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.


Topics - What Came Before

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22
31
General Earwa / On the nature of Nonmen
« on: June 04, 2013, 05:54:27 pm »
Quote from: KRST IS
Is this all that is really revealed? http://princeofnothing.wikia.com/wiki/Nonmen

The only reason they are called "Nonmen" is because this is what the race of Men named them. The "others."

It seems as if the coming of the Hu-Men simultaneously wrought a real Womb Dis-ease or Womb Plague in the beginning migrations and incursions into Earwa. Some sort of separateness, from other, novel creatures of Nature AND Nature Herself.

It's interesting that in our own world, we have parallels. This Earth is many times called The Womb, and there are many mythologies depicting Her as such.

It's also interesting that the Nonmen, the Cunoroi, call themselves the "People of the Dawn." We also have paralells with many ancient shamanic tribal peoples, for example the Abenaki people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenaki_people

The coming of the Men in Earwa seem to mirror the white Europeans who came and co-opted these "other" people, who have apparent lineages that stretch back to a time forgotten.

It's interesting though, that these Men of Earwa, came from a land and an unclear place of origin, with some kind of teaching, oral or written from the very beginning, from some kind of strange creatures, the Inchoroi, whom we also know little about.

That's interesting, because in the real world, we have found an ancient Gnostic Royal Library, mostly in ruins, in Nag Hammadi, Egypt. Not unlike that of Sauglish. There are some interesting writings, especially those which deal with some alien beings, Archons, literal or metaphorical, that descended from the astral plane, with their leader Yaldabaoth (another name for the Christian "God" Yahweh or Jehovah). This Demiurge has deceived the nations by holy Writ and otherwise (Bible).

The Gnostics speak out and expose this entity and posit the way of beings before this incarnation descended.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/hypostas.html

http://www.metahistory.org/gnostique/archonfiles/AlienDreaming.php

I like Bakkerverse, as it really reflects the reality in our own world. Enjoy!

32
General Earwa / French Cover
« on: June 04, 2013, 05:51:40 pm »
Quote from: Truth Shines
Once again, the search function fails me.  So apologies if this has been brought up before.

I have found 3 very fun cover art for the French edition of Prince of Nothing.  Not sure what's going on with the first cover -- is that supposed to be the Nonman?  Somehow I imagine him to be much bulkier than this.  Also uncertain about the second one: it can't be Kellhus since he's blonde.  It's not Achamian since the picture is of a warrior.  A bit too nicely dressed for Cnauir.  Proyas?  Love the third one.  Exactly what Esmenet should look like.  Gorgeous, sharp eyed, the background seemingly hints at Andianmine Heights after she has become empress...  Also: weird translation for the title of the third book -- not at all Thousandfold Thought.

http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/download/file.php?id=54929
http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/download/file.php?id=54928
http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/download/file.php?id=54927

33
General Earwa / Music
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:59:44 pm »
Quote from: Curethan
What are you crazy cats listening to? 
All time faves?
What music reminds you of TSA and what do you listen to when reading?
I need some new tunes on my iplod.

34
General Earwa / The Dunyain and Buddhism
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:50:12 pm »
Quote from: bbaztek
So, I've always been struck by how similar Dunyain philosophy is to the concepts expressed in Buddhism. As an avid Buddhist myself, the parallels between what the Dunyain propose to do and what laymen/women and monks of the various Buddhist schools aim to accomplish practically leap off the page. I think it's worth taking a look into where Dunyain and Buddhist thought agree and where they don't, as it reveals a lot about Bakker's own philosophy and his view of human nature, at least expressed through his universe.

So, essentially, Buddhism is founded on the concept of mindfulness: shearing away extraneous mental activity, such as thinking about what you're going to have for dinner tomorrow or going over a text message from your ex and similar type meaningless bullshit, and being fully present for the present moment. An old Zen adage says, "When you eat, just eat. When you sit, just sit". It's about abiding in as simple a mode of being as possible, which is the mode of reality itself. Reality does not answer to labels, concepts, categories. It simply is, and by conforming one's behavior to that "suchness" (sunyata), one can transcend the mental fetters that tie us down and hinder our capacity to be fully alive in every moment of our lives.

Childhood's status in the cultural consciousness as a lost paradise - and Hollywood, video games, all kinds of media desperately trying to recapture that wonder for its consumers with remakes and repackages is indicative of this - stems from the fact that before the increasingly conceptualized world of our adolescence and adulthood, we interfaced with reality on reality's level (although we obviously did not think of it in this way at the time). Everything was new and immediate and true, not bogged down by our cognitive faculties which, god bless its heart, tries its damnedest but forgets the forest for the trees. Obviously, I am speaking in general terms, but we can all agree there was some essential ingredient of our early years many of us lose as we grow older, and that quality is how we interface with the nature of reality.

The slow dissolving of labels that comes with years of meditation is accompanied by a simultaneous eradication of the ego. "I" no longer exist, or at the least the "I" I thought existed. Bbaztek, squash-eating champion, PoN fan, and handsome sonuvabitch, does not exist. I am who I am now, which is different than what I was yesterday, and what I will be tomorrow. I am, and always will be, in constant flux.

The narratives of our live are the cornerstones of our identity, and when shit happens, we process it in terms of our life stories: "I was dumped again, I will never find love" "I got an F, I really do suck at this shit, huh?" etc. What I'm saying is that meditation affords us a look into reality that exists beyond the mental categories we forced upon it, and with that we come to see we are infinitesimal part of an enormous, mind-boggingly huge interdependent chain of life, but no less important for it. We develop a compassion for our fellow creatures that does not feel forced or simply inspired from scriptures. It simply comes. It is an innate love for our innate brother/sisterhood. With enough practice, we can attain Nirvana, where we exist beyond all concepts and are unhindered by what life throws at us. We become the masters of our minds and bodies. Sound familiar?

Where do the Dunyain fit into all of this? The Absolute, the self-moving soul is a being detached from all influential forces in life: circumstances, history, personal history, what have you. Yet there is no compassion, no abiding love for its fellow beings. There is no love in the words of Kellhus' pragma, and certainly not in Kellhus himself. Everything becomes a means to an end. Both schools of thought claim to have the "Truth", but whereas Buddhism is about making peace with reality, the Dunyain only want to master it. Kellhus' meditation only helped him achieve mastery of himself so that he may manipulate others. A Buddhist's meditation is the opposite.

It's an anti-buddhism, a thought system that takes revelatory and ancient techniques utilized to better understand oneself and reality and perverts it as a tool for control, for achieving a singular end. This is what makes my skin crawl about the Dunyain: they are masters of the mind and sages of the human condition who do not appear to be satisfied with the universally touted concepts of empathy and compassion. They have cast off what even the Consult has claimed is weakness: the instinct to love and protect. They dissolve the passions but not the Self. They are born of the universe but seek to be outside it. There is no brotherhood in them, no innate connection between the Dunyain and the world they were born of. They are what makes the ego, the poisonous concept of "I", so vile and threatening, yet there is no jealousy, hatred, or anger in them. They are the pure selfish instinct, scrubbed of the impurities that dooms it in vain kings and conquerors, and refined to a knife's edge. Where all religions say "You must love one another", the Dunyain believe the human condition is a forked road. There is the path of love and empathy, of working together to survive a harsh world, and there is their path, an evolutionary step towards godhood, the affirmation that all you really do have is the Self/Soul and that is what is supreme and true, the rest is pointless abstraction and mollycoddling.

And frankly, folks, that scares the shit out of me.

35
General Misc. / Roleplay - making shit up vs following rules
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:46:43 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
I'm having this weird discussion on RPG.net. It seems some folk there simply can't distinguish between making shit (like an artist makes up a painting) vs following rules (like roll over a difficulty number, it's a pass. Or the person running a monster chooses it's target from a rule delinated selection).

It might be they gotten the impression I'm saying making shit up is bad, so they don't want to admit it for that reason. And that'd be the simple solution!

But otherwise - I really think these people cannot distinguish between follow a rule/an instruction someone else gave them, and an exertion of their own will.

If you happen to think of people using the bible that way, yeah - I tend to find RPG culture is a bonsai version of general culture.

My latest post is here- I give that as it's a bit hard to peg when the wierdness comes up.

Some of my favorite moments though are
Quote from: DarkDungeons
Quote from: I
Which one is 'playing exactly the way the game is intended', the open road or the traffic lights?
Yes.

An amazingly obstinant responce - as if just bloody mindedly saying both are the one thing somehow is enough.

And I think this one captures it's essence.
Quote from: Mozart
Quote from: I
Could you explain how that ties in to 'what I'm doing the game author intended me to do'? Assumptions seem worthless in terms of that - I could hand you some lego and assume you might make something out of it - and so what if I assumed? Big deal? To me it's a non sequitur.
Another meaningless statement, Noon.

If some Danish guys gives me a set of coloured bricks and I build something with them then I am absolutely using them within the creator's intent, even if the creator did not specify exactly what he intended me to build. Obviously if I stick a brick up each nose and slam my head into a wall s hard that they shoot out of my ears then I'm doing something strange and unexpected.

