BAKKER VI: Death comes swirling down

[A Time for Wolves]

Now I can't get the picture of a gigantic marshmallow out of my head. It's going, "WHAT AM I? WHAT DO YOU SEE?" and shooting Anaxophas with little marshmallow rockets.

Now I'm giggling.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

And the Heron Spear is supposed to be some sort of laser beam; perhaps it is something like the Ghostbusters use.

[Shryke]

And the Heron Spear is supposed to be some sort of laser beam; perhaps it is something like the Ghostbusters use.

So your saying we'll need to find another one and cross the streams?

[EHK for Darwin]

One of the more interesting theories I heard proposed at one time on Three Seas was that the No-God was a container for the Collective Soul of mankind, and when the Consult summoned him, they summoned the Collective Soul of mankind and sealed it into the Carapace.

If that is the case, it further reinforces the Jesus image of Kelhus since he's potentially the one to destroy the No-God and set all of those souls free.

[delete this account pls]

Taking the spoilery bits here;

I'm re-reading the first book as well, currently on 'The Emperor' section. Having the glossary from Thousandfold Thought helps tremendously.

It is interesting to read the sections with Xerius' mother. I was surprised when it was revealed she was a skinchanger in book 3. I've noted both Xerius and Conphas musing on how she seems "different". I wonder when it was that the Consult replaced her with a skinchanger.

yeah I noticed that on my reread too. I think it does mean Istriya is a skin-spy from the start. When Kellhus grabs control of the Holy War and starts to purge it oif the skin spies, he tells his disciples one way of identifying them is a sudden change in behaviour. The other clue is that Conphas realises partway through Darkness that Skeaos and his grandma are working together to try disrupt the Empire's plans to harness the Holy War. They're working together because they're both skin spies.

One interesting thing I noticed about skin spies during the re-read - they also impersonate and advisor or something, but never an actual leader or commander. All of the revealed skin spies are in positions of influence, but not actual authority. Sarcellus is the second-in-command of the Shrial Knights, Istriya and Skeaos both has influence over Xerius (and Istriya over Conphas) but neither have any power in their own right really. Lastly, Chepheramuanni or whatever his name is - the Ainoni King - is basically a puppet for the Scarlet Spires, who rule High Ainon in earnest. All of these people would be privy to the councils and plans of the mighty, but none of them play a part in formulating or impleneting those plans. I suppose the Consult might think its to dangerous to replace Kings and Emperors since such people are under a great deal of scrutiny, and a sudden change in personality or behaviour would be noticeable.

[Errant Bard]

I think they are never leaders because Bakker wanted his books to focus on choices and free will. Even Khellus is nothing but an advisor for most of the serie. There is an obvious parallel to draw with common myths, where demonic and angelic entities try to lure humans to do their bidding, but never actually command them to. Khellus may be a messiah, he still isn't anything without someone listening to him.

If the skinspies were in control of the world already, on the other hand, it would mean they would have already won, and the story would just have turned into yet another farmboy going to fight the Dark Lord and win.

For the in-story rationale, I suppose it's just that the consult is still in its scouting phase or wants humanity to doom itself of its own free will.

[kuenjato]

I was enjoying a rainy day with Darkness when I came along this passage:

(page 348:)

"But asleep...He had suffered many dreams.

Moenghus's face rises from the depths of a pool, pale through the greenish cast of the water. Throughout the surrounding darkness, caverns intertwine, like the thin tunnels one finds beneath large stones pulled from the grass. Just beneath the surface, the pale Dunyain pauses as though tugged by some deep restraint, smiles, and raises his mouth. With horror, Cnaiur watches as an earthworm presses through the smiling lips and pierces the water. It feels the air like a blind finger. Watery and obscene, the bland pink of hidden places. And always, his own inarticulate hand drifts over the pool and, in a quiet moment of insanity, touches it."

...given Cnaiur reflects on Moenghus's lips before, I was struck by how this passage hints at Cnaiur's implied homosexual relationship with Anasurimbor senior.

Such a great book. Bakker =

[Calibandar]

I'm always reluctant to discuss Bakker in-depth or review his books because I feel that he would expect more from his readers. I think somewhere that he would appreciate more in-depth thought about the book than I am able to give.

Most people, when finishing TTT ask questions as "what's next" and "did Cnaiur die". And these are valid questions you's pose after any series you were emotionally engaged in. But with Bakker there is so much more, clearlt stuff that I simply do not grasp because I have no philosophical leaning whatsoever.

I just think Kellhus is one of the most marvellous and deviously interesting characters I have ever read about, and I get the shivers when I read the synopsis for Aspect Emperor in which he leads the Campaign north to lay siege to Golgetterath and the Consult, his identity still obscure as a either a Godlike human messiah, or an AntiChrist Demon.

