unJon Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 1) Very different circumstances. This is a throwaway line and don't see why he would lie. And Bakker pretty carefully worded the CuS thing as opposed to saying this line is "an error" 2) You are starting from an extradiegitic position assuming it is is Mek. Nothing in text about that and it only came from bakker on the zombie 3 seas board. You can't have I both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyCharms Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 Please. 'Mek' is much easier to type than 'Unnamed Nonman Quya that Kellhus confronts in the Prologue of The Darkness that Comes Before—the result is the same, and we all know who we are talking about. Of which there is textual evidence that it is Mek beyond authorial comments. Granted it might be confirmation bias ex post facto from the author's comments, but it's still there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 If Bakker did say that was an error I think that should be reliable. Whether it was Mek or not doesn't seem relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 Bakker said it was in error after having said he regretted revealing that was mekeritrig. my guess is it is not an error but that the audience was not supposed to be able to discern NC as NG from that comment, but the audience can so discern with the extra info of identifying the non man as Mek. if he'd told us the non man was nilgiccas then I'd accept the line as error, I think he's just trying to cover his tracks with cnaiurs arc is done sort of deceptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 1 hour ago, LuckyCharms said: Please. 'Mek' is much easier to type than 'Unnamed Nonman Quya that Kellhus confronts in the Prologue of The Darkness that Comes Before—the result is the same, and we all know who we are talking about. Of which there is textual evidence that it is Mek beyond authorial comments. Granted it might be confirmation bias ex post facto from the author's comments, but it's still there. What is the textual evidence? Don't recall anyone every pointing to textual evidence on this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IllusiveMan Posted October 15, 2016 Share Posted October 15, 2016 So just another person throwing cents in. Huge fan of the series; it has been extremely powerful for both myself and for my writing. Will echo general thoughts here: I loved the Great Ordeal, though it does not match the heights of the WLW for me (my favorite of the series). Loved the Koringhus arc, one of the most powerful moments of writing yet. My first read through the Sorweel arc did not strike me as much as the rest until the final chapter, but upon reread I loved it. My questions have to do with the nature of Damnation (anyone feel free to pitch in, honestly). I know in the past you said this is key to the series so you might not be able to answer much but thoughts in general would be illuminating. We have yet to truly see a person who is Saved in Mimara's eyes, save for herself. The only person who does not seem to be Damned is Koringhus when he makes his leap. Is there a reason we have not seen anyone who is saved? Mimara at one point wonders if the whole world is condemned to Damnation. Is it just the sample size of people we've seen via her Eye all happens to be awful people (sorcerers, scalpers, Cnaiur, etc)? Someone asked what a simple farmer might look like with the Eye and that is definitely a fascinating question. At the same time she mentions seeing great men shining bright which implies not everyone is condemned to being extra crispy fried bread. Can anyone truly be saved with what we know of the Gods? The nature of this trilogy definitely seems to hinge on who is damned and who isn't, and we have reason to believe some people are not damned, but if the world is a granary and the gods, as seen via Kellhus's PoV, are crocodilian monsters feasting on Meat, why would they bother saving anyone at all? What would the nature of salvation or heaven be? My other question relates to Damnation and morality. How much of a correlation is there? The Gods feed on suffering, yet there are hints that morality and damnation are related. Acts of murder condemn you, the Dunyain or Inchori are damned because of the atrocities they commit. Mimara thinks Galian can be saved by repentance - is that true? Is the key to not being damned simply living a morally upright life, or is it tied only to appeasing the Gods? Would a good person who has not committed any crimes but does not know to worship the Gods (backwoods farmer say) still be damned? Just some questions I had whilst reading, ones that I am sure the Unholy Consult will shed more light upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calibandar Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 What I would like to see is for TUC to end with Kellhus victorious upon Golgotterath, singing Eurythmic's song. "Hey heyyyyyyyy, I saved the world today. Everybody's happy now; the bad's thing gone awaaayyy Everybody's happy now; the good thing's here to stay" I'm not sure if there is still time to add this in the revisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happy Ent Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 “We two are one,” screamed Dave and Anasûrimor Lënnox, and plunged over the abyss, holding hands, into the arms of nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damelon Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 While the Mandate, as a choir, intones Sweet Dreams are made of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuckyCharms Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 22 hours ago, unJon said: What is the textual evidence? Don't recall anyone every pointing to textual evidence on this point. "I will remember, Anasurimbor!" In the prologue of book 1. "I will remember, Seswatha!" In the first chapter of book 3. Which despite being a salient line to most Nonmen, no other cunoroi says that in the entire series. And that's exactly the sort of echoed line that Bakker would use to say, 'this is the same dude.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unJon Posted October 16, 2016 Share Posted October 16, 2016 1 hour ago, LuckyCharms said: "I will remember, Anasurimbor!" In the prologue of book 1. "I will remember, Seswatha!" In the first chapter of book 3. Which despite being a salient line to most Nonmen, no other cunoroi says that in the entire series. And that's exactly the sort of echoed line that Bakker would use to say, 'this is the same dude.' That's pretty cool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 13 hours ago, Happy Ent said: “We two are one,” screamed Dave and Anasûrimor Lënnox, and plunged over the abyss, holding hands, into the arms of nothing. I thought that happened in Harry Potter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.