R. Scott Bakker: What am I missing?

[Arakasi]

Not really. You called Karsa a mary sue, and he's a sociopath too. If you look at the wiki on the subject you'll see that often with male mary sues it focuses on dark parts of their personality. characters seen as Gary Stus/Marty Sams tend to be brooding and frequently violent. I don't see how being dark or light has anything to do with the mary suedom.

[Werthead]

I hate the term 'Mary Sue' and think it should be stricken from the record. Who the hell was 'Mary Sue' in the first place, anyway?

[Kalbear]

No, I said that if Kellhus was a Mary Sue, what about Rake and Karsa? I don't think any of them are Mary Sues; none are particularly idealized or perfectly awesome, none are models of what the author is like. Karsa has a number of noteworthy flaws. Rake...well, okay, he doesn't. But my point was simply being really awesome does not make a character a Mary Sue.

And brooding or violent is not quite the same as a sociopath. Heck, violence can be a positive trait depending on the person and the story. Being a person who can not care about a single person no matter what, is absolutely devoid of empathy and views all of humanity as his pawns is a bit more than 'brooding'.

Who the hell was 'Mary Sue' in the first place, anyway?

Someone from a Star Trek fanfic, IIRC. Whose name was Mary Sue (the author's name too), and who everyone loved and who could captain better than Kirk and was a better scientist than Spock. That sort of thing. It originally comes from fanfic. Honor Harrington is a better example of someone like this. Go read the wiki.

[Arakasi]

Regardless of whether you can those are flaws or not, (sure to us they are, but to a Dunyain they aren't. That is how they're bred and without those traits he could never have done what he has done) if he is a Gary Stu or a dark Messiah or whatever it is his lack of flaws in everything else (especially intellect) that takes me out of this series. I feel there is a level of wish fulfillment and lack of flaws that hurt Kelhus which makes the term work for me. I can understand that it doesn't for you.

And yes, Honor is a pretty big Mary Sue, although she's nowhere near as bad as Rhapsody, who is freaking ridiculous.

[Ser Paladin]

You know what makes my head hurt in other fantasy books. Artificial limitations on characters that you would otherwise term a Mary Sue. There's the literal deus ex machina of my youth, Fizban (hey, I'm the frikkin God of Good, and a platinum dragon to boot, but I need a kender and his flawed friends to find doo-dads A through K for me). Oh, and literally acclaimed Gandalf (yeah, I'm a Maia and there are five of us equal in stature to Sauron that came over on the boat, but I'm going to have this hobbit deliver the ring to the volcano instead). In fact, let's look at Gandalf...

Gandalf is deadly in battle, a mage, comes back from the dead, and is the wisest maia, but you know, without being a total bastard. If all those A-level powers that have to slink around in the background in what seems like EVERY other fantasy series were instead allowed to cut loose, you'd have a Kellhus. I have no problem with a character like him being out front. Turns that little cliche on its head.

[Lightsnake]

Yeah, not like Tolkien bothered to give a perfectly acceptable system of limitations for his deities and powers, right?

[Ser Paladin]

Yes, and there is no limitation on Kellhus. No "I'm just an avatar," or "if I act, the evil powers will know I'm still alive" or "the Vala said so, and we sink a continent evrey time we come out to play anyway."

Kellhus is what Jesus would have been if his stepfather was an abusive alcoholic instead of a kindly carpenter.

[Kalbear]

Hehe. What's really funny is that if you google "Kellhus Mary Sue" you get a LJ post by Baer...eaaararaaraara and one of the prior topics that we did here that talks about him like this, with the same arguments by the same people.

Paladin, I really like that argument; Kellhus is what other fantasy studs would be like if they did not have some random and inexplicable check on their powers. That may be why I like it; if you are the most powerful and smartest guy on the planet, how do you build an empire? Kellhus shows one way.

I still think that if Kellhus turns out to be a good guy, the books series will be irrevocably flawed.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

Well if he does turn out to be a "good guy" I think that he will be a character with good intentions but serious character flaws (delusions of divine grandeur) that bring about terrible consequences and which have to be rectified by other characters.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

Dune is probably my favorite book of all time and The Darkness that Comes Before was probably my least favorite.

I'm not sure you're missing anything. I just say if you don't like it move on. You sound a lot like me. I struggled to get through the first couple hundred pages on and off for a long time, and then I finally forced myself to finish it. And I never liked it at all.

