Bakker L - Unholy Consultation and Collaboration (Now with TUC Spoilers!)

[Darth Richard II]

1 minute ago, Hello World said:

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. 

Are not the Fanim the most incorrect though?

[.H.]

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The implication that there are a specific set of rules ( @Hello World points out the example below) implies that those rules are at least knowable and the intention is that they are known or discovered. So does the 'whodunit' part of the metaphysical whodunit. Saying that the goal is to create a world that denies stable interpretation is wholly contradictory to that.

Hmmm, alright, I definitely get that there is a (probably deliberate) tension between "rules" as we can know them (as readers) and the prevalence of metaphysical uncertainty.  I feel like there is a Bakker quote or two out there where he says that the metaphysics of Eärwa are purposely murky, to mirror the metaphysics of the "real world."  To me, I am pretty ambivalent to whether or not that is really true, in the sense that he is deliberately trying to mirror "real" metaphysics, or if that is a convenient way to avoid having to answer tough questions.  Murk is murky, whether it's purposeful or neglectful it still ends up being thematic though.  I can see how it would bother people though, because naturally I'd rather know things than not know.  But I guess I feel less bad not knowing than some?

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That certainly can be it, depending on said delivery. It's mostly that for a number of readers part of the goal is to understand the rules of the game, and have been holding out for a while to figure out what those rules are. They are now being told that the rules of the game are deliberately not knowable and will not be knowable, and what things they have figured out turn out to be wildly incorrect in interpretation as well. 

Which is fine, mind you, as far as a goal goes, but it also is fairly frustrating for some. There are many that don't care about this sort of thing in the least, are in it for the journey, not answers, and are cool with never getting real answers. There are others who think there are a set of rules that underpin things, and their faith in those rules is fine even if they don't learn them. And there are those who suspect that a lot of this is being made up as it goes along, and promises about the underpinnings being set in stone were in bad faith. 

I think Bakker has always something of "delivery issues" even going back to PoN, just that the story there lent itself to a more streamlined telling.  I think a lot of the "rules" were (are?) always going to be unknowable, at least fully.  Sure, we have a cursory idea about how, say, sorcery works, but everything that is "under the hood" to make it really work is always going to be unknowable, I think because it's a made up fantasy world where things that are not "possible" actually happen.  So, to me, that there aren't any rock solid rules to sorcery we can point to is not really an issue.

In thinking about this though, it seems to me that Eärwa is more dictated by exceptions than rules.  Kellhus is an exception.  Esmenet, an exception.  Little Kel, an exception.  The Ark, the Tekne, the No-God itself, all exceptions.  Really, the list goes on and on, Mimara, Koringhus, Titirga, Shae, Bashrags, Wracu.  It kind of reminds me of certain games, like Magic: The Gathering, where there are core rules, but most cards you would actually play are subtle (or not so subtle) exceptions to the rules.

I just don't feel like the AMA really changes much, except that we know, more concretely now, that some things are just going to be somewhat unknowable.  I don't know why, but that doesn't really bother me much.  And it doesn't mean I am less apt to speculate on those "unknowable" whys, just that there is a good chance I can never know definitively.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

3 hours ago, .H. said:

I just don't feel like the AMA really changes much, except that we know, more concretely now, that some things are just going to be somewhat unknowable.  I don't know why, but that doesn't really bother me much.  And it doesn't mean I am less apt to speculate on those "unknowable" whys, just that there is a good chance I can never know definitively.

H, why couldn't you have wrote this paragraph 5 pages ago, I could've quoted it and saved myself a bunch of trouble. Its exactly how I feel and what I was trying to convey. +1

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

@Locke, so you are the creator of the Bakker Troll theory. So is it your assertation that the AMA changes nothing and we should just worry on the text? Or, was it a intellectual joke?

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

@Locke, so you are the creator of the Bakker Troll theory. So is it your assertation that the AMA changes nothing and we should just worry on the text? Or, was it a intellectual joke?

That's not the user you're wanting to ask; it's @lokisnow. 

