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?
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?
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.
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.
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.