Prince of Nothing

[Foreverlad]

Kellhus was everything Akka needed: a student with an insatiable thirst for knowledge who could look up to (and love) their teacher. Akka's insecurities and perpetual loneliness all but guaranteed Kellhus would succeed. Esme, despite her care for Akka, could never believe he would be married to anything but his work. More, no matter his love for her intelligence (and her, obviously), Akka would always see Esme as a whore. Kellhus looked beyond that from the get-go, focused on her and her own demons, something she'd always needed.

I always suspected Kellhus's success was only half-due to the things he said to others. One quarter could be attributed to customer reviews and another quarter being attributable to what people needed or wanted to believe.

A preacher spouting crazy shit in a church isn't convincing. That same preacher spouting shit while half the congregation weeps and shouts can be.

[Happy Ent]

Let me add also a possible explanation offered by Eärwan metaphysics.

(The goal of this will be to hand-wave Kellhus’s success as “it’s magic,” much like a Jedi mind trick, wherefore the rules of suspension of disbelief would be changed. Note that I do not require this explanation, and find the mundane explanation of Kellhus’s success quite satisfactory.)

All Eärwan souls are connected through the Outside. Indeed, the souls are pin-pricks in the fabric of reality through which the outside shines. This property used in several of the sorcerous cants, such as the cants of calling, and Kellhus’s teleportation. We also see Kellhus use it when he rips his own and Serwë’s heart out – both hearts are the same. There’s also a scene where he literally speaks to Serwë through Esmenet (or was it the other way around?)

Whether Kellhus can do this because he is indeed the chosen of God is irrelevant. He can do it.

This could explain that also his emphatic skills (mind-reading, manipulation, compulsion) are beyond not only what our own experience tells us is possible by mundane means, but also beyond what a Dunyain could achieve by mundane means in our world.

Kellhus lives in Eärwa, and Eärwan metaphysics should be conductive to empathy more than our world.

[palemantle]

I finished the first trilogy yesterday and ... I feel pretty conflicted.

I thought TDtCB was great, if slightly turgid in parts. Firsthand accounts of Kellhus's possession didn't do it at all for me. This is ubiquitous in TWP and is scaled back in TTT. For this reason, TWP was a tough slog for me. The last bit of TTT was a letdown for me although it was action packed.

Kellhus's meeting with Moenghus, Cnaiur's meeting with Moenghus, Kellhus against the last five Cishaurim, Akka vs the Ciphrang ... all of these encounters could've been written better I thought.

I asked myself why I groaned every time I got to a Kellhus possession chapter in TWP but didn't bat an eyelid when I got to descriptions about demons and sorcerers and all sorts of otherworldly things. I didn't find a very satisfactory answer there.

I can appreciate what Bakker has set out to do but ultimately the trilogy wasn't as *enjoyable* for me as it seems to have been for many.

[Tears of Lys]

Kellhus was everything Akka needed: a student with an insatiable thirst for knowledge who could look up to (and love) their teacher. Akka's insecurities and perpetual loneliness all but guaranteed Kellhus would succeed. Esme, despite her care for Akka, could never believe he would be married to anything but his work. More, no matter his love for her intelligence (and her, obviously), Akka would always see Esme as a whore. Kellhus looked beyond that from the get-go, focused on her and her own demons, something she'd always needed.

And remember that Kellhus was the only one Esme told the truth about Mimara too. She was obviously aware that Akka, for all his love, judged her. But, also, Esme doesn't love Kellhus as she does Akka. That was stated pretty clearly a few times. She worships him - which is different. And what's more, Kellhus was aware of it and IT CAUSED HIM PAIN. It's said once, very briefly, in the scene where Esme's inhabited and... well, without going through the trouble of spoilerizing, it's quite clear.

I don't have a problem buying Kellhus' "god"-like abilities. And along with that I see his shortcomings too. If critics would only follow along with the series, I think they may see that Kellhus is not as infallibly "Gary-Lew" (or whatever the equivalent is) as they may think. Especially in "The Judging Eye," we see the limitations of his powers.

[Eponine]

I don't have a problem buying Kellhus' "god"-like abilities. And along with that I see his shortcomings too. If critics would only follow along with the series, I think they may see that Kellhus is not as infallibly "Gary-Lew" (or whatever the equivalent is) as they may think. Especially in "The Judging Eye," we see the limitations of his powers.

LOL, I think that this is a bit unreasonable to ask of people who just slogged through three long books that they didn't like. Hey, I persevered even though I started losing interest midway through the first book. I think that even if the fourth book is better, if you read three books by the same author and dislike all of them, you've given a series a fair try.

ETA: The main reason that I kept reading was that they're so thoroughly discussed here that I thought I must be missing out on something important!

