White Luck Warrior VII

[Arthmail]

I like the reflection, I guess I thought it more psychology than philosophy.

Superficial friendship is something I curious about -> You didn't feel that the friendship between Akka and Mimara was genuine? I actually thought that their father-daughter relationship (as complicated as that is given they had sex) was well done.

I also really like the Akka-Esmi relationship, but you could see the stronger, leveled up writing coming from the Akka-Mim one.

ETA: Clarification on philosophy, "Superficial friendship is something I curious about"

Perhaps i'm wrong in this, but i see psychology on some level as the state of a single man's mind, whereas in Bakker, it is philosophy because it is the state of all mens minds and their place in the universe. I hold a degree in neither, so i could be wrong.

As for superficial friendships, i do think that relationship between Akka and Mimara is fairly complex. But i say relationship, and not friendship. I have a brother, and our relationship is complex, but we are not friends. Friends do not treat each other like people in the Bakkerverse do. Now, that is simply my definition of course, and yours may vary. But even with Akka and Esmi, i did not feel genuine warmth between the characters. Perhaps this is because Bakker manages to sully and make everything seem base, i don't know. But i would not say they were friends.

It's a problem that i have with most of modern fantasy. There are few that i feel are more than surface, that are genuine. It may be that i am only looking at it through my own rose tinted glasses, i happen to have great friends, but i think there should be some reflection of genuine warmth in characters. Game of Thrones, for instance, has very little in terms of genuine friendship for the sake of friendship and not gain. Ned Stark and Robert are a possible exception, but that did not see much screen time. Jon and that fat Tully kid might be friends, but its a basic level - or at least i feel it is. Jon feels sorry for the fat kid, and the coward looks up to the nice guy. Lord of the Rings had some great friendships - namely Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, Aragorn and Gandalf, Sauron and the Witch King (what an odd couple!).

Maybe i've hit on the head why i really like David Gemmell, amongst other reasons. The people in his books genuinely like each other, and work towards their benefit. A prime example of that is the Troy series. The friendshi of Banockles (one of the best characters in modern literature to be honest with you), and Kalliades is genuine and lasting.

But i've really derailed here.

[Sci-2]

Great post - I don't think you derailed at all. I'm not sure it is psychology or philosophy either TBH.

[Antonius Pius]

As for superficial friendships, i do think that relationship between Akka and Mimara is fairly complex. But i say relationship, and not friendship. I have a brother, and our relationship is complex, but we are not friends. Friends do not treat each other like people in the Bakkerverse do. Now, that is simply my definition of course, and yours may vary. But even with Akka and Esmi, i did not feel genuine warmth between the characters. Perhaps this is because Bakker manages to sully and make everything seem base, i don't know. But i would not say they were friends.

You may be on to something here. I'd agree that there isn't much pure friendship in Bakker´s work. The only exception I can think of is Akka and Zin, and that one goes down the drain with their capture and torture.

Between Akka and Esmi there is real love, but I wouldn't call it friendship. Their lives have been too different for that to occur, as well as the constant knowledge that at some point, Akka would be recalled by the Mandate. Akka and Mim have a way more complex relationship, as they've had sex and yet still want to continue to pretend they're father and daughter.

It's a problem that i have with most of modern fantasy. There are few that i feel are more than surface, that are genuine. It may be that i am only looking at it through my own rose tinted glasses, i happen to have great friends, but i think there should be some reflection of genuine warmth in characters. Game of Thrones, for instance, has very little in terms of genuine friendship for the sake of friendship and not gain. Ned Stark and Robert are a possible exception, but that did not see much screen time. Jon and that fat Tully kid might be friends, but its a basic level - or at least i feel it is. Jon feels sorry for the fat kid, and the coward looks up to the nice guy. Lord of the Rings had some great friendships - namely Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, Aragorn and Gandalf, Sauron and the Witch King (what an odd couple!).

Good point. I'm struggling to find an example, but I can't find any really good ones. In ASOIAF, Pod is somewhat devoted to Tyrion; Brienne is in love with Jaime, Robb has his sworn swords who also seem dedicated... (drawing blanks) There is real affection in ASOIAF, but most of is either romantic or familial.

I think Ned and Robert's obvious deep friendship is definitely there, but as you said, it doesn't get much screentime.

[Kalbear]

I doubt Bakker would allow anything with rape jokes to be put up, given the research that rapists feel validated by such humor.

