Bakker LVII

[IlyaP]

36 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I don't know shit about editing either but I imagine the 4 chapters or so of people fucking corpses could be cut.

Sorry, what? 

 

[Darth Richard II]

2 minutes ago, IlyaP said:

Sorry, what? 

 

Oh, you'll see when you get to the final book, my friend...

[Larry of the Lawn]

50 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I don't know shit about editing either but I imagine the 4 chapters or so of people fucking corpses could be cut.

I mean technically they weren't even dead yet just dying so it's not TECHNICALLY necrophilia.  And even if they were dead they were just recently dea      so if you thin        out  it    s  elly       ot        t   ha       cra yamirite?

[IlyaP]

2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

Oh, you'll see when you get to the final book, my friend...

OH BOY I CAN'T WAIT.

 

[Werthead]

It should be noted that a lot of the disappointment to the ending to TUC comes from places where people spent years solid theorising and discussing the ending. When you have two dozen-odd fairly smart people effectively brainstorming an ending or continuation to a series, you're going to get situations where they come up with better ideas than the writer in a couple of instances.

If you look at where the books are discussed by people who've read all 7 in one go long after they've all come out, or where people read them as they came out, discussed it for 2 weeks and then moved on other things and came back when the next book came out, the reception to the series overall is much stronger.

Which isn't to say that TUC is perfect or it doesn't have some problems or a couple of major arse-pulls, it's just that those tend to be much more emphasised when you've just spent six years discussing other ideas on a weekly basis and become wedded to some of them, when the author was never going in that direction. Admittedly Bakker's bizarre communication methods don't always help, but then again that's something 99.99% of the readers of the series have no idea about.

[Kalbear]

That's fair, but probably also speaks to the lack of depth and disposable value of the series. 

[Rhom]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

That's fair, but probably also speaks to the lack of depth and disposable value of the series. 

Agreed... we are on thread LVII here!!!!!!  Largely based on the strength of the underlying philosophy that turned out to be non-existent.  Many other finished fantasy series are discussed here and are lucky to have more than one full thread.

[Gaston de Foix]

7 hours ago, Werthead said:

It should be noted that a lot of the disappointment to the ending to TUC comes from places where people spent years solid theorising and discussing the ending. When you have two dozen-odd fairly smart people effectively brainstorming an ending or continuation to a series, you're going to get situations where they come up with better ideas than the writer in a couple of instances.

The word odd is apt.  And I consider myself a slogger (albeit not an old timer like many of you).   At least for me it's not so much I had ideas (let alone superior ideas) of where the series was going.  It's more that if this is the end the series is basically scenes from an apocalypse.  It's Unfinished Tales in the literal sense of the world.  And the mind revolts against such a result.  

[jurble]

It's interesting to me re:theorizing that there were aspects of the series that were placed baldly in the text that readers didn't accept because we're used to not believing what the characters' believe as being legitimate in books.  So, I was similar to Wert in thinking the Gods were imaginary in the first trilogy then going huh? when it was apparent they weren't in the second.  

But similarly, we were told by a number of characters that Kellhus was possessed, which was dismissed, but it turned out to be true.

I think, really, that perhaps this being a Westeros board, we were trained to find clues to a greater puzzle hidden in the text whereas Bakker simply... lays everything flat out but we had convinced ourselves otherwise.  Hence his apparent surprise that the readers 'had missed something' regarding the Consult - he intended something to be obvious to the readers in the Kellhus-Dunsult interaction (presumably that Shaeonanra was possessing them).  In this way, Bakker is a bit of a reverse-Martin, we're supposed to accept the characters as reliable narrators. 

[Gaston de Foix]

11 minutes ago, ير بال said:

It's interesting to me re:theorizing that there were aspects of the series that were placed baldly in the text that readers didn't accept because we're used to not believing what the characters' believe as being legitimate in books.  So, I was similar to Wert in thinking the Gods were imaginary in the first trilogy then going huh? when it was apparent they weren't in the second.  

But similarly, we were told by a number of characters that Kellhus was possessed, which was dismissed, but it turned out to be true.

I think, really, that perhaps this being a Westeros board, we were trained to find clues to a greater puzzle hidden in the text whereas Bakker simply... lays everything flat out but we had convinced ourselves otherwise.  Hence his apparent surprise that the readers 'had missed something' regarding the Consult - he intended something to be obvious to the readers in the Kellhus-Dunsult interaction (presumably that Shaeonanra was possessing them).  In this way, Bakker is a bit of a reverse-Martin, we're supposed to accept the characters as reliable narrators. 

Interesting insight. 

I did think the gods such as Gilgaol, Yatwer etc. were real (or at least real to some degree) based sightings of Gilgaol in the first series.  I thought opinions varied as to whether they were demons or gods and the greater gods like the Solitary God or the God of Gods or what have you (or Inri Sejenus or Fane's supposed divine revelations).  There are a number of indications that hell is real at least, in the first series, if I'm not mistaken. 

[jurble]

In the first series, we're definitely given indication to think Hell is real per the fact Aurang believes in it, but even then I was like - Aurang is probably as deluded as everyone else!  Basically reading the series in the mindset of Kellhus who thinks purely in EAMD led me to disbelieve everything the other characters thought re:supernatural stuff.  