The question is, do you feel that using RPG rules in the contexts of a coherent setting is an example of building something with the tools provided, or do you instead believe it equates more closely to the nose-plug/ear cannon approach to lego?

And if you can't see the difference then you are beyond talking to at this point.

It's basically delicious - the incapacity to see the semantic ambiguity (ie, undefined borders) of the word 'build' (or whatever word seems to make him think he's totally intended to do what he does) makes him see that as a perfectly objective word.

It's like you could ask them to cut a length of string and they'd accept not everyone would cut the same length when asked.

But then you talk to them about a world like this which is supposed to be cutting them a certain range of action and they are just lost. Devoured by the ambiguous word. It's just so clear to them - or so I presume!

My internet is shaped at the moment, having trouble linking to the TPB post on '3 readerly illusions', which covers this semantic ambiguity in greater detail.

He just thinks he's on the right side of some magical line (probably connected to a magical lottery ticket) that makes him 'building something with the tools provided' rather than 'nose-plug/ear cannon approach'.

Or what, am I too relativist/nihilistic to say actually there is no line but the one your deciding on (but you can't even see yourself deciding on it!)

Perhaps if this was about morality, I'd agree. But no, this is about table top roleplay - it's time to suck up responsibility.

I feel like I'm in the 'Those who know...' but not really feeling the '...and command' bit at all. There must be some way of making money off this for my lil' jobless ass... :twisted:  :lol:

36
General Misc. / Bakker coming to Wilfrid Laurier University
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:40:24 pm »
Quote from: Wilshire
Edit: answered my own question.
"Scott will be reading and responding to questions on Thursday, November15th, at 4:00 PM in the Paul Martin Centre. "

37
General Misc. / In Defense of Fantasy
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:35:54 pm »
Quote from: Soterion
Some of the material below is of a theoretical nature, but I don't necessarily want this to be that kind of discussion.  I'm creating this topic because I'm concerned with the distinction and preservation of fantasy as a literary subgenre, and I'd like to see what other people's views are concerning the controversial status of fantasy among not only academic audiences, but popular audiences as well.  I'm sure many of us are familiar with Bakker's own personal defense of fantasy as a mode of popular literature; the mere fact that it achieves such widespread popularity must account for something.  I'm in agreement with Scott, but I want to try and expand our knowledge of fantasy as a subgenre further, so that we can better counter the criticism against it.

Popular audiences often levy rather simple yet still effective arguments against fantasy: it's unrealistic, it's illogical, it's escapist, etc.  I don't want to spend too much time on these criticisms, other than the following statements:

Why is fantasy more unrealistic than "regular" fiction?  Why is Margaret Atwood's Oryx and Crake realistic, but Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire is not?  What makes fantasy more unrealistic?  I would argue, off the top of my head, that it's a semiotic connection; that is, Atwood's novel has socio-linguistic and cultural ties to our own actual reality, whereas Martin's series (despite its influence from medieval tropes) is meant to be viewed as entirely separate from our reality.  Thus, we must ask not only the question of why does his reality bear such resemblance to a historical period of our own reality; but we also must ask why so many of his characters speak, and his tale is narrated in, English.  Tolkien tried to accommodate such criticisms by creating a fictional language as well as referring to what was written in English as "the common tongue" (I believe Martin does something along these lines as well).  Any mention of "English" within the novel's diegetic reality destroys its imaginative power.  Yet it's still narrated in English, thus presenting a strange illogic (i.e. a story translated from a presumably unknown language).

This claim appears to carry some weight until we begin seriously critiquing all novelistic representation.  Essentially, the criticism mentioned above only holds as long as novels such as Atwood's Oryx and Crake (or, for perhaps a better example, Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian) are believed to be plausible extensions of our own, actual reality.  But we have to avoid this association; the truth is, any fiction, be it fantasy, historical, romance, modernist, etc. always only represents a form of alternative reality, or alternate history.  The worlds represented even in the most accurate and serious historical fiction can never depict anything more than an imagined version of history; an alternate reality.  Thus, why should it matter what language a story is told in?  Why can't Oryx and Crake be in French?  Why can't A Song of Ice and Fire be English?  Even better yet, why can't Blood Meridian be in Tolkien's Elvish, with its Spanish dialogue in High Valyrian (now there's a translation I'd like to see)?  Once we accept that all fictional depictions can be nothing more than entirely separate from our reality, we must accept that they can be told in any language, and adopt any cultural tropes.  After all, in an infinity of alternate realities, what isn't possible?

Now, I want to also include a brief analysis of what I believe is the source for the primarily academic criticism of modern fantasy fiction.  This criticism, I believe, has quite a history, which I will attempt to catalog below.

