Bakker LV - Nau's Ark

[.H.]

7 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Sorry, where JP is concerned, I've read/listened to his stuff, and it does absolutely nothing for me. To say nothing of his increasingly mannerless behaviour in public and print. 

I love listening to people I don't agree with, and I can give them a lot of rope *provided* they exhibit civil behaviour. Otherwise it just makes me cringe and think "you're an adult! You're supposed to be setting a model of behaviour for the rest of us! What are you doing?!"

Manners maketh the man, y'know? (Maybe this is just a deceased idea that lingers in me due to my Soviet upbringing.)

I haven't seen anything I would consider particularly "mannerles" but there are definitely some things I'd question on his Twitter.  But that's all politics, which I don't really listen to him much on.  His more scholarly work though, I'm more apt to listen to.

7 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Film Art by David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson

Understanding Movies by Louis Giannetti

 

Further to those two, from a writing/analysis standpoint, Roger Ebert's book 'Your Movie Sucks' is a terrific read and something I'd recommend after you've read Film Art and Understanding Movies. (Ebert's masterful prose is in a class of its own.)

Will see what I can find and check out, thanks.

6 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

As in: The Unholy Consult? 

Yes.

5 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Isn't there one more trilogy on the way? My understanding was that the Aspect-Emperor series was part 2 of 3 of the Whole Story. So it's not yet fully concluded, as I understand it.

Yes.  Although if and when it gets written (and published) we don't know.

[Hello World]

Quote

That's fine, but that isn't what he actually said.  He didn't say, "answers to the most burning questions will be revealed" he said "burning questions would be revealed."  That definitely different.  He sure did deliver a hell of a lot of questions.

You know, I always wondered if Bakker could have actually meant what you're saying and not just that he misspoke. Because it seems really silly to say "just wait for the final book and all the questions will be revealed", the burning questions no less. Where exactly are those questions burning, anyway? Is he writing the books for himself or the reader? And what about all burning questions the readers have that went unanswered?

[.H.]

3 minutes ago, Hello World said:

You know, I always wondered if Bakker could have actually meant what you're saying and not just that he misspoke. Because it seems really silly to say "just wait for the final book and all the questions will be revealed", the burning questions no less. Where exactly are those questions burning, anyway? Is he writing the books for himself or the reader? And what about all burning questions the readers have that went unanswered?

I don't know, honestly, Bakker is a weird guy.  And he says weird cryptic shit from time to time.  And then he writes some weird cryptic shit in his books.  So, it's certainly in the realm of possibility to me.

But he would be right.  I mean, Sci and I have been discussing a bunch of metaphysical questions.  The question of what was Kellhus' plan is still on the table.  The question of the extent of Ajokli's involvement in the whole series is open.  The question of what role Mimara really plays with the No-God active is a major one.  Even minor shit like, did Kellhus really love Esmenet is still unanswered really.  I mean, we learned some stuff but what the hell is the No-God, really?  There's definitely questions...

It's a bizarre way to phrase a sentence, but I can't help but think he did it deliberately.  And I think the point of the series is really to be a big Rorschach test of sorts.  Where you get all kind of narrative fragments and philosophical fragments thrown at you to see what you pick up and put together with them.

[Darth Richard II]

I dunno I can think of a bunch of times Bakker lied directly and knowingly, sometimes on THIS FORUM, so him being deceitful in an interview doesn’t strike me as being that out of character.

[.H.]

16 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I dunno I can think of a bunch of times Bakker lied directly and knowingly, sometimes on THIS FORUM, so him being deceitful in an interview doesn’t strike me as being that out of character.

OK.  I mean, you can decide anything you want.  If you want Bakker to just be a massive liar and a con, then you got it, I don't think anyone could convince you otherwise with anything.  There really isn't much to say after that.  There isn't any doubt that Bakker did some dumb shit and said some questionable shit at times, kind of in the same way many people have.  Perhaps that makes him a terrible person.  Perhaps it just makes him someone who sometimes makes bad choices.

If you want the series to be shit because of it, then so it is for you.  For me, well, I still think the series has merit based on what is in the books and a fair bit of what Bakker has said extra-textually.  Perhaps what's in the books makes it shit for you too, which is also fine, I just disagree on what it means to me personally.

[IlyaP]

12 minutes ago, .H. said:

If you want Bakker to just be a massive liar and a con, then you got it, I don't think anyone could convince you otherwise with anything.

At this point, it seems to me that maybe producing citations, interviews, contextualised statements, dates of said statements, etc., would be a good idea.

[.H.]

