the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

The Few and Kellhus posted 29 Jul 2005, 22:07 by Ajencis, Commoner

I may just be stating the obvious to everyone, but aren't the Schoolmen or 'the Few' nihilists. Only they can see the Few and they are the only ones that can perform Sorcery. They are rejected by the rest of the world and only Mandate Schoolmen can see the true state of the world, sonce only they acknowledge that the Consult exists. And only they have the Gnosis, which in Greek translates as Knowledge. Another point that may be obvious, since I haven't seen this view expressed elsewhere, is that Kellhus is Jesus Christ, metaphorically. He dies and is resurrected. he sees in the Hearts of Men and is killed by people who fear change and his power. The Muslims believe that Jesus was a Prophet and the Jews believe that their Messiah will be a Warrior. hence the 'Warrior-Prophet' Kellhus has 9 main followers, the Nascenti. Kellhus' version of the Apostles? He is also looking for his Father. His symbol after the Resurrection is the Circumfix, which sounds like the Gnostic Cross. Just a few thoughts, don't know whether they are right or wrong. view post


posted 30 Jul 2005, 00:07 by Lucimay, Subdidact

i don't know that there IS a right or wrong ( i seem to be taking this position a lot lately!!) i can see the analogies you're drawing however, i wasn't going there with Kelhus because too many characters have too often said "Sweet Sejenus" which, to me, is the same as saying Sweet Jesus! So...I equated Inri Sejenus with a Christ-figure, stupidly enough!! you're probably on the right track tho', especially given the fact that Kelhus is thirty-three years old!!!!! (messiah death age, kinda like rock n roll death age is 27!! Hendrix, Morrison, Joplin, Kobain,etc) regarding nilihism...i had to look it up to get an articulated definition and found a good quote that sums up my impression of nilihism, [quote:yh0nu4h3]"A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy." (the internet encyclopedia of philosophy)[/quote:yh0nu4h3] so, if that's the case, I don't think Mandate Schoolmen are nihilists. not carved in granite, tho. just my opinion view post


posted 30 Jul 2005, 00:07 by Ajencis, Commoner

Thanks for posting back. you may be right about the Schoolmen, but there are many views on nihilism. [quote:2mxcx23j]The destructive power of intellectual disillusuionment that enabled [b:2mxcx23j]a Few to see through the constructions fabricated by culture and to expose its most amazing economy of the preservation of the species and the High prices it exacted from the Few[/b:2mxcx23j] (Politics and Vision by Sheldon Wolin)[/quote:2mxcx23j] I think that this quote shows that, in the context of the books, that the Sorcerors, especially the Mandate Schoolmen, are nihilists (In this sense of the term). view post


posted 30 Jul 2005, 17:07 by Lucimay, Subdidact

sounds more like the dunyain to me. view post


Re: The Few and Kellhus posted 31 Jul 2005, 07:07 by Nauticus, Auditor

[quote="Ajencis":79rfwgtj]Another point that may be obvious, since I haven't seen this view expressed elsewhere, is that Kellhus is Jesus Christ, metaphorically. He dies and is resurrected. he sees in the Hearts of Men and is killed by people who fear change and his power. The Muslims believe that Jesus was a Prophet and the Jews believe that their Messiah will be a Warrior. hence the 'Warrior-Prophet' Kellhus has 9 main followers, the Nascenti. Kellhus' version of the Apostles? He is also looking for his Father. His symbol after the Resurrection is the Circumfix, which sounds like the Gnostic Cross. [/quote:79rfwgtj] I can see those similarities, but Kellhus doesn't seem like a very... Christ-like figure, if you take his aims and goals into account. He's manipulating thousands of men to do his own bidding, and using people relentlessly, and whatnot. I suppose whether Jesus would do that sort of thing or not is up for debate, but I for one doubt it ;). view post


posted 01 Aug 2005, 00:08 by Cynical Cat, Auditor

As for Jesus, we've only got his followers words for what he would do becaue during his life (if he existed) he was totally obscure. His teachings didn't become popular until well after his death. However, if we examine more recent messiahs like L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith, we find that they have a history of being con men and certainly recieved tremendous personal gain from the religions that they founded. In that respect, Kelhus fits right in with those two. view post


