The Judging Eye VIII (spoilers)

[unJon]

However, I would definitely argue that no sane Nonman would willingly join the Consult. I hazard that all working for the Consult are Erratic but not all Erratics work for the Consult.

Disagree. A sane non-man sorcerer, knowing he was damned, might willingly join the Consult in attempting the seal the world.

[Madness]

Fair, unJon, but think about it.

Erratic in Earwa equals unable to remember anything but physical and emotional negatives in their lives. I figure that even Erratic Nonmen probably think twice about joining the Consult, if they remember anything about the Cuno-Inchoroi wars, and I have to assume that losing all the women of your race is pretty traumatic. The Nonmen are immortal and not even a target like the Consult, thus have even less concern of damnation than the already controversially limited concern the Inchoroi or Consult have for it.

Sane would mean remembering the loss of the women of your race and who was responsible. I don't think they care about damnation so much as their loved ones.

Edit: To be fair, anor, I'm pretty sure that the tribe at the end of TWP saw a handful of Nonmen Erratics with Aurax so there must be a sizable number of them working with the Consult.

[anor277]

Fair, unJon, but think about it.

...............

Edit: To be fair, anor, I'm pretty sure that the tribe at the end of TWP saw a handful of Nonmen Erratics with Aurax so there must be a sizable number of them working with the Consult.

Fair enough, but these same erratics are as dangerous as friends and allies as enemies.

PS just made an edition in the earlier post, forgive me, that's not netiquette.

[Madness]

I thought that's what you meant in the original but then I thought about it: even if the Nonmen have human slaves, I don't think it would be realistic for the Consult only to have gotten spies into Ishterebinth in the last three hundred years - which is the limit for Tekne skin-spies. They must have been watching the Mansion before that, which implies Nonmen spies.

[gladius]

I could be wrong, but I got the impression that only erratics remain,

Those, who live in Ishterebinth control themselves. The true erratics are addicted to violence, pain and suffering.

[Shryke]

Well, the point of using nonmen language is that you don't think differently. You think the same way using the same words that have exactly the same meaning. That's why it's gnosis, and not anagnosis.

No, it's not that you don't think differently, it's to avoid the contamination of your meanings by using words you use every day.

The meanings themselves are what's important and many of those may not translate exactly or well or at all from Non-men to Human thought.

The language is just an opaque container for those meanings.

[Nerdanel]

Commenting on a few snippets here:

And the only erratic we know of (M), fought for and against the Consult.

Mekeritrig did not say that. He said that he fought for and against the No-God. The difference may seem small but I think it's significant.

For one thing, it is evidence for the No-God being more than just a tool of the Consult. It even makes it sound like the No-God was in charge. For another, we cannot assume that Mekeritrig was only referring to the time of the First Apocalypse. If my theory about the No-God being Su'juroit is correct, Mekeritrig could well have fought against the No-God when the No-God was still a mortal Nonman king.

Erratic in Earwa equals unable to remember anything but physical and emotional negatives in their lives.

There is a connection to be made here. The connection is to the Seswatha dreams. Considering that the dreams are based on Seswatha's memories, it makes one think about the spread and causes of the Erratic condition.

By the way, I think the anomalous "mundane" dreams Achamian had were fakes sent to deceive him. One might think over the years some other Mandate Schoolmen had had dreams of that sort if they were real, but no. We also know that the dream sendings sorcerers use to communicate can override Seswatha dreams and the content of those sent dreams can apparently be anything...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I need some help here.

I just finished "The Thousandfold Thought" last night. Now, I liked the first two, but this one....Well, by the time I was a third of the way through, I found myself rooting for Conphas and the Consult. I don't mind despising Kellhus as much as I despise all the other characters (with the occasional exception of Achamian) worshipping the guy. And even Cnaiur got annoyingly unstoppable at some point. And the philosophizing got thicker and thicker.... So now, I'm seriously rooting for the return of the No-God and the end of humanity. Is that wrong?

Anyway, I got about maybe half way through, decided I couldn't stand it any more and skipped to the last chapter or so. Achamian gives the big FU to Kellhus, which was worthwhile. But other than that, I don't think I missed much by skipping ahead, which is kind of scary in a doorstopper like that.

So my question to you guys who've gone further is that if this is the stuff that is bugging me, should I slog on to the second trilogy or not?

[Kalbear]

So now, I'm seriously rooting for the return of the No-God and the end of humanity. Is that wrong?

No. All of humanity is fucked and the Outside has a bunch of shitty gods who think women suck. Fuck all of them and fuck all of that. Choose Consult. Go Consult!

So my question to you guys who've gone further is that if this is the stuff that is bugging me, should I slog on to the second trilogy or not?

