Bakker LIV - Soul Sphincter

[Dora Vee]

Maybe the point is that Bakker himself doesn't think that Earwa is worth saving and the Consult win is well deserved.

[Wik]

23 minutes ago, Dora Vee said:

Maybe the point is that Bakker himself doesn't think that Earwa is worth saving and the Consult win is well deserved.

You know what, maybe you are right and THIS is his attitude. But don't be a punk and leave it half way or.....whatever it is you may care to call what he actually did.

Shut the gods out, kill people endlessly, make it Thunderdome. I don't care, I just want an actual conclusive result that is well written and clear and not this bumble stumble fuck stuff he did throughout the 2nd trilogy but especially at the end. 

[Kalbear]

15 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Yeah, I read that already. There's little to disagree with beyond the 'modelled on the Crusades' bit. The Holy War shares a likeness but was told in a distinctly Homer-like style. Add the general atmosphere and societal make-up and there's very little elsewise that's even remotely similar to a medieval setting.

Anyway.

It's an astute observation, to be sure. But I'm not sure how Kal's words speak to your point, Richard. :p

The point isn't that women didn't have it bad; it's that women don't appear to exist for the most part in the story. They've been excised from the story in a very weird way. Even when you'd expect women to be there - people's favorite concubines, or a queen, or a royal daughter - they don't exist. 

Another way to put it is that this is like the Handmaid's tale not having Serena Joy, or any of the aunts, or any other handmaids other than Offred. It would still suck for women, but it would be really fucking weird for them to simply not exist, even in sexist settings. 

[Wik]

Just a small pet peeve of mine, so figured I would toss this nade out and see what happens:

What, if any, was the significance of the Kosoter/Cleric relationship? 

[Sci-2]

10 minutes ago, Wik said:

Just a small pet peeve of mine, so figured I would toss this nade out and see what happens:

What, if any, was the significance of the Kosoter/Cleric relationship? 

As Non-men need tragedy to center their continually disintegrating Self around, it just makes sense Cleric would choose Kosoter...or perhaps Kellhus chooses Kosoter for Cleric? (Honestly can't remember)

And as it's slightly upthread, yes Bakker has suggested if not outright said he's a misandrist, though I can't recall the exact context - I think it was in reference to how men being in charge leads to worse societies?

[Wik]

1 minute ago, Sci-2 said:

As Non-men need tragedy to center their continually disintegrating Self around, it just makes sense Cleric would choose Kosoter...or perhaps Kellhus chooses Kosoter for Cleric? (Honestly can't remember)

So, Cleric needed Kosoter, who was mean, nasty, horrible person to continue to fall down that slope to keep him sane? And Kellhus knew this and somehow manipulated the pair into hanging out for the benefit of...…? 

[Sci-2]

1 minute ago, Wik said:

So, Cleric needed Kosoter, who was mean, nasty, horrible person to continue to fall down that slope to keep him sane? And Kellhus knew this and somehow manipulated the pair into hanging out for the benefit of...…? 

Keeping Akka alive...I think. It's been years...maybe a decade since I read that part of the books...

[Wik]

2 minutes ago, Sci-2 said:

Keeping Akka alive...I think. It's been years...maybe a decade since I read that part of the books...

Ya, I know I am going way back, I just never fully understood the dynamic.....I thought at first it was Cleric who wanted free from being Nonman king, then I thought it was Kosoter keeping dibs on Cleric, then I thought it was Cleric trying to infiltrate the Great Ordeal somehow.....didn't really put it all together with keeping Akka alive.....to be honest I was surprised at how that twist "ended" as I thought Kellhus would legit be against anyone looking for or discovering Ishaul, if for no other reason, because he knew what happened with his he and his father, so wouldn't want something similar to happen to him. 

[Sci-2]

5 minutes ago, Wik said:

Ya, I know I am going way back, I just never fully understood the dynamic.....I thought at first it was Cleric who wanted free from being Nonman king, then I thought it was Kosoter keeping dibs on Cleric, then I thought it was Cleric trying to infiltrate the Great Ordeal somehow.....didn't really put it all together with keeping Akka alive.....to be honest I was surprised at how that twist "ended" as I thought Kellhus would legit be against anyone looking for or discovering Ishaul, if for no other reason, because he knew what happened with his he and his father, so wouldn't want something similar to happen to him. 

ah yeah i've totally forgotten the inner workings of the plot...and admittedly my interest in the series at this point is more the metaphysics of Earwa than any of the characters.

[JGP]

3 hours ago, Kalbear said:

The point isn't that women didn't have it bad; it's that women don't appear to exist for the most part in the story. They've been excised from the story in a very weird way. Even when you'd expect women to be there - people's favorite concubines, or a queen, or a royal daughter - they don't exist. 

Another way to put it is that this is like the Handmaid's tale not having Serena Joy, or any of the aunts, or any other handmaids other than Offred. It would still suck for women, but it would be really fucking weird for them to simply not exist, even in sexist settings. 

I don't get the Handmaid ref, don't watch it-- but I get you. 

Bakker is fucking weird.

[.H.]

14 hours ago, Wik said:

Ya, I know I am going way back, I just never fully understood the dynamic.....I thought at first it was Cleric who wanted free from being Nonman king, then I thought it was Kosoter keeping dibs on Cleric, then I thought it was Cleric trying to infiltrate the Great Ordeal somehow.....didn't really put it all together with keeping Akka alive.....to be honest I was surprised at how that twist "ended" as I thought Kellhus would legit be against anyone looking for or discovering Ishaul, if for no other reason, because he knew what happened with his he and his father, so wouldn't want something similar to happen to him. 

There is a fair chance that Kellhus already knew that Ishuäl was destroyed/being destroyed.  The chances that Akka would find anything of any real importance was probably so small that Kellhus figured it wasn't worth stopping him.  It also just lets Kellhus have Akka out of his hair, while presenting very little chance of actual risk.  While Kellhus would probably not have figured on Koringhus having survived, I think it would be hard fault his idea, since it kept Akka away for 99% of the Ordeal's march and really didn't threaten Kellhus' plan at all.

[Hello World]

Why didn't he just kill him?

[Wik]

13 minutes ago, Hello World said:

Why didn't he just kill him?

The implication is that because Kellhus knows Esme really does love Akka, so he leaves that one "loose" end kind of "for her" all the while knowing that he never presents a major threat and has been pre-occupied with something (Kellhus' origin and Ishaul)) that doesn't really matter, I guess. 

[unJon]

6 minutes ago, Wik said:

The implication is that because Kellhus knows Esme really does love Akka, so he leaves that one "loose" end kind of "for her" all the while knowing that he never presents a major threat and has been pre-occupied with something (Kellhus' origin and Ishaul)) that doesn't really matter, I guess. 

You could also take at face value that Kellhus wanted Akka to show up at Golgotterath to witness Kel’s fidelity. 

[Wik]

1 minute ago, unJon said:

You could also take at face value that Kellhus wanted Akka to show up at Golgotterath to witness Kel’s fidelity. 

Oh, I think that is definitely part of it as well, just forgot to mention it LOL

[Hello World]

20 minutes ago, Wik said:

The implication is that because Kellhus knows Esme really does love Akka, so he leaves that one "loose" end kind of "for her" all the while knowing that he never presents a major threat and has been pre-occupied with something (Kellhus' origin and Ishaul)) that doesn't really matter, I guess. 

Achamian was fine for 20 years and there was no indication that he was about to do something actually threatening to Kellhus, so why send him on a journey that is likely to get him killed, with Esmenet's daughter no less? I'm assuming here that Kellhus had something to do with Achamian going to Ishual, most likely through the traveller at the start of TJE. If he loved Esmenet and didn't want Achamian and Mimara to die he would have prevented them from going and made sure that at least Mimara stayed somewhere safe.

Maybe he just didn't know or plan anything related to Akka and Mimara's arc.

[Wik]

2 minutes ago, Hello World said:

Achamian was fine for 20 years and there was no indication that he was about to do something actually threatening to Kellhus, so why send him on a journey that is likely to get him killed, with Esmenet's daughter no less? I'm assuming here that Kellhus had something to do with Achamian going to Ishual, most likely through the traveller at the start of TJE. If he loved Esmenet and didn't want Achamian and Mimara to die he would have prevented them from going and made sure that at least Mimara stayed somewhere safe.

Maybe he just didn't know or plan anything related to Akka and Mimara's arc.

Perhaps. Although, if that is the case I would say it is far off the typical path we see and expect from Kellhus. Very few, if any, loose ends. He is almost always playing for the long term scenario(s), so just because Akka had been out of his way for 20 years, I would be hard pressed to assume he didn't have a plan or think about him at all in that time. 

[unJon]

25 minutes ago, Hello World said:

Achamian was fine for 20 years and there was no indication that he was about to do something actually threatening to Kellhus, so why send him on a journey that is likely to get him killed, with Esmenet's daughter no less? I'm assuming here that Kellhus had something to do with Achamian going to Ishual, most likely through the traveller at the start of TJE. If he loved Esmenet and didn't want Achamian and Mimara to die he would have prevented them from going and made sure that at least Mimara stayed somewhere safe.

Maybe he just didn't know or plan anything related to Akka and Mimara's arc.

Ajokli made him do it, obviously. 

[.H.]

1 hour ago, Hello World said:

Achamian was fine for 20 years and there was no indication that he was about to do something actually threatening to Kellhus, so why send him on a journey that is likely to get him killed, with Esmenet's daughter no less?

Well, Mimara ended up going to Akka, which Kellhus could plausibly have realized she would.  And plausibly Kellhus realized it would spur Akka into doing something.  He could have locked Mimara away, but then he only complicates his relationship with Esmenet further, plus means not he needs to keep another string tied.  Plausibly, Esmenet just free's Mimara once Kellhus is busy.  I'm not much of a fan of giving too much credit to Kellhus for his clemency or for his action (or lack thereof) out of "love" for Esmenet.  It's plausible that Kellhus just sees no real reason to kill Akka.  As in, Akka is not an actual credible threat to him, not to mention, Kellhus is seems pretty certain of his ability to play Akka.  So, why kill him, when he is no threat and could be useful later?  I think Kellhus also really did want Akka to witness him prevail (as unJon mentions), to "prove" that Akka's proclamation of his false-hood was wrong (even though he knows it isn't).  In other words, it's plausible to me to consider that perhaps Akka is Kellhus' "proof" in a similar manner that Serwë was Cnaiûr's.

Not only that, but Kellhus gets the "morally convenient" cop-out that if Akka and Mimara die, he didn't actually kill them.  Because he didn't, matter-of-factly.  Only he sort of did, because if you have near unlimited power and essential knowledge of the danger they were in, only to do nothing to save them.  But that is part of the problem of evaluating Kellhus' character, we are at once both drawn to overestimate Kellhus' power and knowledge, because he seems so transcendentally limitless.  He also seems so coldly logical, but he actually isn't.  It's hard to intersperse the power limit and the emotionality that must exist into his character, because we don't get access to it much in the whole TAE series.

[Kalbear]

6 hours ago, .H. said:

There is a fair chance that Kellhus already knew that Ishuäl was destroyed/being destroyed.  The chances that Akka would find anything of any real importance was probably so small that Kellhus figured it wasn't worth stopping him.  It also just lets Kellhus have Akka out of his hair, while presenting very little chance of actual risk. 

The shortest path in this case is to kill Akka. If you are correct there is zero value in keeping him alive, much less setting up one of the most powerful Nonmen in the world with a soul-blasted veteran to stick around the area Akka is so that when Akka decides to go off, he'll have a guard and a watch - both of which spectacularly backfire. 

Better take: Ajokli wants Akka to live, because he knows he might cause Kellhus the most trouble, so he subtly influences Kellhus to keep him alive on the pretense that it would hurt Esmi if he dies and Mimara needs to survive as well (for similar reasons, not because Kellhus believes she's a prophet). Ajokli also subtly influences Kellhus to expel Mimara for a similar reason - though he's baffled when she leaves without talking with Kellhus (because Kellhus talked with Kelmomas, who Ajokli can't see, and Kelmomas was the reason Mimara left). 

Again, this is one of those things that Bakker set up as an obvious Big Deal - Akka surviving, running into Kosoter and Cleric, Mimara coming to him - because the really easy solution wasn't taken. Kellhus clearly knew where Akka was this whole time, after all, and could easily have dispatched him.