Jump to content

Bakker XII: Spoilers for PON, TJE, and WLW


Spring Bass

Recommended Posts

Hm… more like police state. That’s pretty close to Sweden. Modernism can’t be achieved without breaking some eggs, a certain fettering of individualism and harmonisation of opinion must be tolerated. But I’m confident that Kellhus’s society is more meritocratic, more bureaucratic than what came before. Without evidence I claim that he’d abolish the caste system if the cults let him. (But that has low priority—he has a war to win.)

This may remind you of police states, but it reminds me of suicide attacks by extremists, especially religious fanatics. I also don't see a certain fettering of individualism, i see a complete and outer destruction of it by cultivating blind religious fanatism and an attempt at absolute control of public opinion. You know, like what a dictator would attempt to do ... Not that i agree with tampering with public opinion or individualism for that matter. As i've stated already, there is never a good enough reason to take away a man's freedom. If you really think you know what's best for him, try to educate and convince him by using your logical arguments. It's his right to chose to follow or ignore you. As for the cults preventing him from abolishing the caste system, it's a little unfounded supposition and besides, he has already destroyed cults just because they opposed his will so i don't think they would stop him if he truly wanted to make changes.

I have no idea if he misleads humanity. He is the god, after all. But he certainly lies, no question about that. He is an avatar of utilitarianism, after all. That’s quite a modern sentiment.

When you lie to someone, you are misleading him. I don't doubt that he believes he is saving humankind, still he uses deception to achieve what he believes is right and enforce it on others. The fact that he is an avatar of utilitarianism doesn't mean that he wants or intends to modernize anything. In fact the current society as he has shaped it provides him the shortest path to do whatever he wants so he has no reason to change it. As for him being the God, that's your own opinion and in no way proven to be a fact. Just because Kellhus or Maitha claim something doesn't mean it's the truth.

The societal role of the cult of Yatwer is to stabilise this predicament. They are exactly not calling their followers to revolt against their superiours. Instead, they build a code of ethics where the inferiors take pride in their position. It’s utterly despicable, and one of Bakker’s most interesting inventions. To some extent it fulfils the same role that Christianity has played in ennobling the plight of several other underclasses (Negro slaves in the United States, for example).

I partially agree with what you say here, but you either chose to ignore or you misinterpreted the rest of my post about the cult of Yatwer so i will say it again. When the common people are uneducated their leader is responsible. He had 20 years to make changes but he chose not to. You can argue that he has a war to prepare and humanity to unite, but doing nothing for the little people didn't seem to work favorably for his cause, did it? And as for them not calling their followers to revolt against their superiors :

"We shall stoke!" she moaned and roared. "We shall foment! We shall teach those who give what it means to take!"

Even the figurehead leader of the cult clearly attempts to rebel against her Empress till Kellhus intervenes.

Now I don’t follow. Kellhus is not perpetuating aristocracy system. He has built a society with several other paths to power (a bureaucracy and a religion.)

He hasn't built anything, he kept the Ikurei's bureaucracy and he took control of the already established religion. The fact that he didn't attempt to change a thing that doesn't affect him or his plans offers no absolution for him. A leader is not responsible only for his actions, but for his inaction as well.

Now you’re just pushing buttons, I think. Race? Where does that even enter into it? And as for gender, Kellhus is a feminist, including an almost farcically didactic speech to Esmi about gender equality. You may not like him, and his reason for emancipating women is entirely ulterior, but he single-handedly rewrote the Tusk and started a School for women.

I don't like pushing buttons, and i certainly don't feel strong enough for a fictional character to do so. He did use every kind of polarizing idea during the holy war including that of unclean races. As for him believing in gender equality i said as much already. Did he publicly proclaim it though? I don't think so. The public opinion still thinks that women are inferior and he could easily change that within a day since he is considered God. As for the School for women, he allowed it because he needs it. As for rewriting the Tusk, i posted a quote of his about that in my previous post. He changed what he needed to make himself the one and only truth in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, i liked Akka. But he's not your traditional main character. He's decent, but oh so weak, and it gets tiresomes watching him flounder about and feel sorry for himself. This aspect of his character, his self-pity, is tiresome. It was for me, and i think others found it as well.

