31
General Earwa / Re: (spoilers all) General Questions
« on: October 04, 2017, 12:10:35 pm »
Bashrag have souls as well, right?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
32
General Misc. / Re: The Mark Lawrence Forum Experiment
« on: October 04, 2017, 01:19:17 am »I appreciate the elaboration. I want to make a specific note on the thieves analogy in that theft is a crime, it unlawfully deprives other people of their goods. And seems quite inappropriate comparison for that reason, what he has done is neither illegal nor really depriving people of goods. If we're talking about a gift, typically such a thing is a personal exchange.Ah, it appears that there was a little misunderstanding there. So, a TL;DR of Lawrence: He is pretty damn social, unlike say, Bakker. He is active in Facebook fantasy groups, reddit, etc etc... You name it. He is also, more or less, a popular author. Of course he doesn't see every post or comment anybody makes on him at anytime everywhere. That said, like I said, he is social. I have him on my friend list on Facebook, he comments on all kinds of stuff so, his ignoring the public posts about the forum, then commenting in a private profile instead, is not a good move. So, he made his comment which is in the original post. I replied with " General places suck. " , Madness replied too and the person whose page we were talking in. We disagreed with his comments. He got notifications. He didn't reply. After a day, Madness replied with a request to Lawrence to post about the forum. Another ignore, but after like an hour, Lawrence posted about a Reddit/fantasy thread asking about his books, presumably to get his fans abroad.So no, of course he isn't entitled to respond to every discussion about him. But when he posts a "questionable" comment then ignore all different point of views, then make a blog post about it and not accepting any comments..............That's a slap to the face. And it's not the first time I see him being "not very pleasant" either.Everybody wants to earn more money. That's no secret. But would you say that say, thieves are not bad for just wanting some money? If someone got me a gift that I didn't like at all, would I just tell him that I don't need it and ignore him for the rest of the day? That someone only had good intentions by bringing me this gift. Why wouldn't I at least, thank him and treat him well despite my dislike of that gift ? It's simple manners. Authors who treat their fans "unkindly" just for earning more money, does not deserve to earn that money.Does he read all manner of Facebook post about him in detail or does it he skim? Does he typically consider them all very much? Hell if I know. I barely glance over stuff I see at me. Either way, whether he saw it or not is not quite as important, we can proceed assuming he did, if you'd prefer.Madness, seems like a very well thought and written post. Well done, I say. And about as respectable a disagreement as one can have.Ignoring passionate fan projects completely kills it and most importantly, is certainly " not a good adequate". (
Redeagl, it isn't his responsibility to comment on the matter (assuming he saw it previously) or even give researched debate on it. And I'm not sure why you feel as though you are entitled to such. So strongly that you feel it appropriate to both call him names and tell people not to buy his books.) .And yes, he certainly did see it previously, he sees every single post made about him in FB groups he is active in. As for my strong feelings, discovering that an author whose books I greatly enjoy, is not " a very good guy" in first person does that. Like I said, I really liked his books ( Except Red Sister. That was shit. ), but I also recommend against them. Is that bad? It's just my opinion, that Lawrence doesn't deserve your money.
I don't have issue with recommending against his books specifically. But I think you insulting his character and claiming he's 'not a very good guy' isn't well justified. And the idea that that is also the justification for telling people not to buy them. It isn't his responsibility to read and/or respond to all discussion about him, especially not in debate of an issue. And it doesn't make him a bad person to want to earn more money. Especially when his response seemed rather political, whether or not his claim is necessarily correct. I understand entirely not agreeing with what he said and, to an extent, not liking it either. But it just seems like insults are a step too far. That's what bothers me on the matter.
Sorry for the long rant, it's 1AM and it have been a long day. I will probably make a more meaningful reply tomorrow.
This entire thing just reinforces my thought that you feel entitled to something, a detailed discussion in this, because what, they are in part a public figure? It is the same rationale one would make to interrupt an actor at dinner to get an autograph because they signed one before. Qualifying it as a 'slap in the face' seems an exaggeration to me based on strong feelings on the matter, no offense intended. I'm not even quite sure I'd consider the situation very 'unkindly', it seems quite tame. Especially if he thinks it hurts his livelihood.
