"If you wouldn't buy it, you should probably sell it."

  • 46 Replies
  • 1036 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

SmilerLoki

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
« Reply #30 on: November 12, 2017, 11:03:11 pm »
You shrug it off and said Bakker already I adressed. As in, I assumed, "Not true, man already addressed it."
I just wanted to get clarification on your position in regards to that quote. You could've embraced it, or ignored it, or denied it in various ways, that's actually what I wanted to know. I didn't impose any meaning on the quote beside its existence, and later clarified what I think about it:
I kinda take that to mean that the story is not about love. Love is a factor of some consequence, but not the driving force (or even a driving force) behind the events. This resonates well with the feel I get from the series, so I don't really distrust the quote above. It also portrays Kellhus exactly the way I see him - capable of love, but viewing it as an anomaly of undetermined value rather than something to base his intentions on.

Sorry sir, but that is what we do around here. Over think things, all things....anything's. That's what has made the forum survive for the last 5-6 years. Breaking down the test, discussing and making predictions on future outcomes.
And that's why I'm in the right place!

Why tell us you won't participate? Seems like a unnecessary thing...just don't post, ya know.
Just for the sake of politeness, since I've participated up to this point. That way it's immediately known to others that I don't have anything to add, so they can take my position into account if it's of interest to them. Not posting is not obvious for other people for some time.

[EDIT]
But, if your looking for metaphysical one, Bakker will always keep them muddled.
Certainly.

But it goes beyond metaphysical straight into the real world territory in this instance. Basically, here I treat the Second Apocalypse as a rather flowery blog post on TPB and want to mine it for pragmatic value. That's why Bakker's intent is at the moment more important to me than any literary aspects of the series. I do see in it real useful things I can benefit from, only wrapped in a narrative form. Obviously I want to get those straight first. They also go before the narrative in the sense that Bakker composes said narrative around them. If I understand him correctly (and that's a big "if"), some things are improbable to impossible even if they make sense plot-wise. They don't go against the letter, but do go against the spirit of the series, phrasing it another way. This can even be explained, but it generally takes an inordinate amount of time, so I often gloss over the explanation.

This is probably a strange perspective, but I mainly put my time into reading and writing fiction (I don't publish, though, at least yet), so it might be an occupational hazard.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2017, 11:36:48 pm by SmilerLoki »

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 1701
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2017, 12:22:13 am »
Quote from:  SmilerLoki
This is probably a strange perspective, but I mainly put my time into reading and writing fiction (I don't publish, though, at least yet), so it might be an occupational hazard.

There's a thread for writers. If you're ever published, I'd be honored to read it. I got ya man, no hard feelings! :)
“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,

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 4926
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2017, 06:02:06 pm »
The lions kill the cubs so the mother can get in heat again. It has nothing to do with evil.

+1

Blah! textual evidence!!!!!!!
Since I'm more interested in what Bakker has to say (i.e. his authorial intent) than in literary criticism, I have no other choice but to take his word.

Lol, MSJ.

SmilerLoki, I'm not sure what we're engaged in here can be rightly called "literary criticism," as I've known a number of academic lit-theory heads who would just dismiss us all as the plebletariot - despite the fact that a good number of us do have letters of sorts after our names ;).

But how can you take Bakker at his word, if he fails to execute and communicate that to a majority of readers through the text?

It's either taking his word or no, there is no middle ground. You can't rely on it in some matters and dispute it in others, this is inconsistent in a completely arbitrary way, which nullifies any possibility of discussion that arises from his words.

...

 So even when he fails to convey his authorial intent, it's this intent that interests me, while the work itself is just a side-effect. His clear statement resolves any plot matter in my eyes. Until, of course, he changes his mind, which can also happen for a number of reasons. I don't expect him to be infallible.

On former, I don't understand this - and I'm probably wading into content I don't have any real grasp on. We can certainly take the text, Bakker's extratextual comments, and compare the two, no? I don't necessarily see how it *must* be the case of either taking Bakker at his word or not.

On the latter, I really don't understand this. Bakker can make all kinds of comments - and has over the years and been taken to task for them - about his intentions but execution must matter? I've often been the first to take Bakker at his word over the years and use his words as a lens when reading his text but surely execution must be paramount? If not, and his extratextual comments were paramount, wouldn't that render reading TSA as someone who never participates online and knows nothing about his extratextual comments an exercise in futility? (Though, I'd argue not but I'm just curious about teasing your thoughts from you ;)).