Well, if the thing that bugged you about the book was the worship of Kellhus, there's less of that in the second trilogy; only one of the main PoVs sees that, and it's done in a way to make you question why people worship him in the first place. Most of the book is about people attempting to subvert Kellhus in one fashion or another. There's less philosophizing and navel-gazing as well.

But at the same time the book is about Kellhus, his amazing power, and his godlike charm. It doesn't feature him much, but the book is about him the same way that ASOIAF is about Westeros. So if you don't like that, you probably won't like the latter.

Also, dunno where you skipped ahead from, but if you did you might have missed the giant reveal all of why Kellhus was doing what he was doing, his conversation with his dad, Akka going completely ballistic against an army and then against a demon, the huge final battle, Kellhus becoming Super Saiyan mode and a few other nice set pieces. Those are worth going back to, even if at the end of the day Kellhus wins, everyone loves him and the world is a deluded place.

[aimlessgun]

I need some help here.

Well, The Judging Eye is different than PoN, much faster paced and an easier read, but I think Pat said White Luck Warrior goes back more in the PoN direction.

I didn't quite go so far as rooting for the Consult, but since the start of TTT I don't care who wins anymore. I'm just sticking around for the spectacle, to see what happens. It feels like this should be a problem, but I guess there's enough interesting stuff going on that it isn't. Religious nutbags vs amoral rationalists vs deluded man god vs rape aliens, I'm happy whoever wins.

You really should read at least chapters 15-16 if you're planning on continuing. You definitely miss a lot of stuff there.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No. All of humanity is fucked and the Outside has a bunch of shitty gods who think women suck. Fuck all of them and fuck all of that. Choose Consult. Go Consult!

Well, if the thing that bugged you about the book was the worship of Kellhus, there's less of that in the second trilogy; only one of the main PoVs sees that, and it's done in a way to make you question why people worship him in the first place. Most of the book is about people attempting to subvert Kellhus in one fashion or another. There's less philosophizing and navel-gazing as well.

But at the same time the book is about Kellhus, his amazing power, and his godlike charm. It doesn't feature him much, but the book is about him the same way that ASOIAF is about Westeros. So if you don't like that, you probably won't like the latter.

Also, dunno where you skipped ahead from, but if you did you might have missed the giant reveal all of why Kellhus was doing what he was doing, his conversation with his dad, Akka going completely ballistic against an army and then against a demon, the huge final battle, Kellhus becoming Super Saiyan mode and a few other nice set pieces. Those are worth going back to, even if at the end of the day Kellhus wins, everyone loves him and the world is a deluded place.

Bakker does tend to do battles well, although I started picking up the "we're all about to lose until X unexpected event occured" pattern. I don't mind if it they're trying to subvert Kellhus. But the blind knob-gobbling was getting annoying. Did Bakker just think his readers weren't smart enough to get his criticisms of organized religion unless he beat us over the head for 1000 pages.

How about the philosophizing? Is there less of that? Because sometimes, it was 3-4 pages of some characters introspections, and I almost got to the point of wanting Achamian to die for that as well. But there are some things I do/did like, so I'm honestly torn here.

Oh, and please tell me that Esme dies a horrible death early on in the second trilogy. Whenever she appears, I keep thinking of RJ's characters "mooning" over their paramours, and that's just a double-dose of hell.

I didn't quite go so far as rooting for the Consult, but since the start of TTT I don't care who wins anymore. I'm just sticking around for the spectacle, to see what happens. It feels like this should be a problem, but I guess there's enough interesting stuff going on that it isn't.

I did that with RJ until I realized he was writing the literary version of Zeno's paradox. I wish I had those hours of my life back.

And thanks for the chapter recommendations. I'll do that.

[Happy Ent]

Oh, and please tell me that Esme dies a horrible death early on in the second trilogy.

Esme dies a horrible death early on in the second trilogy.

[aimlessgun]

Esme dies a horrible death early on in the second trilogy.

This could be interpretively true.

[Kalbear]

Or it could be completely false. She is Schrodinger's Whore.

[Madness]

I just have to ask. I realize that say ninety percent of humanity deludes themselves, everyday, in big and small ways, living these psychological fairy tales and I get that people read fantasy to escape and read "fantasy" in all its generic glory but doesn't anyone connect to Bakker's characters at all?

I mean, we're humans, we're fucked up. He's portraying a time in history when woman were less than nothing. When religion defined the very bounds of the world. I don't really see many of us acting too far differently, even my girlfriend doesn't necessarily connect to Esmenet in TDTCB but she, at least, see's the whore as a believable woman and a product of her circumstances. As much as I've heard and read that most of you label Bakker a sexist, I always think it would be so difficult as a man to write believable female characters in fantasy of any caliber.

