Bakker XIV: Star Trek into Darkness that Comes Before

[Magic 8 Ball]

OK, guys, I've just finished TWP, and this is only the second SFF series I've ever been able to get into after ASOIAF.

Thanks to you guys for recommending this series to me. I find so many other recommended books from both people and media sadly lacking.

One point I'd like to raise to those who are further along, and please don't spoil me here, is I've noticed from looking at this board that a certain Terry Goodkind (who I have not read) gets a lot of stick for many reasons, including being an objectivist and beating this over your head.

Am I the only one who gets a strong objectivist taste off of Kellhus? Granted I don't care much for the guy, but Bakker forces me to "root for him" so far, which is part of why I like this series (i.e., the challenge), but am I off base in getting this Objectivist vibe? I mean, the first quote in the series comes from Nietschke, correct?

Is he showing us Superman, and also showing us why we should hate him? Please give non-spoilery feedback.

[lokisnow]

Yes. (answer to last question)

Also Bakker gets hit with almost as much stick around here as Goodkind does, but for Bakker the stick is generally for seeming a misogynist in his character choices/writing and being grim dark to the nth degree.

There's an argument to be made that with misogyny and grim dark are both being used just like Kellhus, but Kellhus is the explicit one you should notice, and the others suffer from being implicit parallels to the Kellhus argument.

Or to rephrase from your quote:

Is he showing us Superman, and also showing us why we should hate him?

can become, "Is he showing us Grim-Dark, and also showing us why we should hate it?"

or become, "Is he showing us systemic misogyny, and also showing us why we should hate it?"

Bakker is deliberately writing to make us question traditional genre tropes.

[Magic 8 Ball]

Lockesnow : I was about to do a post about how the prologue entices the reader into identifying with Kellhus like a trap, until I just went two pages back and saw what you had just posted - the reader enters the series with a materialistic, cause and effect viewpoint - won't buy into in-universe "gods" or any "God" for that matter, doesn't believe in Magic etc., until Kellhus gets his slap in the face at exactly the same time the reader does.

I also notice how when Kellhus first crosses the Mountains surrounding Ishual, he seems naive to the point of being ridiculous at first - when I read it, I wondered what was the point of having this guy stare at a twig and at a stream full of trout for days on end - now I think it was to mirror the reader's experience of being dropped from a materialistic cause/effect world (Ishual) into a world of fantasy that requires suspension of disbelief (greater Earwa)

Kellhus' disorientation mirrors the mind of the reader trying to "get into" the fantasy novel. Another clever (If a bit clumsier) conceit aimed at getting the reader to identify with a proper douchebag from the outset.

Also, before checking out of this thread so as not to spoil myself, I'd like to say that I agree with you re : the "grimdark" and misogyny -

I'm pretty teflon skinned, and this novel left me saying -

Damn.....

quite a bit. Yet it very rarely felt exploitative and never did it feel pornographic to me, so I think you are correct in this.

TTT incoming in 3-5 business days...

[Guest]

Welcome, but this is really not the thread that you want. Waaaayyy too spoilerish for you. Just mow through the books and then catch up is what I would recommend.

[Happy Ent]

NATMS, welcome to these threads.

No, you are not supposed to root for Kellhus (or indeed anybody). Kellhus’s interaction with Leweth (whom he abandons after using him) should rob you of any illusions about Kellhus.

The figure closest to the author’s sympathies is Achamian. Root for him, if you want to. (But these are not books where you’re supposed to identify with one of the characters.)

Now get out of here before spoilers blow your mind. We look forward to seeing you on the other side of the White-Luck Warrior. The slog of slogs!

[Rhom]

NATMS, welcome to these threads.

No, you are not supposed to root for Kellhus (or indeed anybody). Kellhus’s interaction with Leweth (whom he abandons after using him) should rob you of any illusions about Kellhus.

The figure closest to the author’s sympathies is Achamian. Root for him, if you want to. (But these are not books where you’re supposed to identify with one of the characters.)

Now get out of here before spoilers blow your mind. We look forward to seeing you on the other side of the White-Luck Warrior. The slog of slogs!

THE SLOG OF SLOGS!!!!

To the coffers boys!!!!

[Guest]

THE SLOG OF SLOGS!!!!

