Jump to content

R Scott Bakker's :The Great Ordeal (spoilers)


Kalbear

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Hello World said:
Prologue: Momemn
And naught was known or unknown, and there was no hunger.
All was One in silence, and it was as Death.
Then the Word was spoken, and One became Many.
Doing was struck from the hip of Being.
And the Solitary God said, “Let there be Deceit.
Let there be Desire.”
——The Book of Fane

But why did the Solitary God do this?

@Ran, ever are men deceived.

I can't say much, because I read the ARC, so I am on self-imposed silence, but this seems pretty benign to discuss.  I don't think this is saying that the Solitary God created deceit or desire.  I think the Solitary God is just naming the side effects of One becoming Many and Doing getting split from Being.

Or, you know, the Solitary God is just a jerk.

EDIT: Or Fane is just a jerk?  Or both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDIT: Kalbear beat me to it.

It's whenever Bakker suddenly breaks the POV character so he can go into "narrator" mode and give us a philosophy tip.  At least in the PoN Trilogy it could sometimes be good - now it's just annoying, and especially annoying because it's constantly sapping away tension when he does it. I couldn't bring myself to do more than skim the Esmenet section of this, and I was skimming all of it until I came the part where Kellhus describes a venture into the Outside*.

In any case, it should be interesting when we get to whatever it is that Mimara can do with the Judging Eye. Given the "changing past" element of the memories from Seswatha, I almost wonder if Mimara could not only forgive the existing humans, but also forgive all human souls that ever existed back in time (the "Countless Dead"), wiping out the Gods entirely.

* I think the "head on the post" is some type of anchoring spell to remind him to return back to the World.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, unJon said:

Re: Tracery game. Not sure there's a luck element as such. Sure there could be but I think meant to convey that those that land the coins are very skilled in predicting the path of the leaf. 

Moreover, this was foreshadowed in the Prologue to TDTCM:

Quote

What comes before determines what comes after. Dûnyain monks spent their lives immersed in the study of this principle, illuminating the intangible mesh of cause and effect that determined every happenstance and minimizing all that was wild and unpredictable. Because of this, events always unfolded with granitic certainty in Ishuäl. More often than not, one knew the skittering course a leaf would take through the terrace groves. More often than not, one knew what another would say before he spoke. To grasp what came before was to know what would come after. And to know what would come after was the beauty that stilled, the hallowed communion of intellect and circumstance—the gift of the Logos.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Electric Bass said:

It's whenever Bakker suddenly breaks the POV character so he can go into "narrator" mode and give us a philosophy tip.  At least in the PoN Trilogy it could sometimes be good - now it's just annoying, and especially annoying because it's constantly sapping away tension when he does it. I couldn't bring myself to do more than skim the Esmenet section of this, and I was skimming all of it until I came the part where Kellhus describes a venture into the Outside*.

This doesn’t bother as much as others in Bakker’s fantasy works. Maybe it’s the language or something else that makes me tolerate it. In Disciple of the Dog though this was infuriating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If kneading out hope for a better harvest is all the myriad Gods are about, how do the Chorae factor in precisely? Unintentional? To over-salt the venison and thus make the damned inedible? What about Mimara's decidedly different experience with the same? I can't quite pinpoint it, but I'm sensing an issue with consistency here.

edit: though now that I've pondered it, perhaps this is another manipulation, an intentional misdirect that loops back to Kellhus' admonishment to Proyas regarding Saubon, in doing/saying whatever to temper the Great Ordeal better. Hmn... 

edit: and don't get me going on out of place exposition. I just started Kay's latest wherein an angsty teenage heroine is off for some retributive, stealthy daring do-- and her concentration is constantly being broke while she thinks about [for our sake] the wide current of political conflict, of the several states to [presumably] be embroiled later on in the overall story. I love you man, but give me a fucking a break Kay. She isn't thinking about that, at least, not when she's being sneaky like.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible the Outside is screwing with Kellhus. Wasn't that part of what Bakker mentioned with the "Damnation Archives", that folks who did that could never get two straight answers?

But on the other hand, it matches what we heard from the Cishaurim guy and Psatma.

EDIT: You know what would be ironically funny? If Chorae somehow "purified" the souls of sorcerers upon the touch, killing them but also saving them from damnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

If kneading out hope for a better harvest is all the myriad Gods are about, how do the Chorae factor in precisely? Unintentional? To over-salt the venison and thus make the damned inedible? What about Mimara's decidedly different experience with the same? I can't quite pinpoint it, but I'm sensing an issue with consistency here.

Here's my problem, what exactly is Mimara seeing through the chorae when she did her little inversion bit in Cil-Aujus? It seems that through this explanation from Kellhus about the God of Gods, It could care less. So, how can It issue out damnation and such, or, decide the objective morality of things? It would seem to me that Mimara isn't seeing with the Judging Eye of the God, but something else entirely. Or, what Kellhus thinks is the God of Gods, isn't? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Electric Bass said:

EDIT: You know what would be ironically funny? If Chorae somehow "purified" the souls of sorcerers upon the touch, killing them but also saving them from damnation.

