Jump to content

Bakker VII: fens, bogs, dens and shades of death


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

Well, see, I don't perceive Kellhus as perfect at all. And watching for his weaknesses and how he turns things to his advantage (or not) are some of the things I greatly enjoy reading about. There are tantalizing hints in the spoiler chapter of The Judging Eye that his perfect plans are not so perfect.

Esmenet is an "unlettered whore," but remember she's been with men from literally all walks of life and garnered a great deal of a form of learning this way. I think she's a fascinating character.

I don't have time right now ( a depo's about to start) to get into it further, but I guess all I'll say in short is that I'm sorry you don't like it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PoN is basically the story of the idea "what would happen if Nietzsche's Ãœbermensch appears in a medieval society?", so yes, Kellhus is supposed to be all-powerful and superior, but he isn't perfect. Esmenet ends up where she ends (where this is would be spoilerific) up because of her intelligence - her intelligence surpasses nearly every man around her, but in a society where women are worth nearly nothing it is not an asset but a negative thing in the eyes of said society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bakker isn't for everyone (which is really true for just about any book).

To adress some of your points:

[quote name='Arthmail']Kellhus himself: This guy is too much, too perfect. I do not get any sense of vulnerabilty from him. Perhaps from Paul Atriedes utilizing actual abilities to see into the future via a narcotic i can understand, but to be able to understand outcomes through massively complex deduction is too much. (and i don't know why, this is fantasy after all). But when he sent out that Saubon fellow, and told him to punish the Shrial Knights, and things worked out exactly in his favor i put the book down in disgust.[/quote]

You're not supposed to like Kellhus, contrary to Paul Atreides he is more of an antihero (if that). For a long time Cnaiür is the only character who realises that Kellhus is just manipulating everyone to further his own ends, and since he is trying to use Kellhus for his own purpose, he isn't about to tell anyone.

[quote name='Arthmail']The Consult: They don't strike me as very scary, or evil. Mostly just horny.[/quote]

Yup, that's the Consult (or more properly the Inchoroi). The fact that they take their desires to excess is what makes them evil, which in turn feeds their need to bring about the Apocalypse.

[quote name='Arthmail']Esmenet: For an unlettered whore, she seems to really be able to produce some very perceptive thoughts.[/quote]

Esmenet is one of the smartest people in the entire Three Seas. That's just the way it is.

[quote name='Arthmail']The names: I can't tell anyone apart.[/quote]

They can take some getting used to, but after a while the only names that bothered me were the Nonman ones. Stupid apostrophes.
As for characters, I found Achiaman, Cnaiür and Esmenet to be very well developed. Kellhus is difficult to get to grips with because he is almost inhuman, but also fascinating to read about.

[quote name='Arthmail']The world: I've read any number of reviews marvelling at Bakker's world building, but i'm not overly impressed. Its taken part and parcel from the crusades, and mashed together with fantasy and shades of Dune - which frankly did the entire presience thing a fuck of a lot better.[/quote]

Don't forget plenty of Tolkien, particularly the Silmarillion.;) I like the world and don't find it completely derivative. The glossary at the end of the third book shows just how deep Bakker's worldbuilding goes (and you can read it without spoiling yourself for the actual plot of the novels).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, i appreciate the responses. I realize that not every book is for everyone, but there are some real problems with this series.

As for Esmenet...she might have had access too all sorts of different individuals over the years, but that does not remove the fact that she is unschooled. Unless these guys are sitting down with her to talk about serious subjects one cannot really learn to express themselves the way that she does without having some formal learning.(Even if its just reading on her own.) That might put too much emphasis on learning, but the simple fact is that it is true. And i'll tell you right now, they are not going to Esmenet to talk. Even Achamian hadn't seen her in some time, if i recall correctly from the first book, and he was closer to her than anyone else. I don't care that she is one of the smartest people in the Three Seas, it just strikes me as incredibly false. You can learn street smarts from the street, or book smarts from a book, but you can't cross those and experience something vastly different without training. Also, i have to say, that the only two female leads being pretty much whores is a little bothersome. Serwe is used by Kellhus whenever he wants, and Esmenet is honestly little better. One of them could have not been that way.

