Jump to content

Bakker L - Unholy Consultation and Collaboration (Now with TUC Spoilers!)


.H.

Recommended Posts

Here I go again. I just started The Great Ordeal, and I really don't like progressing when I'm lost and unsure about whether I should be lost. So, Chapter One, the passage that goes "There is a head on a pole behind you." Pretty hard to follow in no small part due to not knowing what all the pronouns refer to, what the Sons are (Sranc?), or what the Countless Dead are. For some reason I have it in my head that this passage is about the No-God, but I'm not sure what is leading me to believe that.

Could someone clear this up for me to the extent to which it should be clear for me at this point (so nothing based on things to come in the book)? It's very hard to follow.

Also, I have a question about the one Kellhus POV we've had this entire series up to this point. It's where he's talking to Proyas, and it's the passage right before the "head on the pole" one. I'm confused as to how the Dunyain see the oak grove as sacred when they don't have any connection to religion. Or why a show of physical precision (coin and leaf thing) is the determiner of who has children. Or how that "rite" relates to Kellhus's talk with Proyas. Like, I'm gathering that he needs Proyas to do something, without Proyas having his faith in Kellhus as a crutch. But why does the passage refer back to the coin and leaf thing? The coin and leaf rite and Kellhus testing Proyas seem to be representing different concepts, so I'm a bit lost here too.

Again, I know it may be better to just read on and see what I can gather myself, but it's hard doing so without knowing I'm gathering everything Bakker wants me to.

If you do respond to me, please quote me so that the notification links me directly to your response. Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, YoungBoulheim said:

Here I go again. I just started The Great Ordeal, and I really don't like progressing when I'm lost and unsure about whether I should be lost. So, Chapter One, the passage that goes "There is a head on a pole behind you." Pretty hard to follow in no small part due to not knowing what all the pronouns refer to, what the Sons are (Sranc?), or what the Countless Dead are. For some reason I have it in my head that this passage is about the No-God, but I'm not sure what is leading me to believe that.

Could someone clear this up for me to the extent to which it should be clear for me at this point (so nothing based on things to come in the book)? It's very hard to follow.

Also, I have a question about the one Kellhus POV we've had this entire series up to this point. It's where he's talking to Proyas, and it's the passage right before the "head on the pole" one. I'm confused as to how the Dunyain see the oak grove as sacred when they don't have any connection to religion. Or why a show of physical precision (coin and leaf thing) is the determiner of who has children. Or how that "rite" relates to Kellhus's talk with Proyas. Like, I'm gathering that he needs Proyas to do something, without Proyas having his faith in Kellhus as a crutch. But why does the passage refer back to the coin and leaf thing? The coin and leaf rite and Kellhus testing Proyas seem to be representing different concepts, so I'm a bit lost here too.

Again, I know it may be better to just read on and see what I can gather myself, but it's hard doing so without knowing I'm gathering everything Bakker wants me to.

If you do respond to me, please quote me so that the notification links me directly to your response. Thanks.

 

5 hours ago, Hello World said:

That scene is in the Outside. The sons are Ciphrang and the countless dead are the souls of people who died, who are presumably all damned. 

Here. Now it is quoted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, redeagl said:

 

Here. Now it is quoted.

Am I supposed to know what each of the pronouns refer to? There was "you" and "me" in that passage. Was I right about it being about the No-God, or is it too soon to say whether I'm right or wrong?

And yeah, I agree that the Dunyain do have tendencies that you would see in a religious order, and Moenghus even said that the Dunyains' ultimate goal is tied to God in some sense in TTT. I just don't get why the leaf and coin thing is a determiner of who gets to pass on their blood.

I will say this, the second half of TWLW and the very beginning of TGO seem to be marking a certain shift in tone. Things seem "heavier," for lack of a better word. The last two chapters of the last book (near the Library of Sauglish and in the Temple Xothei) elicited a lot of emotions in me. They disturbed me, in a good way. It's hard to describe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the coin and leaf is to show you/remind you Kellhus isn't interacting with Proyas as a human being - he is an it to a Dunyain. A leaf to bring down with a coin.

Never mind what that coin/leaf ritual is associated with, which is rape.

