[TLEILAXU]

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?

Making a pact doesn't exclude Ajokli tricking him.

[MSJ]

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.

Sorry, attack is the wrong word. I don't get where your claim of me demanding quotes and such comes from. Or, that I would do so more than anyone else. I know I cant remember the last time I've demanded a quote. Maybe, your right and its just something I'm blind to. Anyways, I wasn't just walking away from the demand for a quote. I tried my best to find where that was said. Like I said, I all I can find is in the AMA its highly inferred. A LOT of people seem to take it as fact, but damn if you're not right, I can't find where he actually says it outright. Ive been scouring threads, so I'm just not walking away from it...

[MSJ]

Making a pact doesn't exclude Ajokli tricking him.

Nor Kellhus tricking Ajokli. Because, from the text, Ajokli seems to be the one who's duped.

[TLEILAXU]

Making a pact doesn't exclude Ajokli tricking him.

Nor Kellhus tricking Ajokli. Because, from the text, Ajokli seems to be the one who's duped.

That goes against what Bakker said in the AMA.

[MSJ]

That goes against what Bakker said in the AMA.

A lot of what Bakker say in various pla we goes against the text. My point is, if Kellhus didn't dupe Ajokli, then why did Ajokli inhabit Cnaüir and scream "Where are you Anasurimbor?". Regardless, of what Bakker says, that seems to suggest Ajokli was duped by Kellhus and didn't get his soul.

[Wilshire]

if Kellhus didn't dupe Ajokli, then why did Ajokli inhabit Cnaüir and scream "Where are you Anasurimbor?". Regardless, of what Bakker says, that seems to suggest Ajokli was duped by Kellhus and didn't get his soul.

Doesn't have to be one or the other.
Kellhus made pacts with the pit - made deals with ciphrang, gods, whoever.
Those deals turned out to be with Ajokli (either known or unknown by Kellhus, doesn't matter), who slowly started controlling more and more of Kellhus' action the closer they got to golgotterath.

Aside, Kellhus has contingency plans. Either because knowing that making deals with entities form the Outside might not go well, or because having an answer to 'death' is just generally a good idea in his line of work, it again doesn't really matter.

I suspect Kellhus didn't know, or expect, that Ajokli was the one clouding his own actions, and didn't expect to lose full control in the Golden Room.

[H]

A lot of what Bakker say in various pla we goes against the text. My point is, if Kellhus didn't dupe Ajokli, then why did Ajokli inhabit Cnaüir and scream "Where are you Anasurimbor?". Regardless, of what Bakker says, that seems to suggest Ajokli was duped by Kellhus and didn't get his soul.

Well, it doesn't have to be the case that Kellhus actively duped him.  Ajokli could have simply just figured Kellhus soul would be his post-possession.  When that didn't happen, probably because Kellhus had his soul tethered to something or other, Ajokli simply was pissed things didn't go his way.  Kellhus, not really knowing how deep the Ajokli-taint ran, probably didn't actively plan to dupe him, rather just stave off damnation in the event things went bad, like Wilshire said.

[MSJ]

Well, it doesn't have to be the case that Kellhus actively duped him.  Ajokli could have simply just figured Kellhus soul would be his post-possession.  When that didn't happen, probably because Kellhus had his soul tethered to something or other, Ajokli simply was pissed things didn't go his way.  Kellhus, not really knowing how deep the Ajokli-taint ran, probably didn't actively plan to dupe him, rather just stave off damnation in the event things went bad, like Wilshire said.

Why is one more likely than the other? In was simply pointing out that Ajokli didn't get what he wanted neither. We don't know if there was a pact. We don't know anything. What makes my statement or the other anymore plausible?

[H]

Well, it doesn't have to be the case that Kellhus actively duped him.  Ajokli could have simply just figured Kellhus soul would be his post-possession.  When that didn't happen, probably because Kellhus had his soul tethered to something or other, Ajokli simply was pissed things didn't go his way.  Kellhus, not really knowing how deep the Ajokli-taint ran, probably didn't actively plan to dupe him, rather just stave off damnation in the event things went bad, like Wilshire said.

