The Second Apocalypse
Earwa => The Aspect-Emperor => The Unholy Consult => Topic started by: obstinate on November 10, 2017, 04:30:08 am
-
"If you wouldn't create it, you should probably destroy it."
I haven't been able to bring myself to reread TUC yet. But a thought does cross my mind from time to time as I consider the No-God, Kellhus, and Resumption.
So, in the world of Earwa, at least according to the glossary, most are damned to eternal suffering. Certainly, we are aware of only two or three who are saved, according to the Judging Eye. It may be that this is partly because we are around so many warlike men through the course of the story. For the sake of argument, though, let's assume the ratio of damned to non-damned is at least 6:4. If you, behind the veil of ignorance, had the choice to come into existence in Earwa, or not, you'd probably choose not. Simply on the basis of the likelihood of damnation, you probably wouldn't even accept 50-50, or 25-75 odds. I know I wouldn't.
To my knowledge, nowhere in the text is it hinted that Kellhus has a plan to change this state of affairs. Indeed, toward the end, he claims that he sees himself descending "as a Hunger." I know not whether this outcome was averted by his destruction at the end of the story. But even if it wasn't, there is no sign that he is going to use his status as a hunger to create better outcomes for all the poor souls who spring off the mortal coil into the Outside. I assign some probability to the idea that he has a plan for that, but not a high one.
So, I'm left with an uncomfortable realization. If the "bad" guys win, then almost everyone now alive dies, and nobody else ever gets born. But at least no more damned souls are created. Meanwhile, if the "good" guys win, the appalling status quo remains in force.
There is a saying in personal finance that mostly pertains to the buying and selling of stocks, particularly ESPP and RSU stock received from an employer. "If you wouldn't buy it, you should probably sell it." The idea is that the execution of an act and the non-execution of its negation are nearly identical in outcome. If you would do one, you should do the other (or want that it be done). If you wouldn't do one, you shouldn't do the other.
I would not create Earwa, in the form described in the novels, had I the power. It would not even tempt me. So, the question I have is, should I be happy that the enemy seems to be within striking distance of victory?
If this is already being discussed in another thread, feel free to point me that way.
-
So, the question I have is, should I be happy that the enemy seems to be within striking distance of victory?
There is no certainty that the Consult is "the enemy", nor that the protagonists are "the good guys".
This is quite deliberate on Bakker's part.
-
To my knowledge, nowhere in the text is it hinted that Kellhus has a plan to change this state of affairs. Indeed, toward the end, he claims that he sees himself descending "as a Hunger." I know not whether this outcome was averted by his destruction at the end of the story. But even if it wasn't, there is no sign that he is going to use his status as a hunger to create better outcomes for all the poor souls who spring off the mortal coil into the Outside. I assign some probability to the idea that he has a plan for that, but not a high one.
Well, I think part of it also is that Kellhus doesn't seem to ever have really had a "master plan" in the sense that he was going to "fix" everything. Rather, he seems to be trying to gain control over the whole system. To what end though? That's something of the "greater mystery" but we could presume that once he ended the Consult, the battle with the Hundred could begin. To what end?
Well, the same end he pursued the whole time in Eärwa, the accumulation and consolidation of power. Why not conquer Hell and, so, choke out the Hundred? Why not become the master of the gods?
-
To my knowledge, nowhere in the text is it hinted that Kellhus has a plan to change this state of affairs. Indeed, toward the end, he claims that he sees himself descending "as a Hunger." I know not whether this outcome was averted by his destruction at the end of the story. But even if it wasn't, there is no sign that he is going to use his status as a hunger to create better outcomes for all the poor souls who spring off the mortal coil into the Outside. I assign some probability to the idea that he has a plan for that, but not a high one.
Well, I think part of it also is that Kellhus doesn't seem to ever have really had a "master plan" in the sense that he was going to "fix" everything. Rather, he seems to be trying to gain control over the whole system. To what end though? That's something of the "greater mystery" but we could presume that once he ended the Consult, the battle with the Hundred could begin. To what end?
Well, the same end he pursued the whole time in Eärwa, the accumulation and consolidation of power. Why not conquer Hell and, so, choke out the Hundred? Why not become the master of the gods?
Love would be a risk to this agenda - does he love Esmi or not? His stammering about Kel's arrival in GR and his apparent genuine love for Esmi suggests more is amiss.
-
Love would be a risk to this agenda - does he love Esmi or not? His stammering about Kel's arrival in GR and his apparent genuine love for Esmi suggests more is amiss.
Well, then we are back to where MSJ and I always disagree. Is the "love" for Esme what drives him, or is it just a factor among all of them? Or is it even just a distraction?
-
Love would be a risk to this agenda - does he love Esmi or not? His stammering about Kel's arrival in GR and his apparent genuine love for Esmi suggests more is amiss.
Well, then we are back to where MSJ and I always disagree. Is the "love" for Esme what drives him, or is it just a factor among all of them? Or is it even just a distraction?
Since we lacked POV from Kellhus, too hard to tell. I got the sense his love for her didn't "drive" him, but it was strong enough he let his guard down with her - remarkable for someone so inured with precision. Me thinks this is evidence he wanted more than just save humanity, but to elevate us.
-
"If you wouldn't create it, you should probably destroy it."
If this is already being discussed in another thread, feel free to point me that way.
Back on topic - I with you, the logic of hell is hell - cannot be argued 80 years ( if you're lucky ) is worth an eternity of torment. Any fixed amount compared to infinity is equal to any other - so it doesn't matter if you got to live 80 or 80,000 years, if the risk is eternal damnation, it ain't worth it. So if there is a hell, I for sure would've preferred not to have been born. You may be on to Bakker making a statement about hell - if there's a hell, then the god/gods must be evil. This resonates with Kellhus's breaking of Proyas.
It kinda was with a thread I created month+ back, but we can bring it up again.
-
Love would be a risk to this agenda - does he love Esmi or not? His stammering about Kel's arrival in GR and his apparent genuine love for Esmi suggests more is amiss.
Well, then we are back to where MSJ and I always disagree. Is the "love" for Esme what drives him, or is it just a factor among all of them? Or is it even just a distraction?
Since we lacked POV from Kellhus, too hard to tell. I got the sense his love for her didn't "drive" him, but it was strong enough he let his guard down with her - remarkable for someone so inured with precision. Me thinks this is evidence he wanted more than just save humanity, but to elevate us.
My impression was that it was just a plot device. He needed a way to get Kelmomas to Golgotterath. Not that I'm against plot devices - they make for good plots.
-
On the nature of the gods and "evil", what is evil? Is a lion evil because it eats a zebra? Or is it just a lion?
-
On the nature of the gods and "evil", what is evil? Is a lion evil because it eats a zebra? Or is it just a lion?
Maybe I give animals too much credit, but I believe ( er, suspect since I don't have objective evidence, just my perception of behavior ) that mammals are conscious and therefore can be evil. When a male lion stumbles upon a pride without a leader, he kills off the cubs in taking over ... think we can call that murder. But on to your point, no - a lion eating a zebra is not evil or murder, he/she is doing it to eat. Evil is "wronging" another for something other than subsistence. If the gods cannot subsist on something other than souls, then maybe they're not evil.
-
The lions kill the cubs so the mother can get in heat again. It has nothing to do with evil.
-
On the nature of the gods and "evil", what is evil? Is a lion evil because it eats a zebra? Or is it just a lion?
When I say "evil," you may read it as "very strongly opposed to the things I value," and you'll be close enough to be going forward with 99% of the time.
-
"If you wouldn't create it, you should probably destroy it."
If this is already being discussed in another thread, feel free to point me that way.
Back on topic - I with you, the logic of hell is hell - cannot be argued 80 years ( if you're lucky ) is worth an eternity of torment. Any fixed amount compared to infinity is equal to any other - so it doesn't matter if you got to live 80 or 80,000 years, if the risk is eternal damnation, it ain't worth it. So if there is a hell, I for sure would've preferred not to have been born. You may be on to Bakker making a statement about hell - if there's a hell, then the god/gods must be evil. This resonates with Kellhus's breaking of Proyas.
It kinda was with a thread I created month+ back, but we can bring it up again.
On the subject of infinities: by this logic, any murder of someone who might conceivably reproduce or aid someone else in reproduction can be justified in a utilitarian schema, via a formula something like this:
x's impact on reproduction odds * (chance child goes to hell - 0.5) * infinity = moral value of killing x
That is to say, killing someone who would increase the probability of a marginal person being created has an infinitely positive moral value in Earwa. (Supposing a soul is more likely to be damned than not, and eternal bliss and eternal damnation are equally and oppositely weighted infinities.)
-
On the subject of infinities: by this logic, any murder of someone who might conceivably reproduce or aid someone else in reproduction can be justified in a utilitarian schema, via a formula something like this:
x's impact on reproduction odds * (chance child goes to hell - 0.5) * infinity = moral value of killing x
That is to say, killing someone who would increase the probability of a marginal person being created has an infinitely positive moral value in Earwa. (Supposing a soul is more likely to be damned than not, and eternal bliss and eternal damnation are equally and oppositely weighted infinities.)
Morality and probability don't mix very well. Morality is famous for dealing in absolutes.