To the coffers boys!!!!

It's like we are all at the end of our heart of darkness trek and completely mad, and the only thing we can take any pleasure in is seeing a newcomer embarking on their own slog of slogs.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

A real chopper, boys! The Slog of Slogs!

No Av - welcome and for your own sake avoid this thread henceforth. You can probably find threads for each book further back in the forum (several years back of course).

Personally I think most of the god stuff - Cnaiur in TDTCB and TTT, Onkis and Inrau, etc, is designed for us to see it simply as metaphor or the superstitions of the characters upon first read, and then to recognize the very real presence of the Hundred after reading TJE and WLW.

Something else I've been percolating... We know that Fane wandered into the desert and came out with the Water. We know that Inri Sejenus could heal. Lets assume for the moment that Kellhus is a real prophet - I think his trick with his heart and perhaps his fire-scrying (since it notably does not involve any Cant) could be aspects of a new magic given to/discovered by Kellhus by way of holy revelation.

[Guest]

Do we actually know that Sejenus could heal, or is that just part of his legacy?

[Grim Alex]

Yes. (answer to last question)

Also Bakker gets hit with almost as much stick around here as Goodkind does, but for Bakker the stick is generally for seeming a misogynist in his character choices/writing and being grim dark to the nth degree.

There's an argument to be made that with misogyny and grim dark are both being used just like Kellhus, but Kellhus is the explicit one you should notice, and the others suffer from being implicit parallels to the Kellhus argument.

Or to rephrase from your quote:

can become, "Is he showing us Grim-Dark, and also showing us why we should hate it?"

or become, "Is he showing us systemic misogyny, and also showing us why we should hate it?"

Bakker is deliberately writing to make us question traditional genre tropes.

There was a blog a while back where Bakker explicitly stated why the female characters in the first series embody sexist archetypes (because Kellhus represents modernity, and is offering them (false) liberation from the roles imposed by patriarchy. He's offering them the illusion of freedom, while binding them to his purposes like he does everyone else). I'd argue that he was unsuccessful in this regard, since no one noticed this metaphor before he clarified it. He was trying to get a point across about gender (one I've heard many feminist writers mention - that capitalism frees women only to use them as another resource), but did it in a way that just came off as sexist.

[wolverine]

NATMS, welcome to these threads.

No, you are not supposed to root for Kellhus (or indeed anybody). Kellhus’s interaction with Leweth (whom he abandons after using him) should rob you of any illusions about Kellhus.

The figure closest to the author’s sympathies is Achamian. Root for him, if you want to. (But these are not books where you’re supposed to identify with one of the characters.)

Now get out of here before spoilers blow your mind. We look forward to seeing you on the other side of the White-Luck Warrior. The slog of slogs!

How about Esmenet?

I hate Achamian for some reason and am indifferent to Kellhus.

[Happy Ent]

Nah, I like Esmenet best, but I’m quite sure Bakker is Acka. Esmi isn’t delivering sermons on the power of doubt, or waxing lyrical about the pychology of teaching.

[Castel]

He's not the tall blonde waxing lyrical about the constant deception of men :cool4: ?

[karaddin]

THE SLOG OF SLOGS!!!!

To the coffers boys!!!!

It's ridiculous how big a grin this puts on my face. THE SLOG OF SLOGS!

[Kalbear]

but I’m quite sure Bakker is Acka

Which is funny, since he described himself as basically having the same appearance as Kellhus. I would have thought the same until then.

[sologdin]

AK was his teenage D&D wish-fulfilling self-image (smart guy who talks everyone into pliant sex).

DA is his middle-age jaded academic self-image (surly guy who talks students into pliant sex).

[lokisnow]

A real chopper, boys! The Slog of Slogs!

No Av - welcome and for your own sake avoid this thread henceforth. You can probably find threads for each book further back in the forum (several years back of course).

Personally I think most of the god stuff - Cnaiur in TDTCB and TTT, Onkis and Inrau, etc, is designed for us to see it simply as metaphor or the superstitions of the characters upon first read, and then to recognize the very real presence of the Hundred after reading TJE and WLW.

