The Unholy Consult post-release SPOILER thread IV

[Darth Richard II]

3 minutes ago, unJon said:

That's not right. Bakker is writing a series composed of trilogies or dualogies (as is the current plan for TNG). That's different than an 8 book series. 

I've seen straw mans on both sides of this argument, but your post is one of them  

 

I thought the plan now was for TNG to be 3-4 books.

[unJon]

7 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I thought the plan now was for TNG to be 3-4 books.

Oh maybe. I saw it said it might be more a series of Atrocity Tales but didn't know it would be more volumes. 

[unJon]

4 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 

With regards to that, I was thinking, and to get off this subject. Kalbear has convinced me that morality is objective, conceded and promoted the thought. Then we find out to be saved, is purely subjective on behalf of the Gods. He just likes you. Your important to him, or has a need. So, while damnation is objective, salvation is subjective? How can that be. And this wasn't referring to the 100, but the JE.

I don't actually recall. Was it referring to Esmi and TJE or was it referring to the guy that Gilgaol grabbed when he died?

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Just now, unJon said:

I don't actually recall. Was it referring to Esmi and TJE or was it referring to the guy that Gilgaol grabbed when he died?

I believe Esme. Yea, if morality is objective this determining DAMNATION, how can that same God/entity offer salvation through subjectivity? I like your thought that Bakker could possibly going the route that the God and NG are essentially the same. As, this adds some credence to that thought.

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Did he like it though? I mean, he's been in interviews with Paolini too where he's been very polite and genial, but I'll eat a bowl of hot shit if he liked Eragon.

It's also possible that they asked and that Martin opted not to provide a blurb.

Pretty sure he said he actually liked it though it was so long ago now I wouldn't even begin to know where to search. And giving Overlooks past, uh, "enthusiasm" for SFF I'm betting they never even bothered to ask.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I believe Esme.

Why? She's quite possibly the most demonstrably wrong person in the entire series. Whole plotlines are based around her decision making and how wrong it is. TAE could have been entirely avoided if Esme does even one thing a bit more correct. 

9 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Yea, if morality is objective this determining DAMNATION, how can that same God/entity offer salvation through subjectivity?

Depends on how you assume salvation. In the above, it means that specific gods offer their version of salvation - protection, basically, like mob protection - to those who they think are subjectively awesome. It doesn't mean that there is some form of heaven in the Outside. 

Analogy: there exists a color that we call blue. This is objectively true. We can all objectively rate something as blue, and agree on what blue is. Some of the gods use the fact of that blue to call it 'pretty' and decide to take those blue things into their personal collection of buttfloss. Their decision to claim the blue things does not make the state of blueness subjective. 

9 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I like your thought that Bakker could possibly going the route that the God and NG are essentially the same. As, this adds some credence to that thought.

I don't see how that makes any sense, and I don't think it works particularly well in any context. It absolutely robs the entire series of any thematic heft. Again, the series is interesting if the whole universe has morals that we object to; the series is less interesting if it's just the decision making of some asshole, and that asshole can be overthrown. 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

@Kalbear

Quote

Why? She's quite possibly the most demonstrably wrong person in the entire series. Whole plotlines are based around her decision making and how wrong it is. TAE could have been entirely avoided if Esme does even one thing a bit more correct.

Why what? Not sure I understand you "why". As to everything after that, I agree. Yet when looked upon by the JE, she's saved. And, when Bakker was asked why one will be saved, his answer was that it was subjective. He likes you, so on and so forth. Lest not forget, I'm not attributing any of this to the 100. But, you do bring up a good point about the 100, that the God and the 100 are connected. Because, if damned by the JE, the go into a He'll of a gods choosing. Shut confused the he'll out of me.

Quote

I don't see how that makes any sense, and I don't think it works particularly well in any context. It absolutely robs the entire series of any thematic heft. Again, the series is interesting if the whole universe has morals that we object to; the series is less interesting if it's just the decision making of some asshole, and that asshole can be overthrown.

Well I'm speaking specifically on the God here. Whatever power behind the JE, forget about the 100. That power offered salvation to Koringhus, after he was damned as can be. Why? Because he got it, the God like it, pure subjectivity. And, the NG is the collapse of subject and object, correct? As @unJon saisaid in a post, The God and TNG could be like an Orobouros (sp?), one end the God the other TNG. As, he also said, that we know the God sleeps and that ties into the "WHO AM I" deal. I can't really add much, just liked his thoughts.

ETA: to your why, was you assuming that I "believe" Esme? I was just answering his question one wether that info came from about Esme being saved or dude saved by Gilgoal.

[redeagl]

3 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Except I didn't compare ADoS with TUC. I compared people's reactions to TUC with what I expect the some of the folks in the General ASoIaF section are going to do when ADoS comes out... but on a larger scale. TUC being only the end of a chapter and ADoS being the ultimate end to the series is completely irrelevant. What matters is that each closes the door on a number of fan theories that people have spent years discussing and analyzing.

And I've never read WoT, so that comparison is lost on me. But it seems to me that Bakker has said a number of times that TUC is an ending of sorts, and like TTT, it does bring a number of stories to a close. So unless there is also such a divide between books 7 and 8 of the WoT series, then I think this is a poorer comparison than that between ADoS and TUC.

There is no divide. That's the point. Bakker is a horrible businessman and the sub series idea is his undoing. There are people who read and liked PoN who don't even know about TAE.

1 hour ago, unJon said:

That's not right. Bakker is writing a series composed of trilogies or dualogies (as is the current plan for TNG). That's different than an 8 book series. 

I've seen straw mans on both sides of this argument, but your post is one of them  

 

1- TNG is actually a trilogy now, 2 books for the "main storyline" and one for Koringhus's son AFAIK.

2-It is officially presented as a series of three sub series, yes. Why the hell would you expect the story to end in the second and not the third and final series? 

 

[redeagl]

I guess it stems down to personal expectations. For me,  I always thought ( Or at least wanted. ) that the third series would be about The Second Apocalypse. So, no disappointments there.

[Kalbear]

24 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Two, all of this animosity stems from not getting the closure we so much desired.

No, it really doesn't. Or at least the objections and general annoyance of the last couple of weeks certainly doesn't. Note that none of these annoyances were really present until after the AMA, so it's pretty clear that it isn't just about getting closure.

24 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

You guys took a quote from BAKKER (Mind you, I listen and take little credibility with what he says to questions pertaining to plot moving forward or unknown) and took everything that happened to that point to be meaningless. I can name and have named several that aren't meaningless and will effect TNG. And, as you and others constant angst shows you are butthurt. Alt-Butthurt that is.

I get this is your interpretation, but perhaps instead of interpreting things you listen for a bit.

The problem that I (and others that I've seen) have is that Bakker revealed, in the AMA,  a whole lot of depth in the books to simply not be there in a narrative way. Bakker likes philosophical depth, but his narrative depth is lacking or not particularly thought through. 

An example: people thought the gods had been set up since the beginning and that Ajokli had been manipulating Kellhus the whole time. Actuality: Bakker wasn't sure in the first trilogy whether or not it was Ajokli or Gilgaol that he meant, and had no plans on gods doing anything with Kellhus.

The big problem that a lot of folks are now having is that a lot of attention to detail that they cared about has been shown to basically not matter in the least, or at least isn't planned around. Bakker has shown that he does not have any particular plan going forward, is not wedded to any concept, and indeed never actually had a plan beyond very basic things. This implies that looking for detail as actual implication for future events is particularly meaningless, and it also implies that any questions now are probably not going to be answered. It, in short, is being made up as it goes along, and is likely to end with a bad ending like BSG or Lost did. 

24 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

And, still, you have not provided me a link.

Since no one has made the assertion you're claiming, it's hard to provide a link. Can you provide a link that Bakker is not an actual troll, like one with tusk and whatnot?

24 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

One, why not save judgment til the story is completed, as it's not. Then when you or I, turn out to be wrong, we can write a scathing post on the other a la' the Whale Mothers. Maybe that's what this is all about. That we can't have flame wars of, "I told you so, you fucking idiots, Women are objectively inferior!!!" Like, wow bro, you won the Nobel prize there, congrats.

It's funny how soon you go to the defense of misogyny when it literally hasn't been brought up for ages. Keep on fucking that chicken.

 

[Kalbear]

56 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

@Kalbear

Why what? Not sure I understand you "why". As to everything after that, I agree. Yet when looked upon by the JE, she's saved.

 

No, when looked at via the TJE she is both holy and damned. She has a mix. Note that no one looks 'saved' - they look holy or unholy. This is one of the bigger semantic issues that you continue to have  - that Mimara looking at things and seeing their level of holiness does not imply their salvation. 

56 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

And, when Bakker was asked why one will be saved, his answer was that it was subjective.

And you believe him? Why?

56 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

He likes you, so on and so forth. Lest not forget, I'm not attributing any of this to the 100. But, you do bring up a good point about the 100, that the God and the 100 are connected. Because, if damned by the JE, the go into a He'll of a gods choosing. Shut confused the he'll out of me.

 

Again, don't conflate what happens to you after with your levels of holiness. How blue you are doesn't determine how pretty you are. The choice of which flowers to keep in the garden is in the eye of the gardener.

56 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Well I'm speaking specifically on the God here. Whatever power behind the JE, forget about the 100. That power offered salvation to Koringhus,

 

Which Bakker explicitly questioned the interpretation of.

56 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

after he was damned as can be. Why? Because he got it, the God like it, pure subjectivity. And, the NG is the collapse of subject and object, correct? As @unJon saisaid in a post, The God and TNG could be like an Orobouros (sp?), one end the God the other TNG. As, he also said, that we know the God sleeps and that ties into the "WHO AM I" deal. I can't really add much, just liked his thoughts.

We honestly don't know, and that is once again a big problem - that there is every likelihood that Koringhus' fate is entirely devoid of deep meaning or implication to the story at large. 

Alternately, we don't know that being saved by the 100 is the same thing as actual, real, salvation - where angelic ciphrang exist. 

56 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

ETA: to your why, was you assuming that I "believe" Esme? I was just answering his question one wether that info came from about Esme being saved or dude saved by Gilgoal.

Yes, why do you believe Esme? Of all the characters in the series, her interpretation of basically anything seems the most suspect.

[lokisnow]

It isn't even what Kal said, for me, because I think Bakker reflexively lies, so what he said re Ajokli or gilgaol or kellhus etc is functionally not worth considering, and it certainly isn't "all theories are meaningless".

it simply comes down to that he revealed the extent of his troll ness, the reflexive lying, the troll self contradicting statements, his overall hostility and desire to turn people combative when readership communities are generally cooperative. Bakker thrives on conflict, and I don't.

So I just gonna check out of all his nonsense under the general principle of _don't feed the troll_.

The meaningless thing doesn't bother me, I've often said "maybe the no god is the anthropomorphic personification of meaninglessness," so that's not unexpected nor bothersome to me.

It doesn't help that TUC is only a third of a book, poorly structured and poorly edited.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yes, why do you believe Esme? Of all the characters in the series, her interpretation of basically anything seems the most suspect.

I explained this Kalbear, twice now. I didn't mean it as I believe Esme. I meant it as I believe it was Esme and not the guy saved by Gilgoal, in response to unJon.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Well, in don't think Bakker makes things up as he goes along. We have a thread at SA about foreshadowing and there is alot of good stuff in there that shows he was planning a whole lot clear back to TDTCB that which does come to pass. Alot of work out into that.

Except Bakker has explicitly stated that he didn't know these things and came up with them later. So basically in order to continue to believe what you need to in order to satisfy yourself, you deliberately ignore data given by the literal author in order to keep your beliefs. 

Truth doesn't apparently shine. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

So the claim he makes up as he goes alongbis not entirely true. Some parts, as you mentioned Ajokli, yes infect that contrived and made up to a point. Won't argue there. But, there are many instances of brilliant foreshadowing as the thread continues to grow and it actually amazing the time he put into and the detail. Its just you choose to ignore those parts, because the parts you wanted an answer to wasn't answered.

Not really. It's that I believe that the foreshadowing is your attempt to invent your meaning-making activities and does not actually reflect conscious decisions by the author. My disappointment of answers really has nothing to do with it, and point of fact I wasn't actually disappointed with answers (or lackthereof). You continue to believe this is the only possible reason that people could be disappointed, and when presented with facts that contradict this you ignore them entirely. 

But go ahead and pick a bit of foreshadowing that you think is good, and then attempt to demonstrate or prove that it was meant to be there all along and meant to imply what you think it did. Please, let's see this. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Book was written for you or any single person Kalbear. Disheartening, because their is a whole lot of time and effort put into these books, with clues hidden throughout. Narrative depth is not lacking, imho. Again, this goes back to you not getting the answers YOU wanted. Tough break buddy, life's full of em.

Again, keep pushing that belief that it's a lack of answers that caused disappointment, instead of the stated complaints. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

See, classic Kalbear. Picks and chooses what parts of anyone's posts he wants to comment on and ignored the rest. I the post where you quoted the bits you wanted to, I said I believe Bakker is a troll to an extent. Definitely, he will, I won't say lie, but steer you in a way that leaves an opening for him to do what he wants and not show his hand. I admitted this, I have also gave examples in this thread, yet it's easy to see when your getting the truth from the man too. Why do you ignore what I just wrote, literally from the post you quoted, but left out that part. Why you can never have a fair conversation with you Kalbear. You manipulate others words to fit your agenda, I love your reading your political posts, those are the best examples.

Everyone does this; heck, you're doing it now where you literally ascribe viewpoints to me that I don't have and then argue with them. 

You also missed entirely my point. I don't honestly care whether or not you believe Bakker is a troll; what I was pointing out is that you're arguing against a point that has not been asserted. You didn't assert that Bakker was a troll, so my pointing out that there isn't a link there is exactly analogous to that. 

You're asking for links to things that people aren't saying, and then proving your victory by their not providing those links. 

For the record, I think Bakker is not particularly trolling his fans all that much here. I think he's pretty genuine, and is largely shocked by some of the reactions and focus on things, and then uses that shock to rationalize it in his own categories of how people work and don't. He is constantly shocked by the lack of focus on thematic and philsophical depth, and shocked at the focus on narrative and plot depth. He got defensive about the whale mothers - and he ascribed the complaints about them to 'omg, how horrible it is to women' when the complaints were 'wtf, this isn't remotely close to plausible'. He does this a lot. 

8 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I am not defending misogyny, again, anothwr manipulation on your part Kalbear. I mearly used that as an example as to why people are little upset over the lack of narrative closure. With your questions answered, you can then write a post about how right Kalbear is and how wrong MSJ wasn't anyone else. Your mad because your ego isn't being massaged.

Sigh.

I didn't say you were defending misogyny. I said that no one has brought it up, one way or another. It simply wasn't a big deal in the disappointment angle. So...why did you bring it up? Because as far as you're concerned, all complaints about Bakker stem from his misogynistic views and the interpretation of them.

Despite it not being an issue at all brought up for, like, a month now. 

So why bring it up at all? Because, MSJ, you have this viewpoint that people who are disappointed have these characteristics:

• They think Bakker is a misogynist. 
• They thought TUC owed them answers and were disappointed that they got none.
• They think everything in the whole series is meaningless.

And when they tell you anything that contradicts those viewpoints, you ignore them. And that's fine - you're not anything special compared to any other human being in that regard, save that you don't recognize it or have the capability to reflect on it. 

[Kalbear]

32 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I explained this Kalbear, twice now. I didn't mean it as I believe Esme. I meant it as I believe it was Esme and not the guy saved by Gilgoal, in response to unJon.

Sorry, so when you said 'I believe Esme' you didn't mean that you believed Esme. My mistake, silly how I could have interpreted it that way. 

I still don't understand what you were trying to say, then. 

There is no textual evidence to indicate what happens to anyone who is holy and dies. It's certainly the case that the guy saved by Gilgaol wasn't remotely holy, for instance. Really, we've only seen all of two people who are in any way holy - Mimara and Esme, and I guess Akka Jr. 

As to whether or not gods can intercede, the actual link is here, and it had nothing to do with Gilgaol or Esme; it had to do with Psatma. 

[Kalbear]

16 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

They say Bakker can't do comedy, and typically I agree, it's not his strong suit. But I am finding Malowebi's POVs pretty funny.

Malowebi's bit was really funny at times. I loved the dig at the inverse fire and the 'man, shouldn't the fire on the ceiling be putting out a tad more light'? And the constant cursing out of Likaro. 

[Gaston de Foix]

I have a question about the Nonmen at the end of TUC.  Who (if anyone) has survived?

Is it the Consult supporting Nonmen in Ishterebinth?

[Gaston de Foix]

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Malowebi's bit was really funny at times. I loved the dig at the inverse fire and the 'man, shouldn't the fire on the ceiling be putting out a tad more light'? And the constant cursing out of Likaro. 

Actually, Bakker has had funny moments with Achiaman. His jnanic line at meeting Saccarrees was pretty good - and you are?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Gaston de Foix said:

I have a question about the Nonmen at the end of TUC.  Who (if anyone) has survived?

Is it the Consult supporting Nonmen in Ishterebinth?

That is one of the bigger questions - we have no idea who survived, how many survived, etc. It's left deliberately ambiguous. Only the people that we see die on-screen can be assumed to be dead. 

The Consult certainly was supporting and was in contact with some of the nonmen in Ish; Harapior knowing how wicked the Dunyain is implies this heavily, one way or another. 

[Darth Richard II]

2 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I have a question about the Nonmen at the end of TUC.  Who (if anyone) has survived?

Is it the Consult supporting Nonmen in Ishterebinth?

Didn't Serwe murder them all in between books?