedly premodern idea, than fascism, a modern notion that often requires mass mobilization and militarization of the entire populace for war.

Not that there isn't or can't be any "fascist" fantasy (I'm not familiar enough with the genre to have a deep knowledge of all the various series and subgenres out there), but fantasy itself isn't really a field that is ripe for "fascist" ideals.

Harry Potter is about a cumbersom ineffective top-heavy bureaucracy intent on micro managing every aspect of it's citizens lives. Despite this it's still the greatest force agaisnt evil in that universe.

Actually now that I think about it, it's probably not that great for social progress that the most read book by millienials is such a glowing endorcment of the authoritarian nanny state

>fascist ideas can only be true in books for manchildren
Not a bad theory t.b.h.

There is a difference between being pro monarchy when it is a constitutional monarchy than a divine right of kings monarch.

>Some people are born leaders; some people are born cannon fodder.
This isn't what TLotR is about. Doesn't that dent that idea a little?

Because they are different. Are you going to complain that Shelob was just misunderstand?

Harry Potter is incredibly inconsistent, for the first couple of books egalitarianism and similar left-wing ideology is mocked regularly and far-right shit from slytherin is underplayed and near comical, around the Goblet of Fire Rowling discovers politics and goes full Labour and the entire setup is reserved.

Not disagreeing with this but this is part of the thing - that 'fantasy' and 'myth' themselves basically have ahistoricism written into their DNA. Anything which is written for All Time is required to conceal or efface its temporality.

>fantasy itself isn't really a field that is ripe for "fascist" ideals.

This, though...man. It kind of is. The whole point of fantasy (well, one of the many interesting things about fantasy) is how it can make political ideas such as totalitarianism agreeable. Everybody feels good when they're fucking up orcs. Orcs, right? Orcs.

I'm not a lefty by any stretch of the imagination. Quite the opposite, in fact. But critique of ideology 101 doesn't mean you have to be on the lefty side of things. No part of the political spectrum has a claim on 'fantasy' itself. But a lot of fascism is itself a fantasy - violence, combat, heroism, struggle, all of this. The fact that everyone imagines that they would be another cool dude welcome in Rivendell rather than some shitlord working for Sauron is part of the magic.

Just so that I don't appear to contradict myself, there's no totalitarianism in LOTR. And it's not like I would want Judith Butler or Slavoj Zizek to run wild with this shit. Deconstruction is anathema to literature in many ways, and I do not want the Frankfurt School up in my Middle-Earth.

If Tolkien were not as based as he is we would not be still thinking about the man's work, which is several orders of magnitude above whatever it is that the deconstructionists are shredding to pieces in Berkeley or anywhere else. Tolkien always resists being 'deconstructed' all the way. It's why he was so awesome.

Ugh...I mean, there's obviously Sauron, but Tolkien obviously doesn't want people to Make Mordor Great Again. I should have made that clearer.

Please come back to Veeky Forums after you have finished your freshman year of high school.

Tolkien's work really implies to me a resistance of facistism. It requires a more nuianced reading but one of the main points of contention between good and evil is between kings and autocrats. Teachers and colonisers. Evil rulers attempt to assert their dominion over others in inherantly selfish acts while good rulers accept the rule with grace and humility.

100%.

If LotR was about roflstomping the Orcs for lebensraum it would be something different.

This is also why Frodo hangs at the *very* end, and Gollum has to jump on him to get the ring into Mount Doom. Nobody's really immune from the One Ring.

The thing is I think OP is right, that fantasy really *is* often the most fascist genre. It's at least worth thinking about. But at the same time the best book in the genre is also the one that actually understands all of this the most.

*Shitty* fantasy is what usually comes out as being the most fascist. And this LotR is not.

But, I mean, I could be wrong. I don't mean to put a stamp on a cool thread. Just my neckbeard hot take on it.

Depends also on how much you enjoy reading shitty crypto-fascist fantasy as well. Sometimes you want to because reasons.

