Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
The Unholy Consult / Re: Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 10, 2021, 05:07:37 pm »
Ah, and here's that quote I forgot about!

yeah same heh....makes me wonder to what degree are we Nonmen wandering in forgetfulness...
Literature / Re: Yearly Reading Targets 2021
« Last post by The P on May 10, 2021, 02:44:51 pm »
The Third God by Ricardo Pinto (10)

There were portions of this book that were really good.  The beginning was very slow, and had me questioning the division of the original into 3.  The previous book had a huge, horrible, climactic battle, and the first third of this finale made me think the whole book was going to be aftermath and wrapping things up.  Thankfully things picked up.  There were some intense moments and big events, and the ending did not end up feeling too drawn out.

There were a couple points where we actually got some extended exposition.  This is, strangely, my biggest problem with the series as a whole: there is not enough exposition.  The world and culture Pinto has created is so strange and alien, and many things just get dropped on the reader without giving any ground to the why or how things are happening, it makes it hard to be invested in the story at times.  Pinto has a lot of extra notes he shares on his website, which is helpful, but even that often isn't enough.

This series goes into some dark places.  There is slaughter and atrocity aplenty, but story does not dwell on it or glorify it like a "grimdark" story would.  A number of times, I found myself thinking some scene/theme/idea had been inspired by TSA, only to remind myself that these were initially published in '99, '02, and '09.  I'd be surprised if these in any way inspired Bakker, but there are similarities.

Overall, I liked it.  The writing itself isn't amazing, but the story is good and has a very unique setting.  I'd call it Aztec, pre-historic (dinos included), with a healthy Skeksi vibe (from Dark Crystal).  I wish the gods played into it more; I always like more magic and the mythical, but this series is on the low fantasy side.
Ah, and here's that quote I forgot about!
I don't think there are necessarily contradictions within the text itself. We've never had a Cishaurim POV outside of battle and never with a Skin-Spy. Moenghus lets the reader, via Kellhus', assume that what Kellhus' says about vocal discrepancies is accurate. Fanayal is obsessed with being Kellhus' equal and there's never really a reason for Meppa, Psatma, or Fanayal to talk about the possibility of Skin-Spies or how the Cishaurim (remember they're Fanim Priests) actually found the Skin-Spies or how they reacted to their discovery. We do know from Aurang that the Consult couldn't keep Skin-Spies operating in Fanim territory. Likewise, the conversation between the Mutilated and Kellhus never even mentions the Psukhe as they are concerned strictly with the Metagnosis v. Tekne (Kellhus really has no reason to share that Meppa seemed to give him a better fight than Aurang did, nor that Kellhus left Meppa alive).

Just throwing data out there, as I've perceived it.
5 the absence of souls in their meat?

Basing this on a Bakker quote ->

Regarding the Third Sight (which refers to the way Cishaurim see without seeing), the idea is that Psukari can actually see souls - those things invisible to the naked eye. Souls 'shine' to the degree they reflect the 'proportion of the God.' So the implication is that the Dunyain somehow reflect the proper proportion..

Also, isn't it weird that despite the Dunyain reflecting a proper proportion of the God they are spiritually weak?
The Unholy Consult / Re: Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 09, 2021, 11:23:43 pm »
They are just another weapon. We know the Inchoroi can't make souls on purpose, so I think its safe to assume that the Wracu do not have souls.

...and yet ->

Mike mentioned this on TPB as the 'question of questions,' but I'm sure this in the books somewhere. Wracu find them painful, for reasons that are hotly contested. One interpretation involves the fact that it's not just places where atrocity wears thin the fabric of the onta. As Wutteat shows, it's beings as well. Wracu, some argue, are demonic in some respect.

