Kevin's Watch

The first details are coming out about the next book in Bakker's Second Apocalypse series: the first volume in The Aspect-Emperor will be called The Great Ordeal, and is listed on Amazon for 2008 release.



Synopsis: (Prince of Nothing spoilers)

Spoiler

Some twenty years have passed since the events narrated in The Prince of Nothing. Anasurimbor Kellhus now rules all the Three Seas, the first true Aspect-Emperor in a thousand years. The masses worship him as a living god, though a few, the Orthodox, dare claim he's a walking demon. With Proyas and Saubon as his Exalt-Generals, he leads a holy war called the Great Ordeal deep into the wastes of the Ancient North, intent on destroying Golgotterath and preventing the Second Apocalypse. Esmenet, meanwhile, remains in Momemn, where she struggles not only to rule his vast empire, but their murderous children as well. And Achamian, who lives as a Wizard in embittered exile, undertakes a mad quest to uncover the origins of the Dunyain.

Holy Shit! Sounds great. Man I can't wait!

Yeah, 'specially that 'd**** c*******' bit.

Thought I'd share the links to some great reviews of The Darkness That Comes Before and The Warrior-Prophet.
These really give a good impression of what makes the books so good, and the reviewer even draws some comparisons between the Prince of Nothing and The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. If you're reading this and haven't read Bakker's books yet, maybe reading the review of the first book there will convince you.

In our view, The Warrior Prophet shares a heritage with Donaldson’s The Illearth War in construction. The central part of the middle book of that trilogy contains the march of the warward to meet the hordes of Lord Foul. The comparison fails on some fairly obvious levels: the warward is united and seamlessly, idealistically noble. The Holy War certainly is not. The warward defends its own soil against invaders. The Holy War takes war to the homeland of the Fanim. Yet the trope is the same: an army facing a long, horribly arduous series of battles that will change all of them absolutely. That section of the Illearth War is one of the finest passages in all fantasy literature and certainly represents the absolute pinnacle of Donaldson’s achievements. Bakker’s book has the potential to match that moment of Donaldson’s. Battle after battle—calamity after calamity—the deaths and shifting alliances and depredations make both books a remarkable study.

Inchoatus is an excellent site and I recommend it highly!

Those were some fantastic reviews. Very insightful, informative, and thought-provoking.

I'm very disappointed by the conclusion of The Darkness that Comes Before. I just finished it. Five minutes ago. I'll have more to say tomorrow. But for now, all I can say is: what a bloody mess.

Malik23 wrote:I'm very disappointed by the conclusion of The Darkness that Comes Before. I just finished it. Five minutes ago. I'll have more to say tomorrow. But for now, all I can say is: what a bloody mess.

I'm confused; The Darkness that Comes Before is the first book in the series, right? I'm just about done with it myself. I thought you'd read these books before. Hell, I think I'm reading it because you'd been pimping it for the last 4 months. Whadahey, man?

I think he meant to say The Thousandfold Thought. That's how I felt at the end of it, anyway.

Syl wrote:I think he meant to say The Thousandfold Thought. That's how I felt at the end of it, anyway.

Ok, that makes sense. FWIW, I think the first book is pretty darn good, although after reading through about the first 200 pages, I started over and re-read them so I'd have a better idea of what was going on.

Sorry, I meant to say: The Prince of Nothing, the title of the trilogy itself.


Basically, here's what I didn't like:

Spoiler

The single coolest thing about this series was the fact that Kellhus was a master manipulater, how he turned people's beliefs to his own use. Thus, Bakker was making the point that belief isn't about Truth as much as it is about Use. Kellhus used beliefs to wield people. But by the end, we learn that Kellhus himself believes this crap about being a Prophet!!! ARGGG!@@#! That SUCKS!

Also, I didn't like the actual writing of the "big battle." One sorcerous explosion after another. Smoke, fire, smoke, fire, shouts, explosions, smoke fire. Jesus that got monotonous after a while. I have nothing against depictions of violence. Even mind-numbing violence. I thought the battles in book 2 were some of the best written battles ever. But this was just a mess.

