Bakker XXXII: The Acts of Fane

[lokisnow]

That's maybe my favorite paragraph of the prologue, kellhus is an ignorant, pedantic and priveleged git, it is known.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Well, if Kellhus is a Jesus figure, then it makes sense for him to be the Son of God.

I guess I read something different, but Kellhus and Moe's conversation, they talk about how Kel uses religion(belief) to control the hearts of men. Kel clearly begins to believe that he is more, but Moe thinks he's mad for thinking this way. All of this is so ambiguous, but if we step back, we have to remember that this is all manipulation on behalf of kel. Does the intense and widely held belief that Kellhus is a "god" (I don't know what to call him..... a prophet? I think the masses believe he's more than that.), essentially make it so? You know the whole what makes a god is belief thing. I don't know, but upon reread I am ignoring all of that and looking for clues or facts the suggests he truly is. The only thing that could make it so is the halo's. And people only see those when their belief becomes strong enough. So I'm assuming that yes, its all based off of belief.

Anyhow, I guess what I'm getting at is what Kellhus's motive and endgame is. And honestly, I'm just as confused as I was before and have absolutely no idea.

ETA: Anatúrinbor, I agree that he's viewed that way, but is he really?

[Hello World]

Kel clearly begins to believe that he is more, but Moe thinks he's mad for thinking this way.

Moe says that he’s mad for thinking that, but it’s possible that he doesn’t actually believe it and that the accusations of madness are a “ruse” as Kellhus himself thinks is possible.

I think a big clue that Kellhus was right when he spoke to Moenghus was the “conviction” that he felt. (I know someone else said this before.)

In that scene Moenghus says that the feeling of certainty doesn’t mean anything, which is Bakker’s view in the real world, but Eärwa is an inversion of our world in that sense. If you go back and reread the series (I only reread TDTCB with this in mind) every time a character feels “impossibly certain,” “inexplicably certain” or some variation of that, whatever they are certain about comes to pass, even if the odds were against them. Kellhus in that scene feels something similar even though it doesn’t make any sense to him. That makes me think that he was, in fact, right. He was “chosen.”

Another thing is that certainty is connected to the God or religion in Eärwa. In TDTCB Achamian thinks that Maithanet carried the disease of certainty. Granted, Achamian knows nothing but I think he was right here. Certainty in Eärwa has some connection to God/religion, or is at the very least magical.

By the way, one of the things that they argued about was the Dûnyain principle of causality: What comes before determines what comes after without exception. Moënghus claims that he hasn’t found anything that contradicts the principle, but if the Celmomian prophecy is correct, then the principle must be wrong, as Kellhus thinks. Another thing that contradicts the principle, IMO, is the WLW. His actions are in a sense determined by the future outcomes that he saw, or what comes after. So if the WLW succeeds it would also prove that Moënghus was wrong. Although you can argue that he has already succeeded by going as far as killing Maithanet.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Good stuff, HW!

[Hello World]

I was just looking at this thread on the ASOIAF board called “was Robert really a bad parent?” and now I’m thinking, what would happen if we started asking such questions about TSA?

So is Kellhus really a bad parent? On the one hand, he gave his children his awesome Dunyain genes and he tried to teach Inrilatas when he was a child, plus he taught Mimara to ask the Skin-spies the paradoxical question. On the other hand, however, he doesn’t really seem to care about his wife and children, he leaves the house and hardly ever calls back, he sends one of his daughters to become a witch at the age of three, and then gives her away as a hostage to the Erratics of Ishterebinth.

Unless I’m missing something, he seems like a bad parent to me? What do you all think?

Also, I hope others will discuss other questions like “is Esmenet a bad mother?” and “was Achamian a good husband?” and “was Cnaiür a good husband and father?”

[Anatúrinbor]

But Kellhus only turned out that way because he practically grew up without a father. He was three when Moenghus left. Also, he's good in bed, and as far as we know, has never abused his wife or children physically, right?

[unJon]

But Kellhus only turned out that way because he practically grew up without a father. He was three when Moenghus left. Also, he's good in bed, and as far as we know, has never abused his wife or children physically, right?

You obviously missed Hello World's posts on the abuse topic over in the Worst Thin You've Read Thread. 👫

[Hello World]

Yeah, while I don't recall Kellhus ever beating Esmenet (or did he hit her in the possession scene with Aurang?) he certainly PIVed her over and over. Think about all the years she spent pregnant (in total), while he’s out there piving concubines.

And let’s not forget that he arranged for his first wife to to be executed so he could win over the Holy War.

[Hello World]

Madness, I hope you’ll answer this trivial question, which will not spoil anything I’m sure. Do we ever find out what the word ‘Xurjranc’ means?

[Larry of the Lawn]

I think xurjranc is ur-sranc.

[Hello World]

But Aëngelas thought that the thing was the No-God, the Great Ruiner he thought. It’s unlikely that he thought the No-God is a Sranc.

[bakkerfans]

Moe says that he’s mad for thinking that, but it’s possible that he doesn’t actually believe it and that the accusations of madness are a “ruse” as Kellhus himself thinks is possible.

I think a big clue that Kellhus was right when he spoke to Moenghus was the “conviction” that he felt. (I know someone else said this before.)

In that scene Moenghus says that the feeling of certainty doesn’t mean anything, which is Bakker’s view in the real world, but Eärwa is an inversion of our world in that sense. If you go back and reread the series (I only reread TDTCB with this in mind) every time a character feels “impossibly certain,” “inexplicably certain” or some variation of that, whatever they are certain about comes to pass, even if the odds were against them. Kellhus in that scene feels something similar even though it doesn’t make any sense to him. That makes me think that he was, in fact, right. He was “chosen.”

