Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 08 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by butlersr, Candidate

First of all Bakker's writing is excellent - I'll begin there. But I read that he took 15 years to write the first book and then was pressured by contract to finish the second book in only one year. I was wondering if I'd see a difference and I really did.
TWP was pretty thin. I mean, Bakker knows how to fill pages and he knew how to keep me turning them - but now that I'm finished I feel like I've had rice cakes instead of a meal. First of all lets look at what really happens in this book when you boil it down. The army goes on march and has battles, and the rest of the substance is just about Kellhus. But not really about Kellhus-Just about how great he is and how everyone reacts to him. I mean, I feel like Bakker got stuck with the title. I feel like I've been beat over the head with HE'S A WARRIOR! HE'S A PROPHET! Yes yes, we know. He becomes a one dimensional christ archetype. He preaches to the masses, he's martyred, he rises. Only one difference, he kills, has sex, and is a sociopath - oh yes, that's right HE'S A WARRIOR!
And it got a little hokie when he started catching swords with his fingertips and doing pirroetts (sp?) in the air. He becomes a little bit comic book at that point.
Bakker didn't explore his main character at all. His motivations were weak and thin. Yes I know, he's after his father. But that's not explored at all. Nor is his relationship with his father. As to whether he wants to kill him or join him who knows. But really, I mean this is the focus of the book - he's driving himself toward his father. It's the reason for EVERYTHING he does apparently. And yet it's not explored at all? Wha?
I feel like Bakker rested on the fact that he's a good writer and forgot to give the story a heart, a structure, a purpose. I'm left with only whispy impressions: Great Kellhus, brutal and sexually conflicted Cenuiar, poor Akka, throw in alot of swollen phalluses and parting thighs and all the rest (the battles, the alliances, the arguements) is just the framework the characters sit on. Bakker loves his characters Kellhus and Cenaur more than he loves his story. Here's my proof of this claim. Outside of the characters the story is The Holy War. So you look at that almost like it's a character itself. Ok, what do we know about the Holy War? It's against these guys - Fanim, right? Who the hell are the Fanim? Does Bakker even care? We never hear much of them, or see their perspective, or know their motivations, or what makes them the enemy. What annoys me is that it's almost like Bakker knows that he hasn't fleshed them out at all - so he tells us what to think of them. Using the author's voice, which is almost always impartial he only referrs to them only as "The Heathen". At the last battle when one of the 'heathen' generals is killed and his family is in danger, Bakker explains that one of his sons is able to get the other children to safety. Sounds like a pretty good think to do - but again Bakker tells us what to think by only describing the boy as "one of the more slippery" or something like that. It's like he doesn't want us to ask "who are these people?" Because then he'd have to take precious time away from describing how great Kellhus is and how brutal Cenaur is.
My theory is that he's so in love with these characters because they are him, Bakker. 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 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


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 10 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by H, Auditor

There is a dificulty in saying that a novel is the 'ultimate inkblot test.' The premise of the inkblot is that it inhernetly has no symbolic meaning previously. A novel inherently has a meaning already.

Also, this is not automatic writing. There is no free flow from the unconscious. Every passage was written for a reason, and presumably a conscious one, or else the books would read something more akin to Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man. Sure, we can take the liberty to say that Scott includes certain elements 'unconsciously', but knowing how intelligent he is, i seriously doubt if he would allow elements into the narrative that do not fulfil the ultimate point of story, but are solely projections of his unconscious.

If you had looked around the board, and done some searches, you would see that there have been answers about the Fanim multiple times. Scott has said multiple times, as well, that the Fanim will be greatly expanded upon in later books, becasue it will eventually be "their time to shine." The story of this Holy War is a retelling of the First Crusade (in a manner), from Kellhus' and the Inrithii POV. The Fanim are left delibritly vague, to let the reader wonder about what they are truely capable of, what thier intentions are. Do you think he hasn't described the Cishaurum more because he doesn't care about them? Or the Consult? Why would he gush out all the details of these things in the first 10 pages, ruining any suspense? You seem to really dislike suspense. You should probably read shorter books, or at least not epic fantasy. Perhaps just reading the Cliff's Notes for any book before you read it will help to allieve any suprise you might chance to experiance.

As for the Kellhus as the idealized Self, and your idea of Cnaiur as the Shadow, i like the idea here. Kellhus is designed to be the hieght of rationality. A monster nearing the limit of human capacity. But Cnaiur doesn't need to be a 'dark' half. Dark is how you've come to see him. Cnaiur just as easily represents the natural, that is, irrational side of the human condition. While Kellhus shows us the power of rationality, Cnaiur gives us the opposing view of the raw power of the unconscious.