-
My impression was that it was just a plot device. He needed a way to get Kelmomas to Golgotterath. Not that I'm against plot devices - they make for good plots.
Bad impression, ;) !!!
I have tons of posts here and at the other side, how Kellhus did indeed love Esme and Serwe. And, I would go further and are with Tao, that he wanted to uplift humanity. There are hints and clues, from Kellhus's POV throughout the series that shows his feelings and emotions for Esme. And, this was my pet theory before even TGO. TUC, all but confirmed it, when he said he kept her in Momemn to save her soul, keep her ignorant. At one point he calls Esme the World. She's special, he knows it and loved her for it.
-
x's impact on reproduction odds * (chance child goes to hell - 0.5) * infinity = moral value of killing x
That is to say, killing someone who would increase the probability of a marginal person being created has an infinitely positive moral value in Earwa. (Supposing a soul is more likely to be damned than not, and eternal bliss and eternal damnation are equally and oppositely weighted infinities.)
Nicely put :D ... you're doing potential souls a huge favor eliminating their parent(s) preventing their inception. Hell makes murder moral in Earwa ( and here too? )
-
Bad impression, ;) !!!
I have tons of posts here and at the other side, how Kellhus did indeed love Esme and Serwe. And, I would go further and are with Tao, that he wanted to uplift humanity. There are hints and clues, from Kellhus's POV throughout the series that shows his feelings and emotions for Esme. And, this was my pet theory before even TGO. TUC, all but confirmed it, when he said he kept her in Momemn to save her soul, keep her ignorant. At one point he calls Esme the World. She's special, he knows it and loved her for it.
Bakker actually addressed it directly (https://www.reddit.com/r/Fantasy/comments/6r3hba/unholy_consultation_r_scott_bakker_bares_the_soul/dl48lfu/):
She's a blindspot, possessing some consequence, but no more than an anomaly.
-
Blah! textual evidence!!!!!!!
-
Blah! textual evidence!!!!!!!
Since I'm more interested in what Bakker has to say (i.e. his authorial intent) than in literary criticism, I have no other choice but to take his word.
-
She's a blindspot, possessing some consequence, but no more than an anomaly.
Really? "... blind-spot ... some consequence ..."
Well, ain't that fuck all ... simply a key ingredient for the failure of TGO. Perhaps the most powerful human to walk Eawar ... blind.
Clearly, Bakker cannot be trusted - I don't take this as ill-intentional, but that he's trying to retain mystery and not spoil the next books - but who knows. This statement pretty much tells us nothing, so I think he's trying to down play a critical part of the story to allow for surprise. We have to be careful applying his clarifications.
-
Really? "... blind-spot ... some consequence ..."
Well, ain't that fuck all ... simply a key ingredient for the failure of TGO. Perhaps the most powerful human to walk Eawar ... blind.
Clearly, Bakker cannot be trusted - I don't take this as ill-intentional, but that he's trying to retain mystery and not spoil the next books - but who knows. This statement pretty much tells us nothing, so I think he's trying to down play a critical part of the story to allow for surprise. We have to be careful applying his clarifications.
I kinda take that to mean that the story is not about love. Love is a factor of some consequence, but not the driving force (or even a driving force) behind the events. This resonates well with the feel I get from the series, so I don't really distrust the quote above. It also portrays Kellhus exactly the way I see him - capable of love, but viewing it as an anomaly of undetermined value rather than something to base his intentions on.
-
TBH, I agree with the sentiment that Kellhus didn't actually love her at all. He only used her.
-
Since I'm more interested in what Bakker has to say (i.e. his authorial intent) than in literary criticism, I have no other choice but to take his word.
Death of the Author!!!!
Why would you believe everything Bakker's says? We have proof of Bakker misdirection and sometimes, close to straight up lying, for sake of keeping things close to his chest. Authorial intent, only means something when you can prove that its true. We have evidence to the contrary.
-
Why would you believe everything Bakker's says? We have proof of Bakker misdirection and sometimes, close to straight up lying, for sake of keeping things close to his chest. Authorial intent, only means something when you can prove that its true. We have evidence to the contrary.
It's either taking his word or no, there is no middle ground. You can't rely on it in some matters and dispute it in others, this is inconsistent in a completely arbitrary way, which nullifies any possibility of discussion that arises from his words. For example, in this manner we can still just as well be discussing Baby Kellhus. That theory was denied by Bakker, it's not disproved textually.
I also don't see malignancy in his misdirection. Yes, he is being coy on some points, which are specifically phrased in rather ambiguous ways, but he makes his statements in good faith. The Death of The Author is of no value to me, because on those matters I don't treat the Second Apocalypse as a literary work, I treat it as a device Bakker uses to tell something. So even when he fails to convey his authorial intent, it's this intent that interests me, while the work itself is just a side-effect. His clear statement resolves any plot matter in my eyes. Until, of course, he changes his mind, which can also happen for a number of reasons. I don't expect him to be infallible.
When the series is finished and Bakker clarified his position to the point at which I understand it sufficiently well, then I would be ready to discuss the series as an entity separate from its author. There are things I rather liked that Bakker outright denied. Like that theory about the hologram of Kellhus being a kind of wave-front before the function that included both the Consult winning and Kellhus winning was collapsed by Mimara looking at it with the Judging Eye, leaving us with the No-God rising. I'm not sure it's consistent, but the idea is intriguing to say the least.
-
Are you new to Bakker's comments? He's been using misdirection since the beginning, this isn't new to TUC AMA.
Anyhow, lets just take what Bakker said that it was an anomaly.
Anomaly - something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
That's exactly what Kellhus's love for Esme is, an anomaly. He told you in his answer, that indeed he loves her. See, ambiguity works both ways. :)
So, take him at his word, he just proved my point or theory for me.
-
Are you new to Bakker's comments? He's been using misdirection since the beginning, this isn't new to TUC AMA.
More like old to those games that authors play. His misdirection doesn't seem misleading to me, so naturally I don't consider it a problem.
That's exactly what Kellhus's love for Esme is, an anomaly. He told you in his answer, that indeed he loves her. See, ambiguity works both ways. :)
So, take him at his word, he just proved my point or theory for me.
There is no doubt in my mind he loved her in his own way, I just don't put much weight in those feelings. They weren't what drove him, and so every theory that postulates it is, in my eyes, far-fetched to the point when I'm not really interested in discussing it.
It's not about love, or goodness, or evil, or even failure. Those things are discussed and inspected in the series, they play a role, but that's it. In the end, it's about Bakker's worldview and his way more specific ideas like crash space. I can't say I agree with all of his concepts, but the are refreshingly new when compared to other fantasy authors. Standard fantasy fare about love, good guys winning or even, more recently, gratuitous violence just bores me. Bakker doesn't.
-
Well I'm not concerned with what interests you or not, or what you feel what is worthy to discuss. You said Bakker said he didn't love her, when in fact his statement proved that he did.
It did effect the story, the plot and Kellhus's actions. So, I'm interested in it. Seems when someone didn't see the signs and get it right, its not worthy of their time or discussion. Funny how that works.
-
You said Bakker said he didn't love her, when in fact his statement proved that he did.
I said nothing of the sort. I don't even understand where you got that. Like, really, where...?
It did effect the story, the plot and Kellhus's actions.
But of course!
Seems when someone didn't see the signs and get it right, its not worthy of their time or discussion. Funny how that works.
It's again way more complicated than that. Trust me, I see the signs. I just don't think that conventional explanations work for an unconventional series.
Like with that dream where the Heron Spear misses. After Mimara starts using the Judging Eye in fairly interesting ways, my first thought was - "someone like that defeated the No-God, not the Spear". But under scrutiny it's so extremely obvious and simplistic I have trouble to believe Bakker will go for it (it's, in my opinion, on a "Harry is a horcrux" level, and Bakker is not Rowling; nothing wrong with Rowling, he just isn't). Maybe some facet of it, but not all of it.
Though there always is, of course, a possibility of overthinking things.
[EDIT]
Well I'm not concerned with what interests you or not, or what you feel what is worthy to discuss
Oh, just to clarify. I'm not saying you or others shouldn't discuss it, I merely give notification that I won't so there is no hard feelings when I say something like "I don't see it like that" and stop participating in the discussion. I never tell people what they should or shouldn't do, I'm too focused on myself for that!
-
She's a blindspot, possessing some consequence, but no more than an anomaly.
Really? "... blind-spot ... some consequence ..."
Well, ain't that fuck all ... simply a key ingredient for the failure of TGO. Perhaps the most powerful human to walk Eawar ... blind.
Clearly, Bakker cannot be trusted - I don't take this as ill-intentional, but that he's trying to retain mystery and not spoil the next books - but who knows. This statement pretty much tells us nothing, so I think he's trying to down play a critical part of the story to allow for surprise. We have to be careful applying his clarifications.
This is getting well away from the subject of this thread, but I'll there is a theme in these works of the world turning on small mistakes, small anomalies, and coincidences. The historical aspects of the glossary could as well be titled, "for want of a nail." It is thematic for TGO's end to turn on small anomalies.
-
I said nothing of the sort. I don't even understand where you got that. Like, really, where...?