By the way, have you read Dune?

[Joanna vander Poele]

What am I missing about Scotty Bakker?

My copy of The Darkness That Comes Before. The woe.

[AverageGuy]

I loved the books and lent them to my brother. He said he liked the ideas and the plot, but he couldn't get past the names. He's dyslexic, so it was a big enough problem that he never made it through the first book. And I admit the names are a bit of a problem; when they're not four or five syllables, they're a linguistic hodgepodge. Cnaiur, Anasurimbor, Kellhus, Achamian, Drusus, Conphas...I get that you've got eclectic cultures (and time periods in the case of Anasurimbor), but a little cohesion wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Fantasy authors should stick to a six letters or three syllables rule: you can violate one, but not both. Two or three exceptions allowed per series, and those aren't allowed to sound alike.

While reading, I felt Achamian's a bit of an author's darling, but I never thought Kellhus is a Mary Sue. He's pure power/intellect, but like others have said, he's certainly got flaws.

[Nerdanel]

I think Kellhus has one huge flaw and that's right in the structure of the Shortest Path that he follows. Kellhus will do anything to reach his goal - kill anyone, alienate anyone, whatever is the most effective - and when that goal is reached, he is left with the long-term side effects of reaching that goal - dead followers, new enemies, whatever. Even though he reaches his first goal the most effective way, his ability to achieve new goals is hampered. As the series begins with Kellhus on a clean slate, the consequences of his actions haven't really started to bite him, but they will.

I think Kellhus will eventually become a Dark Lord. Eventually the mounting evidence of his malevolence will force him to increasingly use force and rule through fear, which in turn will make his malevolence more obvious. He will also have enemies that know what he is and how he operates. You can fool all the people some time, some people all the time, but not all the people all the time. I think Achamian is a likely candidate to turn against him.

Kellhus is Sauron. (Remember Sauron's fair form!) Kellhus is the Antichrist.

SPOILER: Mark of the Beast speculation

I have an idea about the whore's mark becoming the Mark of the Beast so that nobody can discriminate against prostitutes and refuse to sell them things, which would be fine but for the blasphemy angle...

Re: Kellhus and the Consult:

SPOILER: Warrior Prophet

It's abundantly clear, especially as shown by the last scene of Warrior Prophet, that the Consult doesn't know what Kellhus is and considers him a threat. I think the No-God is playing a complex game here and even the Consult are only pawns.

[Baeraad]

Mary Sues are traditionally characters that are speaking with the author's voice. Kellhus clearly isn't doing that.

I beg to differ on that "clearly" at the very least. Kellhus is constantly spouting tidbits of Bakker's personal philosophy. In what does he disagree with Bakker? Because he has no morals? But Bakker doesn't believe seem to believe in morals as anything absolute (he is a philosopher, after all). Morals is something you have because they make society function smoothly. Kellhus can make society function smoothly without adhering to any morals. Therefore, it's not a flaw - he's a a much more efficient person, and, arguably, a force for more (sigh) good by not having morals.

I've read some interviews with Bakker. He never, to my recollection, says "yeah, Kellhus is an evil piece of shit, no doubt about it." He says things like, "yeah, Kellhus is an interesting psychological case, because he's completely practical and doesn't have any of those hangups that the rest of us idiots have." Maybe he wouldn't like it much if Kellhus was real, but I think it definitely seems like he's deeply in love with Kellhus as a fictional character.

Mary Sues are also traditionally liked by people - 'everyone' likes them. Again, Kellhus, one way or another, is clearly being portrayed as the Bad Guy.

Again with the "clearly." No. I disagree. Even the characters who discover that Kellhus isn't made of love and light don't presume to disapprove of him. For instance:

SPOILER: Thousandfold Thought

Esemet, when Achamian tells her that Kellhus is just using her as a broodmare, answers with what amounts to "so what?"

But it doesn't really make sense to call him a Mary Sue; while he's good at everything, better than any normal human, it's clear why that's the case and it's also clear that others who come from the same background are at least on his level. Much less any Consult or other races.

I repeat - what I mind first and foremost is not that he is powerful, but that he is allpowerful. He can make everything go his way every time. What I love most about ASOIAF is that everyone is vulnerable all the time - no matter how comfortable your position is, things can turn against you at the drop of a hat. And this is the case in Bakker's books also. Any character can get into trouble at any time - except for Kellhus.