Anyhow, I'm curious about this. Personally, I think Bakker's a writing genius and a modern day philosopher in all the right contexts. His books are like a mirror sometimes. Most of us a pretty damn ugly on the inside too. I feel he's just being honest.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I just have to ask. I realize that say ninety percent of humanity deludes themselves, everyday, in big and small ways, living these psychological fairy tales and I get that people read fantasy to escape and read "fantasy" in all its generic glory but doesn't anyone connect to Bakker's characters at all?

I mean, we're humans, we're fucked up. He's portraying a time in history when woman were less than nothing. When religion defined the very bounds of the world. I don't really see many of us acting to far differently, even my girlfriend doens't neccessarily connect to Esmenet in TDTCB but she at least see's the whore as a believebly woman and her product of her circumstances. As much as I've heard and read that most of you label Bakker a sexist, I always think it would be so difficult as a man to write believable female characters in fantasy of any caliber.

Anyhow, I'm curious about this. Personally, I think Bakker's a writing genius and a modern day philosopher in all the right contexts. His books are like a mirror sometimes. Most of us a pretty damn ugly on the inside too. I feel he's just being honest.

The problem for me personally is that almost all of his characters have gargantuan-level flaws. A few such characters would add some authenticity and be a nice diversion from the normal plot-driven work. But when almost everyone seems to be a headcase to the point where it is the dominant aspect of their personality and determinative of their actions, I don't derive much pleasure from wallowing in such flaws continuously.

Or maybe a better way to put it is that it seems Bakker has much more disdain for humanity as a whole than I do.

[Kalbear]

Gah. I don't want to get into the Bakker and Women topic again, but the primary argument there was never specifically that Esme is a bad character or even written unrealistically; it was that the world is far, far more horrible than it needs to be, all the women of any reasonable note are defined by sexual aspects (the prize, the harridan, the whore), many are defined by their ability to use sex in one form or another (for childbearing or for simply fucking). That Esme was somewhat badly written wasn't the primary issue.

I just have to ask. I realize that say ninety percent of humanity deludes themselves, everyday, in big and small ways, living these psychological fairy tales and I get that people read fantasy to escape and read "fantasy" in all its generic glory but doesn't anyone connect to Bakker's characters at all?

Given that you're such a Bakker fanboi you should say that 100% of humanity deludes themselves.

Not all of us read fantasy to escape, any more than you watch House to escape. Fantasy does not need to be escapist. The reason this board exists is not because of an escape, it's because of a shared experience that many humans like and like talking about. Entertainment need not be an escape from a mundane world.

Anyhow, I'm curious about this. Personally, I think Bakker's a writing genius and a modern day philosopher in all the right contexts. His books are like a mirror sometimes. Most of us a pretty damn ugly on the inside too. I feel he's just being honest.

I would just state that Bakker would say, very cleanly, that if the books are a mirror for you chances are you're just choosing confirmation bias. Of course the world is that way, because you're that way - and this book is this way because I'm this way! Or...it could be that the world isn't that way, you and Bakker share similar philosophical views and a specific holier than thou kind of attitude and his writing reflects your specific worldview.

Which is great, but don't mistake one person agreeing with you for the world doing so.

[aimlessgun]

While I definitely read the book differently because of the highlighting of cognitive bias, these characters are all people out of the dark ages, and thus very hard to connect to. The assumptions they constantly make are foreign to my way of thinking and annoy me at every turn. The religiousness, even though I know it to be true to our history, annoys me at every turn.

Just because they're a product of circumstances doesn't mean theyre easy to connect to. For some reason I don't care if I'd have turned out the same in their shoes. Fuck these people.

EDIT: Definitely agree with FLOW in that EVERY character being a nutbag makes it harder to take. Like I posted pretty confusingly a while ago, you have no refuge left by the end of the 2nd book.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Gah. I don't want to get into the Bakker and Women topic again, but the primary argument there was never specifically that Esme is a bad character or even written unrealistically; it was that the world is far, far more horrible than it needs to be, all the women of any reasonable note are defined by sexual aspects (the prize, the harridan, the whore), many are defined by their ability to use sex in one form or another (for childbearing or for simply fucking). That Esme was somewhat badly written wasn't the primary issue.

I personally don't think she was written worse than anyone else. My problem with her that I dislike how the other characters behave when she is in the picture. Achamian goes from being interesting to being unbearable.

[aimlessgun]

I think TJE fixes most of your Esmi problems FLOW, and you also get a reasonably sane PoV back in Achamian, plus frankly every other POV is a bit more sane compared to PoN.