R Scott Bakker's "The Judging Eye" Discussion

[Zarathustra]

I'm getting closer. The run-fight-run-fight of Cil-Aujas is exhausting. I'm enjoying it, but I think he could have edited this chapter down a bit. Perhaps even cut it in half without harming it one bit. However, he stretches out dust, darkness, and exhaustion better than anyone I've ever read.

The Tolkien parallels are coming fast--some of them even reminded me of the movie rather than the book. The run through the chamber with the columns with all the Sranc following noisily in the dark was very much like the scene in Fellowship (movie). Then they have a fight that I suppose is the Tomb of Balin counterpart (complete with troll counterparts), then more running, after which I expect a bigger showdown similar to the Balrog scene (dragon?).

[Zarathustra]

I'm done.

I'm going to need a little while to process that. You guys are asking some interesting questions, but I feel that so much more is going on--while at the same time I'm suspicious that I'm making it too complicated.

What is the Outside? Space? Heaven? A supernatural realm? Why does Akka tell Mimara about a philosophical treatise in which the world that resists will (except with sorcery) blends into the world that conforms to will (the world of the gods)? And is this the world that is "leaking in?" Is this the world Mimara saw when she gazed into the Chorae? An outer world.

If that world conforms to will like sorcery, why is sorcery "evil?" It seems like what the gods themselves would do, and it makes this world more like that world in which they live. So how can that be evil?

I can't shake the feeling that the world these people live in is somehow illusory. I'm not talking a Matrix illusion, but something similar. The fact that magic always follows geometric patterns seems important, like manipulating the contours of a mathematically projected illusion. What if magic itself isn't really magical, but a form of technology? And there are some who think it is evil because they don't understand it, and the "gods" want people to think it's evil because it can reveal a truth they don't want revealed?

[duchess of malfi]

because I am exhausted and pressed for time, I am simply going to copy and paste my big post from the Hangar - but I am glad to see others in this thread enjoying this author and book, too. I have finished the book in the meantime since the original of this post. Now I must figure out when to reread it.

here we go:

So far I am enjoying TJE, though it is clear it is a set up book for the next two in the series. Since I am so tired from a medical condition right now, I will probably have to reread it soon to make sure I pick on stuff I know I am missing in whole or part once I do finish it (I am about halfway done right now).

Bakker is an amazingly good writer. Near the beginning there is what seems to be a fairly ordinary scene of a little boy watching a beetle scuttling around in a temple. Little boys like to watch animals so the scene is well and good and realistic and even a bit mundane; but then he transforms the scene in a way that you suddenly realize that is no normal little boy (to say the least), and your entire understanding of this character hugely changes.

I have a lot to say about what is implied about Esmi as well, but I want to think about it a bit more. I might even have to go back and read her scenes in the first trilogy.

edited to add:

here are some of my thoughts on Esmi and TJE - major spoilers, so I am blacking them out:

Spoiler

I am certainly no expert on human genetics, and it has been more than twenty years since I had a genetics course at university, so those who know more than I, please jump in at any point! And from what I remember, most human genetics is also a lot more complicated than simple mendellian dominant and recessive traits, so who knows?

Given that Esmi is the only woman whom Kellhus has been able to have "normal" (if you can call them that) children with - and he has tried really hard to have children with a harem Esmi picked out for him - I am thinking that there might be something funky genetically with him - and by extension also with her.

Also given that Esmi's eldest daughter has some sort of mage gift, and how rare that gift is, I am wondering if Esmi therefore is a genetic carrier of magery of some sort.

I am thinking that magery is a very rare recessive of some sort - and maybe even many kinds. Probably at least two - the "blow 'em up real good" Schoolman style, and the empathic/sensitive Dunyain style, as well as possibly others - Kellhus, and others who are powerfully enough gifted to be practicing mages, would carry two copies of the mage gene/s. But others, like Esmi, could possibly be carriers of some or all of the applicable genes without being mages themselves.

Does their one really physically abnormal child who died, and the other children Kellhus had with other women who were also very malformed show what happens when the male contributes some magery gene/s and the female does not ?

It would be helpful to know how many children Kellhus' father had with normal women at this point, and how many were malformed...and it would help if we could know anything at all about the father of Esmi's eldest child.


Does the mage gene/s interact with other gene/s to boost intelligence in some way, given how bright Esmi is? And Kellhus? And Acha? The mages we see, and potential carriers all seem to be quite intelligent.

I have been wondering how the children can show some of the traits of their father (Kellhus) when dealing with others (seeing weaknesses, etc.) when they do not have their father's years of intense training and practice. Are some of these abilities actually fueled in part by a genetic mage gift rather than Dunyain training? Some sort of empathy/super sensitivity that is merely augmented by the training?

As an aside:
Does anyone else have the feeling that the crazy screamy kid kept locked up is the closest thing to a normal kid that Kellhus and Esmi have? That he would have been more normally human in his intellect and emotions, but the things he was sensing through his mage gift literally drove him insane? That in order to successfully survive with the mage gifts that come with the genetics of their specific parents that they have to be sociopaths, which that one kid was not? That no normal human could bear carrying the gift of so much empathy/sensitivity so young?

Also:
I wish it had been clearer in the PON trilogy that Esmi had sold her eldest child off before she ever met Acha. She must have been in her midteens, at most, and desperate as hell. So she spent the rest of her life up until Kellhus punishing herself and living in bone deep self loathing over what she had done to her daughter. So much of the character is now more clear.

Also:
Someone over at the Martin board described the prolonged "dungeon experience" through the No-Man ruins as Moria on steroids and hallucinogens. I think that is a very apt and accurate description. My mind is still reeling from it...

major questions:
who is approaching the skinners at the beginning of the book?

who is the White Luck Warrior? that scene with the icky period sex - was that real and the White Luck Warrior real, or was that some sort of religious vision? if it was real, we can rule out a bunch of characters right waway as being the Warrior - all females, those too young to have sex, etc.

[Holsety]

Before I respond to anyone else I'm going to ask my own question, which is more about stuff in the PoN series than this one.

Way back, when Kellhus first sees magic (akka I think) he reflects that the Dunyain have always taught that there is no magic, that it's all a mummer's game. What I'm curious about is why they teach this; since the dunyain were founded during the era of the first apocalypse, I think they should have known that magic existed when they were first founded. So, what was the reason for the dunyain teaching that there's no such thing as magic? Was it:
-The teaching is a philosophical statement/judgement/whatever about the nature of sorcery.
-The dunyain consciously decided, when they were founded, to teach against the existence of magic for one reason or another.
-As time passed, isolation caused a change in worldview. The leaders, at some point or another, decided that the histories handed down by their predecessors (assuming there were any) were inaccurate.
-Something else?

I'm going to need a little while to process that. You guys are asking some interesting questions, but I feel that so much more is going on--while at the same time I'm suspicious that I'm making it too complicated.

I won't claim that I am infallible and would be unsurprised if I'm missing a lot.

