Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Yellow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11
General Earwa / Re: Pronunciation
« on: November 10, 2017, 09:30:34 pm »
Definitely hard K sounds.


On a related note. I realised while reading TWLW (I think) that Mog-Pharau is supposed to be pronounced Mog-Phar-OH, because he rhymed it with "woe" or somesuch, whereas I had always thought it to be Mog-Phar-OW as in "Sauron". Annoying.

On the nature of the gods and "evil", what is evil? Is a lion evil because it eats a zebra? Or is it just a lion?

Love would be a risk to this agenda - does he love Esmi or not? His stammering about Kel's arrival in GR and his apparent genuine love for Esmi suggests more is amiss.

Well, then we are back to where MSJ and I always disagree.  Is the "love" for Esme what drives him, or is it just a factor among all of them?  Or is it even just a distraction?

Since we lacked POV from Kellhus, too hard to tell. I got the sense his love for her didn't "drive" him, but it was strong enough he let his guard down with her - remarkable for someone so inured with precision. Me thinks this is evidence he wanted more than just save humanity, but to elevate us.

My impression was that it was just a plot device. He needed a way to get Kelmomas to Golgotterath. Not that I'm against plot devices - they make for good plots.

General Earwa / Re: Pronunciation
« on: November 09, 2017, 09:58:32 pm »
I'm with Tleilaxuckmsdfes. I pronounce most of Bakker's "C" s as "K". Most of the ancient north language seems to be derived from the Nonman tongue, and Celmomas is a hard C. Also, Cishaurim is derived from Kishauri (sp?) so I think it usually applies. Not in all cases though, e.g.Cnauir,which is a silent C.

General Earwa / Re: Narrative shifts in perspective
« on: November 09, 2017, 09:53:33 pm »
I asked Bakker about this in the AMA. He said it's to do with the way women are traditionally treated in literature and scripture, and this is a subversion of that, but it may have been a case of post hoc ergo proctor hoc. I've no idea if I've used that phrase correctly, I'm just glad I got a West Wing reference up in this shit.

You could argue that this still serves as an end, though. The Dunyain seek to obtain a mastery over circumstance, and do this by seeking the power with which to do so. It's just that the end is never reached, because there are always more circumstances out of reach.

The No-God / Re: Perspective and answers to open questions
« on: November 04, 2017, 06:26:42 pm »
What about Esmenet?

The No-God / Re: Perspective and answers to open questions
« on: October 20, 2017, 08:13:01 am »
Says Kellhus. The later books stress that pre-meditation is the key to damnation. Serwe was naive and submissive... Maybe Kellhus lies.

The No-God / Re: Perspective and answers to open questions
« on: October 20, 2017, 06:39:40 am »
I've always had this weird feeling that Onkis is Serwe, due to the description of Onkis from the TTT glossary, which reminds me of the way that men fetishize Serwe:

The Goddess of hope and aspiration... she is portrayed as a prophetess, not of the future, but of the motivations of Men...

and from this entry in the PoN wiki on Onkis:

Her idol depicts the severed head of a beautiful woman upon a copper tree.[3]

In the Irreüma in Sumna, her idol is described as:

“The idol worked in white marble, eyes closed with the sunken look of the dead. At first glance she appeared to be the severed head of a woman, beautiful yet vaguely common, mounted on a pole. Anything more than a glance, however, revealed the pole to be a miniature tree, like those cultivated by the ancient Norsirai, only worked in bronze. Branches poked through her parted lips and swept across her face—nature reborn through human lips. Other branches reached behind to break through her frozen hair.”[2]

Emphasis is mine. The description of being "beautiful yet vaguely common" completely describes Serwe in my mind, since she was a slave. Also, isn't the Copper Tree the symbol of the Kuniuric Anasurimbor (as well as Siol, of course), and wasn't Serwe sacrificed on the Circumfix (i.e. Kellhus' "tree"), and didn't the vision that comes to Kellhus while he's on the Circumfix involve the figure sitting beneath a tree? I'm not saying Serwe was the figure, just that Serwe, Kellhus, the figure, and the tree (and therefore Onkis?) are all linked.

