Jump to content

The Unholy Consult post-release SPOILER thread III


kuenjato

Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, Callan S. said:

The issue is for myself I can say 'maybe' to this, but you don't appear to think it could apply to you. Are you considering it could be you (or even both of us) doing mental gymnastics?

Conversations where B keeps treating A as capable of mental gymnastics but B doesn't treat themselves as capable of doing that are pretty damn lopsided affairs...really just a form of gas lighting.

Well. It's good you can say maybe since those arguing the other side have cited multiple book passages and author statements that support their position. It's not so surprising that others have trouble saying maybe since your argument has no support other than you find your explanation more "engaging". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, unJon said:

Well. It's good you can say maybe since those arguing the other side have cited multiple book passages and author statements that support their position. It's not so surprising that others have trouble saying maybe since your argument has no support other than you find your explanation more "engaging". 

More gaslighting & lack of doubt. The most convincing thing you could say is to say you could be wrong. You know why I think people were mostly pissed with the AMA? Because people who were without doubt and could not say 'maybe I'm wrong', after reading multiple passages, found themselves wrong. I'm not sure if Scott will just, in the end, insist Kelmomas was always the no god...somehow (even though he wasn't because Nau-Cayuti was previously). Like no spin on that, like something similar to Kalbears two book idea and a second book rewriting the first book to match the second books contents (which would match with the survivors notion that this had all happened before - but not exactly) and Kel is somehow from the second book. Where he walks, the first book follows. Scott might just insist Kel was always the no god and...he was always the no god. No gods all the way down. I might be wrong, but the guy seems want to spin a more complex tale than that. It's all RAFO, I guess!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kalbear said:

So I'm curious, @Michael Seswatha Jordan - how do you square Bakker's love of ambiguity with his well-publicized note that TUC was going to be where the 'g-string' comes off in the strip club? What part of removing the g-string implies ambiguity?

I have no clue Kalbear. And, I don't attempt to understand the majority of his comments. I agree, I never considered any moment as the g-string flying off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

I have no clue Kalbear. And, I don't attempt to understand the majority of his comments. I agree, I never considered any moment as the g-string flying off.

I honestly think his "metaphysical whodunnit" and the "g string" moment were one in the same.  I can only assume that Bakker wrote the moment Malowebi sees Ajokli take over Kellhus as his big "Ah! Ha!" and pictured all of us saying "Whoa!  It was Ajokli possessing Kellhus all along!!!!" When in reality, the way the scene was written really made it seem like Kellhus was in control and only brought in Ajokli as the lesser partner at the very end to handle the chorae.

:dunno: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Bakker's books are so confusingly ambiguous because he frequents the message boards where people discuss his work (Westeros and TSA) and has come to believe that surprising and 'outsmarting' this small groups of highly analytical readers is his major goal as a writer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sense is that part of it is Bakker believing in layers of revelation in his writing.  If the series continues, then the layers of revelation have to continue.  Which may have resulted in the g-string comment no longer being applicable at some point in the writing of the story. 

 I personally have opined at great length previously about Imimorul being a God and/or the Nonmen creating the Gods only to have the theories pretty definitively shot down, and it wasn't on the basis of canonical inconsistency (at the time).

There's clearly some re-writing and re-working of ideas going on.  Bakker can come across insufferably obsessed with demonstrating his intellect and/or borderline dishonest because he asserts something somewhere that doesn't quite pan out the way he imagined, and then he changes things around without quite fessing up to it. And there's probably an element of truth to Gronzag's claims as well. 

 But he's far preferable to authors who have asserted their series is finished and/or repeatedly extended deadlines or expectations without coming clean about it. Ultimately, I read Bakker not because I buy his claims that he's smarter than me, or because he will lead me to enlightenment.

Writers are human beings. Bakker has created this cool world, with some nifty ideas, and written an engrossing story, which he has worked hard to produce in a timely manner, despite never quite getting the recognition he deserved.   He deserves a lot of credit for that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Gronzag said:

Maybe Bakker's books are so confusingly ambiguous because he frequents the message boards where people discuss his work (Westeros and TSA) and has come to believe that surprising and 'outsmarting' this small groups of highly analytical readers is his major goal as a writer.

His statement is that he's stopped coming to boards because he was worried about their ideas infecting his. 

17 hours ago, Rhom said:

I honestly think his "metaphysical whodunnit" and the "g string" moment were one in the same.  I can only assume that Bakker wrote the moment Malowebi sees Ajokli take over Kellhus as his big "Ah! Ha!" and pictured all of us saying "Whoa!  It was Ajokli possessing Kellhus all along!!!!" When in reality, the way the scene was written really made it seem like Kellhus was in control and only brought in Ajokli as the lesser partner at the very end to handle the chorae.

:dunno: 

Maybe? Honestly, that we're having a debate about this sort of thing - what was the actual big ah-ha moment - is a good sign that it failed to accomplish that goal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

His statement is that he's stopped coming to boards because he was worried about their ideas infecting his. 

