Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

What about akka and esme. posted 03 October 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by Jesh, Candidate

I was so sad that akka and esme didn’t get together again at the end of the book, I’m such a sucker for happy endings and while this isn’t the end of the story, I would have been so happy if akka and esme would have ended up together again. But mr. bakker still has a book to make it alright, and he better or else… <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: --> view post


What about akka and esme. posted 09 November 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by anor277, Didact

Quote: &quot;Jesh&quot;:1z4qhiw0
I was so sad that akka and esme didn’t get together again at the end of the book, I’m such a sucker for happy endings and while this isn’t the end of the story, I would have been so happy if akka and esme would have ended up together again. But mr. bakker still has a book to make it alright, and he better or else… <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->[/quote:1z4qhiw0]

Maybe I'm not a romantic, but as I have said before, had Kellhus not taken Esmenet as a lover (as a wife in fact) she would be dead and I can shed no tears for Achamian, he is 40 odd years old not 14 and this cannot be the 1st time someone has preferred another man to him. And has Achamian really been dumped? Kellhus and Esmenet reasonably thought him dead. For all Kellhus' manipulation and Machiavellian cunning, I thought his seduction of Esmenet one of his few defensible acts. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 10 November 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by shockwave, Candidate

Quote: &quot;anor277&quot;:gfsb7115
Quote: &quot;Jesh&quot;:gfsb7115
I was so sad that akka and esme didn’t get together again at the end of the book, I’m such a sucker for happy endings and while this isn’t the end of the story, I would have been so happy if akka and esme would have ended up together again. But mr. bakker still has a book to make it alright, and he better or else… <!-- s:wink: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=":wink:" title="Wink" /><!-- s:wink: -->[/quote:gfsb7115]

Maybe I'm not a romantic, but as I have said before, had Kellhus not taken Esmenet as a lover (as a wife in fact) she would be dead and I can shed no tears for Achamian, he is 40 odd years old not 14 and this cannot be the 1st time someone has preferred another man to him. And has Achamian really been dumped? Kellhus and Esmenet reasonably thought him dead. For all Kellhus' manipulation and Machiavellian cunning, I thought his seduction of Esmenet one of his few defensible acts.[/quote:gfsb7115]

Though i see your logic and the probability of it, i reject it. <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P -->
Yes, Kellhus' 'taking' of Esmenet was her only salvation. And also her own machinination despite Kellhus's undoubted acceleration and partaking of it.
But i do not agree you cannot or should not shed tears for Akka. Time and time again they have lost and found each other in numerous ways. Always was Esmenet his foundation and only real lasting love (besides Inrau but we all know what became of him and that was a different kind of love).
This is not simply her preferring another man to him, which he could have accepted, he knows there are greater men out there than him. But the betrayal Esmi has commited is that of a true love.
Do you realize that time after time she has longer for him and wished for him, yet dared not? And then when he gives himself, he sets her free, he lets her dare. She accepts, and then at the threshold of the first true test, lets him go. She is true to herself, the whore, yet not true to who she made us think she was. Maybe now she is more who she wants to be; still tied to the person who is at the center of the world. How Akka made her feel before when he visited her in Sumna. But noone has brought that argument and i refuse to accept that without a really good context.

Besides, they didnt think him 'reasonably dead'. Yes they had very probably cause. They had no reason to think he was alive, but no factual news that he was dead either. Throughout the books Esmi is always portrayed as someone who would look for Akka till she saw his body. She knows she is his only love. Why not at least grant him that, is she really that much under Kellhus's spell? Yes i think so. Otherwise she would have felt sorry and shown her love for him.
I agree with you that what they did was in their best interest and a logical, maybe even necesarry step in Esmi's evolving character. But once he was back, things should have changed. Yet it is irrecovably true to the books that she remains with Kellhus, yet another 'strong' character falling for his words and actions.
But in my opinion she should have confessed her 'sins' to Akka, who would have understood, the poor fool, and then profused her 'love' for him despite her devotion to Kellhus still.
I regret that i cannot see it differently than that she is under Kellhus's spell. Yes she consequently did something natural and necesarry for her survival.. but how necesarry is it for her survival now to bed Kellhus and throw away Akka at his return (did she even thank Xin?) when he needs her the most?
Effectively she is turning Akka into the person he needs to be for the 2nd Apocalypse, but way to early in my opinion.

edit: As for defensible acts i do not think that Kellhus should be excused. Yet he cannot be blamed either. He has done everything right so far. He has gotten them this far and united the Men of the Tusk more than they were before, depite their various inherent differences.
Yet he does not need to bed Esmi, nor her child to keep her devotion.
Tho i am reluctant to accept that he knows rejecting Esmi now would probably be beyond her understanding. And thus i undo my whole argument. It is necesarry for him to 'have' Esmi as his untill he finds a better whore. So to speak.

Pun intended. <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P --> view post


What about akka and esme. posted 10 November 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by anor277, Didact

Quote: &quot;shockwave&quot;:3im1q5ol

Though i see your logic and the probability of it, i reject it.[/quote:3im1q5ol]
This of course is your privilege.
But i do not agree you cannot or should not shed tears for Akka.

Again this is your privilege, not to cry for him is mine.
Time and time again they have lost and found each other in numerous ways. Always was Esmenet his foundation and only real lasting love (besides Inrau but we all know what became of him and that was a different kind of love).

And yet it was Esmenet who begged Achamian not to go to the library. Who abandoned whom (especially with Esme's knowledge that Serwe has seduced him)? And Esmenet had the whore's knowledge that men never stayed.
This is not simply her preferring another man to him, which he could have accepted, he knows there are greater men out there than him. But the betrayal Esmi has commited is that of a true love.

Well Kellhus is undoubtedly younger and fitter than Achamian, and no doubt better in bed. I know whom I'd prefer. As for the "true love" between Achamian and Esmenet I take it you don't suggest that you can love truly only once?
Do you realize that time after time she has longer for him and wished for him, yet dared not? And then when he gives himself, he sets her free, he lets her dare. She accepts, and then at the threshold of the first true test, lets him go. She is true to herself, the whore, yet not true to who she made us think she was. Maybe now she is more who she wants to be; still tied to the person who is at the center of the world. How Akka made her feel before when he visited her in Sumna. But noone has brought that argument and i refuse to accept that without a really good context.

No I don't realise this, perhaps I am an emotional cripple, but this is life.
Besides, they didnt think him 'reasonably dead'. Yes they had very probably cause. They had no reason to think he was alive, but no factual news that he was dead either. Throughout the books Esmi is always portrayed as someone who would look for Akka till she saw his body. She knows she is his only love. Why not at least grant him that, is she really that much under Kellhus's spell? Yes i think so. Otherwise she would have felt sorry and shown her love for him.
I agree with you that what they did was in their best interest and a logical, maybe even necesarry step in Esmi's evolving character. But once he was back, things should have changed. Yet it is irrecovably true to the books that she remains with Kellhus, yet another 'strong' character falling for his words and actions.

Well it seems that at least we're in agreement here. Esmenet and Kellhus say to Proyas of their relationship, that they thought somehow that Achamian would have approved. It does not sound like bull$hit. Achamian under torture says "Esme, survive me?", since we're now into making moral judgements, maybe Achamian's love for Esmenet should transcend his jealousy - he should be happy for Kellhus and Esmenet. Kellhus "love" for Esmenet (and certainly he does admire her intellect) gave her something that Achamian could never give and had never given.
But in my opinion she should have confessed her 'sins' to Akka, who would have understood, the poor fool, and then profused her 'love' for him despite her devotion to Kellhus still.
I regret that i cannot see it differently than that she is under Kellhus's spell. Yes she consequently did something natural and necesarry for her survival.. but how necesarry is it for her survival now to bed Kellhus and throw away Akka at his return (did she even thank Xin?) when he needs her the most? ............

All of course morally reprehensible but who am I to cast the first stone? view post


What about akka and esme. posted 10 November 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by shockwave, Candidate

Quote: &quot;anor277&quot;:5a02hq6f
This of course is your privilege.
...
Again this is your privilege, not to cry for him is mine.[/quote:5a02hq6f]
True, point taken <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

And yet it was Esmenet who begged Achamian not to go to the library. Who abandoned whom (especially with Esme's knowledge that Serwe has seduced him)? And Esmenet had the whore's knowledge that men never stayed.

I had forgotten Serwe's seduction.. that kinda throws a monkey wrench in my whole programm doesnt it?
But i dont think that its a valid point that he abandonded her, he is still a Mandate schoolman and going to the library wasnt supposed to take long nor intended as leaving her.
I kinda thought that Esmi knew that Akka wouldnt have 'left' her. At least not in a profound way (here i mean that getting seduced while hammered, and totally committing to someone else and having their baby is different, the latter is more profound). She has left him intellectually as well, which is inevitable ofcourse with Kellhus, but it must sting nonetheless, especially now that he is back.
Well Kellhus is undoubtedly younger and fitter than Achamian, and no doubt better in bed. I know whom I'd prefer. As for the "true love" between Achamian and Esmenet I take it you don't suggest that you can love truly only once?


Haha yes, but Akka was able to afford younger whores as well, but he always came to her when in Sumna and while she was with him, he didnt couple with others (aside from the Serwe-incident). I dont think Esmi thought about it like that anyway, but i see your point.
No i certainly dont mean that you can only love truly once (tho some may not be so lucky to find it again once it slips away), but it is the betrayal that hurts the most. She was his anchorage and he thought he was hers. But that ofcourse changed with Kellhus's arrival.

No I don't realise this, perhaps I am an emotional cripple, but this is life.

True, that ís life. Maybe i hope to much for something good for Akka, that i dont like it when what he holds most dear gets taken from him. He ís a poor fool.
Well it seems that at least we're in agreement here. Esmenet and Kellhus say to Proyas of their relationship, that they thought somehow that Achamian would have approved. It does not sound like bull$hit. Achamian under torture says "Esme, survive me?", since we're now into making moral judgements, maybe Achamian's love for Esmenet should transcend his jealousy - he should be happy for Kellhus and Esmenet. Kellhus "love" for Esmenet (and certainly he does admire her intellect) gave her something that Achamian could never give and had never given.

True, he should be happy for her. But now Akka is trully alone. Does Esmi not owe it to him to be some sort of a companion? I think she has forgotten how much he needs her and how much he meant to her too.
I dont know if Kellhus really admires her. Is there anyone worth admiring for Kellhus? He stands above them all. Isnt he just playing her like all the others?
What has Kellhus given her that Akka couldnt? Are you referring to her place among the high and mighty and that ppl now listen to her? In a way she already had that when she was with Akka, or am i mistaken?

All of course morally reprehensible but who am I to cast the first stone?

Nicely said, good point. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 11 November 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by anor277, Didact

@shockwave, I wish I'd said "who am I to cast the first stone" before Jesus Christ but I am 2000 year too late (PS I am by no means a god botherer).

As to what Kellhus gave Esmenet that Achamian never could, I do acknowledge what Kellhus gives with one hand he may take away with the other, in other words it may all end in bloody tears for Esmenet (it might end in even much worse, cf Serwe). I suppose I mean that Kellhus made Esmenet confront and accept the enormous “sin” she committed in selling her daughter. Somehow he managed to make her forgive herself. Achamian, who certainly knew of Esmenet’s daughter could not bring himself to speak of it, it was unspeakable, nor could Esmenet – without Kellhus the enormity of this crime was likely to follow her to the grave, the one sin for which there could be no forgiveness. Of course this sin had been repeated many times by other parents across the Three Seas (cf Serwe again), but the banality of an evil deed does not make it any less evil, nor is it any less easy to confront. Kellhus "gift" (and I certainly think it was a gift whatever his motives and whatever the consequences) dwarfs (dwarves?) her current position among Kellhus' acolytes. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 12 November 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by shockwave, Candidate

Quote: &quot;anor277&quot;:ma3nq7hv
@shockwave, I wish I'd said "who am I to cast the first stone" before Jesus Christ but I am 2000 year too late (PS I am by no means a god botherer).

As to what Kellhus gave Esmenet that Achamian never could, I do acknowledge what Kellhus gives with one hand he may take away with the other, in other words it may all end in bloody tears for Esmenet (it might end in even much worse, cf Serwe). I suppose I mean that Kellhus made Esmenet confront and accept the enormous “sin” she committed in selling her daughter. Somehow he managed to make her forgive herself. Achamian, who certainly knew of Esmenet’s daughter could not bring himself to speak of it, it was unspeakable, nor could Esmenet – without Kellhus the enormity of this crime was likely to follow her to the grave, the one sin for which there could be no forgiveness. Of course this sin had been repeated many times by other parents across the Three Seas (cf Serwe again), but the banality of an evil deed does not make it any less evil, nor is it any less easy to confront. Kellhus "gift" (and I certainly think it was a gift whatever his motives and whatever the consequences) dwarfs (dwarves?) her current position among Kellhus' acolytes.[/quote:ma3nq7hv]

That had slipped my mind, i am only reading the first book for the 2nd time now. That is indeed something Akka couldnt give her.
I still think she could have been nicer to him <!-- s:P --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_razz.gif" alt=":P" title="Razz" /><!-- s:P --> But i understand. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 08 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by butlersr, Candidate

I think that the answer to her actions can be understood within the framework of the author's view toward women. I'm not criticizing it at all but I think it's fairly apparent that he thinks them weak and fickle.

What Esmi has always done is cling to the strongest man - or more specifically, the man who can best provide for her needs; physically first, and emotionally second. The evidence for this motivation is:
She always loved Achamian while she was a whore - he met many of her emotional needs; but she didn't feel that she could count on him - there was no security there. So she stayed with prostituting - it was secure. As she started getting older she realized that prostituting was losing its security (there are no old prostitutes) so she started to persue Akka more and more. He was the only offer of security at that time - even though he couldn't offer much, it was the best at the time. When she went to look for him she encountered Sarcellous. And fell in a type of love for him; why? - Because he was able to provide for her, she had found security in his wealth and prestige. But, he was unable to meet her emotional needs as well - so she continued to seek Akka to meet those needs while Sarcellous continued to meet her physical needs. Then Achamian commits himself to her. He's then able to meet both of her needs and she promptly dumps Sarcellous (a good thing really, but she didn't know that at the time).
Uh-oh, now here come The Warrior-Prophet! He is handsom and esteemed by many and shows every sign of someone who will soon be able to support a harem of women if he wanted to. Not to mention he works her ego nicely by calling her "the mother of the world" or some such thing. She's tempted from the start - and at the first sign of Akka's withdrawl from her life she jumps at it. She's looking again for that security - not to mention she's a bit of a social climber.
And this is why i say that Bakker takes a dim view of women. Because the characteristics that I've described are one of man's main criticisms against the female gender. Their loyalty has a price - and that price is security and prestige (which in traditional societies are one in the same).
He boils this main female character down to the wost characteristics of her gender. First she's a whore, second her fidelity in love is conditional, and third she's prone to constant jealousy for what other women have. He hasn't taken her character outside of these stereotypes once.
Ahh..I'm having fun now - I think I'll take it a step further. I think the author is gay as well. And not openly so.
He takes a little too much delight in the degredation of women and a little too much delight in the phallus. Ever other page sports an erection of some sort. And just that whole scene with Cenaur (sp?) coming naked out of the ocean. It was homoerotic as it was - and born of one's own sexual fantasies. But then to take it further letting the reader, incidentally, know that Cenaur's (sp?) has huge penis. Thanks for the info, it's important to me to know that the main characters are well-hung. Speculation is fun so I'll go on. I'd say that the Warrior-Prophet is Bakker's idealized self, and Cenaur is his dark half. His view of women is clear enough as I stated, and the rest of the characters are only there to react to him (being Bakker's idealized self as well as his dark half). They are in awe of his idealized self but also fear and persecute it, and are distgusted and fearfull of his dark half. So I guess I'm saying that the books, as good as they are - are all about him. But what great writer isn't a narccist, really?
Ah, but there is my main criticism then - that is where the book faltered. Bakker wasn't interested in the other characters so much - only how they reacted to his main characters, or as I said-him. So the character developement fell short, motivations weren't explored. The plight of the narccisist again. Being "all about the author" limited it from being great.
And that's too bad, because it could have been great. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 27 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by stacius, Commoner

Esmi and Kellhus thought Akka was dead, but Zin the only one who actually got off his ass and LOOKED FOR HIM!
That just doesn't seem right to me...Look how Akka treats Zin after they escape...he kind of shrugs off the fact that Zin sacrificed everything for him...even taking risks by acting as a go-between for Akka and Proyas and offering him a seat in his camp.
Yet, the minute Akka gets back, he starts making arguments to save Kellhus.

Zin got screwed. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 05 April 2006 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by glaz, Peralogue

i just finished reading TWP, and i must say, i feel sorry for akka and esmi.

yes, i admit im a romantis at heart, but logically, esmi had every right to &quot;go&quot; with kellhus after akka. mainly, it's because of a reason that's already posted: they thought akka was dead.

life doesn't end just because of that, esmi should look for another man because she still lives. what i don't like though, was kellhus &quot;tone&quot; when he thought (about esmi) &quot;soon you would be mine&quot; (paraphrased statement.)

that saddened me so much because akka was evolving with esmi. he was feeling happiness.

the saddest part, though, was when he returned and at first thought that everything would be like how he left it. after knowing what had happened, he just... crumpled. yes, he got angry, but his aura does not exude hatred, but grief and lost hope... and visions of &quot;what could have been&quot; view post


What about akka and esme. posted 18 June 2006 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by Callan S., Auditor

Esmi never actually accepted Akka as dead (I don't have any mental note of it, anyway), even after the seduction. The pivotal point, rather IMO, was the unearthing of the truth about her...dead...daughter.

To me, I'm amazed at how much Kellhus killed her. She had so much dimension before. If you imagine your fingers stepled against each other, that creatures a three dimensional structure as they apply pressure to each other. Kellhus killed one side of that pressue - the secret of her daughters 'death'. So the other side of the steeple falls flat and the dimension that was here, collapses and vanishes. Esmet didn't 'dump' akka, IMO, she died (in as much as if your pains define you, what happens when someone kills your pain?). This new woman loves Kellhus.

Then again, from her perspective it's apparent she's vanished. But after the chapters which talk about the inner and outer part of a person and how oen can't see the other, she says to Kellhus he says such delicious lies. Perhaps her insides have collapsed, but somehow her outside is still the esmet from before, the one who still loves/is an essential component of akka. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 15 July 2006 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by benwick19, Commoner

i think everyone is missing the point, both Achamian and Esmenet are powerless, powerless before Kellhus, Kellhus does not love Esmenet he simply needed her in case Achamian survived, he didnt know if he would still have control over Achamian so in case Achamian starts getting notions about telling the Mandate Kellhus threatens him with Esmenet and Achamain is forced to choose. Achamian loved and probably still loves Esmenet and Esmenet loved Achamian and Kellhus could have helped Esmenet without bedding her when Achamian left but he didnt because he has no feelings towards anyone, his only goal is getting to his father and everything and everyone else is expendable, no one should be making excuses for him we should be hating him, i know i do. to me the great evil isnt the Fanim or the Cishuarim or the Consult its Kellhus, Achamian once thought Kellhus was the only one who could save the world, i beleive hes the one who will end it. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 30 January 2007 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by Purple Library Guy, Commoner

Quote: &quot;anor277&quot;:3b2fo2el
Well it seems that at least we're in agreement here. Esmenet and Kellhus say to Proyas of their relationship, that they thought somehow that Achamian would have approved. It does not sound like bull$hit. [/quote:3b2fo2el]

Well of course it doesn't *sound* like bs. Nothing Kellhus says *sounds* like bs. That's because he's a super-genius whose talents at manipulation are beyond unreasonable. He is the man who can fake sincerity and therefore has it made.

Personally, I think this whole set of events is a key indicator of the difference between Kellhus' representation to the crusaders and his reality. Sometimes we get too used to this guy. But consider--on the surface, to the world, he's basically like a *normal* hero of a fantasy novel. Think about some of your favourite fantasy books, and the awesome folks who are the central figures in them. Can you imagine them saying &quot;Well, he's one of my best friends, but he may well be dead. No point worrying about it or going to look and see or anything. And hey, now that he is (probably) dead, I know you two were an item and all, but you wanna?&quot;

I don't think so. Aragorn would never do that. Neither would Corwin of Amber, Druss the Legend, heck, the members of the Black Company (and they're cutthroat mercenaries), or Vlad Taltos (and he's an assassin). Their fundamental motivations are different, so ultimately at the level of actions the self-interested Kellhus will be different from a real hero. This kind of inconsistency between self-portrayal and deeds is about the only crack by which a normal onlooker or a person under his influence might be able to penetrate Kellhus' appearance to something like an understanding of his reality. I think, I hope, that will ultimately be very important to the resolution of the story.

In Gordon R. Dickson's book, &quot;Dorsai&quot;, the protagonist runs across a master manipulator--not of Kellhus' calibre, and not so chillingly logical, but certainly headed in that direction: very intelligent, deeply pragmatic, dedicated to and very skilled at control. Donal Graeme, however, was even more brilliant, and immediately concluded


&quot;he's apparently an absolute devil.&quot;
The pipe rattled in Galt's suddenly unclenched jaws . . .
&quot;Who told you that?&quot; he demanded.
&quot;No one,&quot; said Donal. &quot;It's obvious, isn't it?&quot; Galt laid his pipe down on the table and stood up.
&quot;Not to ninety-nine per cent of the civilzed world, it isn't,&quot; he retorted. &quot;What made it so obvious to you?&quot;
&quot;Certainly,&quot; said Donal, &quot;any man can be judged by the character and actions of the people with which he surrounds himself. And this William has an entourage of thwarted and ruined people.&quot;
. . .
&quot;Also, he seems to be an almost frighteningly brilliant sort of man, in that he can dominate personalities like Anea, and this fellow Montor, from Newton--who must be a rather high-level mind himself to have rated as he did on his tests.&quot;
&quot;And someone that brilliant must be a devil?&quot; queried Galt, dryly.
&quot;Not at all,&quot; explained Donal, patiently. &quot;But having such intellectual capabilities, a man must show proportionately greater inclinations towards either good or evil than lesser people. If he tends toward evil, he may mask it in himself--he may even mask its effect on the people with which he surrounds himself. But he has no way of producing the reflections of good which would ordinarily be reflected from his lieutenants and initiates--and which, if he was truly good--he would have no reason to try and hide. And by that lack, you can read him.&quot;


I'm not sure I'd say it's precisely that way with Kellhus, but I did find myself reminded of that passage when thinking about Kellhus and his impact on the people he ensnares, and the difference between his mental dominance and the interaction between real good-guy leaders and the people around them.

As to amor's point that had Kellhus not taken Esmenet as a lover she would be dead--come now. If he could manipulate her into bed, he could certainly manipulate her into just not running off looking for Achamian. I mean, Akka at that point is either alive or dead. If he's dead, going into danger and getting yourself killed too just makes things worse; Achamian surely wouldn't have wanted it. If he's alive, he's a Mandate scholar, capable of killing with a few words, shredding buildings; his potential for violence both overt and subtle is massive, for all that he rarely uses it. If alive he will no doubt be back; anything capable of stopping him would surely chew Esmenet up and spit her out. Sure, there's a certain amount of sophistry here, but I'm sure Kellhus would be able to convince her of some such line of reasoning. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 01 February 2007 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by anor277, Didact

Quote: &quot;Purple Library Guy&quot;:2wjbch5m
Quote: &quot;anor277&quot;:2wjbch5m
Well it seems that at least we're in agreement here. Esmenet and Kellhus say to Proyas of their relationship, that they thought somehow that Achamian would have approved. It does not sound like bull$hit. [/quote:2wjbch5m]

Well of course it doesn't *sound* like bs. Nothing Kellhus says *sounds* like bs. That's because he's a super-genius whose talents at manipulation are beyond unreasonable. He is the man who can fake sincerity and therefore has it made.

......................................................................................................................................................................................................................
As to amor's point that had Kellhus not taken Esmenet as a lover she would be dead--come now. If he could manipulate her into bed, he could certainly manipulate her into just not running off looking for Achamian. I mean, Akka at that point is either alive or dead. If he's dead, going into danger and getting yourself killed too just makes things worse; Achamian surely wouldn't have wanted it. If he's alive, he's a Mandate scholar, capable of killing with a few words, shredding buildings; his potential for violence both overt and subtle is massive, for all that he rarely uses it. If alive he will no doubt be back; anything capable of stopping him would surely chew Esmenet up and spit her out. Sure, there's a certain amount of sophistry here, but I'm sure Kellhus would be able to convince her of some such line of reasoning.[/quote:2wjbch5m]
@PLG, a long time to repond to an old thread but I know that you are new here and I haven't changed my mind since my original contribution. Before I start, consider how many of the other whores and camp followers survived until Shimeh? None but Kellhus’ remaining wife; this was not simply a question of Kellhus persuading her not to follow Achamian to guarantee her safety. Of course he has unknown motives; of course he seduced her; but that is how all men take lovers. And do you believe that had Achamian been really dead (and except for an improbable circumstance he would be) he would have begrudged Esmenet the comfort that Kellhus offered her?

I am actually familiar with some of the sources you've quoted. Corwin, the evil who confronted other evils, wouldn’t have given a rat’s arse about seducing anyone. Donal Graeme (and it's long years since I read that) probably reproduced by giving off spores. I can understand why some of you are disappointed that Esmenet did not behave like the faithful Penelope. But on the other hand was Penelope's fidelity matched by Odysseus' philandering (and certainly Achamian is suspect in this respect)? Perhaps Penelope , young, beautiful, wealthy, should have lived for those 10 years in riotous adultery with all her suitors. Why should only the fantasy heroes get all the fun? Kellhus did repay Esemenet in emotional coin, of which I have pointed out earlier . And through all of this Achamian (improbably!) returns and behaves like an adolescent - he didn’t appreciate Esmenet until he lost her. That’s tough, but that’s human.

Kellhus, as you point out, is amoral - he has no compunction in using other people - but so far he is not inherently evil, and his actions seem to be a bit more benevolent than his ostensible peers. Everyone of us as we grow up, have to learn ethics and morality; there have been signs that Kellhus is learning to be human. view post


What about akka and esme. posted 02 February 2007 in The Warrior ProphetWhat about akka and esme. by Purple Library Guy, Commoner

Corwin might or might not have given a rat's ass about seducing someone--it would depend on the circumstances. But he was far from evil or even amoral, although at some point a couple hundred years before the narrative began it seems perhaps he was. Corwin's a hardass, sure, but within the books he doesn't betray his friends and he tries not to hurt people who aren't asking for it and he tends to go out of his way to help random people in trouble; in explanation for this he muses that some time during his amnesic time on earth he picked up a conscience, something that perhaps sets him apart from most of the family. His cynicism is largely skin deep. And one thing I'm convinced he wouldn't have done, and what practically no fantasy hero would do, and specifically what a person who really exemplified the image Kellhus was projecting wouldn't do, is fail to go find/try to help a close friend who'd disappeared and might or might not be dead.
The reason I think it's important is not that it's such a heinous deed per se. It's that only in such cases can one catch a master manipulator. You can never spot the wrongness in Kellhus by assessing his words, he's too smart. But a manipulator's motives and objectives are not what they appear; even where the overt objectives (get the crusade to the holy city) are what they appear, the deeper motives of character are different. Watch a manipulator and at some point their actions, to achieve their real objectives, have to depart from their self-presented character, no matter how clever they are, or they can't achieve their real goals. That's generally the only way for a normal non-super-genius to perceive the manipulation of a Kellhus level mind.

As to seducing Esmenet--well, anyone could fall for his dead comrade's girlfriend. What makes Kellhus' action both less and more of a betrayal is that he has little concept of &quot;betrayal&quot; and for the same reasons certainly doesn't love Esmenet. He seduces her not out of emotional need but for whatever cryptic, selfish reasons he's doing everything else. We often feel that someone falling in love is not fully in control of their actions and can be partially forgiven for what would otherwise be a betrayal; that doesn't apply to Kellhus, who is utterly in control. view post


  •  

The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown