|
Yes we're all aware you have super pedantic opinions at this point.
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Maytag posted:The protagonist is the one the audience is supposed to chiefly identify with. You should realize by the second book of the entire series that this is not Kellhus. No, that is not a protagonist. No story demands that we identify with anyone. A protagonist is a 'prime mover' or 'prime actor.' They are a character whom we follow closely and from whose perspective we see some or all the events of the novel. The protagonists in the first trilogy are Kelhus, Akka, Cnair, and Esement. The game Bakker is playing is making characters we think are going to be heroes (Kelhus and Cnair) turn out to be thoroughly unlikeable. So they're not heroes, but they are protagonists. Akka and Esement are arguably heroes--Akka for sure I would say. Of course, I am pretty sure the reason Bakker has made those two heroes is so he can show how their freewill was dominated by Kelhus ALL ALONG and see how consciousness is an illusion man?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 15:07
|
|
|
Kellhus was a monstrous rear end in a top hat in the very first chapter of the very first book, did some of you really miss that?
|
|
#
?
Sep 26, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
02-6611-0142-1 posted:Kellhus was a monstrous rear end in a top hat in the very first chapter of the very first book, did some of you really miss that? Regardless, it is indisputable that he is a central character and 'prime mover' as Seldom Posts pointed out. Kellhus is instrumental for the Second Apocalypse to happen - Celmomas' prophecy, remember? - and the power he comes to wield over the Holy War easily cements his position as one of several protagonists in the first trilogy, if not the main one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 01:25
|
|
|
02-6611-0142-1 posted:Kellhus was a monstrous rear end in a top hat in the very first chapter of the very first book, did some of you really miss that? Apparently you missed that no one missed that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
There are differing definitions of what a protagonist is, so I guess we'll disagree.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
So Bakker gave the go ahead to the Second Apocalypse admin to post a lengthy excerpt from the first chapter of TUC: http://secondapocalypse.forumer.com/excerpt-the-unholy-consult-chapter-one-t1246331.html Contains major spoilers so read at your own risk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2012 16:37
|
|
|
That's... not much of a spoiler, really. Another of Akka's dreams, then blah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 07:15
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think there's really anything new in there, though Golgotterath remains the most interesting part of the series.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 10:52
|
|
|
Meh, I was going by what Madness was saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
Just read the new teaser. While it didn't reveal too much,the thought of the big bad, Shae, endlessly pulling himself from the brink of hell over millenia via sheer will and hatred while using six victims as a shared vessel is some trippy poo poo in a series full of trippy poo poo. You could say he's a self-moving soul. It also reminds me that a visual guide to Bakker's world by Giger would be pure 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 23:29
|
|
|
And yet, that's probably the only appropriate artist... drat, I really need to finish reading white-luck warrior.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
Ok so I just finished the third book and I don't think I'm likely to read any more of these. No specific reason, it just seems like too much loving work to keep reading all this crazy poo poo. A couple of questions: 1) Does it ever explain what the "Thousandfold Thought" is? 2) What the gently caress happened to Achamian, he was whisked away by a Scarlet Spires demon and then gently brought to a beach? 3) Cnaiur was just sort of left in the cave all alone licking salt statues? 4) How the gently caress did Kellhus get back to the surface? 5) How the gently caress did Kellhus learn how to teleport? 6) Kellhus planned for the cavalry to arrive and sweep what's his face the rear end in a top hat off the field? 7) All this, "He looked just like his father!" and no one thought Kellhus and Maithanet looked similar? Get the gently caress out. I was waiting since the second book for some bullshit connection like that, kept thinking Maithanet was Moengus, but the recognition thing. Well the last one is a complaint, but I ended up flipping though the last couple pages and the first five I honestly don't know.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Tres Burritos posted:Ok so I just finished the third book and I don't think I'm likely to read any more of these. No specific reason, it just seems like too much loving work to keep reading all this crazy poo poo. A couple of questions: Overall, it's a bit of shame. I thought the second book in the series was one of the best fantasy books I have ever read, but it seems like the author is not interested in writing that type of book. I will keep reading the books, but it is a lot of crap to keep track of, a lot of which is parceled out in ways that are intended to make hard to follow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 13:58
|
|
|