You shrug it off and said Bakker already I adressed. As in, I assumed, "Not true, man already addressed it."
Though there always is, of course, a possibility of overthinking things.
Sorry sir, but that is what we do around here. Over think things, all things....anything's. That's what has made the forum survive for the last 5-6 years. Breaking down the test, discussing and making predictions on future outcomes.
Oh, just to clarify. I'm not saying you or others shouldn't discuss it, I merely give notification that I won't so there is no hard feelings when I say something like "I don't see it like that" and stop participating in the discussion. I never tell people what they should or shouldn't do, I'm too focused on myself for that!
Why tell us you won't participate? Seems like a unnecessary thing...just don't post, ya know. Its fine to want to to discuss different parts of the book. But, if your looking for metaphysical one, Bakker will always keep them muddled. He has a great concept, but I'm sure if he started explaining we could punch holes in it. Its just what is. He can do want he wants , because its fantasy. That's why things like the whale-mothers were scrutinized big-time. People want it all to make sense. Your guess is as good as any, none will be proven right. He said as much :insert quote:. Still.....we talk about it.
-
You shrug it off and said Bakker already I adressed. As in, I assumed, "Not true, man already addressed it."
I just wanted to get clarification on your position in regards to that quote. You could've embraced it, or ignored it, or denied it in various ways, that's actually what I wanted to know. I didn't impose any meaning on the quote beside its existence, and later clarified what I think about it:
I kinda take that to mean that the story is not about love. Love is a factor of some consequence, but not the driving force (or even a driving force) behind the events. This resonates well with the feel I get from the series, so I don't really distrust the quote above. It also portrays Kellhus exactly the way I see him - capable of love, but viewing it as an anomaly of undetermined value rather than something to base his intentions on.
Sorry sir, but that is what we do around here. Over think things, all things....anything's. That's what has made the forum survive for the last 5-6 years. Breaking down the test, discussing and making predictions on future outcomes.
And that's why I'm in the right place!
Why tell us you won't participate? Seems like a unnecessary thing...just don't post, ya know.
Just for the sake of politeness, since I've participated up to this point. That way it's immediately known to others that I don't have anything to add, so they can take my position into account if it's of interest to them. Not posting is not obvious for other people for some time.
[EDIT]
But, if your looking for metaphysical one, Bakker will always keep them muddled.
Certainly.
But it goes beyond metaphysical straight into the real world territory in this instance. Basically, here I treat the Second Apocalypse as a rather flowery blog post on TPB and want to mine it for pragmatic value. That's why Bakker's intent is at the moment more important to me than any literary aspects of the series. I do see in it real useful things I can benefit from, only wrapped in a narrative form. Obviously I want to get those straight first. They also go before the narrative in the sense that Bakker composes said narrative around them. If I understand him correctly (and that's a big "if"), some things are improbable to impossible even if they make sense plot-wise. They don't go against the letter, but do go against the spirit of the series, phrasing it another way. This can even be explained, but it generally takes an inordinate amount of time, so I often gloss over the explanation.
This is probably a strange perspective, but I mainly put my time into reading and writing fiction (I don't publish, though, at least yet), so it might be an occupational hazard.
-
This is probably a strange perspective, but I mainly put my time into reading and writing fiction (I don't publish, though, at least yet), so it might be an occupational hazard.
There's a thread for writers. If you're ever published, I'd be honored to read it. I got ya man, no hard feelings! :)
-
The lions kill the cubs so the mother can get in heat again. It has nothing to do with evil.
+1
Blah! textual evidence!!!!!!!
Since I'm more interested in what Bakker has to say (i.e. his authorial intent) than in literary criticism, I have no other choice but to take his word.
Lol, MSJ.
SmilerLoki, I'm not sure what we're engaged in here can be rightly called "literary criticism," as I've known a number of academic lit-theory heads who would just dismiss us all as the plebletariot - despite the fact that a good number of us do have letters of sorts after our names ;).
But how can you take Bakker at his word, if he fails to execute and communicate that to a majority of readers through the text?
It's either taking his word or no, there is no middle ground. You can't rely on it in some matters and dispute it in others, this is inconsistent in a completely arbitrary way, which nullifies any possibility of discussion that arises from his words.
...
So even when he fails to convey his authorial intent, it's this intent that interests me, while the work itself is just a side-effect. His clear statement resolves any plot matter in my eyes. Until, of course, he changes his mind, which can also happen for a number of reasons. I don't expect him to be infallible.
On former, I don't understand this - and I'm probably wading into content I don't have any real grasp on. We can certainly take the text, Bakker's extratextual comments, and compare the two, no? I don't necessarily see how it *must* be the case of either taking Bakker at his word or not.
