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.

Messages - solipsisticurge

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6
General Earwa / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Nascenti of Zaudunyanicon
« on: August 16, 2017, 06:02:29 am »
Again, sad I had to miss this, but reality does not cooperate with desires. (Neither does my daughter, haha.)

Glad for the confirmation Meppa is alive, and hoping the Psukhe will be further explored in TNG. Not surprised Fane's interpretation is inaccurate, but sorcery with no Mark still makes me want to know more.

Also confirms my ideas regarding Kellhus in TNG. I've not thought he was going to make a glorious return on horseback through Gnostic-Daimotic-Dunyain trickery, but all his mucking about with the Outside, damnation, empires, et al, had to yield some contingencies that have not yet been explored, whether planned in advance as a post-failure eventuality by the man himself, or seized by the mighty Likaro and exploited to new ends in the Second Apocalypse.

Can't wait for whatever audio/video does make its way up here!

The Unholy Consult / Re: Merchandising the Second Apocalypse
« on: August 15, 2017, 07:06:59 pm »
Ultimate difficulty mode: Kellhus dies in the wasteland, and you must seize the Holy Warband Leweth.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

The Unholy Consult / Re: We Are Proyas
« on: August 14, 2017, 06:38:39 am »
Kellhus would have been the wish fulfillment character, with Achamian as a more destructive, drunker Gandalf. Kellhus fits the farm boy entering the world as its destined savior trope to a T... just, y'know, ascetic eugenics philosophical warrior monk sociopath instead of village idiot #62,012.

One of the things I love most about Bakker's work is, rather than eschewing overutilized standard fantasy tropes, he wields each and every damn one of them... but subverts them to hell and back so many times, they're barely recognizable in the end.

Who am I kidding? When is the next book coming out?

Not soon enough, my friend.

General Earwa / Re: Prince of Nothing film
« on: August 12, 2017, 05:15:21 pm »
Would have to be a series, no way you can even begin to touch on the entire story and thematic elements in a three hour film. Probably break down to roughly a season per novel in the grand tradition of Game of Thrones because

1. it allows significant time for the storyline, and character/thematic development
2. it worked for GoT, and any network is going to love having a successful model to rip off

The actors, especially whoever plays Kellhus, would need to be ridiculously good to do it justice. Unheard of emotional range with excellent physical acting. (As an aside, I'd be very afraid that Kellhus fight sequences would become akin to the mega-choreographed silliness of the Jedi in the Star Wars prequels, where the combat would ideally be an area for the gritty realism to "shine.")

AS to the Sranc/Inchoroi, I think the biggest problem is overcoming the initial shockwave of revulsion on the part of the network. You can have your evil rape monsters, just takes clever editing, subtext and implication. Bakker's very much an author who's going to describe the minutiae insertion and climax, which won't work at all, but you can largely step around direct visual depiction of the carnal fury through clever trickery without changing it to cannibalism or just turning them into Jackson's orcs. The viewer doesn't need to SEE the giant, turgid phallus making new holes on the victim to understand what's happening in enough capacity to convey the thematic importance. Wouldn't be easy, but a skilled writing & direction team could pull it off.

Of course, this would be an expensive-as-fuck series to make. Large-scale military engagements with super-flashy magic. It would almost have to be a pet project for an established director/studio, leveraging their past successes into carte blanche from a network that trusts them to produce a financial hit out of whatever they get their hands on. No way to overcome Bakker's midlist status, shock value and the inherent expense of such a show otherwise, I'm afraid.

The Unholy Consult / Re: Merchandising the Second Apocalypse
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:12:25 pm »
I would buy the hell out of Total War: The First Holy War.

I always envisioned a game with Total War combat mechanics, but outside of battles, a more RPG/adventure framework, covering the manipulations, faction intrigue, etc. of the story. Kind of a good ground for "what if?" segments, where different avenues are pursued, different characters convinced to different degrees by varying means, etc. So you can have a Holy War led by Conphas, or with Conphas as Kellhus' primary devotee, or Kellhus dying on the Circumfix because Cnaiur died earlier on and can't slaughter Sarcellus, or a million other ways the series could have played out with different decisions on the part of the characters.

You win the game by keeping Athjeari alive through to the end.

Literature / Re: YOU MUST TELL ME ... What else are you reading?
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:58:35 pm »
Homo Deus by  Yuval Noah Harari. Diving into Sapiens once I finish.

For fiction... nothing at the moment. My fiction reading hinged on TUC coming out, and in its wake, it's hard to contemplate anything but a complete SA re-read, though I'm loath to promise that amount of time toward anything at the moment.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Serwa and Kelmomas
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:55:25 pm »
...what stopped an archer from picking up a chorae that had previously missed?

Ninety-nien chorae can be ninety-nine thousand on a long enough timeframe, unless they explode from shame upon a near miss.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:33:13 pm »
Quote from:  solipsisticurge
Perhaps the disagreement lies in "making a better us." Who gets to define "better," and will it somehow manage to contradict "better for the prevailing socioeconomic system" if necessary to preserve current humanist morality?

By, "better us" thats what I was getting at. A better world, better place to live, more peaceful, more prosperous.

