Bakker LIV - Soul Sphincter

[kuenjato]

1 hour ago, Wik said:

I mean, I don't even mind an ending where the Consult "wins", seals the world, no one is damned anymore and a thunder dome type of world occurs where everyone is murdering everyone for survival. But this "limbo" ambiguous, non good guys winning but also no resolution and bad guys don't even win type of ending is dumb. Why tell the story?! 

Because Bakker came up with it in the late 1970's / early 80's, when he and his brother were creating a role playing world for Dungeons and Dragons amid repeat spins of Black Sabbath and repeat tokes off the bong (not exaggerating here). The subversive crapsack ending was actually sort of subversive back then. Problem is, Bakker grew up and became very educated and he wrote most of the story according to his intellectual development, but decided to keep the ending he came up with when he was 17 -- and by the time of release, subversion for the sake of it has been so mainstreamed that it ultimately came off as sort of eyerolling edgelord rather than breathtakingly daring. Constructing reader's negative reactions in cliched post modern rationalization certainly didn't help the fallout, either.

Note: Big (former?) fan, I still hold the first trilogy very highly, and regard much of the 2nd (up into TGO) as pretty stellar, pacing issues aside. But the ball wasn't just dropped on this one, the ball was deflated to the point that I have only marginal interest in any more Earwa offerings -- a sentiment shared among many of his fans, alas.

 

[Rhom]

I don’t even think the problem is with the “ending” itself.  He certainly could have written a story that remained faithful to his teenage set dream.  The problem is with the lack of payoff for literally every other story in the second trilogy.  If there had been a reason for Mimara to be there, if there had been a meaningful meeting between Akka/Kel, if the Ajokli/Kel situation had been more clear, if there had been any reason to fight the dragon, etc.

If any of that had paid off, everyone would have been fine with an ending where the No God walks.

[Wik]

10 hours ago, kuenjato said:

Because Bakker came up with it in the late 1970's / early 80's, when he and his brother were creating a role playing world for Dungeons and Dragons amid repeat spins of Black Sabbath and repeat tokes off the bong (not exaggerating here). The subversive crapsack ending was actually sort of subversive back then. Problem is, Bakker grew up and became very educated and he wrote most of the story according to his intellectual development, but decided to keep the ending he came up with when he was 17 -- and by the time of release, subversion for the sake of it has been so mainstreamed that it ultimately came off as sort of eyerolling edgelord rather than breathtakingly daring. Constructing reader's negative reactions in cliched post modern rationalization certainly didn't help the fallout, either.

Note: Big (former?) fan, I still hold the first trilogy very highly, and regard much of the 2nd (up into TGO) as pretty stellar, pacing issues aside. But the ball wasn't just dropped on this one, the ball was deflated to the point that I have only marginal interest in any more Earwa offerings -- a sentiment shared among many of his fans, alas. 

 

 

Yes, I would say this is pretty accurate...I still recommend the series, especially the first trilogy. I remember the pacing in the 2nd trilogy being all over....some points I was falling asleep, some I could feel the energy and excitement. Earwa has a potentially exciting "rebuilding" and such, if that were to happen but I could see my self checking out on it pretty early if it wasn't redeeming some things.

2 hours ago, Rhom said:

I don’t even think the problem is with the “ending” itself.  He certainly could have written a story that remained faithful to his teenage set dream.  The problem is with the lack of payoff for literally every other story in the second trilogy.  If there had been a reason for Mimara to be there, if there had been a meaningful meeting between Akka/Kel, if the Ajokli/Kel situation had been more clear, if there had been any reason to fight the dragon, etc.

If any of that had paid off, everyone would have been fine with an ending where the No God walks.

Yes, to virtually all of this. 

[JGP]

11 hours ago, kuenjato said:

Note: Big (former?) fan, I still hold the first trilogy very highly, and regard much of the 2nd (up into TGO) as pretty stellar, pacing issues aside. But the ball wasn't just dropped on this one, the ball was deflated to the point that I have only marginal interest in any more Earwa offerings -- a sentiment shared among many of his fans, alas.

Yup, excepting former part of big fan isn't remotely ambiguous on my part. 