posted 01 Aug 2005, 02:08 by Harrol, Moderator

To add to what Cynical Cat stated. Not only do we have the accounts of his disciples but also of Josephus in his book the Jewish War he also accounts of Jesus. He was not a follower of Christ. view post


posted 02 Aug 2005, 04:08 by Cynical Cat, Auditor

Josephus's reliability is questionable (do to inconsistencies) and while he does chronicle early Christianity, he was living in the period after Jesus's death (if he existed). view post


posted 02 Aug 2005, 11:08 by target, Auditor

Jesus could easily have been a con-man, or at least very persuasive and manipulative. It's not everyday that large amounts of people have a sudden change of conscience, throw down and disrupt the social order, challenging the dominance and authority of the ruling class, namely, the Romans (or for a modern comparatove, it would be the US and Christianity i suppose). Makes you think at any rate. view post


posted 06 Aug 2005, 15:08 by Scilvenas, Auditor

Kellhus is obviously meant to be [i:19h76io7]seen as[/i:19h76io7] a Christ figure. There's way too much talk of him being the New Prophet (a real/false prophet following Sejenus) or a Latter Day Prophet for it not to be. Curiously, if anybody's read the Dragonbone Chair books, Williams also uses a tree to crucify his Christ figure, Usires Aedon. I'm not sure if there's a literary/theological reference to both of these uses, but there is a definite blurring of the lines in Bakker's case to form a resemblence to Odin. Anybody know offhand or can look up how long Kellhus hung from the tree? Am I wrong in thinking the big tree had a name of some sort (I doubt it was Yggdrasil... I seriously need to stop relying on the library for my books)? view post


posted 06 Aug 2005, 15:08 by Deerow, Auditor

but didn't Odin literally hang (as in from a noose) from the Yggdrasil? view post


posted 06 Aug 2005, 22:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

if i remember correctly, he hung from a tree, by a rope, for nine days, to gain wisdom. It was a self-sacrifice. It has many parallels to what Kellhus has done. But I'm also interested in what meaning the introduction of trees as symbols in both books has. It is most pronounced in the vision Kellhus has of the No-God, accompanied by that of a gigantic tree. Also, it occurs in the fight between Kellhus and Mekeritrig at the very beginning of TDtCB, and if you read carefully, and connect it to the other tree imagery, it seems Mekeritrig, and through him the Consult is literally pushing or preventing him from some discovery/realization. I have some ideas of my own but I'd like to see what others make of this tree symbolism. As a sidenote, I did ask Scott a while back, and with his usual coyness he said it did play a role, but I'd have to wait and see which one . . . :) view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 05:08 by H, Auditor

Hmmm, got me think here White Lord, when you comment about the connection between wisdom and trees. I've read a bunch of stuff by CG Jung and his study of alchemy. In alchemy, the tree or [i:23uzpx1g]arbor philosophica[/i:23uzpx1g], is a favorite symbol representing the alchemical process. It can be symbolic of the growth of knowledge into wisdom (or divine understanding). Much of alchemy was devoted to discovering the divine through the experimentation or understanding of base materials (or to be more poinant the terrestrial world itself). The tree symbol can be a powerful symbol of the process itself. The roots being in the terrestrial world, soaking up nutriants (knowledge). The trunk ascends to upward (toward heaven/the unknown/ the divine). The leaves are the fruit of the synthesis, the 'flowering' of wisdom (better yet divine understanding). That being said, the tree can also be the bridge between the ascendant (the divine) and the terrestrial. This interpretation leads to an interesting view of Odin's hanging from the tree. Suspended between the terrestrial and the ascendant, it was as if he was to be the fruit of the tree (in other words, divine). Or instead of [i:23uzpx1g]becoming[/i:23uzpx1g] the tree he made himself a [i:23uzpx1g]part[/i:23uzpx1g] of it. Hmmm, thinking now, one could equate 'divine' herein with 'transcendental', if that seems to make more sense. That being said, make this is all just loose associations and wishful thinking on my part... view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

