Jump to content

Bakker LIV - Soul Sphincter


.H.

Recommended Posts

Bakker made it pretty clear with how he ended the series that all the nods to Blood Meridian, Paradise Lost, Dune, and LotR were essentially flying a fan flag and nothing more.  Oh wait except when it seemed like they were but they really weren't, that was just the reader projecting expectations of meaning onto the text.  Funny how the entire exercise of reading changes when meaning disappears.  It breaks the cycle of the reader and the read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, .H. said:

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? 

Ouch! Sick burn, man!

It's...like...it's all just ink on dead tree pulp!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

Can you catch me up on that?  Was it confirmed at some point that this was more of an author issue and not a publisher issue?  

Other people probably remember more, but from what I can remember, Bakker made a big deal about how the third book was done and sent to the publisher awaiting editing, and how he wasn't hearing anything blah bllah, then it turned out to all be him trying to renegotiate his contract for 4 books, since he felt it needed to be split(it was never overlooks idea).  There was a lot of shady lets bother Overlook stuff that went on but that was almost, erhm, that person from the other site whose name we do not invoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He thought it needed to be four books, with TUC split into two? Bleh, it barely felt like there was enough material in TUC for one book. Parts of it dragged hard. We did not need to read an even longer version of the attack on Golgotterah. 

31 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

There was a lot of shady lets bother Overlook stuff that went on but that was almost, erhm, that person from the other site whose name we do not invoke.

They're probably already here again. Didn't said person already get caught coming back in under a new alias once or twice? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Fall Bass said:

He thought it needed to be four books, with TUC split into two? Bleh, it barely felt like there was enough material in TUC for one book. Parts of it dragged hard. We did not need to read an even longer version of the attack on Golgotterah. 

They're probably already here again. Didn't said person already get caught coming back in under a new alias once or twice? 

 

Oh 7 or 8 times at least.

And yeah, I guess he didn't want to cut the appendix, which turned out to be useless filler anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 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.

I can follow that line of thought intellectually, but I can't quite wrap my head around it from a practical standpoint.

If the books were literal Rorschach tests, then I can see we can take the line that there is no inherent meaning by intention.  Instead, it would seem to me that these books offer only something of broad narrative meaning and the detail based, "world-building" level meaning is only presented as we discussed before, to "flesh-out" the setting.  The problem, it would seem to me, is sussing out which is which.

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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).

That does seem probable.  I don't think we get to far in "discovery" by examining most (if not all) the details, many of which are going to be dead ends.  But I do still think that the overall themes have a purpose that could be examined.

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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.

Well, I was never much of a student of philosophy, just coming upon it as I go.  I didn't mean to present it as a defense of what Bakker chose to do, or praise for that matter.  Rather, just to understand, in my own way, what it is we have here with these books.

I think Bakker said in the AMA something of the same sort of thing, something about the ending being "true to life" or something.  I don't recall the exact quote and I'm really not keen on attempting to visit Reddit...

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

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).

Hmm, I think a commonality that ends up running through a lot of this is how Bakker doesn't really do very well in explaining what he is doing.  And he somehow manages to do less well at promoting any of it.  It's actually rather remarkable, in how sad it is.

It would seem that there is some real problems in writing a thematically-meaningful, detail-meaningless series though.  I mean, maybe that is actually a fatal flaw and a reason why no one else really does it.  Considering though that the whole end of TUC seems to "deal with" matters of the Subject and Objective, I can't help but feel that it was all done intentionally, mixing objective "truth" with subjective interpretation and ending up with something of a big jumble.

8 hours ago, Callan S. said:

Ouch! Sick burn, man!

It's...like...it's all just ink on dead tree pulp!

:huh:

I'm not sure what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, .H. said:

I can follow that line of thought intellectually, but I can't quite wrap my head around it from a practical standpoint.

If the books were literal Rorschach tests, then I can see we can take the line that there is no inherent meaning by intention.  Instead, it would seem to me that these books offer only something of broad narrative meaning and the detail based, "world-building" level meaning is only presented as we discussed before, to "flesh-out" the setting.  The problem, it would seem to me, is sussing out which is which.

 

It's mostly a problem because the meaningfulness of the worldbuilding is so emphasized as being mysterious without explanation and with vague statements that trigger more questions. For example, not seeing Kellhus with the Judging Eye despite that being setup as a payoff for multiple books and an entire set of character's arc automatically makes you wonder what is being hidden and starts automatically the speculation game - but the most likely intended answer is that it was never intended to satisfy at all, and you (like Mimara and Akka) are meant to be deliberately left without resolution, like 'life'. 

The easy way to solve this issue is to either not set up the mystery or to simply answer it easily and move on. Have Mimara see Kellhus early on with the Judging Eye and show him corrupted by a demon, and have the drama be the uncertainty of her conviction, not her sight. The question then is whether or not she's actually right, not what she sees. This gets to the thematic underpinning of subjective vs. objective without entangling it with meaning. You can even have the payoff at the end of knowing that what Mimara saw was true and that being a real surprise of sorts - but still keeping 'what is true' as the thematic value.

There are a lot of things like that throughout the series, and the main thing I get from this is that it's deliberate - that Bakker desires entirely to make the reader unable to get resolution but still want it. And even now, bigger fans of his think that there will be resolution to some of these things despite the evidence in the text and outside of it that deliberately state none will exist. 

6 hours ago, .H. said:

It would seem that there is some real problems in writing a thematically-meaningful, detail-meaningless series though.  I mean, maybe that is actually a fatal flaw and a reason why no one else really does it.  Considering though that the whole end of TUC seems to "deal with" matters of the Subject and Objective, I can't help but feel that it was all done intentionally, mixing objective "truth" with subjective interpretation and ending up with something of a big jumble.

 

Well, lots of people do it, both in spec fic and other places; again, the easy way to do it is make the detail plainly explained and then just move on, instead of making the detail vague and subjective. GRRM does this in spades, honestly, throughout ASOIAF - the theme is the human heart at war with itself, and he forces characters to constantly have to make choices that are going to damn them either way - but the details of the world are laid entirely bare, with the few mysteries that are established having strong payoffs. If you want less detail but more theme, you can go for things like Narnia or Covenant or most of LeGuin's work. Or you can go for non spec-fic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, .H. said:

I'm not sure what you mean.

Well, you said something like 'isn't imitating meaning pretty much what meaning is?'. Isn't that fairly scathing to the idea of meaning? Or what were you trying to convey with what I had quoted of you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/8/2018 at 1:05 PM, دبكال said:

There are a lot of things like that throughout the series, and the main thing I get from this is that it's deliberate - that Bakker desires entirely to make the reader unable to get resolution but still want it. And even now, bigger fans of his think that there will be resolution to some of these things despite the evidence in the text and outside of it that deliberately state none will exist.

Right, I mean, I can't help but agree there.  However, even despite that, I do actually find value in thinking about the "meaningless" details, for the same reason why there is "meaning" in looking at ink blots.  It's not going to arrive at any "objective truth" but only at "subjective truth" which doesn't seem valueless to me.

On 6/8/2018 at 1:05 PM, دبكال said:

Well, lots of people do it, both in spec fic and other places; again, the easy way to do it is make the detail plainly explained and then just move on, instead of making the detail vague and subjective. GRRM does this in spades, honestly, throughout ASOIAF - the theme is the human heart at war with itself, and he forces characters to constantly have to make choices that are going to damn them either way - but the details of the world are laid entirely bare, with the few mysteries that are established having strong payoffs. If you want less detail but more theme, you can go for things like Narnia or Covenant or most of LeGuin's work. Or you can go for non spec-fic.

Honestly, this is the only series I've ever really bothering to take a deep look at, so it's not surprising I'd have missed that.  I never did find Martin's background anywhere near as interesting as what Bakker offered, but again, there is no accounting for taste.  Bakker's need to offer no payoffs though is annoying, but not enough to make me not want to read the books, or not think about them.  I guess it's just some defiency in me, that I really am not bothered by a lack of closure or meaning, or whatever.

On 6/8/2018 at 5:26 PM, Callan S. said:

Well, you said something like 'isn't imitating meaning pretty much what meaning is?'. Isn't that fairly scathing to the idea of meaning? Or what were you trying to convey with what I had quoted of you?

Well, it was like that, but not really what I meant.  It's more like, you make a thing and people derive meaning from the thing.  That meaning may be the same or different than what you intended when making the thing, but some amount of meaning (possibly even zero) comes out in the end.  Functionally then, there is little difference then between making something objectively "meaningless" and making something objectively "meaningful" when the generative experiential  component is (necessarily) subjective and can independently ascribe any amount of meaning.

In other words, an observer can overlay whatever meaning or lack there-of onto anything.  I don't think that is violence to the idea of meaning, rather more a hard-line practical approach to the problem of examining "objective" meaning through a "subjective" process.  So, from a practical standpoint of asking the question, "is there meaning?" the answer of "yes, objective" or "yes, subjective" are both still affirmative.  Not to say they are the "same thing," the point is that they are both "things."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty much at the very end of the unholy consult so I can finally read posts here :P

So, I was reading the prince of nothing wiki and I noticed I missed/forgot A LOT of things, expecially about the old story of earwa cause a lot of names were just random gibberish to my ears (listened to the audiobooks) until i heard them often enough.

Among other things i clarified thx to the wiki there is this crucial event that I just can't remember reading about. Can you please tell me when does bakker tell us about the tusk being given by the inchoroi to the men tribes?

I also didn't understand a lot of the parts about the deimos at the start of the war in golgotterath, i kept rewindinding and missing subjects/references I have completely no idea what happened, almost like the part when achamian fought one in the first books.. guess one of the summoning failed with the excuse it was already in hell even in the world "of flesh"..?

about all the other obvious questions I'll search around a bit first (kellhus-ajokli, the prophecy, the judging eye's purpose and why the consult wanted mimara there, etc..) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Drorian said:

Among other things i clarified thx to the wiki there is this crucial event that I just can't remember reading about. Can you please tell me when does bakker tell us about the tusk being given by the inchoroi to the men tribes?

 

He mentioned it online. It doesn't show up in the text at all, except perhaps in the appendix. 

Quote

.. guess one of the summoning failed with the excuse it was already in hell even in the world "of flesh"..?

Yeah, pretty much - it was foreshadowing for other things like Kellhus-Ajokli. 

Quote

about all the other obvious questions I'll search around a bit first (kellhus-ajokli, the prophecy, the judging eye's purpose and why the consult wanted mimara there, etc..) ;)

There are no definite answers to the last three things at all, and there is no clear sign that there will be answers to them. As to Kellhus-Ajokli, Kellhus made a deal with Ajokli, but apparently did not think things through, and Ajokli has been slowly but surely taking him over as he gets closer to the pit. Kellhus and all other Dunyain are incredibly weak in spirit, and susceptible to soul possession. This applies to both Kellhus and the 5 Dunyain left over, which are implied to be possessed by Shaeonnara. 
 

This information was only provided online as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, دبكال said:

He mentioned it online. It doesn't show up in the text at all, except perhaps in the appendix. 

Yeah, pretty much - it was foreshadowing for other things like Kellhus-Ajokli. 

There are no definite answers to the last three things at all, and there is no clear sign that there will be answers to them. As to Kellhus-Ajokli, Kellhus made a deal with Ajokli, but apparently did not think things through, and Ajokli has been slowly but surely taking him over as he gets closer to the pit. Kellhus and all other Dunyain are incredibly weak in spirit, and susceptible to soul possession. This applies to both Kellhus and the 5 Dunyain left over, which are implied to be possessed by Shaeonnara. 
 

This information was only provided online as well. 

What on Earth is this Dbkal nonsense.  Dub is Arabic for Bear, so obviously this is Kalbear.  But why Dubkal and not Kaldub. Dubkal looks like an attempt to spell Diabolical, though you could easily add a few more letters to make that clearer if it were the case, and that confusion is compounded by the pentagram thing.

is it meant to be an idafah? Bear of Kal/Kal's bear? Because you would need a space in there then :o. 

edit: I liked the idea though.  The jurble/gerbil mispelling doesn't really transfer to Arabic, but whatevs.  I am now yurbal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Drorian said:

I also didn't understand a lot of the parts about the deimos at the start of the war in golgotterath

 

The daimos being used as artillery shelling was a high point for me, Scarlet Spires just laying demons into the Ark. Pretty fun scene.

All of your other questions are pretty well discussed in past threads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t think there is any reason other than wild extra textual speculation to think that Shae was possessing the Dunsult.

I think if anything we should have learned from TUC, it is this:  Don’t try to see layers where there are none.  Sometimes a chocolate cake is just a chocolate cake despite the kitchen being littered with what appears to be caramel filling, strawberry topping, and frosted cream.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I don’t think there is any reason other than wild extra textual speculation to think that Shae was possessing the Dunsult.

I think if anything we should have learned from TUC, it is this:  Don’t try to see layers where there are none.  Sometimes a chocolate cake is just a chocolate cake despite the kitchen being littered with what appears to be caramel filling, strawberry topping, and frosted cream.

Hahaha omg, I needed that today man, I just inhaled my soda i laughed so hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I don’t think there is any reason other than wild extra textual speculation to think that Shae was possessing the Dunsult.

It's iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin the teeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxxxxxt, it's nottttttt even a layyyyer it's on the suuuuuuuuuuurface.

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...