Also, the link to the head on the pole is incredibly frustrating. I asked Bakker whether Onkis was the head on the pole in TGO, but he said it wasn't. It must, surely must have something to do with it though, right?

Come on, this is Kellhus. You don't think he wondered *why* sometime in the past 20 years of studying the Apocalypse, mastering metaphysics, and interrogating Skin Spies? And if we on the forum can get close to guessing from a couple of quotes, he's going to be stumped?

I mean, even Cnaiur found out about the IF as soon as TTT (even if he didn't know what it was). Are people still underestimating Kellhus?

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Ajokli's Motivations
« on: October 13, 2017, 06:35:48 pm »
Yeah, and Bakker's comment on it neither confirmed nor denied it, imo. I'm never letting it go!

The number definitely comes from the Inchoroi... I'm fairly sure Wutteat referred to the number. Since coincidence is unlikely, the prophecy must have been derived from there. Kellhus would know of  the prophecy, and from there it's completely reasonable to think he could have devised its origins. There is very little about the Consult that surprised him in the Golden Room.

Anyway, he would definitely have worked out that the NG was needed, because otherwise why would they bother? He just didn't know *why* the NG was needed.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Ajokli's Motivations
« on: October 13, 2017, 05:48:29 pm »
Also, fwiw, I still don't think that was Ajokli. Too rational. Outside Kellhus fo sho.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Ajokli's Motivations
« on: October 13, 2017, 05:46:41 pm »
So as per the other ongoing thread dissecting these and other matters.

In TGO, we have a Kellhus POV on the Vision/Voice telling Kellhus that it wars with the God and to "burn the fields to awaken the God."

Can you be more specific about that (I'm  assuming you're paraphrasing)? That wasn't my take on why the fields should be burned. To war against the God (who needs souls to sustain it) , not to wake it.

I really hate the 'Inchoroi must win' line. Maybe it just has to do with the idea of how eternity works in the Outside. Further, Bakker's answer on the topic, was far too vague.

1. Why did Kellhus say to Proyas that the Inchoroi must win? Was he arguing from the perspective of the Consult?
1) Is that what he says?
I feel like there has to be some understanding of the text I'm not able to grasp. Either that his comments are somehow more in regards to specifically the Gods in relation to The Ark. I've even vaguely considered what he says may have been influenced by Ajokli at that point or some differing metaphysical understanding, given that he didn't even know the No-God was necessary before the Golden Room. Or perhaps that The Ark may lay outside Eternity in some other manner. I'm not sure. Given that Ajokli literally stood in The Ark, it seems weird to consider him still blind to it. As well that he seemed capable of perceiving the Skin Spies.

Anyway, on the specific thought of contingency - maybe. But I don't think Kellhus thought the entire endeavor would fail specifically. He makes note that the eventuality of human extinction may take place ages in the future. Even had Kellhus managed to slay The Consult, the possibility of others taking up their work would remain unless he could utterly destroy The Ark. And given the only thing we've seen damage it is a lazer weapon he didn't know about, that seems a nearly impossible prospect.

I'm nearing the end of my re-read and will post some thoughts on a few days, but this section is one of the points I wanted people's opinion on. I read this conversation numerous times, but there seems to be a logical gap in what Kellhus is saying to Proyas. Bakker's answer is typically unhelpful. YES he said that to Proyas. What does it mean, mate?

Anyway, I'll go into more detail once I've gathered my thoughts.

But on  the comment that he didn't know the NG was necessary - there's a chapter heading quote in TWLW that mentions the 144k, so SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE must have been aware of what the Inchoroi were trying to do. By extension, Kellhus (Lore Master extraordinaire) will also have been aware.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 11