[SmilerLoki]

We've been arguing that Akka's dreams are different and that has been the xrux of the argument.

This is not what I was talking about. I got a feeling you read my argument that way and so tried to be more clear, but it seems I've failed in that endeavor.

Achamian's dreams are different, that's a fact. We see it time and again in the narrative, it can't be argued against. What I'm interested is, is Achamian unique or does what's happening to him pertain to the nature of the Dreams themselves (he tried to influence them and maybe succeeded, what if someone else repeats his process?)? There are other possible explanations for the change in his dreams, but for simplicity let's focus on those two for the moment. So, right now we have evidence of only Achamian having dreams that he himself considers unique. That's a fact that can't be argued against. Now, what I was saying is, does this rule out the possibility of someone having similar dreams, be it before, after, or simultaneously with Achamian? The possibility of this happening is not ruled out, it can go both ways, the narrative, while not offering evidence of it, doesn't explicitly prohibit it. And it's very important to understand the nature of Seswatha's Dreams, which is of great interest to me.

I use that Akka dreams, have been confirmed and you agree on some level, I guess. And, I'm using that as a sound judgment that maybe his Heron Spear dream is true, too.

I'm completely in agreement with this phrasing.

[MSJ]

Ok, so we're in agreement that Akka dreams are special. You're just wondering if it's happened sometime in the past...or future.

Well, I think we can rule out the future, I think this is Seswatha's mission to guard against the 2nd Apocalypse, and it's here. Past, again, I don't think so. And hear me out, I guess your right in that the text doesn't rule it out completely. But again, this right now is Seswatha's mission. For whatever reason it's now that a change in the dreams would even matter. It showed Kellhus would be the end, whatever that means coming from a God. It lead him to Ishual and finally to witnessing the Resumption of the No-God and actually save a couple important people and then some. We know that TNG will pick up a couple weeks after the end of TUC. So, who's left to bring the people together but another Seswatha? Maybe, all that going out of the way and such for Akka was a way in which Seswatha (or whoever) saved him. He didn't even fight in the end. Which I thought was strange, very strange.

[MSJ]

@SmilerLoki, sorry, I wasn't trying to put you down by saying fan fiction. I was just meaning that when it's not offered in the text I can't begin to make up thing that could be happened 1000 years ago on Earwa. That's all. That's fan fiction to me and wasn't demeaning you in any way.

That being said, when you offered that maybe it (mundane dreams), has happened in the past, I brought up the Seswatha never shites phrase. Think on it a minute, Seswatha founded the Mandate, his actual being. And for 2000 years or however long, all the Mandate have been having the dreams. Now, over that period of time, "Seswatha never shites" becomes a catchphrase of the Mandate. Its pretty telling, to me, in all those years they never dreamed of the mundane, only atrocity of the 2nd Apocalypse. That's why I don't think it occurred and is the textual evidence that it hadn't. Because, it would be a big deal. And, that's how Akka knows to pay attention and documenting everything. Its mundane.

[SmilerLoki]

I should say that I'm not really fond of the idea of Achamian being strictly needed during the Second Apocalypse. This just feels like standard Chosen One fair that to me seems tremendously out of place in these books.

That's not to say it can't happen, because it very well can. In a way, it even makes sense from the structural point of view. The Chosen One archetype was deconstructed with Kellhus, so now reconstructing it is a reasonable direction to go in. It even might be done with the series' unique flair, but nonetheless such a turn of events would be a bit disappointing to me. I would much prefer something more realistic, with everyone being easily replaceable and no one having the spotlight for very long, unless it happens by a completely random stroke of good fortune rather than due to some personal merit.

On the other hand, during the First Apocalypse Seswatha wasn't really the hero. He was, for lack of a better definition, more like Gandalf, sometimes mentor, sometimes heavy hitter, sometimes the only sane man who sees the true danger, though all of this in a kinda more gruesome and down to earth way than in Tolkien's work. Which is, of course, fitting for this series.

I think the parallel between Seswatha in the First Apocalypse and Achamian in the Second can already be drawn.

[SmilerLoki]

@SmilerLoki, sorry, I wasn't trying to put you down by saying fan fiction. I was just meaning that when it's not offered in the text I can't begin to make up thing that could be happened 1000 years ago on Earwa. That's all. That's fan fiction to me and wasn't demeaning you in any way.

It's okay, I understand.

That being said, when you offered that maybe it (mundane dreams), has happened in the past, I brought up the Seswatha never shites phrase. Think on it a minute, Seswatha founded the Mandate, his actual being. And for 2000 years or however long, all the Mandate have been having the dreams. Now, over that period of time, "Seswatha never shites" becomes a catchphrase of the Mandate. Its pretty telling, to me, in all those years they never dreamed of the mundane, only atrocity of the 2nd Apocalypse. That's why I don't think it occurred and is the textual evidence that it hadn't. Because, it would be a big deal. And, that's how Akka knows to pay attention and documenting everything. Its mundane.

Such sayings tend to be largely true, but not one hundred percent accurate all the time in the real world. "A good deed is never lost", "A little too late is much too late", this kind of fair. I can't really tell how this particular saying should be viewed based on the information presented in the series so far. Maybe it's the equivalent of "The Sun rises in the East", but just as well maybe not. Future revelations can go both ways here.