Kellhus pulls the strings and it is marvellous to behold the way it all unfolds.

[Nerdanel]

I think it's remarkable how different people have different interpretations of the series in general and Kellhus and the No-God in particular. I have read TTT by now and I'm still in the Kellhus = the Antichrist camp. I also think he's being manipulated by Moënghus (still alive, carefully orchestrated a fake death, or more accurately, a genuine death of a fake body) and the No-God. I also think people are too quick to assume Kellhus chose the living branch of the twig simply because they themselves would have done so. From the traditional Dûnyain position, the dead branch would be preferable due to its predictability, and the text was very careful with revealing only parts of Kellhus's thoughts.

As for the No-God, I think it's not a product of Tekne at all, but rather a being from another dimension, the very worst of the Outside. I think the Inchoroi "digging under Golgotterath" means that they intentionally created and deepened/heightened a topoi. I think that somewhere under Golgotterath there is a place that isn't just nightmare-incuding, vaguely creepy, and sort of haunted, but a portal to Hell you can physically walk through, although I think the Consult was sane enough to put some sort of lock on it. I think they brought the No-God from there, and I think they are called the Consult because the No-God was too powerful for them and took charge, leaving the Consult as mere consultants... or slaves.

I think the irony of the Consult is that in order to avoid dying and going to Hell, they're made a deal with the Devil to turn the world into Hell, which sort of negates the point. Then they failed the Devil...

I know my theoritizing is sounding un-Bakkerishly conventional, but nowadays the old conventional has become unconventional. For me, the turning point of realization was when Iyokus first summoned a demon.

[Lyanna Stark]

Continuing here from the other thread to avoid spoilers in that one:

Or any of the many sex slaves we hear about. Or the Lazareen rape victim. Or the random peasant woman who tries to enter a city in a Brienne chapter in Feats. Or the entire female population of King's Landing during the Sack. Etc., etc.

GRRM gives us 15 Istryas: women who wield immense power compared to the average Westerosi, no matter which sex.

ETA: And he has happy whores, just like Lynch. That really annoys me as a feminist.

Yes, I agree, the "happy whore" thing annoys me as well, although since we cannot know a lot about it, there may be layers to that we have not seen, i.e. it could be seen as a religious duty, or something similar.

Regarding Red Sun's comment, that is partly what I am feeling, but also that Bakker has drawn his lines very, very sharply. There are quite a few different types of male characters in the books (Cnaiur, Kellhus, Akka, Eleazaras, Proyas, Xerius, Conphas) with different attributes, but the female characters have basically two: sex and Esmenet's development. The discrepancy is just too harsh I think, with too little space inbetween. It feels as of Bakker's experience (which I can appreciate) is too harsh for me to recognise these people as human.

What really makes them so different from the Consult if all they know is oppression? Or different from the Non-men? To dominate, kill, rule, squash?

I guess my main caveat with regards to Bakker's story is this: not that he is a sexist (he is clearly not) or that his story is set in a sexist world (this is clearly on purpose) but that the extremist views that are true for ALL his world; not only for limited parts of that culture, are so extremely oppresive as to seem way over the top and to in essence dehumanise women, making for a less good story, over all.

Now, I still think Bakker tells a very interesting and very good story. Kellhus character is fascinating in its perfection- and the end justifies the means way.

My opinion is that the sexism in his world is taken too far. It dehumanises women and makes them less human and in doing so, he dehumanises all his humans. Perhaps this is on purpose, I don't know, but it is grating on me when I read it. I WANT to sympathise with the plight of the Bakkerworld, but the dehumanising makes me not care if X, Y or Z die in battle, or if the Consult win. In my mind, I keep thinking: is it really so different? Sure, it will be more brutal, but in essence?

Without putting too much philosophic spin on it, I guess I kept asking myself "What makes us human?" and came up with something very close to "My free will and possibility to affect my future". Especially the women in Bakkerworld lack this.

[Guarneri]

Without putting too much philosophic spin on it, I guess I kept asking myself "What makes us human?" and came up with something very close to "My free will and possibility to affect my future". Especially the women in Bakkerworld lack this.

Isn't pretty much the purpose of the books to demonstrate that there is no free will since every effect has it's cause steering it, and that humans are truly the same as beasts when seen through the eyes such as Kellhus? In that I believe people are meant in Bakkerworld to be shown as less than human, since it centers around the principle theme of the books. There's some long paragraph or two when Kellhus is talking to Cnaiur and explaining the Dunyain, and he thinks about how if only peopple could see each other as he saw them, the primal beasts howling, etc, etc. Something like that.

Yes, I agree, the "happy whore" thing annoys me as well, although since we cannot know a lot about it, there may be layers to that we have not seen, i.e. it could be seen as a religious duty, or something similar.

I'm not sure what you mean by happy whore, mind explaining that? Just a harlot who actually takes pleasure from her position of selling her body, or?

[Lyanna Stark]

Isn't pretty much the purpose of the books to demonstrate that there is no free will since every effect has it's cause steering it, and that humans are truly the same as beasts when seen through the eyes such as Kellhus? In that I believe people are meant in Bakkerworld to be shown as less than human, since it centers around the principle theme of the books. There's some long paragraph or two when Kellhus is talking to Cnaiur and explaining the Dunyain, and he thinks about how if only peopple could see each other as he saw them, the primal beasts howling, etc, etc. Something like that.

Yes, but dividing a human from her feelings and what Bakker means with all that "comes before" you also remove a lot of what makes us human.

Sure, prejudice and being set in our ways are bad, but showing love and affection are not.

Kellhus does neither of this, he shows no feeling, he is only looking for the next move on the chessboard to maneuver everyone around him. He does not sympathise.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Yes, but dividing a human from her feelings and what Bakker means with all that "comes before" you also remove a lot of what makes us human.

Sure, prejudice and being set in our ways are bad, but showing love and affection are not.

Kellhus does neither of this, he shows no feeling, he is only looking for the next move on the chessboard to maneuver everyone around him. He does not sympathise.

But this is exactly how Bakker wanted to show him. Kellhus is something more and at the same time something less than human. Dunyain are not supposed to be desirable solution to the "coming before" dilemma. Perhaps we will be told there is no solution, or perhaps we will be told they are only half of viable solution or whatever.

[Kalbear]

I'm not sure what you mean by happy whore, mind explaining that? Just a harlot who actually takes pleasure from her position of selling her body, or?

The conceit that prostitutes in the middle ages were happy selling their body and that everyone who did it did so voluntarily. It's a historically unsupportable proposition and goes against most evidence we've ever had outside of religious sects, and even then not so much.

[Guarneri]

Yes, but dividing a human from her feelings and what Bakker means with all that "comes before" you also remove a lot of what makes us human.

Sure, prejudice and being set in our ways are bad, but showing love and affection are not.

Kellhus does neither of this, he shows no feeling, he is only looking for the next move on the chessboard to maneuver everyone around him. He does not sympathise.

Yes, but that's the purpose, which it is very well done. Kellhus is supposed to be an unemotional, goal-driven being who operates without any feeling to influence or direct his course. Of course it makes readers very hard to sympathize with him, but we're not really meant to be able to. He's supposed to be something greater and yet less than human.

The conceit that prostitutes in the middle ages were happy selling their body and that everyone who did it did so voluntarily. It's a historically unsupportable proposition and goes against most evidence we've ever had outside of religious sects, and even then not so much.

I haven't read the series in a while, so I can't really recall any prostitutes who were happy selling their bodies, or any suggestions in the book that all those who did so were happy about it. Mind refreshing my memory?

[Lyanna Stark]

But this is exactly how Bakker wanted to show him. Kellhus is something more and at the same time something less than human. Dunyain are not supposed to be desirable solution to the "coming before" dilemma. Perhaps we will be told there is no solution, or perhaps we will be told they are only half of viable solution or whatever.

Oh, I agree BoG, but at the same time, he (Kellhus and also to some degree Bakker, by design perhaps) dehumanises the humans in the world, and I, for one, wonder if humanity in Bakkerworld is worth saving? Are they really more human than say, the Consult? The non-men? (In the way we would define human).

Then there is also the interesting question of Kellhus: is he actually after saving mankind, or something else? If he wants to save mankind, he must have a motive for it, and as of yet, I can't see this motive. Humans to him are only tools, they have no inherent value. Sure, he might save some for "breeding purposes", but apart from that? I can't see his reasons.

Maybe HE, who is very clever and knows a lot about Bakker can chip in?

I haven't read the series in a while, so I can't really recall any prostitutes who were happy selling their bodies, or any suggestions in the book that all those who did so were happy about it. Mind refreshing my memory?

The people from the Summer Isles come to mind? I also haven't read the books for ages, but I recall Chataya and her daughter having ritual or traditional reasons for their sex trade and could be consider "happy whores".

[Guarneri]

Ah, I thought 'happy whores' was about Bakkeworld, not Westeros.

Hmm, as for Chataya and her daughter, I don't really think we've seen enough of them to decide on that front. At first glance they seem content and happy in their trade, but that can easily be a part of the illusion they create for their trade and financial profits.

[Errant Bard]

Oh, I agree BoG, but at the same time, he (Kellhus and also to some degree Bakker, by design perhaps) dehumanises the humans in the world, and I, for one, wonder if humanity in Bakkerworld is worth saving? Are they really more human than say, the Consult? The non-men? (In the way we would define human).

I'm certain Bakker wants to rise such questions. In my opinion, Khellus cannot dehumanize the world, just manipulate it, but the world does humanize Khellus. I cannot blame people for showing love and devotion -which is what Khellus manipulates-, but I can blame them for being stupid enough to be manipulated. Bakker smoothes that by making Khellus so irresistible, but even then we have our heroes, Akka, Cnaiür and eventually Esmenet, who break from mental enslavement because of their feelings, choosing their own future. I think Bakker's humanity deserves to be saved for the same reason dark ages humanity would have deserved to, because it can evolve and create us.

(I said Esmi chose her future, even staying with Khellus, because she didn't blindly follow Akka, she isn't dazzled by Khellus anymore, and she made the choice for herself, even when it breaks her heart.)

Apart from that, do I think Eärwa, or at least the three seas region, has a sexist society? Yes. Do I think Bakker condones sexism in his writing? No. There are few women characters but the few there make very clear that their state of affair is not desirable at all, even if they are whores or dumb fanatics, or rather especially since they are.

The people from the Summer Isles come to mind? I also haven't read the books for ages, but I recall Chataya and her daughter having ritual or traditional reasons for their sex trade and could be consider "happy whores".

I can recall six instances where whores were shown being apparently happy:

• At Chataya's, they seemed more or less happy, but while noone talks about how happy selling their body makes them, they chat about security brought by the house and how books are better. Happy as in "brings meat to the plate"
  
• Shae. She definitely does it for money and for fun. She was happy.
  
• The happy port. Same as Chataya's, whores seem to be happy to do it, if only to survive, but not sure about what they feel about the trade itself.
  
• The Braavos courtesans. Same as the happy port, truly, not much insight on how happy it makes them, but we know it takes serious dedication to be the best.
  
• Dany's Handmaidens. They are satisfied with their lot and whore themselves voluntarily.
  
• The peach. Some girl offers Gendry to screw him. Can't remember if it's his half-sister or another. Happy to do it too, in that case.
  

[Guarneri]

I can recall six instances where whores were shown being apparently happy:

• At Chataya's, they seemed more or less happy, but while noone talks about how happy selling their body makes them, they chat about security brought by the house and how books are better. Happy as in "brings meat to the plate"
  
• Shae. She definitely does it for money and for fun. She was happy.
  
• The happy port. Same as Chataya's, whores seem to be happy to do it, if only to survive, but not sure about what they feel about the trade itself.
  
• The Braavos courtesans. Same as the happy port, truly, not much insight on how happy it makes them, but we know it takes serious dedication to be the best.
  
• Dany's Handmaidens. They are satisfied with their lot and whore themselves voluntarily.
  
• The peach. Some girl offers Gendry to screw him. Can't remember if it's his half-sister or another. Happy to do it too, in that case.
  

[*] Yes, whores enjoying the prosperity their trade brings them isn't too unreasonable. Especially during the times most everyone is starving, yet Chataya's still seems to be doing reasonably well.

[*] She was happy for the money, I definitely get the impression she never enjoyed screwing Tyrion but for the jewels/secure position it gave her, so she had to make it seem like she enjoyed it a lot, since with Tyrion the emotional level was a big part of it. The reason he didn't just go for any whore in Chataya's is felt commitment and attached feelings akin to a relationship for her. She had keep up that emotional level in order to hold and gain that position.

[*] Ay, security is I imagine why they're happy. Not too much to work with in the text

[*] Courtesans may take some pleasure from their trade, at the very least due to the sheer hard work and skill it takes, I'm sure they feel pride. Especially how rich they get off it.

[*] From the culture of Dany's haindmaids it seems like they think it's their religious/cultural duty to whore themselves out. Plus the culture teaches them it's an honor to pleasure strong men. They even said something along the lines of being raped by strong men is an honor, in GoT, I think? Either way, Dany is shown as very attractive, so whoring themselves out to her may bring them plesure.

[*] The peach affair didn't have anything to do with money or security, ay. I'd say that the girl simply found him attractive and wanted the pleasure of sex with him. In that case "happy whore" makes sense, sure, if she is aroused by him.

[Happy Ent]

Without putting too much philosophic spin on it, I guess I kept asking myself "What makes us human?" and came up with something very close to "My free will and possibility to affect my future". Especially the women in Bakkerworld lack this.

No, it's useful philosphic spin, because it gives us some hinges to put our concepts on. Let's continue from here.

I think where we are miscommunicating is your concept of "human". By your definition, 99% of Humanity that ever lived is not human.

Your definition above is not the answer to "What makes us human?" but the answer to "What makes us post-Enlightenment, post-feminist affluent, secular North-Western Europeans?"

And that's the point. Bakker wants to show us "what we have escaped from". He wants to show us the basic human condition. In my book, the dynamics Bakker portrays are very much part of what makes us human.

Exactly what Bakker wants us to think about.