Bakker LIV - Soul Sphincter

[Rhom]

12 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Yep, I was riveted by many parts of the 2nd trilogy.  It was never quite as good as the first as it had more flaws and the first is a masterpiece anyway, but that feeling of can't wait for what comes next totally stuck with me the whole way through the 2nd trilogy which is a huge testament to the author.  After the Cil-Aujas ending to TJE I gnashed my teeth in agony waiting for the next book and then again waiting for TGO/TUC.  

I'm not even here to say that I care too much about the author's non-textual stuff.  it's enough just to say that the text of TUC came nowhere close to delivering and cheapened the previous volumes all by itself.  

I tend to agree completely.  The only problem I had with the extra-textual stuff is the fact that it took an already underwhelming TUC and made it less somehow.

[Maithanet]

11 hours ago, Rhom said:

I tend to agree completely.  The only problem I had with the extra-textual stuff is the fact that it took an already underwhelming TUC and made it less somehow.

Enjoyment of Bakker is two fold.  There's the appreciation of the actual books, and then all the crazy speculation and theorizing that is possible, because Bakker is an author who loves ambiguity.  The interviews he gave after TUC hurt the books themselves a little bit, because it confirmed some of the flaws of the series.  But the real damage was to the theorizing - he gave answers that were both unambiguous and not very interesting.  It really killed my interest in trying to figure out "what's really going on" because it's just not worth it. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

Crackpottery maxasurimbor:

Anyone ever look closely at the Amazon Kindle logo?  It's pretty clearly the vision Kelhhus has on the Circumfix.  

Amazon Kindle.  Anasurimbor Kellhus.  The AK logo is without begininning or end.

[Werthead]

On 5/25/2018 at 3:13 PM, Maithanet said:

Enjoyment of Bakker is two fold.  There's the appreciation of the actual books, and then all the crazy speculation and theorizing that is possible, because Bakker is an author who loves ambiguity.  The interviews he gave after TUC hurt the books themselves a little bit, because it confirmed some of the flaws of the series.  But the real damage was to the theorizing - he gave answers that were both unambiguous and not very interesting.  It really killed my interest in trying to figure out "what's really going on" because it's just not worth it. 

This is why my view is that too much of this sitting around theorising things ad infinitum is not always particularly helpful. 20+ people sticking their heads together can generally come up with more interesting ideas than just one person working from one POV, which I think leads to unrealistic expectations for the book itself. Hence, why I tend to bail out of these discussions until the next book comes out.

[Dez]

2 hours ago, Werthead said:

This is why my view is that too much of this sitting around theorising things ad infinitum is not always particularly helpful. 20+ people sticking their heads together can generally come up with more interesting ideas than just one person working from one POV, which I think leads to unrealistic expectations for the book itself. Hence, why I tend to bail out of these discussions until the next book comes out.

Yes. I think one big reason why I liked TUC was the fact that my exposure to the series was still very fresh- only a few months- and I hadn’t had time to immerse myself in the theorizing. Bakker certainly didn’t help himself by stoking the overthink, as others have said he did. But to some degree it’s inevitable since if a series has any kind of following its fans are going to have time on their hands waiting for the next one. 

[End of Disc One]

1 hour ago, Dez said:

Yes. I think one big reason why I liked TUC was the fact that my exposure to the series was still very fresh- only a few months- and I hadn’t had time to immerse myself in the theorizing. Bakker certainly didn’t help himself by stoking the overthink, as others have said he did. But to some degree it’s inevitable since if a series has any kind of following its fans are going to have time on their hands waiting for the next one. 

Same here.  I finished TGO not long before TUC came out and didn't really get a chance to catch up on all of the speculation.  I thought TUC was excellent, one of the best in TSA.

[.H.]

A bit of a vague question, but one I don't know I've seen us explore for the most part, but considering that the two books Bakker uses as primary inspiration, The Bible and Blood Merridian, I think we have under-explored the influences of the former and possibly even that latter.

Now, I am certainly not well versed on the Bible, honestly only barely versed, if that.  Anyone with some thought on some of the implications here?  My current thinking is aligned with the Angeshraël-Abraham parallels (or, perhaps we should say inspiration?) and so then the ensuing Kellhus-Angeshraël parallel, considering Kellhus does not "sacrifice" his youngest and pays dearly for it.

Quote

The legendary “Mountain of Summoning” where, according to The Chronicle of the Tusk, the Prophet Angeshraël sacrificed Oresh, the youngest of his sons by Esmenet, to demonstrate his conviction to the Tribes of Men. The so-called Oreshalat (Issue-of-Oresh) constitutes one of the most important crossroads of theology, or religious speculation, with philosophy, rational or sorcerous speculation. Of particular interest is the strand called the Imboreshalat (Issue-of-Oresh-if), which asks what follows from Angeshraël’s resolution by exploring what follows from a possible failure of resolve, where Angeshraël tells his tribe that the Gods staid his hand.

This is not a 1:1 map of Abraham, certainly not if you consider that the Tusk is forged, so the chances that Angeshraël actually met with a god is essentially zero.  But the framework of the story is still there.

I'm probably rambling a bit here, but the idea is relatively fresh in my mind...

[Kalbear]

9 hours ago, .H. said:

A bit of a vague question, but one I don't know I've seen us explore for the most part, but considering that the two books Bakker uses as primary inspiration, The Bible and Blood Merridian, I think we have under-explored the influences of the former and possibly even that latter.

Now, I am certainly not well versed on the Bible, honestly only barely versed, if that.  Anyone with some thought on some of the implications here?  My current thinking is aligned with the Angeshraël-Abraham parallels (or, perhaps we should say inspiration?) and so then the ensuing Kellhus-Angeshraël parallel, considering Kellhus does not "sacrifice" his youngest and pays dearly for it.

 

Hell, from that quote I'm not even sure that he did or didn't sacrifice his kid. 

9 hours ago, .H. said:

This is not a 1:1 map of Abraham, certainly not if you consider that the Tusk is forged, so the chances that Angeshraël actually met with a god is essentially zero.  But the framework of the story is still there.

From what I remember while the Tusk was forged, the only made-up story we are aware of is the proscription of killing the nonmen - everything else was based on real stories and prior texts/legends. I'd imagine that this would have been one of the big ones to people - to show your devotion you must sacrifice. 

 

[.H.]

On 6/1/2018 at 4:21 PM, Kalbear said:

Hell, from that quote I'm not even sure that he did or didn't sacrifice his kid.

Plausible that he might not have, although given that the results were exactly as he wanted, I'm inclined to believe he probably did.

On 6/1/2018 at 4:21 PM, Kalbear said:

From what I remember while the Tusk was forged, the only made-up story we are aware of is the proscription of killing the nonmen - everything else was based on real stories and prior texts/legends. I'd imagine that this would have been one of the big ones to people - to show your devotion you must sacrifice.

Right, it's not that the content of the Tusk is flase, with the exception of those edits, it's that the whole Tusk and so then the aim of Breaking the Gates is/was most assuredly an Inchoroi plan.  So, Angeshraël's "call to sacrifice" was not divine in origin, it was most probably his own idea, as you say, to prove he was devoted to the whole plan.

Indeed, this would be another piece along the lines of what Kellhus tells Proyas, that "prophets" bring the word of man to god, not the reverse.  Why does this matter?  Well, it's drawing to the overall theme of why Kellhus "fails."  We know that Kellhus dies because little Kel's presence in the Golden Room is simply unable to be accounted for and the No-God rises, because Kellhus failed to correctly sacrifice him.  Bakker tells us that what happens to Kellhus is that, for all his intellect, he is still as blind to himself as anyone else is to themselves.  For all the intellectual prowess, he is still spiritually deficient.  And in the face of the illogical and incomprehensible, intellect is not sufficient, even as it sees itself as being so.

His missing of the "call to sacrifice" is just the biggest example of his over-reliance on intellect and logic.  Angeshraël isn't divinely inspired to sacrifice, he is practically motivated (somehow) but was most probably not some kind of supreme intellect.  So, how did he achieve such a "grand" result?  He makes a massively dramatic move, an "illogical" one, that is, one that is only justified by it's effect, not by any of it's causes.  Kellhus simply refuses to do such a thing, seeing no logic in killing little Kel and alienating Esmenet further.  Angeshraël makes this move though, probably in no small part because he does not possess the intellectual power of Kellhus.  So, there is no alternative for the likes of an ancient prophet like him.  He must take the "spiritual" path, because there is no other option.  Kellhus has the option and, as a creature of the Logos, he stays slaved to the Logos.  And he pays dearly for it.

[Kalbear]

Ultimately the notion that all of this is simply to imply depth but not actually have depth makes me disinclined to trust any interpretation or even talk about it much; the most likely answer is that it was meant as a shallow parable to Abrahamic (and specifically Abraham) lore, but there is no established meaning, nor was there ever intended to be any established meaning, and if it shows up again anything previously established can and will be thrown out to suit the narrative.

[.H.]

21 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Ultimately the notion that all of this is simply to imply depth but not actually have depth makes me disinclined to trust any interpretation or even talk about it much; the most likely answer is that it was meant as a shallow parable to Abrahamic (and specifically Abraham) lore, but there is no established meaning, nor was there ever intended to be any established meaning, and if it shows up again anything previously established can and will be thrown out to suit the narrative.

Well, I don't think it would be the case that all of it is out to "imply depth" and yet, certainly some of it is.  I think more so the "historical" parts of Eärwa, rather than the more thematic aspects, but no doubt that doesn't hold up in every case.  I just feel like Biblical connections such as this are an unexplored aspect of the series, although I have no idea how much such analysis is "pertinent" or not...

[Kalbear]

17 minutes ago, .H. said:

Well, I don't think it would be the case that all of it is out to "imply depth" and yet, certainly some of it is.  I think more so the "historical" parts of Eärwa, rather than the more thematic aspects, but no doubt that doesn't hold up in every case.  I just feel like Biblical connections such as this are an unexplored aspect of the series, although I have no idea how much such analysis is "pertinent" or not...

The problem is that once the well is poisoned and you know at least some of it is meant to give the illusion of meaning without having any, nothing can be taken on factually or even with any faith. For instance, you say 'certainly some of it is' - why are you certain about that? It's surely nothing Bakker has written, and there's very little actual evidence of any of the backstory being particularly well-established (much less actually going to be revealed later), but you say certainly - because this is what normal authors would do. It's that priming that Bakker is relying on, when the reality is that he intentionally made things without particular meaning but would trigger your desire to make meaning out of them. 

Hell, he's on record as saying he wanted the history of Earwa to not be too set because ancient times combined history and myth and often didn't have a clear idea of what actually happened. To that end it's more likely that it is a parable and not actually rooted in fact or anything close to it, and more likely Angreshal or however you spell it didn't actually exist. 

[unJon]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The problem is that once the well is poisoned and you know at least some of it is meant to give the illusion of meaning without having any, nothing can be taken on factually or even with any faith. For instance, you say 'certainly some of it is' - why are you certain about that? It's surely nothing Bakker has written, and there's very little actual evidence of any of the backstory being particularly well-established (much less actually going to be revealed later), but you say certainly - because this is what normal authors would do. It's that priming that Bakker is relying on, when the reality is that he intentionally made things without particular meaning but would trigger your desire to make meaning out of them. 

Hell, he's on record as saying he wanted the history of Earwa to not be too set because ancient times combined history and myth and often didn't have a clear idea of what actually happened. To that end it's more likely that it is a parable and not actually rooted in fact or anything close to it, and more likely Angreshal or however you spell it didn't actually exist. 

Generally agree re: Bakker approach. But Angreshal presents an interesting case. Isn’t he the one that led the tribes in the breaking of the gate? And doesn’t the tusk end with the breaking of the gates? If the answer to both of those is “yes”, then Angreshal is probably a contemporary of the Tusk and alive when it was presented to the Tribes of Men. Hard for there to be myth about someone (non-Dunyain) alive. 

[.H.]

15 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The problem is that once the well is poisoned and you know at least some of it is meant to give the illusion of meaning without having any, nothing can be taken on factually or even with any faith. For instance, you say 'certainly some of it is' - why are you certain about that? It's surely nothing Bakker has written, and there's very little actual evidence of any of the backstory being particularly well-established (much less actually going to be revealed later), but you say certainly - because this is what normal authors would do. It's that priming that Bakker is relying on, when the reality is that he intentionally made things without particular meaning but would trigger your desire to make meaning out of them.

I say "certainly some of it is" because you pointed out that Bakker has already said that some of it is there to "imply depth."  I think you might have misunderstood what I said, mostly because I worded it poorly.  My point was that I understand that some of the background is there is imply depth, I just contest that all of it is there to imply depth with no depth being present.  Indeed, I'd even surmise that the implied depth is actually a sort of depth too.

Even if the Abraham-Angeshraël-Kellhus "connection" is only a red herring thrown in there for the sake of giving us a ball of yarn to play with, the question then is, why that ball of yarn?  Why do we take away depth from that, if it has no meaning?  Why does it's inclusion imply depth?  Why do we even want to play with that ball of yarn?

