[TUC SPOILERS] Thoughts about the overall story, ending etc

  • 224 Replies
  • 75145 Views

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Simas Polchias

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Consult Fanboy
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
« Reply #135 on: July 11, 2017, 05:26:11 pm »
during the 4 weeks he studied under Iyokus
Aw. A polite way of saying "frightening the shit out of the ancient seasoned necromancer by transmuting teacher's master-class into pupil's streak of scientific breakthroughs".

Anwurat

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
« Reply #136 on: July 12, 2017, 12:34:30 am »
Weird that during the "Moenghus is behind it all" discussions some people used Kellhus's mistakes/near deaths throughout PoN as evidence that the Dunyain are fallible and that Moenghus simply fucked up and died. Now some of those same people won't accept that Kellhus could have failed. No, he must have planned it all, he is infallible after all...

Nil Sertrax

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Suthenti
  • *****
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
« Reply #137 on: July 12, 2017, 01:47:43 am »
I figure I'll chime in with my thoughts now that I've had some time to get through a reread of TUC and also a chance to peruse this forum as well as Westeros.  I've read the first three books in the PON series at least three times all the way through.  I've read the four books in the AE series twice.  I think that this series is my favorite fantasy series of all-time and second place isn't even close.  It is so different from almost everything else out there.  The beautiful prose contrasted with the grittiness of the setting and story weave a powerful spell. 

With that said, I think TUC is largely a missed opportunity.  I thought that many of the scenes that were unclear upon my first read would yield greater clarity upon my second.  Particularly, I felt the like the entire conclusion, from the gold room forward, was muddled.  I consider myself to be well read overall, a careful reader and fairly intelligent.  What I am not, is a student of philosophy.  I was willing to allow for the possibility that the failure to comprehend was solely mine as I am not familiar with the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the second series.  When a reread failed to yield additional clarity I went to this forum and to Westeros to see what others had gleaned. 

i was disappointed to find the lack of any consensus.  For the conclusion of a series I would hope that an intelligent group of devout fans would be able to reach some sort of a general consensus regarding the motivations of the characters and/or a coherent description of what actually occurred. 

As much as I love the characters and the setting, overall, I'm disappointed in this ending.  I think Scott may have done his best writing during the TTT and in TJE.  As the series progressed beyond these volumes many key scenes became too abstract or opaque.  In the first series the only scene I can recall that had these shortcomings was when Kell pulled Serwe's burning heart from his chest.  I still have no idea how that occurred.  In TJE we have another example with the Wight being banished by the Chorae.  A cool scene but one that left me wondering what I was supposed to have learned.  In WLW, TGO, and TUC these opaque passages became more common.  The Head-on-the Pole, the Zero God and the conclusion are just a few of the more egregious examples.  Here are some of the questions/issues I still have:

What are Kellhus' motivations?

Why does the No-God ask "What do you see?"

What significance is the head on the pole?

What is the point of the Judging Eye?

Why haven't I been rooting for the Consult all along as shutting the worl to the outside seems to be a reasonable and understandable motivation.  It's unfortunate that the population will be reduced but it's better than the alternative!

What is the point of projecting an image of Kelhus over the sarcophagus?

What is the point of introducing Koringhus and the Crab-handed boy?

How did Serwa ov ercome the Agonic collar and why would the escape from Ishterebinth happen off screen?

I'm sure I have a bunch more questions but these are off the top of my head.  I think this could have been a much, much better book had a good editor forced Scott to be a bit clearer in spots and maybe provided input on a few of the creative decisions the author made.

 






Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #138 on: July 12, 2017, 02:24:46 am »
I figure I'll chime in with my thoughts now that I've had some time to get through a reread of TUC and also a chance to peruse this forum as well as Westeros.  I've read the first three books in the PON series at least three times all the way through.  I've read the four books in the AE series twice.  I think that this series is my favorite fantasy series of all-time and second place isn't even close.  It is so different from almost everything else out there.  The beautiful prose contrasted with the grittiness of the setting and story weave a powerful spell. 