That being said, i sensed something great in him as a character from the very beginning. And my good faith was rewarded in the Judging Eye, when he became so much more. He came into his own, in a way. Which is why i still emphasis the fact that if Bakker has Khellus stay three steps ahead of Akk for the rest of the series, i'm done. I would like to see Akka do something beyond the pale, to return to his student and teach him the better part of humility. Like how i wish i could see old Ben Kenobi kick Darth Vader's ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the cults preventing him from abolishing the caste system, it's a little unfounded supposition and besides, he has already destroyed cults just because they opposed his will so i don't think they would stop him if he truly wanted to make changes.

I seem unable to find my book right now (have to hurry). There is a quote somewhere hinting at “the changes we’ve brought” or something like that, possibly in a conversation between Maitha and Esmi. It’s not very detailed, but it makes it quite clear that there is a strong backlash from the cults against Kellhus’s New Empire. Maybe somebody can find this quote, otherwise I’ll hunt for it (and the book) tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem unable to find my book right now (have to hurry). There is a quote somewhere hinting at “the changes we’ve brought” or something like that, possibly in a conversation between Maitha and Esmi. It’s not very detailed, but it makes it quite clear that there is a strong backlash from the cults against Kellhus’s New Empire. Maybe somebody can find this quote, otherwise I’ll hunt for it (and the book) tonight.

Here it is :

"But you know the answer to this, Esmi. The Cultists themselves are no more or no less foolish than other Men. They see only what they know, and they argue only to defend what they cherish. Think of the changes my brother has wrought..."

He is talking about the changes in Inrithism or at least that's how i interpreted the comment. That still doesn't change the fact that he destroyed most cults that defied him and that he would have been better served if he had treated the little people better. The cult of Yatwer initially received Kellhus as a savior, so he had a real chance at changing things for the better and not just for his benefit. But 20 years of oppression convinced them that he must be a demon instead of God, and that's why the JE ended with a small uprising.

I think HE is right in that Kellhus is modernism, it's just that modernism isn't just Sweden, modernism is also Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

Wow, the mighty Galactus, shouldn't you send the Silver Surfer to post this for you :P?

I always thought that Dunyain represent a kind of perverse modernism, which ironically contains a healthy dose of hidden conservatism in the way they deny the existence of everything they can't explain. Kellhus, in my view, represents the concealed totalitarianism of today. His tactics are suspiciously similar to the ones used by the governments and the media to alter the perception of reality in order to forward their agendas.

Take the war on Iraq for example. The allegation that the Iraq regime was hiding weapons of mass destruction was what convinced most US citizens that war with Iraq was inevitable. Even 2 years after the war had ended and even though those hidden weapons were never found, more than 50% of US citizens continued to believe that the allegation was truthful. A good example of how media manipulates human nature. The fact that this whole propaganda was so successful, despite the fact that Bush isn't the smartest man out there, just goes to show how systems like the one i describe once set, keep on working and improving in efficiency regardless of the individuals that act as figureheads each time. I mean, so many people were killed, and so many resources misused that could otherwise help improve the health or the educational system, for the benefit of the US war and oil industry, and still close to half of the US populace thought it was the right choice to make.

But good education, or more like lack of it is what makes those systems so effective. Most countries in the world have dreadful educational systems and that's not an accident. Good education gives birth to individuality, and individuality is unpredictable and hard to control. The 7% that the Swedish Pirate Party gathered in the European Parliament election demonstrates that individuality, and yes, i know that they flopped in this year's national elections, but Rome wasn't built in a day ;). There are also the French citizens, individuals that know their rights and usually cause an uprising whenever those rights are threatened.

It's all about education, and Kellhus knows this very well. That's why he is satisfied when tradition takes the place of history and faith the place of reason. I am curious though, how would he cope with the delicious slice of chaos that is the internet ?

Personally, i liked Akka. But he's not your traditional main character. He's decent, but oh so weak, and it gets tiresomes watching him flounder about and feel sorry for himself. This aspect of his character, his self-pity, is tiresome. It was for me, and i think others found it as well.

That being said, i sensed something great in him as a character from the very beginning. And my good faith was rewarded in the Judging Eye, when he became so much more. He came into his own, in a way. Which is why i still emphasis the fact that if Bakker has Khellus stay three steps ahead of Akk for the rest of the series, i'm done. I would like to see Akka do something beyond the pale, to return to his student and teach him the better part of humility. Like how i wish i could see old Ben Kenobi kick Darth Vader's ass.