I never thought you were supposed to like Kellhus, but there is nothing to like. Not even in a respectful, oh, this guy is a bad ass type way. He's so perfect he's bland. And while his actions might have consequences in the next trilogy its not apparant from where i am looking at it.

In fact, the part that made me put the book down was how he could start to emulate Inrau (sp? Achamian's apprentice that died) mannerisms WITHOUT EVER HAVING MET HIM. Thats just pure bullshit. On top of the ziggeraut he's rolling his eyes and speaking like Akka's former apprentice, and there is ZERO possibility of infering a dead man's actions in that manner. If he had used some sort of sorcery, sure. But complex reasoning, no way. Its just another reason that every time Kellhus comes on the stage i want to gag.

This series would have been far more interesting if Cnaiur had been the main character, along with Akka i suppose, but i wish he would grow a spine. When he's drunk and some guy punches him out....i don't know. I like him, but he seems a mewling sissy sometimes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Kellhus is so perfect he's terrifying.

I think it's a mistake to think of Kellhus as the hero. I think he's more like a villain protagonist. I at least happen to think Kellhus is very definitely evil, and that means more evil than, say, Cnaiür. Kellhus's near-perfection is what makes him an effective Dark Lord character (think Sauron in Númenor) instead of a Dark Lord wannabe found in the kind of fantasy (think Eddings) where the author has to make his main villain incompetent because otherwise the heroes wouldn't be able to triumph in the end.

By the way, I wouldn't be surprised in the least to learn that the Dûnyain powers of observation were based on a form of unconscious sorcery, or perhaps more accurately a form of unconscious psionics, which is similar to sorcery in some respects, but much subtler and does not cause chorae vulnerability since the power isn't coming from the Outside but rather from the caster. We know that Ishuäl had a large population of the Few. I think this fits well with the idea that magical talent is a survival trait among the Dûnyain, even if they deny the existence of magic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is mentioned in smoe point that Achamian often talked to Esmenet about philosophy and history, awakening her intelelctual interests this way. He didn't teach her to read, because it was blasphemy punishable by death (this is one part I find hardly credible, BTW). Achamian also does grow a spine in TTT, and in TJE he becomes quite badass.

And no, Kellhus isn't perfect. He does make mistakes, and some of them can prove quite serious.

SPOILER: TJE
For example, emulating Napoleon's march on Moscow strikes me as monumentally bad idea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the whole thread, because I'm only on the second book, so I'm only responding to the Arthmail's thread that was merged into this one. I don't want it to be spoiled!

So, I agree with pretty much everything Arthmail said. It's not to say I'm not enjoying the books to some extent, but I find myself annoyed with the story quite often. I'd also say that I want to support a Canuck, but I got the books from the library, so I didn't pay for them. I don't think my library has the next one (how many is there?), so I'll request them to be ordered, and he'll get some cash that way :P

I'm not sure I'm going to articulate this very well, but here goes. I'm the kind of person that likes to get sucked into to the story. Everything around me seemingly disappears, even the words on the page, and I'm completely engrossed with the story. IMO, that is the mark of a good storyteller. I find with Bakker, I keep getting pulled out of that, I dunno, trance lets call it.

I think that the first one started out really well. Some parts were beautifully written. I think one of the most annoying things for me is all the funky arse names. I get that he doesn't want to call people Joe, but yeesh! It just seems that I'm in the story then sucked back out, because my brain gets tripped up trying to figure out how to pronounce some character's name. Even when I think I have it, it trips me up again. Frustrating!

But I find that I'm intrigued by the Kellhus character, and I'm interested enough in the story to want to see where it's going.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funny this is that I like the series, but I agree with a lot of Arthmail's criticisms

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 07.00']Dune - which frankly did the entire prescience thing a fuck of a lot better.[/quote]

Yep. It's disappointing that Bakker has this idea/character at the center of his series but - in some ways - doesn't really take that idea all that seriously.