When Saubon was seen to be possessed by Gilgaol, I took that as nonsense on the part of a dumb religious medieval mindset, similar to everyone in France just sorta accepting that Michael had shown up and told Joan of Arc to drive the English out of France.  Ya know, it's not like the English disbelieved her either, they just thought it was the Devil speaking to her since she was A WITCH.

[Gaston de Foix]

1 hour ago, ير بال said:

In the first series, we're definitely given indication to think Hell is real per the fact Aurang believes in it, but even then I was like - Aurang is probably as deluded as everyone else!  Basically reading the series in the mindset of Kellhus who thinks purely in EAMD led me to disbelieve everything the other characters thought re:supernatural stuff.  

When Saubon was seen to be possessed by Gilgaol, I took that as nonsense on the part of a dumb religious medieval mindset, similar to everyone in France just sorta accepting that Michael had shown up and told Joan of Arc to drive the English out of France.  Ya know, it's not like the English disbelieved her either, they just thought it was the Devil speaking to her since she was A WITCH.

Wasn't Cnauir possessed by GIlgaol at some point as well?

[Darth Richard II]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Interesting insight. 

I did think the gods such as Gilgaol, Yatwer etc. were real (or at least real to some degree) based sightings of Gilgaol in the first series.  I thought opinions varied as to whether they were demons or gods and the greater gods like the Solitary God or the God of Gods or what have you (or Inri Sejenus or Fane's supposed divine revelations).  There are a number of indications that hell is real at least, in the first series, if I'm not mistaken. 

If I remember correctly, which I may not, back when the first trilogy was published it was pretty much accepted by readers that the Gods didn't exist, period, and then when TJE came out and they did it was a big wait wtf moment.

[sologdin]

DR--

i hear you. the narrative, for me, remains unfinished, and i need to reread it from the beginning, having only read volume VII one time.

kal--

i understand the objection. i don't think we need the author to ratify our interpretations, is all. he can blithely assert that something in the text is insignificant--but if that assertion contradicts a readerly experience, am fairly sure that his assertion is wrong.

[jurble]

33 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Wasn't Cnauir possessed by GIlgaol at some point as well?

In the final book he most certainly is, I'm not sure prior to that point.

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, ير بال said:

In the final book he most certainly is, I'm not sure prior to that point.

In the final book hes possessed by Ajokli.

[jurble]

ah yes

[Gaston de Foix]

17 hours ago, sologdin said:

i understand the objection. i don't think we need the author to ratify our interpretations, is all. he can blithely assert that something in the text is insignificant--but if that assertion contradicts a readerly experience, am fairly sure that his assertion is wrong.

It's a little more complicated than that.  I don't think an author can falsify an objectively justifiable interpretation of text. 

But he can add to our understanding.  He can improve our interpretations.  And I do think an authorial denial can legitimately force a re-examination of our assumptions/biases in establishing what constitutes an objective interpretation.  If we could summon Shakespeare from the grave and cross-examine him under truth serum and he (i) confirmed he was the sole author of the works commonly attributed to him and (ii) that he was never a secret catholic or sympathizer and nothing in his work was intended to serve as catholic justification or apology, well that would eliminate several lines of current Shakespearean scholarship. 

But of course RSB is not telling us what the text was intended to say, simply justifying his method in writing text that seems to lead nowhere.  And that's a different kettle of fish. 

[sologdin]

objectively justifiable interpretation of text

fairly sure that i don't believe in the existence of this.  that said, what you've said is quite correct.  i've written in these RSB threads, years ago, that the writer is the first reader of a text they've written, and also an important reader--precisely because their reading is informed through a laborious interaction with the writing--who thus deserves some deference, ceteris paribus. that deference would likely not extend to denials of bona fide reception on the basis of extratextual assertions, however.

are people still working on the shakespearean authorial identity question? it seems to be a 19th century philological line of inquiry that should've died when formalism came around. by the time you get to post-structuralism and cultural studies, can't see any room for it--though when i left the academy, there was talk of a new aestheticism and a neo-medievalism (not sure if that is related to NRx greasers, who strike me as singularly subliterate).

the thing is, however, even if he did not intend to be a secret catholic apologist, if readers of the text interpreted the texts as catholic apologetics, is that not in fact exactly what they are? 

[Darth Richard II]

3 hours ago, Gaston de Foix said:

It's a little more complicated than that.  I don't think an author can falsify an objectively justifiable interpretation of text. 

But he can add to our understanding.  He can improve our interpretations.  And I do think an authorial denial can legitimately force a re-examination of our assumptions/biases in establishing what constitutes an objective interpretation.  If we could summon Shakespeare from the grave and cross-examine him under truth serum and he (i) confirmed he was the sole author of the works commonly attributed to him and (ii) that he was never a secret catholic or sympathizer and nothing in his work was intended to serve as catholic justification or apology, well that would eliminate several lines of current Shakespearean scholarship. 

But of course RSB is not telling us what the text was intended to say, simply justifying his method in writing text that seems to lead nowhere.  And that's a different kettle of fish. 

That’s not scholarship, that’s idiots with too much time on their hands.