However, unconscious does not have to equal the personal shadow. Cnaiur is the counterpoint to Kellhus' 'reason.' To say that both represent the corresponding Self and Shadow of Scott himself is tenuous. They are designed to represent the human condition. Once again, i have to point out that every element is purposive. So, if Scott made the characters represent the human condition, he did this rationally. So we really don't have a reflection of Scott's condition, we more succinctly have a Scott's view of the human condition. Could the two be the same? I guess, anything is possible. If Scott has written the nevel's while sleeping, i could see how major elements could be attributed solely to unconscious motives for disclosure. However, knowing he was actually awake, and thinking rationally, i'd have to severly doubt these things.

As for your example of Cnauir's homosexuality, out of context quotes can easily prove anything you like. Yelling "homo!" everytime you see or hear about a penis stikes me as a bit "homo" in and of itself. But i'm not taking potshots here. The scene you meantion actually fits perfectly into my above theory, since you like psychoanalysis, what does the ocean represent? Nakedness? And the phallus? Unless you're a neo-Fruedian (which i suspect you might be) these symbols are not so cut-and-dry. In real psychoanalysis you must take into account, first and foremost, the personal symbolism of the person's whose symbols they are, not your personal interpretation of these symbols and their meaning.

Lastly, Kellhus is the center of the story. He is the eye of the storm. It strikes me as being sort of like complaining that the New Testament is all about Jesus, and everyone's reaction to Him. view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 13 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by precentor, Commoner

Quote: "H":1iw4j27s
There is a dificulty in saying that a novel is the 'ultimate inkblot test.' The premise of the inkblot is that it inhernetly has no symbolic meaning previously. A novel inherently has a meaning already.
[/quote:1iw4j27s]

and of course, the critic is just as liable as the author to dissection...bakker is one of the only fantasy novelists i've read who is realistic about the place of sex in his world. people think about sex constantly, and it motivates more of our actions than we like to admit. view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 13 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by Tobias Zhiegler, Commoner

In most general circumstances I would grit my teeth and ignore you, but you constantly state some things that I would merely like clarification on. Mayhaps you read a different version of the book than myself, or you caught some details that I somehow missed.

Ok, what do we know about the Holy War? It's against these guys - Fanim, right? Who the hell are the Fanim? Does Bakker even care? We never hear much of them, or see their perspective, or know their motivations, or what makes them the enemy.


In [/i]my[i] version of the book, the Fanim were the religious opposite of the Inrithi. They followed the teachings of the prophet Fane and they held the Inrithi equivalent of catholic Rome (Shimeh) in THEIR possession, and degredaded it in manners that were against the Inrithi religion (with the Cishaurim, a sorcerous sect that the Inrithi deam blasphemous, even more so than the others because they are heathens), hence the reason they are the enemy. And it has been stated, as H. told you that the Fanim HAVE been discussed, and answers have been given in regard to them. And the only reason you're not looking at this war from THEIR perspective throughout the book is that this is a retelling of a story from the perspective of the very characters you seem to have problems reading about, and furthermore, in order to see things fully from the Inrithi perspective, you're going to have to look at the heathenistic Fanim of which they have NO contact with outside of combat, so that you can get a view of them.

This is a war from the prospective of one side. The amount of suspense, and speculation, and attatchment that possibly can or cannot be felt in sympothizing, understanding, and/or hating the Inrithi through their trials in the Holy War (all of which are obviously premeditated to come to a conclusion that will answer your questions) would, in all actuality be lacking in impact, and strength if he changed the perspective outside of the very same Holy War that was built up to in the first novel, and expounded on the second. And furthermore, don't you think that he would have had to sacrifice detail on both sides if he decided to use a book to focus on two perspectives instead of one?

What annoys me is that it's almost like Bakker knows that he hasn't fleshed them out at all - so he tells us what to think of them. Using the author's voice, which is almost always impartial he only referrs to them only as "The Heathen".


Again, this is a story told from the perspective of the pious Inrithi. He likely refers to them as "The Heathen" because this is the general consensus of the Holy War in its entirety.

My theory is that he's so in love with these characters because they are him, Bakker. 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 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.