Re: Kellhus' powers. The teleportation thing is simple, really. Achamian explains to Kellhus that the Gnosis works by holding two different interpretations of the spell being chanted in the mind at the same time. Kellhus can do three different interpretations at once, making the spell a more powerful version of itself. The sending spell is extended and empowered from a means of transporting information through time and space to sending the person doing the casting through time and space.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 17:33
|
|
|
Yeah, after reading Sanderson books where all the magic is very thoroughly explained it was kind of exhausting to try and parse what the gently caress the differences in the magic systems were. Especially at the end when we start hearing about the Cishaurim (sp?) and they're talking about "water". He did an okay job of explaining the Gnosis I guess, but it took like 3 books for him to give us a couple of paragraphs going into why this is such a better version of sorcery. I guess Achamian also wrecked some dudes to illustrate the point, but throwing in that water stuff at the end, while making some nice sounding metaphors and poo poo, was just confusing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:29
|
|
|
Well in The Thousandfold Thought it's revealed to have been kind of an important plot point that the Cishaurim do not actually understand poo poo about how their magic works. Speaking of spoilers, if you ever find yourself looking at a 2011 Bakker interview at http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com be aware that the second part drops a REALLY REALLY BIG lore spoiler that hasn't been revealed yet in any of the books. Like it was nothing, Bakker just explains out loud the origin of the Tusk.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Tres Burritos posted:Yeah, after reading Sanderson books where all the magic is very thoroughly explained it was kind of exhausting to try and parse what the gently caress the differences in the magic systems were. Especially at the end when we start hearing about the Cishaurim (sp?) and they're talking about "water". I pray to god that Sanderson's d20 sourcebook 'magic systems' stay confined to the kind of poo poo he writes. Fantasy lit is pigeonholed badly enough as it is, it really needs to avoid shackling itself to this pulpy, mechanical notion of what the fantastic should be. Numinism has its place. e: and everything you need to know about Bakker's magic systems up front is right in the names. The Anagogic schools are based on analogy, the Gnosis on pure reason and insight. The Cishaurim are left intentionally mysterious because the mechanism of their magic is a plot point, but when it's finally revealed it's just as simple - it's based on passion and emotion. General Battuta fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
Magic should be wild, ephemeral, and mysterious. It shouldn't even be possible to parse it down into a "system". That doesn't excuse an author for using it poorly, though. There's a disturbing strain of thought in recent fantasy fiction that magic systems must "make sense" in a very deterministic way for their use as a plot device to void breaking the suspension of disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Thulsa Doom posted:Magic should be wild, ephemeral, and mysterious. It shouldn't even be possible to parse it down into a "system". That doesn't excuse an author for using it poorly, though. There's a disturbing strain of thought in recent fantasy fiction that magic systems must "make sense" in a very deterministic way for their use as a plot device to void breaking the suspension of disbelief. I'm down with that too. The Dresden books fall into this pretty square, right? Even then though, I know what's going on and it's been explained pretty thoroughly and satisfactorily. I mean, just saying "IT'S MAGIC" really leaves me wanting more as a reader. When we finally got to see Achamian hulk out after three books (or was it two?) I felt it went a looong way in fleshing out the world. General Battuta posted:e: and everything you need to know about Bakker's magic systems up front is right in the names. The Anagogic schools are based on analogy, the Gnosis on pure reason and insight. The Cishaurim are left intentionally mysterious because the mechanism of their magic is a plot point, but when it's finally revealed it's just as simple - it's based on passion and emotion. I honestly thought those were made up words, now I feel like an idiot. Guess I'm not up to snuff on my greek roots or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Tres Burritos posted:I'm down with that too. The Dresden books fall into this pretty square, right? Even then though, I know what's going on and it's been explained pretty thoroughly and satisfactorily. I mean, just saying "IT'S MAGIC" really leaves me wanting more as a reader. When we finally got to see Achamian hulk out after three books (or was it two?) I felt it went a looong way in fleshing out the world. You can have narratively logical magic without a rigorously paraphysical system. Consider Earthsea, where magic is all about language and the power of names, or Lord of the Rings, where the One Ring doesn't actually do anything specific (it 'grants power according to its stature', and it can turn a hobbit invisible, but beyond that it's all very vague). It's enough for us to know that the Ring is desirable, seductive, and inevitably dehumanizing. Like Thulsa Doom I'm very much against magic as alternative physics. It just seems to miss the point; you might as well be writing science fiction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
