Jump to content

Bakker LII: Ol' Golgotterath Blues


Larry of the Lawn

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

 

 

You read a book every 3 days? Wow. I have 3 kids, I could never reach that amount. So why do you have the biggest TBR pile on Earth?

Because I spend pretty much all my income on books and horde them like a crazy person. And there are people on here who read waaaay more than I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it just standard eliminative materialist arguments relating to substances abuse or whatever? If you drink enough booze to get drunk off your gourd, losing all inhibitions crippling cognitive functions—what does it say about your identity or qualia if a purely physical matter can completely subvert your identity/morals/personality.

It's the same just a bit more, uh, high mimetic. With eating ersatz orcs.

It's seems like it's exactly within Bakker's wheelhouse and pursuant to all the thematic exigencies he's been going on about this whole time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

It did have a purpose. It completely excused Kellhus of the Atrocities committed. This is why he left, so he wasn't to be blamed. Proyas was another of Kellhus's scapegoats.

Yes. Then Cnaiur used him in much the same way, as his men would expect him to kill Proyas/anyone of the great ordeal, but Cnaiur can't bring himself to do it. So in an act of akrasia he tricks Moenghus into doing it, by commanding his men to burn the place. Moenghus can't stand that his beloved uncle would burn, so he suffocates him.

 

Side note: Love how spell check has trouble keeping up with Bakker words

Also TNG always makes me think of The Next Generation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LuckyCharms said:

Isn't it just standard eliminative materialist arguments relating to substances abuse or whatever? If you drink enough booze to get drunk off your gourd, losing all inhibitions crippling cognitive functions—what does it say about your identity or qualia if a purely physical matter can completely subvert your identity/morals/personality.

It's the same just a bit more, uh, high mimetic. With eating ersatz orcs.

It's seems like it's exactly within Bakker's wheelhouse and pursuant to all the thematic exigencies he's been going on about this whole time. 

And just like that, solo's alt revealed himself

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Hello World said:

 I would take claims like this with a grain of salt, anyway. (Edit: actually I would dismiss them outright. YMMV.) ?

This. Just dismiss it all outright. @sologdin always had a strong insistence (with philosophy big-words basis!) that all extra textual authorial information was inherently and always invalid. Looks like he's been correct for a decade.

trolls gonna troll troll troll, shake it off, shake it off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theres 3 things people always forget: 

 

1)his "original" vision ended with TUC, the one from 20+ years ago. HOWEVER it was known for at least 7-8+ years that another series will come after. Blaming Bakker on an incomplete story is bullshit. He surely has some plans for whats to come and he edited TUC with this in mind

 

2)Bakker was always an inconsistent writer. The first trilogy has plenty of flaws and its all over the place. The GCO is only a manifestation of that. People always ignore the bad stuff and just move on, I don"t understand why this is discussed so much...It's Bakker as usual. 

 

3)the majority of the enjoyment comes from the reader, not bakker. Figuring out what it all means, theories, interpretations etc is what made(and makes)Bakker great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Hello World said:

I don't remember that, no. But it's not that I can't take it, it's just making you look bad since I still don't know what you were right about... As I said the only thing I remember you clearly saying was that Mimara was going to be the major player in the end. And what prediction of mine for TUC didn't come true that I'm so salty about? I honestly just don't know what you're on about. 

That Kellhus loved Esme and was trying to save the world (that was my theory and both turned out to be true.). I will go back and find the quotes were digs were taking at me, since e conveniently you can't remember.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Hello World said:

And to be clear, it would be fine if you wanted to rub in that you were right and I was wrong (if it's true) the problem is that you respond to criticism of the book by saying you're just feeling bad that your theories are wrong, which is doubly foolish. I mean, you've been harassing me and others in the thread for weeks because you don't like what we have to say about the book, and all I've done in response is that one post. 

When did I say I feel bad?? I feel great. My theory was never wrong, but confirmed. I don't k ow what you're on about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read what I said again, you said I'm just feeling bad about my theories, and that's the reason I really criticize the book. You didn't answer my question again. And saying that Kellhus wants to save the world is hardly some original theory and a reasonable reading of the golden room scene even contradicts it... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Hello World said:

Read what I said again, you said I'm just feeling bad about my theories, and that's the reason I really criticize the book. You didn't answer my question again. And saying that Kellhus wants to save the world is hardly some original theory and a reasonable reading of the golden room scene even contradicts it... 

And that he loved Esme..., and not everyone thought Kellhus was trying to save the world. Most in fact thought the opposite for various reasons. What's your question you need answered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

And that he loved Esme..., and not everyone thought Kellhus was trying to save the world. 

Do we even know for sure that he was trying to? From the text I mean, not the AMA? Stopping the NG from being born and handing the world over to Ajokli to become his personal hell isn't exactly saving it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Hmm I don't remember it ever being stated explicity either in the text or in any interview that he loved Esmi, is there some links for that?

In the text there's him going back to retrieve her from the empire, I think he calls her his darkness, but you could also make the case that the darkness is actually Ajokli and he leaves to separate himself from Proyas going super cannibal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

In the text there's him going back to retrieve her from the empire, I think he calls her his darkness, but you could also make the case that the darkness is actually Ajokli and he leaves to separate himself from Proyas going super cannibal.

Almost positive(although all this back and forth here has me second guessing myself) Bakker said Kel's darkness was Ajolki, but theres been so many Q&A's it all gets muddled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MEAT has affected this board, resist! Or the mods will need to cleanse us all! 

 

I wonder how the books could be improved. I for one would have loved more maithanet, maybe give him a role in TNG. Didn't really understand what Esmis whole plot was about honestly... way worse that the cannibal holocaust. 

 

As a side note, could the WLW function in the Ark ? Could yatwer "give a command" to follow kellhus and kill him ? (To sorweel) Since ajokli manifested there, curious how he percieved the ark...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...