• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About YoungBoulheim

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

287 profile views
  1. Thank you. This makes much more sense. I just couldn't figure this exchange out, so now I can continue without being lost.
  2. I'm in the middle of The White-Luck Warrior, and there's a scene that is completely baffling me. Like, I have not the first inkling whatsoever of what is going on. I might as well have skipped the exchange for how little clarity there is. It's right after Maithanet kills Inrilatas, and Esmenet is sitting over his body, talking to Maithanet. She starts by saying "Before, I knew I could defeat you." This is the start of me being totally lost, and not a single word for the rest of the scene makes anything any clearer for me. The part that loses the most by far, though, is: "I was so willing, Maitha. And I knew you would see...see this in me, realize that I would let all Empire burn to war against you, and that you would capitulate the way all the others have capitulated to my sovereign will." Could someone explain to me what Esmenet is saying to Maithanet here in this scene, including the "vulnerability of the Dunyain thing"? And the "you need only be willing to sacrifice yourself"? Seriously, the only meaning I am getting out of this exchange is "I am angry that you killed my son." Nothing more. I have only read to the end of the chapter, where she asks Sankas for an assassin. Nothing past that, so I would appreciate no spoilers past this chapter. Thanks... EDIT: I can only read posts that quote my own. I get notifications that link me directly to posts that quote me, and in that way I can avoid reading posts that are discussing other parts of the series, therefore avoiding spoilers.
  3. Thanks, Happy Ent. It makes way more sense after I read it again after hearing both of your explanations.
  4. Thanks, Kalbear. That clears it up a bit.
  5. Does anyone remember the passage in Chapter 9 of The Judging Eye, the one with "a life forgotten," from Psatma's perspective? I don't really get what is going on, so I was hoping someone could give me a rundown of what is actually going on in that scene. That is where I am in the books, so I don't want spoilers past that point.
  6. Ughh, first I have to read 150 pages of TTT appendix, then wait until Monday night for The Judging Eye to come in the mail. It really does seem to me that the primary characters in this book are still directly connected to Kellhus (i.e. he's on their mind). Just the impression I got from that summary snippet.
  7. Okay, this makes sense, then. But it makes me wonder if he'll ever become more front and center again. EDIT: I couldn't resist, and I read the summary on Amazon's page for The Judging Eye. Weird how Kellhus still seems awfully prominent.
  8. So would you guys say he is as relevant to the world itself as he was in PoN? Or not? In PoN he was an instigator, and there was always the question of what Kellhus would do or how he would react. Is that not how it is anymore?
  9. Hm, might? Are you saying someone else will become the equivalent of Kellhus from PoN (from a narrative standpoint)? I had assumed we as the reader were ultimately following Kellhus as the series progressed, even if it's from the point of view of different people (Achamian for example).
  10. Weird. Everything in the Three Seas revolved around him in the latter parts of PoN, so I would think that the story would still revolve around him in AE. He has so much power and control, so I don't get how his prominence and relevance would suddenly just go down.
  11. So he's not even a primary character? A whole trilogy building him up and he's dropped?
  12. I have one last question. In the next series, does Kellhus get challenged at all? Or does he just pick apart every adversary and conflict with ease now that he's risen so high? Yes or no.
  13. I suppose I understand that. But I still don't get why Kellhus responds along the lines of "it's not so simple. you know that," as if to partially disagree with Achamian's assertion.
  14. Sorry for the endless barrage of questions, but in TTT, when Achamian says "so you speak of an apocalypse" in response to Kellhus saying "the old world is dead," what does he mean by that (Akka, I'm referring to)? I can't wrap my head around it. Is he saying that by calling the old world dead, Kellhus is dismissing the relevance of the first apocalypse? Also, I almost cried when Cnaiur and Moenghus embraced, even if it was completely fake on Moenghus's part.
  15. I just finished TTT, and there are unanswered questions of mine that I don't think are meant to be ambiguous. Such as, what happened to Fanayal? Am I supposed to assume he is dead? How about Istriya? Cnaiur? Also, what was up with Zioz? Was the extent of his purpose to pick Achamian up and drop him off on the beach? ...I don't get it. I thought he was supposed to kill him or at least blind him. Also, Aurang's secret to the little boy was unclear, though maybe it was supposed to be that way. I will say that it is pretty lame how Bakker killed off Randomly Chorae were useless against Achamian when this whole time they've been enough to annihilate sorcerors. I know the Ikurei was doomed anyway, but still. I'm salty that this whole time I thought Eleazaras was in his 60s when actually he was in his 50s.