Maybe? Honestly, that we're having a debate about this sort of thing - what was the actual big ah-ha moment - is a good sign that it failed to accomplish that goal. 

But wouldn't you concede that there is an inherent tension between "ripping away the G-string" and the progressive development of the story in the next series?  The reason the revelation that Ajokli was controlling Kellhus is so unsatisfactory is because it raises so many unanswered questions.

 But a clear, comprehensive answer to Kellhus' fate and causes for failure would basically denude a major mystery that, if I were in his place, I would certainly reserve for the next series.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF, there was a g-string moment, then bakker is the boyfriend/husband who thought they were totally cool with their SO stripping but now that the stripping has happened, said boyfriend/husband has jumped on stage and is trying to cover up the naughty bits to the boos of the crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

But wouldn't you concede that there is an inherent tension between "ripping away the G-string" and the progressive development of the story in the next series?  The reason the revelation that Ajokli was controlling Kellhus is so unsatisfactory is because it raises so many unanswered questions.

That plus the AMA definitely does so. 

What I think people were hoping for is a revelation of what the sides were and what they were going for, and maybe their plan. And the next series would be less revelation, and more resolution. This would be the B5 pattern, where most everything was revealed in S3 and then took about a season and a half of resolving it. 

Instead, I think we got the answer that there is simply not going to be any kind of actual revelation, and the resolutions are not remotely determined yet. 

3 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

 But a clear, comprehensive answer to Kellhus' fate and causes for failure would basically denude a major mystery that, if I were in his place, I would certainly reserve for the next series.  

I don't see why, but okay. To me, it's far more interesting to deal with the survivors having to fight and possibly defeat the No-God than it is to look back at all the ways Kellhus fucked up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

That plus the AMA definitely does so. 

What I think people were hoping for is a revelation of what the sides were and what they were going for, and maybe their plan. And the next series would be less revelation, and more resolution. This would be the B5 pattern, where most everything was revealed in S3 and then took about a season and a half of resolving it. 

Instead, I think we got the answer that there is simply not going to be any kind of actual revelation, and the resolutions are not remotely determined yet. 

I agree with that.  For half a chapter there, it really looked like that's what we were getting.  Really even until the AMA, I thought that's what we got.

Consult wanted to shut the world and as Kellhus surmised with Moe in TTT, the Dunyain essentially agreed with the motive.

Then we see that Kellhus has made a deal wherein he avoids damnation by becoming a hunger himself.

Pretty clear sides and exactly what you (and I) wanted to see.  Everything goes to hell and it all falls apart, but narratively we're still pretty okay... then the AMA reveals it wasn't like that at all.  Very unsatisfying.

Quote

I don't see why, but okay. To me, it's far more interesting to deal with the survivors having to fight and possibly defeat the No-God than it is to look back at all the ways Kellhus fucked up. 

Agreed.  I would enjoy reading that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I don't see why, but okay. To me, it's far more interesting to deal with the survivors having to fight and possibly defeat the No-God than it is to look back at all the ways Kellhus fucked up. 

I would assume that the survivors would need to understand why Kellhus failed  in order to defeat the No-God.  It's reasonable to assume they would be searching for an explanation.  Also, to the extent that any of the remaining Anasurimbor remain (Kayutus, Serwa) their character arcs will involve many discussions about blame for the fate of the Great Ordeal. 

I have a question from a narrative perspective.  If the TAE was ultimately about validating Akka's world view against the falsity of belief in Kellhus,  then how do all of the signs; Akka's dreams,  the tapestry, the birth of Mimara's child,  the Judging Eye etc. fare against that skepticism in the second series?    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does B5 refer to Babylon 5 in your statement, Kalbear?

If so, what do you think of that series? 

As far as Bakker goes, ultimately I think that a lot of the smaller inconsistencies are not a very big deal. It's just his attitude and his attitude about them that are absolutely mind-numbing, and the seemingly adolescent pleasure he appears to take in chuckling at the readers whose expectations were let down by his ambiguity, then tipping his fedora and saying "But I've taught you to experience meaning in a new way..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I would assume that the survivors would need to understand why Kellhus failed  in order to defeat the No-God.  It's reasonable to assume they would be searching for an explanation.  Also, to the extent that any of the remaining Anasurimbor remain (Kayutus, Serwa) their character arcs will involve many discussions about blame for the fate of the Great Ordeal. 

I don't see why they need to figure out why Kellhus failed in order to defeat the No-God; beating the No-God isn't the same as stopping the Consult from starting it up. For instance, the easiest way to stop the Consult is to simply kill all the Anasurimbors, and that isn't going to work as a good strategy. 

6 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

I have a question from a narrative perspective.  If the TAE was ultimately about validating Akka's world view against the falsity of belief in Kellhus,  then how do all of the signs; Akka's dreams,  the tapestry, the birth of Mimara's child,  the Judging Eye etc. fare against that skepticism in the second series?    

I don't think that TAE was about validating Akka's worldview. If it were, we would have seen Mimara Judge him. 

 

1 minute ago, odium said:

Does B5 refer to Babylon 5 in your statement, Kalbear?