[MSJ]

On the other hand, during the First Apocalypse Seswatha wasn't really the hero. He was, for lack of a better definition, more like Gandalf, sometimes mentor, sometimes heavy hitter, sometimes the only sane man who sees the true danger, though all of this in a kinda more gruesome and down to earth way than in Tolkien's work. Which is, of course, fitting for this series.

This is what I would expect. Without a doubt. I don't think sorcery is going to take down the Whirlwind, not with all the chorae caught up in it. No, I'd see Akka just trying to rally humanity, or, dun dun dun searching his special like dreams for an answer as to how to defeat the No-God. But, I don't see it being that clear cut either. He's about all there is left with the knowledge to put up a fight, though.

[MSJ]

This might sound ridiculous, or maybe not. But, when the series is done, we might not even know if the world survives or not. That's very Bakkerian.

[TLEILAXU]

Define "survived". I'm pretty sure the world will be closed, but of course that doesn't have to mean that all of humanity will be extinguished.

[Madness]

That's the kind of stuff that sounds crucial to our understanding of the story. Please do?

And Kellhus 'spoke' to Seswatha

Ah yeah I forgot about that part. Wonder if there's a clue in there to how Shaeönanra may have survived (if he's not in the mutilated).

Or a clue to what happened to Kellhus?

It might be best for me (or Wilshire or MG or any of the Nascenti whom MG read the relevant TUC passages to) to post about this in full in the Nascenti thread.

But probably none of those things. There were very cool but apparently ultimately superfluous subplots - cut as suggested by long-time beta readers who are not fans - that I don't expect Bakker to follow up on in TNG (though, if I keep being privileged enough to read the drafts, I almost expect he'll try to tuck it in there again and again and keep being rebuffed by the less hardcore beta readers).

In TGO, it was subtle differences in dialogue that indicated that Seswatha was able to express agency in the present. In TUC, as Wilshire has mentioned elsewhere, it actually impacted the plot in ways, that when eliminated, were akin to keeping the punchline without the setup (some portions of TUC the canon artifact still remain referencing the sections cut, which weirds me out but were probably oversights on Bakker's part/lack of serious, engaged editor). The best, of course, being the Seswatha-through-Saccarees council moment where Seswatha declares that his gamble to survive worked and him being thoroughly pleased with himself that another human Ordeal assembled to war on Golgotterath due to his efforts.

But... as my better fandom half, Wilshire, would say... if it's not in the text, it doesn't exist for us to speculation upon.

[MSJ]

Define "survived". I'm pretty sure the world will be closed, but of course that doesn't have to mean that all of humanity will be extinguished.

Well, wether or not the NG even success. Giving Banker is considering a set of huge Atrocity tales as the path taken in TNG, well I could see that we wouldn't know if TNG wins or doesn't. If the Outside is shut or isn't. He could leave anything and everything completely ambiguous. Anything more Bakkerian than that?

[SmilerLoki]

This is what I would expect. Without a doubt. I don't think sorcery is going to take down the Whirlwind, not with all the chorae caught up in it. No, I'd see Akka just trying to rally humanity, or, dun dun dun searching his special like dreams for an answer as to how to defeat the No-God. But, I don't see it being that clear cut either. He's about all there is left with the knowledge to put up a fight, though.

I'm still pondering that Subject/Object collapse. Would it in a way mean collapsing causality? What if the No-God being defeated or not is a kind of atemporal event? So it can be defeated or shut the world out only in an absolute way not expressed in the terms of events. So the No-God defeated in the First Apocalypse is, in a way, the No-God summoned again, so in order to influence it another atemporal power is needed, which would influence the No-God in an absolute way. That might mean, put into the terms of events, that the No-God needs to be defeated (or not) in the past and in the present by the same power in the same event, so the First and Second iterations of the Apocalypse are actually related more closely than just by drawing parallels between them.

Sorry, at the moment I can't be clearer than that.

[TLEILAXU]

This is what I would expect. Without a doubt. I don't think sorcery is going to take down the Whirlwind, not with all the chorae caught up in it. No, I'd see Akka just trying to rally humanity, or, dun dun dun searching his special like dreams for an answer as to how to defeat the No-God. But, I don't see it being that clear cut either. He's about all there is left with the knowledge to put up a fight, though.

I'm still pondering that Subject/Object collapse. Would it in a way mean collapsing causality? What if the No-God being defeated or not is a kind of atemporal event? So it can be defeated or shut the world out only in an absolute way not expressed in the terms of events. So the No-God defeated in the First Apocalypse is, in a way, the No-God summoned again, so in order to influence it another atemporal power is needed, which would influence the No-God in an absolute way. That might mean, put into the terms of events, that the No-God needs to be defeated (or not) in the past and in the present by the same power in the same event, so the First and Second iterations of the Apocalypse are actually related more closely than just by drawing parallels between them.

Sorry, at the moment I can't be clearer than that.

Maybe in a sense it IS causality. An unsconscious God re-writing the causal flow of the World because it is the causal flow. I think you make a good point regarding the parallels.

[MSJ]

In this case, which I like your thinking, Akka would parallel Seswatha nicely.