|
Neurophage posted:Personally, I think it's ok if someone doesn't like the books and yet wants to talk about them. He doesn't want to talk about books, he wants to show how superior he is to everyone that likes them.
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 07:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
wellwhoopdedooo posted:How can you guys have been on the internet for as long as you have and not recognize someone who argues only to win? Take the plunge! Okay! posted:He doesn't want to talk about books, he wants to show how superior he is to everyone that likes them. I am the Warrior-Prophet. I am the new order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 09:15
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I am the Warrior-Prophet. I am the new order. I read seven books to see Kellhus get got.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 09:55
|
|
|
Rime posted:This is all very true and it would be nice if the book barn mods were as vicious as the D&D ones when it comes to handing down super long probations for serial threadshitting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 10:30
|
|
|
They should do the same thing as with the movie forum and make a new, more casual forum where it's illegal to bully people by saying books are written with words. Everybody wins, imo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 10:42
|
|
|
BotL is like SMG (but more convincing), he's entertaining and often interesting but it eventually gets tiring how people are completely unable to deal with his presence in a thread. It's alright to step aside and let him whiff air, if you're not getting anything out of his approach to books. You don't have to respond to him just because he says he's right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 11:29
|
|
|
Bakker created Achamian's nickname "Akka" because it's easier to type.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
What's difficult about typing Achaemenid?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
So what does it mean to be "scalloped for exhaustion"
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
If I like ideas about how human values and perceptions are a thin bubble of wishful thinking around/within a yawning void of nothingness are these books relevant to my interests?
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Peel posted:If I like ideas about how human values and perceptions are a thin bubble of wishful thinking around/within a yawning void of nothingness are these books relevant to my interests? Black demon seed
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Read Ligotti first if you haven't already.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Why are you asking stupid questions? After pondering for a while I realized that it was a stupid question. Quoting webcomics is a correct to discuss Bakker's works because they are like webcomics; eg. just drench Goblins in black seed and you have The Prince of Nothing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
I guess Ligotti it is, looking forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 11:20
|
|
|
Jeffrey of YOSPOS posted:I haven't finished it yet but I think he always had the third one planned, at least by the time The Judging Eye came out. He said the name of the third trilogy would be a spoiler. "The Second Apocalypse"? BravestOfTheLamps posted:Hmmm, you seem to be in fact carrying over a grudge from the Kingkiller thread, since nowhere did I argue that people who like Prince of Nothing do not like it. If I like it, that makes it good. BravestOfTheLamps posted:This fear of a perfect, all-knowing manipulator who makes mockery of free will just another facet of Bakker's tiresome doom-and-gloom. Peake in contrast makes the same topic for a good and thoughtful read. BravestOfTheLamps posted:"World-building" is a moronic cargo cult concept. A milieu is only as interesting as how it's presented, in prose, verse, etc. BravestOfTheLamps posted:"World-building" is a moronic cargo cult concept. A milieu is only as interesting as how it's presented, in prose, verse, etc. How is it a cargo cult concept? That is a pretty specific comparison. And why moronic? having a depth of thought surrounding the world means that when I read it, I can appreciate minor asides, tidbits, and internal consistencies. They make the world more real for me. Is that not true for you? BravestOfTheLamps posted:A milieu is only as interesting as how it's presented, in prose, verse, etc. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Here's an accurate, objective statement to pre-empt that: The Darkness that Comes Before is written ridiculously. It's a book about rape monsters from outer space. Trying to close a gate to hell. I think that his writing is perfectly acceptable. Beyond that - while I agree that line you picked out is cheesy, it did accurately convey what a pompous shallow and ultimately incompetent villian he was. BravestOfTheLamps posted:I expected you to actually describe Bakker's prose, but you simply defaulted to banalities. well that is clearly not correct. Absolutely nothing? Try dialing that back a bit, unless you want to add "...to me" in there. wrt cheap trick - Isn't that the medium we are talking about? If you hate certain conventions, and consider them cheap, then the medium clearly isn't for you. It's like me going into a club and saying "this 4/4 beat is such a cheap trick... and the way the music swells, and then drops off." Which is a valid opinion when you apply it to yourself I guess - but it isn't "cheap" or a "trick". It is literally the framework for the what we are communicating. Or going to a horror movie and complaining that "things jumping out at you are a cheap trick". Well, sure, I guess? BravestOfTheLamps