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 07.00']Kellhus . . . He's so perfect he's bland.[/quote]

Agreed. Again, the idea is interesting, but the character tends to bore when he's on stage.

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 07.00']The Consult: They don't strike me as very scary, or evil. Mostly just horny.[/quote]

I think I can see how and why Bakker arrived at the idea of the Inchoroi, but they're not a particularly great "big bad." And their primary effect on the series so far has been to introduce a lot of skeevy sex scenes (black seed, blah blah blah)

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 07.00']The philosophy/nothing happens: In a book and a half it feels like they have done little more than talk.[/quote]

This does improve. The first book is, to my mind, the flabbiest. The second half of book two and book three move along at a pretty good pace.

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 07.00']Esmenet: For an unlettered whore, she seems to really be able to produce some very perceptive thoughts. Too perceptive.[/quote]

I don't really see this. Being smart and being perceptive about the world around you are very different than being educated. I didn't see Esme acting more educated than she ought to be. And there's no reason to assume that she can't be smart and perceptive.

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 07.00']Akka . . . but i wish he would grow a spine.[/quote]

In some ways, the first three books seem to be about Akka growing a spine. So . . . again, this gets better.

And despite all this, I really like the series. I do think the final book and a half (of the first three) is much better than the first book and a half, so you might want to give it another chance. On the other hand, it just might not be your cup of tea.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[b]Arthmail[/b]

I'm an outspoken fan of Bakker and yet was interested by your negative reaction to the series. As Finn has noted a few posts above me, there's actually quite a bit I agree with in your complaints that I think weaken the series. I just think they are far ourweighed by positive aspects.

I'll go into it point by point.

[quote]Firstly, the shades of Dune and the actual crusades are so strong here that i am having a hard time getting past them. Kellhus and his ability to see all paths strikes me so much of Paul Atriedes that i cannot help but see it as a direct knock off.[/quote]

I've not yet read Dune so this does not bother me. Others who are fans of Dune have read the PoN trilogy and have loved it, as well as Kellhus himself. So yes in this case it may really be you ;)

[quote]The holy war is almost stolen en masse from the actual crusades, and while i usually have no problem with fantasy authors borrowing from events in history (GRRM anyone?), i find it to be almost a photo copy.[/quote]

Again, my knowledge of the Crusades is limited and I was not bothered by any parallels. However Bakker has been frank about this: Harold Lamb's book on the Crusades is one of the best books he's read and has been an inspiration to him. Similarly, I believe Bakker is also an admirer of Frank Herbert. He's not shy about those influences. Obviously you feel he shows those influences too much.

Friend of mine whose tastes in books runs very similar to mine failed to enjoy this series as well. The Crusade parallels bothered him too much and the endless philosophizing was a dealbreaker for him. You're certainly not alone here. It's just that I would say there is far more to the story than just the Holy War itself, and the similarities it has with the Crusades.

[quote]Kellhus himself: This guy is too much, too perfect. I do not get any sense of vulnerabilty from him[/quote]

I actually like how he's such a powerful and intelligent individual. He's not flawless, but definitly larger than life. I find him extremely interesting and a refreshing change from the onslaught of weak modern sensibilities heroes so many authors want to choose as their protagonist nowadays. Thumbs up for Kellhus, apparently a rarity; a man who still knows what he wants and knows how to achieve it instead of being upstaged at every turn.

[quote]The Consult: They don't strike me as very scary, or evil. Mostly just horny[/quote]

The end of book two shows their atrocities clearly. I find them an interesting enemy but I think Bakker should have done more to give them a little more screen time throughout the trilogy. Clearly there is much to be learned about them, as we see now going into the second trilogy. Godo enemy but too little face time. There's having air of mystery and there's the threat of becoming a cypher.

[quote]Esmenet: For an unlettered whore, she seems to really be able to produce some very perceptive thoughts. Too perceptive[/quote]

I found Esmenet on the whole to be a jarring character. It was unclear to me, and still is, what made Kellhus decide that she is the ideal vessel for his Anasurimbor offspring. It's unclear to me why a whore without higher education is this clever and able to discuss everything with the greatest minds, except for with Kellhus and his superhuman intellect himself. It's not a major bother for me, I just didn't really care for Esmenet's plight and as a character I found her rise to great power, even if mainky through association with Kellhus, a bit odd.