Or because you really, really, really love Ayn Rand. Also sadomasochism. But not in a fascist way. Just, like, in a kind of dumb way.

You're forgetting the part where the ones that save the world aren't the big, strong guys but the simple, small ones. And the part where ALL of the evil forces are derivated from the great powers: Morgoth is a valar (demigod), Sauron is an maiar (angel), Orcs are corrupted elves, the Nazgul are the greatest kings of mankind.

People have this image of Tolkien as this naive retrograde but he wasn't that even back in the Hobbit, when he had the dragon getting killed by a random guy and the dwarves strating a war through their quest. The world of Middle Earth is mostly tragic, not glorious. The great people/s are precisely the one that are most likesy to be corrupt and fuck things up. Being picked by destiny isn't something you should be glad of at all either (see Frodo or anyone from Gondor).

>Ayn Rand
>fascism

You will have to elaborate on that, Objectivism and Fascism are pretty much opposites.

isn't that bureaucracy pretty much the secondary bad guy? Umbridge, controlled ministers, ridiculing Harry, trying to detain Dumbledore, not helping anything at any time..?

How is it presented as the greatest force against evil? The aurors, but not in their emply but as a paramilitary militia are.

>Is fantasy the most fascist genre?
no.
>Glorification of violence, which is usually the solution to whatever problems the protagonists face, as well as glorification of a warrior caste.
except for all the fantasy works that try to turn that on its head? all the stuff about wimps who could not cut it as warriors proving that they can still do stuff?
>People often attain leadership positions by being Chosen by destiny to lead their people.
you will not that often that does not connect to real position of power like kingship, more often they are the disposable hero who must be thanked but never really rewarded.
>Some people are innately superior to other via access to magic.
and sometimes you can learn magic or have books about normal people hunting magic users
>Some races are vastly superior to others
and? They are called races but they are not even same species as each other so of course a dog is going to be superior to a rat
>Progress is and dissemination of power from the few to the many via technological advancement, is often seen as sad at best, and evil at worst.
maybe in very few books that is true. most often protagonists seem champions of the current year. ever eager to socially advance all they touch, be it with magic or technological advancement

harry potter also glorifies nepotism while looking done on people like slughorn. it glories in weasley like simplicity/poverty while its shortcomings are obvious, etc. If you really think about it potter is not very pc

>implying harry did not have it coming
>implying you would not arrest a guy who allegedly brainwashed his students into a child army

Low-quality internet people think that anything they don't like is fascism. Ayn Rand is someone they don't like, therefore she's fascist.

calling shit you don't like fascism, is older than the internet. even lenin spoke about fags that do that

There is a ton of fantasy out there. A lot of it doesn't contain any of the themes you mentioned, and some even criticize those themes or push a much stronger liberal attitude. Matriarchal societies are very popular in fantasy too.

That said, action / combat necessarily leads to inequality, so a lot of it does have some form of appeal to hierarchy and authority. This doesn't mean the work or the writer is an advocate of fascism though... Fascism as a political theory is a bit more than just hierarchy and authority.

Confirmed low-quality internet person reporting in. The 'or' creates a false equivalence there, doesn't it?

Anyways, it's true that objectivism and fascism aren't the same things. It was not my intent to conflate them. Rand's no fascist, and she's not mentioned there because she's someone I don't like, either. I find her interesting, desu. Objectionable, but interesting. Not as interesting as Terry Goodkind does, but that's not saying much.

I think the close-to-legitimate gripe that many people have with fantasy is an acceptance of authority, with authoritarian structures like monarchy being (in many cases) the best form of government a society could possibly have.

This is depicted in (many) fantasy novels because the writers are addicted to settings where technological and political progress are impossible. The best the hero can strive for is to get rid of the evil king and replace him with a good king (whose grandson will be another evil king), rather than genuinely advance society. Ultimately, this is caused by a romantic worldview on the part of the writers.

