[TUC Spoilers] Kellhus telling Proyas "at some point, the Inchoroi must win"

  • 26 Replies
  • 3916 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2017, 08:48:18 pm »
An answer from the recent reddit AMA is relevant here:
Quote from: R. Scott Bakker
3) The Ark isn't invisible, only its meaning. That's the disfiguring absence.
Yes, I'm the one who asked those questions but I'm still having trouble understanding the answers  8)

Trust me the Inchoroi will not win. You want quotes, i aint got em. I just think this is the lesson Bakker wants to teaxh us. Bakker is worried that the world is headed towards AI and all that. The pursuit of immortality, so TSA is a cautionary tale. TNG will be the lesson. That humanity is capable of amazing things on its own.
I firmly disagree. Bakker is worried about the exploitation of human crash space in this new age, but it's not a moral lecture about the good of traditional humanity either. Keep in mind he said that he is a discovery writer now. The ending of TNG is probably uncertain to the author himself!

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2286
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #16 on: August 04, 2017, 08:56:06 pm »
Quote from:  tleilaxu
I firmly disagree. Bakker is worried about the exploitation of human crash space in this new age, but it's not a moral lecture about the good of traditional humanity either. Keep in mind he said that he is a discovery writer now. The ending of TNG is probably uncertain to the author himself!

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Ithink he indeed knows the ending, just not how to get there. I cant see how he can think 3-4 books about the horrror of the end of the world would be good reading for anyone. Huh, maybe it would. I know id read it, pirely because he's my favorite writer and i love his prose and all. I just think we're in for a lesson. One of us will be right. No biggie either way. Its his story, we have zero influence.
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

SmilerLoki

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
« Reply #17 on: August 04, 2017, 09:00:17 pm »
Yes, I'm the one who asked those questions but I'm still having trouble understanding the answers  8)
I just wanted to keep those things in one place.

Unfortunately, I can't really offer any better explanation than the ones already provided. I do have some ideas, but if anything, they might be even harder to grasp. I also worry about impracticality of such pondering. Perhaps it's easier to just wait for the next series and more clarification from Bakker. It would at least have concrete narrative significance then.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2017, 09:02:30 pm »
Quote from:  tleilaxu
I firmly disagree. Bakker is worried about the exploitation of human crash space in this new age, but it's not a moral lecture about the good of traditional humanity either. Keep in mind he said that he is a discovery writer now. The ending of TNG is probably uncertain to the author himself!

We'll have to agree to disagree then. Ithink he indeed knows the ending, just not how to get there. I cant see how he can think 3-4 books about the horrror of the end of the world would be good reading for anyone. Huh, maybe it would. I know id read it, pirely because he's my favorite writer and i love his prose and all. I just think we're in for a lesson. One of us will be right. No biggie either way. Its his story, we have zero influence.
You root for the Gods, I root for the No-God, but we may both be surprised, I think that alone is worth it.

TLEILAXU

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Exalt-Smiter of Theories
  • Posts: 731
    • View Profile
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2017, 09:04:07 pm »
Yes, I'm the one who asked those questions but I'm still having trouble understanding the answers  8)
I just wanted to keep those things in one place.

Unfortunately, I can't really offer any better explanation than the ones already provided. I do have some ideas, but if anything, they might be even harder to grasp. I also worry about impracticality of such pondering. Perhaps it's easier to just wait for the next series and more clarification from Bakker. It would at least have concrete narrative significance then.
Go ahead if you feel like it, sometimes added complexity brings more clarity.

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2286
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #20 on: August 04, 2017, 09:18:53 pm »
I am by no means rooting for the Gods. Im rooting for Akka, Esme, baby Akka, Crabicus, hopefully Serwa and Kayutas, Züem, Eanna and whoever the hell else that has the the balls to stand up for humanity. Hell, maybe even Likaro!
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,

solipsisticurge

  • *
  • Momurai
  • **
  • Posts: 79
  • There is a head on a pole behind him.
    • View Profile
« Reply #21 on: August 04, 2017, 10:03:30 pm »
So for chumps like mortals, who view the series one episode at a time...this is super worrying.  Imagine you are starting to read TDTCB, and you hear a bunch of readers who have already seen the end talking about how Kellhus took down Conphas.  That is hugely worrying to you as a Leweth fan, because it necessarily means that Kellhus doesn't marry Leweth and live with him forever.

If they struggle hard enough and are proficient in the lost sorcerous art of the Googling, I'm sure their needs can be sated through inevitable Kellhus/Leweth Rule 34 fanfic.

