And further, something that Bakker has alluded to extra-textually, but the role the Logos has in determining Kellhus failure. I don't think it is suffient, to MSJ chagrin, to figure that love is all that kept Kellhus from killing Kel. It's a lot more, because love of Esmenet was thrown to the wind before. And his other children were ripe for sacrifice. It could be that little Kel was all Esmenet "had left" in a sense, that he was her "favorite." But I think it is deeper than than, that Kellhus' sense that all things were possible through the Logos that made him think he could win without that ultimate sacrifice (not Kel, but rather Esmenet's last bit of faith in him).
I extremely like how well-thought-out this argument is, considering proposed parallels. But I see problems with it. First of all, we are led to believe that Kellhus doesn't pursue the Logos anymore. He poses that he abandoned it for the pursuit of the subjective, the divine and its domain, the Outside.
The second problem I see is one of the most important morals of the story, the one that holds Kellhus, with all his gifts, as still very much fallible. Him "sparing" Kelmomas is portrayed as a mistake, as something he didn't - in all likelihood
couldn't - foresee leading to the later catastrophic failure of the Great Ordeal.
And lastly, I don't think Kellhus spared him solely out of sentiment. He still considered Esmenet an asset, and killing Kelmomas would have severely limited her usability. To be more clear, the role of sentiment in that decision, while driving (as in, there wouldn't have been such a decision without sentiment), is eclipsed by other reasons. Which is always the case for Kellhus, he is nothing if not perpetually scheming. This was one of his schemes gone wrong as opposed to a huge, culture-defining moment. Essentially, it's a small "fate-of-the-world"-defining moment, completely in line with the ever-present realism of TSA, where accidents drive history no less, if not flat-out more, than planning and reason.
In conclusion, I think the noted parallel is unintentional on Bakker's part, but existing in your reading of the series. The series gained it through your interpretation.
I tend to agree with the theory that Kellhus might have mistaken the rising darkness from the Ajokli possession for love for Esmenet
Now,
this is very interesting. My first instinct is to strongly reject this theory as diminishing Kellhus's role at the end of TUC to the point of insignificance. Basically, like saying there was more or less only Ajokli there, with Kellhus no more than a husk making some blunders in its rare moments of something approaching lucidity. Or maybe we should consider a God manifesting through a certain human to be influenced by that particular human's psyche? So Ajokli-Kellhus is still Kellhus in many respects, just as Ajokli-Cnaiur is still Cnaiur.