Unfortunately, leftists are so fucking stupid that they can't even tell the difference between monarchism and fascism, and since all leftist writers use novels as political manifestos they assume everyone else does as well. It's unimaginable to them that a fantasy novelist could depict a monarchy, not have it overthrown by the end of the novel, and not be a monarchist.

>Is fantasy the most fascist genre?
No.
>Glorification of violence, which is usually the solution to whatever problems the protagonists face, as well as glorification of a warrior caste.
Which works are you even redefining to?
>People often attain leadership positions by being Chosen by destiny to lead their people.
That's hardly something that occurs often and mostly appears in Tolkien clones.
Tolkien wrote a glorification of medieval views of duties. Aragon is destined to be a king because it is his duty in which he fulfills the teleological order God placed before him, which is quite different from a Harry Potter style plot device.
>Some people are innately superior to other via access to magic.
Some people are innately superior to other via not being mentally stunted cripples who can't walk or grasp many basic concepts necessary for properly functioning in society.
>Some races are vastly superior to others (e.g. Elves vs. Humans, Humans vs. Goblins), and often form a hierarchy of races.
Saints are vastly superior to sinners. Orcs are Elves who have fallen into sin.
>Progress is and dissemination of power from the few to the many via technological advancement, is often seen as sad at best, and evil at worst.
It's like you had one retarded reading of Tolkien, no understanding of fascism and mixed the two into this post while also not reading any other significant fantasy works.

Well, this is the famous Michael Moorcook argument:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Pooh

That's not fascism. Tolkien was just an anti-modernist. You need to get beyond this idea that if something is bad in some way, it's fascist.

>In it Moorcock critiques J. R. R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings for ... being escapist literature.

Really makes you think

meant to reply

Yes I know, that is what Moorcock says.
They are certainly reactionary however.

If you are obsessing with political theory, I don't really see how a society based around an agarian economy would have the ability or even the vocabulary to imagine fascism much less enact it.

He is absolutely right that The Lord of the Rings is an expression of the Anglican Tory worldview. I don't see that as a bad thing though.

>The little hills and woods of that Surrey of the mind, the Shire, are "safe", but the wild landscapes everywhere beyond the Shire are "dangerous". Experience of life itself is dangerous.

Moorcock confirmed for read LotR once and intentionally misunderstood it.

I think his objection to that is not that Tories are bad people but that that worldview is drowned in sentimentality and the romanticism is corrupted and saccharine. On the page of a novel it just becomes infantilising nursery pap. It asks no questions, it raises no issues, it just cuddles you in a comforting way.

He is right about Sauron for example, he is about as evil and threatening as a county councillor you oppose over a planning issue. Indeed, all the forces of "evil" in LoTR are curiously undynamic and the primary objection to Orcs seems to stem from them being a bit uncouth.

The war of the ring isn't like real wars, Frodo would have been filleted before he even got to pub.

In that regard it certainly shares an aesthetic association with fascism which suffers from a similar soppy sentimentality at its core.

It was written at a time when that traditional, British way of life could have been wiped out at any moment.

If anything, it could be seen as a reminder of the very precious things which all British people had to fight for to preserve. It's hardly coddling in that context.

>He is right about Sauron for example, he is about as evil and threatening as a county councillor you oppose over a planning issue.
>not wanting Literally Satan Jr. to rule the world is the same as disagreeing with a politician's values

Yes, good point. Since medieval fascism is a pointless, incoherent concept anyway, maybe the people claiming that fantasy authors have fascist tendencies are morons who should not be paid attention to.

>high fantasy is romantic
>fascism is romantic
>therefore, high fantasy is fascist
Time to re-take that logic class.

What do you mean that evil is undynamic? Moorcock claims that evil in LotR is never really defined and I think that's patently false. We're always shown qhat qualities make people good or bad in this universe and it takes a fairly obtuse reading to come out thinking that Saruon is evil for no reason than because we are told so.

>he is about as evil and threatening as a county councillor you oppose over a planning issue
You clearly either haven't read the books or you're just trying to bait replies.
Anyway, here's your (You).

