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

[delete this account pls]

Yep, they definitely rule the island Atyersus is on directly. Seems likely they'd get sizeable fees for their tutelage of various people as well - I'm sure House Nersei threw some cash the Mandate's way when Akka tutored Proyas, for example.

The Scarlet Spires ran High Ainon, which is one of the richest nations in the Three Seas, so they'd be cashed up as well, one would think. The Cishaurim and the Imperial Saik seem to be state sponsored. The Mysunai are specifically called the Mercenary School, so they're probably the go-to guys when one wants some sorcery-for-hire. I wouldn't be surprised if the Minor Schools do something similar, but we have virtually no information on any of them.

[Deluge]

[quote name='Brady' post='1671573' date='Feb 2 2009, 18.41']Yep, they definitely rule the island Atyersus is on directly. Seems likely they'd get sizeable fees for their tutelage of various people as well - I'm sure House Nersei threw some cash the Mandate's way when Akka tutored Proyas, for example.

The Scarlet Spires ran High Ainon, which is one of the richest nations in the Three Seas, so they'd be cashed up as well, one would think. The Cishaurim and the Imperial Saik seem to be state sponsored. The Mysunai are specifically called the Mercenary School, so they're probably the go-to guys when one wants some sorcery-for-hire. I wouldn't be surprised if the Minor Schools do something similar, but we have virtually no information on any of them.[/quote]
Isn't there another Major School mentioned in the glossary, called the Circle of Nibel or something? I've always wondered what their deal is.

[delete this account pls]

I think so, I can't remember the exact name but it was Circle of something. Not sure if they were a Major School or a Minor one.

[TerraPrime]

[quote name='Brady' post='1671761' date='Feb 2 2009, 21.28']I think so, I can't remember the exact name but it was Circle of something. Not sure if they were a Major School or a Minor one.[/quote]

Circle of Life, iirc. They specialize in flashy eyewares and imminently hummable melodies.

[delete this account pls]

:rofl:

[Nerdanel]

I've been thinking that lead poisoning might become a plot point in the series.

For one thing, I suspect chanv addiction might actually have fewer downsides than the common wisdom has it, if the effects of chanv get mixed up with the effects of primitive cosmetics containing lead and mercury. Since lead poisoning lowers intelligence, chanv might be very effective in raising it indeed to have that reputation regardless of the face paints used with it. That's good for Iyokus... Also, considering that lead poisoning can become fatal, I think it entirely within limits of possibility that chanv can grant true immortality if the addict doesn't get themselves killed by other means. Even chanv's reputed effect of having few or no children fits within the profile of lead poisoning.

In the prologue for TJE...

SPOILER: TJE Prologue

Esmenet's skin is painted all white with what is likely white lead pigment given Eärwa's technological level. That kind of things explains a lot about her and Kellhus's defective "murderous children". Lead exposure in the womb lowers IQ and also has a variety of other neurological effects.

[url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/07/AR2007070701073_pf.html"]Research links lead exposure, criminal activity[/url].

But more than just cosmetics, the ancient Romans had numerous uses for lead. One of them was as a [i]food/wine sweetener/preservative[/i]. The compound called "sugar of lead", formed in grape juice that the recipe called to be boiled to half volume or less in lead pots, tasted sweet and poisoned micro-organisms to death, therefore preventing spoiling. It also was an easy source for a chronic human lead poisoning, especially for the upper classes who could afford a lot of it.

"One cannot raise walls against what has been forgotten." I think Kellhus will find that even in Eärwa, living like a thing didn't exist can't make the thing not exist. I think lead poisoning could be a clue that reality in Eärwa is not changed by mere belief after all, so that Kellhus for example can't undamn whores or sorcerers just by making a proclamation and having people believe it.

[The Anti-Targ]

I've been wondering which thread to post in, I guess this is as good as any.

I just finished The Darkness that Comes Before (well mostly, since I had to get the book back to the library so I had to skip about 1 1/2 chapters [but read the final chapter), and 5 pages were missing from page 72-77). I was a bit disappointed, especially given the strong recommendations coming from this board, which were the read I read it.

I wasn't particularly engaged by any of the characters. I probably liked Achamian best, but I didn't find any villains terribly interesting.