But, as you say, perhaps I'm reading too much into the language. As I somewhat noted, I understand disagreeing with what he said or even being annoyed. I'm, perhaps, more sparing with such words with people I'm unfamiliar with. And, clearly, I know less about the author's habits than you do. Perhaps it just comes down to semantics because I'm less involved.
33
General Misc. / Re: The Mark Lawrence Forum Experiment
« on: October 03, 2017, 09:38:26 pm »Does he read all manner of Facebook post about him in detail or does it he skim? Does he typically consider them all very much? Hell if I know. I barely glance over stuff I see at me. Either way, whether he saw it or not is not quite as important, we can proceed assuming he did, if you'd prefer.Madness, seems like a very well thought and written post. Well done, I say. And about as respectable a disagreement as one can have.Ignoring passionate fan projects completely kills it and most importantly, is certainly " not a good adequate". (
Redeagl, it isn't his responsibility to comment on the matter (assuming he saw it previously) or even give researched debate on it. And I'm not sure why you feel as though you are entitled to such. So strongly that you feel it appropriate to both call him names and tell people not to buy his books.
I don't have issue with recommending against his books specifically. But I think you insulting his character and claiming he's 'not a very good guy' isn't well justified. And the idea that that is also the justification for telling people not to buy them. It isn't his responsibility to read and/or respond to all discussion about him, especially not in debate of an issue. And it doesn't make him a bad person to want to earn more money. Especially when his response seemed rather political, whether or not his claim is necessarily correct. I understand entirely not agreeing with what he said and, to an extent, not liking it either. But it just seems like insults are a step too far. That's what bothers me on the matter.
34
General Misc. / Re: The Mark Lawrence Forum Experiment
« on: October 03, 2017, 08:07:42 pm »
Madness, seems like a very well thought and written post. Well done, I say. And about as respectable a disagreement as one can have.
Redeagl, it isn't his responsibility to comment on the matter (assuming he saw it previously) or even give researched debate on it. And I'm not sure why you feel as though you are entitled to such. So strongly that you feel it appropriate to both call him names and tell people not to buy his books.
Redeagl, it isn't his responsibility to comment on the matter (assuming he saw it previously) or even give researched debate on it. And I'm not sure why you feel as though you are entitled to such. So strongly that you feel it appropriate to both call him names and tell people not to buy his books.
35
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Ajokli's Motivations
« on: October 03, 2017, 07:04:51 pm »
I think it is worth noting the other reported facts we know about Ajokli.
Then we have the odd fact that some people have supposedly view Golgotteroth as associated with Ajokli.
Then we have the odd confusion when referencing Gilgaol in the text and Ajokli. And whether Akka's dreams about the Celmoman prophecy hold any weight.
And lastly, whether this god is a separate entity, or somehow merged with aspects of Kellhus or Cnauir.
Honestly, the entire thing is a big kettle of fish to me. But wanted to throw this out there before I really solidified my thoughts on it's nature.
Quote
Ajokli—The God of thievery and deception. Also known as the Four-Horned Brother. Though listed among the primary Gods in The Chronicle of the Tusk, there is no true Cult of Ajokli, but rather an informal network of devotees scattered across the great cities of the Three Seas. The lack of any organizing institutions has transformed the Cult into the skulking, criminal embodiment of its skulking, criminal Master. The high priests of the Cult, insofar as it possesses any, are its Narindar, the most deadly of the most deadly assassins.I find the bolded parts to fit very much with what happened in the Golden Room. He seemingly wanted to stalk the world with The Mutilated and glut himself on mankind.
