[H]

I extremely like how well-thought-out this argument is, considering proposed parallels. But I see problems with it. First of all, we are led to believe that Kellhus doesn't pursue the Logos anymore. He poses that he abandoned it for the pursuit of the subjective, the divine and its domain, the Outside.

The second problem I see is one of the most important morals of the story, the one that holds Kellhus, with all his gifts, as still very much fallible. Him "sparing" Kelmomas is portrayed as a mistake, as something he didn't - in all likelihood couldn't - foresee leading to the later catastrophic failure of the Great Ordeal.

Well, Kellhus might have abandoned the pursuit of the Logos' ultimate goal, that of attaining the Absolute through it, but I don't think he gives up on the fundamental precept of the Logos, that all things could be leveraged via the intellect.  In no way does Kellhus ever, that we can see, consider that a spiritual answer could help him.  I think this is part of what Bakker is getting at, how the Dûnyain are so powerful intellectually and so weak spiritually.  Consider what we finally hear from Kellhus himself:

“You were delivered to the machinations of the Tekne. And now you see it as the consummation of Dûnyain principles, the truth from which your very sinew and intellect are hewn. You think our error was to confuse the Logos with the movements of our souls, when in sooth it belongs to the machinery of the World. Your revelation was to understand that Logos was nothing but Cause as concealed by the darkness that comes before. You saw that reason itself was but another machine glimpsed in the blackness, a machine of machines.”
[...]
“You realized the Mission was not to master Cause via Logos, but to master Cause via Cause, to endlessly refashion the Near to consume and incorporate the Far.”
[...]
“But where you were delivered to the Tekne, I was brought to the Gnosis.”
[...]
“I seized temporal power, usurped the Three Seas as you have usurped Golgotterath. But where you saw antithesis in your damnation, a goad to resume the ancient Inchoroi design, I saw fathomless power.”

What I think Kellhus is saying, is that they both realized the the Logos, as a mission, has limits.  That limit is essentially the limit of the soul.  So, where the Mutilated saw an impasse at Damnation, Kellhus instead doubles down, and attacks the issue of the Logos' limit via the Logos.  So, Kellhus, here is actually chiding the Mutilated for thinking they had "answered" the issue at hand, thinking that the Tekne could answer the issue, the fact is that the Tekne and the Logos are essentially the same thing.

What Kellhus brags about here is that he, in having gained the Gnosis (and so other metaphysical abilities), is able to leverage something beyond the limit of the Logos.  Interestingly though, I think the Mutilated know this, in part, because it isn't as if they didn't learn sorcery.  But they fail to fully double down, falling into the Inchoroi trap of believing that the Tekne can offer salvation.

Of course, the joke is on both Kellhus and the Mutilated, because there is still more.  Kellhus' plan isn't flawed in that it couldn't work, it's flawed in the fact that he failed to fortify himself spiritually.  In other words, as a failed Abraham, Kellhus recognizes the need for sacrifice, but fails to make the necessary one.  Of course, we want to ask, just as Abraham would have, why is this sacrifice necessary, but that is aside the point.  If we need an answer, the plain one is because little Kel is the No-God, the whole time, so he must die.  But that is beside the main point.

Kellhus doesn't really abandon the Logos, I don't think.  He simply attempts to use intellect to conquer the spiritual, rather than just mastering all terrestrial circumstance.  This is probably what Kellhus intuits (or perhaps knows) in killing Moe the Elder, who, like the Mutilated, cannot fathom the power of the Outside, because he imagines that the world is still a closed system.  However, for all Kellhus' strong intellect he cannot make up for his spiritual deficiency though, in the same way that all the force in the world on the X-axis cannot counteract a force on the Y-axis.  And in courting Hell, he opens himself to Ajokli.

[SmilerLoki]

In my argument I mostly refer to this quote:

The Holy Aspect-Emperor did not so much as glance at the gulfs of golden reticulation. “And if the Logos no longer moves me ...” he said, his greasy resemblance at last turning to survey the skin-spies assembled across the margins of the Golden Room. “What is your contingency then?”

It seems to make your interpretation less likely, because the Logos and the Outside are basically synonymous with the Subject and the Object, representing the core dichotomy of the series. So looking beyond the world, into the mysteries of the Gnosis, Kellhus looks to the subjective, the Oustide, abandoning the objective, the Logos. Even the principles of the Dunyain hold that the Logos lies outside the circle of the world only in a formal sense, ontologically still being a part of it. The Outside, on the other hand, violates ontology, at least from the human perspective.