Some very interesting toughts . . . Also, in the case of Kellhus, we can say he has come down from the tree with some kind of "wisdom". He thinks he knows what Moenghus meant by Thousandfold Thought. Also, there seems to be a positive outward transformation. When he is let down from the tree and addresses the crowd he has haloes round his hands, and since all can see them I assume they are there for real. Which also leads me to another question, perhaps closer to the topic of this thread. The nature of Kellhus. If you follow his inner communication with Moenghus (or with Father) as the storyline progresses, there is a subtle change that I'm noticing. Basically, from talking to someone who can be clearly identified as a human being, this communication slowly shifts to something more, as if this "Father" whom he speaks to is not Moenghus but the God. This in turn has made me think on what exactly Kellhus could be: Man or God, son of Moenghus, or of God, or of them [i:38nubyg5]both[/i:38nubyg5]. An interesting clue is that when I let the thing drop in the Q&A board, that Kellhus could be both the son of Moenghus and of God, Scott commented with a short but interesting "Mwahahaha...." view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

Just another short comment on the vision Kellhus has of the No-God. Clearly the tree is connected to the No-God, so how are we to take it that a symbol of wisdom is associated to an entity we have till now viewed as evil? Is there more to the No-God than meets the eye? That his actions promise no good to humanity is to me certain, still I'm used to Scott always twisting meanings, making it hard to pigeonhole anyone that I'm starting to think that "pigeonholing" the No-God definitely right now could be a little premature . . . view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":4fdfq9ex]An interesting clue is that when I let the thing drop in the Q&A board, that Kellhus could be both the son of Moenghus and of God, Scott commented with a short but interesting "Mwahahaha...."[/quote:4fdfq9ex] Classic Scott, :lol: Could Moenghus have "transcended" to Godlyness by means of the Thousandfold Thought perhaps? And now that Kellhus has "embraced" TTT, he has now begun to "transcend" as well? (Halos as a classic symbol of transcendental nature of somehting.) view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

[quote="H":26rp78je]Classic Scott, :lol: Could Moenghus have "transcended" to Godlyness by means of the Thousandfold Thought perhaps? And now that Kellhus has "embraced" TTT, he has now begun to "transcend" as well? (Halos as a classic symbol of transcendental nature of somehting.)[/quote:26rp78je] Anything is possible, really. I mean, with how scarce Moenghus has been till now, as in nonexistent :), I'm beginning to think that Kellhus's reunion with "Father" might be with someone who isn't (or never was) flesh and blood. Oh well, I can't wait to get my hands on TTT . . . :) view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 06:08 by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":qaz51r21]Just another short comment on the vision Kellhus has of the No-God. Clearly the tree is connected to the No-God, so how are we to take it that a symbol of wisdom is associated to an entity we have till now viewed as evil? Is there more to the No-God than meets the eye? That his actions promise no good to humanity is to me certain, still I'm used to Scott always twisting meanings, making it hard to pigeonhole anyone that I'm starting to think that "pigeonholing" the No-God definitely right now could be a little premature . . .[/quote:qaz51r21] I've been unable to shake the idea that the No-God is not at all 'evil" since i first read the book and heard the name 'No-God'. Perhaps the No-God represents the fact that so called 'divine power' is not in fact divine, but in fact a development of knowledge into 'true' wisdom. The tree from the No-God makes perfect sense then, as he is the pinnacle of the theory of transcendental power sans the God or gods-hence the name No-God. Doesn't seem so far off from what Kellhus has as he comes off the tree, he has recieved transcendental wisdom, not from a God, but from within, from the Thousandfold Thought. view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

That tallies with my thinking as well. Actually in other threads I've said that perhaps man is meant to strive towards godhood, and that sorcery is simply one (or the only) means which can bring it about (as in the study of the esoterics as Scott calls it). I also think some of the "agencies" or gods were men once. view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

Also, as another clue to the nature of Moenghus (or Father really), check the meeting between Kellhus and the Cishaurim in Caraskand. The Cishaurim, as far as I remember doesn't call Moenghus by name. He calls him "your Father . . ." He also says he is the one the possessors of the third sight serve. The Cishaurim, all of them have the third sight, and they all serve the Solitary God, ergo . . . I don't know how accurate this is, but it's still interesting . . . view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":2f32zgmn]That tallies with my thinking as well. Actually in other threads I've said that perhaps man is meant to strive towards godhood, and that sorcery is simply one (or the only) means which can bring it about (as in the study of the esoterics as Scott calls it). I also think some of the "agencies" or gods were men once.[/quote:2f32zgmn] Good point. This could be a very good reason why the Schools (especially the Mandate, being the most powerful) are so against the No-God. If sorcery is the most powerful form of transcendental power available, then i can see how the No-God is a real threat to the School's power, in that the No-God may be able to wield power beyond sorcerer's scope without the need for the Few or for sorcery at all. And if the No-God's power was able to be had by other's, this would make the Few very very expendable, and not nearly as powerful as they are now... view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by H, Auditor