7 hours ago, .H. said:

Hmmm, alright, I definitely get that there is a (probably deliberate) tension between "rules" as we can know them (as readers) and the prevalence of metaphysical uncertainty.  I feel like there is a Bakker quote or two out there where he says that the metaphysics of Eärwa are purposely murky, to mirror the metaphysics of the "real world."  To me, I am pretty ambivalent to whether or not that is really true, in the sense that he is deliberately trying to mirror "real" metaphysics, or if that is a convenient way to avoid having to answer tough questions.  Murk is murky, whether it's purposeful or neglectful it still ends up being thematic though.  I can see how it would bother people though, because naturally I'd rather know things than not know.  But I guess I feel less bad not knowing than some?

It's not just the metaphysics, however (though there's a lot of that) - it's what actually happened. As an example, Koringhus. What happened to him? Was he right? As it turns out, Bakker has made him an example of being deliberately ambiguous, so his entire set of chapters are not meant to provide any more reason or meaning or answers, just make you think a bit and then move on. And his part was almost 1/4th of a book. 

Will Crabicus' book be basically that?

Will Mimara's answer about what TJE is and what she can do be basically that?

Will  Akka's dreams and his ultimate destination be basically that?

Will Kellhus' original plan to save the world be basically that?

Again, this is far beyond the metaphysics and gets into the meat of the story itself, at least for me. As I said in my review of TUC, it's becoming more clear that there aren't any real answers beyond very surface ones, and if you're looking for narrative depth you're likely not going to be satisfied - either because Bakker deliberately wants to make things ambiguous or he simply hasn't thought it through and doesn't care. 

7 hours ago, .H. said:

I just don't feel like the AMA really changes much, except that we know, more concretely now, that some things are just going to be somewhat unknowable.  I don't know why, but that doesn't really bother me much.  And it doesn't mean I am less apt to speculate on those "unknowable" whys, just that there is a good chance I can never know definitively.

And I get that, I do - but for a whole lot of other people knowing for certain that they'll never get any answers to things isn't satisfying. That Bakker outright attempts to mislead in his direct answers some of the time and not others is even less satisfying.

For me, the AMA was infuriating partially because of Bakker's incredibly ego-laden answer about how it's our fault that we don't like being misled into thinking there are answers when there won't be, and partially because it obliterated the notion that Kellhus had deliberately planned on being Ajokli and taking over the world. That ending was one of the best ones, it answered a bunch of things going far back, and...poof, authorial data says it's gone. 

[Kalbear]

17 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Read it again. Do you mean how he thinks of women in text or his personal views? I thought you referring to his personal views, if not, sorry a mistake on my reading. Wasn't clear to me.

Of course I meant it was his personal views. Obviously. 

What you apparently don't understand is that it's very clear that his views are that the Whale Mothers are EEEEVIL, one of the worst things that he can possibly think of doing to another human being. You appear to think that because he has Whale Mothers in the book, and they are bad, they cannot represent his viewpoint.

My personal take is that the Whale Mothers are what he views as an inevitability of feminism, because he believes that men will always use women for their own needs, either for irrational ones or logical ones. That feminism is only allowed because of utilitarian reasons (I believe the wrong reason he gave was that feminism rose due to a need for women in factories, which is completely wrong but what he thinks), and that he showcases this with the Swayali and with the Whale Mothers.

To distill it further, I think his viewpoint is that so long as men are men and men are in charge, women will be enslaved, and anything else is wishful thinking and harmful to actually getting women rights.

BTW, having Mimara and Esme holy simply because they had kids? Not the women's liberation position that you think it might be.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

What a way you have with twisting words Kalbear.I understand he thimms their evil. Smdh. That was rhe point of them, the JE showed that. I get it.

And it not because Esme has kids that makes he special, it who those kids are. 

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

What a way you have with twisting words Kalbear.I understand he thimms their evil. Smdh. That was rhe point of them, the JE showed that. I get it.

Then why would you question how the Whale Mothers reveal what Bakker thinks about women? How they're crucial to his authorial viewpoint on women? That's where this started after all - that you said that they aren't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things with respect to how he views women. 

But they are. They're pretty well key to how he views women. 

6 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

And it not because Esme has kids that makes he special, it who those kids are. 

Being the grandmother of God and being the mother of God is still not the uplifting story for women that you might think it is.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

48 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Then why would you question how the Whale Mothers reveal what Bakker thinks about women? How they're crucial to his authorial viewpoint on women? That's where this started after all - that you said that they aren't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things with respect to how he views women. 

