Jump to content

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


.H.

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Darth Richard II said:
  Hide contents

Probably cause of the part of the AMA where it turns out all the specualtion was pointless and all the dpeth we thought was depth turned out to be an accident? We;ve been over this like 30 times.

 

I guess I just took that different from you and others. There is a ton of speculation that isn't pointless. And, to say these books are not full of depth is a very weird statement. Its the depth of the series that makes it so great. What I think k he intended by that statement, and it's my own opinion, is that everything at the Ark was what Bakker calls a Crash Space. Where all these intertwining plot and narratives come to a single place and, well, crash. The meaningless part, I took to be the rise of TNG and his meaningless he is bringing or, rather, trying to shut from the world. You can say that's me trying to make it something different than what was said. But, again, all of Bakkers comments are either ambiguous or I straight up don't understand in the slight what he means. Eh, just my thoughts on it. What makes your interpretation the correct one? When we know from Bakker that he tends to be even more ambiguous in his answers in these thing than maybe even in his books. Why are you so certain that all the depth of the previous books are meaningless and will have no pay out in the future series?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah. I just ask cause there was a lot of confusion before TGO got published as to why it was held up/who wanted it to be split, etc.

 

But yah if the typo changes were submitted but not actually changed,that's balls. Also who ever wrote the blurbs for the last two should be slapped with a fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a better non grumpy way to put it is that we all assumed Bakker had a plan the whole time when it turned out in the end he was making it up as he went.

2 hours ago, Hello World said:

Who are all these people who know intimate details about Bakker's books?

You ever see that movie Split?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Bakker owes us nothing and can be as ambiguous in his answers in Q&A's and AMA's as he likes. He has no obligation whatsoever to give us answers and especially ones the will ruin future plot points. 

I'm fine with ambiguity. I'm not fine with lying. Bakker did that with his comments about Cnaiur's arc being done. There's a huge difference between RAFO and deception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cithrin's Ale said:

I'm fine with ambiguity. I'm not fine with lying. Bakker did that with his comments about Cnaiur's arc being done. There's a huge difference between RAFO and deception.

Yep, I agree. That's what he does though and why I put no merit into his answers that have room for something else to be made of it.

Example- "Kellhus is dead" then later on everyone was hooting and hollering about Bakker being a liar when he said at the Con that while dead Kellhus isn't done. But, I already knew this. Because, in the world of Earwa, "Kellhus is dead" doesn't actually mean much, does it?

Example 2- "That which comes after determines that which comes before." Well, yes, it's been speculated on in this very forum that it could be the case. But, it's not universally true. Seswatha preceded the Mandate, the 1st apocalypse preceded the 2nd and Nonmen preceded men just to name a few. So, from his answer everyone assume it the universal truth of Earwa when its not. The paradox is that they are both true.

Sorry, forgot which thread we are in. Hope I didn't ruin anything for anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

My eyes are just not flexible enough to adequately roll them at this. Gimme a break.

I agree though.

Giving deliberately false information is entirely different than being ambiguous.  It's not like Robert Jordan ever stood up there, lied and said "Lanfear killed Asmodean."  He said he thought it should be obvious and all the evidence was there, which was frustratingly ambiguous... but a legit answer.

Saying Cnauir was done was patently false and misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I don't think there's anything wrong with giving people the idea that Cnaiur was dead. I mean, saying that the arc is concluded is still a little ambiguous. TGO had already come out by the time I'd started reading the series, so I didn't have as much time to speculate on it as some of the rest of you had, but I was aware of that quote moving from TPoN to TAE, and I didn't necessarily take that to mean Cnaiur was dead.

I don't feel it's ambiguous at all. It's simply a lie.The notion that Cnaiur's arc is done is directly contradicted by his role in the AE. How is Cnaiur becoming the king of tribes and finally getting the recognition he craved not an important part of his development?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Obligatory Username said:

Nope, just Somnambulist (SpiralHorizon) - TGO/TUC, Madness - TGO/TUC, mrganondorf (bakkerfans) - TUC, and Wilshire - TUC. I think Second Apocalypse has 500+ members now.

I think about 490 of those are Madness alts.

Also, funny that Madness yet again lied about not reading TUC. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Are you people shitting me?

"Beyond that..."

Yeah, nothing ambiguous about that at all... :rolleyes:

I think he is in fact pointing out the ambiguity. As I just said in the other thread, I take everything he says with a grain of salt, because he is not going to show us his hand. Why would he?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

I was only aware that he'd said Cnaiur's arc was over, and I thought that was kind of ambiguous. Reading the whole quote I can't help but feel the people accusing him of lying or being dishonest are, themselves, being a bit disingenuous.

EDIT: I'm saying this purely as somone who has enjoyed Bakker's work and seen it discussed on Westeros.org over the past year. I have the feeling I might be stepping into a big steaming pile of history here, and don't want to get roped into any preexisting drama.

Yes, they are. Beyond that.. And, yes, your stepping into a steaming pile of shite.

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...