What, you didn't like Darth Vader? I am with you by the way, Dark Helmet was way cooler :P.

To tell you the truth, i wasn't much fond of the changes in Akka in the beginning of the JE. He is certainly driven, yes, but the methods he is prepared to use are too much like Kellhus. He intends to sacrifice unknowing victims in order to get his vengeance. Gone is his introspection and compassion, traits that made him a good guy despite his other flaws. By the end of the book he has found himself again though, mainly thanks to Mimara's influence. I was very impressed when he kept silent when the Skin Eaters were deciding what to do after Cil-Aujas, even though he had that dream down there.

I also really liked the way Bakker handled the relationship between him and Mimara. It was touching, seeing two broken people rediscovering the merit of caring for one another after so long.

Mimara is also an awesome female character. Like her mother, she has went through hell, but unlike Esme she never compromised or gave up on her dream. She also showcased impressive integrity, and compassion, even going as far as to risk her life for Akka, a man which few months ago was a total stranger to her. In the end she is literally the antithesis of Esme for Akka. Where her mother cast Akka down in the end of PON, Mimara helped him get up which i found very poetic. What can i say, i love Bakker's work!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think HE is right in that Kellhus is modernism, it's just that modernism isn't just Sweden, modernism is also Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.

… or maybe China. I’m fine with all of these comparisons. The point is that his society is meritocratic and bureaucratic, rather than caste-based or aristocratic. If he could, he’d abolish the caste system, not because he finds it unjust, but because he finds it ineffective. (But, as the cult of Yatwer shows us, you cannot just eradicate a who belief system about which people have personhood with a generation. In particular in Eärwa, where the reactionary forces manifest an avatar, the White Luck Warrior.)

Bakker is an avowed modernist, but to his credit he shows us the society that Kellhus stands for with all warts. He has to sacrifice Serwë, for example. And he consistently puts us in the POV of people who oppose Kellhus; like telling the Lord of the Rings from the POV of Denethor, or A Song of Ice and Fire from the point of Davos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

… or maybe China. I’m fine with all of these comparisons. The point is that his society is meritocratic and bureaucratic, rather than caste-based or aristocratic. If he could, he’d abolish the caste system, not because he finds it unjust, but because he finds it ineffective. (But, as the cult of Yatwer shows us, you cannot just eradicate a who belief system about which people have personhood with a generation. In particular in Eärwa, where the reactionary forces manifest an avatar, the White Luck Warrior.)

Bakker is an avowed modernist, but to his credit he shows us the society that Kellhus stands for with all warts. He has to sacrifice Serwë, for example. And he consistently puts us in the POV of people who oppose Kellhus; like telling the Lord of the Rings from the POV of Denethor, or A Song of Ice and Fire from the point of Davos.

As i've said already he uses the exact bureaucratic system he inherited from the Ikureis (its explicitly stated in the JE), the only thing he touched was religion. This had, i admit, some modernistic side effects but they were just that. He does everything he can not trying to modernize society, but to impose his will. In that respect, meritocracy doesn't suit him, because more capable people also means more unpredictability and more probable and capable opposition. Every closed system has to minimize chaos and find ways to gradually suppress opposition in order to survive. Spinrad has written an excellent book arguing just that ("Agent Of Chaos"), but the Goebbels anecdote about the hot watter and the frog also applies i think.

I will agree that public perception resists change and it's even more evident by what we see through Mimara's Judging Eye. Even the damnation on sorcerers still stands, despite the proclamations to the contrary by Kellhus.

Now let me try to clarify something. I have nothing against modernism or any idea for that matter. Take capitalism or communism for example. Both systems have their merit in theory, what creates problems is the way these are applied and the motives of the people that are applying them.

As for Bakker, i don't believe he is an avowed anything. I don't doubt he likes modernism, i just don't think he is the kind of person that would limit himself by setting one idea above and beyond others. To me, he seems more concerned with the realities of today and were they lead. He has made several blog posts criticizing the way public opinion is manipulated and there is even some old thread somewhere, where he was expressing his concern about how modern advertising works. I also don't believe he takes sides in the way that you imply. He is just showing us the way we are treated by our leaders today through Kellhus, and the ignorance of the masses through the beliefs of the people of Earwa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know if we've already heard this, but here's my library's blurb for White Luck Warrior. No big surprises, but interesting.