ETA2: I vaguely remember talking to Raids and I guess she must have told me not to bother, but I think I was drunk at the time.

[Guest Raidne]

I actually just convinced my husband to slog through them yesterday, but I'm now remembering that I'm pretty sure I donated them already...oops.

I might actually read The Judging Eye, but I'd have to read TTT first, right? I think I'll save the whole thing for some dark week in February.

[Guest Raidne]

He hates philosophy. But he's a psychiatrist. You know, when it comes down to ethics and human behavior, sometimes it's hard to draw a distinction, but we both agreed that there sounds like there is a lot of psychology in PoN, but little to no philosophy, strictly speaking.

Do we agree with this?

[Foreverlad]

He hates philosophy. But he's a psychiatrist. You know, when it comes down to ethics and human behavior, sometimes it's hard to draw a distinction, but we both agreed that there sounds like there is a lot of psychology in PoN, but little to no philosophy, strictly speaking.

Do we agree with this?

I'd say the psychology is almost a gimmick, while the metaphysics and philosophy are as substantial or nonexistent as the reader wants them to be.

[Guest Raidne]

Do you mean the world? And the gnostic, anagogic, etc., stuff? If so, do you consider the two halves of the source and tel-aran-rhiod to also series explorations into the realm of philosophy?

ETA: Also, I was taught that philosophy consists of (1) metaphysics, (2) epistemology, (3) logic, and (4) ethics. If you hold to some other definition, please explain. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean when you say "philosophy" as something distinct and "other" than metaphysics.

[Tears of Lys]

LOL, I think that this is a bit unreasonable to ask of people who just slogged through three long books that they didn't like. Hey, I persevered even though I started losing interest midway through the first book. I think that even if the fourth book is better, if you read three books by the same author and dislike all of them, you've given a series a fair try.

Oh. Well, that's fair. Much longer than I'd have given something I didn't like. The only comparison I could personally make would be my reading WoT, but then there were at least elements that I found interesting.

In the end, something either fires your imagination and engages your interest, or it doesn't. Personally, I find Achamian, Esmenet, Conphas, Cnaiur (+5), and now Mimara to be fascinating characters. Kellhus is an enigma; he can't really even be said to be the main character - that would be Achamian, IMO, and this tragic yet powerful figure and how he'll figure into upcoming events is one of two major points of interest for me.

The only character that I don't actually "buy" is Kosoter. I have the same problem with him that others have with Kellhus - we're told that he's so frightening and how everyone goes in awe of him and his deadly eyes :whip:) , but nothing he's done so far (okay, he's executed a few wayward scalpoi and has an awesome sidekick) has been worthy of his reputation --- unless... UNLESS... he has a connection to the Aspect Emperor himself. Which would explain a lot. But I digress.

[Tears of Lys]

Delete of infamous double-post

[Foreverlad]

Do you mean the world? And the gnostic, anagogic, etc., stuff? If so, do you consider the two halves of the source and tel-aran-rhiod to also series explorations into the realm of philosophy?

ETA: Also, I was taught that philosophy consists of (1) metaphysics, (2) epistemology, (3) logic, and (4) ethics. If you hold to some other definition, please explain. Otherwise I'm not sure what you mean when you say "philosophy" as something distinct and "other" than metaphysics.

You responded just before i had a chance to append my post. In regards to Kellhus, the psychology is (IMO) a gimmick. The motivations of the characters, the traumas they endure, and the games they play with themselves are certainly psychological and worthy of attention.

Being formally unschooled, I'm no expert in defining the components of philosophy, so bear with the layman, as I'm sure to cross a couple wires in the process of explaining myself :lol:

Metaphysics, to me, is the philosophy or study of existence or reality, which would encompass aspects of the schools, the causality at the source of Kellhus's powers, and the ever-expanding story of the 'outside'.

The straight up philosophies (and, as you mentioned earlier, ethics) would include the manipulations of various protagonists, the single-minded goal of Kellhus, etc.

There is, to me, a fine line between the philosophies and metaphysics when you get into the outer-world building Bakker has done. Damnation, the outside, the inside, pinprick souls and more confound me lol.

It doesn't help that I haven't re-read books two and three in a year or two.

[jurble]

Eh? The philosophy in the book is centered around Determinism and Free Will. The Dunyain believe in absolute Determinism, so that they can become Self-Moving Souls, that is, possess free will. We had a debate before about what a self-moving soul would even mean, in another thread. The Dunyain seem to believe that making choices in response to stimuli is deterministic, and that all humans, themselves included are bound by that. Like, a train is coming, and you're on the tracks. You choose to get off, or you choose to stay on the tracks. The Dunyain wouldn't call that free will, they'd say that you were bound by circumstance (the train).