As for others of his background, sure, they're as elite as he is. And if there were a number of them fighting on different sides, things would be different. But as it is, everyone but Kellhus are either going to sit the fight out in their hidden city, or they'll leave it to come help Kellhus out.

And don't get me started on the Consult, whom I suspect Kellhus could destroy with a snap of his fingers. The Consult has limits. They have to work within the rules of sorcery and tekne. Kellhus, on the other hand, does the impossible three times before breakfast.

I think Kellhus has one huge flaw and that's right in the structure of the Shortest Path that he follows. Kellhus will do anything to reach his goal - kill anyone, alienate anyone, whatever is the most effective - and when that goal is reached, he is left with the long-term side effects of reaching that goal - dead followers, new enemies, whatever. Even though he reaches his first goal the most effective way, his ability to achieve new goals is hampered. As the series begins with Kellhus on a clean slate, the consequences of his actions haven't really started to bite him, but they will.

I doubt it. He can always make new followers, and he can handle his enemies easily enough.

If future books prove me wrong, I suppose I'll have to eat my words, but you know... I doubt it. For three books, Bakker has been content to write Kellhus as perfect and unstoppable. Am I to believe that he will now switch to writing Kellhus as fallible and vulnerable? That he'll completely change the rules of his universe, just like that? If so, I think he's a very rare author indeed.

I mean, this is the big divide here, isn't it? That's the argument I keep hearing. "Things will change." Kellhus will become more vulnerable, or Kellhus will turn out to be the villain of the story. But does that kind of thing ever happen? Does any author really spend three books building something up just to pull the carpet away from under his readers? Or do series generally go on being more or less as they are?

SPOILER: Warrior Prophet

It's abundantly clear, especially as shown by the last scene of Warrior Prophet, that the Consult doesn't know what Kellhus is and considers him a threat. I think the No-God is playing a complex game here and even the Consult are only pawns.

SPOILER: No-God

I was rather under the impression that the No-God is an idiot force of nature that the Consult can summon, rather than some kind of mastermind... and either way, that right now it's for all intents and purposes dead. Both of which would argue against him playing any sort of game.

[Ser Paladin]

I repeat - what I mind first and foremost is not that he is powerful, but that he is allpowerful. He can make everything go his way every time. What I love most about ASOIAF is that everyone is vulnerable all the time - no matter how comfortable your position is, things can turn against you at the drop of a hat. And this is the case in Bakker's books also. Any character can get into trouble at any time - except for Kellhus.

If future books prove me wrong, I suppose I'll have to eat my words, but you know... I doubt it. For three books, Bakker has been content to write Kellhus as perfect and unstoppable. Am I to believe that he will now switch to writing Kellhus as fallible and vulnerable? That he'll completely change the rules of his universe, just like that? If so, I think he's a very rare author indeed.

SPOILER: No-God

I was rather under the impression that the No-God is an idiot force of nature that the Consult can summon, rather than some kind of mastermind... and either way, that right now it's for all intents and purposes dead. Both of which would argue against him playing any sort of game.

Kellhus spends the first half of the first book barely escaping death from some fairly low level baddies. Standard fantasy fare, except for him amorally sacrificing others to stay one step ahead. You face off against the footsoldier/grunts til you build up enough levels to face the big bad.

In the second and third books,

SPOILER: No-God

1. His army nearly dies in the desert, they need to rely on an "inside traitor" to take one fortress or they will die during the siege.

2. Other humans betray him and leave him hanging. The ones who were bringing the supply fleet (memory failing me here, it's been a while)

3. Then, literally, he is left hanging, the equivalent of crucified alongside his bride, who is killed.

4. He finally faces off against an equal, Moenghus, and only wins because Moenghus chose an arcane path requiring "feeling" instead of "intellect." Kellhus got lucky that he hooked up with Akka instead of the Scarlet Spires or Chishaurim.

So, he really has been in trouble, often. Kind of what a standard protagonist sees in his first few books, in general.

And now, heading into the next duology he still has to face these powers:

SPOILER: No-God

1. The rogue mandati, Akka.

2. The rest of the Mandate sorcerors

3. Has he faced one of the higher level baddies? There were Sranc, then the skinspies, then something bigger in the Consult army.

