[Bolivar]

None of it makes a lot of sense to me. The book refers to these jet black globules obscuring Kellhus but Malowebi can see Kellhus' features, expressions, and lips moving. It's also strange to me that Kellhus and Cnauir continue talking like their usual selves, in their own distinct manner and vocabulary, even as possession is taking place. Maybe the part about four brothers as four horns goring the world as a fruit and reaping the anguish they sow sounds like Ajokli, I guess. To top it all off, you have Kellhus saying "I have struck treaties with the Pit" and Bakker saying "Kellhus has not struck treaties with the pit."

I think that's part of my frustration, nothing seems consequential or cohesive anymore, it just kinda is because, well, fuck it.

[MSJ]

"I have struck treaties with the Pit" and Bakker saying "Kellhus has not struck treaties with the pit."

Amen. And reading that, to me, I think thats Kellhus speaking not Ajokli. Because right before that he talks about mastering the Daimos and plumbing the depths of hell.

And, that sir blows my mind when Bakker says no treaties were struck and he doesn't see how people got that. Really I wish Bakker wouldn't do Q&A's and AMA's for thus very reason. He gets himself in tangled messes. Its like he's trying to play cute or something. He has dialogue say treaties were struck, but when asked, no, no treaties struck. "How in the fuck did you dimwitted, weak readers not understand that?". Sorry, he has always been very frustrating to me when answering questions.

[MSJ]

I think that's part of my frustration, nothing seems consequential or cohesive anymore, it just kinda is because, well, fuck it.

I got the feeling when reading the GR scene and the dialogue, that Bakker didn't know how to make it plausible. It is kinda dues ex machine, in a way. The dialogue between the Mutilated is great, and Shae is the Mutilated that's the boat we missed. Its a a lot clearer to me when I reread it. His Ajokli execution, in my eyes, was done very poorly. Some of the poorest writing of the series to be honest.

Subsumed: include or absorb (something) in something else.

Shae was absorbed into the Mutilated. And what's funny here is the dialogue between Kellhus and the Mutilated was some of the best writing in the book. A stark contrast to his Ajokli reveal. Poorly done.

[MSJ]

There's nothing wrong with globules.

A- fucking - men!

An awesome word, packed full of meaning, it almost has Akimbo beating out.

[TLEILAXU]

Where exactly did Bakker say that Kellhus struck no deals with the pit?

There's nothing wrong with globules.

A- fucking - men!

An awesome word, packed full of meaning, it almost has Akimbo beating out.

Also, what could you even use instead? "High viscosity liquid droplets" ?

[MSJ]

AMA on Reddit

[TLEILAXU]

AMA on Reddit

Give me an exact quote ifi you don't mind, I can't find it.

[Madness]

To top it all off, you have Kellhus saying "I have struck treaties with the Pit" and Bakker saying "Kellhus has not struck treaties with the pit."

"I have struck treaties with the Pit" and Bakker saying "Kellhus has not struck treaties with the pit."

...

 He has dialogue say treaties were struck, but when asked, no, no treaties struck. "How in the fuck did you dimwitted, weak readers not understand that?". Sorry, he has always been very frustrating to me when answering questions.

Lol, I'm probably just repeating Past Madness but I find it infinitely more interesting to attribute that dialogue to Ajokli. It resolves this apparent readerly dissonance and yields more dramatic implications regarding Ajokli and its agency in the Outside and in Earwa.

Shae is the Mutilated that's the boat we missed.

While Somnambulist's argument about the Cants of Compulsion sways me, we don't know for sure that that's what we missed about Shauriatas. It's entirely reader invention based on Bakker's two very vague responses.

[MSJ]

Give me an exact quote ifi you don't mind, I can't find it.

I looked through AMA ad Q&A here and can't find where he says explicitly that there was no deal struck. Maybe its in the Westeros Q&A, you'll have to look through that as I don't venture to that negative space anymore.

It is highly inferred in both the AMA and Q&A. He says that Kellhus wasn't even aware of Ajokli's presence. That slowly Ajokli took over more and more until the GR. So, that implies in and of itself no pact. If there was a pact, Kellhus would surely know of Ajokli's coming possession. Bakker says this is not the case, several times.

[MSJ]

Lol, I'm probably just repeating Past Madness but I find it infinitely more interesting to attribute that dialogue to Ajokli.

