[TGO Spoilers] The Gods

  • 33 Replies

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • *
  • Administrator
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Conversational Batman
  • Posts: 5275
  • Strength on the Journey - Journey Well
    • View Profile
    • The Second Apocalypse
« Reply #30 on: July 25, 2016, 05:42:23 pm »
Still getting used to this forum's peculiarities, sorry. I'll just repost the relevant Bakker quote from above.

Anything in particularly peculiar that I can help you with :)?
The Existential Scream
Weaponizing the Warrior Pose - Declare War Inwardly
carnificibus: multus sanguis fluit
Die Better
The Theory-Killer


  • *
  • The Mouth of Bakker Fans
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Nurse Leweth
  • Posts: 2002
    • View Profile
    • R. Scott Bakker Fans (on Twitter)
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2016, 02:52:52 am »
I got to wonder if there really is just 2 gods and a lot of synonyms - Yatwer and Gilgaol (God vs No-God).  Like Ajokli is just Gilgaol dressed up in Ajokli costume.

If Kellhus is right and honest about what he tells Proyas, then it would seem that Yatwer only cares about birth as a means for food.

The way Psatma talks before she dies, it makes me wonder what kind of tension there is between the gods and the ciphrang.  I'm going out on a limb here, is ciphrang like moose?  The plural of ciphrang is ciphrang?  It was weird that Kellhus went to hell (supposedly) and saw only Ciphrang.  Maybe there is more hell he didn't get to see?  Maybe the difference bewteen ciphrang and gods that Psatma maintains is more on the lines of "how dare a lowly demon try to usurp the mother"?  The one that talked to Kellhus, the most Crocidillian Son, wonder who he was. 


  • *
  • The Afflicted Few
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Yatwer's Baby Daddy
  • Posts: 2298
  • "You killed the wolf"
    • View Profile
« Reply #32 on: October 15, 2016, 06:08:35 am »
So, all this speculation with Koringhus and the stones and him fracturing got me thinking. Onkhis, back to her again. Bakker said the Nonmen did not fracture the God, God did. And how I believe this happened is with the arrival of humans. Not Emwama, real free thinking men of Eanna. Onkhis is depicted as the severed head of a woman on top of a tree. With the branches coming out of her mouth and forking all over her head. Inrau remarks, "nature born through human lips".

Now bear with me, and I am stealing a bit from Locke her, but I think Onkhis might have been the God. The primordial goddess of nature before humans. And when humans sprung up, they are fractured naturally, as in , "Being became doing". Exactly what we see in Koringhus, how in the solitude of Ishual he was being. But, when the Consult came and he had to do, he fractured just like the God or Goddess. Onkhis, is the goddess from whence human nature came from. Therefore, also how the fractioning of the God occurred.

As always, I don't even know if I'm getting my point across, but I really feel like I'm on to something here. Any have any thoughts to add or just plain out shoot my bird down. :)

ETA: and could quite possibly be foreshadowing for how damnation ends, the Gods (100), killed one by one. Until only survival exists.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2016, 06:21:14 am by MSJ »
“No. I am your end. Before your eyes I will put your seed to the knife. I will quarter your carcass and feed it to the dogs. Your bones I will grind to dust and cast to the winds. I will strike down those who speak your name or the name of your fathers, until ‘Yursalka’ becomes as meaningless as infant babble. I will blot you out, hunt down your every trace! The track of your life has come to me,


  • *
  • The Zero-Mod
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Honourable H
  • Posts: 2893
  • The Original No-God Apologist
    • View Profile
    • The Original No-God Apologist
« Reply #33 on: October 17, 2016, 05:05:41 pm »
Well, I certainly think that the opening passage of TGO is meant deliberately made to parallel something of Christian mythos, moving from a state of ignorance to knowledge, fulfillment to hunger, silence to words.  It kind of throws the Garden of Eden for a loop though, with the "and it was as Death" part.  Implying that the primordial state was not paradise, but rather more something of a torpor or purgatory.  The Book of Fane implies that it was a word the fractured the God.  In other words, it was Man's (or Nonman's) fault.

While I know that we have a hard time believing everything Scott says, I think his implication that it wasn't Men or Nonmen who fractured the God should be taken at face-value.  I see no real reason why he would lie about that, as I doubt it is a plot device in any way.  No, I think that The Book of Fane is simply wrong, in the way it is wont to be, since it has reason to preach why the Solitary God would be at war with the 100.

Rather, it would seem that the God really did fracture itself.  The question is, why?  What if The God was not The God of Gods though?  In other words, the Solitary God that was fractured was not Zero, but rather One.  And in this way, realized that the path to the Absolute, to Zero, would be in subtraction.  So it shed parts until only Zero remained?
I am a warrior of ages, Anasurimbor. . . ages. I have dipped my nimil in a thousand hearts. I have ridden both against and for the No-God in the great wars that authored this wilderness. I have scaled the ramparts of great Golgotterath, watched the hearts of High Kings break for fury. -Cet'ingira