[quote="White Lord":2fyrwxul]Also, as another clue to the nature of Moenghus (or Father really), check the meeting between Kellhus and the Cishaurim in Caraskand. The Cishaurim, as far as I remember doesn't call Moenghus by name. He calls him "your Father . . ." He also says he is the one the possessors of the third sight serve. The Cishaurim, all of them have the third sight, and they all serve the Solitary God, ergo . . . I don't know how accurate this is, but it's still interesting . . .[/quote:2fyrwxul] Hmmm, your right, i remember rereading that scene a few weeks ago. I think it's a very real possibility that Moenghus has 'transcended' and taken on the role of the so called Solitary God in order to wield the power of the Cishaurim againt someone...just who, i'm not sure, perhaps the Consult... view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

[quote="H":1nfbsa0o][quote="White Lord":1nfbsa0o]That tallies with my thinking as well. Actually in other threads I've said that perhaps man is meant to strive towards godhood, and that sorcery is simply one (or the only) means which can bring it about (as in the study of the esoterics as Scott calls it). I also think some of the "agencies" or gods were men once.[/quote:1nfbsa0o] Good point. This could be a very good reason why the Schools (especially the Mandate, being the most powerful) are so against the No-God. If sorcery is the most powerful form of transcendental power available, then i can see how the No-God is a real threat to the School's power, in that the No-God may be able to wield power beyond sorcerer's scope without the need for the Few or for sorcery at all. And if the No-God's power was able to be had by other's, this would make the Few very very expendable, and not nearly as powerful as they are now...[/quote:1nfbsa0o] Yes, but under my theory, sorcerers themselves may not be aware of this option they have of becoming gods. All of them actually [i:1nfbsa0o]believe[/i:1nfbsa0o] they are damned a priori. What I mean is that sorcery could simply be one or the only path for the adept to become one of the gods, if he only has the courage/realization. Even the No-God's destructiveness could be explained as a sort of punishment for those who are willing slaves, instead of trying to reach for the stars, so to speak. Actually, this theory is grounded on real-world gnostic doctrine, that holds that all men are endowed with a spark of the divine being, that they are captives in prisons of flesh, held on the earth by false gods who don't know of the existence of a single transcendental deity which created all (think Solitary God in our case . . .) ans so believe themselves to be truly creators of all (think the gods of the tusk . . .). I'm not very well-versed in gnostic religions but I've read some things and I'm noticing resonances with Scott's work. view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

Here is also something I posted in another thread on sorcery: I also think there is a very good reason behind the availability of sorcery to certain persons in this particular reality. I think it's the use of it by men that is somehow blasphemous, because misunderstood in its original purpose. But there is no question of its divine origin, not even the religions in Earwa doubt that, their condemnation of sorcerers results from the fact they do not think man worthy enough to use the highest power (the power of the God) that can modify reality itself, can bend the rules of nature with the utmost ease. This is also interesting because it makes us ask ourselves whether man is really unworthy, or if maybe the God made sorcery available in the first place because it is the best pathway man can use either to come closest to the God, or to become a god . . . :) Another interesting thought is that no one really knows what is or isn't possible with sorcery. It is entirely dependent on the intellect and the experience of the sorcerer. So if you consider the God himself as the greatest sorcerer of them all (the one with the greatest intellect), there is nothing that would prevent a human with a big enough imagination, a deep enough intellect, to modify reality to an incredible degree, to somehow achieve a sort of divinity (in the sense that sorcery has absolute control of space and time, as well as other dimensions). It will be very interesting to see what Kellhus can "do" with the Gnosis . . . :) You can also check my post in this thread: http://www.forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?t=633 view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by H, Auditor

