With that said, I was thoroughly confused by the ending of TUC. I thought that many of the scenes that were unclear upon my first read would yield greater clarity upon my second. Particularly, I felt the like the entire conclusion, from the gold room forward, felt rushed and opaque. I consider myself to be well read overall, a careful reader and fairly intelligent. What I am not, is a student of philosophy. I was willing to allow for the possibility that the failure to comprehend was solely mine as I am not familiar with the deeper philosophical underpinnings of the second series. When a reread failed to yield additional clarity I came to this forum and to Westeros to see what others had gleaned.
I was disappointed to find the lack of any consensus. Is the ambiguity intentional? I feel like the end reads like a reprisal of the scene from PON where Kellhus pulls Serwe's burning heart from his breast. The imagery is striking but the impact is lessened due to the ambiguity. If I recall, you've always stated that the editing of the "burning heart" section was poor and that you would clarify it if you had a chance to write it again. I still have only vague speculations regarding how that occurred even given the benefit of the whole series (was he possessed by Ajokli or interacting with the outside in some way?).
Are you disappointed in the reaction thus far? Are we missing something that that you, as the author, feel is obvious or is the ambiguity intentional?
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to interact with your fans. Despite my dissatisfaction with the ending I still think that that your series is fantastic and I can't wait to begin reading the No-God in the hope that greater clarity awaits!
I starting avoiding forums years ago simply because I found the speculation I was reading was jamming my own gears. I have good memories of Westeros, but I always hear the sound of axes grinding over there, anymore: no book is a match for ill-will, especially if it takes risks.
That said, the only book I put more work into was TDTCB, so your sense of haste actually has no basis on the composition side. I actually went through and rewrote the ending for 'clarity's sake' no less than four times (!!) based on feedback from different beta readers, which is what makes your appraisal of the 'general reaction,' to be honest, hard to believe. The Amazon and blog reviews don't reflect it.
Interpretative indeterminacy, or what I call 'Crash Space' in my philosophical work, is what this series is ALL about, so if you were expecting a traditional discharging of narrative mysteries, you were bound to be disappointed: the idea is to cue our meaning-making instincts in the absence of any definitive interpretation. Right. Wrong. Hero. Villain. Hope. Fear. Love. Hate. Life. Afterlife. Heaven. Hell. Violence. Healing. Golgotterath is the point where all these things collapse into uncertainty.
So for me, there were only a handful of basic things I had hoped would be clear enough to frame the intelligibility of what comes after. Frustration on the part of a good number of readers--we all have varying tolerances for uncertainty--is something I take as a sign of achieving my narrative and thematic goals. I would have been bummed if some hadn't reacted negatively. Blame the books, or (as seems to be the dominant reflex) blame me, the fact remains you have just had an up close and personal experience with your own tolerances. You have felt Golgotterath more viscerally than most!