Aeternum Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 And he seemed like kind of a decent fellow too and not the the enemy of all decency, too, huh? Don't be fooled. Bakker wasn't wearing pants to the interview, his slick pendulous phallus was just below the camera's frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Technically it was. Though slick? I guess some are in the know! Ah, the heights of literature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Is this the interview where he says part of his inspiration was tons of pornography? Probably not the best move for an author accuses of weird sex shit in his books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castel Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Look for people asserting things. People with opinions. Then quote them and remind them that they are deceived as are all men. But are we ourselves not making assertions? If so, are we also not deceived, like all men? Ever do men flatter themselves, ever do they claim that they see, while the world remains blind. That they alone are awake. Aren't we simply trading presumption for presumption Triskele? Feigning humility to better tower above our fellow man? After all,as the Tusk tells us: he who kneels lowest before the God stands tallest among the fallen... :hat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madness Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Wow...For the next thread I suggest:Bakker - "Where the Fans are the Problem." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callan S. Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 On other matters, the second apocalypse forum art thread is going really nicely at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci-2 Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 On other matters, the second apocalypse forum art thread is going really nicely at the moment. Wow. This is a marked improvement over the Earwa Art thread on Westeros that was just people arguing about the books....with no art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Francis Buck Posted October 18, 2013 Share Posted October 18, 2013 Although the whole thread has good stuff in it, it really started to pick up around page eight. Hopefully we can keep it going strong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted October 18, 2013 Author Share Posted October 18, 2013 one thing I just recently noticed, Sorcery of nonman, inrithi etc origin is pretty much always described with the adjective "unholy." Doesn't really matter who is seeing or experiencing the magic, it usually gets a descriptor of 'unholy light' at some point. But when the cishaurim water is described, only some perspectives use "unholy" usually heavily biased perspectives like Proyas. Others tend to use descriptors like dazzling, and iirc, when it zooms out to the omniscient narrator, the cishaurim magic is "holy" and the inrithi magic is "unholy". So do we just excuse or ignore the repeated designation of 'unholy' because our perspectives are nominally on the side of the Inrithi and we refuse to believe that they're on the wrong side, that they are the badguys, fighting for hell with the weapons of hell? Because it seems pretty clear and it seems like only readerly assumptions and readerly self-deceptions would prevent a literal and clear reading of the adjective. which brings me to my suggested topic title: Bakker - Holy Water, Unholy Light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.