Ajokli is oft mentioned in the secondary scriptures of the different Cults, sometimes as a mischievous companion of the Gods, other times as a cruel or malicious competitor. In the Mar’eddat, he is the faithless husband of Gierra. In the Book of Gods he is nothing less than the dread enemy of mankind, the one God too hungry to remain in the Outside. In the Book of Hintarates he is the same, but depleted for his endless grasping, and so reduced to craft and insinuation. The fractured image presented in the scriptures is expressed in the sheer number of names used to reference him or his work: the Trickster, the Thief, the Four-Horned Brother, the Bald-faced, the Grinning God, Immortal Malice, the Prince of Hate, the Rake, among others.
Then we have the odd fact that some people have supposedly view Golgotteroth as associated with Ajokli.
Quote
If the Ark were a vessel from another planet, then it had to be constructed by the Inchoroi themselves, when plainly, given its boggling dimensions, only a God could have forged it. Given the evil, rapacious nature of the Inchoroi, the construction is typically attributed to Ajokli. Some even think the Incû-Holoinas comprises two of the fabled Four Horns attributed to the trickster God in the Tusk and elsewhere. Indeed, some Near Antique lays refer to the conspicuously golden vessel as the Halved Crown of Hate.While some of these aspects seem unlikely given recent knowledge, they are still interesting bits and might hint an an actual association.
Then we have the odd confusion when referencing Gilgaol in the text and Ajokli. And whether Akka's dreams about the Celmoman prophecy hold any weight.
And lastly, whether this god is a separate entity, or somehow merged with aspects of Kellhus or Cnauir.
Honestly, the entire thing is a big kettle of fish to me. But wanted to throw this out there before I really solidified my thoughts on it's nature.
36
The No-God / Re: Achamian as the most powerful sorcerer left alive in the Three Seas.
« on: October 03, 2017, 06:32:53 pm »But even that quote is only relating to the God's memories and awareness more than their existence. We might just have to agree to disagree, but the language seems to much more imply mere separation to me- striking from the hip, shutting the world, starving at the gates. None of these things imply destruction to me. Nor some sort of temporal change that would also rewrite the history of existence. This is even assuming on your part from where souls come from, which also seems equally unclear.It's how I interpret things based on all kinds of things, such as the very wording in "starving" the Gods, but also the part about the No-God/Ark changing eternity,I don't necessarily agree, unless you have more wording than I do. What gives you reason to think the Outside being shut means the Gods cease to exist? Several times Shutting the World has been referenced to as 'starving the Gods' and they would be 'howling at the gates'. Kellhus also described it as 'striking the Outside from the hip of the Real.' I take it to mean the Outside will be separated from the world, but not that the Outside will cease to exist entirely.But you don't need souls anymore after the world of shut. They're a part of Eärwan metaphysics. After the Outside has been shut you arrive in a world like our world.
Plausible, but we don't know what happens once the world is closed.
Sure, souls aren't needed, but the birth of souled being might be contingent upon the Cycle of Souls. So, the No-God stopping the Cycle could be why there were no births during it's presence. Once the world is shut, we don't know, but if the end result is like the means, it could be that no souled beings will ever be born alive.Keep in mind that Eärwan metaphysics are strange and arbitrary and dependent on Divine wills. Breaking the cycle of souls -> no more humans can be born because humans are ensouled beings in the World, but after the Outside is shut, and the Gods cease to exist (in a sense, as they have never existed in the first place), there's no such thing as a soul anymore.But you don't need souls anymore after the world of shut. They're a part of Eärwan metaphysics. After the Outside has been shut you arrive in a world like our world.As H says, that's possible. But it seems unlikely to me.
Can living beings exist without souls? Sure, we have skin-spies and scranc, for instance. Can men be born without souls? I've seen no evidence of that so far. Seemingly all men have been born with souls and can even live without a proper body (the Amoilas, Shae's strange contraption, somewhat of Malowebi in the Decapitant, and so on). But assuming sealing the world breaks the cycle of souls, it would make more sense to me that men simply cannot make more men, not that birth would continue in a new way. Especially given the effect of the No-God.
It also doesn't make sense from a story-telling perspective since the World being shut is supposed to be analogous to our own crash-space.QuoteThe Gods are pretty much witless now. Imagine a virus erasing your memories and your meta-memories simultaneously. Theological Alzheimers.etc. The way I see it, the World being shut would mean the Gods being erased.