This is one of your statements that I have the most problem wholly understanding. What is your basis for calling the premeditated works of someones imagination a part of their actual, desired, or existing mentalities? Is it not perfectly conceivable that all of these characters are just what they are - fictional? Characters that he crafted, molded, and gave emotion, personality, and feeling to in order to tell a story, and further build up, flesh out, and perpetuate any points that he may wanted to subliminally make? Instead of being fictional incarnations of Bakker's personality, and inner most thoughts, is it not possible that the book, and the characters therein could be critiques of society and religion, or rather, embodiments of them, and the the reactions of the characters themselves could be the many POSSIBLE reactions to these societal/religious embodiments/critiques?

And really, in all of my mental meanderings, I for the life of me cannot conceive how making a story that is told through the perspective of characters Bakker spent 577 pages fleshing out, and expanding on in the first book is now, somehow...narcissistic? A LOT of the character developments, and reactions to the "Warrior-Prophet" that you seem to have problems with were all premeditated, planned, and foreseeable from the first book, and I, in all honesty cannot see how this expected reaction from the Inritihi, and formation of the Zaudunyani is narcissistic when these are abilities that Kellhus had in his possession, and was going to use from the beginning of the book to attain his mission.

When you write a novel - it's deeply personal. Sure, one can write about characters, situations, and states of mind that are completely alien to you-such as someone writing about a character who commits rape/murder/etc. Of course that's done all the time and says nothing about the author. I'm not making these personal guesses simply because of what he wrote but how he wrote it. Though I do agree that putting my guesses to print may have been in poor taste, I do stand by them.


I think that your statement in regard to writing a first novel is very subjective, and based entirely on the individual. It can't be generalized. And I have not seen any authentic proof of the claims you have made against, or rather, towards Bakker's personal endeavours outside of "IT'S IN THE BOOK, SO IT MUST BE ETCHED INTO HIS MIND AND PART OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE!" If you can offer me proof of your claims, and actual, logical theories of your statements outside of the "I found his writing waaayyy too poetic, and descriptive in certain sequences that I find morally evil, or questionable and therefore he must WANT to do this stuff, or has done it before", then please, don't share them anymore. It's distasteful and embodies what a baseless assumption is.

Also, I have to ask you what your proof of Cnaiur's homosexuality is. The first time his sexuality was even brought into question was due to what could, indeed, be argued as a misreading of certain signs upon Moengus' departure on the part of his clansmen (that sign being he cried when the only person who may have understood to him, and appealed to his emotions as well as gave him a new line of thought, and somone he also looked up to and respected as a father...left). Crying is now gay? Furthermore, I would demand proof of Cnaiur liking Kellhus, something that was alluded to not once in the book. Throughout the entirety of their contact in the Darkness That Comes Before, AND The Warrior-Prophet, Cnaiur has shown nothing but absolute hatred for not only Kellhus but his father, and he despises the fact that he needs him to take vengance on his father.

The only moment that could be construed as Cnaiur liking Kellhus is remarkably suspect. He went mad, and he was seemingly reliving thoughts of his own past, and he, in all actuality did not see Kellhus as Kellhus but rather, saw him as Moengus - the man he loved (and keep in mind, it takes sex with one of the same gender, or wanting to do as such, to become gay). Loving a man, and favoring him because you care for him is not homosexual, last I checked.


As far as Cnaiur not being dark, I can't accept that. He's a very one dimensional character and I have read around and other reviewers have pointed that out as well. I stand by that, Cnaiur is a dark half, a doppelganger if you will. Shame, hatred, and sexual confusion draw out the boundaries of his character nicely. Oh yeah, and spitting. They guy's like a goddam lama.


Shame, hatred, and sexual confusion (the latter of which is questionable) does not accurately draw out the bounderies of his character, and reading the reviews of others whom you agree with does not add validity to your claims. Of all the traits you list, you forget not only madness, and conflict, but you undermind the significance of each of those qualities. I bring up conflict, simply because of all of his traits, I think that this may be the one that is the deepest. He is constantly at conflict. Whether it be with the traditions of his people, the fact that he must suffer the son of the one who betrayed him and watch as all those around him fall under the same manipulation that he did, him actually coming to like, and respect the Inrithi he was once, out of tradition told to despise. Also the fact that the same people he may somewhat dislike, in terms of their ways (the Scylvendi), he also WANTS to be a part of, though in terms of both intellect and sheer ability, he is above them, thus the reason for Serwe's existence in the story, whom he must fight Kellhus just to have for himself as the proof against the claims (be they hearsay, or fact), that the Scylvendi at Kiyuth told him, and constantly, he must go against his advantages and desires for one that is greater in mind, even if it is to his own detriment. Remember Anwurat?