With that said, I think TUC is largely a missed opportunity.  I thought that many of the scenes that were unclear upon my first read would yield greater clarity upon my second.  Particularly, I felt the like the entire conclusion, from the gold room forward, was muddled.  I consider myself to be well read overall, a careful reader and fairly intelligent.  What I am not, is a student of philosophy.  I was willing to allow for the possibility that the failure to comprehend was solely mine as I am not familiar with the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the second series.  When a reread failed to yield additional clarity I went to this forum and to Westeros to see what others had gleaned. 

i was disappointed to find the lack of any consensus.  For the conclusion of a series I would hope that an intelligent group of devout fans would be able to reach some sort of a general consensus regarding the motivations of the characters and/or a coherent description of what actually occurred. 

As much as I love the characters and the setting, overall, I'm disappointed in this ending.  I think Scott may have done his best writing during the TTT and in TJE.  As the series progressed beyond these volumes many key scenes became too abstract or opaque.  In the first series the only scene I can recall that had these shortcomings was when Kell pulled Serwe's burning heart from his chest.  I still have no idea how that occurred.  In TJE we have another example with the Wight being banished by the Chorae.  A cool scene but one that left me wondering what I was supposed to have learned.  In WLW, TGO, and TUC these opaque passages became more common.  The Head-on-the Pole, the Zero God and the conclusion are just a few of the more egregious examples.

Baker fans are crazy. We would often rather obsess over inferred details than agree on anything. And yeah, Bakker's style of writing any scene involving the intersection of the Noosphere and the World is maddening, but at least it's fairly consistent.

edit: I feel like you are being a little harsh though. There are millions of papers disputing the meanings and minutae of literature taught in schools and colleges. It's part of the fun, no?

Quote from: Nil Sertrax
Here are some of the questions/issues I still have:

What are Kellhus' motivations?

Why haven't I been rooting for the Consult all along as shutting the worl to the outside seems to be a reasonable and understandable motivation.  It's unfortunate that the population will be reduced but it's better than the alternative!

What is the point of introducing Koringhus and the Crab-handed boy?

Pretty baldly stated that he serves the Thousandfold Thought as a powerful but flawed tool. Ultimate objective is to save the world, but the dangling question to him as a human is "What then?". 
He tells Esme and Proyas he has succumbed to the Darkness, and no longer knows who is pulling his strings - he apparently hopes it is the Thousandfold Thought, but it looks like maybe Ajokli.
I imagine that ambiguity would be intended as a part of any sequel.

Same problem of resolved goals applies to the Consult (including Mutilated). Seal the world ... then ???

Only unpolluted Dunyain to grasp the nature Absolute was Koringhus and he simply accepted it as annihilation of the self.

Apparently the Consult can't achieve that unless they kill everyone else first, but they are enslaved by the Inverse Flame so they are probably wrong anyway. Worst suicide pact ever. Given they have methods for achieving immortality, why even bother otherwise?

Quote from: Nil Sertrax
Why does the No-God ask "What do you see?"

What significance is the head on the pole?

Tbh I think these are more stylistic motifs that echo relations to the blind-to-the-self nature of the soul more than hazy clues holding meaning towards the larger plot.

For the former, I think the question might be, why do people hear Mog saying that?

For the latter, some kind of resonance with the Watcher/Watched theme.

Quote from: Nil Sertrax
What is the point of the Judging Eye?

Uh... from a narrative perspective? Seems an obvious device to explore characters and metaphysics of the setting.
Is it pertained to the plot; it was simply a MacGuffin that dragged Akka and Mim around the world.

Quote from: Nil Sertrax
What is the point of projecting an image of Kelhus over the sarcophagus?

How did Serwa overcome the Agonic collar and why would the escape from Ishterebinth happen off screen?

I'm sure I have a bunch more questions but these are off the top of my head.  I think this could have been a much, much better book had a good editor forced Scott to be a bit clearer in spots and maybe provided input on a few of the creative decisions the author made.

Khellus' projection seemed like a fun way for Bakker to play with uncertainty at the climax and kinda works as a holographic diversion by the Consult.

Seems like Serwa could have use the metagnosis despite the collar at any time. Isn't that why Moenghus is so pissed?

