I saw some pretty interesting observations on the Three Seas board made by someone named Nerdanel back in 2006. Isn't there someone on KW by that name? There is, in fact Nerd said something about kellhus being a prophet of the no-god back in '08 on the PoN thread.
Anyway, this post appeals to me b/c it is a much more exhaustive realization of something I have considered for a long time (that the no-god may be working directly through Kellhus somehow), because I noticed this one time in TTT where Kellhus says something like "What do you see?" to Akka (which mirrors the no-god's dialogue). I really suggest checking it out. Once I have access to my Earwa books I think I will look at them again.
forum.three-seas.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1340
The post is basically an argument that another topoi (the thing that causes weird evil stuff in Mangaecca) was formed in Caraskand, and that that had a very significant impact on the story.
I remember a passage (which I'll try to look up and quote tonight) where Aurang, in the body of Esmi, converses with Kellhus. Aurang explains that the Inchoroi are a race of lovers and that they should not be damned by their nature if not for the presence of men. One of the beginning quotations prior to a chapter also notes that, and I paraphrase, "As long as there are men there will be crimes". Thinking about these aspects make me think that Bakker is really saying that there is no morality save for what men make it, even though TJE makes it appear as though Earwa has a defined morality imposed by the outside.
I know this was from a long time ago, but I kind of wanted to respond to it. Perhaps in Bakker's universe, the existence of the gods imposing morality on the world is contingent on the existence of humankind, for whatever reason. "Worship power" or whatever...I dunno. I think you are on to something here. ((I remember during my first read through the series, I made the more simple, out-of-context interpretation that as long as men exist there are crimes because men commit crimes))
As for the fantastic being increased . . . I think this transition we're seeing is a very large arc of reinterpretation, which will end with yet another reinterpretation where the fantastic is not seen as fantastic (the technological explanation I've been hinting at). I don't think Outside is Heaven. Why can't it just be outer space? And the gods are aliens? I definitely think that good and evil will end up being reinterpreted as relative, rather than absolute as we're being led to believe now.
I believe that it was said somewhere (in TTT I think) that the demons summoned by the scarlet spires are summoned from some realm in between that of humans and that of the gods. I'm not sure of where I remember this from, but I hope it's the case. At the time, it seemed like some kind of extra-dimensional thing. Checking on facts like this is the kind of thing a Three Seas wiki would be useful for.
(( As it turns out, there's a barely started one at
princeofnothing.wikia.com/wiki/Prince_of_Nothing ))
Still haven't figured out exactly whether Kelhus is acting out of good or ill intent though, or if it's a question of being beyond either of those. Liked the way it slowly became more and more obvious how powerful the gnosis was, and when Achamian finally started wielding it in earnest.
One thing I have been trying to figure out is whether the idea behind the TTT is that someone who masters it consciously shapes all the people around them, or simply comes to understand that their own actions (which shape all others) are also not under their own control.
I, too, was disappointed with magic in this series. It does seem to be limited to burning stuff. However, that's not strictly true. They can "float." They can compel a confession. But by the end of the 3rd book, there's pretty much only burning. I do like how the magic is described, at least. I like the schools and the philosophical references.
All I can really figure out is that in Three Seas magic, the more abstract something is, the more powerful it is (or so it would seem), given the supremacy of the gnostic schools over the anagogic schools.
Erikson's religion is more interesting, Bakkers is simpler and more straightforward.
Hmm, really? Have you read the JE yet? I think that it develops into a lot more in that book - not so much the religious doctrine practiced by the Inithri, but rather the relationship between gods and mortals. To me, Erikson's gods are mostly complex in a political sense (i.e. there's a lot of players and a lot of shit going down between them), with the only deeper theme of religion in Erikson which I find moving being the way in which worshippers shape and control their religions.
I think both authors are very clearly self-aware of the genres they are writing in and use it to good effect; both have done an excellent job of making it their own. (like the excellent point Murrin made about the fusion of balrog, gandalf and gollum)
That the Outside does not determine whatever is inside.
yeah if i remember correctly malik you said you are a better writer than erikson!!