Bakker's THE DARKNESS THAT COMES BEFORE

[I'm Murrin]

I can't really say I was.

Hadn't read your post before now - I can't agree on Nil'giccas. Achamian deliberately provokes him, deliberately does nothing to attack while spending more and more effort on defence, and by the time he hits Cleric with his Cant the Nonman could never have been prepared for it. That's not anticlimactic, it's smart.


Correcting one of my previous points - I said being captured by the Consult might mean Nau-Cayuti is still alive, however I'm now thinking it only means Achamian will be able to dream the creation of the No-God through his eyes. The Ordeal and Nau-Cayuti's "death" happened before the Apocalypse.

[Zarathustra]

I didn't think it was strategy ("smart"), I thought it was restraint and compassion. He didn't want to hurt Cleric. He used a concussion cant specifically to stun him without hurting him. He was surprised and heart-broken that Cleric died because of his cant. So "smart" had nothing to do with it. It was an accident. It would be like Frodo tripping and falling into Mt.Doom. That's not how you end a book, imo.

[I'm Murrin]

Just because he intended to win, not kill, doesn't mean he didn't win in a smart way.

[danlo]

Found The Judging Eye at Hastings for 3.99!!! Can't beat that! I'm ready!

[Zarathustra]

How's it going with TJE, Danlo?

Also, I'm still curious about Brinn's detailed take on TWLW now that some of us have finished it.

[Zarathustra]

[Warning, spoilers for the second trilogy.]

I'm finally finishing my reread of the first trilogy, which I postponed when AATE came out. In the 3rd book, The Thousandfold Thought, I read something that sheds light on the second trilogy, and clearly shows that Bakker had that trilogy planned out when he wrote this one.

In chapter 4, there is a scene of Achamian traveling with the Holy War on the way to Xerash. He is thinking (at first) how much it reminds him of his travels earlier in his life with Proyas, but then it dawn on him that this reminds him of much earlier travels ... the journeys of Seswatha during the First Apocalypse. This is the first time Bakker spells out the stakes of what Kellhus is becoming, how the Second Apocalypse is approaching, and how this time there is a chance for a vast difference: total victory, without the cost endured last time of total annihilation.

However, Achamian almost fears to allow himself to feel such absolute hope. At this point, I'll quote the book itself:

Despite their opiate glamour, there was something terrifying about these thoughts. The Gods were perverse. Natter as they might, the priests knew nothing of their malicious whims. Perhaps they would see the world burn just to punish the hubris of one man. Nothing, Achamian had long ago decided, was quite so dangerous as boredom in the absence of scruples.

This one paragraph spells out one particular interpretation for what is happening in TJE and TWLW, in terms of the gods rising up against Kellhus. Bakker "pretends" that he hasn't written this, or is counting on us forgetting, because he presents the resistance of the gods to Kellhus as the righteous quest of the gods against a "demon." He has devoted a lot of effort to presenting Kellhus and his freak children as something evil, but I believe this is misdirection. It started with the betrayal of Achamian(who is arguably the protagonist of this series, the sympathetic POV), Kellhus stealing his lover, and then really took off with Achamian denouncing Kellhus at the end of TTT. Because we like Akka, and he has come to believe that Kellhus is evil, we're "supposed" to trust his judgment and believe what he believes. Indeed, it makes sense because we know Kellhus is a master manipulator, liar, and has very little empathy for those he uses for his ends.

This misdirection is strengthened by presenting Sorweel as a sympathetic victim of Kellhus's tyrannical power grab, as well as the reality of the miraculous powers given to Sorweel to elude Kellhus's insight, to aid Sorweel's god-given quest against Kellhus (the earth goddess).

But by the end of TWLW, we learn that Akka's "secret" quest against Kellhus was itself a controlled element in Kell's plans. Even Akka's disbelief of Kell himself was needed, apparently, to fulfill Kell's goals.

I think it is still very possible that Kellhus's goals are truly for the good of mankind, to stop the Second Apocalypse just as he claims, and that Akka's suspicion--reinforced by the opinions of the gods themselves, apparently--is nothing more than one part of his character arc as he comes to realize that Kellhus is indeed helping him, and all humanity.

After all, as this one paragraph from TTT reveals (quoted above), the gods moving against Kellhus are merely the products of capricious, malicious arrogance. This one paragraph, I believe, holds the key to the correct interpretation of what's really going on. Sorweel is severly misguided, being used as a pawn. Even he is starting to question his own role, as he spends time with Serwa and learns that his enemy is not really as evil as he had come to believe. We're at the turning point in all these impressions, TTT being the second book of this current trilogy. I expect for the main characters' impressions to be fully reversed by the last book of this trilogy.

[I'm Murrin]

I never saw the Anasurimbors as being portrayed as evil. Bakker goes to great lengths to repeatedly point out that the gods are after Kellhus because they're blind to the No-God and thus cannot understand what he is doing.