But yes, a better editor would have been very nice.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 02:27:55 am by Cüréthañ »
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Castel

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
« Reply #139 on: July 12, 2017, 03:39:53 am »
Quote
Apparently the Consult can't achieve that unless they kill everyone else first, but they are enslaved by the Inverse Flame so they are probably wrong anyway. Worst suicide pact ever. Given they have methods for achieving immortality, why even bother otherwise?

Why bother to close the Outside? Why would you take any chances?


Anwurat

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
« Reply #140 on: July 12, 2017, 03:44:49 am »
Well, the glossary says that they want to close the world to the outside "in case they ever die". (Don't have the book now but I remember that in there, possibly in the IF entry.)

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #141 on: July 12, 2017, 04:51:21 am »
Yeah that is fair enough ... thing is, what is to live for after you murder the World? Even if Earwa is the last World or special in some other respect and the Inverse Fire turns into a simple mirror, what then?

The New Consult seems to want to suicide into oblivion and leave the No-god in a dead universe. So why would you root for that outcome?
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

False Man

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
« Reply #142 on: July 12, 2017, 06:48:55 am »
edit: I feel like you are being a little harsh though. There are millions of papers disputing the meanings and minutae of literature taught in schools and colleges. It's part of the fun, no?

I think there's a difference though: Serious Literature scholars focus on the interpretations of clear texts.
We are more in a Gene Wolfe situation here: trying to understand "what" happened on the page.

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #143 on: July 12, 2017, 07:16:55 am »
edit: I feel like you are being a little harsh though. There are millions of papers disputing the meanings and minutae of literature taught in schools and colleges. It's part of the fun, no?

I think there's a difference though: Serious Literature scholars focus on the interpretations of clear texts.
We are more in a Gene Wolfe situation here: trying to understand "what" happened on the page.

Clear texts? I kind of think there is a lot of Serious Literature that deals with ambiguity and jumbled metaphors.

Unless Moby Dick is just a book about a guy who hates a whale then?

Murakami, Joyce, Burroughs, Pynchon, Wallace et al seem pretty open for interpretation to me. Idk?
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Cuttlefish

  • *
  • Momurai
  • **
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
« Reply #144 on: July 12, 2017, 07:20:48 am »
edit: I feel like you are being a little harsh though. There are millions of papers disputing the meanings and minutae of literature taught in schools and colleges. It's part of the fun, no?

I think there's a difference though: Serious Literature scholars focus on the interpretations of clear texts.
We are more in a Gene Wolfe situation here: trying to understand "what" happened on the page.

Clear texts? I kind of think there is a lot of Serious Literature that deals with ambiguity and jumbled metaphors.

Unless Moby Dick is just a book about a guy who hates a whale then?

Murakami, Joyce, Burroughs, Pynchon, Wallace et al seem pretty open for interpretation to me. Idk?

Yeah, but on Moby Dick, while the text may allude to a metaphor, you understand what event is happening. With Bakker, lately, that's becoming somewhat hard - for the most part, I don't think I'll understand his last book until I read the next one and get a sense of the consequences of what happened, to understand what happened. What comes after explains what comes before, in the Bakkerlit.

False Man

  • *
  • Emwama
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
« Reply #145 on: July 12, 2017, 07:39:45 am »
Clear texts? I kind of think there is a lot of Serious Literature that deals with ambiguity and jumbled metaphors.

Unless Moby Dick is just a book about a guy who hates a whale then?

Murakami, Joyce, Burroughs, Pynchon, Wallace et al seem pretty open for interpretation to me. Idk?

The interpretations are open on the meaning of what happened but not on what happened.
We can discuss if the whale stands for Fate, God or what-have-you but it's a whale, not a lion or an AI. The Pequod sinks and Ishamel is the sole survivor, Leopold Bloom returns home at the end of the day...

Cüréthañ

  • *
  • Moderator Extraordinaire
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Pendulous Fallacy
  • Posts: 772
  • Wizard IRL
    • View Profile
« Reply #146 on: July 12, 2017, 08:35:55 am »
Ha, Moby Dick is perhaps, a poor example. Merely meant to show how metaphors and digression rule the narrative, despite the simple plot.

Perhaps any Murakami book would be better in terms of murky details and uncertain events. It's not unusual to me based on my anecdotal experience. I've never really considered a denouement to be a critically required component of Serious Literature.
Retracing his bloody footprints, the Wizard limped on.

