Kalbear Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I don't think that Kellhus is working towards inhuman ends. That's sort of the point. At first it was clear that this was the case - in the first trilogy up until the "I am MORE" bit. Now? Not so much. I do think that in general for the universe's morality meter intent somehow does matter. As lockesnow pointed out above, the OSC parallels are somewhat interesting. OSC cared deeply that intent was a big deal; that appears to be how Earwa works too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faint Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 But again, that had nothing to do with her magic womb and everything to do with her intellect making her a desirable breeding partner. At that point in the story, no one knows only Esmenet seems capable of producing viable half-Dunyain offspring. If it troubles you so, I'll split the ill conceived plot devices involving Esemenet's character into distinct entities. The first I'll call "the phantom intellect; the other I'll term "the magic womb;" and the triangle between her, Kellhus and Achmian I can refer to as "the convenient vagina." It really comes to the same thing though; diminishing and reducing Esmenet's already threadbare characterization, and working in consort to demonstrate that she is very little besides a convenient fulcrum to spur and motivate other characters (including Mimara, just to make clear this is not restricted to the male variety and that my argument has little to do with the question of whether the author is sexists). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faint Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 skipping pages ten and eleven at the moment to respond . . . Responding to your post in general, I think you've done well identifying what I think to be Bakker's greatest weakness as a writer, which is that he diminishes the quality of the story and his characters in favor of didactics. The tragedy of it is that from what you imply, and you have greater knowledge about this than I do, this is no willing sacrifice. He seems to not realize that the more he uses any given character to make a point, the poorer the result when it comes to crafting a believable and naturally flowing character arc. It's no coincidence that the character that suffers the most greatly from these almost authorial intrusions (i.e., Esmenet), is also his worst creation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I really like that analysis from lockesnow, and I also think that interpretation of Esme gels nicely with Jurbles theory (which I'm loving). If you take that a step further and all children Kel has after Yatwer turns on him are abominations, could Esme have had Kelmomas/Sammi via the intervention of Ajokli? She thinks she is the only one that can interfere here, but isn't there a comment at some point suggesting the other gods are at times blind to Ajokli?I also agree with Sci that Banker probably underestimated the level of sexism possible in his potential audience. Undermining a form of discrimination via a depiction of it backfires when the audience buys into the discrimination. I felt a similar thing happened this week on Colbert: he had Janet Mock on to discuss trans issues and in the segment before she was on he was also discussing them in his usual satirical way. Watching this I felt like the audience was as much laughing at trans folk as they were the satire of transphobes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Well, in Earwa there is an objective morality that can be experienced. It's possible that of all the people, Kellhus is the most moral person in the world. He is most aligned with what the objective morality of the universe is. (I don't think that this is the case; I think that his mission is to remove objective morality from the equation). Can't this be done just by closing off the world to the Outside, as the Consult's been trying to do? If so it seems he's taking a really roundabout way to achieve it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Can't this be done just by closing off the world to the Outside, as the Consult's been trying to do? If so it seems he's taking a really roundabout way to achieve it. But the Consult wants to make the world their harem. Or at least that's what Aurang wants to do. So they still need to be stopped. One theory is Kellhus kills off the Consult and makes the No-God is own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madness Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 There seems to be some really secure people here - what's it like up on judging mountain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 There seems to be some really secure people here - what's it like up on judging mountain? Cool. But not as cool as your fighter jet. See, we're stuck here flinging shit down, we can't make strafing runs before pulling back to safer skies :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurble Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 I still think Kellhus is what the texts depict on the surface. At the end of the TTT, we know that he thinks he speaks to God and that he thinks of himself as a Prophet. We also know he lies to people. We know in TJE he considers Mimara the eye that offends. His religion is false, but he's a prophet. He considers himself a prophet. He isn't trying to seal the world from the Outside, he's trying to destroy the Consult, but he's damning thousands, if not millions with his new religion to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Are the Bakker critics more judgmental than the Bakker critic critics? How much of it comes down to our conditioning from past events? How many more times can these threads enter into the meta self-examination...would I know if I had the same timeless perspective of the gods or - "This is a world where nothing is ever solved." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 This thread really suffers from a lack of Ginger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Kellhus is a stand-in for Bakker? I thought that one was supposed to be Conphas. :dunno: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Well, IIRC Bakker did say that Disciple Manning from DotD was inspired or written after himself, and that's the genius detective who literally had sex with over 500 women... So how is a self-aggrandizing a-hole so much not like Bakker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Hm? It's one thing to base a cynical detective on yourself and then subject him to a really shitty mechanic for plot. It's another to be the Messiah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Conphas is a Messiah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Kellhus as Bakker - I didn't want to think of it that way either - I always thought it was akka. But in a couple interviews there were some oddities.The first is Kellhus appearance. Kellhus' physical description - tall, long curly hair - is a match for Bakker. At an interview someone asked how tall Kellhus was and he responded something like"last I checked I'm 6'5" ". Then there was the announcer calling him anasurimbor. And then there's the hook of the story - in which a breeding program creates super philosophers who take over the world. Most of that is just odd speculation and not what I was meaning to say; my view is that Kellhus is a stand in for bakkers opinions and views, not his actual person as some kind of wish fulfillment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Oh. Brain fart. I was thinking of Kellhus but I suppose Conphas would argue the point. But really, there's much more to the character than that. His supreme narcissism and inability to see beyond that for one. Then there was the announcer calling him anasurimbor. The announcer calling who anasurimbor? Bakker?Where? As a joke? At his insistence? I'm a bit confused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurble Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 At a talk at some uni, some professor friend of his introduced him as Anasurimbor. Pretty sure it's just because Kellhus looks like Bakker, not that Kellhus is meant to literally be Bakker. If Bakker thinks he's Kellhus, then he's actually Conphas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Why did Happy Ent go Ginger on us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wise Fool Posted February 22, 2014 Share Posted February 22, 2014 Came to love the names in time, but still hate the name Anasurimbor. I actually quite like it. Glad that it's a last name so it doesn't get a horrible nickname like "Esmi" or "Akka" though. Mo is a bit weird though. Can't figure the pronunciation in my head. It usually winds up being "Mangus," as in the combination of mango and anus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.