One thing I thought the first three books did real well was having really flawed and human characters. Most every character is messed up in some way, but I somehow feel like maybe they're too messed up, a little too real. I really liked the Joe Abercrombie First Law books because he sort of waited 'till the end to show everyone in their worst light. He really builds the characters up as heroes. Despite Logen constantly saying he's a bloodthirsty rear end in a top hat and Jezal being just a general poo poo and the wizard being shifty, I was constantly rooting for them. Until the end when I finished the book in disgust, but in a good way. Maybe Bakker plays it a little different with the character flaws in the next books, but like I said, I'm not going to slog through them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:42
|
|
|
Whenever magic systems get broken down into incredibly detailed, organized sets of rules I can't help but think the author wants to write for an RPG sourcebook or something stead. I'm pretty indifferent to it otherwise, but it's certainly a valid complaint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
I have to disagree with that sentiment. I like a little structure in my magic system. Even assuming an author can avoid the "a wizard did it" trap, I feel it adds a bit more to the atmosphere and environment, as well as making MUCH more interesting challenges to overcome. It could be that I'm a Magic nerd just like Sanderson (so obviously I'd agree with him). I liked Bakker's series, but I kept wishing he'd explain just a little bit more about the magic system. I don't necessarily need to know the details, but I would have loved to learn just what made the Gnosis so much better than everything else (earlier on) and maybe seen a couple more examples of what they could do with it. Akka's fight in the library was pretty much the only scene (that I can remember) where the magic system actually grabbed my interest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect everything to be explained for you before the end of the series. Magic on a conceptual level is deeply tied into the major themes of the series. To reveal deep understanding of magic would spoil many of the unknowns that are driving the characters (What is a self-moving soul? What does it mean to be damned? How does the judging eye play into it? How come the Chisarium aren't damned like the other schools?) Besides, many aspects are explained when Akka teaches Khellus about the Gnosis (such as using abstractions instead of analogies) We also know that magic has to do with interaction with the Outside because of Daimotic sorcery and the whole demon summoning. Also, if you really want to see crazy magic casting, The White Luck Warrior is where things really start to go nuts. WaterIsPoison fucked around with this message at 21:28 on Oct 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:25
|
|
|
Srice posted:Whenever magic systems get broken down into incredibly detailed, organized sets of rules I can't help but think the author wants to write for an RPG sourcebook or something stead. That is, knowing that you need bat guano for Fireball and powdered diamond for Resurrection are footnote-level details that can be sprinkled around to improve the atmosphere a bit, but cannot really be the cornerstone of a good book - unless you're writing something like an urban fantasy story involving the blood diamond trade and with a larger 99%-vs-1% theme. Then knowing that an elite cabal of wizards foments wars in central Africa to fuel their immortality is no longer trivia, but an important brush-stroke in the setting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
Ooooooooh every book should be written the same way! Scoff at an author who likes to write in detail about how his universe works! People write differently. It's cool if you don't enjoy what they write. What you enjoy isn't the only way to do a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
Just finished White Luck Warrior. Nice to see Bakker has stuck with 'death came swirling down' to near-meme levels. It has some interesting high points, but like the first trilogy, it seems that the most interesting characters and ideas are just there to be pushed aside for more heartless domination and rape. Nearly all of his battle sequences are the same. Look at the men of the Tusk in all their martial glory! Look at the endless hordes of enemies and their artifice. Death comes swirling down! It sure looks bad for the inrithi! But wait, no, they hang on and win despite grievous losses because they are so devoted. For a fantasy series, it has precious little wonder in it. Even the Great Ordeal feels bureaucratic, a sideshow while he saves the big reveal (which seems somewhat obvious) for later. Here, have floating mages nuking hordes of porny orcs for 3 chapters. At least there's nothing as bad, stylistically, as his hilarious undead horses from The Warrior Prophet, in which he states some three times along the charpters that the last of the horses of the Holy War died or were eaten by the starving soldiers, and then suddenly they are back being ridden by charging knights the next battle or bearing someone somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
