Jump to content

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


lokisnow

Recommended Posts

[quote name='lockesnow' post='1666490' date='Jan 29 2009, 00.07']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!).[/quote]

They tell you straight up why Kellhus kills Moenghus. Like, right when he fucking kills him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='lockesnow']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.[/quote]

I find Bakker's names quite refreshing, I must say. They are [i]not[/i] generic fantasy names that vaguely imitate Tolkien's, in fact they remind me of nothing more than the Hittites. Chepheramunni is not a more difficult to remember name than Suppiluliuma, IMO.

And the Inrithi follow the interpretations of the Latter Prophet, Inri Sejenus, while the followers of Fane are called Fanim. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

The books aren't light reads, and I totally get that someone may not like them at all or may have read them in a state of mind that stops him or her from paying the necessary attention, but the plot is perfectly intelligible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always hated the criticisms about the names. They actually feel authentic, instead of "Normal name with a few letters added/removed". They feel like they come from distinct languages, they've got their own flavour.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1666516' date='Jan 28 2009, 21.42']They tell you straight up why Kellhus kills Moenghus. Like, right when he fucking kills him.[/quote]

Yeah, but it doesn't really make any sense. Sure, it's perfectly straightforward if we buy that Kelhus believes in the Outside/damnation, etc., but Bakker never adequately explains why Kelhus should believe in these things. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the universe operates differently than Kelhus originally thought, but very little evidence that would force Mr. Rationality to leap to any particular conclusions about *how* it works.

[quote name='Jon AS' post='1666534' date='Jan 28 2009, 22.03']I find Bakker's names quite refreshing, I must say.[/quote]

[quote name='Shryke' post='1666545' date='Jan 28 2009, 22.12']They actually feel authentic, instead of "Normal name with a few letters added/removed". They feel like they come from distinct languages, they've got their own flavour.[/quote]

Agreed. The only name that bugs is Seswatha. Feels out of place, but I'm not sure why. Maybe too close to Hiawatha or something.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finn' post='1666574' date='Jan 29 2009, 01.53']Yeah, but it doesn't really make any sense. Sure, it's perfectly straightforward if we buy that Kelhus believes in the Outside/damnation, etc., but Bakker never adequately explains why Kelhus should believe in these things. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the universe operates differently than Kelhus originally thought, but very little evidence that would force Mr. Rationality to leap to any particular conclusions about *how* it works.[/quote]

What evidence suggests the universe doesn't operate as Kellhus comes to believe?

Part of the whole point over the story is that Kellhus goes from faking being the Messiah to believing he's the Messiah. And hell, he may ACTUALLY be the Messiah. By the end, Kellhus (unlike Moenghus) has come to believe as most other people do. In the Outside, in Damnation and all that crap.

There's tons of evidence and experience that points him towards it and really none that points the other way.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1666576' date='Jan 28 2009, 22.58']Part of the whole point over the story is that Kellhus goes from faking being the Messiah to believing he's the Messiah. And hell, he may ACTUALLY be the Messiah. By the end, Kellhus (unlike Moenghus) has come to believe as most other people do. In the Outside, in Damnation and all that crap.[/quote]

Yeah, I know. That's my problem. If the point is that Kelhus has gone nuts or gotten faith, that's fine. But I think Bakker wants us to believe that Kelhus has just rationally deduced that the universe works more or less as the people of Earwa believe: "In the Outside, in Damnation and all that crap," as you say. But the evidence Kelhus has is evidence that could point in a lot of different directions.

To take an obvious example, just because the supernatural exists doesn't mean that there's an afterlife. Just because miracles and magic are real doesn't mean that the universe is weighing our sins. I know that Bakker has intimated in interviews that this *is* in fact how his fictional universe operates, but I've seen nothing to make a presumably rational character leap to any conclusions. And remember Kelhus is supposed to be the embodiment of reason, bred and trained to serve the logos.

Again, if the point is that Kelhus is no longer rational, I'm fine with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Deluge' post='1666046' date='Jan 28 2009, 23.25'][...]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.[/quote]
Thanks, that was it. See [url="http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Kalevala"]Kalevala @ Tolkien gateway[/url].
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had to take notes in order to respond to everyone accordingly.