By the end, I realized that I didn't care for any of these character except Achamian. And he gets fucked in the end. There is nothing at all triuphant about this "victory." It's meaningless, pointless. That would be fine if Bakker were still following his plan of having the Holy War be nothing more than a means to Kellhus's ends, but then he betrays everything up to that point by having the Holy War become Kellhus's goal. An empty, bloody, pointless goal.

The meeting of Moenghus was so anti-climactic, I wanted to scream. Listening to them talk, I was starting to get excited about this Trinity of Father, son, and . . . Maithenet. I was getting excited about Moenghus's plan to unit the Fanim and the Inrithi, in order to save the world. I was excited about the realization that Moenghus wasn't something evil, but he actually wanted to save mankind from the coming Apocolypse. But then kellhus sticks a knife in him for no apparent reason. Shit! Oh . . . but he's not dead yet! Cniuar (sp?) still has time to make out with him one last time, and then kill him with a Chorae. Shit, shit, shit.

I just finished book 1, and thought it was great. I wish it was called The Prince of Squat, though.

Glad you liked book 1. And I still stand by all the praise I gave it and book 2. Book three didn't start to bother me until the big finale--the last 100 pages. And specifically, it was the last 30 or so pages that really got under my skin.

It's still well written, and worth reading. I just didn't like the choices Bakker made with regards to Kellhus's character. There were a couple of other directions he could have gone that would have been much better.

And it felt a bit rushed, like he was hurrying to meet his deadline.

The first third is good. The second third is anticipation, which is only made worse by the fact that the final third is disappointment. I would agree with all of your reasons, Malik, but I would add that

Spoiler

I was most disappointed by the fate of Cnaiur. The meanest, most brutal bad-ass in the Three Seas just completely loses it, and not in a good way. He shouldn't have needed, or at least accepted, the help of the Consult. And the way he just completely bought into the illusion, even when he knew it was one...

And following that, Esmenet. Sure, I felt about her the way most here do about Linden, but still... In the end, she knowingly throws Akka away for a lie.

Maybe it's a theme, how everyone either dies or buys into an illusion. Everyone but Akka, who has to live in exile. Maybe, but I still don't like it.

Having read some of Bakker's essays and interviews online, I'd say that view is pretty much correct. Bakker likes to talk about that stuff--memes, the beliefs that society in general buy into and perpetuate, and so on. The Prince of Nothing is, in a sense, about the things that motivate people's thoughts and beliefs, and how it rarely has much to do with reality and fact.
And you're right, it's not exactly the most appealing message to get from the work.

Murrin, I disagree. That message was what I liked about the book. However, he seemed to violate that message when

Spoiler

he has Kellhus--the one who teaches us this lesson--actually believe he is a prophet.

Syl, I wasn't disappointed in Cnaiur. I thought it was consistent that he

Spoiler

bought into the illusion of the Consult-Serwe. His entire life was one of knowingly accepting illusion. Once Moenghus "woke" him from his dogmatic slumber, he continued to try to fit in with his people and carrry on their traditions, even though he knew their traditions were just blind habits. He tried to regain his "innocence," because he didn't like himself after Moenghus showed him that he was gay. The real Serwe was his "proof." Proof that he wasn't gay. He knew that the real Serwe was just an illusion, too, a way to look away from the unattractive truth of himself. He didn't really love her. He obsessed over her as a way to avert his mind from what he didn't like about himself. The Consult-Serwe was just as real, in this regard, as the real Serwe. He really loved Moenghus. But he couldn't accept that love, so he killed him.

Found the following in an interview Bakker did with Inchoatus. It gives some insight regarding Malik's concern regarding Kelhus above:

Questions and Answers with R. Scott Bakker

Bakker wrote:Question: In the chain of causation, there are original causes through volition and random causes resulting from chaos. The Dunyain seem very adept at identifying the paths of random causes. They seem utterly dismissive of regular humans (defectives) being original causes through volition. Nothing seems able to defeat them, however. Not Cnaiur, not inchoroi, not consult, not even non-men. Imagining the Dunyain as a people, it would seem that little surprises them. What do they live for? What is left for them? How do they avoid nihilism?

Answer: It would be more accurate to say there are random causes confused with volition and will, and random causes not so confused.