Why? I'd love to hear your reasoning on that. But, that's not what the writing shows. We have dialogue coming from Kellhus that is surely Kellhus. Its the way I read it however. But, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

[Madness]

Lol, I'm probably just repeating Past Madness but I find it infinitely more interesting to attribute that dialogue to Ajokli.

Why? I'd love to hear your reasoning on that. But, that's not what the writing shows. We have dialogue coming from Kellhus that is surely Kellhus. Its the way I read it however. But, I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Well, our past couple posts, including my yielding, were simply pinpointing when Malowebi sees the "Globules." If you go back through the thread, I attribute all dialogue by Kellhus to Ajokli after he crosses the Threshold. It's late and I'm doing a night lecture online so I'd rather not butcher or contradict my previous thoughts on the matter.

[SmilerLoki]

Give me an exact quote ifi you don't mind, I can't find it.

It is highly inferred in both the AMA and Q&A. He says that Kellhus wasn't even aware of Ajokli's presence. That slowly Ajokli took over more and more until the GR. So, that implies in and of itself no pact.

I also don't remember Bakker outright saying that Kellhus struck no deals with the Outside, but I do remember this.

If there was a pact, Kellhus would surely know of Ajokli's coming possession. Bakker says this is not the case, several times.

I don't feel it's that necessary for Kellhus to know that Ajokli is essentially double-crossing him in an unforeseen way. Kellhus overestimated his own spiritual integrity, which Bakker specifically notes as a weakness of the Dunyain as a whole.

[Rots]

Give me an exact quote ifi you don't mind, I can't find it.

I looked through AMA ad Q&A here and can't find where he says explicitly that there was no deal struck. Maybe its in the Westeros Q&A, you'll have to look through that as I don't venture to that negative space anymore.

It is highly inferred in both the AMA and Q&A. He says that Kellhus wasn't even aware of Ajokli's presence. That slowly Ajokli took over more and more until the GR. So, that implies in and of itself no pact. If there was a pact, Kellhus would surely know of Ajokli's coming possession. Bakker says this is not the case, several times.

Just wanted to mention, MSJ, that you seem to be the single greatest source of "pic, or it didnt happen" with regards to asking others to quote textual evidence for X or Y take on the books and then you blithely state that something that is of great important is highly inferred and then just walk away like thats cool. I have looked through the AMA and googled and whatnot and i havent found where RSB states what you says is highly inferred. I am not saying you and others are wrong but for such an important thing id like to see a quote.

RSB is his own worst enemy and frankly id rather he not show up at all in these forums (wish mostly granted) and not do any AMAs cause his answers often just piss me off. I wont say he doesnt respect his readers but there is something there, imo, that doesnt sit right w/me. Anyway, ill go back to mostly lurking but i just had to login and comment on this because it made me laugh.

And for the record as a general comment on this topic i am of the opinion that its totally Kellhus saying hte line about striking treaties w/the Pit, not Ajokli. Ajokli is truly in control and in possession of Kellhus once that giant, awesome gout of flame explodes out of the Kellhus's head. I love that part.

[MSJ]

Just wanted to mention, MSJ, that you seem to be the single greatest source of "pic, or it didnt happen" with regards to asking others to quote textual evidence for X or Y take on the books and then you blithely state that something that is of great important is highly inferred and then just walk away like thats cool. I have looked through the AMA and googled and whatnot and i havent found where RSB states what you says is highly inferred. I am not saying you and others are wrong but for such an important thing id like to see a quote.

Umm, Rots, Tleilaxu asked me to find him a quote..so I have no idea why you're attacking me. I think as a long time member, others will tell you I am open to a litany of theories. So you climbing up the wrong tree bud.

ETA: and when i put forth any number of theories they are always backed up with quotes from books or Q&A's.

ETAA: I'm fairly certain he did ssy there was no pact. Why not ask Bolivar who quoted it in the post above mine. I think it might be at Westeros or the Con thread. I was at work at the time and didn't have hours to search. I'm certainly not the only one who remembers that being said. I'm not blithely walking away. Everything I even found points to Bakker saying there was no pact, how is that me just letting it go?

[Rots]

MSJ - i did not "attack" you. Words have meaning you know. I merely pointed out what i saw as some pretty amusing hypocrisy. You consistently demand canonical/textual support for any and all things anyone else supposes and then you throw in a "highly inferred" when you cant find the exact quote you want and move on.

I go way back also, to zombie three seas, maybe you do too, i dont know. I also dont know what difference that makes to anything.

Anyway, that is all.