Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

"Have you an arm like God?"

This was not as big of a mindfuck as I thought it'd be.

In the not-so distant, but slightly vague future Tom is tasked with helping the FBI apprehend his best friend Neil, who's started brutally murdering people to prove that meaning and love aren't real and only illusions of the brain.

'Neuropath' is extra interesting because it's based on actual research about the brain - Neil's fantasies about consciousness aren't as fantastical and fake as you'd like to believe as a reader.

It's a violent, unpleasant, unrelenting book about the very worst lengths humans will go to when meaning leaves them. It's at times cruel and heartless, but constantly thought-provoking. If you've ever read anything by Bakker, either this or his fantasy series you know he's bleak. He revels in the meaningless, the dark, the grimy, the dirty, the evil. He asks hard questions and rakes his characters through bloody mud full of pointy, rusty nails.

In person, however, he's awfully pleasant, soft spoken and just plain nice. He visited my university in the spring of 2015 for a lecture titled "Writing after the death of meaning", a lot of it went over my head, I admit, I'm not nearly as intelligent as he is, and philosophy is hard on my brain, but it was immensely interesting. And he mentioned this book. He talked about it as a book that changed people, in a bad way. He mentioned he'd had a friend who'd sort of stopped talking to him after reading it. I understand that, I understand that to some people this might make them honestly sad and depressed. You shouldn't read it if you're prone to paranoia or shit like that. It's a hard book.

It asks this (very simplified): what if we're nothing but brains responding to other brains? What if there's no self, no I controlling our actions? If free will is boogus? What if the brain can be manipulated? What if reality is nothing, if it's an empty shell, if all is, essentially, meaningless?

Not fun, friends.

Apart from the very philosophical themes, it's a pretty good thriller. It's complex, it's surprising, and it had me constantly on the edge of my seat, hoping against hope that all would end well.

I liked it. I liked it a lot. Perhaps because I wasn't very affected by it, and thus felt no need to throw myself in a ditch and perish. I understood the point he was trying to make - or maybe I should say the question he wanted to ask, and I found it incredibly interesting. It's fueled many debates since, and I keep bringing the ideas I got from reading this up in conversation (and I feel okay doing it, because it's, as I said, based on actual research). In that regard it served its purpose; it expanded my horizon and it made me think, really, really think about some very fundamental things.

It's not a book for everyone, and parts of it were perhaps unnecessarily unpleasant, but on the other hand, it wouldn't have made such an impact otherwise.

I believe R. Scott Bakker also said this isn't a book he'd ever recommend to anyone. I wouldn't either. Read it if you find the premise interesting or if - like me - you're really into R. Scott Bakker, but be warned it's somewhat depressing. He wrote it before he had kids, and stated he never could have written it after. The level of cynicism he needed to tap into to present the worldviews of these characters simply wasn't accessible after having kids. When you've read it you get what he means.

The reason it wasn't as big a mindfuck as I expected is probably that I'm very stubborn. To the whole question of "what if we're just brains responding to outside stimuli, what if we don't have a self?" I answer: Who cares. We're in this world and we must make the most of it. Whatever I am, I will do my damnedest to be the best I can be. Don't care if I'm deciding it or my brain is. The result is the same. Be kind, people, and don't hide your douchebag behaviour behind science.