Nardanel: I don't think of him as so perfect he is terrifying. I think of him as so perfect he is boring. Nor do i look to him as the hero of the story, especially after he abandoned that hunter at the very beginning of the first book. But nor can i look at him as the villain.

Jacen: Why thank you.

Finn: Skeezy sex scenes indeed. As for Esmenet, i don't see her having the knowledge base to articulate at the level that she does. For her to make the intuitive leaps that she does based off of some conversation rings false, especially when she goes from speaking like a whore to speaking like a third year philosophy prof.

Calibander: I know that many see this as more than just a crusads parallel, but frankly, it's hard to let that part of it go. The only thing that seems to exist beyond that is the talking. I personally don't find Kellhus to be refreshing, or interesting as a character. He reminds me of Gilgamesh, so perfect hes stale. And as for the names: i'm also very good at names, but i find these ones too much. While some have argued that they like them because they are different, and i can appreciate that, there are simply too many simularities between indivduals/nations/etc in terms of their names, and without a real feel for each of these groups. For example: Shigeh, Shikal, Shimeh, Shinoth, Shiradi, Shriah, Shrial times ten. Without any flavor, which i feel the books have failed to convey, i don't know what the fuck is what because i can't be bothered to always have to flip to the back of the book.

Shryke: So what? Its boring. Derivitive. I'm reading about the crusades in another world but nothing is actually going on.
-So Kellhus tells him to punish the Shrial and presto-blamo, it works! Great, what's for dinner? Pretty convenient. As for not understanding it, try not to make intuitive leaps like that yourself, becaue it has little to do with that and everything to do with the fact that i find it difficult to accept. And it didn't feel like he freaked out about it. He just spends most of his time emoing about his father and wondering if he's done the right thing.
-As for the philosophy itself, aside from a number of interesting points, its endless wankery. Its amusing that a book whose dialogue actually mostly consists of philosophy can be considered some breathtaking step in a new direction. Pages of dialogue that amount to little more than verbal diarehha.
-As for Kellhus "easily" adopting Inrau's mannerisms from conversation, are you kidding me? People have been hearing about Jesus for two thousand years and no one can say they know anything about his personal mannerisms. Perhaps he picked his nose at the last supper. My point is that it is impossible to infer that sort of thing from conversation, no matter what you're intellect.

Jacen/Jon AS: I'll give it another chance when i'm done my other readings.

Happy Ent: I have no problem with solid historical grounding, but this level of wholesale theft is difficult for me to swallow.

lockesnow: I agree on the names. Part of why many of them seem so bland is because there seems to be little distinction between the different nationalities. The names themselves, while some might like them, are simply not interesting to me.


Now enough of this, im going to play left4dead.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Arthmail' post='1666629' date='Jan 29 2009, 03.40']Shryke: So what? Its boring. Derivitive. I'm reading about the crusades in another world but nothing is actually going on.[/quote]

Your call I guess. Although "nothing is going on" is nothing but hyperbole. I'm surprised you like ASOIAF if historical parralells bug you that much though.

[quote]-So Kellhus tells him to punish the Shrial and presto-blamo, it works! Great, what's for dinner? Pretty convenient. As for not understanding it, try not to make intuitive leaps like that yourself, becaue it has little to do with that and everything to do with the fact that i find it difficult to accept. And it didn't feel like he freaked out about it. He just spends most of his time emoing about his father and wondering if he's done the right thing.[/quote]

So he did, but you didn't care. Yeah.

[quote]-As for Kellhus "easily" adopting Inrau's mannerisms from conversation, are you kidding me? People have been hearing about Jesus for two thousand years and no one can say they know anything about his personal mannerisms. Perhaps he picked his nose at the last supper. My point is that it is impossible to infer that sort of thing from conversation, no matter what you're intellect.[/quote]

This is just dumb. This isn't some guy who lived 2k years ago, this is a guy Achamian was really close to who died like less then a year before the incident your describing.