But they are. They're pretty well key to how he views women. 

Being the grandmother of God and being the mother of God is still not the uplifting story for women that you might think it is.

No? She seems very important to me and others. 

[Kalbear]

22 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

No? She seems very important to me and others. 

Who? Esme or Mimara? 

[Kalbear]

Furthermore, whether they are important or not wasn't what you brought up - you brought up that they are holy, and only women have so far been holy (that's not true, but whatever), and therefore Bakker has good views on women.

Except the reason that Mimara and Esme are holy is because they had a specific kid. Being holy because you are the mother of god is not a particularly uplifting story for women. 

[Darth Richard II]

Can someone refresh my memory on who Bakker said worshiped the most incorrectly?

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Can someone refresh my memory on who Bakker said worshiped the most incorrectly?

It comes from the ZaudCon, and it's a report from Madness (so who knows about its veracity):

Quote

 missed a couple portions of Saturday but as I have always a big proponent of Fanimry it was relayed to me later that no in-world interpretation about the state of the World, the Outside, and the reality of Earwa is right; Memgowa, then Ajencis have come up with the best interpretations but Fane is among the most wrong.

 

[Darth Richard II]

Ah, thank ye.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Triskan said:

I don't think I'd seen that. Very interesting to hear that Fane is super-wrong.  So much for everything.

Yeah, there are some interesting bits once you get past the squabbling and in-jokes. Fane being wrong, them cutting out a set of scenes where all the Mandate go mad and think they're Seswatha, the Crabicus book being a serious thing and coming out first specifically to piss off people who didn't like the end of TUC...good times.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Who? Esme or Mimara? 

Both.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Furthermore, whether they are important or not wasn't what you brought up - you brought up that they are holy, and only women have so far been holy (that's not true, but whatever), and therefore Bakker has good views on women

Yes, I believe being holy and being important to hand in hand, didn't think I had to explain that. What men have we seen that was holy through the JE, because I don't recall any, I could be wrong. Did we ever see Sorweel with the JE?

Except the reason that Mimara and Esme are holy is because they had a specific kid. Being holy because you are the mother of god is not a particularly uplifting story for women.

Where was it ever said that the reason Mimara and Esme are holy because of the children they've had?

[Callan S.]

The thing with not revealing all the rules is, I think, being a bit too fancy. It's to show how readers will start to commit to a set of rules at an emotional level and even intellectual level without knowing the full extent of the rules or the full extent of their application.

To me, Bakker does this thing were he thinks to evoke that in readers somehow makes it 'there', like a thing raised. Where as coming from a  country town, I'd say most wouldn't see it - it's there about as much as it's seen. Which is to say, generally not at all. I'd say he's falling back to academic roots in making things only a few will actually see, instead of reaching a broader audience. Or he's just projecting his own capacity unwittingly - answers to a riddle are always as super obvious when you know the answer as the answer is super obscure when you don't know the answer. On the other hand, at least it's charitable - it's projecting a capacity.

[Cithrin's Ale]

"My understanding is that it's just Crabby. In fact, Bakker actually said the other reason he wants to make Crabiqiad the first book is how much it will piss off people who are waiting for a follow-up to the ending of TUC."

Yeah, that'll show them! 

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Yes, I believe being holy and being important to hand in hand, didn't think I had to explain that. What men have we seen that was holy through the JE, because I don't recall any, I could be wrong. Did we ever see Sorweel with the JE?

We've seen Mimara's son, who is so holy he blinds Mimara. 

As to holy being important, you're using the case of them being holy to say that they're important, and you're saying that they're important because they're holy. Shockingly that kind of tautology isn't very convincing. 

1 hour ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Where was it ever said that the reason Mimara and Esme are holy because of the children they've had?

It's the most obvious reason that they would be, especially given Mimara and Esme's many, many sins. Mimara even remarks on it. Ultimately we don't know, but given that Esme is somewhat holy, Mimara is very holy, and Akka Jr. is SUPER holy, chances are good it has something to do with being the lineage of whatever the heck Akka Jr. is. 

Why else would Esme be holy? Why else would Mimara?