Hello World

Members
  • Content count

    1,235
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Hello World

  • Rank
    Iso Subject 5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,229 profile views
  1. I feel like if they don't have a big budget a lot of things will come off as cartoonish. Sorcery, the Consult, Kellhus's kung-fu skills, the Synthese, etc. In fact almost everything, especially when the political intrigue in season 1 gets compared to GoT and people realize that it's not as good.
  2. Maybe Kellhus himself could have done the job? Especially in a "g-string shooting across the room" book. Totally agree on point no.1 about Sorweel, by the way, even if his final scene was one of my two favorite scenes in the book with the Mimara looks at the No-God scene.
  3. Unless he already pissed off enough people that the next book won't be published. I'm curious if he said anything about that at Zaudunyanicon.
  4. Yeah I hadn't seen that either. Although my first reaction to that thread was oh God, madness is answering fan questions again...
  5. That's how I took it at first. The JE usually shows the sins and the damnation of people and that's contrasted in some individuals by showing them as holy instead. I thought this was Bakker's way of saying this person isn't damned. I don't know how they are saved and what happens to them in the Outside though. Since this isn't something that's explained by the hundred saving someone maybe there is more to it than what Psatma thinks? There could be some truth to the fanim view even.
  6. So whether a person is damned or not (before they get to salvation) doesn't hinge on the way they believe or worship but on crimes they've committed like sorcery? Or is everyone already damned by default and only by getting "picked" by one of the gods are they saved?
  7. Speaking of rules, isn't anyone disappointed with the fact that TUC didn't clarify much about who's damned and who's not generally? (unless I missed it?) That's not what I expected based on what Bakker said here, I think Bakker said that the Gods basically pick and choose individually? Is that just it? That explains the right and wrong way to believe in Earwa? Because I remember a lot of posts contrasting the Fanim beliefs with the Inrithi and the Nonmen view of oblivion and so to try to come up with answers, and that was way more interesting than this. But I guess that was all fanwank that's not based on the books or anything Bakker said.
  8. I'm reading Complicity by Iain Banks. It's a crime thriller with an alternating 1st/2nd person PoV (which I never thought I'd like), seems interesting so far a couple of chapters in.
  9. I hope so. I'm not sure but to ask another question, does it have to be a deliberate effort on the part of the author to give the reader clues so as to be able to predict what's going to happen in the future? For example, if Bakker doesn't mention Dunyain women anywhere in Kellhus's flashback because he knows they don't exist and is just being consistent with what he's going to reveal later and doesn't really expect people to guess the Whale Mothers (the only reason they did is because of the Dune parallel, after all) does that count as foreshadowing? This might be seen as semantics but it's helpful to know what people think if we're going to discuss what Bakker foreshadowed and didn't.
  10. You can just click on Bakker's handle to get a page with all his comments. Then if there is anything interesting click the link for the full context. It's much easier that way, at least for me.
  11. Anyway, what I was getting to is that if some things were said in the AMA and there isn't much textual evidence to back them up (which I'm still unclear on) then they can be safely ignored from my perspective, even if they don't contradict anything in the books. I honestly don't get why some people are hung up on the AMA (including me ) when we can just go back to death of the author. Even though H's post about the darkness and Kellhus' talk to Kelmomas was pretty good. So for the sake of argument, before the AMA we thought that Kellhus made a deal with Ajokli through the Daimos where Kellhus would summon Ajokli in the Golden Room to defeat the Consult and Kellhus gives Ajokli a way into the world to create his hell on earth that he feeds on or something? And Kellhus would "conquer hell" as part of this plan?
  12. I know... it was follow up question/post... relax. (I considered typing a paragraph in that post to clarify this actually, but didn't. My apologies.)
  13. I don't think we got an answer on Achamian's dreams. An answer was teased kind of but no given when Achamian talked about it to Kellhus, so maybe Bakker intends to answer this in the next series, although I'm not holding my breath. They might be an answer in the text that we missed... Sorweel was never a narindar as far as I can tell. There is an entry in the glossary about Kellhus using the decapitants in some daimotic way, you might want to read it for yourself. I don't actually remember which entry it was maybe decapitants.
  14. ^ Thanks. So the Darkness he's referring to isn't his inability to account for all inputs and outcomes as a Dunyain but Ajokli taking over or him losing part of his identity/himself? Because the latters seem like a stretch based on the quote. All the above quotes seem like Kellhus is just talking about the darkness that comes before in the usual way (he can't account for everything, he doesn't know what's going to happen with high certainty) as opposed to the Darkness/Ajokli taking over him. Moenghus says in PoN that TTT couldn't account for everything either. The other theorizing that Kellhus is broken but still thinks that he's whole even as he realized that something is amiss is from the AMA, right?
  15. The Ajokli takeover happened before the Golden Room which Kellhus never intended to enter? eta: I know someone said that before but it doesn't fit with what Kellhus says in the Golden Room.