The Dunyain idea then is that, you control all circumstance, you become the prime mover. That train is there because you made it show up there, you are there because you decided to be there, etc. But then that leads to the question: Do you move or don't you move? We don't know what a Self-moving soul would do, or how it would even work. The train is there because you put into action the events that put it there, the same with yourself. At some point, though, there was a reason you made this situation occur, and that reason means you aren't a self-moving soul. But the Dunyain are all about Determinism and Free Will. Also Kellhus is a really clear Ubermensch. He creates his own moral system, and surpasses humanity.

[Guest Raidne]

And here I thought all the useful stuff being done on those issues today was in cognitive science and cognitive psychology?

You know, we have passed beyond the medieval period on all things human nature and may now further our investigation of them by actually undertaking an empirical study of they work!

Personally, I think Iskarul said more in one post of interest in a thread we had on this in GC than Bakker did over three books.

[jurble]

And here I thought all the useful stuff being done on those issues today was in cognitive science and cognitive psychology?

Well the Dunyain do seem be stuck with Medieval level technology, for all their brain power. Kellhus didn't look at a Skin-spy and think "GENETIC ENGINEERING!"

[Guest Raidne]

The train is there because you put into action the events that put it there, the same with yourself. At some point, though, there was a reason you made this situation occur, and that reason means you aren't a self-moving soul.

But the Dunyain are all about Determinism and Free Will. Also Kellhus is a really clear Ubermensch. He creates his own moral system, and surpasses humanity.

Okay, I split this, because what you say in the first paragraph, which I agree with, is irreconcilable with what you say in the second paragraph, and that's why I tend to think the "philosophy" in PoN is stupid. But as a psychological exercise - say, the more you can control circumstances, the less you are controlled by stimuli, etc., it's fine. Because as psychology there's no reason to have a prime mover, self-moving soul, whatever. It's perfectly fine to just be *more* self-moving than other people. But then renders the whole issue philosophically uninteresting. Which it is. And that's my whole point.

ETA: Let me ask it this way: why does Kellhus want to become the aspect-emperor? (or whatever it is he's striving to be - I may get this wrong, since I didn't finish the trilogy).

[Nerdanel]

Kellhus wants to become the Aspect-Emperor because he wants to control all the circumstances he possibly can. He wants to control all the circumstances because that's how he's been Conditioned. In striving to become totally free, Kellhus is only enslaving himself further to the darkness that comes before him and that he is unable to perceive.

I think the identity and goals of the darkness that comes before Kellhus will be an important plot point.

[Guest Raidne]

So, I take it there is a school of thought that thinks this is like the Matrix Trilogy where the philosophy that is seemingly being espoused in the initial installments is, in actuality, the opposite of the view of that will ultimately prevail?

ETA: By the way, do we no yet why the Consult wants to summon the No-God? Surely there is more to it than that they are teh evil? I read reference to some kind of plan, somewhere?

[Shryke]

Okay, I split this, because what you say in the first paragraph, which I agree with, is irreconcilable with what you say in the second paragraph, and that's why I tend to think the "philosophy" in PoN is stupid. But as a psychological exercise - say, the more you can control circumstances, the less you are controlled by stimuli, etc., it's fine. Because as psychology there's no reason to have a prime mover, self-moving soul, whatever. It's perfectly fine to just be *more* self-moving than other people. But then renders the whole issue philosophically uninteresting. Which it is. And that's my whole point.

I really don't get what you are trying to say here.

The purpose of the Dunyain is to create the Self-Moving Soul. A being who's actions are determined by it's will alone and not by circumstance.

Being more self-moving then those around you is irrelevant. It's like being the top guy in prison. Doesn't matter how powerful you are, you are still in prison.

It doesn't matter if the Dunyain are more self-moving then the rest of the world, they are still puppets of circumstance.

ETA: Let me ask it this way: why does Kellhus want to become the aspect-emperor? (or whatever it is he's striving to be - I may get this wrong, since I didn't finish the trilogy).

Have you read TTT? It's pretty much all laid out there. Although there are arguments about how truthful Kellhus is about his reasons or how sane Kellhus is at all.

[Shryke]

So, I take it there is a school of thought that thinks this is like the Matrix Trilogy where the philosophy that is seemingly being espoused in the initial installments is, in actuality, the opposite of the view of that will ultimately prevail?

..... uh, no, not really.

There is no specific philosophy being espoused by the book. There are questions about the philosophies the characters themselves espouse, but that's one of the big questions of the series. Is Kellhus right? Hell, what does Kellhus even want? We have one explanation, but some believe it's not true or that he's simply gone mad or whatever.

ETA: By the way, do we no yet why the Consult wants to summon the No-God? Surely there is more to it than that they are teh evil? I read reference to some kind of plan, somewhere?

It's all in TTT which, I'm starting to think, you haven't read, yes?