Spoiler
Widely praised by reviewers and a growing body of fans, R. Scott Bakker has already established his reputation as one of the few unique new talents in the fantasy genre. Now he returns with the long-awaited The White Luck Warrior--the second book in the Aspect-Emperor series. As Anasûrimbor Kellhus and his Great Ordeal march ever farther into the wastes of the Ancient North, Esmenet finds herself at war with not only the Gods, but her own family as well. Achamian, meanwhile, leads his own ragtag expedition to the legendary ruins of Sauglish, and to a truth he can scarcely survive, let alone comprehend. Into this tumult walks the White-Luck Warrior, assassin and messiah both. The White Luck Warrioris a story filled with heartstopping action, devious treachery, grand passion, and meticulous detail. It is both a classic quest tale and a high fantasy war story. Distributed by Syndetic Solutions, Inc.

I don't know how much we can trust this blurb, but I am surprised that they would refer to the White Luck Warrior as "assassin and messiah both". I didn't expect much preaching/proselytizing from the WLW, since when he was summoned he just ran off without a word. Also, apparently Achamian makes it to Sauglish relatively early (since its in the blurb), and therefore might have the time to journey to Ishual in book 2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice twist of the thread so far. Welcome, SkiesOfAzel.

I think that it's clear Kellhus represents not freedom but modernity. He is certainly giving more rights to women, rights they've never had or thought about having - but that is still an illusive freedom at best, as it comes entirely at the cost of serving Kellhus. In all other ways he is about denying people their freedoms and yoking them to his view. His modernity is not democratic or even remotely republican; it is a religious dictatorship, complete with cult of personality, secret police, thought crimes and massive war efforts against unseen foes.

Is that worth the removal of sexism (or at least the reduction of it)? That was the question Bakker said he wanted to raise - or at least, one of them. Is modernity and all of its failed trappings worth it for what it has wrought? Is it okay to remove sexism for entirely utilitarian motives, instead of for its own sake? I still believe that the central premise he was arguing starts with a failed point (that the industrial revolution promoted women to workers because it was required, which is demonstrably false and trivially proved otherwise) but the question is still interesting: if the motives are false but the results are good, does it matter what the motives are?

And going on a larger scale, does it matter what Kellhus' motives are if he ends up saving the world from apocalypse? Even if he wants to become a true god and worshipped by all, is that better or worse than the world being consumed by rape demons and most of humanity wiped out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone said something earlier about hating Kellhus, which I find interesting, because I like the guy. With his upgraded Gnosis technique, super-genetics, and Dunyain training, he's pretty much a walking god. In a world with the Consult bent upon resurrecting the No-God, raping Inchori, and hungry Sranc, Kellhus is humanity's best hope of uniting to stay alive. Humans would live pretty much as slaves to Kellhus though, as Cnaiur had already figured out for himself.

In a world with no alien threats Kellhus would easily be the antagonist. But hey, I'd rather live in slavish devotion to Kellhus than be crucified to one of those human torture walls that Seswatha experienced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And sides, being directly under Kellhus would be rather nice. From their perspective everything's rather peachy - their service to a living God guarantees them a get-out-of-damnation free card, and as Cnaiur so frighteningly pointed out. "They make us love." He makes people his slaves, but for the most part they don't really mind. Now, this isn't to say he hasn't caused plenty of suffering, but on the flip side he's a pretty good evil overlord as far as evil overlords go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice twist of the thread so far. Welcome, SkiesOfAzel.

Thanks :).

I think that it's clear Kellhus represents not freedom but modernity. He is certainly giving more rights to women, rights they've never had or thought about having - but that is still an illusive freedom at best, as it comes entirely at the cost of serving Kellhus. In all other ways he is about denying people their freedoms and yoking them to his view. His modernity is not democratic or even remotely republican; it is a religious dictatorship, complete with cult of personality, secret police, thought crimes and massive war efforts against unseen foes.

I totaly agree, a freedom given that can be taken back with a word, isn't a freedom, it's a leash.

Is that worth the removal of sexism (or at least the reduction of it)? That was the question Bakker said he wanted to raise - or at least, one of them. Is modernity and all of its failed trappings worth it for what it has wrought? Is it okay to remove sexism for entirely utilitarian motives, instead of for its own sake? I still believe that the central premise he was arguing starts with a failed point (that the industrial revolution promoted women to workers because it was required, which is demonstrably false and trivially proved otherwise) but the question is still interesting: if the motives are false but the results are good, does it matter what the motives are?

