Michael Seswatha Jordan

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Michael Seswatha Jordan

  1. No. The thread is full of people contesting and not discussing what I say. Funny, because this happens at no other site but here. I just wish you had more to offer a boy the books than you know, other posters. Matter of fact, do us both a favor and ignore me. Because, in terms of discussing the books, you've showed me for multiple threads you don't have much to offer to discussion. Other than your usual personal attacks.
  2. Great come back!!! One of a kind! I have no problems with anyone's interpretation, show me where I have. I might not agree, but ill add textual evidence to refute it. That's a huge difference.
  3. Why is it so hard for some people around here to not accept that other readers have different views and take different things away from each and every book? Is your interpretation more correct than @Callan S.? He's offered way more in the way of interpretation than you and others have. I might not agree with him entirely on it All, but doesn't mean that his interpretation is wrong. ETA: His....that is HIS interpretation. Correct.
  4. Well yea... What would you call the scene in TDTCB when Aurang appeared to Esme as a glamour? Slit shaming at it finest.
  5. Just ordered on kindle last night, though won't be able to get started for a week or two. Hope its better than the last one...
  6. Did you reread it? I think there is a case to be made. I've made it before. He tries to will her back to life. There is plenty there that the death effected him. And, he must've had feelings for it to effect him.
  7. I'm just discussing the text. There's a good case to be made in the text, that indeed he had feelings for her. You wanna discuss the text?
  8. I do, reread the Circumfix scene. I think its plain as day his feelings for her. Once he realized he killed her for his own gain. I'm here, buddy.
  9. While I could quote a hundred posts I have on Kellhus and his feelings for Esme, and his feelings first started with Serwe and how he went mad on the Circumfix. Basically, breaking down because he caused the death of one he loved, and then tried to will her back to life. Here is a quote of mine from the Slog of Slogs reread, pre-TGO.
  10. Its a TSAcast. I believe this one. Also, I have the theories laid out here and at TSA. They're not hard to find. It was all pre-TGO.
  11. Dude, I brought up this theory pre-TGO after a reread. Anyone can listen to it as its on a podcast. So evidence from TGO and ultimately TUC confirmed it. ETA: and nowhere, not once have I ever said anything about Esme loving Kellhus back. Don't know where you got that from. I always had the theory that he loved Esme and wanted to save the world. And, that emotions, something Dunyain don't have, are what was driving him. I said all this in a podcast pre-TGO. So, I don't have to go look for proof, all you need to do is listen to the podcast for confirmation. I came to these ideas while doing a group reread prior to TGO. ETA: as to it being a romance, well that was never my idea, or words that came out of my mouth. That was people being, rude and sarcastic at my thoughts that Kellhus loved Esme.... So, don't put that on me.
  12. And that he loved Esme..., and not everyone thought Kellhus was trying to save the world. Most in fact thought the opposite for various reasons. What's your question you need answered?
  13. When did I say I feel bad?? I feel great. My theory was never wrong, but confirmed. I don't k ow what you're on about.
  14. That Kellhus loved Esme and was trying to save the world (that was my theory and both turned out to be true.). I will go back and find the quotes were digs were taking at me, since e conveniently you can't remember.
  15. I just found it amazing is all. That's a lot of reading.
  16. No, I never seen it. But thank you nonetheless. Being called a drunk when I had a long battle with alcoholism, really upsets me. So, wether I seen it or not, thank you again.
  17. No, he said the main part of the series will pick up a couple weeks after TUC. With those characters alive being part of the story. How can't Akka, Esme and Mimara not be part of it? I have little to speculate on myself, I admit, but there's room for speculation. Especially concerning Mimara. You know what @Hello World, I will. I'm not a fair weather fan. I'm not one who uses some contrite statements from the AMA to ruin these great books for me. Ill just do my speculation at another place were people are interested. A shame, this was a bastion of Bakker for so long. Only to be reduced to petty arguments, name calling and such. A shame really. Hope there wasn't any spelling errors wouldn't want to be a accused of being drunk again. Which I should be reported you for. Why, I could say the same of many of you with your half baked theories. At least, I read between the lines, and was proven correct in mine. Does it hurt your feelings? Is that why you resort to calling me a drunk? Yea, these threads are but a shadow of themselves. And, I will laugh to the heavens when Bakker proves everyone of you wrong in TNG. Because, in my heart, I know he will. Best fantasy writer of our age, hands down. You all have just given up and the story is incomplete. Oh, as to the drunk statement by you, I never received an apology. Karma, it will hunt you down.
  18. Wel, we know TNG will resume days, if not weeks after the rise of the No-God. Its why I pay zero attention to the unresolved threads. We will have the surviving characters in Akka, Mimara, Esme, Lil Moe, I believe Kayutas and Serwa, Meppa, The Boy and many I'm probably missing. I think we'll get answers to things not answered in TUC. That's why I don't understand why speculation need stop.
  19. @Let's Get Kraken, the whole of the Ordeal passing the Fields Appalling, does have significance to the plot. Wether people like it or not is of zero concern. As I said up thread, it showed the lengths Kellhus would go to place blame on another, his most trusted General. It showed effects of the meat. Was it too long and underwhelming, of course. Nevertheless, it served a purpose. Can you admit that? Can you conceed the merest fraction to MSJ? Look, you won't find a bigger fanboy of TSA, then me. But, even I know when things he does are done badly. But, it did serve a purpose. And, I wholeheartedly agree with you, it could've been done in a lot less pages. Is as if, instead of discussing these books, its me vs a whole host of you and you all trying to make my arguments invalid. Childish I say. I was accused of being a drunk (something I should have reported, but I'm not petty, even though it struck a nerve since I once had a problem and beat that problem). Why can't we discuss the books as equals and leave out personal animosity? Because, that's the constant feeling I get when posting here. And, I've been around here since 2010 and never had these feelings. Is it me? Or, others who have a grudge? Anyway, I want no grudge. I only want to to discuss the books. And, in a mature, grown up way. I will admit though, when threatened and feel backed in a corner, I will retaliate. I just hope we can move forward as fans of the books.
  20. It did have a purpose. It completely excused Kellhus of the Atrocities committed. This is why he left, so he wasn't to be blamed. Proyas was another of Kellhus's scapegoats.
  21. Its in the thread over there. His "true" Beta-readers felt that it shouldn't be in there, the ones with the final say. So, I can tell you all I know about it and your response is, "Well, no offense....". Why even bother? I'm trying to clarify to you guys, saying there was a missing piece that was very interesting and his other "beta-readers" AKA 4 longtime TSA members, couldn't understand why it was cut. Because it would have gave the whole thing more significance. If you don't wanna believe it, well there's nothing I can say or do to sway you.
  22. I agree Kraken. I just don't think it ruins the book. If the cut scene was there, it would've made a difference. As it was explained, it was more interesting than anything that happened during that period of the book.
  23. And the missing section I was speaking about, Bakker didn't say it was crucial, Bakker didn't speak about it. He allowed his proof readers to go ahead and divulge the missing sections. From what I gather Bakker didn't want it cut though.
  24. They were in the original manuscript. Those who read it, posted at length about it at the other site. Bakker said nothing about it at the Con, which I wasn't even at. And, the actual CRO is about 20 pages of the book. That's irrefutable. I agree on Sorweel. And, thanks for seeing what I was trying to get across. It was simply foreshadowing.
  25. I can't put it down. I have the advantage of getting some reading time at work also. But, yea, some of the best stuff I've come across.