Yeah, that's what i was trying to say (it's very late here, and my description seemed to make sense at the time :lol:) in that the No-God could make the Few unneccessary, in that without the God or 'sorcery' he has immense power. Which is actually kind of what Kellhus has done so far...without sorcery he has managed to have alot of power by sort of 'mundane' means. This seems to scare both the Consult and the Schools quite a bit... Indeed, i think that what the No-God found was that he could access power without the neccessity of the 'distraction' of belief in God, or gods. Meaning his power wasn't filtered by his oown expectations. He wasn't an agent of a God anymore, he was wielding the most powerful of powers [i:1ierrxms]himself[/i:1ierrxms]. If you've ever played the White-Wolf roleplaying game, i sort of equate it with the way 'magic' works in there. In that at the highest level of power, you no longer need spells, foci, or anything else to harness your power, you have simply become able to wield it 'natually' and thus unfettered by any extraneous needs that may be imposed by an extraneous sort of ontology. That's what i think the No-God did, manage to use the God's power, minus the need for the God, or even belief in the God itself, making all that power the No-God's and the No-God's alone. That being said, i need some sleep, i think my theories are becoming more and more crackpot as i go. I'll philosophize this a little more tomorrow! 8) view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 07:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

Good night then . . . :) I actually enjoyed this discussion, also because it's so rare on these boards . . . :) view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 13:08 by Deerow, Auditor

[quote="H":2ee6g5fb]Could Moenghus have "transcended" to Godlyness by means of the Thousandfold Thought perhaps? And now that Kellhus has "embraced" TTT, he has now begun to "transcend" as well? (Halos as a classic symbol of transcendental nature of somehting.)[/quote:2ee6g5fb] Somehow I feel this is the main question. As we know so little of the Thousandfold Thought at this point it is mainly through an understanding of what exactly it means that things will become clear. Obviously. To speculate among the rest I would say that we know of two Dunyain that have ventured into Earwa. Both appear to have attained TTT. We know how Kellhus came to attain it but it is a complete mystery how Moengus came to discover it. We also do not know how long Moengus has had TTT and if it is possible to master it to better wield it over time. Furthermore: Who is to say that only Kellhus and Moengus have attained The Thousandfold Thought? Perhaps other major players throughout the history of Earwa have attained it (the No-God for example) and perhaps there are other living forces that have attained it (other Dunyain wandering Earwa for example). I want TTT now. view post


posted 07 Aug 2005, 23:08 by Erthaelion, Candidate

A little late with this, but I'm in serious agreement with the theory that the No-God is not quite divine, as we're in understanding of it. I'm most reminded of Egyptian mythology when I think of him - the Osiris story and resurrection - just based on his deaths and the constant struggle to resurrect him. Remember how angry Skafra gets at the beginning of WP when Seswatha reminds the great wracu his God is not a God? Another interesting scene. I think its amazing how brilliantly done the whole "Father" ploy was. We're really left with only a handful of clues. Is he divine, or has he simply made himself appear so to the Fanim in the same way Kellhus has to the Inrithi Holy War? view post


posted 08 Aug 2005, 08:08 by Cynical Cat, Auditor

Our available evidence is 1) The No-God is intelligent. 2) It's freaking powerful 3) It's not all knowing or even self knowing. 4) It's a construct. To me, that screams an intelligent war machine. Very scary, but not something I'm inclined to revere. view post


posted 08 Aug 2005, 17:08 by H, Auditor

[quote="Cynical Cat":22jbb19m]1) The No-God is intelligent. 2) It's freaking powerful 3) It's not all knowing or even self knowing. 4) It's a construct. To me, that screams an intelligent war machine. Very scary, but not something I'm inclined to revere.[/quote:22jbb19m] It's been a while since i read the books, but how do we know that the No-God is not self-knowing? view post


posted 08 Aug 2005, 19:08 by Cynical Cat, Auditor

Him shouting "What am I?" over and over seems to indicate that it doesn't know its own nature. view post


posted 08 Aug 2005, 20:08 by H, Auditor

[quote="Cynical Cat":2kbf4ltj]Him shouting "What am I?" over and over seems to indicate that it doesn't know its own nature.[/quote:2kbf4ltj] Oh yeah. OK, i blame the heat here for causing me to lose my memory totally...even if that may not be true. :lol: view post


posted 08 Aug 2005, 20:08 by Mithfânion, Didact

[i:1m4g8p1s]I've been unable to shake the idea that the No-God is not at all 'evil" since i first read the book and heard the name 'No-God'[/i:1m4g8p1s] H, I'm afraid I can't follow that thinking at all. The entity is still somewhat mysterious, but from what we've heard sofar it seems clearly aligned as an unprecedented evil. It's very coming into the world heralded worldwide baby stillbirth... view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 06:08 by H, Auditor