I trace academia's issue with fantasy back to György Lukács's discussion of Legitimism.  The Legitimists responded to what they perceived as the valueless chaos and competition of early capitalism by arguing that Europe needed to return to its pre-industrial roots.  They were authoritarians, royalists, and feudalist sympathizers; they yearned to take the rapidly emerging modern society back to their version of the valorized, idyllic, hierarchical society of knights and lords.  The form of literature that they espoused was, of course, the medieval poetic romances such as the chanson de geste.

Modern fantasy fiction has its thematic roots in the medieval romance poems.  Literary critic Fredric Jameson implicitly extends the academic criticism of fantasy when he discusses Northrop Frye's notion of romance in his book The Political Unconscious; here he writes that romance, in its original form, is essentially a "Utopian fantasy which aims at the transfiguration of the world of everyday life in such a way as to restore the conditions of some lost Eden, or to anticipate a future realm from which the old mortality and imperfections will have been effaced."  In this sense, romance, according to Jameson, offers a kind of "imaginary" resolution to real contradictory socio-economic (Jameson is, after all, a Marxist) conditions.  This is related to the popular accusation that fantasy is "escapist"; but for Jameson, the escapism of such fiction isn't the primary issue.  The issue is that, at its heart, it is ideological.

However, we need to put pressure on this association.  It is only on a thematic level that modern fantasy fiction is related to the medieval romance; there is a more important distinction and difference between them: the medieval romances were poetic; modern fantasy fiction is prose - more specifically, it uses the novel as the vehicle for the transmission of its content.

The novel is a radically modern literary form.  It achieved its popularity at the same time that many innovative and influential philosophical ideas were emerging, not the least of which were John Locke's anti-authoritarianism and David Hume's skepticism.  These new philosophical models, working in the wake of the Cartesian cogito, established a new era of human subjectivity.  The novel, as a literary form, is emblematic of this philosophical shift.  Thus, we must acknowledge that between the cosmology and literature of the Middle Ages, and the cosmology and literature of the modern era, there is an immeasurable change that takes place.

Modern fantasy fiction has to be judged on this basis: as a subgenre that deals overwhelmingly in prose (specifically the novel), it is entirely separate from its medieval predecessor apart from certain thematic similarities.  On first glance, this might seem to support the criticism that fantasy fiction is illogical: its content is anachronistic in relation to its form.  However, I believe that modern fantasy fiction must not be discarded as childish, escapist, ideological tripe (and some critics do hold this view).  Rather, it must be viewed in light of two cultural antagonisms: on one hand, its ideological fascination with medieval, or ancient, themes; on the other hand, its popularity in modern fiction, and its relation to the modern problem of representation.  Most importantly, concerning the second issue, we have to put fantasy on the same level of what is regarded as "high" literature.  If all fiction represents some alternate form of history or reality, then fantasy fiction must be contextualized within this framework: not as texts that depict impossible, escapist, or Utopian visions; but as actually possible, but radically alternate, histories.

I'm going to stop now because I could go on forever probably (I'm doing my doctorate in English literature now, so the ideas just don't stop).  Any and all responses are welcome; reactions, emotions, opinions, anything at all.  Don't feel the need to respond to anything above either; if people simply want to share why they think fantasy is a legitimate subgenre, or why they feel it is often ostracized in popular/academic circles, that's great.

Cheers!

38
General Earwa / Wikiquote Project?
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:28:39 pm »
Quote from: Truth Shines
I'm sure many of you already know the entry on the Warrior Prophet on Wikiquote.  I've been re-reading TTT just recently, and have come across a lot of great quotes.  I'm thinking why don't we do a project and create an entry for each of these books?  Each person can be responsible for a particular chapter or section.  We'll pool them together, talk about them, then post them to Wikiquote.  These can include both those opening quotes -- fictional proverbs, aphorisms -- from various chapters, as well as particularly pithy dialogues.

Just from TTT, two great examples (I'm quoting from memory, so they are inexact):

Example of Aphorism -- Truth and hope are two travelers in contrary directions.  They meet but once in any man's life.

Example of Dialogue -- (Moenghus to Kellhus): Set aside your convictions.  The feeling of certainty is no more a marker of truth than the feeling of will is a marker of freedom.  The deceived always think themselves certain, just as they always think themselves free.  This is simply what it means to be deceived.

39
General Earwa / Audiobook?
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:15:36 pm »
Quote from: Wilshire
So I saw this for purchase on audible.com, and I was wondering if anyone has listen to the books instead of reading them.

I make an 8hour car trip every couple weeks so I listen to a lot of books so that's why I'm curious.