So I recently just finished The Warrior Prophet and am enjoying the series overall, but I have to ask, does the self introspective whining lessen at all in the later books? Specifically the last one? I'll probably finish it just because I'm a completionist, but everyone being "woe is me" was obnoxious as hell. I can't find myself really getting attached to any of the characters because of this, it's always been "oh he died, whelp!". I'm really digging the setting of the world and the history though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
What's been released of the second trilogy so far changes up the pace and scale a bit, but the character introspective content appears to be here to stay. But if the setting and history has been interesting to you I'd say keep reading because there's neat stuff introduced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
It's interesting to see that many people who don't like his books share the same complaint: the fact that they don't like any of the main characters. Maybe this says enough about my messed up mind, but in books (but tv shows and movies as well) I don't require likable characters at all, as long as the backdrop is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
When I could make a statement as unqualified as 'I like his books' it definitely had nothing to do with his characters, all of whom seemed intentionally and obsessively archetypical. The most interesting thing about Bakker's writing is the sweep and horror of the world's history.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
I like a lot of Bakker's characters and the style he uses to write them. There are a lot of things in the plot that are horrifying or distressing in fairly high concept ways, and it's appropriate to show that a lot of the conflict is happening inside individual's heads. His characters do tend to be, as you said, based on archetypes(Achamian always doubts, etc.) but I still think they're enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Just picked up the series again after waiting a while. Really liked book The Judging Eye and am digging White-Luck Warrior so far too. I'm surprised there's as much criticism of the book's philosophizing as there is. I mean occasionally it's a bit "okay you've established this now you can stop drilling in this point about belief or doubt or whatever now" but it's at least interesting, and the scene between Kelmomas(all names in this series are hard for me to spell) and his insane inmprisoned sibling made me  It's possible I'm just an easily impressed rube, given that I thought Grendel was pretty great too.That said, the Great Ordeal is kinda boring for what it is, especially because Sorweel does not interest me at all. And I really wish Bakker would tone it down with the rape-creatures and rape in general it's such a cheap shock maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
So... you're saying that the series gets good again if I can somehow drag myself through the remaining 100 pages in The Judging Eye? Because I can't read ten more words about Achamian in the damned tunnels with the Sranc hunters unless I know there is a payoff in the next book. It's been sitting there, on my shelf, ignored, for a year now. Please let it be true!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
Oxybeles posted:So... you're saying that the series gets good again if I can somehow drag myself through the remaining 100 pages in The Judging Eye? Because I can't read ten more words about Achamian in the damned tunnels with the Sranc hunters unless I know there is a payoff in the next book. It's been sitting there, on my shelf, ignored, for a year now. Please let it be true! I can't really say for sure whether you'll enjoy White-Luck Warrior if you detest the "Achamanian travels with Sranc hunters" thing as much as you do, because there is still a lot of that although WLW adds a few new dynamics but I think it's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
The slog of slogs is actually finishing The Judging Eye.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Oxybeles posted:So... you're saying that the series gets good again if I can somehow drag myself through the remaining 100 pages in The Judging Eye? Because I can't read ten more words about Achamian in the damned tunnels with the Sranc hunters unless I know there is a payoff in the next book. It's been sitting there, on my shelf, ignored, for a year now. Please let it be true! White Luck Warrior is less bad in a lot of respects but still not as good* as the first trilogy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
So do we have any indication how this is going to end? Seems like the Consult have corrupted the Half-men and have sent the Great Ordeal to bleed itself to death versus some fortress. And Ishual is ruined. Somehow I just want Kellhus to fail miserably, so an ending where the Consult wins is actually acceptable to me. Unless his secret plan is to close the sky and escape damnation, and then I still want him to fail. I think Achamian is going end with an unwitnessed martyrs death saving Mimala in some way. This series is exceptional in how much you dislike every character and you still can't stop reading. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 15:57 |
|
|
Cardiac posted:So do we have any indication how this is going to end? Don't forget Mimara giving birth to the No-God. She even knows to keep the baby secret from Achamian.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 15:43
|
|