I think its more important to see it as post-WW1. Sentimental lies about war is exactly what got keen young officers like Frodo and his chums (and faithful soldier-servant Sam who carries everyone's bags and does the cooking) thrown into an industrial meat grinder.

That was the defeat and the way of life wiped out, Tolkien was walking around a college that had lost an entire generation, as had many towns and villages, often over the course of a couple of afternoons because they were stupid enough to send 'pals' out together in the same unit.

I think if you view it from that perspective it seems more obviously escapist because otherwise its almost horrifically naive.

I (and MM) already said Tolkien doesn't do romance, he produces a corrupted infantile version of it.

>there exists a non-infantile version of romance

Could you give an example?

Actually stimulates my brain tbqh

Is that last one really fascist, though? I mean fascism is thoroughly modernist right?

Hawthorne
Shakespeare

That isn't true. You don't see any evil at all, you see corruption of the corruptible (and indeed, everyone stands around telling you this over and over again) and thats about it. Its a remarkably provincial, safe kind of pure evil that can be withstood if take a few cold baths and maybe go for a good long walk.

Apart from that, what kind of blitzkrieg does this master of the dark arts produce? He sends out some recce units who despite being the trapped souls of wicked men are a lot more half-hearted in their pursuit of the ultimate prize vs. the average home invader is in pursuit of your TV and then prepares for some fairly polite sieges and pitched battles.

If the Fellowship of the Ring stayed at home, what would have happened? Not much probably, Sauron reacts to them, he doesn't cause much to happen.

I don't see how it is naive to define and express what is good in the world and worth preserving.

It's thinking like yours which has led to "sunset found her squatting"-tier garbage in modern fantasy, which attempts to portray the world as negatively as possible (with the pretense that this is "realistic")

Retards believe that fascism implies racism and that racism is a conservative idea so therefore fascism must be conservative

I think you forgot to read the book

>It asks no questions, it raises no issues, it just cuddles you in a comforting way.
And that's bad how? Does every book need to be What Is To Be Done?

To paraphrase Vance, everyone here has brayed his best so I might as well have my say.

I think OP has framed his question well for inducing responses but is wide of the mark (bonus points for using Tolkien as a passive troll).

Superhero fiction consistently creates a world where the protagonist is the ultimate arbiter and possesses the power to enforce his will. This fiction of course is designed to appeal to the powerless, regardless of the cause of their powerlessness. The closer genre fiction is to this lowest rung, the more likely it is to share this quality. Assigning an -ism to define this tendency is rather pointless as the persons who are apt to enjoy it are equally unlikely to care about the jargon that criticizes it.

The issue is not what is good, its that what is bad isn't especially bad and nobody has to do anything particularly questionable to sort him out.

It tends to take more than that and claiming this is tantamount to grimdarkness isn't true either.

In any case, what Tolkien cares about being preserved isn't threatened by enemies and armies anyway unless they are as strange as the ones in the Scouring of the Shire.

Wuhahahah, now you are at my mercy its time for hefty inward investment, technology transfer and the development of a strong export industry. How utterly terrifying.

>The issue is not what is good, its that what is bad isn't especially bad
nice subjective statement you got there

Well, nobody seems to be able to bring anything up that actually happens in the books that might contradict me. Still waiting to hear how Sauron demonstrates to the reader that he is the ultimate evil in the world. I'm afraid you only think things happened because of endless stilted expository dialogue. Tolkien tells, he doesn't show.

No.

Well actually the point is that those things are terrifying. They are directly responsible for the evils we see that n the shire on frodos return

You're goddamn moron if you think what ruins countries is bullets and weapons of war. What Tolkien was trying to do wasn't something as pedestrian as going "getting blown up and raped is bad, mmkay?" He was trying to create a myth that would give people, all people: young and old, rich and poor, intelligent or not, the common ground to be capable of avoiding those things and the constant processes that are responsible for them.

Yes he does tell. No one is claiming his prose is great. There's a whole other book of exposition to accompany LotR. I realize requiring a second book to fully understand all the nuances of the first might be cumbersome but everything in that expository book contradicts what you're saying.

Well I just said the opposite of that so...

As to what Tolkien was trying to do, perhaps you should read what he actually wrote.

"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own … Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story… which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country."

Perhaps the 1960s west coast hippy edition of text is different.

>Well I just said the opposite of that so...
>>Wuhahahah, now you are at my mercy its time for hefty inward investment, technology transfer and the development of a strong export industry. How utterly terrifying.

>"I was from early days grieved by the poverty of my own beloved country: it had no stories of its own … Do not laugh! But once upon a time (my crest has long since fallen) I had a mind to make a body of more or less connected legend, ranging from the large and cosmogonic, to the level of romantic fairy-story… which I could dedicate simply to: to England; to my country."
How does this contradict my post exactly?

But they aren't really. The most horrifying thing is the prior rise of Lotho to 'shiriff' which is exactly the politics of the parish council.

Sharkey is recognisably a public school prefect archetype despite who he used to be. He's a bully at worst.

Don't you think its all a bit easy how things are so rapidly put back to normal? Is that what really happens to villages occupied by the enemy?

Compare this to the return of Odysseus and Telemachus where there is blood flowing down the palace steps.

You want thore to be heads rolling from the hobbit holes? This is what you're asking for?

They are terrifying. In a few generations under Sharkey's rule young hobbits will be struggling to pay their rent as they work in menial jobs in factories built on the land of the former old forest. Or did you not think that the introduction of free market capitalism would lead to environmental destruction and wage-slavery.

>Is that what really happens to villages occupied by the enemy?

Sarumon is one malevolent old man. He bullies a few hobbits and shows us how buying more proparty than you can use to create an export economy will leave your citizenry unhappy. I won't compare it with other epics because this is a hobbit-sized confrontation. The great epic battles happened earlier.

Fantasy writers are addicted to settings with a strong social class system at play because disparity is what all stories are spun out of.

Look at any story ever told, in any time period, and if you look closely enough you'll see how the events and relationships between characters all rely, in a fragile and subtle way, on the inequality between things; and the greater the inequality, the greater the story can become. There really wouldn't be that many interesting stories to tell in a setting where everything was equal or as close to equal as possible, if any at all.

thanks for giving me something to think about.
you bring up very interesting points.

t. Nu male
Jesus Christ, i hate fantasy, but you guys are pathetic if iyou think violence its not the best way to solve some problems. Like lmao if you were in charge we gonna get cucked in half hour

Even le Guin, as much as I love Earthsea, could be seen as fascistic. Only a small portion of the population get wizard powers, and then there's the whole thing with Arren being chosen to unite all the islands pretty much by destiny. She does go out of her way to emphasise gender equality in her later books, though.

Anyhow, in closing i'll point something out to you about the nature of evil in Middle Earth.

Because Sauron is pure evil, he acts as an agent for what should be generated by events. This creates a huge structural problem that undermines much of what you read and is why Middle Earth is deficient in real threat.

Doubt, hate, greed etc. all come from Sauron (and by extension the ring and other servants) externally despite dark mutterings about the hearts of men.

This makes Middle Earth a rather strange place where everyone is terribly nice apart from when Sauron intervenes. Go and re-read this carefully but you'll actually see Faramir comes closer to something that could be called evil moreso than Boromir for this reason because he almost takes the ring not because of THE RING but because he wants his father to love him. Beyond that we're down to Farmer Maggot's dog.

Even his legions of doom are oddly without malice and safe enough for Aragorn to casually pardon. "throughout his realm a tremor ran, his slaves quailed, and his armies halted, and his captains suddenly steerless, bereft of will, wavered and despaired"

Even Frodo's post-adventure shell shock is down to the ring and the cursed blade of the Witchking of Angmar. Its not down to the fact he has had a horrific time of it and to stab various orcs, unfortunate fate of Golum etc.