4. The Consult generals

5. The Inchoroi themselves

6. A demon on the level of that which Akka faced

7. The gods of Earwa (you know Kellhus will go "outside" eventually

8. The No-God

9. Plus whatever is on the other side of that southern mountain range

And all he's done by the end of the first trilogy is see a lot of his own kind, the humans, and just a smattering of the big bads that inhabit his world. Your argument is akin to looking at Alexander and saying, "jeez, he took over Greece awfully easily." without considering his battles to come against adversaries like Darius. Prince of Nothing just set the pieces into place for the coming apocalypse. The big fun is still imminent.

[sologdin]

Should I keep pressing through?

stick with bakker. the climax of tDtCB is unconventional and extremely cool. about one-third through there's some well-handled ultaviolence, if that's your thing. don't worry about the opening not making sense--i'm not sure if it makes sense even after finishing tTT.

[Happy Ent]

As for other [Dunyain], sure, they're as elite as he is. And if there were a number of them fighting on different sides, things would be different. But as it is, everyone but Kellhus are either going to sit the fight out in their hidden city, or they'll leave it to come help Kellhus out.

Interesting. We have discussed this quite often on this board, and mostly we seem to come to the conclusion that the Dunyain will side with the Consult. All speculation, of course, but the final confrontation between Kelly and you-know-who in TTT makes it quite clear. The Dunyain need to "close the world" for pretty much the same reasons that the Consult does (they do unspeakable things in their monastery, as we find out). Kelly is different from the other Dunyain, and his conditioning slips as early as in Darkness.

There is a central decision for him to make in TTT symbolised by him picking him up a twig with two branches. Kelly choses life, right before he confronts you-know-who, and the outcome of their confrontation is determined by that choice (and by the-other-guy having made a fatal mistake some years ago). Otherwise they might well have joined forces. And then... woe to Mankind.

I think this is a great twist on the Messiah.

[Nerdanel]

I mean, this is the big divide here, isn't it? That's the argument I keep hearing. "Things will change." Kellhus will become more vulnerable, or Kellhus will turn out to be the villain of the story. But does that kind of thing ever happen? Does any author really spend three books building something up just to pull the carpet away from under his readers? Or do series generally go on being more or less as they are?

I think Bakker has already shown the weakness of the Shortest Path in a symbolic fashion. At one point, everyone has to go from place A to place B. Most choose to take a shortcut, but this one person leads his troops along a road the long way around and ends up at place B well before anyone else. The shortest path turns out the longer one.

Then you can consider the case of Cnaiür. Even though he's really Möenghus's side effect, he's a living proof of what Dûnyain tricks can leave behind. Sure Kellhus is so powerful that those who wake up to him will have extreme difficulty fighting back, but he's the Dark Lord after all. A Dark Lord who bites it the first time a rival sends an assassin or an underling gets a grudge is a very short-lived Dark Lord. I think Kellhus is killable, but not just by any plan, much like Sauron.

For a comparison with a series that has done something similar, I present you the Sovereign Stone by Weis & Hickman. (I know...) The first book is about the rise of an evil prince into a Dark Lord character and about his faithful friend becoming a wizard specializing in forbidden evil magic. The rest of the trilogy is about good characters fighting this Dark Lord.

SPOILER: No-God

The nature of the No-God has been left intentionally vague. However, I think there's enough evidence to say that it's both intelligent and evil. And it's most certainly not all that dead. I wrote earlier under spoiler tags of one example of how it's affecting the plot. It also seems to have a taste for what may be gratuitous cruelty.

[Xray the Enforcer]

This is quickly turning into my favorite discussion of PoN yet. A larger view, if you will.

[Kalbear]

I beg to differ on that "clearly" at the very least. Kellhus is constantly spouting tidbits of Bakker's personal philosophy. In what does he disagree with Bakker? Because he has no morals? But Bakker doesn't believe seem to believe in morals as anything absolute (he is a philosopher, after all). Morals is something you have because they make society function smoothly. Kellhus can make society function smoothly without adhering to any morals. Therefore, it's not a flaw - he's a a much more efficient person, and, arguably, a force for more (sigh) good by not having morals.

Except Bakker has said in interviews that Kellhus is not sharing his philosophy, and he's very staunchly non-Randian. Furthermore, he's saying things that would be convincing to the people he's talking to. Every single word is used to manipulate. There is literally nothing that Kellhus says that can be taken at face value.

Bakker doesn't believe in absolute morality, but he certainly believes that Kellhus is not what you'd call a good guy.

I've read some interviews with Bakker. He never, to my recollection, says "yeah, Kellhus is an evil piece of shit, no doubt about it." He says things like, "yeah, Kellhus is an interesting psychological case, because he's completely practical and doesn't have any of those hangups that the rest of us idiots have." Maybe he wouldn't like it much if Kellhus was real, but I think it definitely seems like he's deeply in love with Kellhus as a fictional character.

Hannibal Lecter is an interesting psychological case. A lot of people like him a great deal as a fictional character. That in no way means he's a good guy or that the author shares his views and uses him as a soapbox.

Again with the "clearly." No. I disagree. Even the characters who discover that Kellhus isn't made of love and light don't presume to disapprove of him. For instance:

SPOILER: Thousandfold Thought

Esemet, when Achamian tells her that Kellhus is just using her as a broodmare, answers with what amounts to "so what?"

They still disapprove, they just are using him. I'm not sure what your point is there.

SPOILER: TTT

Cnaiur disapproved and became his enemy but still admired the guy because he was powerful. Akka disapproved but was still awed by his power. Esme uses him to further her own power. None have the view that he is a good man or even who he says he is. The author has stated repeatedly that the closest character to him is Akka; Akka's voice is the one that, at the end of the book, condemns and rejects Kellhus.

I'm not sure how it can be more clear what the author's viewpoint is.

I repeat - what I mind first and foremost is not that he is powerful, but that he is allpowerful. He can make everything go his way every time. What I love most about ASOIAF is that everyone is vulnerable all the time - no matter how comfortable your position is, things can turn against you at the drop of a hat. And this is the case in Bakker's books also. Any character can get into trouble at any time - except for Kellhus.

Then...

SPOILER: TTT

why couldn't be see what a problem Cnaiur would become? Why couldn't he win over Akka? Why did he almost die in the first chapter we saw him in, against the old race? Why did he have to make a leap of faith in TWP? I agree that at the end of TTT he's clearly the most powerful guy in the land, but that doesn't mean that he can't or won't be challenged. He just hasn't been challenged since getting his sorcerous abilities.

As for others of his background, sure, they're as elite as he is. And if there were a number of them fighting on different sides, things would be different. But as it is, everyone but Kellhus are either going to sit the fight out in their hidden city, or they'll leave it to come help Kellhus out.

Given the ending of TTT...

SPOILER: TTT

where his dad basically confirms what Kellhus knows, that the Dunyain will be against Kellhus and against his goals because they view him as abomination and directly against him, I think this is just flat out incorrect.

And don't get me started on the Consult, whom I suspect Kellhus could destroy with a snap of his fingers. The Consult has limits. They have to work within the rules of sorcery and tekne. Kellhus, on the other hand, does the impossible three times before breakfast.

Except he's not faced the Dragons. He's not faced the Generals. He's not faced the No-God directly. He's not stopped the Second Apocalypse.

SPOILER: TTT

He's faced some Cishaurim, some skinspies, and stabbed (but not killed) his blind father. And he's lost to the old race guy. Again, since he's gained his ubersorcery powers he's not faced anyone that can beat him - but he's had those powers for what, 30 pages? Just because the Holy War - a war between two groups of Men - didn't have anyone that could beat him does not mean that there exist no one in the world that can.

I mean, this is the big divide here, isn't it? That's the argument I keep hearing. "Things will change." Kellhus will become more vulnerable, or Kellhus will turn out to be the villain of the story. But does that kind of thing ever happen? Does any author really spend three books building something up just to pull the carpet away from under his readers? Or do series generally go on being more or less as they are?

Ask Martin, I suppose. Or ask Donaldson, who is also a master of doing that. It is possible that nothing will change and it'll be the all Kellhus, all the time story - and as I said earlier, if this happens this will be one of the shittiest stories ever. But I think there are enough hints in the text to point out that this is not the case.

Regardless, he is certainly not a Mary Sue - not by any definition I've seen - and the way you're describing it, well, someone like Gandalf is a Mary Sue.