Jump to content

Bakker LII: Ol' Golgotterath Blues


Larry of the Lawn

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

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.

According to the reddit AMA, Bakker claimed that she was basically an anomaly of "some consequence" and nothing more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour 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.

So Ajokli is what made him bring Esmenet with him? Or did Kellhus just confuse Ajokli taking over him for  Esmenet, which in itself needs some explanation as to why it would happen. 

10 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

OK, that's what I thought. I'm confused as to where this Kel loving Esmi thing comes from then. Anyone want to elaborate?

Didn't he say something like that in the beginning when he first takes Esmenet and Kelmomas out of Momemn? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hello World said:

So Ajokli is what made him bring Esmenet with him? Or did Kellhus just confuse Ajokli taking over him for  Esmenet, which in itself needs some explanation as to why it would happen. 

Didn't he say something like that in the beginning when he first takes Esmenet and Kelmomas out of Momemn? 

Well sure, but he says a lot of things that re, you know, lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Did the text ever offer an alternate explanation as to why he wouldn't kill Kelmomas?

Hmm, I don't remember it offering ANY explanation. It actually was kind of skipped over I thought. A lot of people asked the same question if I remember right. My impression was that he was just too busy with other shit at the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Well sure, but he says a lot of things that re, you know, lies.

It could have been a lie, I'm just saying that's where it came from. There is a bit in the first trilogy about Kellhus supposedly choosing Esmenet for her intellect which was just as confusing for some. 

10 minutes ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Granted, some of these beefs go back a lot farther than I've been reading these threads. But if you're talking about those immediately preceeding TUC, I seem to recall that you weren't just getting shit for the claim that Kellhus "loved" Esme. Rather, the argument seemed to be with your classification of the story (specifically the relationship between Kellhus and Esmenet) as having strong romantic overtones.

So yeah, he may have loved Esmenet, but it's also pretty clear that she despised him. If that was a romance than Requiem for a Dream was a rags to riches story.

I only remember this being brought up in these threads after an excerpt from TUC was released and there was a lot of confusion as to why Kellhus would love Esmenet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hello World said:

It could have been a lie, I'm just saying that's where it came from. There is a bit in the first trilogy about Kellhus supposedly choosing Esmenet for her intellect which was just as confusing for some. 

I only remember this being brought up in these threads after an excerpt from TUC was released and there was a lot of confusion as to why Kellhus would love Esmenet. 

No it came up after TGO with the passage about Kelhus’s heart crashing into ruin. That was the TGO evidence of Kel loving Esmi. There’s more in TUC. You can debate whether it’s just the Ajokli effect, but at the end of the day it still results in Kel believing he loves Esmi. So it seems odd to argue that Kel thinks he loves Esmi and acts as if he loves Esmi, but really he doesn’t love Esmi because Ajokli effect. *shrug*

Likewise, Kel wanting to save the world to me wasn’t apparent from the text but is what Bakker said in the AMA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point wasn't that Kellhus can't feel something for Esmenet or even actually love her, it was that he goes back for her because he needs to be away from the ordeal for his Proyas / cannibal Gambit to work.  

Kellhus also references the growing darkness and speculates about whether or not Esmenet is part of that but it seems odd that all of a sudden she'd be a growing weakness when it's pretty clear it was Ajokli.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My position on the AMA has always been this

Quote

Anyway, what I was getting to is that if some things were said in the AMA and there isn't much textual evidence to back them up (which I'm still unclear on) then they can be safely ignored from my perspective, even if they don't contradict anything in the books. I honestly don't get why some people are hung up on the AMA (including me :P )

I've said this more than once iirc. In this case it's even worse because it seems to me that the AMA answer contradicts what's said in the golden room scene. I actually skimmed over all my posts since then and I didn't at any point contradict this. *shrug*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hello World said:

My position on the AMA has always been this

I've said this more than once iirc. In this case it's even worse because it seems to me that the AMA answer contradicts what's said in the golden room scene. I actually skimmed over all my posts since then and I didn't at any point contradict this. *shrug*

Ok. Withdrawn. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Let's Get Kraken said:

Granted, some of these beefs go back a lot farther than I've been reading these threads. But if you're talking about those immediately preceeding TUC, I seem to recall that you weren't just getting shit for the claim that Kellhus "loved" Esme. Rather, the argument seemed to be with your classification of the story (specifically the relationship between Kellhus and Esmenet) as having strong romantic overtones.

So yeah, he may have loved Esmenet, but it's also pretty clear that she despised him. If that was a romance than Requiem for a Dream was a rags to riches story.

Dude, I brought up this theory pre-TGO after a reread. Anyone can listen to it as its on a podcast. So evidence from TGO and ultimately TUC confirmed it. 

ETA: and nowhere, not once have I ever said anything about Esme loving Kellhus back. Don't know where you got that from. I always had the theory that he loved Esme and wanted to save the world. And, that emotions, something Dunyain don't have, are what was driving him. I said all this in a podcast pre-TGO. So, I don't have to go look for proof, all you need to do is listen to the podcast for confirmation. I came to these ideas while doing a group reread prior to TGO. 

ETA: as to it being a romance, well that was never my idea, or words that came out of my mouth. That was people being, rude and sarcastic at my thoughts that Kellhus loved Esme.... So, don't put that on me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess for me, the AMA has no good option available to it as far as an interpretation.

One interpretation is that Bakker was telling the truth and being upfront. In which case, what he laid out has very poor textual backing, is not a particularly satisfying narrative and is also done in a condescending way to the reader. 

The other interpretation is that Bakker is lying. In which case he is not particularly trustworthy and this gives a lot of credence to the idea that one should not take any of his statements anywhere as reasonable. If he says he had a plan, chances are he doesn't and didn't. If he says he's not sexist, chances are good that he is. The more angrily he denounces something the more likely that it is correct. This does have the effect of making the book more readable and the conclusions more enjoyable, but at the cost of making the books as a series far less palatable to support in any way. 

Neither of these are good. Neither of these lend particular faith in the author. I tend to believe the former, largely because while Bakker is an asshole online he's been consistent about what he says and why, and his extratextual work tends to be fairly uniform; it's hard for me to buy that this, right here, is where he's lying. So, either he's been lying about basically everything in a very consistent way, or he's telling the truth. That said, I respect others for thinking that he's a Lying Liar that Lies, and it's a reasonable conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I could quote a hundred posts I have on Kellhus and his feelings for Esme, and his feelings first started with Serwe and how he went mad on the Circumfix. Basically, breaking down because he caused the death of one he loved, and then tried to will her back to life. Here is a quote of mine from the Slog of Slogs reread, pre-TGO.

Great points H, and all you said is true. Again, I'm just drawn back to those things in the meeting with Moe and leading up to it. His feelings for Esme, Serwe, hell the Circumfix in general. I think something has changed in Kellhus, and his goals might be tad bit different than what one would expect from a Dunyain. Does he still deceive? Yes. Is everything Mission, and he'll do whatever needs doing to achieve his goals? Yes. Is he ruthless in achieving those goals? Of course. But, I tend to think that everything he dealt with in PoN, changed him, made him a little bit more Man than Dunyain. He might sacrifice nations, but I still believe his interests lie with mankind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...