posted:Readers are drawn to Bakker because of his prose. If they were really into just the intellectual content of the books, they'd be reading philosophy and science instead of overlong fantasy novels. I'm drawn to both, and the way he uses his personal philosophy as backdrop for the conflicts that emerge. I mean, I can watch Stargate Universe, and marvel at how large the universe actually is at the same time. The two aren't mutually exclusive at any level, and in fact enhance each other. I'm sorry I just don't get your point here. BravestOfTheLamps posted:This hopeful mystification ("greater than the sum of its parts") is the kind of thing Bakker mocks. How so. The books discuss how what we see is but a fragment of reality - and that when all those fragments are linked you actually have something much greater. So, "mock" is a strange word to use. At best I would say he discuss the implications, and how characters react in a world such as he describes. Are you confusing certain characters view points with Bakkers? I mean spells are literally a mix of message and medium, I mean like literally. The words must be spoken, the thoughts must be maintained, and when that happens you get miracles. BravestOfTheLamps posted:I'm noting the irony that I seem to have understood Bakker than his fan. But that isn't ironic. Irony requires humor at some level, and I'm afraid your situation has none to offer. It isn't even clever tbh. I mean that is about as ironic as: "wow I beat you at basketball, and you like to play basketball more than I do! While I spend all day telling you how poo poo basketball is. wow that is so ironic!!!" What would be ironic is you mockingly comparing yourself to a protagonist who spent a thousand pages fighting for something, confident in his ability and superior intellect. And he ends up a pile of salt. As an aside I think Anälsyringe is a pretty accurate description of you so far. You are like the lube that gets the poo poo flowing, amirite? Or a good enema. I mean no one ever thinks to thank the enema. And I do appreciate it, and thank you for it. kcroy fucked around with this message at 03:30 on Jul 30, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
He revealed the name of the third series on westeros.org and then got tilted when that forum ate a big post
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:then got tilted when that forum ate a big post what does that mean? Also please post the title!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 03:29
|
|
|
Finished the book - I did a skim read, and mostly agree with the comments I've seen here. I'm not sure how I feel about how Sorweel was taken over / killed. I feel like I had a lot invested in him as a character, and just chopping him out like that ( starting with when he starts seeing like the WLW ) bugged me. I'm also a bit tired of Cnaiur telling us what a bad rear end he is fwiw. Although I guess marching up to the no-god is pretty hard core. I'd always expected him to be piloting the no-god-chopper. I'm still confused on a bunch of stuff, mostly relating to larger world issues ( eg: what role does hell play, how do the gods not see little Kelmomas, etc ). So in that final scene, it looks like the 4 horned god takes over Kellhus / Kellus becomes him. And then somehow Kelmomas breaks that? Which in turn frees up the skinspy who salts Kellus. tbh I have a hard time with our god like being being taken by surprise like that. but w/e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
kcroy posted:what does that mean? the no god I.e. he wrote up a big post of answers and the forum errored out and then he posted about shaking with rage
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 03:43
|
|
|
Just starting TUC, and has anyone noticed the new use of italics to mean, "yo this poo poo is cool as gently caress" in addition to emphasis and elf language? It's in Brandon Sanderson's new stuff too. I thought it was just him trying something out that worked about as well as his attempts at humor until just now. Has anyone else noticed this? It's new, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
kcroy posted:"The Second Apocalypse"? What made you think addressing every post was a good idea. That is impossible to read and respond to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
Much like Bakker's terrible novels.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
wellwhoopdedooo posted:Just starting TUC, and has anyone noticed the new use of italics to mean, "yo this poo poo is cool as gently caress" in addition to emphasis and elf language? Nah it's been around for as long as we've had italics. You should read Temple by Matthew Reilly, a great canonical work of literary adventure!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
Yeah, I can't think of a published work of fiction whichh doesn't use italics in that fashion, 'cept maybe the bible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 14:48
|
|
|
I've hated Kel from the jump so I've got mixed feelings about him playing such a decisive role in the finale and then biting it. I'm curious how the next books will go. I don't see how another Ordeal could possibly be mounted. Maybe extreme divine intervention now that the gods have seen the No-God. In my ideal world, Achamian just picks up the discarded Heron Spear and ends the No-God in the prologue and the rest of the books deal with the question of damnation without returning to the Consult well. I love the world but I'm a little tired of the sranc and the Consult; I don't know what more will come from them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2017 17:26