I am pretty confident that my answer about the chorae "basically" works - the judging eye sees chorae in a good light because it sees magic in a bad light. Whether the judging eye accurately weighs good and evil...not so sure. But I think that my explanation for "why" chorae would be good works, though we still can't be sure "why" the judging eye would see magic as evil.

Also, I only very occasionally read posts on other boards about these works, but one thing I have found out (from Bakker's account on the threeseas forum) is that:

The Chorae are actually sorcerous artifacts (of something called the 'Aporos'), manufactured prior to the Cuno-Inchoroi Wars (by Quya defectors) as a way for the Inchoroi to counter the sorcery of the Nonmen. The script inscribed across each embodies a contradiction that unravels the semantics of all known Cants - even those of the Aporos!

forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?t=704
So the "holy" chorae are the works of the predecessors of the consult XD

If that world conforms to will like sorcery, why is sorcery "evil?" It seems like what the gods themselves would do, and it makes this world more like that world in which they live. So how can that be evil?

Depends. Is sorcery simply the method the gods use to do what they would do, or are sorcerers necessarily enacting anything the gods would have done? Also, while I don't agree with this interpretation, a worshipper of god could easily see magic as heresy - the attempt for a man to take the burden of the gods upon himself.

I can't shake the feeling that the world these people live in is somehow illusory. I'm not talking a Matrix illusion, but something similar. The fact that magic always follows geometric patterns seems important, like manipulating the contours of a mathematically projected illusion. What if magic itself isn't really magical, but a form of technology? And there are some who think it is evil because they don't understand it, and the "gods" want people to think it's evil because it can reveal a truth they don't want revealed?

I think the premise that the system of morals the judging eye uses (where magic=damnation) is the invention of gods who are less than perfect and even power hungry is certainly believable. That being said, are we sure yet that the judging eye is a creation of the gods?

But I don't see much way to argue, from there, that the world itself is an unreal construct that's somehow analogous to the matrix. I guess I am asking you to elaborate on that part a little more? (what exactly says the world is illusory?)

I am somewhat skeptical of magic-as-tech simply because 1: it seems highly psychological, internal, spiritual. The technical matters such as learning another language are, IIRC, simply to alienate the sorcerer's mind from the meanings of their birth-language. Or something. I don't remember much . 2: Lack of info about how the mark is passed. 'Course we can't eliminate genetics... 3: If magic was tech, then why would it be nullified by the no-god's chorae armor while the heron spear is still capable of piercing it? It seems like there's some kind of substantial difference between magic and the tekne of the inchoroi.

I'm not denying the possibility though: this is very much a gut-feeling response.

Given that Esmi is the only woman whom Kellhus has been able to have "normal" (if you can call them that) children with - and he has tried really hard to have children with a harem Esmi picked out for him - I am thinking that there might be something funky genetically with him - and by extension also with her.

Kellhus genetics being funky is very nearly an undeniable fact. He has been outside of the human gene pool for thousands of years, and is probably inbred (dunyain). Thus, it's not necessarily a single, isolated genetic problem but simply that the distance between kellhus and other people approaches the difference between one species and another.

But since he has produced offspring with esmi, who is probably human, we can pretty definitely say he is still genetically human. But this assumes any of kellhus' kids are sexually viable. If not, we could actually take a big step and say that kellhus is, scientifically, NOT human (which would be lots of fun XD) because to be of the same species you need to be able to produce sexually viable offspring.

Also given that Esmi's eldest daughter has some sort of mage gift, and how rare that gift is, I am wondering if Esmi therefore is a genetic carrier of magery of some sort.

1: Who knows. Maybe magery is linked to the x-chromosome and is a dominant allele, and esmi's partner w/ mimara was a sorcerer (don't know the dad). Maybe it's a point-mutation. Also, I think it would be dangerous to assume too much scientific similarity between bakker's world and ours w/out input from the author. For instance (not relevant to mimara), perhaps the y-chromosome still carries important genetic information besides gender in the Three Seas. Having significant characteristics on the Y-chromosome would significantly change any discussions about genetic traits of male offspring.

While I agree that genetics MIGHT be an answer to some of our questions, I don't think there's enough info atm to really resolve it one way or the other, and to a certain extent I despair of ever knowing the answer without 1: The three seas discovering genetic studies through the consult in the next few books or 2: Bakker telling us, outside of the books, whether magery is passed genetically.
[/quote]I am thinking that magery is a very rare recessive of some sort - and maybe even many kinds. Probably at least two - the "blow 'em up real good" Schoolman style, and the empathic/sensitive Dunyain style, as well as possibly others - Kellhus, and others who are powerfully enough gifted to be practicing mages, would carry two copies of the mage gene/s. But others, like Esmi, could possibly be carriers of some or all of the applicable genes without being mages themselves. [/quote]
It's worth saying that at least SOME of the differences in mage styles are not genetic. The gnosis requires sight and seems based on intellectual, logical thought, while the psukhe requires blindness and seems based on emotions and the passion/feelings of the wielder. And all the sorcerers (including Akka) seem to think that anyone w/ the mark is capable of learning both anagogic and gnostic sorcery. Finally, I think at least some of mankind's sorcery has been passed down from nonmen to men (definitely the gnosis. Anagogic might be human only?).

However, it's def possible that esmi is essential to the birth of magic-using offspring w/out actually being marked herself.

[Brinn]

What is the Outside? Space? Heaven? A supernatural realm? Why does Akka tell Mimara about a philosophical treatise in which the world that resists will (except with sorcery) blends into the world that conforms to will (the world of the gods)? And is this the world that is "leaking in?" Is this the world Mimara saw when she gazed into the Chorae? An outer world.

I see the outside as a dimension inhabited by gods and demons, analagous to heaven and hell.

If that world conforms to will like sorcery, why is sorcery "evil?" It seems like what the gods themselves would do, and it makes this world more like that world in which they live. So how can that be evil?

Because the gods are petty and covetous of their power? I can't remember whether I read this in TDTCB or TJE as I've just finished TJE and I'm now rereading the whole PON series, but, I remember a passage where the use of sorcery is referred to as dimly echoing the speech of creation and the god. Could it be that the god(s) resent this hubris and exact their revenge in the afterlife?

So far I am enjoying TJE, though it is clear it is a set up book for the next two in the series.

First, good to see you around. Second, I agree wholeheartedly. If anything, the book was too short but, I can certainly see the massive potential in this tale and I loved and savored every moment of it despite the necessary set-up it involves.

Someone over at the Martin board described the prolonged "dungeon experience" through the No-Man ruins as Moria on steroids and hallucinogens. I think that is a very apt and accurate description.

An apt description indeed! I love it.

who is approaching the skinners at the beginning of the book?

Either a representative of the Inchoroi or an agent of Kellhus based upon him refering to the scalpoi as "like animals".

who is the White Luck Warrior? that scene with the icky period sex - was that real and the White Luck Warrior real, or was that some sort of religious vision? if it was real, we can rule out a bunch of characters right waway as being the Warrior - all females, those too young to have sex, etc.

IMHO that scene was very real and not religious imagery at all. I believe the White Luck Warrior is someone we have not met save for that one scene. I took the scene as showing Psatma Nanaferi transfering the experience and wisdom of Yatwer to a young capable vessel creating a blessed warrior with both physical strength and god-given experience and skills.

Way back, when Kellhus first sees magic (akka I think) he reflects that the Dunyain have always taught that there is no magic, that it's all a mummer's game. What I'm curious about is why they teach this; since the dunyain were founded during the era of the first apocalypse, I think they should have known that magic existed when they were first founded. So, what was the reason for the dunyain teaching that there's no such thing as magic? Was it:
-The teaching is a philosophical statement/judgement/whatever about the nature of sorcery.
-The dunyain consciously decided, when they were founded, to teach against the existence of magic for one reason or another.
-As time passed, isolation caused a change in worldview. The leaders, at some point or another, decided that the histories handed down by their predecessors (assuming there were any) were inaccurate.
-Something else?

I have no idea. As I said before, I'm rereading th series and I'll keep my eyes open for any clues to this question.

I have to put my son to bed right now but I'll be back to address the rest of Holsety's post. Thanks for the good discussion. I've been looking forward to it!

[Holsety]

Ya I don't really think the question is necessarily significant but I do think it's kinda interesting.

[Holsety]

Oh and sorry I forgot to respond to rest of msg, so:

Because the gods are petty and covetous of their power? I can't remember whether I read this in TDTCB or TJE as I've just finished TJE and I'm now rereading the whole PON series, but, I remember a passage where the use of sorcery is referred to as dimly echoing the speech of creation and the god. Could it be that the god(s) resent this hubris and exact their revenge in the afterlife?

Yes, I remember this idea being echoed often in the series. In fact, there's a passage in Aspect Emperor that seems to set up a dichotomy where, in the world of gods (separate from our own - the "Outside" I suppose), will and desire govern substance (whereas normally, substance in the mortal realm is not governed by those things). Sorcery is something of an intrusion of that divine realm, where desire governs reality, into the mortal world.

Or so I remember. It's probably something said by either Akka or Eskeles. I thought I had dogeared it, but I can't find the spot. If I have time later I'll look through the Mimara/Akka and Eskeles/Sorweel passages since it's probably somewhere in there.

And I'm just gonna say I'm pretty confused about the white-luck warrior and don't really feel like I have anything to add. But I think that may be the (tentative) title of the next book in the series.

It is interesting that someone in the momemn camp (I think it was Maitha) seemed to indicate that Yatwer is "confused" and not following the will of the complete God that Yatwer and all the others make up. If that's so, then it makes the idea pretty confounded since "white luck" is supposed to be what happens when chance events unfold according to divine desire. Since divine desire should always be governing mortal events, why should an avatar be necessary to ensure the will of the divine, and if the will of god is fractioned and self-impeding, how is it that white luck is "always" fulfilled? ("will what happens as it happens")

[Zarathustra]

I feel like there is still so much to say, I've been avoiding it because it's a little overwhelming. I feel like I need to reread the whole thing just to formulate my questions.

First, the end was spectacular. However, I'm torn, because the writing was so great, and the imagery was so powerful, but the actual events were a little disappointing. I was disappointed by the ghostly Nonman possessing the Cleric. I was expecting a dragon encounter--an expectation which Bakker set up purposely to mislead us, and then tease us with that false expectation with the dragon bones. I'm not saying a dragon would have been better. It probably would have seemed even more of a Moria ripoff if that had happened. But the scene that replaced this expectation was a let down.

And then, the following scene with Mimara banishing (?) the demon thing in the water, happened way too fast and was too ambiguous to count as a final climax. I had trouble just visualizing what was happening here. (If someone can explain it, I'd appreciate it.)

But then the climb up the Screw was breathtaking in its audacious imagery. THAT'S how you exit an ancient, subterranean kingdom!! Wow. I thought the view of the heavens from the depths of hell was one of the coolest images in any fantasy series ever. That view alone was almost climax enough for me.

Everything shifted into "climax mode" once Mimara stared into the Chorae. This is the single most important scene in the entire book, IMO. The way the book describes this event, Mimara sees the Outside (I think). It is described as an outer world. [Note: this is one of the reasons I brought up the "illusion" speculation, the fact that people can look beyond the "mundane" world.] And she sees this unique view because of the Judging Eye. That's extremely puzzling. Why would the ability to see good/evil allow her to see into an external realm?

This needs to be examined. On the surface, it seems plausible that the Judging Eye allows her to see Chorae differently than other people, because it allows her to see everything in a different light. But what exactly do we make of that different perspective? Everyone (except wizards) already thinks of Chorae as good. Tears of God. They already view them as good, since they vanquish the "evil" of sorcery. So why does Mimara's good/evil view allow her to see Chorae as the exact opposite of what others see? For instance, it looks white with light to her, but for others it looks like a dark absence. This alone implies that the "standard" view of Chorae--and hence wizardry itself--isn't entirely correct. Whereas everyone else sees a singularity of nonexistence, Mimara sees a larger realm of light.

Let's back up and think about the concept of good and evil in this series. Kellhus has shown that what people think of good and evil are merely beliefs by which they can be manipulated. All the philosophical discussions and chapter-opening quotes of philosophical treatises lead us to believe that Good and Evil are themselves illusions. Indeed, the entire project was kicked off with a quote from Nietzsche, who advocated relative, subjective interpretation of good and evil.

So, what if Mimara is misinterpreting the Judging Eye? What if she is interpreting this perspective through her conditioned world view? (It's even possible that Kellhus saw this potential within her, and influenced her beliefs about it so that she wouldn't realize it's actual import.) She has no other experience to guide her, and she could find no mention of the J.E. in her research. So she's entirely on her own in deciding what to make of it.

Unless all the hints about relative/subjective morality that have been given so far are entirely false and misleading, it makes no sense to have a character who can see inherent good and evil in objects and people. And the fact that two people (e.g. Mimara and the Skin Eater she asked about the Chorae) can hold the same moral view of the Chorae and still see different things implies that the absolute, inherent moral value is illusory.

So, she's seeing something else besides Good and Evil. And this allows her to see beyond the immediate world, too. Perhaps the "damnation" she sees in Akka isn't really a judgment, but instead how his nature is "leaking" into this other world. Perhaps wizards are more in touch with this Outside, and thus their nature leaks into it, through their ability to access its force. And Mimara interprets this as "damnation" because of how she has been taught to view sorcery, and because she interprets this Outside realm (or at least part of it) as "hell."

This, combined with the fact that Kellhus views sorcery as a mummer's farce (as Holsety noted above), and he claims to have redeemed the "sin" of sorcery (undermining the idea that it was ever evil to begin with), makes me believe that any assumptions about Good and Evil as absolute values are false. Thus, the Judging Eye isn't what it seems to be. And instead, it deals with an insight into the Outside.

Like I said, I can't shake the feeling that we're dealing with a vast illusion.

[Holsety]

I feel like there is still so much to say, I've been avoiding it because it's a little overwhelming. I feel like I need to reread the whole thing just to formulate my questions.

That's understandable. I feel the same way. (well obviously not since I went ahead and asked some questions, but what I mean to say is I think my understanding of the book will increase after a reread. But I don't plan on rereading anytime TOO soon).

First, the end was spectacular. However, I'm torn, because the writing was so great, and the imagery was so powerful, but the actual events were a little disappointing. I was disappointed by the ghostly Nonman possessing the Cleric. I was expecting a dragon encounter--an expectation which Bakker set up purposely to mislead us, and then tease us with that false expectation with the dragon bones. I'm not saying a dragon would have been better. It probably would have seemed even more of a Moria ripoff if that had happened. But the scene that replaced this expectation was a let down.

Hah. The nonman was actually a step UP for me, I think a tortured, vengeful, sorrowful nonman is a lot cooler than some nearly mindless fire-breathing lizard. The only way a dragon fight would be as cool as the end as it was would be if the dragon talked and was an actual character (as opposed to a physical obstacle to overcome) and according to Akka that can't happen w/out the no-god coming back (which would be too much to soon).

W/e though. Matter of personal preference/opinion. It sucks that you may not have been as excited as I was, but people having different preferences is a pretty basic fact of life. And I'm glad you enjoyed the aftermath

And then, the following scene with Mimara banishing (?) the demon thing in the water, happened way too fast and was too ambiguous to count as a final climax. I had trouble just visualizing what was happening here. (If someone can explain it, I'd appreciate it.)

I don't think anyone can give you a factual, definite answer of what happened (but if I'm wrong I would very much appreciate someone proving me so). I know I can't. All I can say is: the combination of the Judging Eye and Mimara somehow lets her to something to dead spirits and make them go away. What she must mean by guarding the gates - she can block the residue of the horrible events that came before from leaking into the present world. What I'm not clear on is whether she is seeing and acting on the difference between past and present or the difference between dead and alive (or both?).

I think the above stuff might kinda work into your theories of the judging eye as seeing properties of the Outside rather than seeing things in terms of good or bad.

This needs to be examined. On the surface, it seems plausible that the Judging Eye allows her to see Chorae differently than other people, because it allows her to see everything in a different light. But what exactly do we make of that different perspective? Everyone (except wizards) already thinks of Chorae as good. Tears of God. They already view them as good, since they vanquish the "evil" of sorcery. So why does Mimara's good/evil view allow her to see Chorae as the exact opposite of what others see? For instance, it looks white with light to her, but for others it looks like a dark absence. This alone implies that the "standard" view of Chorae--and hence wizardry itself--isn't entirely correct. Whereas everyone else sees a singularity of nonexistence, Mimara sees a larger realm of light.

The "standard" view of the chorae is not that they are some kind of "dark abscence". That is only what wizards see, and they see that in the same way that they see the mark of sorcery on each other. That's why Mimara has earlier seen the chorae as "dark abscences" just like Akka does (I'm not sure when but I'm almost positive she has - but I guess they don't affect her because simply handling the bar of light akka gave her didn't "activate" her mark?)

The view that the chorae are good is one held by 1: those who do not wield sorcery and 2: religious sorcerers who believe they are damned.

That being said, the view of the common person may have changed by now. Kellhus has declared that sorcerors are sanctified - at least when they are serving The God (AKA him, lol) - so chorae might not be looked at in the same way as they used to be. It all depends on how successfully the idea of the salvation of sorcerers has spread outside of the population of sorcerers themselves.

More likely, Kellhus has some sort of dogma going where Chorae remain holy even though sorcerors can now be saved. Anyway, the point is that when most people look at a chorae, they don't simply get "the feeling" that it is a holy object. Rather, they think so because they know its function (killing magic) and according to their religion, magic is bad, so anything that undoes all magic is good. It's a SUBJECTIVE value judgment of the chorae. Mimara's judging eye, however, sees the chorae as objectively, absolutely good. The chorae is holy in the same way that it is round - its goodness is a simple physical quality of its existence.

Anyway, the point is that the judging eye doesn't see the exact opposite of what people in general see - it simply sees more. The judging eye's observations opposes the sorcerous sight of wizards alone.

As for why the judging eye sees chorae as points of heaven, the basic answer is that the judging eye appraises the moral worth of all things. Since the judging eye appraises sorcery as bad, it naturally appraises chorae - which kill sorcery - as good. Meanwhile, the sorcerous sight (what you were saying what everyone sees, but I think only sorcerers see) doesn't even see chorae as EVIL so much as it CANT see them (they are a lack of sorcerous existence). Perhaps this is because the judging eye really is "good" and sorcery really is "bad". A pet theory I have is that The Judging Eye is the sorcerous vision of a sorceror of Aporos (the magical style that produced Chorae and is practiced by the consult) and that it sees sorcerers of other schools - which it opposes on semantic/technical/whatever grounds - as "evil".

As for "why", mechanically, the judging eye tells mimara chorae are good (that is, what the "source" of her power is) I have NO FLIPPING CLUE AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR OPINIONS. ((AND ACTUALLY IT TURNS OUT YOU GAVE SOME GOOD ONES SO ITS ALL MOOT))

So, what if Mimara is misinterpreting the Judging Eye? What if she is interpreting this perspective through her conditioned world view? (It's even possible that Kellhus saw this potential within her, and influenced her beliefs about it so that she wouldn't realize it's actual import.) She has no other experience to guide her, and she could find no mention of the J.E. in her research. So she's entirely on her own in deciding what to make of it.

But we have to remember that the judging eye is a system of good and evil which is divorced from normal mortal life. It is something external to mimara - she sees the judgements which the judging eye makes and is informed of them. There is no particular reason I've noticed to think that Mimara's worldview is influencing it. In fact, there is evidence to the contrary.

For instance, why would Mimara's prejudices cause her to use the judging eye to assume that sorcery is evil? If Mimara's prejudices shaped what she saw through the judging eye, she would see sorcery as GOOD because she had - until gaining the judging eye - believed kellhus' proclamation that sorcerers can be saved was true. In other words, the moral truths related to Mimara through the Judging Eye have, at least in one instance, been demonstrably contrary to what mimara herself would have thought about good and evil. So there is little reason to think that mimara's worldview is shaping the judging eye - on the contrary, the judging eye is shaping her worldview, if anything. It is especially unlikely that the judging eye is the result of kellhus' influence when it is THE first time she has had real evidence he was lying to her.

BUT I am not trying to trumpet the judging eye as something mimara should trust to tell her how to live her life. I am just saying that the current evidence is that it shapes mimara, not that she shapes it. Moreover, I don't know if the judging eye is "right" or "wrong" but I do think it will prove to be consistent and objective in its judgements. Although I'm not bothering to quote it, I do think your explanation of "why" the judging eye sees certain things about sorcerers is pretty interesting, and while I don't know enough to say it IS true it sounds like it makes perfect sense (now that you have proposed it, I would not be surprised to see the next few books revealing your prediction on the "physics" of sorcery to us).

Finally, though I don't know what to make of it, because I agree that Bakker has not been showing us a world of objective morality before this, here is one thing Bakker has said on the PoN series:

- Some have observed in the past that one of the hallmarks of epic fantasy is its tendency to make metaphors into actualized, concrete representations. To what degree, if any, is this true of your writing?

You could say the concretization of abstractions, whether metaphorical or not, is the hallmark of fiction period, not just epic fantasy. The thing I was most interested in concretizing in The Judging Eye was the abstract, ontological notion of a moral world. Because of our native tendency to anthropomorphize our environments, to interpret complex phenomena in psychological and social terms, our interpretative strategies are thoroughly skewed. This is simply a fact, though it rarely sees the light of day because we are pathologically jealous of our beliefs–to the point of killing one another if need be. (No matter how much lip service we pay to "critical thinking," the sad fact is that we really want no part of it–which is why we teach our children absolutely nothing about all the ways they’re doomed to dupe themselves). In the meantime, we see conspiracies everywhere we look–ghosts, gods, spies, corporations, governments... Pick your poison. No matter what our culture, we posit hidden agencies that have something planned for us, good or ill.

Humans are born drama queens. It’s always all about us.

This is the primary abstraction I try to concretize in The Judging Eye. What would it be like, what would it mean, to live in a world where everything had objective value, where everything was ranked and ordered, so that men actually were ‘spiritually superior’ than women, and so on. The tendency in much fantasy fiction is to cater to readers’ moral expectations, to depict ideologically correct worlds and so avoid all the kinds of trouble I seem to get into with my fiction. In other words, the tendency is to be apologetic rather than critical (and then to be critical of those who refuse to apologize). My interest lies in the glorious ugliness that is a fact of traditional world making. Bigoted worlds. Biased worlds. Human worlds expressed through fantastic idioms.

fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2009/01/new ... rview.html

But perhaps, to some extent, it's simply that there ARE objective things which Mimara is accidentally interpreting as objective good and evil, while it's really just inside/outside or something like that.

I spent a great deal of time on this post and it is now time to spend a great deal more time sleeping so that I can wake up in under 5 hours (yay!!!). Toodles everybody.

[Zarathustra]

Holsety, yes I can see you spent a lot of time on that. Good job. I'm not going to quote it line by line, but you made many good points--and shot down many of mine.

I could have swore that Mimara asked a Skin Eater what he saw when he looked at the chorae, and he responded along the lines of "black absence." Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. If that's the case, then your reasoning is sound. I'd have to agree with much of what you say about Mimara.

The quotes from Bakker are fascinating. I've visited his site in the past, and checked out some of his interviews. He's an extremely intelligent man, and always entertaining even in the interview format.

So, what do we make of the fact that he believes the real world is colored by our interpretations and anthropomorphisms, but rendered his fantasy world into the exact opposite of this situation? In effect, he has created a world that is a literal representation of what most people (incorrectly) think our world is. [Note: I don't know your own personal views on absolute vs relative moral value. I'm not preaching my own views, but rather trying to understand Bakker's.]

What would be the purpose in doing this? I think the key lies in his statements on being critical. This part:

The tendency in much fantasy fiction is to cater to readers’ moral expectations, to depict ideologically correct worlds and so avoid all the kinds of trouble I seem to get into with my fiction. In other words, the tendency is to be apologetic rather than critical (and then to be critical of those who refuse to apologize). My interest lies in the glorious ugliness that is a fact of traditional world making. Bigoted worlds. Biased worlds. Human worlds expressed through fantastic idioms.

So he's being critical of the very idea he is presenting literally (and that idea is: an "ontological notion of a moral world"). How do you present this criticism within the work itself (rather than just in interviews)? Well, in some way, you have to undermine it. Thus, I believe he is setting up an expectation that he will later undermine, reverse, or transcend. Which backs up my hunch that the J.E. doesn't really show what it seems to show thus far.

Because of our native tendency to anthropomorphize our environments, to interpret complex phenomena in psychological and social terms, our interpretative strategies are thoroughly skewed. This is simply a fact, though it rarely sees the light of day because we are pathologically jealous of our beliefs–to the point of killing one another if need be. (No matter how much lip service we pay to "critical thinking," the sad fact is that we really want no part of it–which is why we teach our children absolutely nothing about all the ways they’re doomed to dupe themselves)

So he is shedding light on this "simple fact," in order to apply critical thinking to it. Again, in order to apply critical thinking to that which the J.E. ostensibly reveals, he'll have to show how it's false.

[Brinn]

I could have swore that Mimara asked a Skin Eater what he saw when he looked at the chorae, and he responded along the lines of "black absence."

This is true. Mimara asks the eunuch Somandutta what he sees (The phrase "What do you see" seems to be a recurring theme in this series) as she gazes at the Chorae with the JE. I'm not sure if a "black absence" are his exact words but they're close enough as I was just re-reading this section this morning to get a better handle on the encounter with the shade of Gin-Yursis at the bottom of the Great Medial Screw. I think these last few pages are dripping with meaning and hidden implications and after re-reading this section for a fourth time I'm starting to see some connections to other parts of the book. For example, I feel that the scalper with the eye in his heart is not just a shock effect but rather a clue that can be connected to the great seal scene. I'm beginning to flesh out some theories but I need to cross-check a few things and then I'll be back to contribute to the conversation.

[Holsety]

Dont' have time to post a lot (or even read most of the recent posts) but I apologize for my thoughts - probably mistaken it turns out - about chorae as only being seen as "absences" by sorcerers.

[Brinn]

No Holsety. It's an interesting point and in my haste I forgot the whole second half of my point in the post above. I think you are correct in stating that only sorcerors see the chorae as dark voids. Why Soma says that he sees the darkness as well is interesting and I'll re-read that part tonight. Is it possible that Soma is a Sorceror? To the common folk a Chorae appears as a rune covered ball of black iron.

I need to look into this further...

[Holsety]

So, what do we make of the fact that he believes the real world is colored by our interpretations and anthropomorphisms, but rendered his fantasy world into the exact opposite of this situation? In effect, he has created a world that is a literal representation of what most people (incorrectly) think our world is.

Hmm. It's an interesting question, and to some extent I'm actually unable to feel sure any one way, because I'm not decided on what it means yet for human morality to be a "concrete fact" in Bakker's world. Is it a concrete fact because the gods, or some other "Outside" entity made the world in such a way? And if so, do we accept that whatever the gods - and the judging eye which, perhaps, sees things their way - deem is morally reprehensible actually is?

I mean, for instance, when Bakker says this:

What would it be like, what would it mean, to live in a world where everything had objective value, where everything was ranked and ordered, so that men actually were ‘spiritually superior’ than women, and so on.

Does this simply mean that there is an actual divine presence which enforces the ranking of men over women to the point where they are always found in inferior positions? Does it mean that when women die in Bakker's world, there's an actual quality of their spirits, as a result of the actions of gods, which makes them go to a less-fun heaven then the men go to?

If sorcerers are damned by the mark, is that simply because there's some force beyond the reach of humans which decides that the use of sorcery merits torment after death? And if a human reaches high enough, can that "fact" actually be changed?

[Note: I don't know your own personal views on absolute vs relative moral value. I'm not preaching my own views, but rather trying to understand Bakker's.]

I think it's safe to say that I don't feel educated enough on the subject to have personal views At best I have suspicions, theories, something along those lines.....but could I articulate them? Probably not...(I tried a couple times just now, unsure of whether they would be at all relevant to the discussion, but couldn't say anything coherent. Even if they are relevant, they aren't communicable...) Point is, I am open-minded enough to hear other ideas about morality - yours or Bakker's or others - without feeling my hackles rise.

In general, I admit to a certain confusion about the entire subject, but I very much suspect you are right that Bakker is critiquing the world he is giving us ((At the very least, if Bakker is trying to make me want to live in Earwa, he is only appealing to my thrill-seeking side - it's not a very happy world lots of the time...)). If NOTHING else, he is showing us that regardless of the presence of absolute morality in Earwa, mankind is not necessarily capable of grasping it on an everyday basis.

Maybe, if the world is an illusion, then the concrete, physical facts which tell us that something is "good" or "bad" are just constructed illusions too? Is that what you were getting at earlier maybe?

the encounter with the shade of Gin-Yursis

HAHA! I was trying to remember his name. Thanks for the reminder.

For example, I feel that the scalper with the eye in his heart is not just a shock effect but rather a clue that can be connected to the great seal scene.

Yes. The eye-in-heart seems to be some kind of byproduct of being "on the border with 'hell'". That "border" seems to be particularly weak in places where horrendous events take place, and it "reacts" to the presence of humans (see Plains of Maengecca where no-god died, the ground "vomited" bones of the dead to the surface in response to the presence of humans). I think that the shade of Gin-Yursis was the void's reaction to a nonman presence (being possessed by the vengeful spirit who was betrayed by humans, rather than simply twisted/destroyed by it).

I feel like I often have to put things in ""s when talking about this book because I'm not really sure if the words I'm using to describe them are actually good characterizations...like I said before, I'm not sure if the border that Akka has rubbed into on Mangaecca and Cil-Aujas is between some sort of past/present thing (and the past can leak into the present where things are particularly bad - this may tie together with seswatha's dreams or something?) or a dead/alive thing (that is, evil or unhappy ). I kind of suspect its the former, simply because there does seem to be actual mechanics of interraction between the present, the future and the past in Bakker's world (as Kellhus seems to have been troubled by in TTT, if prophecy predicts the future, then events in the future are influencing on the past because the existence of the prophecy itself depends on the events it predicts, although those events have not yet happened).

But since the characters in the book describe it as "hell" that's the best that can be done for now.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not decided on what it means yet for human morality to be a "concrete fact" in Bakker's world. Is it a concrete fact because the gods, or some other "Outside" entity made the world in such a way? And if so, do we accept that whatever the gods - and the judging eye which, perhaps, sees things their way - deem is morally reprehensible actually is?

Good questions. I'm satisfied with the "because the gods made it that way" answer. That's usually how the belief works in our world.

I am open-minded enough to hear other ideas about morality - yours or Bakker's or others - without feeling my hackles rise.

Very good, that's what I was hoping. I personally agree with Nietzsche and (I think) Bakker. So I'm trying to keep my personal views from influencing my interpretation of his story--and at the very least I don't want to turn this into a Close or Tank debate.

If NOTHING else, he is showing us that regardless of the presence of absolute morality in Earwa, mankind is not necessarily capable of grasping it on an everyday basis.

This confuses me. I thought the people grasped it, and that's one of the reasons Kellhus was able to manipulate them so easily, because they were so ready to assume the existence of such external, absolutes. But as I type this, I think I've just understood what you mean: if people could grasp absolute, external truths, then how is it possible for Kellhus to mislead them?!? If their beliefs connected to real, external truths, then these would not be mere interpretations and anthropomorphisms which Kellhus could then grasp like puppet strings in order to direct their beliefs.

Also, if everyone could grasp absolute moral value all the time, how would the Judging Eye be any different? Only a matter of degree or intensity? (In other words, I agree with you that they can't grasp it all the time.)

So now, like you, I'm confused about what Bakker means by an "ontological notion of a moral world," too. It can't be real; otherwise Kellhus's judgments of people would be incorrect (i.e. their beliefs wouldn't be mere interpretation, but actual insight) and he wouldn't be able to manipulate them so easily (because their beliefs would connect to real truths). So it's a bit difficult to grasp in what sense Bakker means Earwa is a world of absolute values. He seems to be walking a line between literal and figurative--which perhaps is necessary in order to undermine it later.

Maybe, if the world is an illusion, then the concrete, physical facts which tell us that something is "good" or "bad" are just constructed illusions too? Is that what you were getting at earlier maybe?

I'm not sure what I was getting at, except just the vague notion that I'm being played by Bakker just like the people of his world are being played by Kellhus. Maybe you are right, and the only illusory factor is the external moral value . . . which brings us back to the issue of the JE's veracity.

Speaking of the eye-in-heart, did our heroes actually experience this in their own hearts? Do they now carry an eye around with them? Who's eye is it? Don't you guys think it's a little strange that we're dealing with a book that has "Eye" in the title, and then we get this very, very bizarre detail? Couldn't one describe the Judging Eye as the "eye of one's heart?" Isn't the ability to see value in the world more an emotional seeing than an intellectual seeing? With the Outside leaking in, is everyone starting to receive the Judging Eye? Or is this just symbolism without any real effect on the plot?

One final point of trivia. In the last section about What Has Come Before, there is a description of the golden Ark falling from heaven and leaving a round crater of mountains. Just by looking at the map of his world, does anyone else notice how the Three Seas are surrounded by a round chain of mountains? Could the Three Seas themselves be this crater? If that's the case, why is the Great Ordeal traveling to the north (I'll never remember that Golgoljkdfljsld name )?

And why the word "Ark?" Should we draw any conclusions about this word from its Biblical implications? Could it be that this is how humans got to this world?

[Holsety]

So now, like you, I'm confused about what Bakker means by an "ontological notion of a moral world," too. It can't be real; otherwise Kellhus's judgments of people would be incorrect (i.e. their beliefs wouldn't be mere interpretation, but actual insight) and he wouldn't be able to manipulate them so easily (because their beliefs would connect to real truths). So it's a bit difficult to grasp in what sense Bakker means Earwa is a world of absolute values. He seems to be walking a line between literal and figurative--which perhaps is necessary in order to undermine it later.

I'm not sure I agree with the second part - simply because peoples beliefs are connected to real truths doesn't mean that the people holding the beliefs recognize the connection all the time. To some extent, I think some of the anthropomorphizing us earthling humans do can "approximate truth" (not sure why I'm saying this but it sounds right?). What I can't explain is why Kellhus would be able to understand them so clearly and manipulate people so perfectly while considering these objective facts of good and evil to be mere interpretations. So I think the first part still points out an important weirdness in the whole thing.

Speaking of the eye-in-heart, did our heroes actually experience this in their own hearts? Do they now carry an eye around with them? Who's eye is it? Don't you guys think it's a little strange that we're dealing with a book that has "Eye" in the title, and then we get this very, very bizarre detail? Couldn't one describe the Judging Eye as the "eye of one's heart?" Isn't the ability to see value in the world more an emotional seeing than an intellectual seeing? With the Outside leaking in, is everyone starting to receive the Judging Eye? Or is this just symbolism without any real effect on the plot?

No definite answers. If having a creepy eye in your heart IS what it takes to have the judging eye, the question is why mimara started to develop it before Cil-Aujas. But this link - which I feel kinda silly for not noticing before - seems rife with promise for digging up more "stuff"....but, I'm not sure what to do with it yet (don't feel like I can eliminate any of the ideas you just proposed ).

Well, here's what I will say. For the second to last question, I don't know that there's any definite indication that the Outside is leaking in any more than it used to. Cil-Aujas has probably been like this ever since the humans killed the nonmen way back when. And the plains of Mangaecca (can never remember spelling, sorry) have had a similar screwed up quality ever since the no-god died there. So it might be more a matter of "where" the outside is leaking in then "when" or "how long". But I'm not sure. Maybe these areas have a stronger effect on the rest of the world the longer they exist. Maybe there are more of them. So it MIGHT be that the second-to-last question would be better phrased as "when people near places where the outside leaks in, do they recieve the JE?" Actually, I think that the "is more outside is leaking in" should stay since it's certainly possible/probable.

That being said, since Mimara seems to have used the eye to, you know, "do something" with the chorae and guard the gates between past/present or dead/alive (both?) it seems like there is a strong link between the JE and the leaking outside stuff (maybe it becomes more potent in areas where the outside comes in strongly??).

One final point of trivia. In the last section about What Has Come Before, there is a description of the golden Ark falling from heaven and leaving a round crater of mountains. Just by looking at the map of his world, does anyone else notice how the Three Seas are surrounded by a round chain of mountains? Could the Three Seas themselves be this crater? If that's the case, why is the Great Ordeal traveling to the north (I'll never remember that Golgoljkdfljsld name )?

Whoa. This idea rocks. It's very out-of-right-field and yet it's still very, very cool, and it seems liek it might work. If this is the case, the tusk could be a relic of the Inchoroi or something stupendously freaky like that.

I do see a ring of mountains around Golgotterath on the map, but I like the idea that Golgotterath maybe moved or something. Hope this idea isn't shot down because it would be AWESOME.

Also, I noticed on the map that Bakker actually goes ahead and gives us the location of Ishual on the map XD I feel bad for Akka because it is pretty much on the complete other side of the world from Cil-Aujas. Don't see the catacombs on the map though. Perhaps there's some other name they go by that I'm not remembering.

And why the word "Ark?" Should we draw any conclusions about this word from its Biblical implications? Could it be that this is how humans got to this world?

Ya, it's worth saying that the Men of the Tusk are from a "different" area than Earwa (I think?) and I don't think Bakker ever clarified if it meant different continent or not (and anything the author doesn't say is probably because he doesn't want to say it yet). Meanwhile the harem girls of the nonmen were of some other population of humans (the name is somewhere in TJE).

I wish I could check the glossary entries on the Tusk in the TTT so see if its presence on the world is "known" to predate the fall of golgotterath.

[Brinn]

Way back, when Kellhus first sees magic (akka I think) he reflects that the Dunyain have always taught that there is no magic, that it's all a mummer's game. What I'm curious about is why they teach this; since the dunyain were founded during the era of the first apocalypse, I think they should have known that magic existed when they were first founded. So, what was the reason for the dunyain teaching that there's no such thing as magic? Was it:
-The teaching is a philosophical statement/judgement/whatever about the nature of sorcery.
-The dunyain consciously decided, when they were founded, to teach against the existence of magic for one reason or another.
-As time passed, isolation caused a change in worldview. The leaders, at some point or another, decided that the histories handed down by their predecessors (assuming there were any) were inaccurate.
-Something else?

I will keep looking for clues to this answer but the closest I have come thus far is from the "What Has Come Before..." section at the end of the JE.

But Moenghus knew the world in ways his cloistered brethren could not. He knew well the revelations that awaited his son, for they had been his revelations thirty years previous. He knew that Kellhus would discover sorcery, whose existence the forefathers of the Dunyain had surpressed.
Although the reasons are not clear it does appear that the Dunyain had actively surpressed knowledge of sorcery at one time and may not even be aware of its existence any longer.

I could have swore that Mimara asked a Skin Eater what he saw when he looked at the chorae, and he responded along the lines of "black absence."

You know, the more I read the last Cil-Aujus chapters the more impressed I become. This is some damn fine writing. Here is the quote where Mimara asks Soma about the Chorae:

Though she has grown accustomed to its inverted presence, there is a surreality to the act of taking it into her hand, a sense that it is not the Trinket that moves so much as it is the whole of creation about it. She has no clue why it should compel her. Everything about it shrieks anathema. It is the bane of her hearts sole desire, the thing she must fear above all once she begins uttering sorcery. What almost killed Achamian.
Note that this previous passage answers the question of why the Chorae does not kill Mimara. The passage continues:

The light of the surillic point does not touch it, so that even its worldly aspect seems an insult to her eyes. It is a ball of shadow in her palm, its iron curve, its skein of ancient writing, illuminated only by the low crimson glow that leaks through the entrance.
Here I skip a few paragraphs to the part where Mimara asks Soma about the Chorae:

"I mean this", she says, raising her palm. "What do you see when you look at this?" He makes the face he always makes when he suspects that the others are joking at his expense: a mingling of hurt resentment, and an eagerness to please. "A ball of shadow," he says slowly.
After rereading this passage, Soma's response makes complete sense. Since the Chorae nullifies all sorcery, and the light in the room is from the sorcerous Surillic point, the light does not illuminate the Chorae. Thus, even to those with normal non-sorcerous vision, the Chorae would still appear to be a ball of shadow.

And then, the following scene with Mimara banishing (?) the demon thing in the water, happened way too fast and was too ambiguous to count as a final climax. I had trouble just visualizing what was happening here. (If someone can explain it, I'd appreciate it.)

I'm sure my version isn't definitive but I can give you my interpretation. The shade of Gin'Yursis is a literal gate to Hell. To support my contention: As Mimara and Acha flee from the shade Mimara observes:

...she can see it, boiling up through the blackness toward them, the infernal pit.
Then when they are at the bottom of the Medial Screw and she senses the shade rising through the water:

She see a flicker in the deeps, like lightning through dark and distant clouds... Through dark water, Hell rises in the guise of a great graven seal, like a shield stamped with packed skulls and living faces, winding in fractal rings about the long-dead Nonman King. It pauses beneath the surface, its limbs languorous and submerged. Veins of blackness pulse up across the walls. It stares across the bourne, pondering the unspeakable, then raises its lips to kiss the inverted surface, and exhales the shriek and torment that is its air.

The others hear it only as horror, inborn and sourceless, as buried within them as they are buried in Cil-Aujus. Mimara turns to their sudden silence.
Not only do I see Gin'Yursis as a physical gate to Hell rising from the water, but here I see the connection to the Scalper with the eye in his heart. Read this next passage carefully and let me know if you see the connection:

In a moment of madness it seems she can see their hearts through their caged breasts, that she can see the eyes open...

Achamian falls to his knees, clutching his chest. He looks to her in pleading horror. Lord Kosoter stumbles backward into the corridor. Some clutch their faces; others begin to shriek and scream. Soma stands riven. Sarl cackles and bawls, his eyes pinched into lines between red wrinkles. "I can't seeeeee!" the crease=faced sergeant gibbers. "I-look-I-look-I-look..."
Contrast this passage to the one where the Scalper with the eye in his heart is babbling to the Skin Eaters:

"There's no light inside," the man sobbed. "Our skin. Our skin is too thick. It wraps-like a shroud-it keeps the blackness in. And my heart-my heart!-it looks and looks and it can't see!" A shower of spittle. "There's nothing to see!"
The similarities are too obvious to be coincidental. This Bloody Pick has crossed into Hell itself. But let me continue with the passage from the bottom of the Medial Screw. I think it further supports my "Shade as Gate" theory.

The Unholy Seal rears glistening from the water, weeping strings of fire. It towers over them in leaning accusation. It roars, the sound so near, so ingrown that it seems that they stand in the throat of a Demon-God. A voice claps through their souls, so loud it draws blood through the pores of their skin.

The Gates are no longer guarded.
Mimara then goes on to lift the Chorae and claims that she holds the gates. Later Achamian reflects on the encounter and muses that chorae can dispell the corporeal form of a summoned demon:

He knew something of demons, Ciphrang, knew that when summoned, a Chorae could destroy their corporeal form. But what faced them had risen on a tide of unreality. Hell had come with him, the shade of Gin'Yursis, the last Nonman King of Cil Aujus, and he should have taken them all, Chorae or no Chorae.
Here, I think Achamian realizes that rather than a summoning they have instead encountered a denizen of hell in its own lair, that they have delved to the verge of Hell. Whatever Mimara does with the Chorae, it serves to shut the gate that is Gin'Yursis. I think Scott will answer many of these questions in the next book when the group has a chance to converse with Cleric.

I'll be back with more later!

[duchess of malfi]

I feel like there is still so much to say, I've been avoiding it because it's a little overwhelming. I feel like I need to reread the whole thing just to formulate my questions.

That's understandable. I feel the same way. (well obviously not since I went ahead and asked some questions, but what I mean to say is I think my understanding of the book will increase after a reread. But I don't plan on rereading anytime TOO soon).

Absolutely. Bakker is as layered with meaning as a good baklava is layered with goodness.

He and Daniel Abraham are quite easily my favorites among the new young rising stars of the genre.

I am also wanting a reread, both of the new book AND of the PON trilogy. But like Holsety, I need a bit of a brain break in between reads while I try to process the book.

[Brinn]

That's extremely puzzling. Why would the ability to see good/evil allow her to see into an external realm?

It seems that the judging eye is doing more than simply perceiving good/evil. IMO, the JE sees things through the eyes of the God(s). To expand on my theory I will first posit that good and evil are defined by the God(s) who inhabit the Outside. That which the God favors is considered good and that which the God opposes is considered evil. Using this basis as a framework, I believe that the God is opposed to sorcery as sorcery corrupts or alters the framework of its creation. For this reason, Chorae are good as they destroy sorcerers. But, IMO, Chorae also serve as a small portal to the Outside. Mages see them as a black and consuming hole while Mimara, with her Judging eye, sees them as a fountain of light, a portal to the beauty of “Heaven”. A tear (rhymes with spare) in the fabric of the Onta…A tear of God.

Additionally, I don’t believe Kellhuss has redeemed the sin of sorcery at all. This is just another of his manipulations designed to condition the Few. He needs to own the Sorcerers and what better way to do this than to claim he has earned their salvation?

What I'm not clear on is whether she is seeing and acting on the difference between past and present or the difference between dead and alive (or both?).

I think she is seeing the difference between the inside (Earwa) and the Outside (“Heaven” and “Hell” for lack of better terms).

[I'm Murrin]

Thanks to a little prompting I finally cracked open this book today. Haven't done more than glance over a couple of posts in this topic, those of you who've finished already will probably find my comments a bit obvious, heh.

It hasn't taken much to get my thoughts turning. I read What Has Gone Before first, to refresh my memory, and was happy to see it had the candidness exemplified by the Encyclopaedic Glossary in TTT, not holding back at all on the events behnid the Apocalypse. It also states that Kellhus is insane - though by whose measure I don't know.

I had all but forgotten my conclusions from TTT, about Kellhus' motives and goals. The Dunyain seek to become self-moving souls, by mastering that which comes before in order ot control that which comes after. Moenghus found the Consult, learned of the No-God, and set in motion something that (according to this "What Has Gone Before") would prevent their goals being met. I'm not sure why he would do that. Perhaps Kellhus just saw deeper.

In TTT, thanks to Achamian's teachings, Kellhus got a glimpse of the Outside. It seemed to change him, and it is possibly he really did become convinced of his own godhood. I'm not so sure. So long as the Outside exists, then the Dunyain's goal cannot be achieved. So long as there is a connection to the outside, to the soul, then this Darkness That Comes Before rules mens actions before all else, and a self-moving soul is impossible. For a Dunyain to reach that final goal, the Inchoroi must succeed - the Outside must be closed, souls severed, leaving nothing to come before, and, almost coincidentally, no damnation for the sorcerors (the sinners of the mind) or for the Inchoroi (the sinners of the flesh)*.

This perspective of the final aims of Dunyain seems to be supported within the letter than precedes the Prologue, in which the writer has the impression that Achamian thinks Kellhus' Ordeal is false. This could be the case, or it could be that, knowing of Kellhus' nature but not of his madness, Achamian simply assumes him to have the obvious goal of a Dunyain. I guess I'll find out later.

I've waffled on a bit more than necessary for something that could've been said without even seeing this new book, heh. Honestly, I read a summary of things I already knew and a two-page introductory passage and it's got me writing all this, that's how much this work gets me going.



On newer things, Kellhus' family seems to be rather interesting. I've only glanced through the glossary and read the prologue, but from this I gather that Kellhus and Esmenet have had five children (since the first two sons are Cnaiur's and Achamian's), and of the three males, one is insane, one an idiot, and the third a sociopath. Though I suppose that last is what the Dunyain aim for, heh. Not exactly a normal family.



*Edit: It occurs to me that the non-men could be considered a critique of this goal, of the Inchoroi's commitment to sealing the world of the material from the world of the - divine? Given immortality - an endless existence in the world of the material - it is easy to see that they do not avoid damnation at all, succumbing to madness and forced to extreme depravity if they wish to simply hold onto any remnant of their selves.