1 minute ago, IlyaP said:

At this point, it seems to me that maybe producing citations, interviews, contextualised statements, dates of said statements, etc., would be a good idea.

Sure, but I do have a full time job and it isn't "proving Bakker specifically is not a liar."  Not to mention, there is a good chance that whatever I would find isn't going to prove anything except: mostly tells the truth, occasionally says something cryptic, rarely lies.  You can decide what that makes him for yourself with all that effort, probably.

Note: On another forum, I do have a collected citation of all the interviews I've been able to document.  I don't think anyone really cares.

Note 2: I honestly only remember one case of Bakker outright lying, but that doesn't change my above point.

[Sci-2]

For myself, I don't care that much about the plot at the moment - my current interest is focused on the metaphysical questions. So a person could not see much value in the story but still get something out of the books.

As to whether Bakker lied about the contents of TUC...maybe he simply changed his mind about what the book's ending would be. Not that he didn't have the current ending planned, but perhaps there was a larger epilogue or more clues on what happened to Kellhus's soul that were left until the next volume.

[Kalbear]

1 hour ago, .H. said:

I don't know, honestly, Bakker is a weird guy.  And he says weird cryptic shit from time to time.  And then he writes some weird cryptic shit in his books.  So, it's certainly in the realm of possibility to me.

But he would be right.  I mean, Sci and I have been discussing a bunch of metaphysical questions.  The question of what was Kellhus' plan is still on the table.  The question of the extent of Ajokli's involvement in the whole series is open.  The question of what role Mimara really plays with the No-God active is a major one.  Even minor shit like, did Kellhus really love Esmenet is still unanswered really.  I mean, we learned some stuff but what the hell is the No-God, really?  There's definitely questions...

Sure! Now, here's a question for you - let's take Bakker's statement at face value, and assume he meant 'all of the questions will be revealed'.

What are those questions? Which of the questions are relevant, and which are not? 

I would posit that not only do we not have particularly good answers to major issues of the series, we also don't even have a framework to know what the remaining questions will be that are important to the series' resolution, or even if there is a resolution coming. 

Now, here's my framing of it: Bakker has said repeatedly that the two books he finds most important and carries around with him at all times are Blood Meridian and the Bible. Both are rife with big things happening, and both have to a large extent a whole lot of allegory that has been interpreted and reinterpreted. One could argue the Bible has at least intent; Blood Meridian is meant (apparently) to be something of a cipher. Based on this, it is far more likely in my mind that Bakker's intent was to do literally what he said - to engage the narrative meaning makers of humans - the mythic structures that look for cause and reason behind things that have absolutely nothing behind them at all - without having a precise definition or even a very imprecise definition of what actually happening, nor would he plan on providing it. 

And that's fine! What is kind of shitty in my mind is the amount of misleading that he and some of his more zealous batshit crazy fans went through to make people think that there would be answers forthcoming. The 'g-string is coming off' statement of his interviews. No one made him say that, nor does anyone think that the g-string coming off means that you now are presented with a chastity belt with 50 different puzzles you have to solve as making any sense at all. 

1 hour ago, .H. said:

It's a bizarre way to phrase a sentence, but I can't help but think he did it deliberately.  And I think the point of the series is really to be a big Rorschach test of sorts.  Where you get all kind of narrative fragments and philosophical fragments thrown at you to see what you pick up and put together with them.

And that's fine too! That said, there are a lot of narrative fragments that end up being complete shit on their face from the basic storytelling standpoint. Having one of your lead characters essentially sidelined for a good quarter of the series isn't great, as an example. Having people confused about basic facts like how Kelmomas got free and then appeared in the Golden Room is just inexact writing. Having dragons talk about cunny is puerile. 

[.H.]

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Sure! Now, here's a question for you - let's take Bakker's statement at face value, and assume he meant 'all of the questions will be revealed'.

What are those questions? Which of the questions are relevant, and which are not? 

I would posit that not only do we not have particularly good answers to major issues of the series, we also don't even have a framework to know what the remaining questions will be that are important to the series' resolution, or even if there is a resolution coming. 

Well, I don't know, but in the part of what I said that you qouted I put a bunch of questions.  There are more, but those were what came to mind at the time.  I am not sure if you mean those aren't important, but they are still questions I wonder about.