In such circumstances no sacrifice is enough for Kellhus, because he met his inherent limit. And this is, I feel, the point. Your limits shape your perception, what you can see is completely defined by your limits, so transcending them without changing your very nature is impossible. And playing with them is folly.

That's why Bakker's philosophical outlook is so grim. He thinks that humanity is already playing with things beyond its limit (that is, things not present in our ancestral cognitive ecologies, if we use his terminology), which can only lead to catastrophic failure. The ending of TUC in this sense is a cautionary tale. At least that's what I currently think.

[TLEILAXU]

I extremely like how well-thought-out this argument is, considering proposed parallels. But I see problems with it. First of all, we are led to believe that Kellhus doesn't pursue the Logos anymore. He poses that he abandoned it for the pursuit of the subjective, the divine and its domain, the Outside.

The second problem I see is one of the most important morals of the story, the one that holds Kellhus, with all his gifts, as still very much fallible. Him "sparing" Kelmomas is portrayed as a mistake, as something he didn't - in all likelihood couldn't - foresee leading to the later catastrophic failure of the Great Ordeal.

Well, Kellhus might have abandoned the pursuit of the Logos' ultimate goal, that of attaining the Absolute through it, but I don't think he gives up on the fundamental precept of the Logos, that all things could be leveraged via the intellect.  In no way does Kellhus ever, that we can see, consider that a spiritual answer could help him.  I think this is part of what Bakker is getting at, how the Dûnyain are so powerful intellectually and so weak spiritually.  Consider what we finally hear from Kellhus himself:

“You were delivered to the machinations of the Tekne. And now you see it as the consummation of Dûnyain principles, the truth from which your very sinew and intellect are hewn. You think our error was to confuse the Logos with the movements of our souls, when in sooth it belongs to the machinery of the World. Your revelation was to understand that Logos was nothing but Cause as concealed by the darkness that comes before. You saw that reason itself was but another machine glimpsed in the blackness, a machine of machines.”
[...]
“You realized the Mission was not to master Cause via Logos, but to master Cause via Cause, to endlessly refashion the Near to consume and incorporate the Far.”
[...]
“But where you were delivered to the Tekne, I was brought to the Gnosis.”
[...]
“I seized temporal power, usurped the Three Seas as you have usurped Golgotterath. But where you saw antithesis in your damnation, a goad to resume the ancient Inchoroi design, I saw fathomless power.”

What I think Kellhus is saying, is that they both realized the the Logos, as a mission, has limits.  That limit is essentially the limit of the soul.  So, where the Mutilated saw an impasse at Damnation, Kellhus instead doubles down, and attacks the issue of the Logos' limit via the Logos.  So, Kellhus, here is actually chiding the Mutilated for thinking they had "answered" the issue at hand, thinking that the Tekne could answer the issue, the fact is that the Tekne and the Logos are essentially the same thing.

The way I see it, Kellhus acknowledges that circumstances lead them to different paths. He's not invalidating their approach, just confident that he is the one who wanders Conditioned ground.

What Kellhus brags about here is that he, in having gained the Gnosis (and so other metaphysical abilities), is able to leverage something beyond the limit of the Logos.  Interestingly though, I think the Mutilated know this, in part, because it isn't as if they didn't learn sorcery.  But they fail to fully double down, falling into the Inchoroi trap of believing that the Tekne can offer salvation.

Yet the Inchoroi spoke true.

Of course, the joke is on both Kellhus and the Mutilated, because there is still more.  Kellhus' plan isn't flawed in that it couldn't work, it's flawed in the fact that he failed to fortify himself spiritually.  In other words, as a failed Abraham, Kellhus recognizes the need for sacrifice, but fails to make the necessary one.  Of course, we want to ask, just as Abraham would have, why is this sacrifice necessary, but that is aside the point.  If we need an answer, the plain one is because little Kel is the No-God, the whole time, so he must die.  But that is beside the main point.

This sounds like overinterpretation to me. What Bakker is primarily trying to tell with Kellhus is that despite his prodigious gifts, being the most powerful warrior and sorcerer to ever wander the Three Seas, he's blind to the Darkness that Comes Before nonetheless. Hell, he would have failed at the Circumfix were it not for Divine intervention by the one capricious God who intuited a certain absence...

In my argument I mostly refer to this quote:

The Holy Aspect-Emperor did not so much as glance at the gulfs of golden reticulation. “And if the Logos no longer moves me ...” he said, his greasy resemblance at last turning to survey the skin-spies assembled across the margins of the Golden Room. “What is your contingency then?”

It seems to make your interpretation less likely, because the Logos and the Outside are basically synonymous with the Subject and the Object, representing the core dichotomy of the series. So looking beyond the world, into the mysteries of the Gnosis, Kellhus looks to the subjective, the Oustide, abandoning the objective, the Logos. Even the principles of the Dunyain hold that the Logos lies outside the circle of the world only in a formal sense, ontologically still being a part of it. The Outside, on the other hand, violates ontology, at least from the human perspective.

Bakker said as much, i.e. Kellhus going full subject and the Mutilated going full object. Of course, Kellhus' approach coupled with his weak spirituality lead to the possession by a God, and the Mutilated's approach involves shearing off the orthogonal dimension to the World.

[H]

Yet the Inchoroi spoke true.

Oh, no doubt, what the Inchoroi say is true.  And what the Consult say is also true.  That doesn't mean it isn't also a trap.

This sounds like overinterpretation to me. What Bakker is primarily trying to tell with Kellhus is that despite his prodigious gifts, being the most powerful warrior and sorcerer to ever wander the Three Seas, he's blind to the Darkness that Comes Before nonetheless. Hell, he would have failed at the Circumfix were it not for Divine intervention by the one capricious God who intuited a certain absence...

Fair enough, yet I can't imagine that the Abraham-Angeshraël and so then the Angeshraël-Kellhus parallel is an accident or something completely unimportant.  What you say though, is true, but it speaks to my overall point, that for all Kellhus' intellect, he is still spiritually bankrupt.  And that's the whole crux of the issue with the Logos, i.e. the intellect, that regardless of whether or not Kellhus and the Multilated walk it's formal path, or simply leverage it's tenants, the fact remains that formal reason is still the instrument of conquest for Kellhus, just, as you say, directed toward the Subject rather than the Object.  So, what we really have is Kellhus attempting to redirect the focus of reason, rather than an abandonment of it all together.  So, where Kellhus chides the Mutilated about how he is now outside the Logos, it seems to me that he only means that he is off the formal plan, not that he has abandoned instrumental reason.

I know you dislike the idea of the Abrahamic parallel, but it works on the Circumfix example as well.  Kellhus really does have a break-down, a real experience of doubt through the sacrifice of Serwë.  It is her death, that takes Kellhus to that lowest point, that enables him to come through it.  In other words, the sacrifice works.  We can consider it to have worked in the sense of exacting a change in Kellhus himself, or in the sense of courting the correct god, but in either one, the idea is that the sacrifice was sufficient to exact a change.  In TUC, we can then turn that around and ask, "was Kellhus sacrifice here sufficient?"  And since Kellhus fails, the answer is presumably yes.  Why?  Because Kellhus was not willing to make the sacrifice that was necessary.  He had to kill little Kel and lose Esmenet and he simply was not willing.  And he payed for that with his life, along with condemning the world to suffer the No-God's rise.  Why did this happen?  Because Kellhus believed that his intellect, the Logos (formal or not) was sufficient, that it could conquer the Subject and enslave it and he was wrong.

We could also, since you find the Abrahamic parallel wanting, fashion it as Kellhus' failure "to go full Subjective" and in doing so, court things he could not control (Ajokli, for example).  Kellhus, even in his most "Subjective mode" is still a creature of the Logos, just not directed at it's usual Objective target.  And that is kind of the whole point, that the use of rational thinking can't take the place of actual faith and piety.  All of Kellhus' rationality is not useful when what he needed to do was make the ultimate sacrifice, i.e. the one he was least willing to give.

It's not an accident that Bakker put the Abrahamic parallels in the book though.  He has literally said he has two books with him in every writing session, the Bible being one and Blood Meridian the other.  No way these things are merely just coincidence.

[TLEILAXU]

I know you dislike the idea of the Abrahamic parallel, but it works on the Circumfix example as well.  Kellhus really does have a break-down, a real experience of doubt through the sacrifice of Serwë.  It is her death, that takes Kellhus to that lowest point, that enables him to come through it.  In other words, the sacrifice works.  We can consider it to have worked in the sense of exacting a change in Kellhus himself, or in the sense of courting the correct god, but in either one, the idea is that the sacrifice was sufficient to exact a change.  In TUC, we can then turn that around and ask, "was Kellhus sacrifice here sufficient?"  And since Kellhus fails, the answer is presumably yes.  Why?  Because Kellhus was not willing to make the sacrifice that was necessary.  He had to kill little Kel and lose Esmenet and he simply was not willing.  And he payed for that with his life, along with condemning the world to suffer the No-God's rise.  Why did this happen?  Because Kellhus believed that his intellect, the Logos (formal or not) was sufficient, that it could conquer the Subject and enslave it and he was wrong.

I think it's better to view it as a trial that broke him and let the Outside seep in, as part of the machinations of the one God too hungry...
Regarding Kelmomas, Bakker again makes a point out of the blind spot, but here it's both Gods and humans. Rather than seeing it as an Abrahamic parallel with Kellhus failing to make a sacrifice, I view it as causality itself manifesting in the No-God.

[H]

I think it's better to view it as a trial that broke him and let the Outside seep in, as part of the machinations of the one God too hungry...
Regarding Kelmomas, Bakker again makes a point out of the blind spot, but here it's both Gods and humans. Rather than seeing it as an Abrahamic parallel with Kellhus failing to make a sacrifice, I view it as causality itself manifesting in the No-God.

Yet, if it is meaningless, why include the parallel?  I'm not trying to make the case that an Abrahamic parallel encapsulates the whole meaning of the series, but it does give us an extra dimension to understand why Kellhus ultimately fails.  The fact that Kellhus is blind to himself, explains only so much and really only offers a reasonable explanation to the question of how Ajokli was able to take him over.  The answer to why Kellhus cannot sacrifice little Kel is a good bit deeper than that.

[SuJuroit]

I'm not sure I understand your argument that Kellhus can't sacrifice lil Kel.  It seemed to me that Kellhus didn't see a need to sacrifice him, in that he didn't believe doing so was particularly important one way or another.  Are you arguing that if Kellhus was convinced that he needed to end lil Kel in order to accomplish his goals, he wouldn't have done it?

[H]

I'm not sure I understand your argument that Kellhus can't sacrifice lil Kel.  It seemed to me that Kellhus didn't see a need to sacrifice him, in that he didn't believe doing so was particularly important one way or another.  Are you arguing that if Kellhus was convinced that he needed to end lil Kel in order to accomplish his goals, he wouldn't have done it?

Not exactly, the point is more that he needed to, but doesn't.  He couldn't/wouldn't know that this is a must, but this is part of the Abrahamic parallel.  The fact that he doesn't understand that he needs to actually goes back to Bakker's point of Kellhus' "spiritual blindness."

The overarching theme here is that Kellhus falls prey to Ajokli because he is spiritually weak and for all the intellect he has, still blind to himself.  Kellhus dies because he fails to make the appropriate sacrifice of little Kel, probably mostly because, as you say, he doesn't deem it necessary.  Whether that is because he thinks it doesn't matter, he doesn't want to, he doesn't care, or he thinks it is harmless is all kind of besides the point.  The main thrust here of the Abrahamic parallel is that the No-God's return could have been prevented, if Kellhus kills little Kel.  Kellhus does not make that sacrifice, even dies on it's account and the No-God ascends.

The question of "could Kellhus have done it if he knew how important it was" is, in a way, a different matter.  I'm not sure what the answer there is, because part of Kellhus' deficiency is in a failure to recognize that his intellect was not sufficient.  There is not intellectual reason to kill little Kel or just let him languish.  But there was a spiritual, or you could say a moral, one.  I think the answer there is, yes, if little Kel's death was a matter of logic, Kellhus would have solved it.  But the fact of it was that it was not.  The No-God's rise was not a matter of logical deduction, rather, that of a moral and spiritual failure.

[SmilerLoki]

The problem is, one of the main points of Abraham's situation was that he knew what he needed to do. He had a specific task given to him by God, there was nothing else, no other, bigger matters. In the case of Kellhus there is everything else, and Kelmomas is inconsequential in comparison.

[H]

The problem is, one of the main points of Abraham's situation was that he knew what he needed to do. He had a specific task given to him by God, there was nothing else, no other, bigger matters. In the case of Kellhus there is everything else, and Kelmomas is inconsequential in comparison.

There is no doubt that Kellhus' situation and that of Abraham are different.  But the parallel between Angeshraël and Abraham, although somewhat inverted, are still present and no doubt somewhat meaningful.  Then, filtered down further, the parallels between Angeshraël and Kellhus are also clearly present.

The idea isn't that Kellhus and Abraham are identical, or that their situations are exactly representative of the other's.  Even in the more clear cut Angeshraël-Abraham line, there are key inversions, but the general premise that a sacrifice needs to be made, is present and possibly is a key to the whole endeavor.  Note, of course, how doubtful it is that Angeshraël encountered any god at all, given the edited and forged Tusk and the convenience, from an Inchoroi perspective, of the whole migration into Eärwa.  This already puts Angeshraël in a different, but yet still strikingly similar position to Abraham.  Except the call for the sacrifice comes not from God (or the gods) but plausibly from himself.  Even if we assume that the need to sacrifice Oresh came from the gods, Angeshraël's stated intention is to sway men, not gods.  So, where Abraham is called by God to do the unthinkable, Angeshraël is called by himself to do the unthinkable.  To continue the inverted-Abraham line though, it is the youngest, not the oldest, and the sacrifice has a clear intention, where God's demand of Abraham has no clear reason why.

The further inversion from Angeshraël to Kellhus points to what Bakker plainly states as Kellhus' failure, which is his over-reliance upon his intellect.  The fact that he could not know, intellectually, that little Kel's death was necessary, is pretty much the point.  Kellhus is unable, for whatever reason you want, to make the correct call.  Again, the idea isn't that this is a perfect Abrahamic image, rather, that that Kellhus fails to even entertain the idea of taking on the Abrahamic role.  He fails to even consider that he is in an Abrahamic position.  And that failure costs him his life and leads directly to the No-God ascending.

This also leads directly into the "problem" of the Golden Room being a "crash space," a sort of singularity, from which Kellhus could not see beyond.  All of Kellhus rational, logical, intellectual designs end up failing there, because it does not present a rational problem, but a moral, or spiritual one.  And so Kellhus' failure to make the "correct" spiritual decision prior costs him dearly there.

[SmilerLoki]

He fails to even consider that he is in an Abrahamic position.

And this is the crux of the problem here. He doesn't know, at all, that a sacrifice is needed. More specifically, he doesn't know he needs to sacrifice Kelmomas. There is no way of knowing that for Kellhus, no reasoning he can (or did) come up with. This is why his situation is significantly different from that of Angeshraël, to the point of having only a passing similarity.

Additionally, there is the fact that Kellhus easily sacrifices his children if it serves his purpose. Take, for example, the Ishterebinth matter.

All of Kellhus rational, logical, intellectual designs end up failing there, because it does not present a rational problem, but a moral, or spiritual one.

I would also not equalize the moral and spiritual contexts in Earwa.

[H]

And this is the crux of the problem here. He doesn't know, at all, that a sacrifice is needed. More specifically, he doesn't know he needs to sacrifice Kelmomas. There is no way of knowing that for Kellhus, no reasoning he can (or did) come up with. This is why his situation is significantly different from that of Angeshraël, to the point of having only a passing similarity.

Additionally, there is the fact that Kellhus easily sacrifices his children if it serves his purpose. Take, for example, the Ishterebinth matter.

Right, the actual "call from God" is absent in both Bakker's inversion of Angeshraël and further inversion of that into Kellhus.  Angeshraël most probably has no actual communication with the gods.  Yet, he does make the "proper sacrifice."  So, in the manner that we are presented with prophets in Eärwa, Angeshraël successfully delivers the word of man to the gods, not the reverse.  Again, the point I am making is that it is a failing on Kellhus' part to not understand the situation he was in.  At the end of the day, failing to recognize the need for a sacrifice and failing to make the actual sacrifice are different, but still essentially the same in the end.

It also speaks to Kellhus' desire to not harm Esmenet.  Angeshraël does sacrifice Oresh, and in doing so most probably does harm to the original Esmenet.  So, that is another sacrifice that Angeshraël makes that Kellhus is not willing to do.  Again, the issue of him knowing that is needed, or not, isn't really all that important, because we know how it ends up when he doesn't make the sacrifice.

Bakker doesn't use a direct port of the story of Abraham, but he does use it's framework to evoke a parallel to the issue of the necessity of sacrifice.

I agree though, he is more than willing to send his children out to die, but not willing to kill them himself.  Consider also Inrilatas, as it was.  Logically this makes little difference, but functionally it has big consequences.

All of Kellhus rational, logical, intellectual designs end up failing there, because it does not present a rational problem, but a moral, or spiritual one.

I would also not equalize the moral and spiritual contexts in Earwa.[/quote]

Not an attempt to equalize them, just separate them from the former category of the rational and intellectual.

[SmilerLoki]

So, in the manner that we are presented with prophets in Eärwa, Angeshraël successfully delivers the word of man to the gods, not the reverse.

This is not the first time I see you making this point, but it doesn't seem to be correct. When Kellhus talks about bringing the word of Men to the Gods he specifically calls himself an inverse prophet, even going as far as to state that a normal prophet does exactly the opposite, that is, brings the word of the Gods to Men. There is no indication whatsoever that other prophets do what Kellhus did, on the contrary, he distinguishes himself from them by using a different term, "inverse prophet".

Again, the point I am making is that it is a failing on Kellhus' part to not understand the situation he was in.

Yes, that is most certainly the case the way I understand that, but you go further here. You make it conditional on the need of sacrifice instead of just an intellectual failure, and I feel it's diminishing, if not overturning, the entire point.

Not an attempt to equalize them, just separate them from the former category of the rational and intellectual.

Ah! Got it.

[H]

So, in the manner that we are presented with prophets in Eärwa, Angeshraël successfully delivers the word of man to the gods, not the reverse.

This is not the first time I see you making this point, but it doesn't seem to be correct. When Kellhus talks about bringing the word of Men to the Gods he specifically calls himself an inverse prophet, even going as far as to state that a normal prophet does exactly the opposite, that is, brings the word of the Gods to Men. There is no indication whatsoever that other prophets do what Kellhus did, on the contrary, he distinguishes himself from them by using a different term, "inverse prophet".

Hmm, I need to reread that part.  But it does make me wonder if there is anything else in Eärwa.  Since the Solitary God is not actually manifest, what did Fane actually do?  I don't know that the answer is "deliver god's word."  By the same token, did Inri really deliver the god's word?  We hear time and again how his was a reinterpreted the Tusk.  Was he divinely inspired to do so?  Consider me doubtful about that.

Mimara is the sole exception, really.  But she is a different sort of prophet, so that stands to reason, because she delivers the Cubit's judgement, not god's word.

This whole thing is kind of new to my mind though, but I can't help but feel like the fact that Bakker carries to Bible with him at every writing session, the Angeshraël-Abrahamic parallels (or inversion, if you will), the ensuing Kellhus-Angeshraël parallel (or, again, inversion) could simply be incidental.

There is more to this, I am sure, just not capable at the moment to articulate it, but I think it runs all the way back to the Circumfix as well.  A while back Bakker said there was something we were almost all missing.  I think the fact of the Bible's clear influence on the series might be a clue to the Biblical implications of several things that we simply have not explored.

Again, the point I am making is that it is a failing on Kellhus' part to not understand the situation he was in.

Yes, that is most certainly the case the way I understand that, but you go further here. You make it conditional on the need of sacrifice instead of just an intellectual failure, and I feel it's diminishing, if not overturning, the entire point.

I'm not sure I follow, but like I said, this idea is pretty "fresh" in my mind.  The failure of Kellhus is to rely too heavily on logic and intellect and that leads him on the "Shortest Path" but still a failing one.  The need of sacrifice was not a logical step along that way, as far as Kellhus deduced.  Or, if he did, he felt it was a step that could be overcome.  Interestingly enough, Kellhus seeming "breakdown" or crisis on the Circumfix seemed to be due to him sacrificing Serwë.  That brought him through that "sigularity" but perhaps then, his failure to "sacrifice" Esmenet through the death of little Kel is what failed to bring him through the Golden Room...

[stuslayer]

It just occurred to me, reading this thread and all the talk of Biblical connections, and just now it's been mentioned about the Shortest Path of the Dunyain - in the teachings of the Bible, the Shortest Path, or the easiest path is always the wrong one, certain to lead you into damnation. Only by taking the harder, more difficult path, with those difficult choices, can one attempt to reach Heaven. Perhaps this is the parallel here that Bakker thinks we all missed - that the Dunyainic path, the Shortest Path, has always been destined to end with Apocalypse?