While i certainly can't speak for Bakker, i do think that motives are very important. If you oversimplify things, yes, result are what counts but for how long can you expect good results when the motives are not? Is it responsible to leave things like that to the laws of casualty? I am not trying to take the moral high ground here, i am just looking at the problem from a practical point of view.

And going on a larger scale, does it matter what Kellhus' motives are if he ends up saving the world from apocalypse? Even if he wants to become a true god and worshipped by all, is that better or worse than the world being consumed by rape demons and most of humanity wiped out?

Well, that's the big important question isn't it? This is the question that every human being has to answer for him/herself. Benjamin Franklin said that He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither, and i personally agree with him. I also believe that there are worse things than death in the world. Besides, everything and everyone ends sometime, it's the how that matters the most. Would you prefer a tortured but quick end, or a slow, decaying stupefied existence, living a life you couldn't even call your own? And besides, why should Kellhus's way be the the only way for humanity to survive? Because he thinks so?

Someone said something earlier about hating Kellhus, which I find interesting, because I like the guy. With his upgraded Gnosis technique, super-genetics, and Dunyain training, he's pretty much a walking god. In a world with the Consult bent upon resurrecting the No-God, raping Inchori, and hungry Sranc, Kellhus is humanity's best hope of uniting to stay alive. Humans would live pretty much as slaves to Kellhus though, as Cnaiur had already figured out for himself.

Well, it's easy to be impressed by the guy, he is everyones childhood dreams personified, at least till you take a look under the hood :P. As for him being the best hope for humanity's survival, i truly doubt that. I also believe that a society or a species has to earn the right to survive, and Kellhus is an outsider both socially and genetically. Besides, humanity managed well enough last time, and Seswatha was very very human ;). He also managed to unite humanity without taking their free will from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don’t understand in your argument is what Kellhus took. It sounds as if you think that Kellhus’s New Empire is a step back—but it’s not as if the Three Seas enjoyed any kind of freedom before Kellhus. Certainly the cult of Yatwer did nothing to give anybody any kind of freedom. On the contrary Theirs is a cult of servitude; I expressed my distaste for it above.

Kellhus’s society is a step from a religion-sanctioned caste system towards utilitarianism. But you make it sound as if society has become less free under Kellhus. Is this only because we get so many POVs from subversive or sceptical factions (Sorweel, the Yatwerians, the constantly fretting Empress) rather than the glorious scions of House Ikurei? Are you being misled by Yatwerian propaganda to believe that slaves were better off during Xerius? They weren’t. Yatwerian cultists were, because theirs was the dominant religion among the lower castes. Now Kellhus has acquired countless followers among those who had nothing. That doesn’t make those followers less free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kellhus’s society is a step from a religion-sanctioned caste system towards utilitarianism. But you make it sound as if society has become less free under Kellhus. Is this only because we get so many POVs from subversive or sceptical factions (Sorweel, the Yatwerians, the constantly fretting Empress) rather than the glorious scions of House Ikurei? Are you being misled by Yatwerian propaganda to believe that slaves were better off during Xerius? They weren’t. Yatwerian cultists were, because theirs was the dominant religion among the lower castes. Now Kellhus has acquired countless followers among those who had nothing. That doesn’t make those followers less free.

This is explicitly spelled out in the text. The lower castes (common soldiers, slaves, peasants) had little problem transitioning from an absent god to a present one, because their station remained the same. It was the nobles and priests that were resistant to bowing before Kellhus, because power is a zero sum game, and in order to give him power they had to surrender some of their own.

The Yatwerians are resistant to this change not because he is enslaving the people. They were already slaves. Instead they are against this shift in power, and use the language of their cult in order to express the "rightness" of their cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Yatwerians are anti-Kellhusian because he has reduced the power of the Cults. AFAIK, the Yatwerians don't even seem to believe in The God, they seem like Tusk-ist throwbacks.

Kellhus is anti-Cult in general, because by nature they oppose The God by serving one of his fragments. Pure Zaudunyani Inrithism probably resembles Fanimry with its focus on The God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kellhus is anti-Cult in general, because by nature they oppose The God by serving one of his fragments.

Nah, I think that’s too strong. Zaudunyai Inrithism is completely compatible with the idea that the god has fragments. Sorweel's teacher explains this well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...