R. Scott Bakker - The Second Apocalypse

[kater]

I'm firmly in the camp that believes the Consult is luring Kellhus to Golgotterath, where he will be entombed in the No-God's sarcophagus and become the new avatar of the No-God.

So not the crazy, sinister young twin then?

 

[Roland 85]

I don't know. This smells to me of cheap plot-twisting, and Bakker doesn't seem the type.

 

[kirk]

I happen to be exactly half way through the Prince of Nothing trilogy (half finished with book 2), and I'm pretty disappointed with it.

My comments below aren't really a response to the review above, which basically details only the plot, but is instead my reaction to the work.

The story seems fine, but the prose is, at best, clumsy and the characters are largely one dimensional. The author uses such a limited palette and lack of nuance that the whole thing is like a cartoon world (a world heavily cribbed from the era of the Crusades - a world of Holy War that unimaginatively apportions both "scimitars" and "Jihad" to the "bad guys" as well as replicating the various squabbles/self-inflicted disasters experienced by our own world's "good guy" Crusaders).

One bad writing example that especially grates on my ear is the overuse of the word fool (and fools/foolish/foolishness). Characters are always saying "I'm such a fool" or "He's such a fool" - over and over and over again. It's practically the only way that characters express views of each other. Not only is it lazy writing, but it's not realistic (or nuanced). In real life, while it's not too uncommon for me to think "How can such an otherwise smart and reasonable person say such a thing?", I rarely think of that person as an unmitigated fool. And Bakker should know better, being an English Lit kind of a guy. Clown, ass, oaf, berk, simpleton, chump, gull, mooncalf, mug, jackass, idiot, coxcomb, prat, git, muttonhead, etc. - all these, plus many other earthier and/or more imaginative options are available, but I guess Bakker's just a fool writer.

After book 1, I had hoped that someone (his non-existent editor, perhaps?) might have given Bakker a thesaurus, but if so, Bakker didn't get the hint - on page 10 of book 2, Bakker used fool no less than five times in the space of a few lines. I guess it was some sort of statement that he's not fooling around. I've now made something of a game of it - how many pages can Bakker go without using it?

Another example of simplistic, crayon-world writing occurs on page 106-107 of book 2, as follows:



Ah, to be able to use the word 'idealize' - awe-inspiring indeed!! (And as a bonus, farther down on page 107, fool is used three more times!)

As can also be seen from this brief passage, the writing is pedestrian and the neologisms are leaden (the name of one Coithus (a significant character appearing elsewhere) seems to me to have been particularly ill "conceived").

So far as the touted boundry-pushing and inclusion of philosophy that I've read about elsewhere, I don't really see it. There are tons of philosophical fantasies out there - Mikhail Bulgakov, Jorge Borges, Brooks Hansen, Victor Pelevin, Ismail Kadare, Salman Rushdie, Jose Saramago, Flann O'Brien, Angela Carter, Cormac McCarthy, Alasdair Gray, G. K. Chesterton, Haruki Murakami, Robert Irwin, and many, many more.

My problem with Bakker's philosophy so far is that it basically all falls in the oh-my-god-thats-so-obvious category and/or the we-hashed-that-one-out-in-jr-high-school category. None of it is thought provoking. I've had more thought provoking philosophical questions come up in YA work (Le Guin - Earthsea, Langton - Hall Family Chronicles, L'Engle - Wrinkle in Time series, etc.)

For straight-up epic fantasy well seasoned with philosophy, not so many. Still, many well written epic fantasies include in an off-hand fashion more thought-provoking philosophy than does Bakker's laborious dialectics. J. R. R. Tolkein, Guy Gavriel Kay, Jack Vance, M. John Harrison, etc.

There are, however, three previous epic fantasies that are strongly philosophical that tower over the Prince of Nothing trilogy - both in terms of philosophy and especially in terms of the quality of the writing and storytelling: Gene Wolfe's massive Sun sequence, E. R. Eddison's Zimiamvian trilogy (plus his The Worm Ouroboros - possibly my personal favorite fantasy book), and T.H. White's The Once and Future King.

So, as to Bakker's originality, you can either say that, yes, there's nothing new under the sun, or, you could say that Bakker has written something shining and new, except that he did it badly. I guess my take (so far!) is that Prince is a fairly generic sort of story, badly told, that includes some interesting elements, but that it fall far short of its ambition. In the hands of another author, this might have been a compelling read.

This might sound like a harsh indictment, but consider, not all books can be great books. In fact, almost all books perforce fall short of the Platonic ideal (there is only one Pale Fire). In your quest for Great Books, one must wade through many a mire (this being one of them), but even mires can have their occasional charms that sustain you. Most books fail to meet high expectations, and this one is one of them.

I couldn't agree more with what you said here, especially about his writing. My thoughts exactly.

 

[Werthead]

Has there been anything ANYWHERE in the books to suggest the No-God needs avatars?

There's been nothing to suggest it does not.

In fact, for a while I was pondering if Kellhus was the No-God (the only one) and time travel shenanigans would make him play a role in both apocalypses. I ruled that out as it would be a bit weird to bring in time travel at this late stage: Bakker set up the Inchoroi being aliens, the Ark being a spaceship and them at one time using laser weapons back in Book 1. If time travel was possible, I'm sure it would have been established by now.

Kellhus does seem concerned by the notion of souls, existence and so on, and about how people perceive him. That strikes me as intriguingly similar to the No-God's booming proclamation of "WHAT DO YOU SEE?" whenever he/it shows up in the Mandate visions.

 

[Roland 85]

I don't see the connection. Mog-Pharau doesn't know what it is, that much is obvious. It was a creation of the Inchoroi, made to control their armies. It is not a random man-powered sarcophagus. Kellhus is concerned by how people perceive him, because he needs to possess them. I see no hint whatsoever that he has anything to do with either the Consult, or the No-God, especially considering that we actually KNOW his origins as far as two thousand years back.

I don't mind theorizing, but shouldn't we kinda keep with the spirit of the books themselves? I mean, if there is nothing to suggest a certain development, why build theories about it? Ok, so there's nothing to suggest the No-God doesn't need avatars. There is also nothing to suggest that Proyas isn't gay, or that Esmeneth isn't actually a Consult sleeper agent. Or that Achamian works in league with rebels of the old Nansur Empire who strive to return the old regime back.

I mean, there won't be an end to it if we start building theories on stuff that there is nothing to suggest ISN'T true...

 

[Werthead]

I don't mind theorizing, but shouldn't we kinda keep with the spirit of the books themselves? I mean, if there is nothing to suggest a certain development, why build theories about it? Ok, so there's nothing to suggest the No-God doesn't need avatars.

I mean, there won't be an end to it if we start building theories on stuff that there is nothing to suggest ISN'T true...

The things I've been talking about have been discussed for years as viable theories here and on Three-Seas and Westeros, sometimes with Scott Bakker's direct involvement, which is good enough for me.

 

[Roland 85]

And the arguments for the avatar theory are? I mean, apart from "it's never stated that it couldn't be true".

 

[Davis Ashura]

I'll admit up front, I've only read the Darkness that Comes before, but I've kept up on some of the details. The story is interesting to me, but I can't stand the characters or the world.
Four books and a simple question: who is Kelhus? If you can answer the question and describe his personality, I'll be astonished. To me, he seems an empty vessel, other than a need to dominate and rule. To what purpose?
How is this different than the No-God?
If the No-God was a creation of others to allow them to rule their armies, how is that different than Kelhus' own relationship with the Dunyain?
In essence, isn't Kelhus already an 'avatar' of the No-God in the sense that they share a similar background story and are similarly empty vessels?

 

[Roland 85]

No, he isn't. And the second and third books of the series very strongly prove that he is not an empty vessel either. His whole life has been shaped by the Dunyain, but he is much more than a tool, and his purposes - while still vague - are obviously no longer alligned to their search of the Self-Moving Soul.

 

[Davis Ashura]

No, he isn't. And the second and third books of the series very strongly prove that he is not an empty vessel either. His whole life has been shaped by the Dunyain, but he is much more than a tool, and his purposes - while still vague - are obviously no longer alligned to their search of the Self-Moving Soul.

I didn't mean his purpose (s) alone but who he is as a person. Those aren't necessarily the same things. When I say empty vessel, I don't mean he's a dunce (obviously he is brilliant). I'm asking who is this man? He can mimic all things to all people, but what do we as readers know about him, other than that he is a badass and brilliant? What are his likes/dislikes; his motivations; his favorite music. Does he appreciate art and beauty? Those are unanswered questions, and as smart as Scott is, I bet he did it on purpose.
I don't think anyone knows who Kelhus is, and there's a similarity between that emptiness or lack of knowing on the readers part and what the No-God is.
From what you said, the No-God was created as a tool, but he isn't anymore, and I wonder, is he still perfectly aligned with the intents of his creators? Is this a(nother) similarity between the two?

 

[Roland 85]

Actually the No-God remained a tool, for all we know. Or he was destroyed before becoming anything more.

Kellhus doesn't have most of the things you list. He IS a cripple in my view, and not a badass at all. He has been hollowed out of almost everything we consider "human", but books two and three still develop him as some things emerge from deep within. You have to understand that this is not a fully human character.

 

[saintjon]

It never says that the Consult created the No-God either, only that they awakened him. The name suggests it is the antithesis of religion, so is it some kind of supreme scientific thing? Whatever the hell it turns out to be it's pretty damn scary and ominous. Why would it cause sterility in the entire human population?

I strongly feel that Kellhus will contribute to the re-awakening of the No-God but not on purpose or anything. He doesn't seem to understand it really at all. Also, that vision at the end of the Warrior-Prophet was definitely very No-God-ish, so if you can't see a connection between it and Kellhus of SOME kind then you're not really paying attention IMO. Bakker once said that Kellhus is struggling to find meaninglessness in a meaningful world, by that description he has completely lost his way at this point of the story.

Everything is always plunging so rapidly towards calamity in this story. I wonder if there will ever be a moment where you sit back and go, "wow I'm glad that worked out." I can't see any possible way things could turn out well in the end with these books lol and it's kind of compelling because there's always that niggling curiosity of just how much more horrifying and bleak is it going to get.

 

[Mithfânion]

There is definitly some sort of connection between Kellhus and Mog Pharau ( Or Lokung as the Scylvendi call him, a name I've always liked). We will see a confrontation of some kind I expect, who doesn't. So in that sense yes, Kellhus could well be involved in his re-awakening.

I personally don't believe in the Kellhus as the Anti-God/replacement of the No-God theories mainly because I do not think that this is what Bakker is doing with this story. There is clearly a deal of ambiguity going on but I do see him set up the Mog Pharau and Kellhus as two different entities, maybe not as opposite on the scales as some readers may be led to believe, but still, two differing, incredibly powerful forces.

Generally speaking there are just so many mysteries in this series that you don't know where to begin anymore. Sure you can read the synopsis of White Luck Warrior and get a rough idea of where the travel part of the story will lead us, but as we know that says nothing about all the nuggets each book reveals about the world, our "protagonists" and The Consult. Who I'd love to learn a little more about as well by now.

 

[Davis Ashura]

Is Kelhus similar to Vain, the ur-vile from the Second Chronicles of Thomas Covenant? Both are physically perfect and bother are unknowable, empty, and driven by an inscrutable purpose.

 

[Werthead]

The No-God's name is likely a major clue to its purpose. Maybe as the gods exist because the people believe in them, maybe the people exist because the gods believe in them back (a paradox of the sort that I can see Bakker doing a lot with)? The No-God nullifies that effect (by destroying 'belief' itself somehow?), sterilising the population and leading to their extinction unless it is defeated or rendered inert.

Given that the Consult's goal is (probably) to eliminate humanity to prevent them from continuing to damn them to torment through their belief systems, the No-God is probably designed to destroy the human populace or, at the very least, annihilate their belief system.

 

[Roland 85]

The Consult exists as the hand of the Inchoroi brothers. Who could care less about damnation or the beliefs of anybody. And I can't see why humanity's existence would be connected to gods in any form. That would suggest one religion that has it right and the others being wrong, in which case there wouldn't even BE any other religions as the people who believe in false gods wouldn't exist.

Also, the No-God is named so because he was a godlike being and was worshiped as god by some, but he was not a true god. This name was given to him by men, and for your theory to be true, they have to be aware of the concepts you describe to be able to name him appropriately. Since that is obviously not the case...

 

[Werthead]

The Consult exists as the hand of the Inchoroi brothers. Who could care less about damnation or the beliefs of anybody. And I can't see why humanity's existence would be connected to gods in any form. That would suggest one religion that has it right and the others being wrong, in which case there wouldn't even BE any other religions as the people who believe in false gods wouldn't exist.

Bakker got involved in the discussions on Westeros that led to this conclusion and hinted that the conclusion was correct.

The theory is that in Earwa the gods are real (hinted at in the original trilogy, confirmed in The Judging Eye when one of them helps in the creation of the White-Luck Warrior), the result of the beliefs of the human populace. There are different gods based around the different faiths, so there are no 'false gods'. However, all the faiths are united in their hatred of the Consult and their belief that the Consult are doomed to damnation, despair and hell. Since they believe this, it is so.

The Consult, not keen on this outcome, wish to shape reality in Earwa to their will. I've seen fan speculation that this might be to permit their escape (when they can control the power of belief they can simply repair the Ark and get the hell out of there) or merely to avoid damnation. Since the Consult consist of just the two Inchoroi, a bunch of human allies and a vast number of artificial servitors like the sranc (who lack souls and thus cannot affect belief themselves), they have to even out the playing field, thus the need to annihilate the wellpool of opposing belief in the Three Seas, i.e humanity.

That seems to be reasonably well-supported by the books and some of the stuff Bakker has said. The details remain highly contentious, especially in the matter of the No-God.

Also, the No-God is named so because he was a godlike being and was worshiped as god by some, but he was not a true god. This name was given to him by men, and for your theory to be true, they have to be aware of the concepts you describe to be able to name him appropriately. Since that is obviously not the case...

Who worshipped the No-God as a deity? No-one knew of his existence until the Consult created/awoke him and loosed him upon the world. The Consult appeared to view him as a tool or weapon of mass destruction, not a deity.

 

[saintjon]

The Scylvendi worshipped the No-God. Cnaiur even says something like, "Your people murdered my god."

 

[Andols]

The Scylvendi worshipped the No-God. Cnaiur even says something like, "Your people murdered my god."

Was that in direct refference to the No-god?

 

[Werthead]

The Scylvendi worshipped the No-God. Cnaiur even says something like, "Your people murdered my god."

Forgot about that, good point.