Yeah, you'd be wrong.

Good point. I'm struggling to find an example, but I can't find any really good ones. In ASOIAF, Pod is somewhat devoted to Tyrion; Brienne is in love with Jaime, Robb has his sworn swords who also seem dedicated... (drawing blanks) There is real affection in ASOIAF, but most of is either romantic or familial.

Jon and Sam are very good friends. Arya and Gendry, at least as much as Arya allows it to happen. Cat and Brienne. Tyrion and Yoren, and later Tyrion and Bronn (how can you forget Tyrion and Bronn?).

The real issue in ASOIAF is that simply there aren't many friends past the caste status, and that's by design. You can't be friends much with those that you rule any more than you can be friendss with your manager. We learn that lesson in ASOIAF early on with Mycah - step out of line and you can be well and truly fucked. At the same time there are at least illusions of friendships and familial bonds.

In Bakkerverse there really aren't families. There aren't a whole lot of established relationships, and those that are are entirely objectivist in nature; people are basically using each other for gain, sometimes more overt and sometimes less - but Bakker's framing is always about relationships and how people are using each other. Every relationship is a political and psychological war. Everyone is their own little world. Esme is at least screaming out to be part of a greater world but that is denied her with her horrible kids, but that's the dream she has - to have a relationship where there is some trust and love, not just expediency.

But it makes for a fairly lonely book.

On parodies: I would love to see the No-God falling from the sky and questioning everything around him as he reincarnates again and again.

[lokisnow]

On parodies: I would love to see the No-God falling from the sky and questioning everything around him as he reincarnates again and again.

ah. That explains the whale.

[Arthmail]

I'm sympathetic to what Arthmail is saying, but at the same time it leads to me agreeing with Bakker's "it's not my writing; it's your reading" approach.

I absolutely noticed that TJE contained far less attention to "ever do men do...." stuff. That said, I did not notice it too much on my first read of WLW, but I totally noticed it on a reread after I'd, perhaps, been conditioned to notice it.

Yea, but Bakkers approach, as i've seen it, is blaming the reader for not getting it. I get it, i just find that it guts the story and bogs everything down. I'm all for expanding the story beyond the story, as people giving adivce are so often chastising aspiring authors for doing. I like to see the gears work behind the scenes - show me some of the economy so that i know you've worked on it, give me some history. Add depth. But Bakker takes it too far, in my opinion. I GET what he's trying to say the first dozen times, the second dozen times its forced and tiring. You could honestly cut a hundred pages out of each of his books by trimming out the repetitive. I mean, we are on book five, and he's repeating the same concepts he broached in book one. I fucking get it already.

You may be on to something here. I'd agree that there isn't much pure friendship in Bakker´s work. The only exception I can think of is Akka and Zin, and that one goes down the drain with their capture and torture.

Between Akka and Esmi there is real love, but I wouldn't call it friendship. Their lives have been too different for that to occur, as well as the constant knowledge that at some point, Akka would be recalled by the Mandate. Akka and Mim have a way more complex relationship, as they've had sex and yet still want to continue to pretend they're father and daughter.

Good point. I'm struggling to find an example, but I can't find any really good ones. In ASOIAF, Pod is somewhat devoted to Tyrion; Brienne is in love with Jaime, Robb has his sworn swords who also seem dedicated... (drawing blanks) There is real affection in ASOIAF, but most of is either romantic or familial.

I think Ned and Robert's obvious deep friendship is definitely there, but as you said, it doesn't get much screentime.

Akka and Zin did have a good friendship, but it ended in total despair. Everything in Bakker universe ends in total despair. Everything is soiled and broken. Part of the problem that i have with his books is that life isn't that fucking bad, and it never has been. Now, in his universe it clearly is, but i wonder why everyone hasn't killed themselves. No has families or friends that they care about...so what the hell is the point?

Sure, Pod is devoted to Tyrion, and Tyrion is fond of Pod - but thats not friendship. Brienne is in love with Jamie, and he's growing to like her. But admiration and love are not friendship. Robb's sworn swords mean nothing.

Yeah, you'd be wrong.

Jon and Sam are very good friends. Arya and Gendry, at least as much as Arya allows it to happen. Cat and Brienne. Tyrion and Yoren, and later Tyrion and Bronn (how can you forget Tyrion and Bronn?).

Yea, except i'm not wrong. Jon and Sam are not good friends. Frodo and Sam Gamgee were good friends. Banockles and Kalliades, as i mentioned. Jon feels sorry for Sam, but its a little condescending. Jon is an inherintly decent guy, but he doesn't respect Sam. For myself, with my friends, i am friends with them in part because i respect them. And they respect me. It's not patronizing. And with Sam, he's found someone to stand up for him. But i don't see them as friends.

Cat and Brienne. Really? Cat tried to hang her. Cat has no friends, she is vindictive and cold, with her only redeeming feature coming from her love for her family. Brienne is an honourable person, but you are way off the mark if you think these two admire and respect each other. Tyrion and Bronn? Really? I don't know your definition of friendship, and i don't want to get into something personal here, but their relationship is not a friendship to me. It is, as is constantly referred to in text, a matter of convenience for both of them. Given the first chance Tyrion knows that Bronn will turn his allegiance somewhere else, and Bronn does.

For me, the deepest friendship in the books is between Tyrion and Jamie. Not Yoren, that was mutual respect at the most. The brothers relationship is as close to friendship as one can get in the books, and its continious until they part ways with angry words. But there is genuine love between the two. A point of light in an otherwise dreary landscape.

The real issue in ASOIAF is that simply there aren't many friends past the caste status, and that's by design.

Yea, but its a poor design. That there is not one friendship beyond a persons social status seems impossible. One of my favorite things about the tv series Rome in the first year was the relationship between Caesar and his slave, Bosco (spelling). It was witty, and respectful and based on genuine admiration - and the man was still a slave.

In Bakkerverse there really aren't families. There aren't a whole lot of established relationships, and those that are are entirely objectivist in nature; people are basically using each other for gain, sometimes more overt and sometimes less - but Bakker's framing is always about relationships and how people are using each other. Every relationship is a political and psychological war. Everyone is their own little world.

Which is why there are no friendships in Bakkerland, and as a result everything feels a little bit slimy. Its a repugnant philosophy, and does not make for a realistic or pleasant world to journey through.

In my mind, the mark of a friendship to me is if the characters would, after the world has been saved and perils faced down, sit down and still enjoy a pint afterwards. If not, then they are not friends. They are companions of convenience.

[Happy Ent]

Akka and Zin. Sorweel and Zoronga. Seswatha and Nil’giccas. Seswatha and Celmomas, and maybe Nau-Cayûti. Some of the Skin Eaters.

[Arthmail]

Some of you clearly have different views on friendship than i do. Akka and Zin are the only two i could agree to. The Skin Eaters...until this last book i would have agreed with you that some of them were friends. But then Bakker makes them all monsters and they die.

[sologdin]

Bakker's "it's not my writing; it's your reading" approach.

that's a technique that has a long pedigree in philosophy. consider, for example, nietzsche, in the prologue to the genealogy of morals:

If this writing is incomprehensible to someone or other and hurts his ears, the blame for that, it strikes me, is not necessarily mine. The writing is sufficiently clear given the conditions I set out—that you have first read my earlier writings and have taken some trouble to do that, for, in fact, these works are not easily accessible. For example, so far as my Zarathustra is concerned, I don’t consider anyone knowledgeable about it who has not at some time or another been deeply wounded by and profoundly delighted with every word in it. For only then can he enjoy the privilege of sharing with reverence in the halcyon element out of which that work was born, in its sunny clarity, distance, breadth, and certainty. In other cases the aphoristic form creates difficulties. These stem from the fact that nowadays people don’t take this form seriously enough. An aphorism, properly stamped and poured, has not yet been “deciphered” simply by being read. It’s much more the case that only now can one begin to explicate it, and that requires an art of interpretation. In the third essay of this book I have set out a model of what I call an “interpretation” for such a case.—In this essay an aphorism is presented, and the essay itself is a commentary on it. Of course, in order to practice this style of reading as art, one thing is above all essential, something that today has been thoroughly forgotten—and so it will require still more time before my writings are “readable”—something for which one almost needs to be a cow, at any rate not a “modern man”—rumination.

[Sci-2]

Some of you clearly have different views on friendship than i do. Akka and Zin are the only two i could agree to. The Skin Eaters...until this last book i would have agreed with you that some of them were friends. But then Bakker makes them all monsters and they die.

Yeah, that all three surviving Skin Eaters decided to gang rape Mimara had me cringe at the predictable downturn.

ETA: But I do have to say Akka and Zin I thought was rather effective, as well as Sorweel and Zoronga.

