I personally really enjoyed Library at Mount Char, that it sits next to Shadow of the Torturer is somewhat telling to me. Though personally I'd place them at different ends, they do end up both being rather moody and have similar themes of emotional development during hard times... However I'm not really a fan of Shadow to begin with so maybe I "didnt get it".

Yeah I think that the ideal way to run polls like this is for people to rank the items they are knowledgeable about against each other. Then you can establish a chain of "grimdarkness" where you say, "people are about equally likely to rank this above that, so they have about the same score, but everyone who has read both says that's darker than this, so we give it a higher score."

Personally I think Torturer is a bit dreary and sad and of course it takes place on a waning Earth where things are not as they ought to be. But uh it isn't packed to the gills with child rape and torture like Library at Mount Char. I do think Prince of Thorns is dark, but I would also put it below Library. Definitely, The Blade Itself is not close to POT or TDTCB. I put the second apocalypse series as a whole above any of the other stories on this list that I've read, simply because all the other stories listed have a happy ending.

If that happens and everything just falls back to status quo I'm never going to read a single word of Bakker again.

My imagination isn't as good as Scott's. If his bibliography is any guide, it's going to be worse than what I described. Less satisfying. Read disciple of the dog or neuropath if you don't believe me.

The happiest outcome I can picture at this point is achamian preventing someone else from defeating the no god. But I doubt it will be that happy.

Quote

She's a blindspot, possessing some consequence, but no more than an anomaly.

Really? "... blind-spot ... some consequence ..."

Well, ain't that fuck all ... simply a key ingredient for the failure of TGO. Perhaps the most powerful human to walk Eawar ... blind.

Clearly, Bakker cannot be trusted - I don't take this as ill-intentional, but that he's trying to retain mystery and not spoil the next books - but who knows. This statement pretty much tells us nothing, so I think he's trying to down play a critical part of the story to allow for surprise. We have to be careful applying his clarifications.

This is getting well away from the subject of this thread, but I'll there is a theme in these works of the world turning on small mistakes, small anomalies, and coincidences. The historical aspects of the glossary could as well be titled, "for want of a nail." It is thematic for TGO's end to turn on small anomalies.

Quote from: obstinate on November 10, 2017, 04:30:08 am

"If you wouldn't create it, you should probably destroy it."

If this is already being discussed in another thread, feel free to point me that way.

Back on topic - I with you, the logic of hell is hell - cannot be argued 80 years ( if you're lucky ) is worth an eternity of torment. Any fixed amount compared to infinity is equal to any other - so it doesn't matter if you got to live 80 or 80,000 years, if the risk is eternal damnation, it ain't worth it. So if there is a hell, I for sure would've preferred not to have been born. You may be on to Bakker making a statement about hell - if there's a hell, then the god/gods must be evil. This resonates with Kellhus's breaking of Proyas.

It kinda was with a thread I created month+ back, but we can bring it up again.

On the subject of infinities: by this logic, any murder of someone who might conceivably reproduce or aid someone else in reproduction can be justified in a utilitarian schema, via a formula something like this:

x's impact on reproduction odds * (chance child goes to hell - 0.5) * infinity = moral value of killing x

That is to say, killing someone who would increase the probability of a marginal person being created has an infinitely positive moral value in Earwa. (Supposing a soul is more likely to be damned than not, and eternal bliss and eternal damnation are equally and oppositely weighted infinities.)

"If you wouldn't create it, you should probably destroy it."

I haven't been able to bring myself to reread TUC yet. But a thought does cross my mind from time to time as I consider the No-God, Kellhus, and Resumption.

So, in the world of Earwa, at least according to the glossary, most are damned to eternal suffering. Certainly, we are aware of only two or three who are saved, according to the Judging Eye. It may be that this is partly because we are around so many warlike men through the course of the story. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume the ratio of damned to non-damned is at least 6:4. If you, behind the veil of ignorance, had the choice to come into existence in Earwa, or not, you'd probably choose not. Simply on the basis of the likelihood of damnation, you probably wouldn't even accept 50-50, or 25-75 odds. I know I wouldn't.

To my knowledge, nowhere in the text is it hinted that Kellhus has a plan to change this state of affairs. Indeed, toward the end, he claims that he sees himself descending "as a Hunger." I know not whether this outcome was averted by his destruction at the end of the story. But even if it wasn't, there is no sign that he is going to use his status as a hunger to create better outcomes for all the poor souls who spring off the mortal coil into the Outside. I assign some probability to the idea that he has a plan for that, but not a high one.

So, I'm left with an uncomfortable realization. If the "bad" guys win, then almost everyone now alive dies, and nobody else ever gets born. But at least no more damned souls are created. Meanwhile, if the "good" guys win, the appalling status quo remains in force.

There is a saying in personal finance that mostly pertains to the buying and selling of stocks, particularly ESPP and RSU stock received from an employer. "If you wouldn't buy it, you should probably sell it." The idea is that the execution of an act and the non-execution of its negation are nearly identical in outcome. If you would do one, you should do the other (or want that it be done). If you wouldn't do one, you shouldn't do the other.

I would not create Earwa, in the form described in the novels, had I the power. It would not even tempt me. So, the question I have is, should I be happy that the enemy seems to be within striking distance of victory?

If this is already being discussed in another thread, feel free to point me that way.

1. Do you have a Patreon? I am aware of other mid and even A-list writers who are using these as a means of securing a stable income between books. It's also an interesting way to let your readers invest in you, as opposed to only consuming that which you produce (I'm not sure if this distinction makes the idea more or less attractive). But I would certainly contribute a few dollars a month if you had one.

2. Something I have to relearn painfully from time to time: there's a medium for writing where the most you can ever lose is the last few letters you typed. Its name is Google Docs. If it takes more than a minute or two to compose just about anything, I create a document to host the work in progress.

Right. This is the real challenge. Dunyain do not speak to communicate. Instead, their words only steer. So we cannot take anything he says for true, unless it is known by some other witness.

Is Kelmomas the No God because he is a twin souled sociopath? Or is he a twin souled sociopath because he is the No God? Was Nau-Cayuti the No God because of some fact of Anusumbrior genetics, or merely because Kelmomas eventually would be?

Is Kelmomas invisible to the gods because he is the No-God? Or is he the No-God because he's invisible to the gods?

Depending on the direction of the arrow of causality, it's interesting to note that Kelmomas was always doomed to become the No-God. If he is invisible to the gods because he is the No-God, then he was necessarily the No-God. If he wasn't, then the White Luck would have killed Kellhus several different times.

Is Kellhus unable to anticipate Kelmomas in the Golden Room because he's the No-God, or because it's too improbable?

I'm saddened by the way these books ended. I mean, I'm not disappointed. The ending is classic Bakker and jives very well with my expectations, which is a point I intend to make in another thread. (Only I thought that Kellhus would become the No-God. Close!) It's fitting that my most-hated character would become the engine of the Great Ordeal's destruction, and likely that of the world. But I wanted better for my sweet Drusases and Mimaras of the world.