On the latter, I really don't understand this. Bakker can make all kinds of comments - and has over the years and been taken to task for them - about his intentions but execution must matter? I've often been the first to take Bakker at his word over the years and use his words as a lens when reading his text but surely execution must be paramount? If not, and his extratextual comments were paramount, wouldn't that render reading TSA as someone who never participates online and knows nothing about his extratextual comments an exercise in futility? (Though, I'd argue not but I'm just curious about teasing your thoughts from you ;)).
This is getting well away from the subject of this thread, but I'll there is a theme in these works of the world turning on small mistakes, small anomalies, and coincidences. The historical aspects of the glossary could as well be titled, "for want of a nail." It is thematic for TGO's end to turn on small anomalies.
For want of a nail... I'm sure Bakker would like that, obstinate ;).
There's a thread for writers. If you're ever published, I'd be honored to read it. I got ya man, no hard feelings! :)
A whole subforum even (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?board=23.0) ;).
-
I don't get why Bakker's comments have any effect on textual evidence from the books. I can give you a dozen quotes where Bakker uses his comments to misdirect.
We use the book, textual evidence to make predictions and dissect the text. People caught up in Bakker's philosophical theories, I think, take that is exactly the way the series will go. And, while he might use his theories in part, I don't think it prudent to base your expectations on them. Just my 2 cents.
-
SmilerLoki, I'm not sure what we're engaged in here can be rightly called "literary criticism," as I've known a number of academic lit-theory heads who would just dismiss us all as the plebletariot - despite the fact that a good number of us do have letters of sorts after our names ;).
Literary criticism is a vast and very controversial field. But specifically using the Death of the Author theory is much more being academic in dissecting a work of fiction than actually pragmatically discussing it for the purpose of conventional understanding (I should note that the existence of literary understanding doesn't diminish conventional one, those are different frameworks of looking at fiction). It's not so much the content of the discussion itself (which, sure, can appear childish to an academic) that governs it as the intent behind it, which I cannot share at the moment. Putting it in a less obscure way, I have the author (Bakker, specifically), who wants to say something to me, and since I'm interested to hear him out, what he means is of paramount importance to me. As opposed to the series itself, where he can fail in his endeavors to convey his views to the point of needing to extratextually clarify what it was he was writing.
So, I separate the work and Bakker's intent for said work. Right now I'm only discussing his intent when we talk themes of the series.
But how can you take Bakker at his word, if he fails to execute and communicate that to a majority of readers through the text?
It's most certainly a failure in the context of the work, don't get me wrong. And it's very problematic in itself, because it will, and does, push away readers. The fact that I'm willing to look past it means precisely nothing in the grand scheme of things, since I have extremely convoluted reasons for it.
But, again, simplifying things. I'll just consider his failure an honest mistake and get to the "meat" of his ideas.
Additionally of note is the magnitude of his undertaking. He is really trying (and in many instances succeeding) to offer something new for the fantasy genre. Others might not be so obscure and hard to understand in their writing, but they are also being strictly formula (obviously not all of them, but the exceptions are exceedingly rare). They don't attempt anything new and so insure themselves against many associated mistakes. I don't like that approach in established authors (on the other hand, if you're just getting your writing feet under you, then being strictly formula is the way to go), and so I have every respect for Bakker. When he wins, he wins big, and that earned him good faith in situations where I would roast another writer.
On former, I don't understand this - and I'm probably wading into content I don't have any real grasp on. We can certainly take the text, Bakker's extratextual comments, and compare the two, no? I don't necessarily see how it *must* be the case of either taking Bakker at his word or not.
Sure, but that's looking at the work as separate from its author's intent, which I'm not yet prepared to do for the Second Apocalypse.
But in general, yes, you should and will see unintended things in any literary work.
Also you might think that the author doesn't give his comments in good faith and look for deceptions, but I don't share this view pertaining to Bakker.
I've often been the first to take Bakker at his word over the years and use his words as a lens when reading his text but surely execution must be paramount?
There is a little technical snag here. If Bakker intended something to be read a certain way, then he would write everything stemming from that point in the work as conforming to the intended reading. Everyone else who somehow read the part in question differently would just be mistaken in his eyes (or, to give another example, deceived by design, if the part was conceived as deceiving).
If not, and his extratextual comments were paramount, wouldn't that render reading TSA as someone who never participates online and knows nothing about his extratextual comments an exercise in futility? (Though, I'd argue not but I'm just curious about teasing your thoughts from you ;)).
That's the problem with failing to execute your vision, unfortunately. Or even making it too obscure. I do feel that there are some issues of this kind in the Second Apocalypse.