Seswatha and Celmomas - Ses sleeps with his wife. I found this a rather pointless tabloid type detail, though perhaps it bears greater fruit in TUC.

[Kalbear]

Yea, except i'm not wrong. Jon and Sam are not good friends. Frodo and Sam Gamgee were good friends. Banockles and Kalliades, as i mentioned. Jon feels sorry for Sam, but its a little condescending. Jon is an inherintly decent guy, but he doesn't respect Sam. For myself, with my friends, i am friends with them in part because i respect them. And they respect me. It's not patronizing. And with Sam, he's found someone to stand up for him. But i don't see them as friends.

Okay. Jon sees Sam as a friend, and Sam sees Jon as a friend. They mention as much in the text. Point of fact, both Jon and Sam lament what Jon's new rank has to do to their friendship and how it changes things.

Friendships aren't always among equals, as you point out with the slaves.

Cat and Brienne. Really? Cat tried to hang her. Cat has no friends, she is vindictive and cold, with her only redeeming feature coming from her love for her family.

Uncat != Cat. And yes, I think Cat and Brienne are friends.

Also, if you have a problem with Jon and Sam being friends you should have a huge problem with Frodo and Sam being friends.

In my mind, the mark of a friendship to me is if the characters would, after the world has been saved and perils faced down, sit down and still enjoy a pint afterwards. If not, then they are not friends. They are companions of convenience.

You don't think Tyrion and Bronn wouldn't sit down afterwards? Or Jon and Sam? Robert and Ned? Robb and Theon? Arya and Gendry? Come on.

Akka and Zin are probably the only ones that would share a drink in Bakkerverse though.

[Kalbear]

Yea, but its a poor design. That there is not one friendship beyond a persons social status seems impossible.

There are some - but they have a cost. And that cost is usually borne by the lower caste. Arya and Micah were friends. Sansa and Jeyne Poole were friends. Margaery and her handmaidens are friends. The Greatjon and Robb are friends. Ned and Jory are friends. But it's not the same kind of friendship that Ned and Robert had.

[Arthmail]

that's a technique that has a long pedigree in philosophy. consider, for example, nietzsche, in the prologue to the genealogy of morals:

It, at no point, makes it right. Bakker goes beyond even that quote, in any case, by trying to normalize the endless introspection of men. I just started WLW again, to see if i could be wrong, and i'm not. Now one could say, but this is what Bakker wants to do. And thats totally fine. I applaud him for trying to do something different. I just don't think it works, and i think his sales reflect that. It has nothing to do with concept and language, and everything to do with execution. I feel sullied after spending time in Bakker's world. I have become the unwashed and unpleasant masses that his text so clearly detests. I almost need to go hang out with my friends, or my wife, to convince myself that people are not all detestible beings of endless self-purpose whose only reward should be continued degredation and possible alien rape.

Okay. Jon sees Sam as a friend, and Sam sees Jon as a friend. They mention as much in the text. Point of fact, both Jon and Sam lament what Jon's new rank has to do to their friendship and how it changes things.

Friendships aren't always among equals, as you point out with the slaves.

Uncat != Cat. And yes, I think Cat and Brienne are friends.

Also, if you have a problem with Jon and Sam being friends you should have a huge problem with Frodo and Sam being friends.

You don't think Tyrion and Bronn wouldn't sit down afterwards? Or Jon and Sam? Robert and Ned? Robb and Theon? Arya and Gendry? Come on.

Akka and Zin are probably the only ones that would share a drink in Bakkerverse though.

Like i've said, i see Jon and Sam less as friends and more as dependents. Jon is a nice guy, and Sam needs a nice guy because he's a craven.

Sure, friendship isn't always amonst equals. I just don't see the famililal connections you keep touting with these people.

Frodo and Sam were great friends because they were willing to do anything for each other, and they proved that. I see no such willingness to throw everything in the ring for the sake of the other with Jon and Sam.

As for sitting down for a drink afterwards, perhaps i didn't clarify my point. These people, the ones you've listed, could sit down and have a drink afterwards. Yes. But would they do it if it was convenient, if they had the time, or because they felt genuine affection, respect, and perhaps even love for each other? Bronn has already betrayed Tyrion for title and land. Robert and Ned would, but they both died in the first book, making what they might have done mute. As i said before, i considered theirs the best friendship in the series and there was very little of actual screen time for it.