5 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Now, here's my framing of it: Bakker has said repeatedly that the two books he finds most important and carries around with him at all times are Blood Meridian and the Bible. Both are rife with big things happening, and both have to a large extent a whole lot of allegory that has been interpreted and reinterpreted. One could argue the Bible has at least intent; Blood Meridian is meant (apparently) to be something of a cipher. Based on this, it is far more likely in my mind that Bakker's intent was to do literally what he said - to engage the narrative meaning makers of humans - the mythic structures that look for cause and reason behind things that have absolutely nothing behind them at all - without having a precise definition or even a very imprecise definition of what actually happening, nor would he plan on providing it. 

And that's fine! What is kind of shitty in my mind is the amount of misleading that he and some of his more zealous batshit crazy fans went through to make people think that there would be answers forthcoming. The 'g-string is coming off' statement of his interviews. No one made him say that, nor does anyone think that the g-string coming off means that you now are presented with a chastity belt with 50 different puzzles you have to solve as making any sense at all.

I have said, or meant to imply, that mistakes were not made.  By Bakker and other people, mind you.  Hell, I'm sure I made mistakes too.

I do think the series has actual meaning in it, even if the narrative arc stops at a point that doesn't provide closure or definitive meaning to it all.  Again, it's open to a hell of a lot of interpretation, just the same as the Bible or Blood Meridian.  If you want them to be meaningless, they can be.  So can these books.

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And that's fine too! That said, there are a lot of narrative fragments that end up being complete shit on their face from the basic storytelling standpoint. Having one of your lead characters essentially sidelined for a good quarter of the series isn't great, as an example. Having people confused about basic facts like how Kelmomas got free and then appeared in the Golden Room is just inexact writing. Having dragons talk about cunny is puerile.

Again, I don't really debate that point.  I've lamented many times how I feel PoN was, in general, written better and how I wish he was able to keep that same editor.  I've never criticized anyone for criticizing that.  I don't even argue with people who say they don't like the books.  If they don't like them, that's fine.  If they don't find any meaning, that's fine too.  My view of the work is just different.

[Kalbear]

12 minutes ago, .H. said:

Well, I don't know, but in the part of what I said that you qouted I put a bunch of questions.  There are more, but those were what came to mind at the time.  I am not sure if you mean those aren't important, but they are still questions I wonder about.

I don't mean that they are or are not important - only that they are entirely subjective as to their importance. If you asked the last 10 people who posted here what the top unanswered questions are, I suspect maybe only one of them would be common across the 10 people. There are so many questions unanswered - so many big ones, and so many others that seem like they'd be big but are probably niche to only a few people - that even the notion of 'the big question will be revealed' is still a false statement. 

12 minutes ago, .H. said:

 

I have said, or meant to imply, that mistakes were not made.  By Bakker and other people, mind you.  Hell, I'm sure I made mistakes too.

I do think the series has actual meaning in it, even if the narrative arc stops at a point that doesn't provide closure or definitive meaning to it all.  Again, it's open to a hell of a lot of interpretation, just the same as the Bible or Blood Meridian.  If you want them to be meaningless, they can be.  So can these books.

I would say that it's meant to imply meaning. There are a few things that I believe were his goals - things like making an allegory to biological objective truth being inconvenient to liberal viewpoints, for example. I am not convinced that much of the 'clues' that were put in place have any actual value other than to imply meaning. Again, I've seen this sort of storytelling before - from BSG and Lost. And in both of those cases answers were eventually provided - but in both of those cases the answers weren't planned out ahead of time. 

Here's another bit of evidence: Bakker himself stated he doesn't know where the series is going to go, and is going to be (for the first time) a gardener in his series writing. Does that sound like someone who has the answers already mapped out? 

12 minutes ago, .H. said:

Again, I don't really debate that point.  I've lamented many times how I feel PoN was, in general, written better and how I wish he was able to keep that same editor.  I've never criticized anyone for criticizing that.  I don't even argue with people who say they don't like the books.  If they don't like them, that's fine.  If they don't find any meaning, that's fine too.  My view of the work is just different.

I guess my point is that it's entirely easy to find meaning in the books, and that's by design. There's tons of meaning-making things everywhere, lots of shiny baubles that must be Very Important. Lots of things that engage our brains into thinking that there is deliberate purpose behind this and that. 

But that doesn't mean that there is actual explanations forthcoming, or that they will be satisfactory, or that they are at all planned out. 

I would be shocked if someone could find zero meaning in the books. But I'd be more shocked if readers could find the actual meaning that ends up being correct. 

[.H.]

53 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I don't mean that they are or are not important - only that they are entirely subjective as to their importance. If you asked the last 10 people who posted here what the top unanswered questions are, I suspect maybe only one of them would be common across the 10 people. There are so many questions unanswered - so many big ones, and so many others that seem like they'd be big but are probably niche to only a few people - that even the notion of 'the big question will be revealed' is still a false statement. 

