Earwa > General Q&A

Exact number of "nameless ones"?

(1/2) > >>

ThoughtsOfThelli:
After creating a wiki page for the nameless, deformed child of Kellhus and Esmenet the other day, I kept wondering about the other ones he had with concubines. I can't seem to figure out the exact number, though...this is the relevant quote from chapter 3 of TJE:

--- Quote ---Of the seventeen concubines he impregnated, ten died in childbirth, and the others gave birth to more… nameless ones. Thirteen in sum, all drowned in wine.
--- End quote ---
Okay, so what happened to the children the ten women who died in childbirth gave birth to? The number given only seems to refer to the ones birthed by the remaining seven concubines! If it was referring to all of them, it would make no sense for seventeen concubines to produce thirteen children.
Is Esmenet just not taking stillborn children into account? Those thirteen had to be born alive to be drowned later on, so that may be the case?

Wilshire:
Stillborn seems to be the most likely explanation, but the text doesn't explicitly say that those children were dead and/or killed.

ThoughtsOfThelli:

--- Quote from: Wilshire on February 28, 2018, 04:15:42 pm ---Stillborn seems to be the most likely explanation, but the text doesn't explicitly say that those children were dead and/or killed.

--- End quote ---

We only know that thirteen children were drowned. You could make the argument this does not 100% mean they are dead recalling the speculation about Moënghus' sons. But these are Kellhus' children, not Moënghus', the circumstances are different, and so it seems almost certain those thirteen (plus the one birthed by Esmenet) really are dead.
There's a chance the ones the ten concubines who died in childbirth gave birth to could be alive, I suppose. Doesn't seem to be the case, as none of these children have been mentioned since...and what role would they play in the rest of the series, anyway?
Something that might be interesting to note is that if the "thirteen in sum" is only referring to the children of the latter seven concubines and not all of them, these would be further examples of twins in the Anasûrimbor line.

Madness:
That sentence is weirdly constructed, isn't it, TOT.

Upon scrutiny, I believe, the sentence is referring thirteen nameless ones borne of the remaining seven. It doesn't seem to specify whether the babies borne or stillborn of the ten who died in childbirth were monstrosities or not.

ThoughtsOfThelli:

--- Quote from: Madness on March 03, 2018, 01:21:15 pm ---That sentence is weirdly constructed, isn't it, TOT.

Upon scrutiny, I believe, the sentence is referring thirteen nameless ones borne of the remaining seven. It doesn't seem to specify whether the babies borne or stillborn of the ten who died in childbirth were monstrosities or not.

--- End quote ---

It sure is a strange sentence...

That's the interpretation I made the first time I read that chapter and I still think it's the one that makes the most sense (which would mean at least 6 sets of twins? maybe a set of triplets in there too, if two or more were singletons? anyway, definitely more proof that multiples run in the Anasûrimbor line).
It might be that it didn't matter either way if the babies born to the ten concubines were deformed or not. If all ten (or more) of those were stillborn (most likely explanation) then there was nothing of note to be done. If they had been normal-looking infants, Kellhus would have lost potential half-Dûnyain to train but, well, no need to dwell on that as at least he still had (some of) Esmenet's children. If they had been deformed, there would be no need to drown them in wine as they were dead already. Esmenet probably didn't consider the children of those ten to be relevant enough to mention in her internal monologue.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page