Kalbear Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: I'm thinking only during contact, but I could be wrong. Yeah, we really have no idea of what chorae do to magicked items. We think that they remove the magic, but apparently not emilidis made ones. And all it takes is a second or so for her to blow it up and then wreck the world. Or she could sing a lullaby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Just now, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: I'm thinking only during contact, but I could be wrong. That makes sense. My first read was the light was more like a steel-on-flint spark due to some kind of immovable wall/unstoppable object type thing, but I can see this theory working Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 1 minute ago, Claustrophobic Jurble said: Ye, seems like a callback to the Hundred Pillars being those Zaudunyani that gave Kellhus their water in the desert. Same concept. Kellhus doesn't want Sranc-madness. Nice reference, as we know, kellhus ate human in the desert too. It's why he alone didn't waste away from the trials of the desert. Quote He laughed, pawed at her face as though embarrassed, and she caught and kissed his sun-haloed palm … The waters that trailed from the flaxen ringlets of his hair and beard had been brown—the colour of dried blood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 35 minutes ago, Triskan said: There's a scene that I don't think I appreciated enough the first time which is where Kellhus has a flashback to his dream in TWP with the figure who sits crouched like an ape, legs crossed like a priest, or whatever. This time Kellhus seems to encounter the figure and say that he, Kellhus, tends the fields. And the figure says "Who better to burn them." What's up with this? And also, it seems like it's alluded to that the figure is also Kellhus though it's ambiguous. Just read this, here's the quote. I think it is Kellhus. It stands before him, regards him— as it has so many times— with his face and his eyes. No halo gilds his leonine mane Then who better to burn them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jurble Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 53 minutes ago, Triskan said: This time Kellhus seems to encounter the figure and say that he, Kellhus, tends the fields. And the figure says "Who better to burn them." What's up with this? And also, it seems like it's alluded to that the figure is also Kellhus though it's ambiguous. It's the No-God - in TTT Kellhus explicitly tells us it's the No-God when talking to Moe. The same figure tells Kellhus that he isn't Kellhus' enemy, that his only enemy is the God. These are the same visions that Kellhus, in his internal dialogue, discounts as madness. And it's probably madness, as Bakker has explicity told us the No-God is a p-zombie. It's a Chinese room, computer thingy (though a strange one in that it knows it lacks self-knowledge) - it shouldn't have anyway to access Kellhus' dreams nor, from what we have seen in Mandate flashbacks, is the No-God seemingly capable of saying anything beyond WHAT DO YOU SEE type stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 5 hours ago, WrathOfTinyKittens said: That doesn't explain why the pregnancy would not develop at all until Hunoreal and then develop at a normal pace. You're going to really hate my answer. She was teleported there after impregnation and given false memories of her trial and reason for leaving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 32 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said: Just read this, here's the quote. I think it is Kellhus. It is kellhus the no god or koringhus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 speaking of, I'm sure its probably nothing, but has the repeated usage of non-No-god characters use of "What do you see" (and very similar variants) in at least the first trilogy signify anything? I feel like a dope now for not writing down references, but I could swear almost the exact phrase has been uttered in Akka, Cnaiur and Esmi chapters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 minutes ago, lokisnow said: It is kellhus the no god or koringhus how would it be koringhus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
all swedes are racist Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Triskan said: Nayu definitely thinks it a few times, and I've wondered about it. Not sure I noticed the other two, but I'll have to watch for that in t4hefuture. By the way, something nuke-related: I happened to pick up TWP to look for the dream sequence and just happened upon Akka's speach to the Great Names neazr the end where he tried to retell the whole history of The Consult. He says this: "The Mangaecca ransacked the place...found much that the Nonmen had not including terrible armaments never brought to fruition." My italics, and the quote is paraphrased but the italics are the exact quote. On a first read it could seem just a general referral to the Tekne, but it seems possible to see it in a more specific light now. Nice catch. So, would all of the mandate be aware of the "terrible armaments", even if they weren't aware of the nature? And speaking of which, Kellhus hasn't grasped seswathas heart, yeah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 2 hours ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said: how would it be koringhus? He grasped the absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Chipmunk cuts and cuts and cuts according to the will of the user. A chorae is a logic bomb. An ontological stressor that obliterates code violations. What was the boys will. Was He Cutting the Onta With His Subtle knife? Emilidis artifacts seem to leverage code rather than violate it, bit there's clearly a reaction going on between the two artifacts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.H. Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 15 hours ago, WrathOfTinyKittens said: But we know for a fact that this is not true because of Simas. Skin-spies can be souled, but the Consult does not know how to make them so on purpose and has only succeeded in doing so once. True, I definitely misspoke here, what I meant to convey was that skin-spies and sranc couldn't be created with souls, not that they couldn't gain a soul. Bakker actually said that very rarely, unsouled things, like animals and such, could actually gain a soul through means unknown. I think that is what happened with the Simas-agent, something odd must have occurred and it gained a soul for some reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowganic Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 18 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said: This still doesn't explain why he would condition Proyas at all. Kellhus leaving makes some sense - maybe - but conditioning Proyas with the foresight that he's going to have to lead people and lead them to eat, like, all sorts of other people - is odd. Well, even though he interprets them as untrustworthy symptoms of his madness, he gets visions, right? Maybe had a fragmented vision of this happening and reasoned he had to prepare for that eventuality to cover all his bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowganic Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 15 hours ago, Ser Bryar Ashford said: Seems pretty subjective. She started showing sometime during their adventure when their attire was different and their attention was elsewhere...We're basically just relying on details Akka notices while plumbing the depths of Cil Aujus. If K didn't try to get her pregnant there better be a really good reason why. Biologically, she had a chance to carry his children to term. Following this logic, why didn't he impregnate her years ago? Why only now, conveniently at the start of the books? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WrathOfTinyKittens Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 1 hour ago, crowganic said: Following this logic, why didn't he impregnate her years ago? Why only now, conveniently at the start of the books? There is exactly one piece of evidence that it's Kellhus' child: that Esmi could carry his seed and so he might try with Mimara. Every other thing that happens in the books points to the child being Akka's, and every character believes it's Akka's. Honestly, I don't see any reason to seriously consider it being Kell's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 4 hours ago, crowganic said: Following this logic, why didn't he impregnate her years ago? Why only now, conveniently at the start of the books? You mean you think that kelmomas and Samarmis were actually carried by esmenet, after Koringhus old us that mimara carries her mother's children? Esmenet just believes kelmomas is hers because whelming, but he's her grandson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 1 hour ago, lokisnow said: You mean you think that kelmomas and Samarmis were actually carried by esmenet, after Koringhus old us that mimara carries her mother's children? Esmenet just believes kelmomas is hers because whelming, but he's her grandson. I assumed when Koringhus said that he was referring to the fact of Akka and Esme's marriage and the children they never had.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 Koringhus tells us three things: 1. Mimara is kellhus wife 2. Mimara is carrying twins. 3. Mimara has carried her mother's children. Why we can accept one of these but not the other two I am not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Seswatha Jordan Posted July 19, 2016 Share Posted July 19, 2016 16 minutes ago, lokisnow said: Koringhus tells us three things: 1. Mimara is kellhus wife 2. Mimara is carrying twins. 3. Mimara has carried her mother's children. Why we can accept one of these but not the other two I am not sure. 1. Wife-daughter means step-daughter 2. Indisputable 3. As I said, bears the children Esme and Akka should've had. Now, I'm not saying I'm right, that's how I took everything that you took a different way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.