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.

For want of a nail... I'm sure Bakker would like that, obstinate ;).

There's a thread for writers. If you're ever published, I'd be honored to read it. I got ya man, no hard feelings! :)

A whole subforum even ;).
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 1701
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2017, 07:05:07 pm »
I don't get why Bakker's comments have any effect on textual evidence from the books. I can give you a dozen quotes where Bakker uses his comments to misdirect.

We use the book, textual evidence to make predictions and dissect the text. People caught up in Bakker's philosophical theories, I think, take that is exactly the way the series will go. And, while he might use his theories in part, I don't think it prudent to base your expectations on them. Just my 2 cents.
“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

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
« Reply #34 on: November 18, 2017, 08:49:02 pm »
SmilerLoki, I'm not sure what we're engaged in here can be rightly called "literary criticism," as I've known a number of academic lit-theory heads who would just dismiss us all as the plebletariot - despite the fact that a good number of us do have letters of sorts after our names ;).
Literary criticism is a vast and very controversial field. But specifically using the Death of the Author theory is much more being academic in dissecting a work of fiction than actually pragmatically discussing it for the purpose of conventional understanding (I should note that the existence of literary understanding doesn't diminish conventional one, those are different frameworks of looking at fiction). It's not so much the content of the discussion itself (which, sure, can appear childish to an academic) that governs it as the intent behind it, which I cannot share at the moment. Putting it in a less obscure way, I have the author (Bakker, specifically), who wants to say something to me, and since I'm interested to hear him out, what he means is of paramount importance to me. As opposed to the series itself, where he can fail in his endeavors to convey his views to the point of needing to extratextually clarify what it was he was writing.

So, I separate the work and Bakker's intent for said work. Right now I'm only discussing his intent when we talk themes of the series.

But how can you take Bakker at his word, if he fails to execute and communicate that to a majority of readers through the text?
It's most certainly a failure in the context of the work, don't get me wrong. And it's very problematic in itself, because it will, and does, push away readers. The fact that I'm willing to look past it means precisely nothing in the grand scheme of things, since I have extremely convoluted reasons for it.

But, again, simplifying things. I'll just consider his failure an honest mistake and get to the "meat" of his ideas.

Additionally of note is the magnitude of his undertaking. He is really trying (and in many instances succeeding) to offer something new for the fantasy genre. Others might not be so obscure and hard to understand in their writing, but they are also being strictly formula (obviously not all of them, but the exceptions are exceedingly rare). They don't attempt anything new and so insure themselves against many associated mistakes. I don't like that approach in established authors (on the other hand, if you're just getting your writing feet under you, then being strictly formula is the way to go), and so I have every respect for Bakker. When he wins, he wins big, and that earned him good faith in situations where I would roast another writer.

On former, I don't understand this - and I'm probably wading into content I don't have any real grasp on. We can certainly take the text, Bakker's extratextual comments, and compare the two, no? I don't necessarily see how it *must* be the case of either taking Bakker at his word or not.
Sure, but that's looking at the work as separate from its author's intent, which I'm not yet prepared to do for the Second Apocalypse.

But in general, yes, you should and will see unintended things in any literary work.

Also you might think that the author doesn't give his comments in good faith and look for deceptions, but I don't share this view pertaining to Bakker.
 
I've often been the first to take Bakker at his word over the years and use his words as a lens when reading his text but surely execution must be paramount?
There is a little technical snag here. If Bakker intended something to be read a certain way, then he would write everything stemming from that point in the work as conforming to the intended reading. Everyone else who somehow read the part in question differently would just be mistaken in his eyes (or, to give another example, deceived by design, if the part was conceived as deceiving).

If not, and his extratextual comments were paramount, wouldn't that render reading TSA as someone who never participates online and knows nothing about his extratextual comments an exercise in futility? (Though, I'd argue not but I'm just curious about teasing your thoughts from you ;)).
That's the problem with failing to execute your vision, unfortunately. Or even making it too obscure. I do feel that there are some issues of this kind in the Second Apocalypse.

Just to clarify, I don't think Bakker intends us to read any of his extratextual comments. It's just at some points, so far, we have to get at least a little additional information from him, or our understanding of the events suffers.