Just to clarify, I don't think Bakker intends us to read any of his extratextual comments. It's just at some points, so far, we have to get at least a little additional information from him, or our understanding of the events suffers.
There's a thread for writers. If you're ever published, I'd be honored to read it. I got ya man, no hard feelings! :)
A whole subforum even (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?board=23.0) ;).
Thanks, my friends! I'll get there when I have something to show for myself.
-
Also you might think that the author doesn't give his comments in good faith and look for deceptions, but I don't share this view pertaining to Bakker.
Oh, we have many cases of misdirection from Bakker. Its not that there not in good faith, its that he likes to stir the pot or your brain. When, specifically speaking on TSA, I tend to take Bakker's comments with a grain of salt. He will give you the truth, almost always, but it will be veiled in his witty Ajokli trickster style answers.
-
Also you might think that the author doesn't give his comments in good faith and look for deceptions, but I don't share this view pertaining to Bakker.
Oh, we have many cases of misdirection from Bakker. Its not that there not in good faith, its that he likes to stir the pot or your brain. When, specifically speaking on TSA, I tend to take Bakker's comments with a grain of salt. He will give you the truth, almost always, but it will be veiled in his witty Ajokli trickster style answers.
I know that, of course. I just don't see it as a problem. Instead of a direct answer or directly saying that he can't give an answer for some reason or other, he very obviously (from my point of view) gives a veiled hint. "I'm trying to confuse you, but there might be something there". When he is being completely upfront about giving a misleading comment, it's not really deception. Simply a game. Obviously I treat this kind of comments differently, though not at all with mistrust. Also, many of his comments just don't conform to this pattern, being completely upfront, if not easily understandable.
-
I know that, of course. I just don't see it as a problem. Instead of a direct answer or directly saying that he can't give an answer for some reason or other, he very obviously (from my point of view) gives a veiled hint. "I'm trying to confuse you, but there might be something there". When he is being completely upfront about giving a misleading comment, it's not really deception. Simply a game. Obviously I treat this kind of comments differently, though not at all with mistrust. Also, many of his comments just don't conform to this pattern, being completely upfront, if not easily understandable.
Right. I don't have a problem with it neither. I don't expect him to show his hand on everything. Its just a reason I don't pay much attention to his extra-textual comments, for that very reason. And sure, he is straightforward and honest sometimes too.
-
Just saw your post (http://www.second-apocalypse.com/index.php?topic=2483.msg41799#msg41799) in another thread. It probably should have been posted here?
But intent means jack shit if its not conveyed in the text.
Yes and no. It's much more yes if we're talking about a completed work, when there isn't going to be any new installments that can radically change reading of the previous ones. It's much more no when the work in question is incomplete, and new installments are already underway.
An example of the latter is Terry Brooks at some point making his "The Word and the Void" books part of the Shannara series.
Also, how should Bakker know that he hasn't conveyed his intent? Even more to the point, hasn't he? If you or I think he hasn't, is he aware of it? If yes, then does he agree with us? Should he?
Question? How many readers or what % even know anything about Bakker's Crash Space theory? 1%, 5% maybe 10%? It has to be conveyed in the text thoroughly for it to be discussed. Its why we had so many fans upset about resolutions they were sure to come to pass. Bakker's comments didn't help, at all. Made it worse, tbh.
You're right, of course. Almost all his readers are unaware of his non-fictional theories. I'm fairly certain Bakker understands that, too. But it doesn't change what he's doing. In my opinion, he is first writing the way he considers right, and only then takes his readers into account. As well he should. Even the fact that it hurts him financially doesn't matter. In the end, you are who you are and you do what interests you.
I understand its what your into. But, 99% of readers could care less.
Sure. And maybe their disappointment is a more powerful (and more flattering to Bakker) reaction than my acceptance. But for the sake of at least conventional understanding of the series I find my approach significantly more helpful. But only while the series is incomplete.
-
Yes and no. It's much more yes if we're talking about a completed work, when there isn't going to be any new installments that can radically change reading of the previous ones. It's much more no when the work in question is incomplete, and new installments are already underway.
Fair enough, I agree.
Also, how should Bakker know that he hasn't conveyed his intent? Even more to the point, hasn't he? If you or I think he hasn't, is he aware of it? If yes, then does he agree with us? Should he?
Well, imho, the onus is completely on the Author to convey his intent. If, he can't, I'd venture to say he isn't very skilled at his craft. That being said, no matter the complaints with TUC (and with some fans TUC and Bakker AMA completely ruined the entire series for them), after I digested it I understood his intent. I have no problem with TUC, thought it was great, and with some notable exceptions, fit very well within the plot of the previous books.