I thought it was rather derivative and somewhat formulaic, and I was often thinking of WoT while I was reading it. Particularly in connection to the No-God and the Consult (A la the Dark One and the Forsaken/Dark Friends/Black Ajar). I thought Kellhus was a bit Rand al-Thor-ish too, though there are huge character differences between the two. But still being set up for the Messiah role and all that, which probably derives from Dune a bit too. Then there was the whole conflict between the pious lot and the Sorcerers (Children of the Light vs. Aes Sedai). There's the savage Scylvendi vs. the Aiel (which of course were themselves derivative an almost exact replica of the Fremen)...and well a few other things besides, including the minions of the Dark One...er I mean the No-God.

But all that aside, because if one had never read WoT one could not detect any connections, I find the Big Evil Dude to be a really tiresome theme in fantasy. It just seems so archaic as a theme, especially the whole "It's just snarks and grumpkins" angle where no one believes in the imminence of the return of the Great Evil. And yeah, this is a gripe I have with ASOIAF re the Others, though I'm looking for GRRM to subvert this theme in some way so as to not make it a cliche. Its one mitigating aspect currently is that no one other than Mel thinks the Others have any particular connection to a Big Evil Dude, and I sure hope she's wrong.

And then there's the whole Christian/Muslim Crusade thing going on with PoN.

So there were some things I liked. Bakker's writing style flows pretty well. Some of the Political machinations were worked out quite well, so threads being interwoven a bit there.

So if it's as good as some of you think, what am I missing? Give me a reason to read on. Do things get better thematically? Are there more characters, including villains, I can actually get interested in?

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Well, for once No-God is something very different from Dark Lords of standard fantasy (and, yes, it seems to be something rather than somebody), and Consult have their own agenda which is really screwed-up, but does make sense in context of the story (also they are not minions, most likely it is the other way around). This is not a good vs evil story, not even close.

Bakker surely borrowed a lot from Tolkien and Herbert what he freely admits, but I think similarities with Jordan are secondary - that is they both borrowed chiefly from the same souces.

[gladius]

The path they chose is gruesome (maybe it's the only path?), but every rational being in their position would have the same goal. The human and nonmen members of the Consult have less justification.

SPOILER: nonmen

Were the nonmen damned when they were the dominant species and there was no Tusk? This is something that has been bothering me for some time.

[Bastard of Godsgrace]

Gladius;
I would say no, but we really don't know yet.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Triskele' post='1689231' date='Feb 17 2009, 23.51']Anti-Targ - The real question is whether or not you found Bakker to be mysogenistic.[/quote]

Well I can only think of 3 prominent female characters: Esmenet, Serwe and the Emperor Mother. Of them Esmenet was the only one with any sort of admirable qualities. Rather a Mary Magdalene figure I suppose, even to the point of giving up (or trying to) her whoring ways to devote herself to Achamian (though the Magdalene was never a whore, neither was she nobility as some would like to think).

The Emperor Mum, like Cersei, used her one and only weapon to achieve her ends: her sexuality. But I've only seen her through the eyes of people who don't respect or love her. So I don't have an objective sense of her personality.

Serwe is simply a Kellhus junkie, (and Kellhus is the pusher) willing to do anything to stay close and get her fix. I don't know why we spent any time in her head quite frankly. Is her personal story arc going anywhere?

It all depends how you look at misogyny. Does he make all women evil shrews who are ultimately a source of corruption to all good men? No, so in that respect he is not misogynistic.

Does he portray women as chattels, and as being generally powerless? Yes he does. Is that misogynistic? In the modern context of course it is. In a medieval context, where life is dominated by violent struggle, and hence is dominated by men, perhaps it is a bit of Realpolitik; for women to occupy in fantasy essentially the same position they occupied at an equivalent time in our history.

Now one area where there could have been a bit of balance thrown in is if women were capable of being one of the Few (I assume no female Few come along in later books), and hence there could have been some powerful sorceresses. That would give you a bit of girlpower to throw around. But throwing some kick-ass girls into a story is a bit cliched.