I'm just not sure the tenets of humanism will survive the coming storm, especially given ecological concerns looming large on the horizon. Why go through all the trouble of arguing taxation and people's right to their neurology as born to keep the moral sensitivities and livelihoods intact for swaths of people who will be, in terms of the economy (the real system at power for the last few centuries), useless? How does prosperity (as interpreted by those already at the wheel, politically and financially) benefit from "lazy people getting free shit my robots made?"

I'm expecting society to continue to follow a top-down structure, and for those at the top to continue to prioritize their own short-term benefit over other concerns. I do sincerely hope I'm wrong on that front.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 08:24:12 pm »

Well, they basically have been for 2 millennia. Things change, sure. But, for the most part I don't see the horror story that so many warn us of, coming to pass. Its in a nature to want to be good people, please others, make others think highly of us. To do this, you have to follow morals. I don't see that changing. In fact, my opinion of what science will do to us, is make a better us. I feel that at some point (not in my lifetime, for sure), humanity will wake up and look for common good for each other. It'll take something awful to happen, but I believe it will.

I'll agree that the absolute worst-case scenario is far-fetched. I don't share your relentless optimism, though. Probably some workable middle ground will be found. I do tend to view the arc of progress as tending toward justice... but that's just a modern mind finding merit in the circumstances it was born into and trained to revere, after all.

Perhaps the disagreement lies in "making a better us." Who gets to define "better," and will it somehow manage to contradict "better for the prevailing socioeconomic system" if necessary to preserve current humanist morality?

Hi, all! Registered way back when, began posting recently.

Please forgive any sudden, unexplained absences from conversations; I work a job that doesn't allow computer access, and my free time is divided among genre fiction, video games, punk rock, my wife and my freshly year-old daughter, so I will sporadically bow out unannounced for long periods of time due to other commitments (or due to the subject matter at hand eclipsing my expertise or ease of comprehension. I despise intellectual laziness in everyone but myself, for whom it is, of course, 100% justified at all times.)

Happy to be shooting out crackpot theories on what has become my favorite series of all time!

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 07:59:38 pm »
Why would it be?

If it serves the interests of those in power, why wouldn't it be? All structured societies have leaders and followers. The degree of direct control and basis for higher stature varies wildly between eras and governmental/economic systems, but is always present.

To use an oversimplified modern example: the U.S. begins a gradual shift from a production economy to a service/information economy. As such, the intrinsic value of higher education and specialization rises. Without edict or direct legal consequence for failure to adhere, there is a dramatic upward shift in people at the low-to-mid end of the spectrum pursuing specialized education, pursuing reward and avoiding (non-mandated) consequence.

Quote from: SmilerLoki
Why have a job? If technology is sufficiently advanced your needs are met by default. Do what you will.

My point is, why would only one way of life become dominant? I don't see it. If anything, I see more or less the opposite of it.

The job bit was a bad analogy on my end, but serves my point a bit indirectly. Think how quick we are to process advancement within the confines of our current system. (The fact that robots and computers may do all the work in the near future might be a bad thing in terms of survival if the current system isn't rewritten from the ground up to accommodate the existence of non-human labor). No reason to think those who benefit from the status quo would alter it substantially just to make things easier on anyone else.

Quote from: MSJ
And, imho, no matter how far science evolves, most humans will hold onto those morals. People wanna be good people for the most part. Its what I like to think, at least.

But morals are not universally shared or constant through time.

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 07:22:13 pm »
And why would we uniformly pursue any of those things?

For them to become dominant, pursuit doesn't have to be universal, just highly incentivized. Why not get rewired to enjoy your shitty job, if the alternative is suffering through it - and possibly losing it to someone whose performance is better due simply to the fact that it brings them pleasure?

The trend starts; fast forward thirty years as the technology becomes better and more accessible, the benefits are made clear, and non-compliance (while not strictly punished by edict) brings a deluge of negative consequence both financial and social, all toward the purpose of enjoying life less than your peers? Why fight it other than obsolete morality?

The Unholy Consult / Re: [TUC Spoilers] Inchoroi in future books
« on: August 11, 2017, 07:08:56 pm »
Another question is, are hedonism and sociopathy really inevitable?

Hedonism? Probably, though to what degree is open for debate. Depending on the species and society in question, a drive for accomplishment or some other goal(s) could very well moderate its impact. Though in a post-morality world, why not make enjoyment the driving force? Rewire the brain to love tedious, monotonous tasks, and perpetual bliss can be had by all without interfering with social order.

Sociopathy? Useful in certain occupations/areas of society, but on a grand scale for the entire populace, no. Though amorality is a more nuanced beast. Eliminating empathy species-wide is a far different animal than divorcing actions from judgment.

Literature / Re: Steven Erikson (The 3.5 million word journey?)
« on: August 11, 2017, 06:55:53 pm »
I need to get back to this series. Fell off for reasons I can't recall years back. My lack of free time will likely make that sad fact permanent, though.

No, my question is: why wasn't Achamian's immediate reaction "let's go look at Kellhus with the Judging Eye like right fucking now then" instead of the slog to ishual. It just really, really stands out

He is ever the sorcerer and the skeptic. He feels one woman (the bitter, betrayed daughter of the Empress, no less) saying, "I have the eye of God, your savior is a fraud!" would carry less weight than some objective proof gleaned from Ishual. "Boom, whale-mothers, Proyas. Fuck this guy." Also, the very real possibility Kellhus sees him and hits him with the metagnostic middle finger.

Though I could just be rationalizing after the fact in defense of the series or authorial oversight.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6