If so, what do you think of that series? 

It does, and I loved it. It wasn't always great, and there were some filler bits - and I really didn't like S5 all that much. But the story arc was handled about as perfectly as any story arc of any medium anywhere has been, it's very rewatchable, it's obviously internally consistent with a clear plan and satisfying answers. 

1 minute ago, odium said:

As far as Bakker goes, ultimately I think that a lot of the smaller inconsistencies are not a very big deal. It's just his attitude and his attitude about them that are absolutely mind-numbing, and the seemingly adolescent pleasure he appears to take in chuckling at the readers whose expectations were let down by his ambiguity, then tipping his fedora and saying "But I've taught you to experience meaning in a new way..."

Yeah, I don't think it's about the smaller inconsistencies that matter, it's the larger ones that are meant to not have clear answers while simultaneously promising clear answers. Like, I can reasonably enjoy Kelmomas getting to the golden room, though I think it doesn't work as well from a narrative perspective to have him just show up (and it apparently confused a whole lot of readers, so there's more evidence that it didn't work well), but it doesn't make me dislike the series. Finding out that Kellhus never planned on Ajokli taking him over robs the series of massive narrative heft, by comparison. Mimara's story just stopping and her simply giving birth at the battle robs the story of a good narrative arc for her and Akka. 

Though the cunny-sniffing dragon remains incredibly stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It does, and I loved it. It wasn't always great, and there were some filler bits - and I really didn't like S5 all that much. But the story arc was handled about as perfectly as any story arc of any medium anywhere has been, it's very rewatchable, it's obviously internally consistent with a clear plan and satisfying answers.

I've noticed some small overlap in fans of B5 and TSA (in that I've seen a couple in the comparatively small community compared to not seeing them elsewhere). It's my favorite work of television sci-fi besides the anime Legend of the Galactic Heroes, which if you haven't seen, is an excellent piece of military science fiction in its own right. The whole series is available subtitled on YT. If you decide to give it a go, consider that the first 5 to 10 of its 110 episode duration are a bit of a slow start.

But yes, the narrative arc of B5 is so cleanly executed and resolved, and it's a triumph all the more noteworthy when you compare it to other reasonably good series like TSA, which for all its flaws is still far more enjoyable and cerebral to me than most fantasy fiction. I think the relationship between Londo and G'kar is one of the best character arcs I've ever seen in any medium as well.

S5 was a bit unfortunate, the production issues kind of doomed it as well, but once the whole telepath subplot was resolved, I thought the closing episodes were still very strong.

27 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, I don't think it's about the smaller inconsistencies that matter, it's the larger ones that are meant to not have clear answers while simultaneously promising clear answers. Like, I can reasonably enjoy Kelmomas getting to the golden room, though I think it doesn't work as well from a narrative perspective to have him just show up (and it apparently confused a whole lot of readers, so there's more evidence that it didn't work well), but it doesn't make me dislike the series. Finding out that Kellhus never planned on Ajokli taking him over robs the series of massive narrative heft, by comparison. Mimara's story just stopping and her simply giving birth at the battle robs the story of a good narrative arc for her and Akka. 

Though the cunny-sniffing dragon remains incredibly stupid.

Without a doubt, TUC has a lot of plot holes, and made others from prior books glaringly obvious as well as they reached their (in)conclusion. I think that one of the biggest goads of the whole thing is that we didn't get very much Kellhus PoV in TAE, which I think everyone had assumed was to preserve the ambiguity of what his plans were, only to find out that there was no plan and honestly the series could have continued in the vein of PoN without compromising itself very much. I think Bakker probably feels he delivered on his promises though, I don't get the feeling that he'd feel he has gone back on his word. There seems to have been a reader/writer disconnect from the very beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, odium said:

Does B5 refer to Babylon 5 in your statement, Kalbear?

If so, what do you think of that series? 

As far as Bakker goes, ultimately I think that a lot of the smaller inconsistencies are not a very big deal. It's just his attitude and his attitude about them that are absolutely mind-numbing, and the seemingly adolescent pleasure he appears to take in chuckling at the readers whose expectations were let down by his ambiguity, then tipping his fedora and saying "But I've taught you to experience meaning in a new way..."

I think the thing lacks tutorials - like playing nethack or dwarf fortress without any help command available. Someone already described the world as a poker game with unknown house rules in a dark room with a dealer that always scowls (I wish I could find the page that quote is on).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Callan S. said:

I think the thing lacks tutorials - like playing nethack or dwarf fortress without any help command available. Someone already described the world as a poker game with unknown house rules in a dark room with a dealer that always scowls (I wish I could find the page that quote is on).

The galling thing is that this is seen as a feature, not a bug, and people who are frustrated without having any access to help are told that they are experiencing things in a new way.

Also, when you try and use the help command you are told contradictory things and then are blamed for not understanding both at the same time. 

Oh, right, and for those people who have some vague idea that they have figured it out, they're told that they didn't figure out anything, all they saw was random number generation, and the reality is that there isn't anything special there, it's just randomness. 

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...