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:What made you think addressing every post was a good idea. Just take it one question at a time, you can do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:I've hated Kel from the jump so I've got mixed feelings about him playing such a decisive role in the finale and then biting it. I'm pretty sure he isn't dead. After reading the other comments in this thread, and rereading parts of the final dialog from the Decapitant mage - sounds like he either jumped to the other Decapitant, or something similar. Or I don't know, jumped into hell. Or maybe grabbed Serwas soul as she was dying and jammed it in the body ( which is why Kellus seems to confused coming out of being possessed. I mean do we see him stutter ever in the entire series before this? ) On rereading the ending - a few things popped out regarding the possession going on. It looked to me like Kellus made some sort of pact with the 4 horned god, allowing the possession - perhaps promising him the world in exchange for safety/kingdom in hell. And then does something to kick the God out. I mean I didn't see any actual activity that Kelmomas did to interrupt the possession. There is also a weird sentence where one of the Mutilated acts like he is answering a question about Kelmomas, even though no one has asked one. As if he were carrying on a separate conversation with Kellhus that the others were not hearing. Once booted out, the 4 horned god then possesses Cnaiur, and is pissed as hell trying to find Kellhus, who betrayed him. He cannot see Kellus or the no-god. Why can the Gods see Kellhus but not Kelmomas? Is it because he was destined to be / is the no-god? What part of Kellus can the Gods NOT see? They clearly can attack him, etc. When we look at the two failed attempts on Kellhus' life by the WLW, Kelmomas was a variable both times. Is Kellus actually the God of Gods? Or is that just bullshit he tells people. I'm not sure - I've always taken Kellhus' explanation to people like Proyas or Akka as being "true". Something that has always been inconsistent to me - Kellhus ( and dunyain in general ) spend a lot of time pontificating and explaining the "Truth" but there is never motivation to do that. If acting in character, every word would be manipulation. But I get that the author needs some mechanism to explain this stuff. With that said - I cringe everytime I read two Dunyain talking, and they do this long rear end explanation for the other's actions and then say "...But you knew that already". It's like.. motherfucker if he knew that already why you spend 25 minutes talking about it. I mean shouldn't they just like look at each other and be able to communicate by like the way an eyebrow moves, and their arm pits stink or something? I get it is a necessary convention, but I'd appreciate him changing it up a bit. And of course Death Swirling Down. I like to think he put those in meaning to go back through, do a search and replace, and fix that poo poo before publishing. But just forgot or something. I'll blame the lack of editing a bit for that too. I'm to go back and reread some of the earlier descriptions of the no-god. I know the 4 horned god was involved there as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 04:13
|
|
|
kcroy posted:If I like it, that makes it good. In reality, that makes it likely that it's bad.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
kcroy posted:Have you read through all of the books, even though you don't like them, and are now in this thread to.. what exactly? I'm really confused by your posting. You felt that introduction was good(?) or at least better. What do you like about the introduction, that you found lacking in later writing? I hear this argument alot, that books I like are "written terribly" or whatever. Which, sure, I get - but if you could be a bit more specific with your criticisms it would be helpful. It's psychologically and aesthetically flat. Bakker's writing is just bog-standard genre prose: there's a lot of emphasis on extended dialogues of short exchanges intercut with brief, lifeless descriptions and snatches of internal monologue He's good at inspiring anxious dread, but any intelligent reader will realize that it's all he does, and sees through his one trick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 08:51
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's psychologically and aesthetically flat. Bakker's writing is just bog-standard genre prose: there's a lot of emphasis on extended dialogues of short exchanges intercut with brief, lifeless descriptions and snatches of internal monologue He's good at inspiring anxious dread, but any intelligent reader will realize that it's all he does, and sees through his one trick. You're doing that thing Kelhus does - describing your position as that of the "intelligent reader" and hoping that we, who want to be seen as intelligent readers, will instantly agree with you. You've done it a load before, and I'm choosing to believe that it's deliberate and you're secretly trying to tell us how much you loved every inch of these books.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:33
|
|
|
kcroy posted:How is it a cargo cult concept? That is a pretty specific comparison. And why moronic? having a depth of thought surrounding the world means that when I read it, I can appreciate minor asides, tidbits, and internal consistencies. They make the world more real for me. Is that not true for you? "World-building" is, obviously, a misreading of the concept of milieu. A milieu is simply a tool for story-telling, but genre fans and many genre authors immaturely think that it's a goal in itself. The height of this is the moronic desire for fiction to be an internally consistent historical document about an imaginary world. Of course, what aesthetic value and what insight about people, society, and the world a milieu might hold are completely escapes the grasp of people who hold this a goal in itself. This is what makes it a cargo cult concept: it's imitation without understanding. Thus you get the spectacle of fanboys praising the fact that there's different currencies in a setting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 09:46
