Prince of Nothing

[lokisnow]

I myself guessed at that very same theory at that point in my reading.

One really nice thing about PoN is that there is so much subtle hinting going on. It makes things interesting. People can have diametrically opposed theories depending on how they interpret the evidence, resulting in good discussions.

As did I.

SPOILER: prince of nothing

I didn't even notice Mallahet until a second reading three years later.

But welcome to the series, it's at least as complex as ASOIAF and every possible crackpot theory and bit of minutia has not been extracted from these four books, as has happened with the wrung out GRRM series. so the discussion and debate is still fresh, fun and interesting. But when you have 10 years between books, I suppose beating the dead horse into powder eventually happens. :)

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

I've avoided reading the answer but that quote is interesting in that it throws a spanner in my thoughts unless magic is involved. I'll be even more impressed with the book if my theory is wrong (as seems to be the case).

My reasoning for the identity of maithanet was

SPOILER: theory

maithanet could "see" sorcerers and it was revealed that Kellhus could do the same. Achamian also noticed upon meeting Kellhus that he thought he had seen someone like him before. Lastly Moenghus is at least as manipulative as Kellhus and far more experienced, it would be fun to see Kellhus be taken for a ride. If Moenghus is not Maithanet then I suspect a Dunyain is involved or the Consult has a lot in common with them. That would require me to sit and think for a lot longer about the implications though :)

SPOILER: answer

Akka thought he recognized Kellhus because of the Dreaming; Kellhus apparently looks like Nau-Cayuti and the other Anasurimbor high kings.

Interesting idea about the Consult.

[...]

You ought to spoiler-tag this; after all, he doesn't want the surprise ruined.

[red snow]

As did I.

SPOILER: prince of nothing

I didn't even notice Mallahet until a second reading three years later.

But welcome to the series, it's at least as complex as ASOIAF and every possible crackpot theory and bit of minutia has not been extracted from these four books, as has happened with the wrung out GRRM series. so the discussion and debate is still fresh, fun and interesting. But when you have 10 years between books, I suppose beating the dead horse into powder eventually happens. :)

I feel better that I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion. Curse Bakker, he's obviously pulling a Kellhus on us :)

I should be caught up in a month or two so i can then have fun reading all the conspiracies etc. It will be nice to be involved in discussions that aren't already exhausted!

[Spring Bass]

That is definitely one thing that I love about the PoN books and my fellow Bakker fans - we have some of the best discussions. It helps that there's a lot to discuss, seeing as how Bakker is being intentionally vague on a number of things.

[Eponine]

I didn't like it.

I read the first three books, and I expected them to at least be interesting because of all the discussion they've generated (some of which I've read). I didn't not like it because the main characters weren't "good". And I didn't not like it because it was not sufficiently feminist. And I didn't not like it because the names were too hard to follow. I just didn't like it.

Some of the philosophy was interesting. And the story line was fine. But overall I just couldn't bring myself to care what was going to happen next or if any particular character lived or died. One big disconnect that I had was that maybe it just wasn't possible to write dialog for Kellhus that was going to be really convincing. His speeches and sermons didn't inspire me in any way, so I found it hard to believe that that kind of tripe was going to cause all those other people to react to him the way that they did. And since I wasn't able to be convinced of that important point, my suspension of disbelief pretty much fell apart.

I also didn't think that most of the secondary characters were very well characterized. This is where I think that GRRM really excels - making characters who are only mentioned once or twice (or totally off-screen, we never actually see Randyll Tarly do we?) memorable. There was a little bit of interest in their fighting styles, but not enough besides that to make them more than filler.

[Paxter]

Good post Ep, although personally I think you are being a bit harsh as far as Bakker's secondary characters are concerned. Xin, Conphas, Proyas, Iyokus, Saubon, Eleazaras and co. are all pretty interesting characters in their own right. And let's face it - no-one is ever going to be as good as GRRM when it comes to making us care about minor characters ;). I certainly can't think of any fantasy authors who really approach him in that regard.

Valid points about Kellhus though - there are many on the board who would agree with you there. The only thing I could say in defence of the way that Bakker has written Kellhus is that his sermons/speeches aren't the only way in which he is able to win people over - it's also his actions which prompt such an extreme reaction from people

e.g. on the circumfix and in the desert.