[quote="Mithfânion":v1vwg0vv][i:v1vwg0vv]I've been unable to shake the idea that the No-God is not at all 'evil" since i first read the book and heard the name 'No-God'[/i:v1vwg0vv] H, I'm afraid I can't follow that thinking at all. The entity is still somewhat mysterious, but from what we've heard sofar it seems clearly aligned as an unprecedented evil. It's very coming into the world heralded worldwide baby stillbirth...[/quote:v1vwg0vv] I can understand the position, and there's nothing wrong with it, but i still not casting my judgement on the No-God until i at least understand the Consult's ultimate objective. Scott does such a good job of painting everything [i:v1vwg0vv]but[/i:v1vwg0vv] the Consult in shades of grey, that i can't help but feel that he's setting us up for a real suprise when we learn both the No-God's nature and objective. I could be completely wrong, but this is my intuition and i'm sticking to it until Scott tells me otherwise. However, i have to admit that if the No-God turns out to just be the typical evil boogy man (a la Sauron) i'm going to be hella disapointed (but i really just can't see Scott doing such a thing, especially given how cheeky he is in teasing us about the real nature of things in his world). view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 15:08 by Mithfânion, Didact

I actually imagined Mog Pharau to be something more along the lines of a Sauron, but more evil. More depraved, more vicious, more lethal and all-pervading. Something truly terrifying, bone-chilling so to speak, which is something that Sauron never was imo. view post


posted 09 Aug 2005, 18:08 by Nauticus, Auditor

Yeah. I picture Mog-Pharau like an upgrade to Sauron. Like, Sauron essentially started a world war over the ring. The No-God's existence causes [i:w2c4sbbk]Apocalypses[/i:w2c4sbbk]. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 00:08 by Deerow, Auditor

The whole "every baby was stillborn for 10 years" (or 11 or whatever) is just about the most bad-ass, evil thing I have ever heard. A lot of people in Middle-Earth (and beyond) had no idea what was going on in the first place. In Earwa [i:ti2lta8p]everyone[/i:ti2lta8p] knew something was up. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 00:08 by Cynical Cat, Auditor

I don't think of Mog Pheru as evil. It's a made thing and somwhat intelligent. I don't think it understands itself or the world around it. It's an instrument of unspeakable evil and too vile to be permitted to exist, but we don't know what kind of control it has over its own abilities it has. The Consult and the Inchoroi chose to make and unleash the No-God, they are definitely evil. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 02:08 by Deerow, Auditor

Well fair enough...Mog Pharau in and of his/itself may not be the sort of "ultimate evil" but it was utilized in such a way as to maximize the evil possibilites his/its existence brings. Perhaps Mog-Pharau does not want to be used in such ways by the Consult. view post


posted 10 Aug 2005, 08:08 by Cynical Cat, Auditor

[quote="Deerow":12908niz]Well fair enough...Mog Pharau in and of his/itself may not be the sort of "ultimate evil" but it was utilized in such a way as to maximize the evil possibilites his/its existence brings. Perhaps Mog-Pharau does not want to be used in such ways by the Consult.[/quote:12908niz] Thus my "instruement of evi" and "too vile to be permitted to exist"l lines. :D view post


posted 26 Aug 2005, 21:08 by Edge, Peralogue

I'm not sold on the idea of the No-God not being evil. Even aside from the whole stillbirth thing think back to what Achamian told Kellhus about how it felt when the No-God manifested itself. Too lazy to look up the actual quote but he basically said everyone, everywhere could feel its prescence and was terrified by it. view post


posted 26 Aug 2005, 22:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

I think any analogy between the No-God and Sauron is wrong. And this especially since I think the concepts of "good" and "evil" have no meaning in the books we are reading. No one here is lily-white, and no one will ever be, and the opposite is also true. What we are witnessing right now in the Holy War is a mini-Apocalypse in its own right, and it is only in part Consult-driven. Also, we have an imperfect knowledge of the world and history of Earwa, we are exposed to only snippets of data, from [i:1skqvnmg]one[/i:1skqvnmg] side alone. We have no understanding of what the objectives of the Consult might be. As far as I'm concerned, until I know more of what [i:1skqvnmg]they[/i:1skqvnmg] are after, I'm not going to consider them (and the No-God) evil as in "mindlessly evil". They could even be justified in doing what they've been doing all these millennia. To conclude: no one has an exclusive on brutality and genocide/xenocide in this world, so it's not an indication of evil in itself. view post