To be honest, i wish Martin had stayed with those two men as main characters. I find older main characters infinitely more interesting than a bunch of kids. Tyrion and Jamie are good characters because they are older, they have some experience. Jon Snow is a good man, but not necessarily a good character so much as something of a fantasy cliche.

There are some - but they have a cost. And that cost is usually borne by the lower caste. Arya and Micah were friends. Sansa and Jeyne Poole were friends. Margaery and her handmaidens are friends. The Greatjon and Robb are friends. Ned and Jory are friends. But it's not the same kind of friendship that Ned and Robert had.

Perhaps what i am missing is that the text constantly refers to some people being friends, but we tend to get POVs of people that do not have friends.

I was married in november, and at the time I was - and still am i suppose if my focus on this point is any indication - surprised by the speeches that my friends got up and said on my behalf. I'm a bit of an arrogant fuck, but i like to endlessly have fun. Fart jokes are the funniest form of humour to me. So i thought the speeches would be funny more than poignant. I was wrong. I was credited with everything from inspiring others to saving a friend from death by telling him he should give up drinking. Things i had not really considered, i suppose, at more than a base level. Certainly nothing i would ever give myself credit for.

Which is why i read these books and see nothing of the same order, not even amongst two individuals. Kalbear, if you have not done so, read Gemmell's Troy series. Banockles and Kalliades are what i think of when i think of how i think friendship works in fiction. It is deep and without limits. I do not get that feeling from anyone in Martin after Ned and Robert bite it. In the Bakkerverse, Akka and Zin had it - but as is typical, Bakker degraded one of the characters and then both by having Akka resent Zin.

[unJon]

Callan

Which begs the question, what isn't?

If you find something else more than this, then the attempted philosophy has context in terms of having a shot at questioning it.

Methinks you do not understand what "begs the question" means.

Sologdin

that's a technique that has a long pedigree in philosophy. consider, for example, nietzsche, in the prologue to the genealogy of morals:

Excellent use of irony. Nietzsche is the (or one of the) clearest writer(s) of any philosopher. He's not difficult "to read" at all. You almost never need to read the text multiple times to understand his point.

Arthmail I agree with your original point. The difference in the amount of "navel gazing" between TJE and WLW is atonishing. And the WLW navel gazing is extremely repetitive, which is what I find offensive about it. Several different characters spout the same truths about men at various points in the book. I don't fault Bakker for using a hammer to express his philosophy, I fault him for hitting the horse with the hammer so many times after it quits breathing.

But, you are stretching your point about friendship to utter meaninglessness. And:

I was married in november, and at the time I was - and still am i suppose if my focus on this point is any indication - surprised by the speeches that my friends got up and said on my behalf. I'm a bit of an arrogant fuck, but i like to endlessly have fun. Fart jokes are the funniest form of humour to me. So i thought the speeches would be funny more than poignant. I was wrong. I was credited with everything from inspiring others to saving a friend from death by telling him he should give up drinking. Things i had not really considered, i suppose, at more than a base level. Certainly nothing i would ever give myself credit for.

this bit, come on man. I've given several wedding speeches. Hyperbole is the whole point, once it gets poignant. As EZE used to say: don't get high off your own supply.

[Sci-2]

But, you are stretching your point about friendship to utter meaninglessness.

While I don't know if I 100% agree with him, I think he has a point worth considering. I also thought his wedding speech example was apt and explained what he meant.

Heck, we could go to Bad Boys I & II and see deeper friendship than many of the characters in PoN or ASOIAF.

My counter is that I think there is something to be said in the Akka/Esmi and Akka/Mim relationships about love/friendship. These are sordid affairs, but even when peeling off the conditioning, the insecurities, the codependency, you have something genuine there. And I think, for a lot of people, there is truth in that. So many things go into who we choose to spend our time with and the extent to which we share ourselves, but I think Bakker is saying in spite of all the conditioning and whatever love can be genuine.

Now this finding nugget of gold in piles of "dirt"/"human-fallibility" (however you see it) isn't going to be for everyone - heck I've had the Piano Teacher for five years and I can't make it past the first chapter. Sordid indeed.

Arthmail I agree with your original point. The difference in the amount of "navel gazing" between TJE and WLW is atonishing. And the WLW navel gazing is extremely repetitive, which is what I find offensive about it. Several different characters spout the same truths about men at various points in the book.