One small example: I recall getting into plenty of heated debate with people like Lyanna, Kalbear, et others [predominantly] defending Bakker's narrative choice to render women as objectively less in this world. I mean, in portrayal it was hardly different than life as women knew [were subjected to] it in classical times, and since Bakker seemed to be driving somewhere overall I was willing to suspend judgment and give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Now?

I dropped series and author after TGO. I haven't read TUC. I won't read TUC.

 

I honestly doubt I'll read another published word of his again. 

[Rhom]

I also think he missed the boat by not having Kellhus' stated plan to be the actual outcome.  His confusing Ajokli was in control all along statement is where it all falls apart. 

I've said many times that until I read the Reddit, I was fine with the ending.  Kellhus' assertion that he was going to rule as a hunger in the Outside made perfect sense.  The thought that he struck a deal with Ajokli made sense.  Ajokli secretly being in control the whole time did not.  I liked the thought that Kellhus' plan being to get to the Golden Room and to upend the Dunsult (I still hate the thought that Shae might be in control there and I don't accept it.  Primarily because it falls victim to the same flaw that the fifty previous versions of this thread did... attributing more subtle meaning to the text than Bakker appears to be capable of.)  I liked that he could get there and then both he and Ajokli be blind to Kelmomas and have the whole plan fall apart.  

 

[Wik]

13 minutes ago, JEORDHl said:

Yup, excepting former part of big fan isn't remotely ambiguous on my part. 

One small example: I recall getting into plenty of heated debate with people like Lyanna, Kalbear, et others [predominantly] defending Bakker's narrative choice to render women as objectively less in this world. I mean, in portrayal it was hardly different than life as women knew [were subjected to] it in classical times, and since Bakker seemed to be driving somewhere overall I was willing to suspend judgment and give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Now?

I dropped series and author after TGO. I haven't read TUC. I won't read TUC.

 

I honestly doubt I'll read another published word of his again. 

 

Wow…..I am disillusioned but I don't know if I would go that far....but I absolutely get it. As I read the book, my first reaction at the end was "What the hell happened" and my second thought was, "I'm going to these forums to see if anyone else thinks this sucks as much as I do", then I walked into this 24th thread on the book/series and instantly realized I was in the majority rather than the minority. 

 

Still, stronger opinions/thoughts than I had, but I absolutely respect it and understand. Very disappointing, overall. 

5 minutes ago, Rhom said:

I also think he missed the boat by not having Kellhus' stated plan to be the actual outcome.  His confusing Ajokli was in control all along statement is where it all falls apart. 

I've said many times that until I read the Reddit, I was fine with the ending.  Kellhus' assertion that he was going to rule as a hunger in the Outside made perfect sense.  The thought that he struck a deal with Ajokli made sense.  Ajokli secretly being in control the whole time did not.  I liked the thought that Kellhus' plan being to get to the Golden Room and to upend the Dunsult (I still hate the thought that Shae might be in control there and I don't accept it.  Primarily because it falls victim to the same flaw that the fifty previous versions of this thread did... attributing more subtle meaning to the text than Bakker appears to be capable of.)  I liked that he could get there and then both he and Ajokli be blind to Kelmomas and have the whole plan fall apart.  

 

 

The Ajokli thing was SOOOOOOO poorly written. I literally didn't catch it, let alone understand it. Maybe that was Bakker's intent, an extremely subtle and nuanced "possession" of Kellhus, but I feel that I can say it failed at even that.

I mean, when you have readers that have to congregate to forums and do in-depth discussions and speculations together just to hash something out, you probably failed at your arc.

If it wasn't for Kalbear, I still wouldn't know what the general "take-aways" of the story were, that is how much trash the ending was and how much "up in the air" I felt I was left. 

I feel the same way with books as I do movies. I am here to be entertained. If I enjoy your story I am in 100%. But don't do this lazy, crappy, "Figure the ending out for yourself" stuff. It feels like (and always has to me) lazy writing where you as the writer/director/author can't find a suitable ending that ties SOME of your plot(s)/arc(s) together so you just "leave it up to the audience".

Total lazy trash imo and it really hurts to say that because my excitement and love for this series, in all honesty, had eclipsed ASOIAF. 

[lokisnow]

Basically what rhom said. I more or less liked an ending wherein kellhus reveals a plan to consume destroy the world only to get punked. The not in the text author description of an ending he didn’t write really soured me.

[Wik]

Just now, lokisnow said:

Basically what rhom said. I more or less liked an ending wherein kellhus reveals a plan to consume destroy the world only to get punked. The not in the text author description of an ending he didn’t write really soured me.

Where was/is this? I'm curious to know! 

[lokisnow]

Rhom’s post is from like thirty minutes ago in this thread?

[Wik]

Just now, lokisnow said:

Thomas post is from like thirty minutes ago in this thread?

Sorry, misunderstood. Thought you were saying that Bakker had given an actual "ending" elsewhere, publicly, because he decided not to actually write it in the book. I figured this was posted on some website of his or something. 

[lokisnow]

28 minutes ago, Wik said:

Sorry, misunderstood. Thought you were saying that Bakker had given an actual "ending" elsewhere, publicly, because he decided not to actually write it in the book. I figured this was posted on some website of his or something. 

No it was just me restating rhom. The ending in the book is kellhus breaks bad by allying with ajokli. 

Bakker states elsewhere that isn’t the ending. 

[Dora Vee]

7 hours ago, Rhom said:

I don’t even think the problem is with the “ending” itself.  He certainly could have written a story that remained faithful to his teenage set dream.  The problem is with the lack of payoff for literally every other story in the second trilogy.  If there had been a reason for Mimara to be there, if there had been a meaningful meeting between Akka/Kel, if the Ajokli/Kel situation had been more clear, if there had been any reason to fight the dragon, etc.

If any of that had paid off, everyone would have been fine with an ending where the No God walks. 

Throw in Akka/Proyas for me and a different fate for the latter. Well, I liked the ending, but yea, you're right.

[Darth Richard II]

I’ve never bought the that’s how it was for women in classical tunes argument. I believe Bakker even stayed at one point he made it much much worse then it was on purpose.

 

Edit: Of course he said he did it for a reason and we would find out why, and that reason ended up being, um, hmm....

[kuenjato]

3 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

I’ve never bought the that’s how it was for women in classical tunes argument. I believe Bakker even stayed at one point he made it much much worse then it was on purpose.

 

Edit: Of course he said he did it for a reason and we would find out why, and that reason ended up being, um, hmm....

Well, that's the argument, isn't it? It depends on what area you are inspecting, what time period, etc. During the epic arguments from 10 years ago 'bout the woman issue, the performative wokeness crew constantly complained that women were not so downtrodden and why o why didn't Bakker include examples like all the exceptional women of history one might wiki for proof. A counter argument went that including exceptionalities to the rule is generalized epic fantasy tokenism and that 99.999% of women (and men) were not privilaged in the premodern world, and so writing somewhat accurately from the POV of the downtrodden was what made PoN interesting if harrowing. Others might simply feel that RSB was doing both the latter and getting his grimdark on at the same time, PON coming out in a time when grimdark in comics & fantasy was da newest kewlist thang -- see Abercrombie's first trilogy (the Tarantino of Fantasy), the ascent of ASOIAF to "Merica's Tolkien", Malazan (which did army cannibal rape far earlier than TUC), the excessive/ridiculous swearing in Lynch's first book, etc-etc-etc. This was a reaction to the decades of relative conservatism in the genre.

The fact that Bakker countered the arguments of Kalbear et al. with "wait 'til the end, I'm doing something massive and unprecedented with the sexism", and then pulled back the curtain to show, well, absolutely friggin nothing, is sort of a microcosm of the overall issues affecting the climax/conclusion of this series. He really should have kept his mouth shut this past decade; I don't think the reaction would have been quite so negative from his hardcore fan base if the author wasn't all promises, promises-slash- brittle-skinned self pity.

[Darth Richard II]

Um, I think i agree with what you said? I know the historical accurateness of the treatment of the womens has been debated to death but I've always been on the side that he made it worse off then it was, like he said. (Not that it was, you know, great back then, just that Bakker dialed it up to 11).

But yes, as someone stated already, i was OK to fine with the ending til the AMA came out and it turned out all the stuff everyone had been analyzing for years turned out to be pointless. I think kalbear said it reminded him of lost and that's a good example. Seasons and seasons of random shit that people poured over looking for clues that turned out to be just random crap. It's like is David Lynch had come out after Twin Peaks and said none of it meant anything he just did a lot of LSD.

[kuenjato]

3 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Um, I think i agree with what you said? I know the historical accurateness of the treatment of the womens has been debated to death but I've always been on the side that he made it worse off then it was, like he said. (Not that it was, you know, great back then, just that Bakker dialed it up to 11).

But yes, as someone stated already, i was OK to fine with the ending til the AMA came out and it turned out all the stuff everyone had been analyzing for years turned out to be pointless. I think kalbear said it reminded him of lost and that's a good example. Seasons and seasons of random shit that people poured over looking for clues that turned out to be just random crap. It's like is David Lynch had come out after Twin Peaks and said none of it meant anything he just did a lot of LSD.

 

No sweat DR, just the usual caustic crunch. 'Happy Hookers' was a theme back when with certain authors *cough cough*, so it was "refreshing" to have someone depicting how awful prostitution was/is. 

Lost is a decent example. What stings is that RSB is pretty smart and was obviously planning this for thirty+ years, while Lost was flinging shit at the wall and discerning patterns from the spatter. (I was a Lost fan in the mid 2000's, note.)

The AMA was the worst. Theorizing was bringing some really interesting interpretations, then LOL so much for that! This forum used to have 2, even 3 Bakker threads making the rounds. Now a single thread lasts for months.

I still want a book generated from the best theories of lokisnow, kalbear, happy ent etc. -- some of that stuff was absolute gold. If I wasn't so busy most of the time I'd archive all the threads, mine out the intellectual content and produce something bizarre.

It was a good ten years, though, these threads. In retrospect, I think I enjoyed the constant theorizing and bickering at westeros more than the books.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah it's weird to not have to start a new thread every week.

I'll say, the AMA and post TUC interviews almost made me send my boks off to goodwill.

I also didn't get into the series til book 5 came out, so some of the stuff that seemed novel when the first few came out probably had already started to be a bit tropey to me.

[Kalbear]

Bakker did say that he made things deliberately worse for women, and that was a point - that in a world where things were literally as what people thought they were back in the day, it would actually be that much worse. When women are objectively spiritually less than men, when people can see this as a fact the same way they can weigh two things, things are actually even worse than they are now. 

And it wasn't (just) about women being exceptional (though the story is about exceptional people in general, and it's weird that there were no exceptional women that weren't whores) - it was women simply not even appearing to exist in the story. Again, we compared it to things like Tolkien and Homer and as sparse as the representatives of women were in those stories they were still far more in abundance than Bakker's world. As I said back then - where are the queens, the ladies in wait, the businesswomen, the farmers, the religious, the nurses, the handmaidens? And what we get of those is basically Istriya, who turns out to be, well, completely horrible in all ways as far as representation, including not actually being human. 

It's weird not having women in places like this at all because, well, they tend to exist in normal society, they find ways of actually being human and being represented, even when not having equality. This is especially true for what Bakker modeled the first series after - the Crusades - where there were a whole lot of women present throughout the history as major roles, and he removed them. 

In a lot of ways what the current series Handmaid's Tale is running into is a similar problem to what Bakker had, and Bakker never solved it. When you show a dystopian sexist shithole, when you cause outrage over and over by putting your heroine through more and more shit, at some point you have to go somewhere with it - or it just becomes abuse porn. And that, in the end, is what TSA basically was - a story with scenes of horror and violence and interesting things with no real actual point, no there, there, just set after set of id-satisfying ultraviolence and rape with the deliberate attempt to make people think that there was some meaning behind it, when there was nothing.

I guess that's a cool message to some people? Like, telling people that for all the pain and horribleness in the world, there is no real good reason for it and it's all shit, really? But that doesn't make a particularly good story. 

[JGP]

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I guess that's a cool message to some people? Like, telling people that for all the pain and horribleness in the world, there is no real good reason for it and it's all shit, really? But that doesn't make a particularly good story. 

No, it certainly does not. I'd argue that doesn't even make it of middling quality-- just one colossal, pretentious tug job.

Fuck to that.

And Richard, dude, read thee some history books. :p 

[Darth Richard II]

I have. I mean, kalbear already said pretty much what I’d say, but you also have the author himself actually saying he made it worse, so I’m not sure what the argument is.