the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Landrew Candidate | joined 29 Jan 2009 | 10

Is Kellus insane or not posted 02 Mar 2009, 02:03 in The Judging EyeIs Kellus insane or not by Landrew, Candidate

I had decided that Moenghus was wrong in concluding that Kellus was insane and that Kellus was the chosen Anasurimbor who would save the world. Several reasons: his 'haloed' hands, which everyone seemed to see, his ability to survive the circumfixion (not only survive but stand strong), the fact that he had seen farther than the Dunyain and become more human in a sense (weeping for Serwe), the prophecy of the Anasurimbor who would return, that he was able to learn the Gnosis (requiring him to somehow overcome Seswatha - I don't buy the possibility that simply hypnotizing Akka is enough to get around Seswatha). Yet the 'what has come before' section of JE says as a fact that Kellus went mad - Moenghus' assessment was correct. What do you think? Is Scott messing with us or is Kellus crazy (in the sense of delusional)? view post

Re: *Spoilers* Traveller's identity posted 02 Mar 2009, 03:03 in The Judging Eye*Spoilers* Traveller's identity by Landrew, Candidate

my two cents re: the 'traveller'. Only someone who knows about the Dreams would send him to meet Akka. Isn't that the bottom line? He didn't go to Akka, Akka came to him. How could the Consult anticipate that Akka would set out on that journey? There were two triggers: changed Seswatha dreams and Mimarra's arrival. There is no reason to believe the other mandate sorcerers are not experiencing the changed dreams (hence Kellus knows about them). Also Kelmomas' belief that he 'got rid' of Mimara is likely delusional. She was sent by Kellus i.m.o. and if she wasn't sent by him, he would have been aware that she left. Hence Kellus (likely) has awareness of both factors which prompted his departure. Plus Kellus would know that Achamian would be obsessed with Kellus' origin (the Consult would be aware of Akka's role/fight with Kellus but wouldn't be able to predict his later behaviour as Kellus can). Finally, Kosoter stood before and was lauded by Kellus (during the unification wars); unless Kosoter only subsequently became an agent of the consult, Kellus would have seen through him then. in my opinion, Kellus is counting on the Dunyain's reaction - far be it from me to predict, but could you imagine the effect of a strike force of Dunyain (thousands) suddenly appearing virtually out of nowhere and from a totally different direction just as the great ordeal joins battle with Golgotterath? maybe the ordeal itself is part diversion (Akka would never otherwise be able to make the trip)? Cleric is probably a known entity to Kellus. no way he is 'coincidentally' biding his time killing sranc with Kosoter. in 20 years, why wouldnt' Kellus have sought out the nonmen? He is the ace in the hole to assure the success of Akka's mission. view post

Re: Is Kellus insane or not posted 22 Mar 2009, 18:03 in The Judging EyeIs Kellus insane or not by Landrew, Candidate

I'm not so sure that merely what the 'ends' are has much to say about whether he is sane. For example, his ends may be preservation of humanity by defeating the consult. So one would conclude (based on Will's reasoning) that he is sane. But if concurrently he believes that he is both divine and divinely appointed to save the world, when he is not (making an assumption here), then he is probably insane at least to a degree, regardless of his ends, regardless of his steps towards those ends. For example, if he believes he can see haloes around his hands and takes that as proof of divinity when in fact they aren't there, he is at least somewhat insane regardless of whether his plan is to save the world. view post

Re: The eye in the Pick's heart *spoilers* posted 22 Mar 2009, 19:03 in The Judging EyeThe eye in the Pick's heart *spoilers* by Landrew, Candidate

Hell is also generally associated with choas - corruption of created order etc. So it could simply represent a corruption of the created order and it could just as easily have been a different item placed in the heart as an eye. OR it could be a sort of metaphor made literal as well. Hell being the place of eternal damnation established as a place of judgment on the wickedness of man. The heart being associated with the inner character of the man - the 'eye' in the heart seeks out and exposes the wicked deeds of the bloody pick which are (spiritually) stored up in his heart... view post

Re: Dunyain machinations posted 22 Mar 2009, 19:03 in The Judging EyeDunyain machinations by Landrew, Candidate

didn't read all the posts here but the issue with Moenghus was that he was disturbing their internal quest. Moenghus was imposing something which they could not control which is anathema to the Dunyain. It polluted the recipients in a sense. They probably sent Kellus as much to kill Moenghus as to ensure Moenghus would cease his interruptions. No doubt they knew there was a risk that Kellus would return to them 'sullied' by the world as Moenghus had before. That possibility would have emerged in their reasonings as to how to respond to Moenghus. But at the end of the day, there would have been no perfect solution. The Dunyain fled to Ishual in order, as we read in the prologue (i think) to the first book, to escape the world and pursue their own internal perfection in isolation. We haven't seen anything yet (in my opinion) which suggests they've changed their original objectives. Indeed Kellus' mission was established to preserve the status quo. view post

Re: *Spoilers* Traveller's identity posted 22 Mar 2009, 19:03 in The Judging Eye*Spoilers* Traveller's identity by Landrew, Candidate

Srancchieftain said... [quote:qmcz7s8c][/quote:qmcz7s8c]We have know reason to believe that Kellhus hasnt gone rogue. Kellhus killed Meonghis because he feared that The dunyain in Meonghis would lead him to side with the consult. The outside is a variable that the dunyain cant control, they would want to close it off, this is the consults mission. Kellhus doesnt want the dunyain to know about the consult cause he fears that they will side with the consult. Kellhus is on his own he is no longer working for the dunyain, hes working for himself, he took it upon himself to save the world.[/quote] Except that Kellus only came to that conclusion about Moenghus after grasping the thousandfold thought which Kellus took a very long time to discover (and needed all kinds of real world experiences). Likewise, it took Moenghus years to formulate the TTT. God-like as they are, the Dunyain would not immediately reach the conclusion Kellus claimed to fear Moenghus had reached. And furthermore with respect to 'who sent traveller' the most important question is this: in 20 years time, knowing that Akka knew the truth about him, why did Kellus allow Akka to live? Akka represented a direct and significant threat to Kellus' claims - indeed, he was a disseminator of heretical writings. If Mimmara found Akka quickly, clearly Kellus could have found him that much faster. IMO, Kellus knew exactly where Akka was and Kellus let Akka live because of his value as an instrument. Either that, or the gods hid Akka from Kellus. The fact Akka is alive strongly suggests to me that Kellus is still using him. view post

Re: Oddities in The Judging Eye posted 22 Mar 2009, 19:03 in The Judging EyeOddities in The Judging Eye by Landrew, Candidate

there will be a profound distance between Kellus and his followers. Then he was northern prince - seer - prophet - war lord - mighty sorcerer - aspect emperor. He had to climb the chain. He had to 'win friends and influence people'. He had to learn the ropes. Now he is a god, all powerful sorcerer, emperor of the world. He's not going to need to sit by the fire with the likes of Proyas. Also, by making him more distant Bakker keeps his true objectives and aims hidden from us. view post

Re: Chorae (SPOILERS!!!!) posted 22 Mar 2009, 20:03 in The Judging EyeChorae (SPOILERS!!!!) by Landrew, Candidate

the interesting thing with the Chorae - we're told they were made 'by sorcery' - aporetic sorcery (whatever that is). But you'd have to wonder at the mechanics of that . It is a paradox. how can [u:2635q6qx]mere[/u:2635q6qx] sorcery create something which entirely negates sorcery? It is like using hot to produce absolute cold (which is the complete absence of heat). The more 'hot' you add, the further you are from the destination. One analogy I had thought of (but discard) is how by cramming enough matter together - eventually you get a black hole (which from the outside appears to 'destroy' matter or be an 'absense' of matter). Except that we really know that a black hold doesn't destroy matter at all and isn't at all an absence of matter. So there is an inherent paradox in the seemingly simple explanation of Chorae as being merely sorcerous artifacts. one needs something more than mere sorcery. Hard to believe, however, that 'tears of god' could have any literal truth considering for whom the chorae were originally produced. On another point, I keep reading comments that refer to the internal order of Earwa in terms of Truth and whether 'truth' becomes 'objectively true' once 'subjectively believed' by enough people. So damnation of sorcerers could be undone if enough people stopped believing in it. And other people have written that the supposed inherent falseness of objective morality has been one of Scott's targets throughout this series. I disagree. Seems to me to be crystal clear that there is an objective, unchanging moral order in Earwa. There are, objectively, gods (in the pantheistic sense of lesser powers who have specific personalities). There may be (likely is) a GOD. There is also something there which, when spoken to, produces (sorcerous) power. What this is that makes sorcery available is a question which I don't believe has been satisfactorily answered. In Earwa there are objective moral answers to many (perhaps all) questions, however, we (and the characters in the book) don't necessarily know what those answers are. Scott's quarrel is with certainty, not objective morality. the statement (and proof of the statement) that "People are easily deceived", or even "all people are deceived" bears no relationship whatsoever to the statement "there is no objective Truth". It only bears relationship to the statement that 'one should be slow to judge'. The fact that a person is willing to kill and die for the answer they believe to be correct is not sufficient proof that it is the correct answer. This is patently true and anyone can think up dozens of examples of beliefs about the world which differ and yet one of them is true to the exclusion of all others (or at least more true than all others). It is always a mistake to go from proposition 'A', that "people believe different things about X" to conclusion 'B', "nothing about X is True". This is also true in the realm of morality. Scott shows all sorts of examples of people committing terrible crimes in the name of beliefs which aren't true. Or, two peoples fighting each other with righteous certainty in the truth and justice of their own cause. One side, at least has to be mistaken. That doesn't mean there is no objective yardstick. It only means people are easily deceived. Given that knowledge, one should think very hard before making a judgment about another person. Sorcery is (probably) objectively evil regardless of whether the user has the best intentions. Maybe we will never know. Scott often uses ambiguity and conflicting information to make the point that certainty is dangerous and the Truth is elusive. However, regarding the morality of sorcery, ponder the following: have we ever seen sorcery which is [u:2635q6qx]not[/u:2635q6qx] destructive or having a predominantly destructive use/purpose? The few exceptions i can think of is speaking over a distance to another and the very new trick of translocation. Presumably there are a few other tricks which are not inherently destructive but for the most part they are inherently destructive and actually used to kill. But even these, while not necessarily destructive are possibly destructive of the created order. Now we say 'well sorcerers may kill but they do so in pursuit of worthy goals'. How many people do you think Akka has killed in his lifetime? At least hundreds, probably thousands. The 'good intentions' of the Mandate don't absolve that anymore than in the real world we forgive the cops if they beat and torture a criminal in order to get information about his confederates all in the name of law and order. We didn't look the other way at Abu Ghraib just because things were done in the name of undermining a murderous insurgency. Moreover, as noted previously, we don't know the origin of sorcery. What activates it? what makes it effective? who is the sorcerer speaking to when he calls power into focus? Is he speaking to God? a small g god? the devil? demons from another realm/dimension? How many kindly old sorcerers have we seen? How many would you like to see as your father/grandfather? Haven't the vast majority been despicable? Maybe we are deceived about the nature and inherent morality about sorcery because we don't want it to be true that sorcerers are necessarily damned because we like Akka? view post

Re: The eye in the Pick's heart *spoilers* posted 21 Apr 2009, 01:04 in The Judging EyeThe eye in the Pick's heart *spoilers* by Landrew, Candidate

he knew because of what the guy was saying. view post

Re: Chorae (SPOILERS!!!!) posted 21 Apr 2009, 01:04 in The Judging EyeChorae (SPOILERS!!!!) by Landrew, Candidate

i don't think anything Kellus says along those lines should be accepted as accurate because it comes from him. In fact, the reverse. Kellus doesn't 'communicate' for its own sake. He doesn't reveal the truth in order to educate. He doesn't say fancy or profound things to show off. He speaks to enslave every time. each word is an arrow shot from a well-aimed bow. He could probably care less about the truth or falsity of matters such as those. there may be truth or an element of truth at least where he is speaking to a person's internal situation (in the sense of reading them) but apart from that, my rule of thumb is to trust nothing the s.o.b. says ever. view post


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