[jurble]

Also the mimicking body language to elicit response. Body language is probably a major factor.

[Eponine]

Pax, in that list of characters, the only one I found compelling was Conphas. The other characters had some interesting things about them, but they never developed enough life of their own, IMO, to carry their parts of the story. There was a lot of predictability. I think the predictability may have been part of the philosophy- that men who don't comprehend what comes before will act in such self- limiting ways... But it doesn't make it any better to read.

As far as Kellhus' actions and body language are concerned, I think that if the author can't convey those in a convincing way, then it isn't good enough. The part where I was convinced is when Kellhus and Cnaur first meet, but that was over soon and then when large masses of people get involved, it fell apart for me.

[Paxter]

Pax, in that list of characters, the only one I found compelling was Conphas. The other characters had some interesting things about them, but they never developed enough life of their own, IMO, to carry their parts of the story. There was a lot of predictability. I think the predictability may have been part of the philosophy- that men who don't comprehend what comes before will act in such self- limiting ways... But it doesn't make it any better to read.

Yeah, I can see where you're coming from here. Bakker has said that he felt a bit burnt out with his original cast of characters when it came to writing The Judging Eye and he even scrapped what he had initially written. That 'burning out' might well have been influenced by the predictability to which you refer. As a result, the minor characters introduced in TJE are a lot less predictable and (without giving too much away), their motivations are much more difficult to discern.

As far as Kellhus' actions and body language are concerned, I think that if the author can't convey those in a convincing way, then it isn't good enough. The part where I was convinced is when Kellhus and Cnaur first meet, but that was over soon and then when large masses of people get involved, it fell apart for me.

Fair enough. FWIW, quoted below is how Bakker has responded to this kind of criticism. I don't really buy into his argument 100%, but you might find it interesting:

I sometimes think that those people who find Kellhus’s manipulations unconvincing are those who are the most oblivious to all the ways they themselves are controlled. Since they assume they would be immune to Kellhus’s manipulations, they end up thinking all the characters who do are implausibly weak-minded, or they are simply not convinced by the moves Kellhus makes. But the fact is that all humans are weak-minded. We know for a fact that if you put humans in situations like Abu Ghraib that they will do the kinds of things they did in Abu Ghraib – we know that a large fraction of the responsibility belongs to the planners who made Abu Ghraib possible.

So why, then, are the individual ‘bad apples’ in prison while the planners continue drawing huge salaries? Because we all think that if we happened to be working at Abu Ghraib, we would have blown the whistle. We think we would have been the exception, and so blame the weak-minded fools who let their immediate social situation drive them, and not those who manufactured that social situation. We all think this, but the sad fact is that we are almost all wrong. Study after study shows that our counter-to-fact assumptions about how we would react in various situations are often dreadfully out of whack with how in fact we do react in those kinds of situations.

We literally live our lives believing in fantasy selves. We live and die deluded, with only a vague anxiety to point us in the direction of truth. This is one reason, I think, so many of us have so much difficulty identifying with realistic characters.

[Grogsmash]

So if we don't believe in Kelhus's manipulations, we are deluding ourselves? Wow.

[Paxter]

Actually, it's probably a little bit unfair that I quoted him without posting the link to the full interview. I mean, the next thing he writes after the passage I quoted is "But I wank."

[Mark Erikson]

I didn't like it.

I agree. I read a review somewhere (I think it was Amazon) that described the series as being "like watching an awesome movie for the first time with the director's commentary turned on". I'd agree with that completely, adding that the director is a pretentious twat.

All that platitudinous philosophy really got to me. None of it was clever or insightful, it was just garbage.

I did like the overall story, however. I just felt it was told very poorly, and contained very shallow characters. That was what kept me turning the pages.

What's interesting is, because I'm masochistic or something, I did pick up "The Judging Eye" and really liked it. It's like Bakker learned to write and dialed the philosophy right back. So given that you've forced yourself through the PoN trilogy, I'd suggest you give tJE a go.

[Shryke]

So if we don't believe in Kelhus's manipulations, we are deluding ourselves? Wow.

No, he's saying we all like to think we are much more immune to pressure and manipulation then we actually are.

[Grogsmash]

No, he's saying we all like to think we are much more immune to pressure and manipulation then we actually are.