You just REALLY seem to not like Kellhus for some reason. You seem to have a problem with anything to do with the character.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finn' post='1666594' date='Jan 29 2009, 02.24']Yeah, I know. That's my problem. If the point is that Kelhus has gone nuts or gotten faith, that's fine. But I think Bakker wants us to believe that Kelhus has just rationally deduced that the universe works more or less as the people of Earwa believe: "In the Outside, in Damnation and all that crap," as you say. But the evidence Kelhus has is evidence that could point in a lot of different directions.

To take an obvious example, just because the supernatural exists doesn't mean that there's an afterlife. Just because miracles and magic are real doesn't mean that the universe is weighing our sins. I know that Bakker has intimated in interviews that this *is* in fact how his fictional universe operates, but I've seen nothing to make a presumably rational character leap to any conclusions. And remember Kelhus is supposed to be the embodiment of reason, bred and trained to serve the logos.

Again, if the point is that Kelhus is no longer rational, I'm fine with that.[/quote]


It's not just "miracles and magic" that are real. It's The Outside. The very concept of which implies an immortal soul and damnation. This is what Kellhus comes to believe in.

And you've touched one of the points of the end scene with Moenghus, and why Kellhus had to kill him. The world, as Kellhus discovers, ISN'T rational. Not in the sense you or I understand. The Logos is WRONG (or at least, so far as Kellhus has determined).

By the end, Kellhus is no longer the embodiment of reason, bred and trained to serve the logos. He's no longer Dunyain. He's MORE. (Or, as I say, so he states and believes. Remember, he's seeing halos around his hands by this point.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke: My point is that there are millions of people that have claimed to know Jesus in some way, and even if you were to take a handful of dudes that knew him (i think theres 12, right? haha), you wouldn't be able to emulate his mannerisms.

It doesn't matter that hes only been dead a year or so. It could be a fucking day and there would be no way to adopt those same mannerisms so effectively that Achamian gets all mushy and weepy like he always does.

Yes, i have a major problem with Kellhus. He's fucking boring. Not one of the worst main characters in a book that i have read, but certainly in the top ten. Considering that the entire series revolves around him it makes it a problem.

I'm not trying to piss on your book, but i'm trying to understand what people see in this series. I'm not sure if its the characters, the philosophy, the world or a combination of everything (which i suspect it is), but i would like to know.

Why? Because i like to read and support Canadian lit, and also because even though a book doesn't grab me the first time, careful consideration and discussion with others can produce varied results.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could go and look at the past Bakker threads and see the discussions there. IF you don't get what they see in it after a couple thousand posts worth of discussion, nothing in this thread is going to do it for you.

I am not a fan of the series, but I am a supporter. The difference being I don't find myself emotionally invested in it, I'm not "in love" with it, but I do respect the scope of Bakker's ambition and the complexity of his vision, even if I don't think he necessarily succeeds at everything he's aiming for.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finn' post='1666594' date='Jan 29 2009, 08.24']Again, if the point is that Kelhus is no longer rational, I'm fine with that.[/quote]

Kellhus is definitely no longer completely rational
SPOILER: TJE
and Bakker calls him outright mad in the "What comes before..." Appendix of TJE
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ran']I don't find myself emotionally invested in it, I'm not "in love" with it, but I do respect the scope of Bakker's ambition and the complexity of his vision, even if I don't think he necessarily succeeds at everything he's aiming for.[/quote]

This is a pretty good summary of my thoughts on the series as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Shryke' post='1666634' date='Jan 29 2009, 01.07']It's not just "miracles and magic" that are real. It's The Outside. The very concept of which implies an immortal soul and damnation. This is what Kellhus comes to believe in.

And you've touched one of the points of the end scene with Moenghus, and why Kellhus had to kill him. The world, as Kellhus discovers, ISN'T rational. Not in the sense you or I understand. The Logos is WRONG (or at least, so far as Kellhus has determined).