Another thing is that certainty is connected to the God or religion in Eärwa. In TDTCB Achamian thinks that Maithanet carried the disease of certainty. Granted, Achamian knows nothing but I think he was right here. Certainty in Eärwa has some connection to God/religion, or is at the very least magical.

By the way, one of the things that they argued about was the Dûnyain principle of causality: What comes before determines what comes after without exception. Moënghus claims that he hasn’t found anything that contradicts the principle, but if the Celmomian prophecy is correct, then the principle must be wrong, as Kellhus thinks. Another thing that contradicts the principle, IMO, is the WLW. His actions are in a sense determined by the future outcomes that he saw, or what comes after. So if the WLW succeeds it would also prove that Moënghus was wrong. Although you can argue that he has already succeeded by going as far as killing Maithanet.

i definitely think you are right about Moe--with the Dunyain, it seems that there is hardly ever a place to take their words at face value! except for Kellhus' inner monologues, everything he says out loud is suspicious. hell, we really have no idea why he was sent from Ishual! if Kellhus is himself being motivated by a darkness, maybe his internal monologue is no good either, they would be just the lies he honestly hears himself say inside his own head :P

i wonder if the principle of before and after will be vindicated in the end when we find out massive revelations about the hidden past. the Celmomian prophecy seems increasingly sketchy to me, could be Seswatha made up/or heavily revised the event before sealing the memory in his heart??

[Larry of the Lawn]

But Aëngelas thought that the thing was the No-God, the Great Ruiner he thought. It’s unlikely that he thought the No-God is a Sranc.

I was thinking more in the sense of original or proto sranc, father of all sranc, sranc extrodinaire. Like, head honcho of the sranc. Not that he literally thinks it's a sranc, just speculating that it's some in-world linguistic choice Bakker's made. Kind of like how Cishaurim and Kishuari both refer to the same thing but one is with a K and the other a C because their from different languages. :shrugs:

[Hello World]

i wonder if the principle of before and after will be vindicated in the end when we find out massive revelations about the hidden past. the Celmomian prophecy seems increasingly sketchy to me, could be Seswatha made up/or heavily revised the event before sealing the memory in his heart??

I don’t know, this description from Kellhus/Leweth,

For Leweth, Kellhus knew, the world was fraught with gods, ghosts, even demons. It was steeped in their conspiracies, crowded with omens and portents of their capricious humors. Like a second horizon, their designs encompassed the struggles of men—shrouded, cruel, and in the end, always fatal.

makes me think that the Gods are role-playing. Their designs are in the end always fatal because most games end with the death of your character.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Yeah, while I don't recall Kellhus ever beating Esmenet (or did he hit her in the possession scene with Aurang?) he certainly PIVed her over and over. Think about all the years she spent pregnant (in total), while hes out there piving concubines.

And lets not forget that he arranged for his first wife to to be executed so he could win over the Holy War.

Hello World, knock off the PIV/rape argument, its insulting to our intelligence. You seem like a smart, insightful person, but this is just taking it too far. It holds no water whatsoever, and is the dumbest definition of rape I've ever heard. My wife laughed her ass off when she read this and the link you posted in the other thread. When she, not I is the one who wants more children. She said she'll rape ME if I don't procreate with her. You think all woman don't want children? You think its men who force this upon woman? If you do, you live in a world you've created to fit your agenda, not the real one.

[Kalbear]

I do think a whole lot of women out there don't want kids. Are you saying otherwise?

[Callan S.]

I'm not keen on aligning with 'social justice' stuff (ie, self righteous, self appointed vigilantism)

but

She said she'll rape ME if I don't procreate with her.

That's not a funny thing to say - it'd seem to come from a perspective that men are immune to being raped by women. If you share that immunity notion, you're not getting the perspective of people who don't think men are immune to it.

And if it wasn't for humour...that's no better than if a man said to his woman he'd do that.

[Happy Ent]

If you […] you're not getting the perspective of […].

What you should have said is “thank you for adding a perspective (your or your wives’) to this debate that is contrary to my own perceptions. This added a perspective to this thinking I am normally reluctant to pursue. In fact, I immediately felt a censorial urge to respond with a rote social justice warrior meme, but then, thanks to the teachings of this very thread, recognised it for the dangerous social signalling behaviour that we He has taught me to detest.”

Of course, assuming you were actually honest about your agenda of getting other perspectives.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

Hello World is just upset his/her father is a rapist.

And if you say no he's not then you admit that you were trolling with those baseless comments that 99% world would laugh at.

If you disagree, I want you in no uncertain terms to say that your father is a disgusting rapist and your mother like all women is too stupid to give consent, because you believe there is no such thing as consensual sex.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

I'm not keen on aligning with 'social justice' stuff (ie, self righteous, self appointed vigilantism)

but

That's not a funny thing to say - it'd seem to come from a perspective that men are immune to being raped by women. If you share that immunity notion, you're not getting the perspective of people who don't think men are immune to it.

And if it wasn't for humour...that's no better than if a man said to his woman he'd do that.

Oh she said it as a joke. And yes, I believe I man can be raped by a woman, I never said they couldn't. Its just absolutely silly and ignorant to call all PIV rape. Period. End of discussion. That offends me on the same level as my comment did you.

ETA: and all I am asking is for it not to be brought up in a thread about TSA or any thread not related to that. It offends me, its saying I'm a rapist because I have consensual sex with my wife. There are threads devoted to that subject and I don't have to go look at them and read that nonsense. I guess I shouldn't have posted my wife's comments, and your obviously taking it out of context and making it mean whatever you want. She said it because of the hilarity of the PIV definition. Its the 2nd time I've seen Hello World bring it up, if that is his/her view fine, I just don't need to see it spewed all over every thread Hello World walks into. There are places to talk about these things and places not to.