posted 26 Aug 2005, 22:08 by White Lord, Subdidact

[quote="Cynical Cat":1a5j56or][quote="Deerow":1a5j56or]Well fair enough...Mog Pharau in and of his/itself may not be the sort of "ultimate evil" but it was utilized in such a way as to maximize the evil possibilites his/its existence brings. Perhaps Mog-Pharau does not want to be used in such ways by the Consult.[/quote:1a5j56or] Thus my "instruement of evi" and "too vile to be permitted to exist"l lines. :D[/quote:1a5j56or] I'm not sure I'm following what you're trying to say here CC . . . I take it it's similar to the analogy: murderers are evil and guns are too vile to be permitted to exist. (The murderers being the Consult and the guns the No-God.) So what do we do then? Do we do away with guns so there will be no murderers, or do we remove the murderers and leave guns alone, like the inanimate, mindless tools they are? And is the No-God so mindless after all, is he really a tool even, or made-to-order? He is simply too powerful to be mindless. I think it's more a case of the Consult harnessing the power of an entity that has no experience of the dimension of reality that is Earwa, perhaps has no [i:1a5j56or]place[/i:1a5j56or] in it, and hence all the stillbirths. I see the Carapace and the physical manifestation of the No-God as nothing else than a focus (built by the Consult) that permits it to affect the world. So in my mind the No-God is nothing but a confused child with immense power (in the dimension of Earwa, not somewhere in the Outside) that is being used by the Consult to some end. The fact that Earwa is totally alien to him may explain his lack of knowledge or confusion. It's easy to see then why he may not be at all evil, but only misguided. So you don't "kill" him because he's evil, or because he's consciously doing something wrong, but you remove him from Earwa because he has no place in it, just like the demon Iyokus summoned has no place in it. I could also be wrong, and the No-God could be acting consciously, and also [i:1a5j56or]outside Consult control[/i:1a5j56or], for some reason of his own. And the questions he puts to Seswatha could indicate something that goes beyond his being confused/not all-knowing, directed to us readers. I'm sure things will start to fit better as we learn more of the world, I'm just recommending to everyone not to think in absolutes. And now I'm off to bed, and I hope my scribblings make sense to you all . . . :D view post


posted 27 Aug 2005, 04:08 by Cynical Cat, Auditor

What I'm saying is that regardless of Mog-Pheru's true intent and nature, it is a genocidal weapon. "Vile" is of course a subjective term, but it was I choose to use in describing a doomsday weapon. Humanity has every right to defend itself by destroying Mog-Pheru, whatever its true nature (which is just speculation). Mog-Pheru is not comparable to a gun. The consequences of gun being misused is the death of a few people. The possible consequences of Mog-Pheru being used is death of the entire human race, something far, far worse. A more accurate comparison would be a vial of plague capable of exterminating the human race if opened. view post


posted 28 Aug 2005, 02:08 by Deerow, Auditor

but a cognizant vial that questions whether it would prefer to remain corked or unleash the suffering it was created to spread. view post


posted 28 Aug 2005, 04:08 by H, Auditor

Also a minor point: We don't know if it actually the No-God's intention, or the process of his (it's) summoning/entrance into Earwa (which was basically engineered by the Consult), which caused the whole stillborn event. Could a baby be born, killing it's mother in the process, and be considered the height of evil? Such could (possibly) be akin to what happened to the No-God.... view post


Regarding the Consult's being evil . . . posted 26 Oct 2005, 15:10 by Q. Sertorius, Commoner

I don't have the books on me, but isn't there a part in TWP where the crow-Inchoroi comforts the badly hurt wounded Sarcellus (burned by the Chisaurim in the first major battle of the Holy War) by telling him to imagine a world with no births, no joy, etc. Now Scott's a pretty tricky guy, but it's going to be awfully hard to somehow paint the Consult in anything but a negative light. Scott is a "shades of gray" kind of author; however, since some of his characters clearly are good (notice the absence of scare quotes), why is it beyond belief that some of his characters are evil? Achamian, Esmi, Seswatha, Xinemus, and (for that matter) Proyas are all people who consistently try to do the right thing. although this does not mean they don't sometimes tragically make the wrong choices. Quintus view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown.