Bakker LVII

[Kalbear]

Just now, Andrew Gilfellon said:

Ah right, must've just been me then. I thought that was the jist of that conversation at the end......because they were trying to woo him, or something. So confusing. I think I preferred the first trilogy more. 

They were trying to woo him, both as a conversation and with the Inverse Fire. But they were also happy to just kill him. They assumed that once he saw his fate in Hell he'd obviously do anything to fight that; what they didn't realize was that he was already a lord of hell in effect. Kind of a HHGG Zaphod vibe - he found out he's the most important guy in the universe.

In reality the Dunyain were crippled by having weak spirits and could not resist being possession - Kellhus by Ajokli, and the 5 brothers by Shaeonnara. Both did not understand the importance of their soul. 

As to why they grabbing Kelmomas - keep in mind that this has already happened, and the reason that Kelmomas was invisble to the Gods was because he was the No-God at some point. This is similar to Mimara having the Judging Eye because at some point she was going to be pregnant with this special son. 

[IlyaP]

10 hours ago, Werthead said:

Interesting Reddit discussion here.

There was a great point someone made that Bakker's key weakness is that his narrative is less than the sum of its parts, like many of the individual elements of the narrative (the basic idea, the prose, the philosophy, the characters, the worldbuilding) are excellent in isolation but become less coherent when he tries to bring them all together. I hadn't thought about it like that before and they seem to be onto somewhere.

So, erm, that Reddit thread led me to this. @Kalibear, how does this fit in with the conceptual framework you have of the series as a whole?

[.H.]

11 hours ago, Andrew Gilfellon said:

I think I preferred the first trilogy more. 

Well, I do too if we are talking about as a unified whole.  There are definitely parts, and elements, that I really like about TAE but the whole thing is more abstract.  Which, personally, I have personally come to see in light of a sort of Hegelian dialectical development.  You can throw thesis, antithesis and synthesis in the garbage, for the most part, (that was Fichte) and stick with Hegel's actual concrete, abstract, and absolute.  PoN is the concrete, TAE the abstract, and hopefully, should we ever see it, TNG is the absolute.

Along the same lines, I think that TAE "takes" a lot from The Phenomenology of Spirit, especially from the the section Skepticism, Stoicism and the Unhappy Consciousness.  Of course, Hegel's thoroughly impenetrable prose and jargon make any sort of easy comparison impossible to draw out simply.  In other words, I am tending to think Bakker has an abstract take on Hegel's abstract take.  This "double move" is often more that enough to shroud the concept(s) fairly well.

I've gone over before why I would think of Geist as a manner of understanding what it an Eärwan soul could be, so just moving on, Hegel is also looking at the issue of Universals and Particulars, the Eternal and the Finite and how they could interact.  For example from the Phenomenology:

Quote

In the mediator, then, this consciousness frees itself from action and enjoyment so far as they are regarded as its own. As a separate, independent extreme, it rejects the essence of its will, and casts upon the mediator or minister [priest] its own freedom of decision, and herewith the responsibility for its own action. This mediator, having a direct relationship with the unchangeable Being, ministers by giving advice on what is right.

Now, maybe it is just my typical loose associations, but I can imagine a manner of reading from that Hegel there to Bakker (in this case the Judging Eye, in a way).  Of course, don't take my word for anything though, the series might just be whatever one wants it to be (or not).

[Caligula_K3]

Thanks for the link to that thread, Werthead. I agree with a lot of the upvoted posts, which explain my disillusionment with Bakker's writing and the series as a whole. A lot of the things I didn't think about when I first read the series as an 18 year old having my mind blown by philosophy are a lot harder to excuse when I'm older. Especially since his ideas don't seem to develop much and just continually get jammed down your throat. I know Bakker's treatment of women is a can of worms we may not want to open, but I was pretty disgusted by both Esmenet's arc in White Luck Warrior and the Whale Mothers in The Great Ordeal. Like, if this is all Bakker can do when writing women, there's a serious problem not with the world, but with the author.

[Kalbear]

8 hours ago, IlyaP said:

So, erm, that Reddit thread led me to this. @Kalibear, how does this fit in with the conceptual framework you have of the series as a whole?

I think that's a very good summation of one of the things he does, yes, especially regarding his quote of wanting to 'problematize feminism'. It is only one of this themes, mind you - he has several others, including the basic theme he has going through Neuropath and Disciple, but I think that's an excellent summation of his general values towards feminism, women, male sexuality and whatnot.

In another thread he talked about how there might be a 'rape module' in males, as an example. His notion of genetics determining behavior exclusively has been talked out several times, and despite actual biologists talking to him about how his worldview is not even Bio 101, he continues with it fairly heavily. It's typical evopsych bullshit most of the time. 

[IlyaP]

8 hours ago, Kalibear said:

In another thread he talked about how there might be a 'rape module' in males, as an example. His notion of genetics determining behavior exclusively has been talked out several times, and despite actual biologists talking to him about how his worldview is not even Bio 101, he continues with it fairly heavily. It's typical evopsych bullshit most of the time. 

Yeah - I saw that and sighed. There seems to be some posit that the readers will be predominantely male, and certain inbuilt features exist (e.g. the rape module you mentioned), therefore...I sigh some more.

[All Cats Are Bad]

On 8/11/2020 at 4:02 PM, Kalibear said:

Lawrence gets a LOT of shit.

Ok, I do believe you now.

On 8/21/2020 at 6:53 AM, .H. said:

Along the same lines, I think that TAE "takes" a lot from The Phenomenology of Spirit, especially from the the section Skepticism, Stoicism and the Unhappy Consciousness.  Of course, Hegel's thoroughly impenetrable prose and jargon make any sort of easy comparison impossible to draw out simply.  In other words, I am tending to think Bakker has an abstract take on Hegel's abstract take.  This "double move" is often more that enough to shroud the concept(s) fairly well.

In the same way that the first trilogy was (obviously) very critical of religion, I kind of see the second series as taking a step further back, expanding the circle of criticism so to speak, to include New Atheism. The light that Mimara saw inside the Chorae at the end of TJE represents the infinite possibilities that exist within the rejection of traditional dogma (others could only see the negation).

Skuthula was the DnD/GamerGate nerd (the latter grew out of New Atheism) who goes to sleep under a poster of Richard Dawkins every night. A basement dweller who only understands sex as a concept. "What would a dragon know of cunny?" Remember he's shaped like a giant phallus, and he's getting his ass kicked by a naked, burned up witch. There's also that other line: "Are you a whore or a wife?" "I am a witch" referencing the old cliche about the roles women traditionally have in male-dominated fantasy stories.

[sologdin]

Skuthula was the DnD/GamerGate nerd (the latter grew out of New Atheism)

nifty. i hadn't been aware of the ideological filiation there, but apparently it is well observed.

[All Cats Are Bad]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

Skuthula was the DnD/GamerGate nerd (the latter grew out of New Atheism)

nifty. i hadn't been aware of the ideological filiation there, but apparently it is well observed.

I see the Dunsult as representing the 4/5 horsemen of New Atheism, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Ayan Hirsi Ali, then Hitchens is the one who died. Remember Kellhus, who in this metaphor would be like the faith healer who uses donations from his flock to buy a leer jet or whatever (Daimos over Tekne), calls them his goad, refers to them as the "four horns" (instead of horsemen) he'll use to gore the world and drink of its fruit (or something along those lines).

What he didn't see, what the Falwell adherents of the world didn't see, is that while they were planning marches against whatever book or film was making headlines that week, their children were at home fostering an utter and abiding resentment of their worldview. Remember how little time Kellhus spent with Kelmomas or Mimara because the Great Ordeal kept him so busy.

[IlyaP]

7 hours ago, SaltyGnosis said:

I see the Dunsult as representing the 4/5 horsemen of New Atheism, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Ayan Hirsi Ali, then Hitchens is the one who died.

That's a fascinating metatextual reading. How'd that one take shape? And has Bakker ever commented on its veracity? (Not that author approval is required, mind you.)

[IlyaP]

1 hour ago, Triskele said:

More.  Please, I must have more.

But do you? Do you really? 

[Derfel Cadarn]

Tempted to donate my Bakker books to a charity shop. While any new books (if ever written and published) may resolve the series, I suspect they'll likely end as unsatisfactorily as the last book. 

[Andrew Gilfellon]

Trouble is, that reading the chapter where Kellhus and his father talk about the Thousandfold Thought and the chapter about the inverse fire, I cannot help but feel like the Thousandfold Thought made more sense. 

But I do believe that the Aspect Emperor was part of his original plan for the books. But if I am honest, the only thing I have to go on is that the Daglish and Saubon death was foreshadowed in the Warrior Prophet. 

 

Also, someone mentioned that Kellhus's son used to be the No-God, but eh? I don't get that. 

[sologdin]

I suspect they'll likely end as unsatisfactorily as the last book. 

i recently read through the AMA threads from a few years ago.  one the one hand, there is a line of authorial conception that wants to disrupt resolutions--though if his premises are followed through to their end, i think that this conception is not executable, that readers will generate resolutions; on the other hand, there were a fair number of read and find out answers.

 

I must have more.

no doubt. am digging this fresh perspective. literary message boards are like pine forests, which need regular disturbance for their ecosystems to bear mycorrhizal fruit.

 

who in this metaphor would be like the faith healer

is there an interpretation here that casts AK's good faith into doubt--that he was shamelessly self-dealing?

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, Andrew Gilfellon said:

. 

 

Also, someone mentioned that Kellhus's son used to be the No-God, but eh? I don't get that. 

The gods are blind to Kelmomas because he ends up being the No-God - they can't see their own end.  Since time isn't linear here he's eventually the No-God and he's always been the No-God.  

The gods are blind to the eschaton.

[.H.]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

The gods are blind to Kelmomas because he ends up being the No-God - they can't see their own end.  Since time isn't linear here he's eventually the No-God and he's always been the No-God.  

The gods are blind to the eschaton.

I think of it, personally, as the difference between pleromatic time and experiential time.  In Hegel's sort of terms, it is Unchanging Being vs Finite Being, another "frame" of Universals vs. Particulars.  The question, much like the question of Platonic Forms vs. material, is, how could the two interact?  And, what would it look like if they did?

[All Cats Are Bad]

4 hours ago, sologdin said:

no doubt. am digging this fresh perspective. literary message boards are like pine forests, which need regular disturbance for their ecosystems to bear mycorrhizal fruit.

You know you have a very distinct way of putting things. I like it.

[jurble]

On 8/24/2020 at 1:20 PM, SaltyGnosis said:

I see the Dunsult as representing the 4/5 horsemen of New Atheism, Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Ayan Hirsi Ali, then Hitchens is the one who died. Remember Kellhus, who in this metaphor would be like the faith healer who uses donations from his flock to buy a leer jet or whatever (Daimos over Tekne), calls them his goad, refers to them as the "four horns" (instead of horsemen) he'll use to gore the world and drink of its fruit (or something along those lines).

Who is Shaeonanra in this metaphor? All Mighty Atheismo?*

 

*this is meant as a joke not a criticism, I like the connection

 

Wait, the 4 Dunyain are actually THE SQUAD - and Shae is the GHOST OF KARL OF MARX inhabiting their bodies that will lead to the destruction of Earwa (the USA).

[sologdin]

kellhus is trump? donny jr is the NG? 

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, sologdin said:

kellhus is trump? donny jr is the NG? 

Nah, clearly it's Barron.