Should he care that we "get" his intent? I damn sure hope so, otherwise, what is the point of him even writing?
Now, I'm just of the opinion, that his other goings one in his life, not have to align perfectly with TUC. His philosophical theories and such are a part of TSA, I just don't believe them to be the whole.
-
Should he care that we "get" his intent? I damn sure hope so, otherwise, what is the point of him even writing?
My point was, he might think he conveyed his intent perfectly, and readers who don't get it are just not paying enough attention, jumping to conclusions, or being straight up mistaken. Or should fall into all of these traps and feel this way, because it was part of his intent. Let those who understand be accepting and those who don't be agitated so they might understand through dealing with their frustration. I'm not saying it's strictly what he did, or even that it's a good idea, but it might be done this way. In such circumstances it would be next to impossible to prove failure to convey intent.
Now, I'm just of the opinion, that his other goings one in his life, not have to align perfectly with TUC. His philosophical theories and such are a part of TSA, I just don't believe them to be the whole.
I'm sure he still has something to say!
-
Oh, I'm sure he has a ton more to say.
-
...
So, I separate the work and Bakker's intent for said work. Right now I'm only discussing his intent when we talk themes of the series.
Interesting.
But, again, simplifying things. I'll just consider his failure an honest mistake and get to the "meat" of his ideas.
As MSJ said, the majority of his readers are unaware of his online persona. Most readers can't do that.
Sure, but that's looking at the work as separate from its author's intent, which I'm not yet prepared to do for the Second Apocalypse.
Simply because it's unfinished? Genuinely curious.
There is a little technical snag here. If Bakker intended something to be read a certain way, then he would write everything stemming from that point in the work as conforming to the intended reading. Everyone else who somehow read the part in question differently would just be mistaken in his eyes (or, to give another example, deceived by design, if the part was conceived as deceiving).
That doesn't make much sense. Certainly Bakker intends the narrative constituents "to be read a certain way?"
-
As MSJ said, the majority of his readers are unaware of his online persona. Most readers can't do that.
This probably hurts his readership the most. And there is not much to be done.
Simply because it's unfinished?
Indeed. Because things still can change radically at a stroke of Bakker's virtual pen.
There is a little technical snag here. If Bakker intended something to be read a certain way, then he would write everything stemming from that point in the work as conforming to the intended reading. Everyone else who somehow read the part in question differently would just be mistaken in his eyes (or, to give another example, deceived by design, if the part was conceived as deceiving).
That doesn't make much sense. Certainly Bakker intends the narrative constituents "to be read a certain way?"
I was talking about a (hopefully hypothetical) situation when he failed to convey said intent and people generally understood him wrong. He would simply not be aware of it, continuing to tell the story the way it can't be interpreted (and its flow subsequently foreseen) by most of the readers, because readers missed something crucial that Bakker thinks is there. In this situation reader interpretation is by default incorrect, since failure to execute wouldn't be evident to the author.
It's actually not even that important who would be at fault here - readers, because they genuinely missed something in their reading, or the author, because he failed to convey his intent. There would be a breakdown of communication that will only become clear in the next installments, which are, in our case, already underway. If the series is finished, such a breakdown can't happen, since the author at that point is no more than another reader, as opposed to someone who controls what's being read.
So my initial point is, again, contingent on the series being incomplete.
-
The state of affairs intro's he's been doing in the books may clear some things up if he continues doing that with the next book. They've helped me out a few times with some things I didn't understand.
-
I was talking about a (hopefully hypothetical) situation when he failed to convey said intent and people generally understood him wrong. He would simply not be aware of it, continuing to tell the story the way it can't be interpreted (and its flow subsequently foreseen) by most of the readers, because readers missed something crucial that Bakker thinks is there. In this situation reader interpretation is by default incorrect, since failure to execute wouldn't be evident to the author.
It's actually not even that important who would be at fault here - readers, because they genuinely missed something in their reading, or the author, because he failed to convey his intent. There would be a breakdown of communication that will only become clear in the next installments, which are, in our case, already underway. If the series is finished, such a breakdown can't happen, since the author at that point is no more than another reader, as opposed to someone who controls what's being read.
So my initial point is, again, contingent on the series being incomplete.
Ah, thank you for elaborating. Makes a whole lot more sense. Remember, you have to spell things out for us with tiny brains, lol. ;)
-
...
So my initial point is, again, contingent on the series being incomplete.
Most interesting.
-
Just finished treading though this thread.
Smilerloki, thanks for taking the time to answer. Much of what you said has articulated thoughts/feelings that I've had but either couldn't describe, or couldn't directly identify for lack of clarity. :)
-
You are most welcome!