[quote]The names: I can't tell anyone apart.[/quote]

I'm very good at remembering names and had no such problem. There was also the glossary which is very handy. I adore complexity. I can still name you the swords of Tolkien's Elven warriors years after reading the Silmarillion for instance.

I also love his worldbuilding so much, so much detail and depth to his world.

I agree with you on Achamian 100% though. His ceaseless whining over the course of 3 books got the better of me. I found him mightily annoying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 10.00']The holy war is almost stolen en masse from the actual crusades, and while i usually have no problem with fantasy authors borrowing from events in history (GRRM anyone?), i find it to be almost a photo copy. Perhaps, having attempted to read more about the crusades on my own, i cannot get over how much more interesting the real life events were as opposed to what is going on in the book. Shades of the Byzantine, the pope, the Templars...its ALL there.[/quote]

So what? The fun part is, because it's based on alot of real history, most of the battles are completely plausible. Hell, most of the large scale political events too. It's a nice way of adding realistic complexity to the world.

[quote]Kellhus himself: This guy is too much, too perfect. I do not get any sense of vulnerabilty from him. Perhaps from Paul Atriedes utilizing actual abilities to see into the future via a narcotic i can understand, but to be able to understand outcomes through massively complex deduction is too much. (and i don't know why, this is fantasy after all). [b]But when he sent out that Saubon fellow, and told him to punish the Shrial Knights, and things worked out exactly in his favor i put the book down in disgust.[/b][/quote]

Your really not understanding this part at all. Read carefully. Kellhus tells Saubon to "punish" the Shrial Knights because he sees a Skin Spy in their ranks. He figures he can get them killed and uses his position as a potential prophet (at least in Saubon's eyes) to do that.

And when things worked out perfectly because of that IT FREAKED KELLHUS THE FUCK OUT. He couldn't figure out WHY it worked and that scared the crap out of him.

Beyond that, Kellhus is not the Hero of the story, despite what it may at first appear. If anyone is the hero, it's Achamian. Kellhus is .... like Jesus. It's like

[quote]The Consult: They don't strike me as very scary, or evil. Mostly just horny.[/quote]

The Consult are in spying mode. You learn more about them as the series goes on, but at this point they aren't doing anything. You should be scared by their potential. The No-God alone means the end of all human life in the world given a couple of decades.

The Consult aren't a threat NOW. They are an impending doom on the horizon. Remember, the Apocalypse is COMING, but it's not here right now.

[quote]Esmenet: For an unlettered whore, she seems to really be able to produce some very perceptive thoughts. Too perceptive. I know Bakker explains this away by claiming that everyone around Kellhus basically gets smarter, but i don't buy it. Usually perception comes with learning, with understanding more than how to simply live. It comes from reading from greater minds and coming to conclusions on your own about any given subject. At least, in my opinion.[/quote]

No, she's naturally smarter. She's a good thinker from the start and Akka has been tutoring her (sorta). She also pumps the men she services for information.

[quote]The philosophy/nothing happens: In a book and a half it feels like they have done little more than talk. Talk, talk, talk. And most of that talk ends up being about how perfect Kellhus is, or from Serwe's point of view, how beautiful and perfect. Blah. I find myself skimming more and more as i go on because i simply want something to happen. I don't need to read about how endlessly insightful Kellhus is.

