Calibandar Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 A disheartening update. I hope he pulls himself together and finishes The Aspect Emperor in 2014. The only positive from that post is that at least finishing AE has priority over the other two writing projects. But who knows, that may even change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolivar Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Bravo, Shryke. Best post I read on here in a while. What does Bakker mean when he said, as of a few weeks ago, he had 350,000 words for AE? I thought the publisher had had the manuscript for months now. It sounds like he's incorporating reader feedback before the real editor(s) take a crack at it, nor sure how that bodes for the publication timeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Richard II Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Yeah I thought it was done, so I'm a bit confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 this section, when Cnauir is either talking to Kellhus or hallucinating that he isFor some reason, that's the thing about the circumfix episode I'd like to know more than anything. Who were Cnaiur, Achamian, and Kellhus talking to? Was Kellhus really communicating with Cnaiur telepathically or however you'd describe it? And was Kellhus just talking to himself or did some other agency communicate with him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diziet Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Post Title Great to hear about the short story. Carythusal is the home of the Scarlet Spires, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diziet Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 For some reason, that's the thing about the circumfix episode I'd like to know more than anything. Who were Cnaiur, Achamian, and Kellhus talking to? Was Kellhus really communicating with Cnaiur telepathically or however you'd describe it? And was Kellhus just talking to himself or did some other agency communicate with him? I think Madness mentioned that in one of the podcasts and said something along the lines of the answer being mindblowing? I may have misheard, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 SWB, any comments on Shryke's post? Looks spot on to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 And did Kellhus and Moe actually communicate?Shoot, did Achamian and Kellhus actually communicate when Kellhus was on the circumfix? *** Sorcery related, wikipedia, today, had me reading about Slavoj Žižek this particular construction in the part of the article on critiques of his work seemed especially applicable to Bakker's formulations of sorcery. according to some critics, Žižek's conflation of Lacan's unconscious with Hegel's unconscious is mistaken. Noah Horwitz, in an effort to dissociate Lacan from the more problematic Hegel, interprets the Lacanian unconscious and the Hegelian unconscious as two totally different mechanisms. Horwitz points out, in Lacan and Hegel's differing approaches to the topic of speech, that Lacan's unconscious reveals itself to us in parapraxis, or "slips-of-the-tongue." We are therefore, according to Lacan, alienated from language through the revelation of our desire (even if that desire originated with the Other, as he claims, it remains peculiar to us). In Hegel's unconscious, however, we are alienated from language whenever we attempt to articulate a particular and end up articulating a universal. For example, if I say 'the dog is with me', although I am trying to say something about this particular dog at this particular time, I actually produce the universal category 'dog,' and therefore express a generality, not the particularity I desire. Hegel's argument implies that, at the level of sense-certainty, we can never express the true nature of reality. Lacan's argument implies, to the contrary, that speech reveals the true structure of a particular unconscious mind. So is this gnostic = Hegel and Cishaurim = Lacan? I'd never have paired Cish to Lacan, and that's damned sneaky if Bakker did that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 Who knows with how many iterations of this thread we've had, but I actually don't remember the italics communications during the Circumfix coming up much. This is another vague thing in the Bakkerverse where I'm not sure what to make of it. It is made even more confusing by how Cnaiur comes out of it. It's like he's heading toward the scene at the Umiaki tree with this conversation with italics Kellhus going on Dunyainsplaining things to him and all. But then it ends with Saubon and others asking Cnaiur who the Hell he's talking to. It doesn't mean that Kel couldn't have been communicating to him, but given Cnaiur's fragile mental state, it's relatively easy to envision that this is just a fake conversation inside of Cnaiur's head where he's thinking about what the Dunyain would say. But then Kellhus has an italics conversation with Moenhugs too (though much shorter). It's alot less sane then that actually. He can't actually get close to Kellhus cause the guards holding the crowd back are in the way. So he's essentially holding a conversation with italic-Kellhus at like 60 feet or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 But are you saying that it is indeed just in Cnaiur's head? I think it's confusing because the same italics style in that section of the novel extends beyond the Cnaiur POV and thus cannot be fully explained away by Cnaiur's madness. I don't know. But it's certainly not normal in any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 DunyainsplainingAh, that's a good one! Probably the chilling thing about the scene is, perhaps, supposed to be that Cnaiur