Jump to content

Bakker LIV - Soul Sphincter


.H.

Recommended Posts

16 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.

OK, I mean, that's the point but if that's the label you want to use, I guess it makes sense.

9 hours ago, Rhom said:

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...

Well, that's a very literal interpretation to take, but OK.  I mean, Eärwa is modeled after something...

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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?

Fair point, because now I'm a bit hard pressed to come up with some.  Although it puts my in a difficult position to sift what would be details from thematic aspects.  And of course, then possibly fall into the trap of labeling all dead ends details and open ends as thematic, or vice versa.  Off the top of my head, the detail of it being Nau-Cayûti as the first insertant seems to have ended up being important.  As did the hinting around of Ajokli being "present" in various parts of the story.  Much of the Nonman backstory sets us up to understand the implications of the revelation that Cleric is Nil'giccas, although he could have been anyone and I'd guess it still works. But, again, we can just write those off as thematic aspects and keep the theory intact.

The other problem, of course, is that we still aren't at an "end" of the story.  So, we just don't know what might end up being relevant.  As of TUC, sure, Mimara having the the Judging Eye only had some relatively small effects on the story, but where does that go?  Does Akka's Dreams come in handy post-TUC?  We just don't know.

I'll concede the point though, that nearly all the detail could well be meaningless, even if I still have some doubts that they actually all are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, .H. said:

Off the top of my head, the detail of it being Nau-Cayûti as the first insertant seems to have ended up being important. 

Maybe? We still don't know what importance that would have, nor do we know that we'll ever get that answer. I would have agreed with you prior to TUC and prior to the AMA, but now? It might just be that NC having the right 'brain pattern' is all we'll get, and that's all there is. 

6 hours ago, .H. said:

As did the hinting around of Ajokli being "present" in various parts of the story. 

Though amusingly most of that ended up with Ajokli not actually being present, like the beetle. 

6 hours ago, .H. said:

 The other problem, of course, is that we still aren't at an "end" of the story.  So, we just don't know what might end up being relevant.  As of TUC, sure, Mimara having the the Judging Eye only had some relatively small effects on the story, but where does that go?  Does Akka's Dreams come in handy post-TUC?  We just don't know.

You're right, but from extratextual remarks we know that the rest of the story is on trackless ground. There was no plan to answer these things or make them relevant. As such, we can infer that for now at least they were never meant to be specifically relevant, and thus we can dismiss them as important thematic or story-based elements. 

My interpretation is that similar to Blood Meridian they were included as a way to stir discussion and interpretation without having any specific set interpretation planned (or even necessarily meaning anything at all), and the goal was not to have any meaning, but to allow readers to derive meaning from intrinsically meaningless events. This interpretation has the advantage that it goes with both Bakker's comments and his love of Blood Meridian and is a good interpretation of his love of the Bible, and is not defeated by any actual answers. It's certainly possible that in the future these things will be relevant (though again, every single title of the books in TAE end up being irrelevant to the overall story), but for now, this is a fairly stable reading. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno how to take Kalbear's deal of posting ten times a day to insist that talking about this is fruitless other than as, like, performance art.  Like, if you believe the stuff you say about how talking about the book is dumb because it is just made to get you to talk about it...why do you do it so much?

Re: The third series, I'd be super surprised if it gets published by any actual publishing companies.  They didn't make all that much money, yeah?  I wouldn't be shocked if they end up self published tho, dude seems pretty committed to putting his story out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, WalterX said:

I dunno how to take Kalbear's deal of posting ten times a day to insist that talking about this is fruitless other than as, like, performance art.  Like, if you believe the stuff you say about how talking about the book is dumb because it is just made to get you to talk about it...why do you do it so much?

Because I enjoy having conversations and debating my point of view with others. Furthermore, if the goal of the series is to make people experience meaning despite there not being any actual meaning in the book, that is the most important thematic element to actually discuss. 

There have been similar conversations about Blood Meridian, except in that case we have less information about what McCarthy actually intended. 

I also didn't say that talking about the book is dumb. I said that I'm disinclined to talk about any specific interpretation as canonical or particularly intentional. And...I continue to not talk about any specific interpretation. If you want to, by all means - but I'll note that you've had plenty of opportunity to do so and instead have responded not to those interpretations  but to my argument. If you think my point of view is unreasonable, why did you respond to it? Your answer is likely similar to mine. 

7 minutes ago, WalterX said:

 

Re: The third series, I'd be super surprised if it gets published by any actual publishing companies.  They didn't make all that much money, yeah?  I wouldn't be shocked if they end up self published tho, dude seems pretty committed to putting his story out there.

Given his lack of personal publicity, hype or anything else in the year since the release, I don't see how he has been 'pretty committed'. I'm curious why you think that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Dude has also burned some serious bridges on the net and with publishers, don’t see anyone willing to touch him a this point outside of maybe Baen.

Eh, I'm not sure about that. I think Orbit still has a pretty positive relationship (and sales) with him. Overlook is probably done, but that's likely okay on their end - though I would imagine the big sticking point is that Overlook has the rights to the backlist, and that can be tricky to pry out of one publisher's hands. 

Mostly, I think that publishers expect a certain amount of self-publicity and presence online these days, and not having that means either you're big enough to not need it or you're not nearly as interesting to publish and more of a risk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, .H. said:

Fair point, because now I'm a bit hard pressed to come up with some.  Although it puts my in a difficult position to sift what would be details from thematic aspects.  And of course, then possibly fall into the trap of labeling all dead ends details and open ends as thematic, or vice versa.  Off the top of my head, the detail of it being Nau-Cayûti as the first insertant seems to have ended up being important.  As did the hinting around of Ajokli being "present" in various parts of the story.  Much of the Nonman backstory sets us up to understand the implications of the revelation that Cleric is Nil'giccas, although he could have been anyone and I'd guess it still works. But, again, we can just write those off as thematic aspects and keep the theory intact.

I think one point of the novels is to navigate Earwa without really having hard information - indeed it being an 'objective meaning' actually means less objective information is there to be had. So you have to navigate it in a theory bubble, merely hypothetically estimating what is going on and what is relevant and not a red herring and merely hoping the bubble is the same shape as the state of things in the world. Because objective information and objective meaning clash with each other - as seen in the outside of Earwa, where the state of things align more to what a powerful being in it feels than anything else. The eye in the heart of the pict (spelling?), for example, where hell seeped through. Maybe his name was Luce?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Because I enjoy having conversations and debating my point of view with others. Furthermore, if the goal of the series is to make people experience meaning despite there not being any actual meaning in the book, that is the most important thematic element to actually discuss.

Hmm, in thinking about this it has my admittedly feeble mind in a bit of a paradox.  I'm not sure I can articulate it intelligibly, but I'll try and your superior intellect might be able to see what I mean.

Basically, if we proceed as such that the series has no "inherent" meaning, and so is only imitative of meaning through the presence of seemingly meaningful clues, isn't that basically the same thing as "actual" meaning from a practical standpoint?  So, then what we are really looking at is a lack of "definitive" or "canonical" meaning?  The meaning of the series then, so to speak, is only "user-generative" in the sense of what you say above, in (of?) the readers experience of meaning.  When then, in my mind, opens a whole Pandora's box of problems then with what can we call "objective meaning" and "subjective meaning" then, the biggest of which might be the issue of how can we sort out the objective meaning without confounding experiential (subjective) meaning clouding things?

Perhaps then a thematic element is the question then, "is there such a thing as (truly) objective meaning?"  And perhaps further, "even if there is, does it matter, since we can only experience it subjectively?"

16 hours ago, Kalbear said:

There have been similar conversations about Blood Meridian, except in that case we have less information about what McCarthy actually intended.

Hmm, interesting.  What then Bakker lacks is the wisdom of McCarthy in not drawing back the veil at all.  In other words, the veil of meaning is such that, even if the meaning doesn't exist, we must proceed as if it does because that is what generates it.  So, to admit that some of it is meaningless disrupts the generative paradigm, which is the only paradigm we can have, because we simply cannot take on an objective position, since we are subjective beings that at best do not (and possibly can not) know the boundaries of our subjective nature to completely eliminate it.

This rabbit hole though, I might not be smart enough to dissect the lines here properly though...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, .H. said:

Hmm, in thinking about this it has my admittedly feeble mind in a bit of a paradox.  I'm not sure I can articulate it intelligibly, but I'll try and your superior intellect might be able to see what I mean.

Basically, if we proceed as such that the series has no "inherent" meaning, and so is only imitative of meaning through the presence of seemingly meaningful clues, isn't that basically the same thing as "actual" meaning from a practical standpoint? 

Kind of? It depends on how you're looking for truth. If you're more scientifically based this is not remotely true; something having no inherent meaning by intention means that the evidence should be dissected quite heavily against that basis. If you're looking at faith-based (as I think Bakker is intending) then it's a commentary on religion and ethos as a meta-point - that a book that consists heavily on discounting of irrational viewpoints is itself generating irrational viewpoints and then pointing out the ludicrousness of said viewpoints, especially the zeal at which they are being defended online. 

4 hours ago, .H. said:

So, then what we are really looking at is a lack of "definitive" or "canonical" meaning?  The meaning of the series then, so to speak, is only "user-generative" in the sense of what you say above, in (of?) the readers experience of meaning.  When then, in my mind, opens a whole Pandora's box of problems then with what can we call "objective meaning" and "subjective meaning" then, the biggest of which might be the issue of how can we sort out the objective meaning without confounding experiential (subjective) meaning clouding things?

Yep, it's a very standard philosophical problem. The trick is that books typically have an endpoint and meaning, and much of it is set up to give readers a good payoff for paying attention or seeing the steps that went to get to that point. That is the basis that we're dissecting this book (and most others). My argument is that dissecting it this way is ultimately an exercise in hopefulness, but is almost assuredly not going to result in any actual payoff (and this is entirely by design). 

4 hours ago, .H. said:

Perhaps then a thematic element is the question then, "is there such a thing as (truly) objective meaning?"  And perhaps further, "even if there is, does it matter, since we can only experience it subjectively?"

Again, a very typical philosophical argument, which makes sense. This is an entirely reasonable conversation to have about things like truth in the world, but it is a bit cheap to hijack books and other media (which typically DO have objective meaning, and we seek them out for that) and do it then. 

When Bakker says he's giving readers a whole new way of experiencing meaning, that's not true; what he's doing is giving them the base way of experiencing meaning, which is life in general, instead of making it different than life. 

4 hours ago, .H. said:

Hmm, interesting.  What then Bakker lacks is the wisdom of McCarthy in not drawing back the veil at all.  In other words, the veil of meaning is such that, even if the meaning doesn't exist, we must proceed as if it does because that is what generates it.  So, to admit that some of it is meaningless disrupts the generative paradigm, which is the only paradigm we can have, because we simply cannot take on an objective position, since we are subjective beings that at best do not (and possibly can not) know the boundaries of our subjective nature to completely eliminate it.

This rabbit hole though, I might not be smart enough to dissect the lines here properly though...

I think that the thing he lacks relative to McCarthy is that Blood Meridian was always intended to be something subjective and evocative and leave the reader in the same place he leaves the characters - at something of the whim of forces beyond them that they cannot understand. This theme echoing between the reader and the character is one of the reasons it's so strongly felt and why it works; in addition, the reader is in on the joke, knowing that there is no specific interpretation, but many are viable and interesting. Bakker implies heavily (through use of things like the actual titles of his books) that there are important things that will have answers, and even does this extratextually (such as the g-string analogy). And that creates conflict between the reader and the characters (who seemingly always have far more answers than the reader ever does). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Kind of? It depends on how you're looking for truth. If you're more scientifically based this is not remotely true; something having no inherent meaning by intention means that the evidence should be dissected quite heavily against that basis. If you're looking at faith-based (as I think Bakker is intending) then it's a commentary on religion and ethos as a meta-point - that a book that consists heavily on discounting of irrational viewpoints is itself generating irrational viewpoints and then pointing out the ludicrousness of said viewpoints, especially the zeal at which they are being defended online. 

Yep, it's a very standard philosophical problem. The trick is that books typically have an endpoint and meaning, and much of it is set up to give readers a good payoff for paying attention or seeing the steps that went to get to that point. That is the basis that we're dissecting this book (and most others). My argument is that dissecting it this way is ultimately an exercise in hopefulness, but is almost assuredly not going to result in any actual payoff (and this is entirely by design). 

Again, a very typical philosophical argument, which makes sense. This is an entirely reasonable conversation to have about things like truth in the world, but it is a bit cheap to hijack books and other media (which typically DO have objective meaning, and we seek them out for that) and do it then. 

When Bakker says he's giving readers a whole new way of experiencing meaning, that's not true; what he's doing is giving them the base way of experiencing meaning, which is life in general, instead of making it different than life. 

I think that the thing he lacks relative to McCarthy is that Blood Meridian was always intended to be something subjective and evocative and leave the reader in the same place he leaves the characters - at something of the whim of forces beyond them that they cannot understand. This theme echoing between the reader and the character is one of the reasons it's so strongly felt and why it works; in addition, the reader is in on the joke, knowing that there is no specific interpretation, but many are viable and interesting. Bakker implies heavily (through use of things like the actual titles of his books) that there are important things that will have answers, and even does this extratextually (such as the g-string analogy). And that creates conflict between the reader and the characters (who seemingly always have far more answers than the reader ever does). 

I am of a rhought that when Bakker made that comment about "meaningless", was more out of ego, not wanting to answer for the sake of plot and because he was upset about everyone not just praising him about the way the story ended. Didnt wanna answer questions on that subject, because of ego, and not getting the attention he wanted for his ending of the book. Because, so many of this are in direct conflict with his ego, he wanted praise. And, we all know just how touchy the mans ego is. I do think we'll get the 3rd series in 2-3 years, and give a shit as to how its published. I do agree that Orbit will do all the can, to get rights to previous books, because the books are sold much better overseas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Esmenet said:

I am of a rhought that when Bakker made that comment about "meaningless", was more out of ego, not wanting to answer for the sake of plot and because he was upset about everyone not just praising him about the way the story ended. Didnt wanna answer questions on that subject, because of ego, and not getting the attention he wanted for his ending of the book. Because, so many of this are in direct conflict with his ego, he wanted praise. And, we all know just how touchy the mans ego is. I do think we'll get the 3rd series in 2-3 years, and give a shit as to how its published. I do agree that Orbit will do all the can, to get rights to previous books, because the books are sold much better overseas.

See? Here's a great example of how you get an actual straight answer - that he intended for the books to have meaning markers but not have actual meaning and answers - and explain it away to fit the personal narrative. Welcome back, MSJ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

See? Here's a great example of how you get an actual straight answer - that he intended for the books to have meaning markers but not have actual meaning and answers - and explain it away to fit the personal narrative. Welcome back, MSJ. 

Who's MSJ? I just think that the series being unfinished, might change matters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

Who's MSJ? I just think that the series being unfinished, might change matters. 

Yeah, another Bakker fan with spelling errors who lives in West Virginia. Nice try. 

And I don't see how it might change matters as we have been told everything in the future is trackless. There isn't an outline for what comes next; the No-God erupting was the end he had hoped for all those years ago. This is the difference between, say, Lost and B5. B5 had an outline for what the entire series would be about, what each beat would be, who the main characters were and the resolution. Some things had to be changed along the way to fit actor availability and TV decisions, but the plan was set in stone. Lost only had a year to year set in stone, with them wanting to add questions that would be mysteries and only allowing that they'd answer things sometime later - somehow. 

Post TUC is like Lost. And that's fine! But the notion that the author intended there to be deep foreshadowing of a specific future event is specifically contradicted by the author's statements, and thinking that those are lies to save face is a very common form of rationalization - ignoring facts that do not suit your preferences despite them being entirely blatant. Which, ya know, is the sort of meta-point about meaning and truth and what humans do, so you're doing a good job of showcasing how successful it's been. 

Because the real answer - that all of this was just a game to illustrate how susceptible humans are to being tweaked into wanting meaning when nihilism is far more likely - is just too angering an answer to have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Yeah, another Bakker fan with spelling errors who lives in West Virginia. Nice try. 

And I don't see how it might change matters as we have been told everything in the future is trackless. There isn't an outline for what comes next; the No-God erupting was the end he had hoped for all those years ago. This is the difference between, say, Lost and B5. B5 had an outline for what the entire series would be about, what each beat would be, who the main characters were and the resolution. Some things had to be changed along the way to fit actor availability and TV decisions, but the plan was set in stone. Lost only had a year to year set in stone, with them wanting to add questions that would be mysteries and only allowing that they'd answer things sometime later - somehow. 

Post TUC is like Lost. And that's fine! But the notion that the author intended there to be deep foreshadowing of a specific future event is specifically contradicted by the author's statements, and thinking that those are lies to save face is a very common form of rationalization - ignoring facts that do not suit your preferences despite them being entirely blatant. Which, ya know, is the sort of meta-point about meaning and truth and what humans do, so you're doing a good job of showcasing how successful it's been. 

Because the real answer - that all of this was just a game to illustrate how susceptible humans are to being tweaked into wanting meaning when nihilism is far more likely - is just too angering an answer to have.

I don't live in WV. I am just responding to this thread and another, back and forth and not taking the time to proof read.

Yea, and I just think tose statements by Bakker, was out of frustration of not being applauded by what he deemed his masterwork and culmination of his original view he set out so long ago to fulfil. And, was upset about being asked so many questions on things he didn't care to reveal, and again upset that people didn't see it as he thought they would.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/6/2018 at 12:24 AM, 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.

I don't think this is the right approach here. Bakker said that the third series is going to be ''3 or 4 books or more''... in other words, it won't be completed for at least a decade if we're being charitable. And it doesn't seem like a traditional continuation of the story either, he said that it's going to be similar to his Atrocity Tales. The Unholy Consult was the end of the story as he originally perceived it and he has stuck to that as far as we know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hello World said:

I don't think this is the right approach here. Bakker said that the third series is going to be ''3 or 4 books or more''... in other words, it won't be completed for at least a decade if we're being charitable. And it doesn't seem like a traditional continuation of the story either, he said that it's going to be similar to his Atrocity Tales. The Unholy Consult was the end of the story as he originally perceived it and he has stuck to that as far as we know.

I thought he said it would be more in the vein of the Saga's?

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...