Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only

  •  

butlersr Candidate | joined 08 December 2005 | 15 posts


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


Esmet's betrayl, Bakker's massogeny, and a criticism posted 08 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetEsmet's betrayl, Bakker's massogeny, and a criticism by butlersr, Candidate

I think that to understand Esmett's betrayl one must see Esmi as Bakker's critique of women.

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


Cnaiur and Serwe posted 08 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetCnaiur and Serwe by butlersr, Candidate

No no no
Bakker makes it very very clear. Cnaur is GAY.
Gay Gay Gay

Serwai (sp?) is his proof that he's a "Man of the People" aka the masculine ideal that his people hold. Or basically his proof to others that he's not gay. He's conflicted with his sexuality and he takes it out on her while using her to show others the facade of the person he would like to be seen as - being a great fearsome warrior with a beautiful trophie-wife. The masculine ideal. That's why he would give anything to get her back - she's his beard.
He doesn't love her - he loves Kellhus, and Kellhus's father. He wants to kill Kellhus's father because he seduced him and then rejected him. He's a lover scorned. That's the character wrapped up into a neat package - a sexually conflicted man and a lover scorned. All his motivations arrise from this. view post


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


Cnaiur and Serwe posted 08 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetCnaiur and Serwe by butlersr, Candidate

Good reply.
Yes I am reading modern-day ideas into sexual identity. Simply because the story was written by a modern man and everything he writes is coming from his own frame of reference.
I do believe that Cenaur's sexuality is at the very heart of his struggle. He loves Kellhus and wants him, but hates himself for it. He's constantly in pain and there's no mention of pain over Cenaur betraying his people. Whenever Cenaur's in horrible pain, it always referrs to homoerotic feelings toward Kellhus. Besides, I have other ideas about what it's all about which I put in another post.
I'll paste part of it below. Definitely sticking my neck out on this one.
-------
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 seemed like a snippet from a sexual fantasy. 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 loathsome 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.
---------
Basically I'm feeling that Cenaur is just the expression of a side of Bakker. More specifically the shamed homosexual side. So believing this, yes, I do think that his sexuality and the accompanying shame are the most salient points of the character - with all else flowing from that struggle. view post


Was Cnauir gay? posted 10 December 2005 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? by butlersr, Candidate

Well, was he? view post


Was Cnauir gay? posted 12 December 2005 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? by butlersr, Candidate

It's just that I interpreted the bulk of Cnauir's internal struggle as having to do with feeling attracted to Kellhus through mixing up feelings for his father. And I do think it's important to understand some of the reasons why "his prize" (aka his "proof") is so important to him. In my opinion she's his beard. I mean he's definitely the most conflicted character in the novels. I think that sexual confusion would account for that conflict based on the information given. But many other people seem to think sexual confusion to be doubtfull in his case or if it is recognized, just a smaller internal conflict. I'm saying it is the conflict and the reason why Cnauir does almost everything he does.
And being secretly gay in not an accusation. No crime or charge. It's just that whatever's repressed inside you will alway leak out here and there. Nothing causes one to spring sudden leaks like a novel. If someone can help me to account to the amount of homoeroticism dripping off the pages I'd be happy to withdraw the idea completely. But what I see is not just the recognition of homoeroticism in many of the character's dynamics, I see an emphasis on it as if it is of particular interest to the author. It's not like it matters if the author is gay or not. It's just that what I've noticed is unusual and I'm wondering about what could account for it. view post


Cnaiur and Serwe posted 16 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetCnaiur and Serwe by butlersr, Candidate

I completely agree.
couldn't have said it better, view post


Was Cnauir gay? posted 17 December 2005 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? 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 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


Cnaiur and Serwe posted 17 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetCnaiur and Serwe 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


Literary psychoanalysis posted 17 December 2005 in The Warrior ProphetLiterary psychoanalysis by butlersr, Candidate

Which leads us to our title character, Kellhus. Kellhus is, symbollically, a psychological prototype, that of a sociopathic cult leader. There are so many examples of this all I can do is offer to educate anyone who disagrees. Similarities can be found to Charles Manson, Jim Jones, and Jesus. (Apologies to any offended by that.)

Yes - i'm offended by the reference to Jones and Manson!
<!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->


This was a pretty well thought out post.
I like the idea of distending.
All very fitting to the time we live in - it's like he's responding to these times we're in by reminding us of the folly of our own holy wars. Sort of allegorical
Oh - there I go again making judgements about the author - sorry. view post


Was Cnauir gay? posted 20 December 2005 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? by butlersr, Candidate

Well said, Entropic_existence.

I think you nailed it.
Think of all the pages we could have saved if you wrote that first

<!-- s:) --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_smile.gif" alt=":)" title="Smile" /><!-- s:) -->

I like that thought - that we're stuck in this time and culture where we're more sensitive to homoerotic themes. It's been so repressed for the last few hundred years. And now it's back and we're like "there it is, there it is, oh look over there..." and so on. Or at least I was.

much thought to follow

and it's funny - because it kindof takes the interest out of whether this or that character was gay. everybody's gay - nobody's gay.
it wasn't a thing you were like it is now.
it happens to you - then it doesn't - then maybe it happens again.
but I still think that most of Cnauir's anger/rage comes from being so sexually conflicted.

thanks for the insight view post


Was Cnauir gay? posted 21 December 2005 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? by butlersr, Candidate

anger and its more extreme form rage are secondary emotions. they don't produce other emotions, feelings, or states of mind generally- they are products -normally of fear.
i think in Cnauir's case that definition would fit well. view post


Was Cnauir gay? posted 23 December 2005 in The Thousandfold ThoughtWas Cnauir gay? by butlersr, Candidate

that's really great.
so is Cnauir the "true-badass", or is he an example of the problem of being a badass in a society that values machismo - or is he an example of what can happen to a man in general when living in a society that values machismo?
it provided some insight, but just lead me to more questions.

What's clear is that Cnaiur is incredibly conflicted with the man he is and the man he senses he's expected to be. And that leads him to all of the excesses of manliness (extreme violence, machismo, stoicism, anger, withdrawl, sexual aggression, massogeny, etc) view post


  •  

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