Jump to content

Bakker LII: Ol' Golgotterath Blues


Larry of the Lawn

Recommended Posts

Why?

Unless all dragons must adhere to tropes, it just seems like if the dragon is an asshole, he shouldn't say anything that breaks tropes. But we've dealt with Cnaiur for several books, who breaks barbarian tropes over and over. Are we really surprised at any character having a personality so dynamic it fucks with tropes attached to it, in a Bakker book? Or are dragons supposed to be nicer than men/barbarians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Callan S. said:

Why?

Unless all dragons must adhere to tropes, it just seems like if the dragon is an asshole, he shouldn't say anything that breaks tropes. But we've dealt with Cnaiur for several books, who breaks barbarian tropes over and over. Are we really surprised at any character having a personality so dynamic it fucks with tropes attached to it, in a Bakker book? Or are dragons supposed to be nicer than men/barbarians?

I don’t think it’s that. I think the cognitive dissonance of a dragon that likes human “cunny” (how do the anatomies even work together??) caused the laughter mechanism or the WTF reaction to kick in for many readers. Once either of those mechanisms engage, you’ve lost the ability for the reader to engage in some deeper meaning. 

 

So basically the execution failed to deliver whatever the fuck Bakker wanted to deliver with that scene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the dragon was humorous, or fucked up in some tourettes way, or interesting, or had any kind of reasonable, memorable backtalk - then it'd be fine that it's not speaking in GRAND ELOQUENT DRAGONESE. Breaking tropes is fine when you do it well. 

It was stupid. Using 'cunny' like it's some 2nd grade swear word just found out was inane. It wasn't interesting. And because it wasn't interesting, it made everyone look behind the curtains. 

It broke suspension of disbelief. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, unJon said:

I think the cognitive dissonance of a dragon that likes human “cunny” (how do the anatomies even work together??) caused the laughter mechanism or the WTF reaction to kick in for many readers.

But he doesn't like it - he doesn't even get what's going on. He's just repeating phrases like a parrot, like a 11 year old on voice chat in counter strike, just spouting profanity. He's a dragon but he has no class.

Crass characters just don't break my suspension of disbelief - in fact it's all too easy to imagine crass occurring (in such a nasty world) more often than classy, it fits - in a horrible way. You think better of a dragon, then he's basically trash. It's like projecting competency onto Kellhus.

The thing was a brute - it wasn't there to talk anyway, it was there to burn a bunch of bad ass mages and bite people in half - and it did.

Wish people would ask how the bag that hides chorae got into that chamber, but the dragons distracting from it. I'm assuming it's that bag, so Serwa sort of repeats the sins of her father just before he does them himself - ie, she thinks she sees all, is every surface of the chamber - then a hidden variable pops up and almost caps her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Callan S. said:

Wish people would ask how the bag that hides chorae got into that chamber, but the dragons distracting from it. I'm assuming it's that bag, so Serwa sort of repeats the sins of her father just before he does them himself - ie, she thinks she sees all, is every surface of the chamber - then a hidden variable pops up and almost caps her.

People have asked. It’s been talked about in these threads. Best guess is that Kelmomas did it on his way to the Golden Room. He is the one that noticed Sorweel drop the bag after all. 

And you like the dragon. We get it. YMMV. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, unJon said:

And you like the dragon. We get it. YMMV. 

The critiques of it always seem to treat it as if the dragons words have no grounding in the actual setting, as if it was all very meta. Even if its words are grounded in the setting, no one has to like the dragon. But I think the lack of grounding is a bad way of looking at it - there's fair reason to think what it said is drawn from the setting. Whether anyone likes the dragon even when they see it's words are grounded, that's up to them. To me it seems a bad critique to treat the words as meta rather than derived from the setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I had a dream last night where I was being chased by killbots.  And some dude in my dream was like "Hey, the killbots can't see people, you can actually stand next to them and be safe."  And i was like wat.  When I woke up, I was like, that's some Bakker-y shit.  An AI that's programmed not to harm humans cripples itself in a manner where it literally can't see humans - can't distinguish them from the background or whatever - and can't even infer their existence or presence.  

So the Killbots just go around burning crops and demolishing buildings because they're no longer necessary and humanity just dies as an after-effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Because up until then the Consult gave off such a slut-shaming vibe?