There's a thread for writers. If you're ever published, I'd be honored to read it. I got ya man, no hard feelings! :)

A whole subforum even ;).
Thanks, my friends! I'll get there when I have something to show for myself.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2017, 08:51:58 pm by SmilerLoki »

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 1701
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2017, 08:02:13 pm »
Quote from:  SmilerLoki
Also you might think that the author doesn't give his comments in good faith and look for deceptions, but I don't share this view pertaining to Bakker.

Oh, we have many cases of misdirection from Bakker. Its not that there not in good faith, its that he likes to stir the pot or your brain. When, specifically speaking on TSA, I tend to take Bakker's comments with a grain of salt. He will give you the truth, almost always, but it will be veiled in his witty Ajokli trickster style answers.
 
“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

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2017, 09:56:26 pm »
Quote from:  SmilerLoki
Also you might think that the author doesn't give his comments in good faith and look for deceptions, but I don't share this view pertaining to Bakker.

Oh, we have many cases of misdirection from Bakker. Its not that there not in good faith, its that he likes to stir the pot or your brain. When, specifically speaking on TSA, I tend to take Bakker's comments with a grain of salt. He will give you the truth, almost always, but it will be veiled in his witty Ajokli trickster style answers.
I know that, of course. I just don't see it as a problem. Instead of a direct answer or directly saying that he can't give an answer for some reason or other, he very obviously (from my point of view) gives a veiled hint. "I'm trying to confuse you, but there might be something there". When he is being completely upfront about giving a misleading comment, it's not really deception. Simply a game. Obviously I treat this kind of comments differently, though not at all with mistrust. Also, many of his comments just don't conform to this pattern, being completely upfront, if not easily understandable.

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 1701
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2017, 10:14:29 pm »
Quote from:  SmilerLoki
I know that, of course. I just don't see it as a problem. Instead of a direct answer or directly saying that he can't give an answer for some reason or other, he very obviously (from my point of view) gives a veiled hint. "I'm trying to confuse you, but there might be something there". When he is being completely upfront about giving a misleading comment, it's not really deception. Simply a game. Obviously I treat this kind of comments differently, though not at all with mistrust. Also, many of his comments just don't conform to this pattern, being completely upfront, if not easily understandable.

Right. I don't have a problem with it neither. I don't expect him to show his hand on everything. Its just a reason I don't pay much attention to his extra-textual comments, for that very reason. And sure, he is straightforward and honest sometimes too.
“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

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2017, 10:31:57 pm »
Just saw your post in another thread. It probably should have been posted here?
But intent means jack shit if its not conveyed in the text.
Yes and no. It's much more yes if we're talking about a completed work, when there isn't going to be any new installments that can radically change reading of the previous ones. It's much more no when the work in question is incomplete, and new installments are already underway.

An example of the latter is Terry Brooks at some point making his "The Word and the Void" books part of the Shannara series.

Also, how should Bakker know that he hasn't conveyed his intent? Even more to the point, hasn't he? If you or I think he hasn't, is he aware of it? If yes, then does he agree with us? Should he?

Question? How many readers or what % even know anything about Bakker's Crash Space theory? 1%, 5% maybe 10%? It has to be conveyed in the text thoroughly for it to be discussed. Its why we had so many fans upset about resolutions they were sure to come to pass. Bakker's comments didn't help, at all. Made it worse, tbh.
You're right, of course. Almost all his readers are unaware of his non-fictional theories. I'm fairly certain Bakker understands that, too. But it doesn't change what he's doing. In my opinion, he is first writing the way he considers right, and only then takes his readers into account. As well he should. Even the fact that it hurts him financially doesn't matter. In the end, you are who you are and you do what interests you.

I understand its what your into. But, 99% of readers could care less.
Sure. And maybe their disappointment is a more powerful (and more flattering to Bakker) reaction than my acceptance. But for the sake of at least conventional understanding of the series I find my approach significantly more helpful. But only while the series is incomplete.

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 1701
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2017, 11:54:55 pm »
Quote from:  SmilerLoki
Yes and no. It's much more yes if we're talking about a completed work, when there isn't going to be any new installments that can radically change reading of the previous ones. It's much more no when the work in question is incomplete, and new installments are already underway.

Fair enough, I agree.

Quote
Also, how should Bakker know that he hasn't conveyed his intent? Even more to the point, hasn't he? If you or I think he hasn't, is he aware of it? If yes, then does he agree with us? Should he?