|
|
|
Wait, wasn't the original No God catalyst Seswatha's secret child and not an Anasurimbor at all? The Consult were wrong about why it worked the first time, yet it nevertheless worked that way this time. Since Achamian is Seswatha in this cycle does that make his newborn son, one of the last able to be born, likely significant in destroying the No God this time?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:"World-building" is, obviously, a misreading of the concept of milieu. A milieu is simply a tool for story-telling, but genre fans and many genre authors immaturely think that it's a goal in itself. The height of this is the moronic desire for fiction to be an internally consistent historical document about an imaginary world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
Number Ten Cocks posted:Wait, wasn't the original No God catalyst Seswatha's secret child and not an Anasurimbor at all? The Consult were wrong about why it worked the first time, yet it nevertheless worked that way this time. I had the same question. If Nau-Cayuti wasn't an Anasurimbor, what gives?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:"World-building" is, obviously, a misreading of the concept of milieu. A milieu is simply a tool for story-telling, but genre fans and many genre authors immaturely think that it's a goal in itself. The height of this is the moronic desire for fiction to be an internally consistent historical document about an imaginary world. (this is more a general response to your posts made in this thread, but I'm quoting this one because it's what made me interested in the conversation again) Fiction is such a fascinating thing because how you read says a lot about you, the reader. Like, in your case, I would be surprised if you told me that you were a highly visual thinker or reader. I would be shocked if you told me you'd ever had an emotional response to prose beyond a brusque satisfaction with its competence. Which is fine. Maybe you are gratified by simply knowing the meaning of the phrases on the page, but there are lots of different ways to interact with fiction. When you talk about fiction, I imagine a man standing over a booklet of Ikea assembly instructions and declaring "this is a table!" Certainly, the concept of the table is implied by the instructions. Someone at Ikea had to create a table and figure out how to assemble/disassemble it before writing the instructions. But until you, the prospective table owner, put it together, there is no table. Fiction (for some readers) is like building something from blueprints. The words on the page are meant to be evocative of the story, but they are not the story as it exists in the heads of the author and the reader. This applies to all kinds of fiction, not just genre fic, but it's most apparent when you are trying to help your reader construct a scenario that's very different from their own experiences. Sure, there are lots of people who want to write what amounts to encyclopedias about fantasy worlds and simply copy authors they like, but that kind of mimicry happens in literally everything mankind does. It's not a cargo cult thing, it's a human thing. As for Bakker, his prose is consistent in the aesthetic it evokes. Whether or not you like the way the words themselves fit together, the world behind the words is fun to explore, and Bakker successfully takes lots of readers there. I don't have to think every inch of it is untold brilliance to find novelty in the exploration of it. Bottom line, fiction is a collaborative experience between the reader and writer. The writer is doing their best to package up their story in a way that allows it to be delivered, with minimal loss of meaning, to the reader. The reader is unpacking the story and using the words as reference points to recreate what was in the author's head. How much the reader gets out of that experience is dependent on the nature of their own life experiences and their capacity for imagination. In any case, it's nice to see this thread so busy. It's neat when there's lots of conversation about a book I like, so thanks BotL!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Fiction is much like instructions for assembling furniture.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
Anyone have thoughts on the No-God sarcophagus being the hardware component to the ship's AI, inhabiting intelligence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Fiction is much like instructions for assembling furniture. I'm glad we could come to an agreement!
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
papa horny michael posted:Anyone have thoughts on the No-God sarcophagus being the hardware component to the ship's AI, inhabiting intelligence? It's described as a prosthesis and a tool that helps the Ark read the "code" of life, which becomes more signal and less noise with deaths (and presumably with approaching the magic 144,000 number). If anything, it sounds like it's an embodied algorithm.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:26 |
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:It's described as a prosthesis and a tool that helps the Ark read the "code" of life, which becomes more signal and less noise with deaths (and presumably with approaching the magic 144,000 number). If anything, it sounds like it's an embodied algorithm. I always thought the 144k number was the maximum number of souls that can be alive in order to close off the outside.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2017 20:41
|
|