It was slut shaming? It was trying to out talk something it just couldn't out talk. It resorted to witless crass statements in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

You....you think it was trying to OUT TALK? Did you read a different book?

Perhaps I did. Mine has a sentence saying Serwa was talking to it in order to distract it and keep it's mind off her assault. She was giving it shit and it tried to give her shit back - becoming distracted in doing so.

I mean, sometimes people resort to theatrics as a way of talking over someone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/7/2017 at 10:49 PM, Darth Richard II said:

You....you think it was trying to OUT TALK? Did you read a different book?

Why is it so hard for some people around here to not accept that other readers have different views and take different things away from each and every book? Is your interpretation more correct than @Callan S.

He's offered way more in the way of interpretation than you and others have.

I might not agree with him entirely on it All, but doesn't mean that his interpretation is wrong.

ETA: His....that is HIS interpretation. Correct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly I loved that scene. It was for me an example of a fantastic twist. I didn't see it coming at all, and yet it made all the sense in the world looking back. It elevated everything. And it was followed up by another huge twist - Ajokli possessing Kellhus - which again, never saw coming, and while it might not have been foreshadowed as well as it should have been, honestly still made sense with the information we had and just clicked everything into place.

How could Kellhus overcome five Dunyain sorcerers with Consult knowledge? How could he perform sorcery without a mark? What was his plan to avoid damnation? He's made a pact with Ajokli. It even fit in with the true Dunyain model - the desire to manipulate everything, and so master circumstances - what could yield greater power than Hell itself? And it gave a horrifying, chilling answer to the series long question - is Kellhus a good guy? I think tons of us were suspecting, even knowing he did terrible things, that he had some grand plan to both defeat the Consult and end damnation at the same time for the good of humanity. And this reveal goes NOPE - he's got a plan, and it makes him a greater monster than even the Consult. 

But then Bakker had to do that AMA and honestly I'm left stunned. Like, how is it genuinely possible for a text to make complete and utter sense and answer every question (virtually) when read on it's own, but make zero sense when given author intent? I honestly don't get it and it's why I assume Bakker has to be lying or being misinterpreted. I honestly just don't see how it call all read so clearly a certain way, with lines and evidence supporting it, only to discover that all that evidence was happenstance and the author meant everything a different way that goes counter to how the scene plays out? Like literally the lines about striking treaties with the pit and seeing Hell as a well of bottomless power to conquer...they make no sense as said by anyone other than Kellhus. 

Honestly the only interpretation (other than Bakker lying) that makes sense to me is that he was misread when he said Kellhus didn't intend the Ajokli thing to go down. That he DID make a knowing pact, that he intended to use that power to overcome the Consult, and either be Ajokli's bitch or had some other method of tricking him. But Ajokli ended up being too powerful and took over completely, which left Kellhus blind and wasn't what he intended. The only read that makes sense for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

How could Kellhus overcome five Dunyain sorcerers with Consult knowledge? How could he perform sorcery without a mark? What was his plan to avoid damnation? He's made a pact with Ajokli. It even fit in with the true Dunyain model - the desire to manipulate everything, and so master circumstances - what could yield greater power than Hell itself? And it gave a horrifying, chilling answer to the series long question - is Kellhus a good guy? I think tons of us were suspecting, even knowing he did terrible things, that he had some grand plan to both defeat the Consult and end damnation at the same time for the good of humanity. And this reveal goes NOPE - he's got a plan, and it makes him a greater monster than even the Consult. 

Totally agree. The reveal that Kellhus's end game was even worse than almost everyone expected was very cool, especially since there were seemingly only two options available: try to save the world or join the Consult. On a side note, to me the idea that Kellhus was the good guy trying to save the world and end damnation because he loves or whatever seems more ludicrous than ever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Great come back!!! One of a kind!

I have no problems with anyone's interpretation, show me where I have. I might not agree, but ill add textual evidence to refute it. That's a huge difference.

These entire threads are you getting into pissing contests because you don't agree with someone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

These entire threads are you getting into pissing contests because you don't agree with someone.

No. The thread is full of people contesting and not discussing what I say. Funny, because this happens at no other site but here. I just wish you had more to offer a boy the books than you know, other posters. Matter of fact, do us both a favor and ignore me. Because, in terms of discussing the books, you've showed me for multiple threads you don't have much to offer to discussion. Other than your usual personal attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...