Gaston de Foix Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 RSB once mentioned (don't remember where) that the Nonmen of Ishterebinth have been inventing magical and non magical means to preserve their sanity for all these years. So, we'll definitely learn more about the Intact from TUC. Clearly it didn't work on Nil'giccas- but perhaps he was erratic before whatever technique was invented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 And additionally, look to Cleric's responses to Mimara and Achamian, he plans on turning against them because it will be MEMORABLE. What could be more memorable to Mekeritrig than turning against a plan he helped author for millenia? Betrayal seems to be writ into being an erratic, I do not think Bakker made a mistake by having him say he rode for and against the No God. The problem with this is that the sheer trauma of the IF should be extremely memorable-memorable enough to forbid any such idiocy. Also, since we're on idiocy: can anyone explain to me why Cleric refused to join the Consult? He claims it's because of pride but that seems...ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 It's also confusing because he sort of implies that all of the Nonmen have gone over...and I don't know that we're supposed to believe that or not. Istenbrinth is the last Nonman stronghold right (at least for the Intact)? So I think they basically have. Which makes sense. Cleric's actions...don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Clearly it didn't work on Nil'giccas- but perhaps he was erratic before whatever technique was invented. This was said in an interview, so the techniques and nature of the Intact are subject to change. The problem with this is that the sheer trauma of the IF should be extremely memorable-memorable enough to forbid any such idiocy. Like Callan said though, killing Sranc isn't a huge problem. Mek may, at times, decide he's willing to face damnation rather than be a part of the Consult who are ultimately a pathetic bunch of losers. So he starts mowing down Sranc but then begins to recall what damnation means and thus comes back to his senses. Clearly the Inchies and even Quya among the Nonmen decided he wasn't worth keeping around given he's wandering in the wastes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Like Callan said though, killing Sranc isn't a huge problem. Mek may, at times, decide he's willing to face damnation rather than be a part of the Consult who are ultimately a pathetic bunch of losers. And this is my problem:given what we know about the IF and y'know, logic, this makes no sense, for Mek or Cleric. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 I don't think you can forget about damnation once you've seen the IF, even for a short period of time. It really does work like a possession. At least that's what I got from Shaeonanra's POV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Could Kellhus "scrape the parchment of their soul" (or whatever it was that he did to Esmi to make her forget her possession) and remove memories to restore sanity?Which sanity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Buck Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 And this is my problem:given what we know about the IF and y'know, logic, this makes no sense, for Mek or Cleric. Agreed, at least in the case of Mek. Cleric, to our knowledge, has never glimpsed the IF, so "pride" of some kind is still a logical motive for him, in my opinion. As to the debate of Mek's "I fought for and against" line, I personally have no real issue buying that as him just meaning the Inchoroi and their mission as a whole. Even Moe in TTT lumps the Inchies and the No-God into one thing ("the Void came three times"). It's all the same force, the same faction, motives, etc. I kinda think this particular line might be getting a little over-analyzed, especially considering that it was the beginning of the first book in the series, but that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 And this is my problem:given what we know about the IF and y'know, logic, this makes no sense, for Mek or Cleric. I don't think you can forget about damnation once you've seen the IF, even for a short period of time. It really does work like a possession. At least that's what I got from Shaeonanra's POV. What if the IF is just a goad, and it leaves an impression of having experienced something unfathomably horrible? Then Mek's condition is more understandable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Why does the world not conspire to make people like my theory? Why? :) What's your theory again? eta: I think I might have missed some posts in this thread....also weird sleep schedule... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 Agreed, at least in the case of Mek. Cleric, to our knowledge, has never glimpsed the IF, so "pride" of some kind is still a logical motive for him, in my opinion. Yeah, with Mek it's a logical problem. I'm more annoyed with Cleric's ill-defined motives. "Pride" can be a motive. It just seems...weak in the circumstances. IDK. What if the IF is just a goad, and it leaves an impression of having experienced something unfathomably horrible? Then Mek's condition is more understandable. The feeling,and whatever constructed memories should still work for the Erratic no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Buck Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 For those that have read Neuropath and Disciple of the Dog, which one do ya'll think is better? I'm considering giving one a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 2, 2014 Share Posted January 2, 2014 For those that have