is so programmed by Kellhus that he is both having a conversation with himself and it is a conversation with Kellhus. And it is what the (likely unconcious at that point) Kellhus would have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 whereas dunyaining would be screwing someone's brains out while convincing them don't believe your lying genitals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Marquis de Leech Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 OK. I read the first trilogy some years ago, but have only recently been working my way through the second. One thing I noticed in The Judging Eye (I'm sure this has been mentioned in the myriad Bakker threads): a curiosity of dates. The First Apocalypse and the founding of the Mandate takes place in 2155-2156 (Year of the Tusk). The first trilogy is then set in 4112, and the second in 4132. Now, if we say that the First Apocalypse and the founding of the Mandate equals the birth of Christianity via Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (yes, I know there are other, more obvious, comparisons in the series, but bear with me). That is A.D. 33. Which puts the first trilogy at A.D.1989-1990, and the second at A.D. 2009-2010. The latter, by odd coincidence just happens to be roughly the publication date of the start of the second trilogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sologdin Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 maybe so. that means AK = BHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diziet Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 SWB, any comments on Shryke's post? Looks spot on to me. Yeah, I was wrong. -------------------------- But then Kellhus has an italics conversation with Moenhugs too (though much shorter). Are you referring to this? They’ve murdered my wife. I gave her to them. What did you say? I gave her to them. Why? Why would you do this? For you... For them. It never ocurred to me that this was Moenghus. I thought it was either Kellhus talking to himself (or some version of himself), or one of the Gods who's behind it all. Kellhus did see the visions afterwards, a half-monk-half-beast and a tree which I thought was the darkness that comes before. Of the three 'conversations' I think the most likely to be Moenghus is the one Cnaiur has in his head. This might be related or not, but Kellhus mentioned Moe's manipulation of Cnaiur in TTT, but to be honest, I'm not even sure what the sentence means, And Kellhus talked, explained all that inference had taught him of his father. He spoke in generalities, mostly. The details he hazarded, particularly with regard to Moënghus’s manipulation of Cnaiür, he secured through the assignation of probabilities. Why would Kellhus not want to mention Moe's manipulations of Cnaiur in front of him? And what is the 'assignation of probabilities'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maithanet Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 OK. I read the first trilogy some years ago, but have only recently been working my way through the second. One thing I noticed in The Judging Eye (I'm sure this has been mentioned in the myriad Bakker threads): a curiosity of dates. The First Apocalypse and the founding of the Mandate takes place in 2155-2156 (Year of the Tusk). The first trilogy is then set in 4112, and the second in 4132. Now, if we say that the First Apocalypse and the founding of the Mandate equals the birth of Christianity via Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (yes, I know there are other, more obvious, comparisons in the series, but bear with me). That is A.D. 33. Which puts the first trilogy at A.D.1989-1990, and the second at A.D. 2009-2010. The latter, by odd coincidence just happens to be roughly the publication date of the start of the second trilogy. That's interesting. Fall of Fanim = Fall of Communism? Embrace of Kellhus = worldwide embrace of Capitalism? No-God = Bitcoin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anatúrinbor Posted October 3, 2014 Author Share Posted October 3, 2014 The First Apocalypse and the founding of the Mandate takes place in 2155-2156 (Year of the Tusk) ... Now, if we say that the First Apocalypse and the founding of the Mandate equals the birth of Christianity via Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection (yes, I know there are other, more obvious, comparisons in the series, but bear with me).Close enough. Inri Sejenus was born in 2159.eta: Bakker comments on his blog,No decisions have been made on whether the tome will be divided or not. If so, the first will be called The Great Ordeal, and the second, The Unholy Consult. I say Aspect-Emperor because no matter how its packaged, the series is done. And I think it will please... hope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diziet Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 If it is split would there be a significant delay between the two volumes or would they roughly be released close to each other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diziet Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 If it weren't for the two titles (Great Ordeal and UC) I'd thought that the first one might feature the Esmenet/Psatma/Kelmomas storyline and the second the Kellhus/Akka/Sorweel. Now I'm starting to worry that Bakker will consider ideas like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bolivar Posted October 3, 2014 Share Posted October 3, 2014 The 2nd book would be planned for the following year with a little note from the author in the back of the first one saying it's all good. :leaving:Why would you even joke about that on these forums? Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.