It is not for me to judge whether Bakker is a misogynist or not. If I were to try and write a medieval fantasy, which draws heavily from our own history and [European/Middle Eastern] culture, I might well construct cultures that placed women in a similar position. The question is would I write with such themes? Being a feminist (is there a better word to describe a man who recognises the equality of men and women?), I would probably try take a different approach so as to make sexual dimorphism less of an issue. But I don't think it makes Bakker a misogynist because he went down the traditional medieval route, nor does it mean his books promote misogyny.

I can see Esmenet as potentially a person of inner strength and character, if that is how Bakker develops her through the story.

Serwe could raise herself above her current predicament. But right now she defines herself by her position in relation to the men in her life, so she would need significant personal transformation. With Kellhus that is unlikely to happen without a major transformation in himself, because he is the ultimate embodiment of selfishness.

On topic: I do acknowledge that this story is not black and white when it comes to good and evil. Though within the context of this book the Consult and the No-God have no defenders. So they are presented as pure mythological evil. It doesn't matter if the No-God is the master and the Consult the minions, or the Consult is the master and the No-God is merely their symbolic countermeasure to The God. This set up comes accross as the bogeyman/men.

Oh, and I think the Scylvendi have a bit of the Mongol horde about them, along with the parallels to other fantasy races?

I was also kinda put me off because have no sympathy for any nation where Bakker spent any time in the heads of its people. I find myself most sympathetically disposed to the Fanim, because I know the least about them, and of those that I know I have no great regard. Was it Bakker's intent for the reader to think little of all the people's of his world? If so he achieved his aim in me, but it does not exactly create the desire to find out what comes next.

I've now got Mistborn out of the library. I figured I'd better read something from the dude who is writing the last WoT book. It better be good otherwise I don't know if I'll bother to find out how the Last Battle turns out. Well I know (broadly) how it will turn out, it's just a question of how it's carried out, who lives long enough to fight in it, and who's left standing at the end. Off to the loo to start reading Mistborn now, in fact. TMI?

[Nerdanel]

We know there are women among the Few. The witches don't cast spells since that would lead to the Mark and them being detected, so they use and make magical objects instead. Achamian's Wathi doll is one example. It was made by a witch and using it is only possible for one of the Few, but the command word is not a spell and leaves no Mark.

[Jacen]

For us poor Americanos, the book is supposed to come out TOMORROW, February 19th. If they are lying to me[i] again[/i], I just might have to make an embarassing scene in Barnes and Noble.

[The Anti-Targ]

[quote name='Nerdanel' post='1690715' date='Feb 19 2009, 00.58']We know there are women among the Few. The witches don't cast spells since that would lead to the Mark and them being detected, so they use and make magical objects instead. Achamian's Wathi doll is one example. It was made by a witch and using it is only possible for one of the Few, but the command word is not a spell and leaves no Mark.[/quote]


OK, interesting. Did I miss that in the first book, or is that revealed later on? I don't recall Achamian playing with any dolls.

Still, that women of the Few feel compelled to use their skill in such an underground fashion means a point of equality between the sexes in this world has been severly handicapped. Unless Bakker going to have the women of the Few break this particular shackle, I'm not really liking this development.

[Kalbear]

It's in the second book.

And witches are burned at the stake in Earwa. There's no point of equality of the sexes in Earwa either; things are decidedly very inequitable.

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

MFC looks at the current direction of this thread. He runs out pulling hair, gnashing teeth, and screaming into the cold, dark night. MFC speaks in third person.

[Happy Ent]

(This seems to be the correct thread for Bakker-related discussions that try to avoid (i) [i]Judging Eye[/i] and (ii) misogyny.)

Thanks to Mr Bakker’s participation in one of the board threads, we got another clue that we haven’t yet debated to death. Generally, it’s the representation of [i]concepts[/i] by characters; specifically it is the representation of Eärwa by Serwë.

Here’s an angle I cooked up: Kellhus represents [i]modernism[/i]. I understand that the narrow sense, a “pre-Postmodern” (if such a concept exists), almost naïve rationalism. Kellhus questions the axiomatic framework of a pre-Enlightened age, he very much wants to banish the [i]Darkness[/i] that comes before. I digress.