read Neuropath and Disciple of the Dog, which one do ya'll think is better? I'm considering giving one a shot.probably neuropath, despite the shitty info dumps and casual sexism. Disciple is apparently really funny to some people; I found it trite and crass, kind of like a farrelly brothers produced movie with almost no stars in it and nothing but semen jokes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 probably neuropath, despite the shitty info dumps and casual sexism. Disciple is apparently really funny to some people; I found it trite and crass, kind of like a farrelly brothers produced movie with almost no stars in it and nothing but semen jokes. I'm pretty sure that that is the book. The "plot" and characters are more like the actual novel uses to get close to you and bash you in the brain. So if you dislike that I'm not quite sure what else there is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 That Mek in the prologue was saying NC is the NG and he fought against him before he was the NG. That it was a clever hint right there in the first piece of the story but that we were primed to think about how Mek was on both sides when it was really that the NG was on both sides because he used to be a person, NC, before whatever happens to him happened. But this makes us ask why NC is so special he is needed to complete the No-God. Is the Carapace just the size of a coffin? The feeling,and whatever constructed memories should still work for the Erratic no? But the experience might be diluted by the madness of the Erratic, who also relies of tragedy and killing those he loves. The IFExeprience is trying to fit into a mind overloaded with memories, which makes it harder to remember since it doesn't have that emotional component. So it's still horrible, but it isn't as effective a goad as it is to a human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I guess the reason I don't think the No-God is an undead NC is because Shae specifically notes that mechanism is the key to saving their Voices....makes me think the No-God is some kind of AI connected to the Outside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Buck Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 The AI idea has intrigued me for awhile...a vastly intelligent -- but soulless -- entity. It also works with the motif of Worldly technology interfacing with the spiritual Outside (which is precisely what I think the IF is...and I do believe it's quite real. It really does show Damnation). Anyways, I read the Kindle sample of Disciple of the Dog, then bought the book on a whim. I'm maybe forty-ish pages in, and rather enjoying it to be honest. I can tell Bakker's trying to be funny, and I did smirk here and there, but it's more just a casual amusement than genunine humor. But it's definitely well-written, the basic plot is interesting so far, and I'm enjoying the experience of reading Bakker's prose from first person, and without the (what I think is) often forced "scriptural tone" of TSA. ETA: At least in the first trilogy, I do think RSB improved quite dramatically prose-wise in TAE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 I'm pretty sure that that is the book. The "plot" and characters are more like the actual novel uses to get close to you and bash you in the brain. So if you dislike that I'm not quite sure what else there is. There's still a plot there. And kind of an interesting but very bare-bones one. The problem with Neuropath, other then the repeated droning repeats of The Argument, is that while Bakker understands that Thrillers are short, he doesn't seem to understand that they cover alot of material in that time cause they move really really fast. That book needs more interseting and, well, thrilling shit to happen in it. The last like 30 pages is kinda awesome in it's madness but it needs more of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted January 3, 2014 Share Posted January 3, 2014 What if the IF is just a goad, and it leaves an impression of having experienced something unfathomably horrible? Then Mek's condition is more understandable.Plus he just forgot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted January 3, 2014 Author Share Posted January 3, 2014 But what is the WHAT DO YOU SEE? stuff? Whatever the No-God is, it seems like an entity that has some kind of consciousness. A pithy way of saying it is that the No-God has consciousness, but no perception. Since existence is constructed by a feed-back loop between watching and watcher, this means that the No-God in some sense stands outside of existence. (This is very much by design: were the No-God part of existence, he’d be immediately overwhelmed by the much more potent metaconsciousness called The God.) Put differently: assume you want to build an AI. Further assume that you exist in a world where all of reality is connected and part of, in fact identical to, the God. Since you want your AI to destroy all ensouled creatures, you have a problem, since the ensouled creatures might object to the plan. By force of numbers, no matter how many gigaflops your AI can muster, it will lose the tug-of-wills between its own design and the much more potent desires of the sum of the ensouled creatures. So your AI needs to not be part of the world. You accomplish that by blinding it. It will still have the same desire as all consciousnesses: to be watched. To be seen. To be witnessed. But it cannot apprehend itself. The result of these constraints will be a pretty good AI that you can control, yet which also exhibits an unquenchable thirst to be seen. —— At least that’s how I understand this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.