Hiro

  • *
  • Kijneta
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
« Reply #147 on: July 12, 2017, 09:48:24 am »
edit: I feel like you are being a little harsh though. There are millions of papers disputing the meanings and minutae of literature taught in schools and colleges. It's part of the fun, no?

I think there's a difference though: Serious Literature scholars focus on the interpretations of clear texts.
We are more in a Gene Wolfe situation here: trying to understand "what" happened on the page.

The ambiguity did not impede my reading experience, it was intense and enjoyable. I tried Gene Wolfe, and I didn't like it at all. So, while I can see what you mean with Gene Wolfe situation, I am still impressed by the fact that this series keeps up the ambiguities/revelations into the 7th book, up until the climax.

If and when Bakker engages with fans after TUC, I am very curious to find out how he will approach these points of contention.

What I do worry about is the speculations about possible time-line / time-travelling / Outside-metaphysical story solutions. The question for me is not just 'is that possible,' but 'is that interesting?' For the moment, such a solution would disappoint me, that would cross the line from (possibly overly) complicated or convoluted to contrived.
Mystery denotes darkness

H

  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #148 on: July 12, 2017, 11:03:38 am »
Ha, Moby Dick is perhaps, a poor example. Merely meant to show how metaphors and digression rule the narrative, despite the simple plot.

Perhaps any Murakami book would be better in terms of murky details and uncertain events. It's not unusual to me based on my anecdotal experience. I've never really considered a denouement to be a critically required component of Serious Literature.

I think something more like Finnegan's Wake is what you are looking for.

To me, none of it would be an issue though, if only Bakker had a real editor, through which to temper the whole thing.
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira

MisterGuyMan

  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Momurai
  • *****
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
« Reply #149 on: July 12, 2017, 11:44:55 am »
How bout the idea that Ajoklie and Kellhus are one and the same?

Like, the Hundred live across time, right?  And sufficiently mean souls can become Ciphrang (see Cnaiur).  So maybe Kellhus is the earthly form of Ajokli?  Like, the God-form can reach across history, has always been present, etc, but Anasurimbor Kellhus was the living soul that became him.
That's my current best guess of who Kellhus was this entire time.  The trickster God tricking himself would be ironic and fitting at the same time.  Onkis is a possibility too since she's the goddess of the Darkness that comes before.  She's also literally a head on a Pole and Kellhus might technically exactly that at the moment.

Even if all that was true, it doesn't matter. Why? Yatwer thinks she's absolute with her White-Luck, and how did that turn out? Ajokli thinks he's absolute with his plans, and how did that turn out? What makes Kellhus immune to this pitfall?....Pick anyone who was sure they were on the winning side that hasn't lost everything (or nearly) for their certainty.
I can't be sure of course but if there is a paradox then that entails Outside Kellhus being the cause of his own demise which is the cause of Outside Kellhus.  He doesn't even have to be in control.  I'd actually prefer it if this were written to be a complete betrayal of his past self like Proyas.  In terms of narrative I still think the un-moved soul goal is in play and a bootstrap paradox is the only way I can see that manifesting.

If you want a story answer to why he's different, then he's the only entity in the Outside that has manipulated the No-God and might have heard voices from him too.  So if Outside Kellhus can talk to mortal Kellhus who can talk to Kelmomas, then a lot of coincidences can be explained.  Add to that how Kellhus is still speaking to an outside voice he does not know about which may be a different voice from the voice he believes to be to No-God.

Weird that during the "Moenghus is behind it all" discussions some people used Kellhus's mistakes/near deaths throughout PoN as evidence that the Dunyain are fallible and that Moenghus simply fucked up and died. Now some of those same people won't accept that Kellhus could have failed. No, he must have planned it all, he is infallible after all...
The very big difference is that Kellhus sees himself in the inverse fire descending as a hunger.  So that confirms that he's Ciphrang at least and not fodder.  He could have made lots of mistakes but we know what his floor is but not his ceiling.  I would argue that if TJE says Cnaiur is a "Prince of Hell" then Kellhus should be that at least as well.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 12:15:17 pm by MisterGuyMan »