What you don't have is anything bad at all happening in terms of character, Sauron is always the prime mover.

I really like the LoTR as it happens but it has problems and even appealing to page 287, paragraph 4 of Silmarilion isn't going to fix it.

Neither of the things you presented as arguments for earthsea being facism are facist.

>Faramir comes closer to something that could be called evil moreso than Boromir for this reason because he almost takes the ring not because of THE RING but because he wants his father to love him.

The ring isn't a macguffin, it's a metaphor. Boromir tries to take it because he thinks he can use it to save gondor. Faramir thinks about taking it because he wants his father to love him. These are natural desires on both their parts but in the presence of the ring they are harder to resist.

Alsio Sauron accelerated the process but it's pretty clear that men start going to shit as soon as elves aren't around. Numenor was well into it's decline before Sauron was involved.

>Because Sauron is pure evil, he acts as an agent for what should be generated by events.
Sauron himself came about due to external factors.

>Doubt, hate, greed etc. all come from Sauron (and by extension the ring and other servants) externally despite dark mutterings about the hearts of men.
Save for that part were after the war of the ring men still fucked things up without Sauron being around. Notice how nobody in the story goes "the ring made me do it" either.

>"I did begin a story placed about 100 years after the Downfall, but it proved both sinister and depressing. Since we are dealing with Men, it is inevitable that we should be concerned with the most regrettable feature of their nature: their quick satiety with good. So that the people of Gondor in times of peace, justice and prosperity, would become discontented and restless — while the dynasts descended from Aragorn would become just kings and governors — like Denethor or worse. I found that even so early there was an outcrop of revolutionary plots, about a centre of secret Satanistic religion; while Gondorian boys were playing at being Orcs and going around doing damage. I could have written a 'thriller' about the plot and its discovery and overthrow — but it would have been just that. Not worth doing."

Then what about all the feminist fantasy?
Why is it I'm constantly reading these fantasy novels supposedly written by feminists that glorify, a progressive no doubt, monarch, gender inclusive warrior caste and gender inclusive innately superior magic users?

That's completely retarded. Nothing we shouldn't expect from Moorcock.
Tolkien was a Catholic and Lord of the Rings is the clearest expression of Catholic medieval ideals one could ask for.

>Discussion of common tropes is 'reductionist'

>Ursula "If society were a woman we'd all be happy" LeGuin

I'm taking the bait. We'd still be in tribal stages of life were it not for diplomacy.

If you want to know evil that puts LOTR to shame, go read R Scott Bakker.

Intelectually its something original and fresh, books like this make me hopefull for the fantasy genre

>If the Fellowship of the Ring stayed at home, what would have happened? Not much probably, Sauron reacts to them, he doesn't cause much to happen.
Did you miss the part where Sauron is getting ready to rule middle-earth? He is jolted into action because he learns his enemies have the ring, and because he is not ready to conquer everything he is afraid and is this forced into acting. It's not like he never would have acted if the hobbits didn't do anything.

>He sends out some recce units who despite being the trapped souls of wicked men are a lot more half-hearted in their pursuit of the ultimate prize vs. the average home invader is in pursuit of your TV and then prepares for some fairly polite sieges and pitched battles
What absolute bs.

>You don't see any evil at all
Are you forgetting how he based the universe on his Catholic belief where Morgoth and Sauron are the equivalent of Satan? If you are going to say that TLotR has no evil then neither does the bible.

>Homer
>Tolstoy
>Chekhov
>Kawabata
>Tanizaki
>Lawrence
Can you seriously not think of a single example?

This is what complete retards actually believe

>Intelectually
>hopefull
>No full stop at end of non-green texted sentence

There's no chance you actually read the books. 90% of retards that hate this series can never give an actual oppinion. You just read the first chapter and got overwhelmed. Instead of admitting that you are reading something beyond your capacity to undersand you instead shitpost about it... sad

What ?

Reminding other anons that anyone who thinks Bakker is a hard read is a cretin from the containment thread.