37
The No-God / Re: Achamian as the most powerful sorcerer left alive in the Three Seas.
« on: October 03, 2017, 05:21:12 pm »I don't necessarily agree, unless you have more wording than I do. What gives you reason to think the Outside being shut means the Gods cease to exist? Several times Shutting the World has been referenced to as 'starving the Gods' and they would be 'howling at the gates'. Kellhus also described it as 'striking the Outside from the hip of the Real.' I take it to mean the Outside will be separated from the world, but not that the Outside will cease to exist entirely.But you don't need souls anymore after the world of shut. They're a part of Eärwan metaphysics. After the Outside has been shut you arrive in a world like our world.
Plausible, but we don't know what happens once the world is closed.
Sure, souls aren't needed, but the birth of souled being might be contingent upon the Cycle of Souls. So, the No-God stopping the Cycle could be why there were no births during it's presence. Once the world is shut, we don't know, but if the end result is like the means, it could be that no souled beings will ever be born alive.Keep in mind that Eärwan metaphysics are strange and arbitrary and dependent on Divine wills. Breaking the cycle of souls -> no more humans can be born because humans are ensouled beings in the World, but after the Outside is shut, and the Gods cease to exist (in a sense, as they have never existed in the first place), there's no such thing as a soul anymore.But you don't need souls anymore after the world of shut. They're a part of Eärwan metaphysics. After the Outside has been shut you arrive in a world like our world.As H says, that's possible. But it seems unlikely to me.
Can living beings exist without souls? Sure, we have skin-spies and scranc, for instance. Can men be born without souls? I've seen no evidence of that so far. Seemingly all men have been born with souls and can even live without a proper body (the Amoilas, Shae's strange contraption, somewhat of Malowebi in the Decapitant, and so on). But assuming sealing the world breaks the cycle of souls, it would make more sense to me that men simply cannot make more men, not that birth would continue in a new way. Especially given the effect of the No-God.
It also doesn't make sense from a story-telling perspective since the World being shut is supposed to be analogous to our own crash-space.
38
The No-God / Re: Achamian as the most powerful sorcerer left alive in the Three Seas.
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:46:05 pm »But you don't need souls anymore after the world of shut. They're a part of Eärwan metaphysics. After the Outside has been shut you arrive in a world like our world.As H says, that's possible. But it seems unlikely to me.
Can living beings exist without souls? Sure, we have skin-spies and scranc, for instance. Can men be born without souls? I've seen no evidence of that so far. Seemingly all men have been born with souls and can even live without a proper body (the Amoilas, Shae's strange contraption, somewhat of Malowebi in the Decapitant, and so on). But assuming sealing the world breaks the cycle of souls, it would make more sense to me that men simply cannot make more men, not that birth would continue in a new way. Especially given the effect of the No-God.
39
The No-God / Re: Achamian as the most powerful sorcerer left alive in the Three Seas.
« on: October 03, 2017, 02:48:17 pm »Why would the world being shut stop people from having children?I'd note again that I'm merely speculating.
But from what I recall (as with everything, I'd have to double check) that the end of TUC referenced the 'cycle of souls'. Then one could take the idea of daimotic metaphysics, that all souls occupy one place, seemingly related to The Outside or linked/related to it. And in Cants of Calling that sleeping people have a connection to the Outside.
My point being, I'm of the mindset that interfering with how souls leave the world may very well interfere with how they enter it.
40
General Misc. / Re: The Mark Lawrence Forum Experiment
« on: October 03, 2017, 01:41:01 pm »I find that to be an unfairly malicious interpretation. Especially given the very liberal rephrasing. From the sounds of things in Quorum, there are probably insurmountable philosophical differences on the topic as well.He basically said " If you want to talk about my books, do it in a way that makes me money or no fun for you!!!!". That's a douchePretty douche-ey reply, imo.Why do you think that? Maybe I'm not getting it. I can't comment on the veracity of his logic, given I have no numbers to go off of (and it'd be a seemingly hard topic to delve into). But it seemed tame enough.