Why is one more likely than the other? In was simply pointing out that Ajokli didn't get what he wanted neither. We don't know if there was a pact. We don't know anything. What makes my statement or the other anymore plausible?

Well, considering what Bakker said, that Kellhus didn't actually know about the level of Ajokli-possession that was taking place, it would seem improbable that he was actively planning against just such a thing.  Not impossible, but just not very likely.  Given that, he was probably planning against just a plain-old-fashion death he might face though, which just so happened to be very useful in what actually did happen.

[TLEILAXU]

Well, it doesn't have to be the case that Kellhus actively duped him.  Ajokli could have simply just figured Kellhus soul would be his post-possession.  When that didn't happen, probably because Kellhus had his soul tethered to something or other, Ajokli simply was pissed things didn't go his way.  Kellhus, not really knowing how deep the Ajokli-taint ran, probably didn't actively plan to dupe him, rather just stave off damnation in the event things went bad, like Wilshire said.

Why is one more likely than the other? In was simply pointing out that Ajokli didn't get what he wanted neither. We don't know if there was a pact. We don't know anything. What makes my statement or the other anymore plausible?

The reason Ajokli didn't get what he wanted is because the No-God short-circuited him.

[Wilshire]

Its all pretty repetitive. Kellhus's plan failed because he wasn't all powerful and actually missed very important things. That thing was Ajokli in some manner. Ajokli, in his turn, didn't execute his plan because he missed something. That thing was probably Kelmomas/No-God.

The readers are primed to see things as omnipotent by Bakker, and then he tears them down without ceremony.

[MSJ]

Wilshire, did Bakker say anywhere that there was no pact in definitive terms? What you say makes that assumption, the AMA makes it sound like there was no deal. But, has Bakker ever said it?

[Wilshire]

Uh, not that i recall, but I've got a poor memory. Even if he did Bakker's post-text words are confusing at best, especially in this past year, so its easy to misinterpret even a handful of words.

I should probably make a whole thread on contextualizing Bakker's comments. In short, I suspect his comments are akin to Akka's dreams. Not only what he says should be taken into account, but also the when he made the comment (what was happening publication wise, personal life, etc.), and perhaps most importantly where they happened at (here, reddit, interview, etc.). All these things, and more, influence what they might mean.

But I really wasn't recalling, one way or the other, Bakker's comments. Just pointing out what I see as a major story trope.
I don't think its up for debate that Kellhus was influence by some darkness he didn't know about. It seems pretty clear to me that this darkness was Ajokli, since I don't see any other entity as making sense from a plot/story/worldbuilding standpoint. Other arguments can be made of course, I just personally don't find them compelling.

[MSJ]

No, no, no. I have no qualms with your assessment. Its just Rots called me out for saying there was no pact. The "quote fiasco" I've come to call it...

From the text, I think their was a pact, and that's what we see in TGO going down in the Head on a pole scene. So, that's why I tend to ignore Bakker's comments. Textually a pact makes sense, unless, those scenes from TGO are as the Reddit posted says, post Kellhus salting.

[MSJ]

But I really wasn't recalling, one way or the other, Bakker's comments. Just pointing out what I see as a major story trope.
I don't think its up for debate that Kellhus was influence by some darkness he didn't know about. It seems pretty clear to me that this darkness was Ajokli, since I don't see any other entity as making sense from a plot/story/worldbuilding standpoint. Other arguments can be made of course, I just personally don't find them compelling.

Oh I agree. Its just from the dialogue in the Golden Room, you can take it that there was a pact. I have no doubt Ajokli was the one influencing him. He even says that he doesn't trust the voices, which lends itself to Kellhus having contingencies in place.

Not only does Bakker's comments contradict the text, the text does the same. Very hard to parse anything about who knew what and who planned for what, you know?