[Khaine]

They do have no mark but 1) we've had a good explanation for why that it works in TTT that doesn't involve the accuracy of their beliefs and 2) we've been told that their have been others who have used the Psukhe before the advent of Fane.  So buying into the Fanim being right because their sorcery works has always been a palace built on air.

I presume you refer to the conversation of Kellhus and Achamian, where the first breaks down the metaphysics of sorcery and stuns Achamian?

I thought that bit, was just Kellhus making things up on the go. How would he know how Psukhe works, without having any knowledge of it and no experience? I understand that his awesome intellectual powers allowed him to see what Gnosis and Anagogic sorcery is, but Psukhe? I would think that is far-fetched even for Kellhus, but there you go. 

As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.

[Khaine]

As an aside, perhaps it is simply that sorcery leaves a Mark only when the sorcerer uses language. I believe Gnostic and Anagogic schools both use dead languages for the Uterals - that's a pretty strong link to a lot of  dead and dawned souls really.

Good observation / theory.

[Duskweaver]

Where did Bakker mention this? Was it some Q&A session?

It's in the Nascenti thread: LINK

[Khaine]

Thanks for the link.

[Cynical Cat]

There is no explicit confirmation that Kellhus is right, but it is the only theory presented to us on how the Psukhe operates other than "the Solitary God makes it so."  It gets further indirect confirmation when Kellhus confronts Moenghus and they discuss Moenghus's weakness in bearing Water, but his ability with workings requiring precision over strength. 

[SmilerLoki]

As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.

It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".

[Madness]

I thought the chorae on the No-God were there for protection against magic?

I was just repeating long-time speculation by readers that perhaps the Chorae were there not as protection against sorcery but used as a soul-trapping tool, whether due to the Aporos or its sorcery-negating properties.

Where did Bakker mention this? Was it some Q&A session?

It's in the Nascenti thread: LINK

Thanks, friend.

As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.

It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".

Confirmed long-time readerly speculation in the recent AMA.

[SmilerLoki]

As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.

It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".

Confirmed long-time readerly speculation in the recent AMA.

By "extra-textual" here I meant that it wasn't stated anywhere in the text of the series proper, but revealed outside of it. There are issues with such authorial tidbits for readers who don't follow the community of a given work. Also, some approaches to literary criticism eschew this kind of information as non-canon even if it does come directly from the author. "Not in the text = irrelevant until appears in the text".

[Sausuna]

As for the second point, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly isn't in the text, but I guess from a Q&A session.

It's mainly extra-textual, but it has also been heavily implied with Titigra in "The False Sun".

Confirmed long-time readerly speculation in the recent AMA.

By "extra-textual" here I meant that it wasn't stated anywhere in the text of the series proper, but revealed outside of it. There are issues with such authorial tidbits for readers who don't follow the community of a given work. Also, some approaches of literary criticism eschew this kind of information as non-canon even if it does come directly from the author. "Not in the text = irrelevant until appears in the text".

Not as a shot at you, but I never cared this approach in discussing canon of a series. As a critique of writing criticism, perhaps. But more often used for when people want to support what would otherwise be a wrong interpretation of text.

Again, not against you or necessarily the idea. I just remember discussing it with someone else on another forum and it just never sits right with me.

[SmilerLoki]

Not as a shot at you, but I never cared this approach in discussing canon of a series. As a critique of writing criticism, perhaps. But more often used for when people want to support what would otherwise be a wrong interpretation of text.

Again, not against you or necessarily the idea. I just remember discussing it with someone else on another forum and it just never sits right with me.

While not my first choice, this is an existing way of thinking that might be useful in some situations. I prefer to know my options and utilize them as needed. There are times when preferences are damaging to understanding instead of being beneficial.

Kind of a polytheistic outlook, I know, but what can one do...?

[Madness]

Not as a shot at you, but I never cared this approach in discussing canon of a series. As a critique of writing criticism, perhaps. But more often used for when people want to support what would otherwise be a wrong interpretation of text.

Again, not against you or necessarily the idea. I just remember discussing it with someone else on another forum and it just never sits right with me.

While not my first choice, this is an existing way of thinking that might be useful in some situations. I prefer to know my options and utilize them as needed. There are times when preferences are damaging to understanding instead of being beneficial.

Kind of a polytheistic outlook, I know, but what can one do...?

Strange. Wilshire and I treading similar waters in a separate thread .

[SmilerLoki]

Strange. Wilshire and I treading similar waters in a separate thread .

Not really that strange, since I've noticed your exchange!

[Madness]

Strange/interesting as of that contemporary moment unbeknownst to either of us .

[SmilerLoki]

Strange/interesting as of that contemporary moment unbeknownst to either of us .

I should clarify that you and Wilshire talking about it motivated me to elaborate on my position in this thread, so it's more like ontological. The darkness that comes before and such. Fitting, I would say.

[Madness]

Ah. Damn.

Lol .