@Wilshire - Fair enough, that sounds like a much more understandable framing of the situation to me.
41
General Misc. / Re: The Mark Lawrence Forum Experiment
« on: October 03, 2017, 01:19:01 pm »Pretty douche-ey reply, imo.Why do you think that? Maybe I'm not getting it. I can't comment on the veracity of his logic, given I have no numbers to go off of (and it'd be a seemingly hard topic to delve into). But it seemed tame enough.
42
The No-God / Re: Achamian as the most powerful sorcerer left alive in the Three Seas.
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:15:56 am »I mean, the No-God's continued existence doesn't seem necessary to keeping the world shut, since we know the No-God seemingly can only exist for so long from what Bakker said (he made a comment on it once, if I remember correctly, that the No-God had a time limit of sorts). I'm not saying killing the No-God wouldn't restore child birth, that's assumedly been the case before. But I mean if it manages to succeeded shutting the world.I think he has good chances of rallying some survivors to weather the incoming mass genocide and eventually repopulate the world after it has been shut.Well, that's assuming people can have children after the world is shut. I'm not sure if there is anything commenting on the matter, but it wouldn't surprise me if shutting it would prevent that.
Well, if dispatching TNG doesn't revitalize fertility, then it is OVER already. That one effect alone dooms humanity same as the non-men. Doesn't make sense to me - kinda makes the 144,000 ceiling odd given it'll come to that naturally if there is no way humans can propagate; TNG could just wait it out.
43
The No-God / Re: Achamian as the most powerful sorcerer left alive in the Three Seas.
« on: October 02, 2017, 07:46:24 pm »I think he has good chances of rallying some survivors to weather the incoming mass genocide and eventually repopulate the world after it has been shut.Well, that's assuming people can have children after the world is shut. I'm not sure if there is anything commenting on the matter, but it wouldn't surprise me if shutting it would prevent that.
44
The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Ajokli and the metaphysical whodunit
« on: October 02, 2017, 12:54:35 pm »Welcome to the Second Apocalypse, Nichamian.I actually need to double check this. I strongly recall the instruction to not look into the Inverse Fire was telepathic. But for some reason I think the conversation before they walk inside the Ark was out loud?unless we choose to believe Ajokli took over in the Golden Room unbidden I don't see another reading for the 'treaties' line (A Prince of Hell has no one to be making agreements with in Hell if Kellhus is removed from the idea.)
I wish we knew more about Ajokli's relationship with the Outside, and Hell specifically. I know it's poor logic but we can't yet disprove that Ajokli didn't need to assure the Outside or Ciphrang or Gods or whatever that he'd feed souls to the Outside if they let him make his play in Earwa.Would someone be able to clarify a point for me - Malowebi observes the events that take place in the Golden Room from Kellhus' hip. At one point he thinks he hears a voice speaking to him alone, and he doesn't hear it again. Could Kellhus hear Malowebi, and communicate with him?Welcome to TSA Nichamian!Right before he enters the Golden Room, he says "Fear not Iswazi", but I'm not sure if he said it telepathically or aloud.
It did appear that Kellhus had some kind of telepathic link with Malowebi. I'm unsure why Bakker chose to include it; maybe a hint for later?
It seems to be telepathic - or Daimotic, or whichevery.
There's also the later instruction not to look at the Inverse Fire.
45
The No-God / Re: Achamian as the most powerful sorcerer left alive in the Three Seas.
« on: October 02, 2017, 12:46:39 pm »Here's why. Why would the progenitors create the Carapace and have it be vulnerable to technology they have?Possibly because the risk to the Carapace was lower when Ark worked properly (might never leave orbit during exterminations). They might have developed the weapons of light prior to conceiving the No-God and thought it best to send their best weaponry along as well. After all, soggomant is thought impenetrable by man, but a weapon of light may do so. Had Kellhus defeated the Consult, they might have been able to cut apart Ark like a roast turkey at Thanksgiving. Why give the only weapons that could hurt their space ship as well?