The names: I can't tell anyone apart. Perhaps becaues of the general feeling of boredom that has arisen i am not reading into it as deeply as i should, but you can replace almost anyone in the stories with anyone else and it wouldn't matter. The sole exception are a few of the people that have been flushed out, such as Kellhus (the perfect), Achamian (the weak with hints of overwhelming power), and Cnaiur (the insane). As for the two ladies involved, i can distinguish them both mostly by their names, though Esmenet has some fleshing out to her. But both seem there more for sexual release than anything else...so far. I feel it is an injustice to those characters in a way, but i'm not entirely sure why.[/quote]

If your not reading it deeply, no wonder your missing so much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]I never thought you were supposed to like Kellhus, but there is nothing to like. Not even in a respectful, oh, this guy is a bad ass type way. He's so perfect he's bland. And while his actions might have consequences in the next trilogy its not apparant from where i am looking at it.[/quote]

He's far from perfect. He makes mistakes, he lies, he cheats. And he may be starting to become unhinged as the story goes along. The author deliberaltely gives us less and less from his POV as the story progresses, because he becomes more and more of a mystery to us. I mean, ask yourself "What does Kellhus want?". Do we even know?

[quote]In fact, the part that made me put the book down was how he could start to emulate Inrau (sp? Achamian's apprentice that died) mannerisms WITHOUT EVER HAVING MET HIM. Thats just pure bullshit. On top of the ziggeraut he's rolling his eyes and speaking like Akka's former apprentice, and there is ZERO possibility of infering a dead man's actions in that manner. If he had used some sort of sorcery, sure. But complex reasoning, no way. Its just another reason that every time Kellhus comes on the stage i want to gag.[/quote]

He could do this easily. Test out different mannerism and styles against Achamian, see what he responds to best. Not to mention Akka may have talked about Inrau anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthmail']Well, i appreciate the responses. I realize that not every book is for everyone, but there are some real problems with this series.[/quote]

Oh, I agree that it's far from perfect, but I still find it highly entertaining. Kellhus and his 1337 Dûnyain skillz were my biggest problem, more specifically the fact that they are supposed to be non-magical. That's where suspension of disbelief came in handy.;)

[quote name='Bastard of Godsgrace']And no, Kellhus isn't perfect. He does make mistakes, and some of them can prove quite serious.

[b]SPOILER:[/b] TJE[/quote]

SPOILER: The Judging Eye
Actually he is emulating Anasûrimbor Celmomas' Great Ordeal during the First Apocalypse. Which also failed quite spectactularly.;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We've tried to convince people to like Bakker's PON so many times I've lost count. I'm curious, has anyone that disliked the series read our arguements, re-read the books with a new critical eye, and been converted?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jacen']We've tried to convince people to like Bakker's PON so many times I've lost count. I'm curious, has anyone that disliked the series read our arguements, re-read the books with a new critical eye, and been converted?[/quote]

See Arthmail? It's your chance to make history!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the crusades:

as far as I understand, Bakker deliberately wants to write a story grounded [i]in real human history[/i]. This is (also deliberately) a mirror to Tolkien, who writes a mythology grounded in [i]real human mythology[/i]. Tolkien steals from the Edda and the Finnish Whatitsname and the Beowulf. Bakker steals from the crusades. They both do it deliberately, and Bakker imitates Tolkien deliberately (but with a twist). Like Microsoft would like you to think: it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

About Esmi: she’s just one of the most intelligent people on the planet (excluding Ishuäl). We just have to accept that. Somebody has to be it, and in Bakker’s world, it happens to be the whore of Babylon. (There may be other very intelligent women in the world, but none attached to the Holy War, so for Kelly she’s an obvious choice.) By the way, I think she’s a great character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Calibandar' post='1665885' date='Jan 28 2009, 15.39']I'm very good at remembering names and had no such problem. There was also the glossary which is very handy. I adore complexity. I can still name you the swords of Tolkien's Elven warriors years after reading the Silmarillion for instance.[/quote]
Holy shit!

@HE, the Kalevala is probably the most famous Finnish myth. I don't know for sure if this was it, I always assumed Tolkien just stole from the Eddas and the Bible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1665392' date='Jan 28 2009, 07.00']Firstly, the shades of Dune and the actual crusades are so strong here that i am having a hard time getting past them. Kellhus and his ability to see all paths strikes me so much of Paul Atriedes that i cannot help but see it as a direct knock off.

The holy war is almost stolen en masse from the actual crusades, and while i usually have no problem with fantasy authors borrowing from events in history (GRRM anyone?), i find it to be almost a photo copy. Perhaps, having attempted to read more about the crusades on my own, i cannot get over how much more interesting the real life events were as opposed to what is going on in the book. Shades of the Byzantine, the pope, the Templars...its ALL there.