The pivotal scene for Kellhus (where he goes from prophet to Living God in the eyes of his followers, and where he finally [i]himself[/i] believes the metaphysical narrative he has invented) is his circumfixion. The parallels to the story of Jesus are obvious, but Kellhus invests not only his own physical integrity – after all, he’s been tortured to near-death before, for example in the hands of Cnaiür, with no noteworthy psychological trauma. In addition to the crucifixion of Jesus, Kellhus [i]also[/i] needs to sacrifice his wife.

Translating that into the symbolic language, modernism needed to sacrifice [i]the Earth[/i]. We know this because of Modernism’s rejection of Romanticism (and “Innocence,” another concept Serwë symbolises) or the visible effects of Industrialism on Nature.

There’s a nice parallel to one of the few themes Tolkien uses in his work, in that [i]there[/i] the “rape of Nature” is very much Sauron’s work, Mordor (and the transformed Shire) demonstrate what happens when Modernism/Kellhus/Sauron sacrifices Nature/Serwë–Eärwa/Middle-Earth. Thus, on this particular topic, the two fantasy epics very much disagree.

[Tears of Lys]

[quote name='Jacen' post='1691140' date='Feb 18 2009, 14.07']For us poor Americanos, the book is supposed to come out TOMORROW, February 19th. If they are lying to me[i] again[/i], [b]I just might have to make an embarassing scene in Barnes and Noble.
[/b][/quote]

I very nearly did when the clerk couldn't find one of two (2!) copies they had in the store. He did find one, but I still haven't had the chance to read it. Godsdamned work...

[Finn]

[quote name='Happy Ent' post='1697807' date='Feb 24 2009, 05.19']Here’s an angle I cooked up: Kellhus represents [i]modernism[/i]. I understand that the narrow sense, a “pre-Postmodern” (if such a concept exists), almost naïve rationalism. Kellhus questions the axiomatic framework of a pre-Enlightened age, he very much wants to banish the [i]Darkness[/i] that comes before. I digress.

[. . . snip . . .]

Translating that into the symbolic language, modernism needed to sacrifice [i]the Earth[/i]. We know this because of Modernism’s rejection of Romanticism (and “Innocence,” another concept Serwë symbolises) or the visible effects of Industrialism on Nature.[/quote]
I think of Kelhus as less modernism than modernity. The idea that Kellhus "questions the axiomatic framework of a pre-Enlightened age" seems about right to me. I think of Kelhus as Baconian science/Enlightenment thought wandering in a premodern world whose "superstitions" happen to be true. And at the same time, I take these designations (Kelhus as modernity, etc) as helpful guides but not as allegorical truths necessarily.

One reason I'm resisting your formulation is that Romanticism is very much a part of the modern world. You could think of Romanticism as a form of modernity nostalgic for the premodern. I'm now imagining a Dunyain with a sentimental streak and a rhyming dictionary :P I guess in support of your point one could argue that the conflict between modernism and romanticism stages the conflict between the modern and premodern all over again, this time self-consciously and with style.

[Happy Ent]

[quote name='Finn' post='1698098' date='Feb 24 2009, 18.35']I think of Kelhus as less modernism than modernity.[/quote]
Funny thing is that I actually changed my original suggestion, modernity, to modernism, because I wasn’t sure about the English connotations. (Not being a native speaker.)

[quote]One reason I'm resisting your formulation is that Romanticism is very much a part of the modern world.[/quote]
Oh, but the modern world contains much that isn’t [i]modern[/i] in the narrow sense. Post-modernism, romanticism are alive and well. As is a current neo-Darwinian scientism (of which I am very much a follower) that acually rejects some of the ideas of modernism: In Bakkerterms, the Argument made in [i]Neuropath[/i], and embodied by its antagonist Neill, is very modern (in the wide sense) but certainly not something the Dûnyain would subscribe to: There [i]is[/i] a Darkness that comes before, and it’s rooted in something that is much harder to destroy than puny follies such as bigotry or faith – Nature.

—*—

However, I readily admit that I mentioned Romanticism because I want to read an inversion of Tolkien’s aethetics into the [i]Prince of Nothing[/i], and the analogy may be forced.

Edit: remove (wrong) double negation in penultimate paragraph.