It isn't that I think that any "Biblical connections" in the series are going to give us deep understanding of the plot, or insight into the metaphysics of the setting.  But I do think that some are there for some reason, thematically, aside from just fleshing out the background and implying depth.  Not that I can often make heads or tales of Bakker's blog, but I do think he is interested in the sort of thematic "questions" asked in the Second Apocalypse series.  As such, I do think that the books are, in some way, trying to present an argument, ask a question, pose a problem or some combination of those.  In that manner, I do feel that some of the biblical connections might be tied to the thematic elements of the series.

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, .H. said:

Even if the Abraham-Angeshraël-Kellhus "connection" is only a red herring thrown in there for the sake of giving us a ball of yarn to play with, the question then is, why that ball of yarn?  Why do we take away depth from that, if it has no meaning?  Why does it's inclusion imply depth?  Why do we even want to play with that ball of yarn?

I had thought this was reasonably well-established - which was that Bakker wanted to create a world where it was like what the people 2000 years ago thought it was actually like, and that would include old-testament type gods and shitty parables. It exists for the same reason that the entire first series is patterned after the Crusades and why the religions go from polytheistic to monotheistic with poly elements to monotheistic with demonic other entities. 

It's the same reasoning behind the number 144000. It's there to imply connection between Abrahamic religions and the book, but it isn't particularly meaningful by itself.

[.H.]

17 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I had thought this was reasonably well-established - which was that Bakker wanted to create a world where it was like what the people 2000 years ago thought it was actually like, and that would include old-testament type gods and shitty parables. It exists for the same reason that the entire first series is patterned after the Crusades and why the religions go from polytheistic to monotheistic with poly elements to monotheistic with demonic other entities.

That is, in and of itself, a thematic meaning though.  I'm not quite sure what else Bakker could have done to "create a world where it was like what the people 2000 years ago thought it was actually like" besides include historical parallels and Biblical parallels.  Sure, there were certainly parts that could have been fleshed out more and parts that are essentially dead ends, but the parallels are still part of the thematic role of Eärwa itself.  To reduce Biblical parallels to just "shitty parables" is probably somewhat unfair though.

28 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

It's the same reasoning behind the number 144000. It's there to imply connection between Abrahamic religions and the book, but it isn't particularly meaningful by itself.

Right, I don't contest that some elements are simply present to draw a parallel that doesn't go any further than to simply just be a parallel.  So, reducing the world is a theme of "the Apocalypse" but what number isn't particularly salient to the greater plot.  That is a missed opportunity, I think, in the grand scheme of things.  However, my hunch is that even though some details are essentially dead ends, to say that then all details are dead ends would be about as wrong as saying none of them are.

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, .H. said:

 To reduce Biblical parallels to just "shitty parables" is probably somewhat unfair though.

Shitty as in 'these things sucked for the people', not 'these things suck to be included'. Job is a pretty shitty parable, for example. So is Abraham's sacrifice of his child - especially if he actually had to do it. 

4 minutes ago, .H. said:

Right, I don't contest that some elements are simply present to draw a parallel that doesn't go any further than to simply just be a parallel.  So, reducing the world is a theme of "the Apocalypse" but what number isn't particularly salient to the greater plot.  That is a missed opportunity, I think, in the grand scheme of things.  However, my hunch is that even though some details are essentially dead ends, to say that then all details are dead ends would be about as wrong as saying none of them are.

Until presented with actual evidence to the contrary, I think it's the right interpretation. Another way to say it is this: what evidence do we have that any of the details are not dead ends?

[Nicomo Cosca]

Is there any news regarding when the third series is going to be published? I'm waiting for that to be published so I can finally start Reading Bakker, but I can't seem to find any news about it.

[Darth Richard II]

3 minutes ago, Nicomo Cosca said:

Is there any news regarding when the third series is going to be published? I'm waiting for that to be published so I can finally start Reading Bakker, but I can't seem to find any news about it.

Mostly likely never.

[Rhom]

6 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Shitty as in 'these things sucked for the people', not 'these things suck to be included'. Job is a pretty shitty parable, for example. So is Abraham's sacrifice of his child - especially if he actually had to do it. 

I’ve always hated the Book of Job.

God and Satan sat down and gambled with the life of a man and said “Look!  I can totally screw this man’s life and he will still do what I say.”

Actually, very Earwa-ian that book...