I disagree, that is not at all what he said.

I sometimes think that those people who find Kellhus’s manipulations unconvincing are those who are the most oblivious to all the ways they themselves are controlled. Since they assume they would be immune to Kellhus’s manipulations, they end up thinking all the characters who do are implausibly weak-minded, or they are simply not convinced by the moves Kellhus makes. But the fact is that all humans are weak-minded. We know for a fact that if you put humans in situations like Abu Ghraib that they will do the kinds of things they did in Abu Ghraib – we know that a large fraction of the responsibility belongs to the planners who made Abu Ghraib possible.

I and many others found Kellhus's manipulations unconvincing because the author did a poor job of convincing us of it. Not because we think humans can't be convinced to do things. He tries to change the subject and ends up, again, just being a pretentious twat.

I forced myself to read the series, and while initially I didn't like it much, I ended up enjoying it for the most part. However, the more I read this thread, the more I start to dislike the author and I think it is making me start to dislike the books.

[Paxter]

I and many others found Kellhus's manipulations unconvincing because the author did a poor job of convincing us of it. Not because we think humans can't be convinced to do things. He tries to change the subject and ends up, again, just being a pretentious twat.

I think you might be reading a bit too much into this. Bakker never made the sweeping statement that that all readers who found Kellhus' manipulations unconvincing are deluding themselves. He said that sometimes he thinks that they are the readers least willing to accept that they (and indeed everyone else) are susceptible to manipulation. I'd be surprised if he didn't also sometimes think that he could simply have written Kellhus a bit better.

[generic]

I disagree, that is not at all what he said.

I and many others found Kellhus's manipulations unconvincing because the author did a poor job of convincing us of it. Not because we think humans can't be convinced to do things. He tries to change the subject and ends up, again, just being a pretentious twat.

I forced myself to read the series, and while initially I didn't like it much, I ended up enjoying it for the most part. However, the more I read this thread, the more I start to dislike the author and I think it is making me start to dislike the books.

But the success of manipulation is very much context sensitive. Even had Bakker the best possible job of showing the manipulation of an alien culture his speeches probably wouldn't look all that impressive to anyone not part of the target audience.

I mean are Jesus' speeches really enough to inspire a religion that survived to this day? And yet..

[fall787]

I'm looking for a new series to read and I've heard a lot of people mention bakker. So I was wondering how the series was, what is it comparable to?

My opinion: pretentious garbage. Idiotic female characters. Overexaggerated language and story. And anything with "schools of magic" makes me roll eyes.

[Brandon Stark]

I'm a big fan of the trilogy and TJE - it ranks alongside a small cluster of works immediately below Martin. I'm always the first to admit, though, that its not a book series I recommend to everyone.

I think the reason I've never had a problem with what many people consider Bakker's conceit in dealing with readers who disagree is because I've always gathered that he lumps himself into the 'humanity-at-large,' category along with all the weak-mindedness and gullibility. Especially since he so often shows the most self-assured characters being the worst victims of manipulation in his works. I have to admit that his interviews an his non-fantasy entry Neuropath (a book which somehow balanced maddening inferiority to his fantasy works and flimsy story telling with some of the more resonant and memorable and chilling scenes I've read in a long time) that led me to that conclusion more than anything I've come across in the Kellhus books, though.

[Cot]

I forced myself to read the series, and while initially I didn't like it much, I ended up enjoying it for the most part. However, the more I read this thread, the more I start to dislike the author and I think it is making me start to dislike the books.

I strongly advise you to stop reading this thread!

[Mark Erikson]

I think you might be reading a bit too much into this. Bakker never made the sweeping statement that that all readers who found Kellhus' manipulations unconvincing are deluding themselves. He said that sometimes he thinks that they are the readers least willing to accept that they (and indeed everyone else) are susceptible to manipulation. I'd be surprised if he didn't also sometimes think that he could simply have written Kellhus a bit better.

Looking at that quote, it actually does seem like Bakker is making a sweeping statement.

I am pretty well convinced that someone who could know me and my thoughts with absolute clarity could indeed manipulate me.

However, I was unconvinced that Kelhus was the sort of person who could do this. He wasn't written very well. It was much more a case of informed ability with him.