That's what I was implying with the over-salting, natch. An unintentional consequence, or maybe deliberate? I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the Chorae originally constructs of the Mandati? Christ, I really don't feel like rereading these books... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JEORDHl said:

That's what I was implying with the over-salting, natch. An unintentional consequence, or maybe deliberate? I mean, and correct me if I'm wrong, weren't the Chorae originally constructs of the Mandati? Christ, I really don't feel like rereading these books... 

Not the Mandate, Aporos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know Trisk, the Inchies may be railing against damnation, but I'd say their contention isn't that much less against death itself. Like, the idea of being damned is offensive, sure, but so too is that of dying. 

But, denying the Gods their sustenance, that's something I'd see them likewise consider as a matter of war.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone else see the similarities between Qirri and Sranc meat? About losing a little bit of their soul, becoming numb so to say. It's exactly how Akka describes the Qirri. I'm sure there will be differences also though.

I agree that Kellhus is getting Proyas ready to take over, rather, salvage whatever is left after he finishes whatever he is going to do. I found it interesting that Proyas thinks Saubon is getting the same treatment as he. But, Saubon couldn't handle that. I can't fathom though that Kellhus is prepping him to join with the Consult. Whatever is going to happen in Golgoterreth will be Kellhus agenda and his only, I'd imagine. I like the bit about, "his heart a ruin". It indeed confirms what I suspected, that those feeling he found with Serwe and Esme in PoN have left a lasting impression. He is human, has feelings and emotion. Not on the level as worldborn, but they do exist. Still Dunayin, but I believe that whatever his goals are, revolve around ending damnation and the Gods grasp on Earwa. Exciting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hello World said:

How does humans being the antithesis of the god relate to the No-God being antithetical to human life?

Assuming that Kellhus is right and isn't just lying to make Proyas do something he wants him to do (and to be fair, this is exactly what Kellhus thinks he's doing), it implies that the No-God and God are essentially fulfilling the same function. This would also make sense as far as the stillbirth and being invisible thing; if the No-God exists outside of the benjuka board (another reference in this system) but replaces the role of God, it would be invisible to the Gods (as they can only perceive what has ever existed on the benjuka board) but short circuit the path of souls through the tasty bakery that is the world. 

The line is that the World is the granary and we are the bread. That...doesn't make as much sense as I thought it would (I would say that the World is the oven, the souls are the grain, and we are the bread) but maybe we can go with that. The world is the granary. We are the bread - the final product of what is in the granary (realized souls) and some process that mills the grain and cooks the bread (time, life, being judged). The Gods in this are simply the bread makers and the bread eaters. They provide the oven that makes the bread rise - the gaze of judgment that damns. They get the bread and eat it, and fight over what is the most tasty bread that they made via their damning view. 

What would stop the bread from rising and from the gods from getting their bread? Well, something else eating the bread, I suppose. But also, something that stops the mill. Or something that stops the bread from rising. What would that be? Something that stops damnation

I don't think that's quite right, because it doesn't explain why the stillborn happen and why no new humans are being born, but it's an interesting idea - that the No-God specifically works by stopping the ability of the Judging Eye to function at all. What works better is the idea that the mill stops working. The thing that takes the grain - the souls - from the granary to be processed gets short-circuited by the No-God. Perhaps it sets the grain on fire, or simply makes every seed empty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it funny how we've all waited for so damn long to get an excerpt, then when it's finally released people complain... Even though most of the EAMD stuff goes over my head, (as well as most of the conversations on this forum) it's to be expected from Bakker. We all know that was coming, if you want easy fantasy then go read Sanderson or Anthony Ryan...  I for one found the excerpt to be awesome, and I can't wait to read more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cursed said:

I find it funny how we've all waited for so damn long to get an excerpt, then when it's finally released people complain... Even though most of the EAMD stuff goes over my head, (as well as most of the conversations on this forum) it's to be expected from Bakker. We all know that was coming, if you want easy fantasy then go read Sanderson or Anthony Ryan...  I for one found the excerpt to be awesome, and I can't wait to read more. 

Because it kind of sucked in that way?

It's not about 'easy' fantasy. This is a common criticism of criticism - that people saying that they don't like the philosophy are doing so because they don't understand it. That usually involves someone not actually reading the criticisms. In particular here - while it makes sense that Kellhus is thinking this it's still pretty boring, but it's especially lame for Esme - a woman who is half panicked, half absurdly determined, and entirely focusing her whole existence on finding her son - to think calmly about 'well, I read these history books about how kids of rulers get killed, and I know that knowledge is what drives my actions, and isn't that interesting? OH RIGHT, KELLLLLLL". 

It wasn't thematically reasonable. If GRRM wrote it, Esme would have been thinking about either recipes or the proper way to color in a breastplate with lacquers. Both suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we might consider the possibility that esmi's brains have been colonized by dunyainy mantras to the point that all the maternal ideology has been overwritten.  there are after all parents who casually murder their children, so no need to assume that biologically mother = ideologically maternal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm all for the principle of charity, Solo, but I think this is just Bakker needing to explain motivations in a manner that doesn't resonate with the probable thoughts of the POV character. So the POV sine curves between character thoughts and omniscient narrator explanation of har acted actions. And for some readers that is jarring like a harmonic frequency. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...