He WANTS to be Of The People, and he wants to kill Moengus, as well as keep whatever advantages he has in his relations with Kellhus, so he traded his one advantage, for the sake of acceptance. I really cannot see how a person with so much history, and depth of emotion which, in all actuality guides his current actions can be unabashedly considered one dimensional.

Cnauir was in love with Kellhus and there were so many references to it I don't see how it can be missed.


Give me two.

Bakker even went on and on about how he was rejected by his people and they called him a faggot. How can anyone miss all the information alluding to his sexuality?


Seemed like a rumor to me...

Oh and the sea didn't represent nakedness - it represented cleansing. He was trying to wash his lust/love for Kellhus away.


When, before the moment in the sea when he saw Kellhus as Moengus, did Cnaiur show anything outside of disgust for Kellhus?

As an example of the heavy-handedness Bakker used to promote Kellhus - consider how many pages were used describing Esmett's adoring views of him. Bakker was taking a bit of an easy route in creating his comic-book-like hero there. The simplest way to get a male dominated audience (which we are) to see another man as admirable, is to see him admired by women. Bakker spent so much time having us admire him through her eyes that I can't accept that he wasn't equally in love with the character.


Actually, more time was spent gauging the reaction of Holy War in its entirety towards Kellhus and his teachings than time was spent with Esmenet admiring Kellhus. In all actuality, Achamian spent more time admiring Kellhus than Esmenet did, is he gay, too? What about Martemus? What about Saubon? What about the Zaudunyani? Are all of these people who have shown deep admiration and love for Kellhus also homosexual? And I'm tired of your almost adolescent observation that Bakker is gay because he has deep characters, and wants to expound every relevant moment with them to further the plot. Is he also a necrophilliac because of the Sranc? Do they represent an even DARKER half of him? They should if we abided by your logic.

Bakker put himself down as being one of the "egg-heads", which is a term generally used to admit nerdiness/awkwardness/being the butt of jokes in one's youth particularly. From the point of view of such a person - if they were to create an idealized self, it would make sense that there would be a heavy emphasis on being charismatic and adored by women. Picture Bakker as kind of a nerdy Steven King-looking fellow and it's easier to imagine him taking extra pleasure in spinning his ideal self as a super-stud. And if that accounts for the amount of time Bakker spent on it then again that's a symptom of him writing too much from himself and taking too many pages meeting his own needs instead of ours. Which is the heart of my criticism of the book.


Would you please...PLEASE give me a proper criticism of this book that does not delve into the territories of the aforementioned baseless assumptions that I previously referred to? This concludes my post. I look forward to your many clarifications and insights... view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 15 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by H, Auditor

Well, Tobias Zhiegler said what i was going to, and in a far more eloquent way than i could.

But two points:

You say "...And if that accounts for the amount of time Bakker spent on it then again that's a symptom of him writing too much from himself and taking too many pages meeting his own needs instead of ours. Which is the heart of my criticism of the book."

So, your real criticism of the book is that it wasn't what you wanted it to be. But it's not your book it's Scott's. Art is created not to be sold to to appeal to the masses, it's created out of the desire of the writer to create. So called 'art' created for commerical sale is actually not art at all, but is really product, in the same way that Wonder bread, Nike shoes, or video games, are product.

To say you didn't like something because it is badly crafted is far different than saying you didn't like something because it didn't appeal to you sensabilities.

Secondly, the part you cite most for being so homoerotic, has no homoerotic features within it, with the sole exception of nudity. I never said that the ocean, or water, represended nakedness. And more poiniantly, in the context of the scene, that makes no sense, as Cnaiur is already naked. You idea that the water could represent cleansing could be dead on, but i don't think it's only one dimentional. Standing bodies of water have a strong tendancy to represent the unconscious. But taking both symbolisms into account, the scene (which i've just reread three times) could unfold, symbolicly, like this:

Cnaiur wades naked into the water, with waves crashing into him: nakedness, being symbolic of the fact that he is bare againt the force of his unconscious, the waves as the guilt he feels. As for the neccessity of mentioning the phallus, well, that could easily be symbolic of Cnaiur's manhood, which is counterpoint to what is at play in the delusion, his childhood feelings. In other words, despite all his manlyness, he is stil la victim of that which comes before, which is in fact the entire purpose of the series.

His feelings for Kellhus are all derivitive of his feelings for Moenghus. It is clear that Cnaiur's love of Moenghus is the child's love for a parent. And his hatred, being that of the neglected, beytrayed child. To say that Cnaiur has a strong sexual love for Kellhus is baseless. Where in the books does he ever express such a sentiment. He does express, however, his child-like 'love' of Moenghus, who he took as his surrogate father to the point of betraying his real father. But inherently, while his 'love' has turned to hate, becasue he feels betrayed, he is still seduced by what the Dunyain are, what they are capable of.

Why would they have said Cnaiur was a 'faggot'? Because he saught to be close to Moenghus, who, to him, seemed wise. In his culture this is viewed as less than manly. There's no evidence that Cnaiur is actually sexually confussed.


Lastly, Kellhus does not seduce through charisma. Charisma is a naturally affinity for people to like you. Kellhus uses analytical skill to draw people in. How did he seduce Leweth? And Akka? He knows how to play the people, how to draw them in with his words, his knowledge, his insight. These are all funtions of reason, the perfect analytical mind, unerringly analyzing people, and knowing the best way to bend their will. If that is charisma, wouldn't psychologists be the most charismatic people ever? <!-- s:roll: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_rolleyes.gif" alt=":roll:" title="Rolling Eyes" /><!-- s:roll: --> (Mind you, i'm a psychology student myself, <!-- s8) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_cool.gif" alt="8)" title="Cool" /><!-- s8) --> ) view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 15 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by Adn, Commoner

I think that you all have good points, each have some I agree with and some that I don't.

The main issue that I would like to comment on is Cnaiur's sexuality. I think it unlikely that Cnaiur is homosexual, but I think it's at least possible that he was sexually seduced by Moenghus. It strikes me that the Dunyain will use any tool to reach their goal. It's been been shown they have no morality, only rationality. Sexual and mental dominance over a boy would be far more powerful than mental dominance alone.

The author often shows how Cnaiur sees much of Moenghus in Kellhus. After spending a great deal of time alone with Kellhus, he took Serwe as his prize. Later, Cnaiur wondered why Serwe seemed so important to him, if she was simply his prize. He realized that Serwe was his proof against both Moenghus and Kellhus. (all of this only occurred to me after he called her his proof)

Proof of what? Serwe was a sexual toy for Cnaiur, and a reminder of the wife he loved. Proof to himself that he lusted and loved women. He only seemed to need this proof after extended time alone with Kellhus, who so resembled the one who, at least mentally, seduced him as a child.

Kellhus saw this, used it to his advantage. He sexually dominated Cnaiur in another way, by taking Serwe from him. This I think was largely what drove Cnaiur past the edge of madness, combined with the fact that he knew he needed Kellhus to get at Moenghus.

Cnaiur hates Kellhus with passion, initially born from his hatred of Moenghus. Kellhus sexually dominates Cnaiur in an indirect way, and yet Cnaiur still reserves the greater hate for Moenghus.

Cnaiur is from a people who condemn homosexuality. Moenghus destroyed Cnaiur's self image as a man, and Cnaiur has spent the rest of his life trying to make up for that; to prove to himself that he is a man, the most vicious of men. After meeting Kellhus, he goes further to prove his masculinity to himself with Serwe.


of course, my uneducated guesses could be way off base. <!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) --> view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 15 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by Nauticus, Auditor

That was a very interesting, very different viewpoint of the subject. I enjoyed reading that thoroughly, and it just may very well be accurate. view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 17 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by butlersr, Candidate

And I'd like to first say that you all should thank me. The sheer amount of time that we have all devoted to proving our views of whether Cnaiur is gay or not suggest one thing - it's ambiguous. Which means that it's something our beloved author is saving for the final book. I have little to know doubt that we will know then. And I myself am quite certain that Cnaiur is gay. And when the book comes out I would like some appologies about all the railing you have all done against me both in this topic and in others for suggesting otherwise.
And in return I give an apology.

Making judgements on the author is something I'd like to retract. Many of you have raised my hackles by suggesting very simplistic and idiotic reasons and basis why I have made these judgements. But I realized that I would spend pages and pages defending them and for what? I'd get into defending my reasons for making the judgements instead of the judgements themselves. Basically trying to prove that I'm not an idiot for suggesting something controversial. That would be an empty and hard-earned victory.
I would like to alter my thought somewhat. In most literature, for someone to be overtly homoerotic (as I say Bakker has been in these books, I'll not take time defending that claim because it will force me to re-read the two books only to dictate certain passages, fuck that) it would almost always suggest a specific interest in homoeroticism. That's held pretty true in the past - should it need to be that way? No, people should be able to present homoeroticism without having interest in it themselves - but it just hasn't happened often in literature. So when I saw the homoeroticism so strong in these novels I thought something to be up. There's another more interesting possibility here - being that Bakker is not interested particularly in homoeroticism himself - but very interested in its use as a plot/character dynamic. I would say genious then!
It is an interesting dynamic! It provides all sorts of depth and drama and controvery and questions and it's also well suited for the time we live in where sexual preference is being seen on a spectrum as opposed to being absolute.
If he intentionally did that to thicken the characters and the plot then I would be even more impressed.

As far as Kellhus being his idealized self and Cnauir being his doppleganger: ok, ok - I withdraw it! The response against that has been so strong I must be forced to reconsider.
But it sure did give us all something to talk about didn't it?

<!-- s;) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_wink.gif" alt=";)" title="Wink" /><!-- s;) -->

Don't worry though - I'll have a fresh batch of bullshit after reading the next one. And if it turns out our boy is gay I'm going to re-read all those posts railing against the audacity of my suggestion that he could have been and reply to all of them one by one having a nice glass of wine while doing it. view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 19 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by Nauticus, Auditor

We won't apologize to you because you made a random guess in an attempt to predict something that is likely irrelevant to the plot itself, and we decided to disagree. view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 19 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by Artful, Candidate

If you've learned something, that's the main thing.

If you think a person has to be gay to write homoerotic material, I'd suggest you search for the term "yaoi". I could bury you under a mountain of homoerotic material written by straight girls and boys.

In my opinion, there certainly was a lot of eroticism floating around, including homoeroticism. In Cnauir's case this was to set him up as Kellhus' bitch, IMO. view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 27 January 2006 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by heasy, Commoner

Im not gonna touch on wether this book is homoerotic or not. But your main critique about this book was pretty much spot on.

I found myself skipping whole sentences where the protaganists were just relaying their thoughts on whole superior and perfect Kellhus was......yes we get the point! hes great! hes jesus christ for gods sake! lol.

But i still enjoyed the book and am looking forward to the next one.

By way great forum...only just found it. view post


A critique of the Warrior Prophet posted 09 March 2006 in The Warrior ProphetA critique of the Warrior Prophet by Nuuance E'vaance, Commoner

Personally, I liked the second book more than the first. I didn't expect a sophomore effort in a series to do so, especially given the 15 years vs. a year or whatever. I think part of it is the "world" and the characters started to come together a little more for me. I wasn't spending so much time just trying to figure out who the hell was who, and who they really were, and trying to remember what I thought I figured out 50 pages ago. Let's face it, Bakker's writing, this world he created, the characters, and his philosophies are deep. This is not your average read, and personally, that appeals to me. Sometime it's tiring, but in the end I certainly get more out of it. This was more story and less "okay here's the world I created, it's freakin' big as hell and I'm not sure where to start."

Is Bakker's self all over these writings, at least in some sense? Hell ya. More than most writers I've read? Hell ya. Does it label him a closet queer or whatever? Hell no. Could something like that be true? Sure, but I don't pretentd to know his motivations or whether his writing is some conscious or subconsious memoir. But I certainly can sense his philosophies bleeding through pages routinely, and occasionally slapping you across the face. Personally, I didn't get this sense that the book and characters is about him, and I like to read a book like this because it's a story first and foremost. Some interesting concepts, and there are possibliities, but I would simply venture you're overreaching.

I think he's an excellent writer, a profound thinker, a strong world creator, a certainly better than average story teller, and is quite gifted at melding it all together. I like his style. It's different. It's like the first time you ever take a sip of a dry wine. You wince at first, comment, hold it up and look at it, and then take another drink because it intrigues the living hell out of you. You take it in sips, because you finally know what it means to savor it. It can be overwhelming at times indeed. But I LIKE IT. It makes me think, I mean really think, in many different ways. That my friends, is a gift, and Mr. Bakker has it. And not many greater gifts exist than to make your fellow mortals use their brains to a greater degree and in different ways. Tell me he doesn't put you "outside the box". And as for me, I love being out there.

I think he will only get better at putting it all together, I can see the progression. I see the potential for not just really good, but greatness. This guy can think. This bastard can write. This asshole created a world I'm telling my friends they have got to check out. This fucker can make me sit back, force a grin, and say wow. And then I sit back and think about it some more...so visual, so thought-provoking.

To sum it up, I'm bouncing all over the site looking for any information on his next book. I thought Warrior-Phrophet was an excellent book. view post


  •  

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