But aren't any questions going to be subjective?

I mean, I don't know what Bakker would consider THE big question, but I don't recall him ever saying that "THE big question will be revealed."  Only the quote that HW posted earlier about "burning questions" which honestly is cryptic as hell and I have no idea what that means.  Like I said, Bakker's a weird guy and his view of the series is vastly different than all of our's, and certainly any of our's.  So, I really don't consider this a lie, more like stupid cryptic thing to say that is probably misleading.

58 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I would say that it's meant to imply meaning. There are a few things that I believe were his goals - things like making an allegory to biological objective truth being inconvenient to liberal viewpoints, for example. I am not convinced that much of the 'clues' that were put in place have any actual value other than to imply meaning. Again, I've seen this sort of storytelling before - from BSG and Lost. And in both of those cases answers were eventually provided - but in both of those cases the answers weren't planned out ahead of time. 

Here's another bit of evidence: Bakker himself stated he doesn't know where the series is going to go, and is going to be (for the first time) a gardener in his series writing. Does that sound like someone who has the answers already mapped out?

It's plausible to me that things in the series do have thematic meaning, but that the narrative arc is not planned out past TUC.  Maybe that isn't possible, but that's what I figured.

1 hour ago, Kalbear said:

I guess my point is that it's entirely easy to find meaning in the books, and that's by design. There's tons of meaning-making things everywhere, lots of shiny baubles that must be Very Important. Lots of things that engage our brains into thinking that there is deliberate purpose behind this and that. 

But that doesn't mean that there is actual explanations forthcoming, or that they will be satisfactory, or that they are at all planned out. 

I would be shocked if someone could find zero meaning in the books. But I'd be more shocked if readers could find the actual meaning that ends up being correct. 

Well, I guess then I am wondering what the difference between "meaning" and "actual meaning" is?  Is it the difference between a subjective reader's and the author's definitively proscribed meaning?  I guess I am just strange in not really caring if we get that.  To me, it's probably more interesting that we can supply more of our own meaning, rather than whatever Bakker declares.  But I find it hard to believe that there are things in the book with no deliberate purpose.  I don't think Bakker flipped coins to decide what elements are in there.  Sure, maybe every element is not narratively meaningful, but I do think they are thematically so.  So, if Esmenet is an inverted Mary parallel, I don't think that is willy-nilly.  Mary isn't just some random lady.  She is invoked for a reason, even if it isn't narratively important.

Or, maybe I just don't even understand what meaning is.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah I’ve lost track of the argument again but no I don’t think Bakker is a terrible person, I just think he has a, hmm, not sure how to phrase this, a bad response to criticism, plus a tendency to pat himself on the back a bit too much. I also don’t think the series is terrible. Trust me, if I hated as much as certain people like to think I do I would have gotten read of my copies a long ago. 

[Darth Richard II]

4 hours ago, Triskjavikson said:

For the record, my comment was based on very little knowledge other than that I'd heard that everyone wanted it to be a WWII allegory and that JRRT had denied that it was.  

You should check around the Tolkien thread. We have some hardcore Tolkien fans on here.

[IlyaP]

3 hours ago, .H. said:

Sure, but I do have a full time job and it isn't "proving Bakker specifically is not a liar."  Not to mention, there is a good chance that whatever I would find isn't going to prove anything except: mostly tells the truth, occasionally says something cryptic, rarely lies.  You can decide what that makes him for yourself with all that effort, probabl

Oh totally fair. My spidey senses merely got the feeling that the conversation was at risk of spiralling out into uncivil behaviour or he-said-she-said style engagements. 

Neither of which strike me as particularly productive.

[Sci-2]

9 hours ago, Sci-2 said:

After .H. found that quote re: Inverse Fire, decided to poke around the Glossary to see what other clues as to the metaphysics might be unearthed:

Daimos—Also known as noömancy. The sorcery of summoning and enslaving agencies from the Outside. Daimotic Cants involve exploitation of the extensionless nature of the soul, the fact that all souls occupy the identical space, one orthogonal to the space of Bios, yet still belonging to the space of speech...

=-=-=

.......

“Here” of the Caller can only reach a “There,” or other location, that has been a “Here” sometime in the past.

Keeping on with this digging, went back to TGO. Here's what happens when Saubon dies:

"He suffered an absence of sensation that could only be called falling.