By the end, Kellhus is no longer the embodiment of reason, bred and trained to serve the logos. He's no longer Dunyain. He's MORE. (Or, as I say, so he states and believes. Remember, he's seeing halos around his hands by this point.)[/quote]

I don't disagree with anything you're saying here. But it's this leap in logic that bugs: "It's The Outside. The very concept of which implies an immortal soul and damnation. This is what Kellhus comes to believe in." Why does the knowledge that there is an "Outside" (something else/some other dimension or dimensions) mean that the particular religious views of this particular society - a society that Kelhus manipulates with such ease - must be true.

That's like saying that if I believe in the demonic I must believe in Christianity. It just doesn't follow. I haven't read TJE yet, but I hope we get some sense that Kelhus is trying desperately to get more information about this universe in which he now finds himself. Why wouldn't you, if you were someone like Kelhus? Why would you just think - "Huh. The Dunyain were wrong. I guess these yahoos that I treat like not-very-bright children must be right about how everything works."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Why does the knowledge that there is an "Outside" (something else/some other dimension or dimensions) mean that the particular religious views of this particular society - a society that Kelhus manipulates with such ease - must be true.[/quote]It doesn't. That's just what Kellhus has decided. It isn't necessarily the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Kalbear' post='1666954' date='Jan 29 2009, 09.16']It doesn't. That's just what Kellhus has decided. It isn't necessarily the case.[/quote]

Right. My issue is with Kelhus as a character and this decision he makes. He kills his father - pretty big deal. He kills one of the most powerful men in Earwa - pretty big deal. He kills a potential ally -and an incredibly strong one at that - in any fight with the Consult - pretty big deal.

And he does all of this because - in his mind - he has logically deduced that
a) The Outside is real. Damnation is real. Etc
b) Moenghus will come to believe that the Outside and damnation are real, despite the fact that he has not come to believe these things in his 30 years in the world. And he will presumably come to this belief not because he will be converted to a faith, but because the evidence will lead him to logically conclude these things.
c) Moenghus will side with the Consult in wanting to close off this putative "outside."

And this is where I agree with lockesnow, whose original point was that we're not given enough information about why Kelhus kills his father. We're given a clearly-stated rationale (see above), but we're not given enough information prior to this to understand why Kelhus leaps to all of these conclusions. Conclusions that simply seem implausible to me given the evidence that Kelhus has to work with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Finn' post='1667031' date='Jan 29 2009, 19.23']Right. My issue is with Kelhus as a character and this decision he makes. He kills his father - pretty big deal. He kills one of the most powerful men in Earwa - pretty big deal. He kills a potential ally -and an incredibly strong one at that - in any fight with the Consult - pretty big deal.

And he does all of this because - in his mind - he has logically deduced that
a) The Outside is real. Damnation is real. Etc
b) Moenghus will come to believe that the Outside and damnation are real, despite the fact that he has not come to believe these things in his 30 years in the world. And he will presumably come to this belief not because he will be converted to a faith, but because the evidence will lead him to logically conclude these things.
c) Moenghus will side with the Consult in wanting to close off this putative "outside."

And this is where I agree with lockesnow, whose original point was that we're not given enough information about why Kelhus gives his father. We're given a clearly-stated rationale (see above), but we're not given enough information prior to this to understand why Kelhus leaps to all of these conclusions. Conclusions that simply seem implausible to me given the evidence that Kelhus has to work with.[/quote]

I thought it was pretty well spelled out in the third book: Kellhus went insane - or at least far from the Dunyain-teachings and is no longer completely rational or following clear logic. He started to believe himself to be the Messiah - the Aspect-Emperor, the Warrior Prophet. To do so he has of course to believe that the rest of the story is true too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He was obviously right about Moënghus, though, so what's the problem?

I thought we know exactly why he believes that the Outside exists: it's because he's fulfilled prophecies written thousands of years before his birth and, more notably, he managed to prophesize something that he never intended (the bit about the Shrial knights, right?).

This is an absolute impossibility according to Dûnyain teaching, a complete break from one of the foundational tenets of their philosophy. The only explanation, as he can see it, is that Outside, cause and effect don't work the same, which is what the philosophers and theologians say; but not just that: this realm of subjectivity can touch and change the world in ways well beyond what any one man or sorceror can do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...