Edit: The leaf and coin might not be the only test, but clearly it's just more of the Dunyain thing of breeding for physical and intellectual perfection. Not love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So after reading a bit further and seeing more of Kellhus and Proyas's conversation, it would seem the previous cryptic passage is about God and Kellhus. "You" is Kellhus, and the head on the pole is God. That's what I'm gathering. I still don't know who the speaker is (can't just be third person omniscient because it says "me" at one point, and isn't written in that manner anyway, it seems).

Also, the part about Kellhus's heart crashing into ruin as a result of his empire crumbling. Does this refer to him being "broken-hearted," or him becoming damned (I doubt this)? So hard to puzzle this out when I can't tell if I should be following completely or reading on and gathering more details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I just encountered the second character death in recent moments in the books that made me go "Uhh..." Not only do I not get how Meppa was killed, but I also don't get how he had no answer for it. If I'm understanding right, Esmenet's Chorae destroyed his Wards (which I didn't know was possible), and the imperial archers finished him off. But can't sorcerers detect Chorae? Even if Cishaurim can't for whatever reason, he had to at least know that there may be at least one Chorae somewhere nearby, possibly. Like, compare his approach to the Scarlet Spires in TTT, who had themselves completely encased with soldiers and shields.

This comes not long after Kosoter's death, who somehow just forgot that his company wanted him dead (Galian claims that Kosoter had been aware of their mutiny for a while) and would kill him the first chance they were able to (like not having Cleric by his side). I don't know. Maybe it was the case that he had done everything Maithanet/Kellhus had asked him to, so he had no need of living on past that point, but I don't really believe that.

Also, the description of Meppa falling outward makes little sense to me. How did he fall at an arc over the strewn horsemen? If he was salt it would make sense, but it's never said that the Chorae got him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, YoungBoulheim said:

So I just encountered the second character death in recent moments in the books that made me go "Uhh..." Not only do I not get how Meppa was killed, but I also don't get how he had no answer for it. If I'm understanding right, Esmenet's Chorae destroyed his Wards (which I didn't know was possible), and the imperial archers finished him off. But can't sorcerers detect Chorae? Even if Cishaurim can't for whatever reason, he had to at least know that there may be at least one Chorae somewhere nearby, possibly. Like, compare his approach to the Scarlet Spires in TTT, who had themselves completely encased with soldiers and shields.

This comes not long after Kosoter's death, who somehow just forgot that his company wanted him dead (Galian claims that Kosoter had been aware of their mutiny for a while) and would kill him the first chance they were able to (like not having Cleric by his side). I don't know. Maybe it was the case that he had done everything Maithanet/Kellhus had asked him to, so he had no need of living on past that point, but I don't really believe that.

Also, the description of Meppa falling outward makes little sense to me. How did he fall at an arc over the strewn horsemen? If he was salt it would make sense, but it's never said that the Chorae got him.

Keep reading regarding Meppa. As for Kosoter, it's author convenience. Something that happens all too frequently in TAE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

SNAPE KILLS BULBASAUR

This is the kind of hateful speech that creates an absolutely toxic environment for fans of The Series and continues to perpetuate your petty fiefdom here. 

How dare you, good sir. You do not deserve to read The Series. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kalbear. To answer your questions regarding the foreshadowing. One, I take it as in text evidence of foreshadowing. Why do I need Bakker to tell me he planned it, for it to be foreshadowing. The passage and what later occurred at Sauglish fit together as that passage being foreshadowing. I don't remember your other question ask away.

@Darth Richard II, you can say I whine and cry, whatever. That's your explanation for me having a different view of all this. The AMA virtually means shit to me. I believe that Bakker Troll theory to an extent. I've went over this. I think it fairly easy to tell when we're getting truth from the man and being trolled. So, I interpret the books on my own and dont look to what Bakker says as proof of one thing or another, to an extent, for reasons above. Why is this hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@unJon, I initially dismissed the Cnaüir became Ajokli at the end there. I do like your and @Let's Get Kraken ideas on it though. Just I have a problem with what comes after determi we what comes before as a rule in Earwa, mean I g the only rule. Now, I will believe this, and only this will confirm it to me. That Akka dreams are his own, somehow. He literally is Seswatha, is what I mean. And, how can this be? We know the Mandate was created by Seswatha after the 1st apocalypae. An example of what comes before determines what comes after. 

