Gaston de Foix

The Unholy Consult post-release SPOILER thread IV

389 posts in this topic

1 hour ago, Latan said:

People have still not said what is so disastrous about the AMA? They keep saying it but not exactly what was so bad about it. 

You need to go back and read the last three threads then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Latan said:

People have still not said what is so disastrous about the AMA? They keep saying it but not exactly what was so bad about it. 

Before the AMA, Bakker was stating, "Kellhus is dead, duh, I rewrote it four times to make that clear and unambiguous as possible, lol you fools, it really is that simple."

at the AMA he was saying, 

"what do you mean kellhus is dead, what idiot would think kellhus is dead, duh I wrote it ambiguous on purpose, lol you fools it obviously isn't that simple."

before the AMA people were like, "ooh the Ajokli Possession, what a cool unexpected reveal, this is a change that substantially ripples throughout the entire series and effectively reveals new things we never knew before."

at the AMA Bakker was jumping up and down furiously screaming, "STOP TALKING ABOUT THE AJOKLI POSSESSION THAT DOESNT MATTER IT WAS JUST SOMETHING I CAME UP WITH LAST MINUTE AND ALSO I PLANNED IT FROM THE BEGINNING BUT IT DOESNT MEAN ANYTHING!"

so you know typical self contradictory troll behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the big one was where he talked about how if you looked for meanign in his work you failed as a reader...or something? I'll have to see if I can pull it up but it should be in the last thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Obligatory Username said:

Bakker did say circa TJE that TAE was matter of snipping one long story. Addressing TAE as self-sufficient is a pretty interesting exercise.

He said that TJE was a matter of snipping one long story at one point. He did not say that about TAE as a whole, at least in that interview:
Since I have no interest in manufacturing closure simply for the sake of closure, I had to settle for the one point where the development of the three threads of The Judging Eye lined up dramatically...Then snip.

3 hours ago, Obligatory Username said:

Interestingly enough, Bakker mentioned at Zaudunyanicon that for a long time he toyed with the idea of Gilgaol for Ajokli's role in TAE - which collapses some interesting narrative construction in TTT regarding Kellhus' speech at Shikol's Palace and Cnaiur at Joktha.

Unless he was  trolling y'all, of course, in which case he had it planned all along! (that having two 4-horned gods allowed him to be more narratively ambiguous as a feature, not a bug, is one of the most Bakkery things ever)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Obligatory Username said:

Honestly, I don't know if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, because I have no idea what the 'akin to the relationship of the Dune books' is. Dune Messiah is significantly better as a standalone and in revealing the major actor's motivations and plotlines, I will say. In any case, I don't see any real evidence that TAE was supposed to just stop, mid-plotline, for Akka and Mimara. 

And if it's like the Dune series, well, Children of Dune makes a lot of sense for a thematic approach to the next series. Spoilers for Children follow:

Spoiler

Presumably Mimara's child is the Leto analogue, though I'm not sure who would be Alia - perhaps Crabicus, given that the Dunyain spirit lends itself to possession, and he has already shown connection with other relatives? Perhaps Crabicus gets possessed by Kellhus then? Perhaps fusing with the No-God later on? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I think all he's trying to get across is simply TUC is not the end. Hasn't been for some time, since Bakker starting writing and the story grew in the telling. All TUC did was complete the vision of a 17 year old boy. And, that made Bakker extremely satisfied that he accomplished that. Could die tomorrow and have no regrets. And he tells the story for the sake of the story, not for mine or yours cognitive closure. That's it. This is how i understand Bakker in the AMA when he was asked this question exactly and have the quote about should we be disappointed or should we look for meaning in a different way. I don't know which is right or wrong. I will be honest and wouldve loved to have some closure on alot of fronts. Bakker doesn't care what we want though. TSA is linked to his psychological works, that I know. That shit flies over my head.

Bakker, even acknowledged in that very post about meaning, that he gets defensive when people question his ways as if he is just some poser. He listed the journal's he's been in and ones he's continually invited to partake in. So, he gets defensive and made it clear he sure as hell isn't writing to make the masses happy=cognitive closure. He has a plan and he's staying true to it. Will it garner him higher sales? I doubt it. But, you can't fault him for staying true to his vision.

Edited by Michael Seswatha Jordan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Bakker, even acknowledged in that very post about meaning, that he gets defensive when people question his ways as if he is just some poser. He listed the journal's he's been in and ones he's continually invited to partake in. So, he gets defensive and made it clear he sure as hell isn't writing to make the masses happy=cognitive closure. He has a plan and he's staying true to it. Will it garner him higher sales? I doubt it. But, you can't fault him for staying true to his vision.

Of course I can fault him for that. Why wouldn't I? Heck, a lot of his arguments about people and how bad they are boils down to their inability to change their minds based on new information. Having a vision since you were 17 and executing on it is cool, but that doesn't make it without fault, and if anything it's kind of hugely weird that after 30 years nothing really changed. It certainly isn't an objectively good thing that nothing changes. To me this is akin to saying that I should praise my child's preschool art, and then praise them again when they're in their 30s for doing the same thing. 

I'm glad that he's happy with his final outcome, I suppose; more people happy in the world is probably good. That doesn't mean that it was a success as far as writing goes, that it was particularly a good story, or that he did a good job promoting it or explaining it. 

I also would argue that Bakker most assuredly does care about what people want. If he didn't, he wouldn't be as absurdly prickly about anything resembling criticism. He wants to be understood, he wants to be liked, and he wants to make a difference. He oddly does not follow most of the things he talks about; the most cutting observation is that Bakker has not, to my knowledge, ever chided a single person who has praised him for being incorrect in their interpretations or viewpoint of goodness, but chides anyone who has a negative viewpoint of the same. Nick Mamatas called him to the carpet on that years ago, and he didn't change then, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

Honestly, I don't know if you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me, because I have no idea what the 'akin to the relationship of the Dune books' is. Dune Messiah is significantly better as a standalone and in revealing the major actor's motivations and plotlines, I will say. In any case, I don't see any real evidence that TAE was supposed to just stop, mid-plotline, for Akka and Mimara. 

And if it's like the Dune series, well, Children of Dune makes a lot of sense for a thematic approach to the next series. Spoilers for Children follow:

  Hide contents

Presumably Mimara's child is the Leto analogue, though I'm not sure who would be Alia - perhaps Crabicus, given that the Dunyain spirit lends itself to possession, and he has already shown connection with other relatives? Perhaps Crabicus gets possessed by Kellhus then? Perhaps fusing with the No-God later on? 

 

In your spoiler speculation

Spoiler

Wouldn't fusing with the No God render him invisible to the gods as well?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rhom said:

In your spoiler speculation

  Hide contents

Wouldn't fusing with the No God render him invisible to the gods as well?

 

Spoiler

I guess? Though I thought the invisibility of the gods had to do with ending the gods, which personally makes me think more of the ending of God Emperor of Dune than it does Children of Dune. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Obligatory Username said:

Neither, you just misquoted my original link for personal skew.

I did no such thing. I didn't change a word, and it was clear in the interview that he was answering a question about TJE, not TAE as a whole. Here's the full, whole context, including the question he's responding to (with adding clarity of who is saying what)

Quote

 

 [Pat]THE JUDGING EYE seems to be a notably less standalone work than even the individual novels in the Prince of Nothing, which whilst part of a greater tapestry did seem to have more resolution to each book. Was this a deliberate decision or more of a natural evolution given the story requirements for the sequel series?

 

[Bakker]When you try to tell a story as big as The Second Apocalypse, you have to go with what local resolutions you can get. This is even more complicated when your story slowly weaves together three narrative lines, as is the case with The Aspect-Emperor. What gives The Darkness that Comes Before a greater sense of closure, I think, is that it concludes with the various narrative lines coming together in the Holy War. Since I have no interest in manufacturing closure simply for the sake of closure, I had to settle for the one point where the development of the three threads of The Judging Eye lined up dramatically...

 

Then snip.

 

The question isn't about TAE, it's about how TJE isn't as much a standalone as any of the novels in PoN, and how TJE didn't have resolution compared to PoN's individual novels. That you took it to mean anything about the overall process of TAE is the skew; the context given in that statement makes it more than clear that the answer is about TJE only. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I also would argue that Bakker most assuredly does care about what people want. If he didn't, he wouldn't be as absurdly prickly about anything resembling criticism. He wants to be understood, he wants to be liked, and he wants to make a difference. He oddly does not follow most of the things he talks about; the most cutting observation is that Bakker has not, to my knowledge, ever chided a single person who has praised him for being incorrect in their interpretations or viewpoint of goodness, but chides anyone who has a negative viewpoint of the same. Nick Mamatas called him to the carpet on that years ago, and he didn't change then, either.

Mamatas also called him out?  When was this?  Because if it's like anything else Nick does, this should be gold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Larry. said:

Mamatas also called him out?  When was this?  Because if it's like anything else Nick does, this should be gold.

Back in the RoH days.

In particular, this slam from Mamatas of Bakker never actually calling Nazi Cavemen any of his actual positive supporters is here. This line made me laugh back in the day.

Quote

Present them. I haven't read every single comment on your blog as, amazingly enough, your mental problems are not my life's work, but I've read many of them. I have seen zero instances where someone said something like, 'No way Scott, your books are awesome and wonderful and you're a nice guy and not a misogynist and certainly not just an all-weather wacko' and you responded 'You're saying that because you're a Nazi caveman.'

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Back in the RoH days.

In particular, this slam from Mamatas of Bakker never actually calling Nazi Cavemen any of his actual positive supporters is here. This line made me laugh back in the day.

 

I wonder how I forgot/missed that one, since I was slightly involved with all that back in the day.  Still got a few chuckles out of me.  Then again, that's not the first time he's tangled with other authors who turned to humor to skewer his takes.  Had almost forgotten this one (my opinion on the matter has changed over 8 years, btw).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Larry. said:

Mamatas also called him out?  When was this?  Because if it's like anything else Nick does, this should be gold.

Your definition of gold is different then mine, I think :P

But when Mamatas is making valid points, well, that should have been the first sign that the RAM in our virtual situation was failing.

 

RoH is going to haunt us til we die.

Edited by Darth Richard II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is fundamentally wrong in that link is that Bakker thinks persuasion is provocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of amazed at how little discussion of the reveals of the book there are in these threads, and to be clear, I am not complaining or taking a shot at anyone.  It really feels like there was very little that actually happened in the book compared to previous books the more I think about and the more I see the reactions of others.  Very little Consult reveals (though I still like DunSult twist), no Mimara reveals, no Akka dream reveals, no Meppa anything, nothing new about the Nonmen after the great intro in the last book.  Besides the Dunsult reveal what actually happened in this book?  Some No-God reveals plus build-up with Kelmo breaking with the WLW and the Kellhus reveal at the end, and that's about it.  

It's as if Bakker had, unbeknownst to us, told us just about everything we were going to hear by the end of TGO with only the final Kellhus and No-God reveals remaining in TUC surrounded by a sranc horde.  

If you'd told me years ago that the early TUC threads would mostly not be about dissecting the contents of the book I'd not have believed it, but it actually makes sense in the present. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, before the AMA the most interesting discussion was about Kellhus' deal with Ajokli... And for all the early talk about Bakker leaving it to the readers to come up with their own meaning for Akaa, Mimara, Esmenet's arcs I've seen almost no discussion or any interesting thoughts about this from readers who liked the book, including on TSA. I did see one of his fans randomly saying that the book was great because it resolved all the plot lines and characters arcs, but besides that one guy, the discussion so far has been critics pointing out that several important plotlines and character arcs were not resolved, and Bakker's fans defending him not by anything substantive but by saying things like "YMMV" and "why would you expect resolution in the first place? lol".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It reminds me of Memory of Light. That book had even less things going on than TUC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.