I get that the Gods are a-temporal but the No-God stands outside eternity etc., but why does the mere existence of the Ark presuppose system resumption - and success? The only that this can make sense is if the Ark was destined to be successful since its inception.
Also, Bakker's reply seems to indicate that what Kellhus is saying is not that the Inchoroi literally must win.

Bakker's reply aside, this is more of the circuitous logic of temporal paradox we've seen relative to the gods and WLWs being blind to Kelmomas. The gods being blind to the No-God means it falls outside "eternity" (the gods' perception of time), which means it wins at some point (unless events in TNG find some other means, possibly through the "re-invention" of the gods in the wake of their blind spots, to so radically change the nature of connection to the Outside as to render the previous incarnation of "eternity" irrelevant).

Given the gods' remaking in the wake of events consummated within their blind spots, it may not amount to anything. If Khellus had successfully destroyed the No-God, it would have no longer fallen outside eternity, and a new version of the gods that were and had always been aware of the Consult would exist. (Confusing, I know, but that's atemporality for you.)

I think the broader point to take is, under current framework, the No-God is destined to win, but that the deterministic path the universe is on can be swayed within the blind spots of the Gods. Perhaps Achamian pieces this together with the mighty Likaro and they find a way to engineer further divine blindness, exploiting it to rewrite the future as written by the darkness that comes before.

It could also be that Khellus was speaking, in a roundabout way, of his own plans, and whatever his grand vision, it required a temporary Consult victory. Bakker has repeatedly stated Khellus is dead, though that could be a technicality (perhaps he's "dead" in the same way as Malowebi?). He also said the Thousandfold Thought only extended as far as the Ordeal reaching Golgotterath... though I do recall him saying Cnaiur was dead and gone as well in a bygone day, so perhaps the man just lies when he sees an opportunity to misdirect the fanbase and same himself the opportunity for a WHAM moment in the books.

EDIT: Another point to take... the gods' ignorance assuring the gods' ignorance is probably the most Bakker plot device imaginable.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 10:10:20 pm by solipsisticurge »
Kings never lie. They demand the world be mistaken.

The Sharmat

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Horde General
  • Posts: 779
    • View Profile
« Reply #22 on: August 04, 2017, 10:05:25 pm »
There's no rational reason to root for anyone's victory but the No-God's unless you have faith in Kellhus as a God that's going to take over Outside and end damnation. Or are a Fanim heretic.

Did Nau-Cayuti have a dead twin?
No, but his father Celmomas had a dead twin named Huormomas that was said to cause his darker impulses. (I like to think that Huormomas transliterated into Sheyic is Samarmas)

SmilerLoki

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
« Reply #23 on: August 04, 2017, 10:12:48 pm »
Go ahead if you feel like it, sometimes added complexity brings more clarity.
I've tried to express my views on the problem here:
http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2267.msg37243#msg37243

TheCulminatingApe

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
    • View Profile
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2017, 02:26:46 pm »
There's no rational reason to root for anyone's victory but the No-God's unless you have faith in Kellhus as a God that's going to take over Outside and end damnation. Or are a Fanim heretic.

Did Nau-Cayuti have a dead twin?
No, but his father Celmomas had a dead twin named Huormomas that was said to cause his darker impulses. (I like to think that Huormomas transliterated into Sheyic is Samarmas)

Samarmau Uän was the name of one of the Dunyain  Pragma in PoN.  I suspect Samarmas is named after him
Sez who?
Seswatha, that's who.

The Sharmat

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Horde General
  • Posts: 779
    • View Profile
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2017, 05:12:21 pm »
I assumed Esmenet named all the children.

Wilshire

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Enshoiya
  • Posts: 5763
  • Do you remember the words?!
    • View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 12, 2019, 06:57:45 pm »
Trust me the Inchoroi will not win. You want quotes, i aint got em. I just think this is the lesson Bakker wants to teaxh us. Bakker is worried that the world is headed towards AI and all that. The pursuit of immortality, so TSA is a cautionary tale. TNG will be the lesson. That humanity is capable of amazing things on its own.
I agree. As Wutteat put it:
Quote
BECAUSE THIS WORLD REFUSES TO DIE!

Next time through, I'm going to pay attention to Wutteat - seeing as how he only appears in the once place, some of his THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS might have large implications than original though. I find the above quote particularly interesting given the state the of the world post-TUC.
One of the other conditions of possibility.