Though, thinking on it, Cnaüir becoming does make a lot of sense. Ajokli is the God of Hate, who embodies that more than Cnaüir? With the way time works on the Outside it wouldn't matter when Ajokli became a God, would still get all the benefits. And, also aligns with myths on Ajokli about seeing TNG and being a companion to the Gods. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

@Kalbear. To answer your questions regarding the foreshadowing. One, I take it as in text evidence of foreshadowing. Why do I need Bakker to tell me he planned it, for it to be foreshadowing. The passage and what later occurred at Sauglish fit together as that passage being foreshadowing. I don't remember your other question ask away.

You can interpret it as foreshadowing, but it can also be interpreted as retconning. We have evidence of both things occurring in the books as stated by Bakker. Why is your interpretation correct and another invalid?

Which, again, it really doesn't matter - because the argument was never that Bakker doesn't do anything planned. The argument is that quite a lot of it is not planned out, and more importantly very little of the next series is planned out, so looking for deep meaning or planning now is not very useful. Furthermore, this is apparently deliberate - Bakker has come out and stated that he wanted to make things deliberately ambiguous and not necessarily meaningful so as to force you to 'engage your meaning-making brain', so even if you do find meaning there, it doesn't mean that it actually was done with intent. 

So why do you need to have Bakker tell you? Because the argument is about whether or not Bakker intended something, and without the author actually saying that he intended to foreshadow these things you have no idea, one way or another. 

Did Bakker intend to imply that Kellhus knew about Mimara with the tapestry? No, per Bakker.

Did Bakker intend to say that Kellhus' plan was to rule over the world in hell? No, per Bakker.

Did Bakker intend to have Kellhus taken over by Gilgaol from the first series? No, per Bakker.

I guess, MSJ, I have a real issue with you contradicting what the author has said was their goal. Bakker said, flat out, that he set out to create something that was deliberately ambiguous with no specific answers implied. He defended this, even, and patted himself on the back and told himself how hard it was to do. Now you're criticizing us for taking him at his word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

@unJon, I initially dismissed the Cnaüir became Ajokli at the end there. I do like your and @Let's Get Kraken ideas on it though. Just I have a problem with what comes after determi we what comes before as a rule in Earwa, mean I g the only rule.

Again, this is literally stated to be true by Bakker in the AMA. And it's stated elsewhere in interviews, where he discusses the difficulty of prophecy. 

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Now, I will believe this, and only this will confirm it to me. That Akka dreams are his own, somehow. He literally is Seswatha, is what I mean. And, how can this be? We know the Mandate was created by Seswatha after the 1st apocalypae. An example of what comes before determines what comes after. 

I don't understand this point in any way. I can't parse it. 

1 minute ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Though, thinking on it, Cnaüir becoming does make a lot of sense. Ajokli is the God of Hate, who embodies that more than Cnaüir? With the way time works on the Outside it wouldn't matter when Ajokli became a God, would still get all the benefits. And, also aligns with myths on Ajokli about seeing TNG and being a companion to the Gods. 

Except Ajokli doesn't see TNG, in the text. This is kind of a big deal in the text. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Again, this is literally stated to be true by Bakker in the AMA. And it's stated elsewhere in interviews, where he discusses the difficulty of prophecy. 

I don't understand this point in any way. I can't parse it. 

Except Ajokli doesn't see TNG, in the text. This is kind of a big deal in the text. 

Yes, I've seen what comes after determines what comes before as being stated as true by Bakker. But, why do we have instances of the opposite.

Sorry, I know it s hard to understand what I mean by Akka. If what comes after determines what comes before, how is the Mandate even possible? How did the 1st apocalypse precede the 2nd? You see what I am saying we have evidence that what comes after determines what comes before isn't a universal rule of Earwa. That said, I could take it as confirmation of being true, if somehow Akka is actually Seswatha, hence the dreams. See, you said in a earlier post that the dreams are true, through textual evidence. But, if what comes after determines what comes before how can that be possible?

Yes, a very big deal. But it doesn't necessarily mean Cnaüir became Ajokli, it could be that he was just inhabited by Ajokli at that time.

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...