Void was a spinning place, or so he learned, for he did not move, and it spun about him. Then a mad, existential jarring, as if he had slipped from a precipice to be swatted motionless caught upon a ledge …

He opened eyes within already opened eyes … Cheek against the turf, shadows thrashing about and above, a scissoring forest of horse-legs … Men battling Men? Yes. Galeoth knights vying with golden-armoured Coyauri. Mengedda? By the God, his fury felt so empty, so frail against the earth … He was already gazing across trampled turf. Motionless, he saw a young man fallen the same as he, heavily armoured in the old style, sandy-blond hair jutting from his mail hood...

...A nightmarish moment of recognition, too surreal to be terrifying. It was his face! His own hand had clasped him!"

There's that moment where Saubon is body-less, experiencing Void. It seems that was when he was a monad, or in Bakker's terms, an "Observational Frame" that was not confined to embodiment.

Unfortunately the situation doesn't last, and Saubon is caught in a subtle body that seems to throw him back to the moment he had almost died previously. It recalls the Cants of calling, specifically that last line in the definition. He moves from the Here of his death to the Here of his almost death.

Could another Observational Frame, say the Survivor, have steadied themselves in the "spinning place" of the Void and so not tumbled into a new subtle body that can be tormented by demons?

[Esmenet]

From Reddit AMA:

 

Quote

Question: What's next for you?

Will the ending for TUC be made clearer in the following books?

How long until the name for the next series is revealed? My bet is on

Talking about following books, what is the current plan for more fiction in Earwa?

Are you writing more papers in the style of On Alien Philosophy?

Are more detective-style novels in the works?

Also, your works are fucking mindfucks, pardon the french, of the highest order and I love them. Not only my favorite fantasy, but favorite literary work I have ever read.

Answer: Hindsight often has a tendency to clarify things - there are revelations to come, certainly! I'm guessing the next iteration of "What has come before..." will be a welcome read for some readers.

The next series is, and always has been, entitled The No-God.

There's the matter of the last surviving full Dunyain Anasurimbor on the loose--that's what's been commanding my attention most these days. I'm actually just finishing a paper on literature after the death of meaning for a big anthology on Philosophy and Literature by Palgrave. I sorely wish to write another Disciple Manning novel (The Enlightened Dead has been my working title for, like, ever, now) but genre jumping has proven to be a punishing experience, sales-wise.

Thanks for digging the vision, simbyotic. The whole point is to complete the circuit and loose the whirlwind!

 

Concerning the bold part (mine) of Bakker's answer, it certainly seems that revelations are to come via TNG. It also, would lend credence to the idea that Bakker did indeed mean, burning questions would arise from TUC.  

Lmao, that the simple fact you can find months of reading material on the meaning of LotR, would suggest that the meaning is entirely up for debate...

Seeing as a third of this series is still not finished, I'd reserve judgement on its meaning and intentions of the author until we have received the last installments. 

I'd also assume that if the author has always maintained a 3rd series to finish this story, that indeed he has an idea where the "meat" of the story is going. And, find it very plausible, that that can be true, along side the fact that the details of which are fuzzy.

I find it very hard to believe that such a great series is essentially devoid of meaning. Either in intent from the author, or the meaning of which the reader ascribes to it. After all, I don't believe there is a clear cut consensus on the meaning of LotR. And that's just from googling "the meaning of Lord of the Rings".

[Darth Richard II]

Oh well, the crazy fanboys are here. I’ll be downstairs while this plays out. 

[Darth Richard II]

Sigh, I know I shouldn't engage, but:

40 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

 

 

 

I'd also assume that if the author has always maintained a 3rd series to finish this story, that indeed he has an idea where the "meat" of the story is going. And, find it very plausible, that that can be true, along side the fact that the details of which are fuzzy.

He's said, multiple times, in many different interviews, including ones cited on here BY YOU, that TUC was always the planned ending for the series and he has no idea where the third series is going to go or what it's even going to be about. See the "g string coming off moment" quote.

42 minutes ago, Esmenet said:

Lmao, that the simple fact you can find months of reading material on the meaning of LotR, would suggest that the meaning is entirely up for debate...

 After all, I don't believe there is a clear cut consensus on the meaning of LotR. And that's just from googling "the meaning of Lord of the Rings".

Except there generally is. There also isn't any interviews I'm aware of wear Tolkien says all the world building is his books was meaningless. I don't understand why some people find this so hard to grasp. I mean the whole point was that we were supposed to be looking for meaning when there is none and go AHA OMG.

[Darth Richard II]

20 minutes ago, Triskjavikson said:

Is that a new AMA?

I don't think I've seen that one before. A link would be nice.