Something else I've been percolating... We know that Fane wandered into the desert and came out with the Water. We know that Inri Sejenus could heal. Lets assume for the moment that Kellhus is a real prophet - I think his trick with his heart and perhaps his fire-scrying (since it notably does not involve any Cant) could be aspects of a new magic given to/discovered by Kellhus by way of holy revelation.

Maybe, but it's worth remembering Kellhus performs healing in TWP, he heals Esme. He heals her soul, he doesn't heal a physical body though. And iirc, he also heals Serwe in TDTCB, but much more clumsily and I think he did it with less cognizence of what he was doing.

that is to say, Kellhus may misperceive his manipulations and not fully recognize the healing because he's so deluded by his own ridiculous worldview with him as the only awake/aware being amongst a world of animals/children. Kellhus thinks Esme and Serwe think they are healed, and Kellhus thinks that they have fallen for his delusions, but Kellhus may have actually been the deluded one and he actually did heal them, because he was a vehicle of the gods at that point (he had not taken on sorcery. The book even explicitly tells us when he performs his first miracle (haloes appear when he heals Serwe, and haloes again appear when he heals Esmenet. When he performs his circumfixion miracle, halos again appear.

In thinking he deluded others, he was himself deluded.

Do we actually know that Sejenus could heal, or is that just part of his legacy?

How many times must the cock crow, Peter?

Do we actually know that nonmen could work sorcery, or is that just part of their legacy?

Do we actually know that Yatwer could intervene, or is that just part of her legacy?

***

the trick, pulled off over and over again from the very prologue onward is that Bakker relies on our real world assumptions (that natural phenomena is the explanation, or that natural human exaggeration, or that natural human incentives to lie) to explain the supernatural heritage and doings of the world. It's explicitly laid out in the Kellhus thoughts of the prologue and resoundingly refuted therein, yet despite this refutation, Kellhus clings to his assumptions and just tries to ignore the elephant in the room, continuing to underpin all his understandings of the world on demonstrably false premises.

And so we readers continue to cling to what we know as well.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Maybe, but it's worth remembering Kellhus performs healing in TWP, he heals Esme. He heals her soul, he doesn't heal a physical body though. And iirc, he also heals Serwe in TDTCB, but much more clumsily and I think he did it with less cognizence of what he was doing.

that is to say, Kellhus may misperceive his manipulations and not fully recognize the healing because he's so deluded by his own ridiculous worldview with him as the only awake/aware being amongst a world of animals/children. Kellhus thinks Esme and Serwe think they are healed, and Kellhus thinks that they have fallen for his delusions, but Kellhus may have actually been the deluded one and he actually did heal them, because he was a vehicle of the gods at that point (he had not taken on sorcery. The book even explicitly tells us when he performs his first miracle (haloes appear when he heals Serwe, and haloes again appear when he heals Esmenet. When he performs his circumfixion miracle, halos again appear.

In thinking he deluded others, he was himself deluded.

How many times must the cock crow, Peter?

Do we actually know that nonmen could work sorcery, or is that just part of their legacy?

Do we actually know that Yatwer could intervene, or is that just part of her legacy?

***

the trick, pulled off over and over again from the very prologue onward is that Bakker relies on our real world assumptions (that natural phenomena is the explanation, or that natural human exaggeration, or that natural human incentives to lie) to explain the supernatural heritage and doings of the world. It's explicitly laid out in the Kellhus thoughts of the prologue and resoundingly refuted therein, yet despite this refutation, Kellhus clings to his assumptions and just tries to ignore the elephant in the room, continuing to underpin all his understandings of the world on demonstrably false premises.

And so we readers continue to cling to what we know as well.

I know it's not entirely reliable because it's from Serwe's POV, but when the Fanim are attacking the Inrithi camp at Anwurat in TWP, and the skin spy poses as AK to bang Serwe, she still sees haloes on its hands. Is this just something she's projecting onto the skin-spy Kellhus?

[lokisnow]

that is the delimma, Serwe sees the haloes on the skin spy, wtf does that mean. For a long time we've interrpreted that to mean that all the halo visions are illusions/projections, but what if there is something else going on that is more earwa-metaphysical and less earth-psychological?

[Francis Buck]

Are Serwe and Kellhus's own POV the only ones where the haloes appear?

EDIT: Oh, and I just happened to see this, which is creepily close to how I imagined the gnosis.