Well, imho, the onus is completely on the Author to convey his intent. If, he can't, I'd venture to say he isn't very skilled at his craft. That being said, no matter the complaints with TUC (and with some fans TUC and Bakker AMA completely ruined the entire series for them), after I digested it I understood his intent. I have no problem with TUC, thought it was great, and with some notable exceptions, fit very well within the plot of the previous books.

Should he care that we "get" his intent? I damn sure hope so, otherwise, what is the point of him even writing?

Now, I'm just of the opinion, that his other goings one in his life, not have to align perfectly with TUC. His philosophical theories and such are a part of TSA, I just don't believe them to be the whole.
“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

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 20, 2017, 12:12:25 am »
Should he care that we "get" his intent? I damn sure hope so, otherwise, what is the point of him even writing?
My point was, he might think he conveyed his intent perfectly, and readers who don't get it are just not paying enough attention, jumping to conclusions, or being straight up mistaken. Or should fall into all of these traps and feel this way, because it was part of his intent. Let those who understand be accepting and those who don't be agitated so they might understand through dealing with their frustration. I'm not saying it's strictly what he did, or even that it's a good idea, but it might be done this way. In such circumstances it would be next to impossible to prove failure to convey intent.

Now, I'm just of the opinion, that his other goings one in his life, not have to align perfectly with TUC. His philosophical theories and such are a part of TSA, I just don't believe them to be the whole.
I'm sure he still has something to say!

MSJ

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 1701
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 20, 2017, 12:15:51 am »
Oh, I'm sure he has a ton more to say.
“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,

Madness

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 4926
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #42 on: November 21, 2017, 04:02:28 pm »

...

So, I separate the work and Bakker's intent for said work. Right now I'm only discussing his intent when we talk themes of the series.

Interesting.

But, again, simplifying things. I'll just consider his failure an honest mistake and get to the "meat" of his ideas.

As MSJ said, the majority of his readers are unaware of his online persona. Most readers can't do that.

Sure, but that's looking at the work as separate from its author's intent, which I'm not yet prepared to do for the Second Apocalypse.

Simply because it's unfinished? Genuinely curious.
 
There is a little technical snag here. If Bakker intended something to be read a certain way, then he would write everything stemming from that point in the work as conforming to the intended reading. Everyone else who somehow read the part in question differently would just be mistaken in his eyes (or, to give another example, deceived by design, if the part was conceived as deceiving).

That doesn't make much sense. Certainly Bakker intends the narrative constituents "to be read a certain way?"
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer

SmilerLoki

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 269
    • View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 22, 2017, 03:27:50 am »
As MSJ said, the majority of his readers are unaware of his online persona. Most readers can't do that.
This probably hurts his readership the most. And there is not much to be done.

Simply because it's unfinished?
Indeed. Because things still can change radically at a stroke of Bakker's virtual pen.

There is a little technical snag here. If Bakker intended something to be read a certain way, then he would write everything stemming from that point in the work as conforming to the intended reading. Everyone else who somehow read the part in question differently would just be mistaken in his eyes (or, to give another example, deceived by design, if the part was conceived as deceiving).
That doesn't make much sense. Certainly Bakker intends the narrative constituents "to be read a certain way?"
I was talking about a (hopefully hypothetical) situation when he failed to convey said intent and people generally understood him wrong. He would simply not be aware of it, continuing to tell the story the way it can't be interpreted (and its flow subsequently foreseen) by most of the readers, because readers missed something crucial that Bakker thinks is there. In this situation reader interpretation is by default incorrect, since failure to execute wouldn't be evident to the author.

It's actually not even that important who would be at fault here - readers, because they genuinely missed something in their reading, or the author, because he failed to convey his intent. There would be a breakdown of communication that will only become clear in the next installments, which are, in our case, already underway. If the series is finished, such a breakdown can't happen, since the author at that point is no more than another reader, as opposed to someone who controls what's being read.

So my initial point is, again, contingent on the series being incomplete.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 03:31:30 am by SmilerLoki »

TaoHorror

  • *
  • Great Name
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Blueberry Psűkhe Sorcerer
    • View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 22, 2017, 08:36:44 pm »
The state of affairs intro's he's been doing in the books may clear some things up if he continues doing that with the next book. They've helped me out a few times with some things I didn't understand.
Remember to brush before bed