I don't think this means he's necessarily right and destined to succeed, though. There are elements that he cannot possibly predict (like the fact that Anasurimbor Nau-Cayuti is probably alive), and I think there's a certain arrogance in his supreme confidence in himself that could be subverted by the unexpected.

And the fact is no matter if it's good or bad, the White Luck suggests that Kellhus is destined to die. The path of the White Luck is predetermined at the moment it is set in motion, and we have been led to believe it is infallible. I would be more surprised if Bakker saved Kellhus than if the assassination took place.

[Zarathustra]

Murrin, so how have you viewed the opinions of the main characters, the sympathetic POVs in this trilogy--Akka and Mimara? Even if they don't necessarily view Kellhus as evil, at least they view him as catastrophically misled. Whether or not he is evil, I believe, will be the point of Mimara's power ... the Judging Eye ... that's the narrative importance of a character having such a power in the first place, in my opinion. It couldn't possibly have a greater payoff than to use it in this dramatic fashion. Sooner or later it will open upon Kellhus.

So this question is at least on the table, and Bakker is expending quite a bit of effort to make it ambiguous, even if you don't think he's pushing the readers to the "evil" side of that spectrum. I admit that he's leaving room for reinterpretation--the ambiguity I acknowledged--but at the very least he's certainly providing enough hints to allow readers to fear Kellhus's purposes.

But as for Kellhus's family ... you seriously don't see any evidence to view at least some of them as evil? What about the little boy who murdered his twin brother, and plots for his uncle's murder as well? We even get the impression that he'd like to see his own father dead, because Kellhus could read his face and know his intentions.

I'm still not sure how Bakker works yet--I haven't read enough of his books to know for sure--but if this were a Donaldson story, the arrogant characters who lacked empathy always turn out to be the bad guys. The ones who love and empathize turn out to be the good guys. (Hell, you could probably say that about dramatic fiction in general.) Even a character like Dios who is pushed into doing horrible things because humanity itself is on the line, he still grieves for his choices and those people whom he uses. Kellhus exhibits none of this empathy. Granted, Bakker could have done a better job at making him seem evil, if that kind of misdirection was actually his intention, as I'm suggesting. But the seeds for this interpretation are definitely there. I stumbled upon another just last night, in chapter 5 of TTT:

Every part of him beseeched her. "Do you love me? Esmi, I need to know!"

"Akka ..."

"Do you love me?"

"He knows me! He know me like no other!"

And suddenly he understood. It seemed so clear! All this time mourning, thinking he had nothing to offer, nothing to lay at the foot of her altar. "That's it! Don't you see? That's the difference!"

"This is madness!" she cried. "Enough, Akka. Enough! This cannot be."

"Please, listen. You must listen! He knows everyone, Esmi. Everyone!"

She was the only one. How could she not see? Like a kicked scroll, the logic of it rolled through him: love required ignorance. Like any candle, it needed darkness to burn bright, to illuminate. "He knows everyone!"

I believe that it is dawning on Achamian that Kellhus doesn't love her, he's just using her. Even more than that: love is impossible for Kellhus, Akka realizes, because Kellhus knows everyone too completely to love them. What kind of man doesn't love? Certainly not the second coming of Sejenus. It is from this that Akka finally leaves Kellhus. The seeds of Akka's abandonment of Kellhus were always within his feeling of betrayal regarding Esmi. But it's not just jealousy and feeling betrayed. It is through Esmi that Akka realizes Kellhus is a "monster" without human feelings. Cnaiur supplies the rest: Kellhus is lying to everyone.

So how can an unfeeling liar, master manipulator, friend betraying backstabber, prophet impersonator, religion usurper not seem evil? Seems clear to me. Perhaps Bakker is doing his job too well, presenting Kellhus in as a pragmatic necessity to the salvation of men who are too stupid to realize that they need him as he really is. Perhaps Bakker is sowing the seeds of Kellhus being vindicated in a manner that is too obvious, so it undermines the sense of Kellhus being evil, and thus you're seeing through Bakker's "misdirection" too easily. If so, that's a failure of story telling, and poor writing. I, too, share your conviction that Kellhus isn't really evil, and that he really will save mankind. But I get the feeling that Bakker intends for us to view that as misdirection.

[I'm Murrin]

Yes, Bakker protrays Kellhus, Maithanet and Kelmomas as exactly what they are: pure sociopaths. What does that have to do with evil? Kellhus believes what he's doing is right and for the good of mankind - can a person be evil with only good intentions? Kelmomas is a psychopath, which makes him mentally ill, not evil.

The world of this series is one where absolute morality and judgement exists, but it is one where that morality is applied indiscriminately to people who are as complex and conflicted as anyone in the real world. There is no good and evil, despite the reality of damnation. That aspect of his world building is in fact a damning criticism of religious conceptions of morality in the real world.


As far as predicting the story, I don't believe Kellhus will save mankind. His purpose is to make sure that mankind is ready for the Second Apocalypse, to make sure they know it is coming and understand the stakes. He's already served most of that purpose. Perhaps he is also, in some way, meant to make the gods realise the threat as well, but that's pure speculation on my part.

I also got the impression from The White-Luck Warrior that Kellhus himself is preparing for his inevitable death at the hands of the gods. He was clearly preparing Nersei Proyas for something, revealing the truth of what and who he is, of how he is a manipulator and liar, that Cnaiur and Achamian were both correct, and yet maintaining Proyas faith in his purpose. I think Proyas is being maneuvered into a position where he will be unlikely to interpose himself when Sorweel and the Warrior strike, but will continue to further Kellhus' goals even after he is killed. Kellhus' actions presuppose that his assassination by the gods will discredit him, and so he reveals himself to Proyas in anticipation of it, so that his faith cannot be destroyed by the event.


Edit: Though considering that Bakker puts in his "what has gone before" that Kellhus went insane when he anticipated the thousandfold thought, perhaps he is meant to be perceived differently- I've never noticed any evidence of this insanity, though how much of his own myth he believes is debatable. The problem is that Bakker's avoided using Kellhus as a point of view this time round, so we have no idea how he perceives his own role in the Apocalypse, and no idea of the reality of things like the story of him travelling Outside and killing two demons.

[Zarathustra]

Yes, Bakker protrays Kellhus, Maithanet and Kelmomas as exactly what they are: pure sociopaths. What does that have to do with evil?

I guess it depends on your definition of evil. Myself, I don't believe in absolute good/evil so it's just a personal value judgment. But in terms of those who do believe in absolutes, sociopaths certainly don't fit on the Good side of that scale.

Kellhus believes what he's doing is right and for the good of mankind - can a person be evil with only good intentions? Kelmomas is a psychopath, which makes him mentally ill, not evil.

Actually, we have no idea how Kellhus views his own goals. We have only his manipulative explanations which he has given others ... words that are always chosen to sway, not to reveal the truth.

The world of this series is one where absolute morality and judgement exists, but it is one where that morality is applied indiscriminately to people who are as complex and conflicted as anyone in the real world. There is no good and evil, despite the reality of damnation.

The Judging Eye--the skill itself--contradicts that. Mimara can see good and evil as it actually is, not merely her opinion of it. It's an objective sight of an absolute Good/Evil.

Perhaps he is also, in some way, meant to make the gods realise the threat as well, but that's pure speculation on my part.

Well, his actions are certainly motivating the gods to get involved. It can't be an accident.

I also got the impression from The White-Luck Warrior that Kellhus himself is preparing for his inevitable death at the hands of the gods. He was clearly preparing Nersei Proyas for something, revealing the truth of what and who he is, of how he is a manipulator and liar, that Cnaiur and Achamian were both correct, and yet maintaining Proyas faith in his purpose.

He needs Proyas's faith (now) as much as he needs Achamian's doubt (later). I have no idea about his future needs of Proyas, but I'm fairly certain that he'll require Achamian to discredit him in some way ... or at the very least he needs Achamian's doubt because he needs at least one person who isn't manipulated by the blinding reverence that everyone else feels. This is set up in The Thousandfold Thought from the very beginning, chapter 1, I believe, where Esmi tells Kell that Akka will never forgive (i.e. for Kell stealing his girl). And Kell acknowledges this, doesn't argue with her. He knows it's a fact ... which means it fits his plans.

Kellhus could have chosen any woman to bear his children. Esmenet isn't the only intelligent girl in this world. The explanation (given by Bakker) for why Kell picked her never makes any sense. Sure, she was available, but so are 1000s of other women following this Crusade to Shimeh. Given the fact that this causes such a problem for the very man upon whom Kellhus depends to teach him the Gnosis, it's a particularly strange choice. But perhaps that's the point ... he retained Esmenet as a lover precisely becuase of its effect upon Achamian, the ultimate repudiation of Kellhus and Akka's subsequent exile and quest in the second trilogy.

I think Proyas is being maneuvered into a position where he will be unlikely to interpose himself when Sorweel and the Warrior strike, but will continue to further Kellhus' goals even after he is killed. Kellhus' actions presuppose that his assassination by the gods will discredit him, and so he reveals himself to Proyas in anticipation of it, so that his faith cannot be destroyed by the event.

I disagree. The only reason Kellhus has assumed the role of Warrior-Prophet was to get control of the Holy War, so that he could unite the nations of the Three Seas to fight in the Grand Ordeal. It was all just a tool, a manipulation, to fight the Second Apocalypse. Once that is done and victory is achieved, there will be no more need for this religious role to unite men into a pragmatic goal. If Kellhus's intentions are indeed benevolent, then he'll want people to see through his deception and for his divinity to be discredited. Hence the continuing role for Achamian.

[I'm Murrin]

Except that the Ordeal is not going to succeed before the gods strike. There's a whole other series in the Second Apocalypse to come, and the story of the Aspect-Emperor ends in the next volume.


Regarding the Eye, it sees things through the perspective of the absolute moral system of the world, not necessarily good and evil. If we take the idea that the Outside and the Gods place their judgement on men by their own absolute standard, it is that judgement and damnation that she sees. Whether the gods' morality is actually fair, and whether it truly represents good and evil, is a matter for debate. If we were to claim that this world's tangible, demonstrable morality really did represent absolute good and evil then we would have to also agree with things like that world's absolute spiritual relativism regarding race and gender.

The fact that religious morality (including medieval notions of women being spiritually inferior to men) is an absolute in Bakker's created world is intended to be a criticism of it, not simply provide a measure of good and evil.

[Zarathustra]

Kellhus's story ends in the next book? Wow, that's a hell of a spoiler that I wish I'd never read. Damn. You know this for sure?

Regarding the Eye, it sees things through the perspective of the absolute moral system of the world, not necessarily good and evil. If we take the idea that the Outside and the Gods place their judgement on men by their own absolute standard, it is that judgement and damnation that she sees. Whether the gods' morality is actually fair, and whether it truly represents good and evil, is a matter for debate. If we were to claim that this world's tangible, demonstrable morality really did represent absolute good and evil then we would have to also agree with things like that world's absolute spiritual relativism regarding race and gender.

I wish you had some quotes at hand to argue this case. I don't expect you to skim through ~1000 pages to find it, however.

I'm not sure how useful the distinction between "absolute moral system of the world" and "good and evil" is. If a moral system--which deals with good and evil--is absolute, and not just absolute because someone asserts it, but because it can be magically seen, then there doesn't seem to be any difference I can tell. Mimara provides what every absolutist here in the real world would love to claim they have: empirical proof for a moral view (which they think of and argue for in absolute terms, but can't really prove it).

Likewise, the distinction between "god's morality" and "true good and evil" seems nonexistent. If the morality of an absolute being isn't itself absolute, then it calls into question the very basis of that morality ... the absolute being itself. Granted, this could be what Bakker is saying (about the real world), and that's a valid point if we're talking about the real world where we don't have things like empirical evidence for God's own view of morality, but it makes no sense in a place where people do have this empirical evidence.

[I'm Murrin]

You probably realise this, but it's just a logical inference I've made based on the plot so far and the structure of the series. I would have said, before reading The White Luck Warrior, that the Aspect-Emperor trilogy would end with Kellhus no longer emperor (as that story arc would be over, much like he ceased being the Prince of Nothing at the end of the first trilogy) but would not have been able to say what he would have become; I wouldn't have expected him to die. Now, I think it's pretty likely, but not quite certain.


I'm mostly getting my interpretation of the Judging Eye from what I've gathered on Bakker's own comments about why he created a world where morality is genuine and things like women being inferior is actually demonstrably true; I couldn't point to a specific source, though.

[Holsety]

I have just started The White Luck Warrior. I'm about 150-200 pages in. As a result I haven't read some of the preceding posts. The appearance of Meppa, the Cishuarim priest who talks about the Solitary God who is opposed to the gods of the Thousand Temples, has me wondering whether the Fanim's Solitary God is actually the No-God (because it seems to be sightless, and is apparently segmented off from all the other gods). Also, the book seemed to say something about Cishuarim using their psukhe without a sorcerer's mark, which means they might not be damned for sorcery. I'll be looking closely through the rest of the book to see if anything indicates that.

[Zarathustra]

I honestly don't remember much of that from WLW. It's definitely not a large part of the story.

[Zob]

I really enjoyed this when I read it, a tad verbose at times. The opening was very memorable. Problem was I didn't follow thru and read the rest of the series.

I'm going to go back and read this though, then the other two in the trilogy.

[Brinn]

Keep going Zob. I think this series may represent the pinnacle of the fantasy genre. IMHO, it's that good.

For those of you who who might be interested in a cool story about the origins of the consult, check out the link below from Bakker's "Three Pound Brain" blog:

The False Sun

[Holsety]

Thanks for the story Brinn!

[Brinn]

Did you read it? Thoughts?

[Holsety]

Well, the thing I actually found most interesting about it was the way that Titirga's mark apparently is less blasphemous or harmful, and the way he is said to "go mad" while canting, which I like to think suggests another will imposing itself on the world (though I really have no evidence suggesting this).

I did find myself feeling somewhat unsure about whether I was confident that Shaeo really had the true way of it. But without any real way to decide it from the story. Guess I'll have to hope that all is revealed by the end of the series.