Are we really agents? Do we continually inject something new into the tide of events that encompass us? Or are we simply organs of those events, conduits that mediate greater forces. Are we self-moving souls, or are we simply souls moved. There's no doubt that we think-more, we feel-ourselves to be the former. There's little doubt that this is simply a trick of our limited perspective, of the fact that our brains are incapable of seeing themselves as such (for pretty obvious structural and evolutionary reasons). Our thoughts simply 'come to us' because our brains cannot track the neural processing that makes thought possible.

Kellhus exploits this situation to great effect: since the Inrithi think themselves self-moving, it's easy for him to insert himself behind the veil, to occupy the darkness that comes before, and to manipulate them. But of course Kellhus, despite his terrifying skills and intellect, is ultimately as much 'moved' as any of the worldborn. He's no more a self-moving soul than anyone else. At best, you could call him a 'moved mover.'

It seems to add a measure of perspective, does it not?

So Bakker doesn't believe in free will? Okay, fine. Well, not fine. I completely disagree. Just because humans are moved by causes, doesn't mean that they can't choose which causes move them. And this choosing itself is removed from that cause.

For instance, I can't help it that I like ice cream. I'm born that way. It's not an instance of free will. But I can choose to not eat ice cream. In that case, my inborn tendency to like ice cream isn't causing my action. I made a choice. Sure, one might say that this choice comes from my desire to stay fit and trim--a desire which is born into me by my genetic predisposition to avoid unhealthy behavior. Or to be sexy and procreate. However, even though both of these opposing "causes" are born into me, doesn't mean that I can't choose which one to follow. The fact that sometimes I choose one over the other proves that there is another factor--which I call "free will"--that goes beyond either. Otherwise, why wouldn't one always overpower the other? How can genetic predispositions become stronger or weaker? My genes certainly don't change.

I make choices. And so does Kellhus. My problem isn't merely that Kellhus is ultimately, paradoxically forced to choose between motivations beyond his control, but that he chooses this particular motivation to follow. By the end,

Spoiler

he believes in an irrational figment. He believes in his own lie. He allows himself to be tricked by a fiction he created himself. Rather than thinking that perhaps he IS going crazy (as Moenghus suggests), he believes the halos on his hands are real signs of divinity.

Now, unless Bakker is saying that God is real, and that all the Inrithi were justified in their blind worship, I don't see how this makes sense. But if Bakker IS saying that, then everything else he said doesn't make sense. It would mean all along, the Inrithi weren't blindly following a tradition--the tradition was real. They had the truth all along. And therefore their worship was rational and justified.

Another point: if Kellhus is just a limited as the rest of us, then what explains his apparent difference? Sure, maybe there's a continuum of willpower, one that diminishes like a differential in calculus, approaching--but never quite reaching--complete ultimate freedom. But this still doesn't explain how

Spoiler

the most enlightened person in the series can become so misguided--unless, that is, Bakker is saying God is real and Kellhus really is his prophet. If so, I find that disappointing.

However, I must add that I do like the fact that even Kellhus has his limits and no person can fully escape the paradoxical nature of being human. I'll give Bakker credit for that sophisticated position.

crap. why can't i ignore spoilers? why did i buy the last book? no wonder i haven't read it yet. crap.

i'll be going back to erikson now.

anybody wanna buy my bakker books?

You joking, Luci? The books are well worth reading. Just because I question the choices the author made doesn't mean that they're not worth it.

After reading the entire interview, I realize why I have such a problem with Bakker: a fundamental difference in our conceptions and conclusions about free will.

He's definitely a smart man. However, lots of smart men have gotten so carried away with tearing down all the illusions humans create around them, that they don't know where to stop, and they tend to conclude that everything is an illusion--the self, will, some (like Daniel C. Dennett) have even concluded that consciousness itself it an illusion. (Functionalists--you gotta' love 'em. )

But, like I said, he's a smart guy. Perhaps the his conceptual pendulums will swing back the other way in his later books. I've found that by deeply, authentically facing paradox, one ends up swinging back and forth with wider and wider oscillations--oscillations which encompass larger and larger swaths of reality. (Just the opposite of physical pendulums ).