Kellhus himself: This guy is too much, too perfect. I do not get any sense of vulnerabilty from him. Perhaps from Paul Atriedes utilizing actual abilities to see into the future via a narcotic i can understand, but to be able to understand outcomes through massively complex deduction is too much. (and i don't know why, this is fantasy after all). But when he sent out that Saubon fellow, and told him to punish the Shrial Knights, and things worked out exactly in his favor i put the book down in disgust.

The Consult: They don't strike me as very scary, or evil. Mostly just horny.

The names: I can't tell anyone apart. Perhaps becaues of the general feeling of boredom that has arisen i am not reading into it as deeply as i should, but you can replace almost anyone in the stories with anyone else and it wouldn't matter. The sole exception are a few of the people that have been flushed out, such as Kellhus (the perfect), Achamian (the weak with hints of overwhelming power), and Cnaiur (the insane). As for the two ladies involved, i can distinguish them both mostly by their names, though Esmenet has some fleshing out to her. But both seem there more for sexual release than anything else...so far. I feel it is an injustice to those characters in a way, but i'm not entirely sure why.

The world: I've read any number of reviews marvelling at Bakker's world building, but i'm not overly impressed. Its taken part and parcel from the crusades, and mashed together with fantasy and shades of Dune - which frankly did the entire presience thing a fuck of a lot better.[/quote]

Gotta say I agree with these points pretty much. it's not nearly as good as Dune for all that it copies Dune. Interestingly enough, I think the first and third books are more like God Emperor of Dune than Dune. That said it's still a fascinating read. my biggest gripe is that so much information is withheld from us we really don't get a complete story. Whoop de fucking do, Kellhus kills moenghus. yay. it's like finding out frodo destroyed the ring but we never even knew why the ring needed to be destroyed (cause why tell us the things we learn in the Shadows of the past chapter or council of elrond chapter, hiding information is WAY BETTER and more LITERARY!). the most interesting part of any of the three books is reading the appendixes in the back of thousand fold thought, that either hint or explain things about the plot that are impossibly obfuscated in the actual text.

And I think it's a shame that Bakker's names will limit his series ever being read by the hardest of hardcore fantasy readers. They're just appalling to try to read. Might as well be called Grignr instead of Çñàïúr. it's somewhat nice that the names are different, but that gets old after about four pages. :-p other than the seven or eight main characters I can't tell who any of the characters are without referring to the back of the book. that's just bad, really bad. It's especially impossible to tell conriyans from nansur from any of the three or four dozen nationalities we're supposed to keep track of. I know Akka is the Gnostic school and Nansur has an emperor, but I can't remember what the hell the name of the Rome-analogue with the pope-analogue is called. or which group, the southerners or northerners follows anjencis jesus and who follows latterpropet mohammed (or if Bakker was super tricky here and inverted which analogue is most like the other).

All that said, as a fan of Dune, I find this series, refreshing, entertaining and fascinating, and I'm glad to see that tradition of writing continued. I'd lobby for Bakker to get access to Herbert's notes and write a real book 7, I think he'd do a bang up job. I also know there's only one reader I know of who I'd recommend the series to, mostly because it's so difficult and inaccessible in most every way beyond getting them past the 'it's fantasy' barrier.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jacen' post='1665901' date='Jan 28 2009, 12.53']We've tried to convince people to like Bakker's PON so many times I've lost count. I'm curious, has anyone that disliked the series read our arguements, re-read the books with a new critical eye, and been converted?[/quote]
well I'm going to reread this, but currently don't have time in my budget for reading, and this is number two on my priority list right now. :-P

but reading the threads here (after finishing TTT) convinced me the books were far better than I gave them credit for. and I'm intrigued to dig into it again on a reread. my first reread of ASOIAF back in 2002 after I discovered this board was really eyeopening. I'm hoping I won't have to refer to the glossary every other page this time, really interrrupts and lengthens the reading process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...