Sure hope it was done well.

40
General Misc. / Them Dawgs is Hell
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:12:46 pm »
Quote from: jogrady
Don't They!
Cry Havoc and let slip them fuckin Dawgs

41
General Earwa / The Scylvendi and their role.
« on: June 04, 2013, 04:07:31 pm »
Quote from: Francis Buck
I don't believe that we have had a dedicated topic to my favorite Eärwan culture: those good ole' Scylvendi rascals.

I find their pseudo-nihilistic society to be one of -- if not the most -- interesting one in the series. They're one of the few groups that are neither Inrithi nor Fanim, and they seem to worship the No-God in the form of Lokung. My question is, why? Why did the Scylvendi join up with the No-God in the first place? Did they already worship a being called "Lokung", and then simply attributed those beliefs to the No-God once he came around?

I'm also interested in the swazond. Someone somewhere on these forums postulated that there's more to them than simple ritualistic scarring, and that they do in fact capture the souls of those slain (there was more to the theory than that, but I can remember what; if you're reading this, mystery poster, please re-inform me).

And of course, is Cnaiür truly dead and gone? I'm really split on this, desire-wise. Part of me wants him to come back, bigger and meaner than ever, to rally his kinsmen for whatever massive battle must take place at the end of this whole thing. At the same time, I'm not a big fan of the "fake-out death" trope, so if it did happen, I'd hope it was handled skillfully.

42
General Earwa / The Maganecca
« on: June 04, 2013, 03:53:54 pm »
Quote from: Octavian
While skimming through the appendix and other chapters I realized that we do not get mentions of them outside the fact that they found the Ark and the Brothers Inchoroi. I mean we know that they are a part of the Consult, but whereas Mek is mention and so to Aurang and Aurax we never get a mention of not one member of the School, not even during any of the battles of the Apocalypse. Which is weird when you think about it because they had Seswatha to contend with as well as the rest of the Schools. Yet even in Seswatha's dreams we don't see them. Even in the WLW when Sorweel and his company stumble across the 10 Yoke Legion, they are being controlled by Quya.

We know that Shae has always been known for his subtly and Kellhus guessed that it takes a group of Sorcerers to power Aurang's Synthese. So what I am thinking is that we don't them because they are too valuable to lose maybe? Maybe the No God cannot be summoned/powered without them.

Or maybe I am just reading to far into it. Ijist find it curious that out of all the battles we are briefed about in the series, Shae and Co. are not mentioned in being in one.

43
General Earwa / The Might Of The Skin-Spies
« on: June 04, 2013, 03:45:19 pm »
Quote from: Davias
I don't know, if this very question has already been answered somewhere here, but I'm re-reading the Prince of Nothing at the moment and the question is haunting me for quite some days. In The first books we learn, what the skin spies are capable of. Only the Dunyain can really recognize them and their masks are nearly perfect.
But why did the consult place the spies only in those "middle" positions? Why a Shrial-Knight and not their leader? Why the mother of the emperor and not the emperor himself? Why didn't they replace some mighty lords with actual power over many troops, a prince, or a king?
Did they fear, the Mandati might find out about this too soon? I thought the spies had a lot of time to infiltrate the Three Seas, without someone had a clue, what was happening.
I have read all 5 books, TWLW a year ago, maybe I ignored something in the books?

PS: Sorry for my bad english, I'm from germany and reading Bakker's books in english has already given me some light headaches ;)

44
General Earwa / Map circles?
« on: June 04, 2013, 03:41:38 pm »
Quote from: Callan S.
So, looking at the map on the new site: http://www.rscottbakker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/EARWA2.Bare-1.jpg

What's with the circles?

Now I know you might say asteroids.

But isn't that rather alot? And they seem to have created land mass in the sea - that's not usual behaviour for an asteroid, is it?

Seem to have two rings with golgoterath? I'm presuming the smaller one is created by the ship...but I dunno? Why are there two rings?

Wassup, bro?

45
General Earwa / Invisible to the Gods?
« on: June 04, 2013, 03:40:07 pm »
Quote from: lockesnow
Watching the Hobbit last night, I was struck by 'invisibility'  That the Ring makes you invisible, perhaps in a sense you step outside, or you step into a shadow realm. 

This immediately spawned the thought that being invisible to the gods meant they could not find you and this made me think that the No God shares some sort of similarity to the One Ring.   Has Bakker weaponized invisibility, or made it seem a weapon, has he twisted things about so that the metaphysical properties of invisibility can answer the age-old question of 'how do you kill a god?'

I feel sort of loopy, not much sleep last night. this may not make any sense next time I look at it.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22