Summer Bass

Bakker LI - The Darkness That Lies Ahead (TUC Spoilers!)

297 posts in this topic

17 hours ago, Dora Vee said:

Honestly, even if Kellhus DID succeed, what happens next?

He would conquer hell, enslave the Outside. I think that's what Kellhus' deal with Ajokli was all about. Kellhus give Ajokli access to the world in return for power in the Outside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PapushiSun said:

He would conquer hell, enslave the Outside. I think that's what Kellhus' deal with Ajokli was all about. Kellhus give Ajokli access to the world in return for power in the Outside. 

Per the AMA, Kellhus didn't intend for this to occur. What he DID intend is still unclear, but he did not expect to give Ajokli power over the granary. 

Share this post


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

Per the AMA, Kellhus didn't intend for this to occur. What he DID intend is still unclear, but he did not expect to give Ajokli power over the granary. 

Did we ever decide who the other Kellhus was in the granary scene?  Is it meant to be Ajokli?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I thought there was no deal, per the AMA. I'm all confused again.

I think unclear. Per AMA there was no understanding by Kellhus that Ajokli could use him like a rag doll avatar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could somebody link me to exactly where Bakker says that? I keep hearing this brought up, but I never saw Bakker say anywhere in the AMA that there was no deal with Ajokli. Maybe I'm just missing it.

Edited by Let's Get Kraken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Hello World said:

The other Kellhus? Are you talking about the Hell scene in TGO?

Yes, when Kellhus says that he tends the fields and the other image of him says “Who better to burn them?”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Per the AMA, Kellhus didn't intend for this to occur. What he DID intend is still unclear, but he did not expect to give Ajokli power over the granary. 

I'm still unsure how much stock to put into his AMA. His answers are completely at odds with the way the scene reads.

Share this post


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

I'm still unsure how much stock to put into his AMA. His answers are completely at odds with the way the scene reads.

He's an author that like to play with how a text can be read in more than one way. Indeed I'd say he plays with how the one scene could be read in different ways in order to illustrate the hijack - Kellhus's soul can't read the difference between it and Ajokli, so Ajokli's alternate reading/soul takes over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PapushiSun said:

I'm still unsure how much stock to put into his AMA. His answers are completely at odds with the way the scene reads.

All this tells me is that either he's a lying liar who lies... or the scene is terribly written.  :dunno: 

Share this post


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

All this tells me is that either he's a lying liar who lies... or the scene is terribly written.  :dunno: 

Or your ingroup genre reading comprehension is reacting to the new way of learning Bakker is throwing down. 

No weepers on the slog. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny I should read your response to my last quote today, Ajûrbkli. I was just reading 10 minutes ago about how in the original draft for the Matrix, humans were used as processing cores and not batteries, but in the 90s they thought this was an overly technical story element that most viewers wouldn't understand and modified the idea.

Every time I come back to this thread I'm reminded about how frustrating TUC was for me as a longtime fan of the series. No matter how much we endlessly orbit the idea of whether or not what happened was coherent or made sense within the narrative, I think that it is almost objectively true that everything was accomplished with absolutely piss-poor storytelling.

The book was named after antagonists that scarcely appeared and barely received more than a few pages of exposition, in favor of a massive, heavily overwrought section on an army descending into cannibalistic chaos. The major plot arcs were either aborted, ignored, resolved by deus ex machina, or never explained. Practically none of what happened in the preceding books even really mattered. No matter how much Bakker waxes on about how the end of TUC was the end of his original adolescent vision for TSA (it certainly feels that way, so he at least accomplished that), it felt like mediocre sequel bait.

So many of the flaws in the previous books depended on TUC: characters who seemed like they were included for no real reason, inconsistencies or elements that felt like foreshadowing for things that never ended up being explained... And all of this compounded by the tragedy of an AMA that makes so many of these shortcomings painfully clear as exactly that, and Bakker's response to criticism being "But I have taught you a new way of seeing MEANING itself..."

It gives me a little bit of an aneurysm when I think too much about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, in case you haven't listened to the podcast linked recently, Bakker talks about this idea that meaning dies at the end of TUC or something and how he expects readers to react. To his credit, he says that he expects readers to fall into three categories: those who get what he was going for and like it, those who get it but don't appreciate it, and those who didn't get the point at all. From reactions I've seen on Goodreads and pre-AMA discussions, most fall in the third category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I for one, loved the ending, but I will admit that it was for the wrong reasons. Then again, I did have a tendency of thinking #teamconsult pretty damned often in the Empire chapters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if it's broadly recognised, but 'good' storytelling runs off a bunch of conceits. For example, in good storytelling you don't have any 'loose ends'. Everything gets tied up at the end, no part of the buffalo goes unused.

This is bullshit. This isn't how reality goes. Good storytelling is actually high bullshit.

And incredibly satisfying.

But that's the point - if you think of Golgoterath as a topos of meaninglessness in a meaningful world, the whole approach was to experience leaving a meaningful world and entering a meaningless world. One where the power to see Kellhus's eternal torture status was possible - but just doesn't happen. We just miss the bus - there isn't a story too it, we got there late or the bus was early and we missed it. Although the movie 'Sliding doors' used missing public transport as a conceit itself for exploring two different timelines.

I dunno if I get what the guy means by a new way of looking at meaning. But traditional storytelling is sacarine - it's very sweet. It's like softdrinks and beer - beer is bitter, black as pitch...wait, no, that's war! But beer is bitter. And you gotta admit, Mimara just barely missing her chance to spy Kellhus was bittersweet, after all the shit she'd gone through.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now