Another interpretation turns on the way morality is intrinsic to the ontology of the World. If you look at Chorae as 'logic bombs' designed to obliterate violations of code, then you can chart antipathies to Chorae according to different kinds of violations. Thus the difference between Schoolmen and Cishaurim. Wracu are not simply Inchoroi abominations, they are Inchoroi abominations possessing souls. Like the Cishaurim, they do not so much violate the 'letter' as the 'spirit' of natural law. Chorae are 'ontological stressors' in the latter instance. 
The Unholy Consult / Re: Do Dragons descended from Wutteat Comprehend Paradox?
« Last post by Wilshire on May 07, 2021, 02:27:33 pm »
The Inchoroi only had 1 dragon - Wutteat The Destroyer of Worlds. They found him in space somewhere, probably Cybertron or whatever.

Jokes aside, 1 dragon as template to create the Wracu. The Wracu are to Wutteat as Sranc are to Nonmen, as Skin Spies are to Humans.

They are just another weapon. We know the Inchoroi can't make souls on purpose, so I think its safe to assume that the Wracu do not have souls.
General Misc. / Re: What are you watching?
« Last post by sciborg2 on May 06, 2021, 04:08:47 pm »
Starz are mother-fuckers, I tell ya. First they cancel Boss ( incomplete ) and then Counterpart ( quazi complete, but had more gas in the story to tell ) and now American Gods ( serious cliffhanger ). Really? I'm guessing because it wasn't watched by enough people, but plenty of people waited for the entire thing to be released to binge watch it, like myself. Anyways, I loved the show, some killer gay/trans sex going on near the end of season 3 ( an extraordinary scene, amazing render of unrepressed human love ).

I guess I'll have to finish the book to learn the end ( found the book boring - but I guess I suffer a lack of imagination given how beautiful the show is ). Still worth watching even though the story "ends" on a cliffhanger.

Gaiman's book, while the inspiration, does feel less exciting than the show...but then I read the book years ago. I do recall enjoying it, so it's probably worth a library rental at the least?

Yeah, it's a weakness of mine, I get lost with too much description in books. I make the mistake thinking I have to visualize it accurately in order to understand it. I think I would've understood the TSA books better if I didn't let myself get bogged down in the environment details. I think that's why I gave up on American Gods, I didn't appreciate the scenery of it enough. Watching the tv show was a trip as I'm recollecting the parts of the book and I'm like, I no way visualized it that cool.

I do think the show took things to another level, just as Rats of Nimh the movie exceeds its bookish origins. :-)

Rewatching The's actually better than I remember....
This sounded a lot like Brownian motion.  I looked it up; I guess pedetic is the word kids are using for it these days.  :)

He uses Brownian synonymously but I think he does need a new word since most people assume Brownian motion is inherently random and he wants to make a distinction between randomness and indeterminate-but-relational.

From an interview ->

Time Will Tell: An Interview with Thomas Nail

So, you don’t interpret the swerve in Lucretius as a random motion? No chance?

I am open to hearing evidence for an outside to the universe, but I have no idea what that would even look like. In part, because the universe is not a whole but an expanding and open process—just as Lucretius described in De Rerum Natura. I believe there is genuine novelty in the universe but we do not need to posit randomness to get that novelty. Lucretius says that matter is always in the habit [solerent] of swerving. There are at least two typical ideas of randomness neither of which Lucretius’ view could support. The first one is a radical randomness, or what Quentin Meillassoux calls “hyperchaos,” which is complete ex nihilo creation from nothing. Lucreitus is explicit that “nil posse creari de nihilo” [nothing can be created from nothing]. The second kind of randomness is the constrained definition randomness where there is a closed domain of objects and matter moves randomly within that. Again, Lucretius is explicit that nature is not a finite closed system—and so there cannot be randomness in this sense either. Something always comes from something relationally but creatively and non-deterministically.
Philosophy & Science / Re: Is there really a Determinism/Indeterminism Dichotomy?
« Last post by The P on May 06, 2021, 02:20:16 am »
This sounded a lot like Brownian motion.  I looked it up; I guess pedetic is the word kids are using for it these days.  :)
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10