The Unholy Consult post-release SPOILER thread IV

[unJon]

14 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Of course we can. But, you do realize that we/I was trying to do that for a couple threads and being called wrong and stupid and not letting go? Yet, it lies on me when I defend myself? Didn't see you giving those same people the levels of grief...

ETA: it's only when we choose to defend the book and author that we are crucified and told to, "Just let it go, man!".

I'm not giving anyone particular  grief. I've been clear in all my recent posts that I'm addressing everyone in the thread. 

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

3 minutes ago, unJon said:

I'm not giving anyone particular  grief. I've been clear in all my recent posts that I'm addressing everyone in the thread. 

Fair enough, sorry for thinking it directed at me. As I said, go back to previous thread or before I started calling people on their shit. I was sincerely trying to bring discussion back to the books. Which there is plenty to be had. But, again, I was attacked, in turn defended myself. Because, most just wanna say how awful everything about TUC is and have a bash fest. If so, start a new thread, I say.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Another brilliant one found by @Bolivar.

The creak of bronze hinges. They both yanked their gazes to the shadows that concealed the entrance. The fires pulled and twirled in the tripods set to either side of the game-table. Achamian heard the scuff of little feet, then suddenly Nau-Cayûti hurtled into his father’s arms and lap. 
  “Whoopa!” Celmomas cried. “What warrior leaps blindly into the arms of his foe?” 
  The boy chortled in the grinding way of children fending fingers that tickle. “You’re not my foe, Da!”
  “Wait till you get older!”

Now, we can take this as the direct conflict between Nayu and Celmommas, or even what happen between Kellhus and Kel. Either way, great piece of foreshadowing, and yet again proves Bakker does indeed not just make it up as he goes along.

I agree, the Ajokli/Gilgoal confusion is a bit of angst to me and shows he wasn't certain which God he would use at the time. And, I felt clearly through textual content and foreshadowing that indeed Kel was a pawn of Ajokli.

[Kalbear]

Why are you certain this was planned? Especially the one about sauglish?

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Why are you certain this was planned? Especially the one about sauglish?

Was not the Library burnt in a different way, by a dragon? Was not Akka there instead of Seswatha? I don't know Kalbear, you refuse to see what others see. Its baffling.

[unJon]

Just now, Kalbear said:

Why are you certain this was planned? Especially the one about sauglish?

I could imagine that Bakker had the big set pieces planned from before TDTCB publication. He's said he had the last Cnauir scene written (hold aside which God would take him over). So things like: whale mothers in Ishual, Akka/dragon fight at Library, Momen falling, lots of phallic upright horn gazing, Kel salting in Golden Room. Those big pieces and others I'm probably forgetting seems reasonable was part of Bakker's original plan. 

[Kalbear]

Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Was not the Library burnt in a different way, by a dragon? Was not Akka there instead of Seswatha? I don't know Kalbear, you refuse to see what others see. Its baffling.

I'll ask again - why do you think it was planned?

If I say something 5 years ago that happens to come true, did I plan it? 

Another point independent of this: brilliant foreshadowing implies something important. How is sauglish burning with DRAGONFIRE particularly important? How is Nau Cayuti becoming the first No God (when he isn't even an anasurimbor) important? If you had figured out these clues, could you have filled in some large plot point? 

Right now I can possibly see foreshadowing and planning, but - just like the God thing, or Kelmomas and ajokli, I can just as easily see retconning. BSG writing a whole story about the plan years after their first stories didn't show things were planned out, even though certain details fit - it shows that they went back and came up with something that made them fit. 

[Kalbear]

7 minutes ago, unJon said:

I could imagine that Bakker had the big set pieces planned from before TDTCB publication. He's said he had the last Cnauir scene written (hold aside which God would take him over). So things like: whale mothers in Ishual, Akka/dragon fight at Library, Momen falling, lots of phallic upright horn gazing, Kel salting in Golden Room. Those big pieces and others I'm probably forgetting seems reasonable was part of Bakker's original plan. 

Right. That makes perfect sense. If bakker came out and said the sauglish battle was one he has had in his mind for 20 years it wouldn't be surprising to me. I'm simply saying that without that it isn't clear that it is planned at all, and using that as evidence of deep planning and foreshadowing isn't called for. 

We know certain things were planned out far in advance - cnaiur screaming at the whirlwind, or the whale mothers. Probably the best way to prove planning is to see foreshadowing in the text on those. To my knowledge there is very little or none, but I haven't gone looking.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Its foreshadowing, not retcon. Why are you so against the fact that Bakker may have actually put some effort and planning in his books? It fits the description of how and who was present when Sauglish burned the 2nd time. See, you don't wanna discuss these things. You want to say Bakker just made it up as he went along. Fine. But, why divest so much energy against things others are discussing if your not concerned with them? As unJon said, he was speaking to all of us, let's take discussion back to the books as I attempted before being attacked and told, "No, you're wrong. Bakker just makes this shit up."

Really, you don't think the man smart enough to add this foreshadowing to the books? I think its a brilliant piece of foreshadowing, as do others. Your take, "Eh, just hindsight." Its funny to see a guy that has 1000's of posts on an author act this way. I won't say what else I want to say, because I'm trying to stay cordial.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Right. That makes perfect sense. If bakker came out and said the sauglish battle was one he has had in his mind for 20 years it wouldn't be surprising to me. I'm simply saying that without that it isn't clear that it is planned at all, and using that as evidence of deep planning and foreshadowing isn't called for. 

We know certain things were planned out far in advance - cnaiur screaming at the whirlwind, or the whale mothers. Probably the best way to prove planning is to see foreshadowing in the text on those. To my knowledge there is very little or none, but I haven't gone looking.

Why do you need him to say it was part of the original plan? What other authors do you ask this of? Why not just death of author? And, it's clearly foreshadowing. 

[Kalbear]

I'm not against it. I asked two questions that you didn't answer. Why are you certain of it? And what value do they provide?

For me, I am not certain because we already have several examples of bakker himself saying that he made it up, for various reasons. And that's fine! Other times he changed things because he lost his notes or forgot a detail or the editors messed up. He's on record saying this. 

So could it be foreshadowing? Sure. 

Is it evidence that he planned it all? Not remotely. 

Also, MSJ, you continue to make this an absolute statement that no one has actually made. It has never been my assertion that bakker made up everything. It has been my assertion that the books simply do not have a ton of narrative depth, and those looking for it will be disappointed for the most part. That doesn't meant there is zero planning, nor does it mean that bakker is stupid or incapable of some. It means that (for example) all the implications about kelmomas being an avatar of ajokli aren't going to always be accurate. It means that the tapestry that mimara sees where she is in it doesn't mean anything to Kellhus. It means Kellhus didn't plan on being taken over by ajokli.

It means our interpretations of meaning are suspect at every turn, deliberately so, and that when we are certain about anything this should be a signal that bakker has done what he said he wanted to do well - which is engage your meaning making part of the brain to determine meaning based on biases. 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Why do you need him to say it was part of the original plan? What other authors do you ask this of? Why not just death of author? And, it's clearly foreshadowing. 

I need him to say it was part of the original plan because so much has been revealed to not be, so everything should be suspect. 

I ask this of any author I engage with. It's a common thing and has been since Tolkien. 

Why are you so certain that your interpretation is right?

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I need him to say it was part of the original plan because so much has been revealed to not be, so everything should be suspect. 

I ask this of any author I engage with. It's a common thing and has been since Tolkien. 

Why are you so certain that your interpretation is right?

I guess I can't be certain, Kalbear. Let me ask you this, does my interpretation seem to be the right one? Does it fit? 

[LuckyCharms]

28 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

And if Kellhus is dead, then shouldn't Ajokli know that he isn't the No-God, as his soul would have already been in the Outside?

Kellhus is dead but his soul isn't in the Outside. Ajokli's ranting because he can't find Kellhus's soul in Hell, so he naturally assumes that he entered the Carapace. Kellhus's soul is kicking around somewhere and Bakker commented that we haven't seen the last of him.

 

[Darth Richard II]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

I'm not against it. I asked two questions that you didn't answer. Why are you certain of it? And what value do they provide?

 

He's not going to answer your questions kal, you should know by now. He's going to cry that we're unfair, talk about leaving, then come in 12 hours later to insult me.

[Cithrin's Ale]

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I mean, Kellhus personally went into the Outside to form a pact with Ajokli, and (presumably) had to have his head hanging from his hip to pull it off. So how could Ajokli have just jumped into Cnaiur so easily?

There was no pact even though textual evidence indicated there was. The AMA states that Ajokli hijacked Kellhus.

Although maybe I'm an idiot for trusting this AMA answer. Who knows.

[Lutarez]

There is one thing though that hasn't changed. The first trilogy, even if flawed, is better. 

 

I don't understand the point of esmenet, kellmomas and that whole plot line. What was bakker thinking ? Weakest part in the series imo

[Darth Richard II]

Ahem. Ok. I have an actual question. It's been a while since I read TJE, but if the Gods can't see little Kel, how is Ajolki(spelled that wrong) talking to him durning the beetle scene?

[unJon]

15 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Ahem. Ok. I have an actual question. It's been a while since I read TJE, but if the Gods can't see little Kel, how is Ajolki(spelled that wrong) talking to him durning the beetle scene?

Beauty of ambiguity. Kelmomas followed a beetle around into Ajokli shrine and tore its legs off. That's it. 

[unJon]

30 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Are those mutually exclusive? My impression after reading the AMA was that Kellhus made a pact, but that Ajokli took over more than he believed the closer they came to Golg.

I'm unclear. I'd like to think that's what happened and that's what I thought before AMA for sure.