Admittedly there was repetition, I just don't remember that much of it. I'll go back myself, perhaps if we make an effort we can deduce whether there is a whole swath of this, enough so the repetition grates, or very little that is being picked up by confirmation bias.

I think it'll be somewhere between the second and third options.

[Arthmail]

But, you are stretching your point about friendship to utter meaninglessness.  And:

this bit, come on man.  I've given several wedding speeches.  Hyperbole is the whole point, once it gets poignant.  As EZE used to say: don't get high off your own supply.

I'm not stretching anything. The speeches at my wedding were not maudlin or drawn out, they had a point, emphasizing things that people feel but so often but do not say. If you're just filling air time with your wedding speeches then so be it, but i don't feel that my friends were, and as you don't know me or my friends its probably better if you don't make assumptions. I often spent time telling my one friend to stop drinking, but did not credit myself with the reason for him doing so. He obviously did.

My point of bringing all of that up is that despite the genuine warmth expressed in the words at my wedding, they were things that i already felt. I knew them inside. I'd rate myself above average on the cynical scale, but it by no means precludes me from understanding and appreciating good friends. I have several times mentioned other books where i thought that the friendships were stronger. You not only see the words on the page, you feel them in the character interactions.

For instance, i just started a second read through of GGK Under Heaven, an excellent book. Now there is a friendship between the main character and an old friend of his that only sees like four or five pages before something happens, but the repercussions of it filter down through the rest of the book. For the entirity of the book, i feel that these two characters were friends. So despite the fact that they, as friends, only had a few pages together, i felt it was more genuine than anything i have seen in Bakker.

Although, i found the relationship between Sorweel and his father - as brief as it was - a strong point in the series. Sciborg 2's statement of finding deeper friendships in Bad Boys is sadly true.

And i do agree with the naval gazing comment. I am reading the book again right now, so perhaps i'll find some better examples, although i might not finish it. I felt very put upon to finish it the first time, because of the problems i have mentioned before.

[Pineapple]

How is the nature of the friendship relevant?

Every soldier in the Holy War was willing to give their life for their fellow man and their Messiah.

The Great Ordeal is trying to save the world. 'Real' or not, is that not out of love and friendship in their eyes?

[Arthmail]

How is the nature of the friendship relevant?

Every soldier in the Holy War was willing to give their life for their fellow man and their Messiah.

The Great Ordeal is trying to save the world. 'Real' or not,  is that not out of love and friendship in their eyes?

Not really. It's blind adherence to faith. Its a holy war, not band of brothers. They're all willing to go off and die either because they fear Khellus, or they are his bitch.

[Spring Bass]

Friendship's a spectrum, not an "either-or" situation. Jon and Sam are friends*, but perhaps not so much as Jon and Robb (before Jon went to the Wall). Jon, Grenn, and Pyp all felt like friends before Jon became Lord-Commander, but Jon wasn't as chummy with them as he was with Sam.

I think you might be getting a bit too caught up in this definition of friendship as an "I would follow you into Mordor!" type of situation, Arthmail.

* And where you see dependency, I see two guys who complement each other in terms of personality and personal strengths.

[Arthmail]

It's all relative, and not really worth belabouring the point any further. I will point out, once again, that the friendships as i define them are not limited just to following people into Mordor - again, see the Troy series by Gemmell, or my recently given example of Under Heaven. Often it is the little things, the little warmths, that i find missing. Still, my problem stems more with the naval gazing and the endless filth that the characters have to crawl through than anything else.

Here is a problem that i find with his prose. Pg 21.

"Dreams are only possessed upon waking, which is why men are so keen to heap words upon them after the fact. They engulf your horizons, pin your very frame to turbulent unreality. They are the hand that reaches beyond the mountains, beyond the sky, beneath the deepest sockets of the earth. They are the ignorance that tyranizes our every choice. Dreams are the darkness that only slumber can illuminate."

Now, this, in and of itself, is not bad. A little much when it starts to get into talking about the mountains, sky, and earth, but otherwise it has some substance to it. But this sort of heavy handed reflection is repeated ad nauseum for thousands of pages, only on different things. It gets a bit heavy handed after awhile. I want to see these people do something, not think endlessly about the filth that they wallow in, or the importance of things like dreams.

But i want to get away from all of this. I think i've beaten my point to death, and i do not think that there is much more that i can say on this subject. Because i skimmed parts of WLW - I cannot abide the naval gazing - i am giving it another go. I will invariably have questions, for which i will return to this thread.