the archives

dusted off in read-only


Akka and the Ciphrang - TTT spoilers posted 14 Feb 2006, 06:02 by unJon, Auditor

Hi Scott, I was wondering if you could clarify how Akka survived his battle against the Ciphrang at the end of TTT. I found it curious that Akka never questions the how of his survival during his POV chapter at the end of the book. The current speculation on the boards range from the extremes of his skin-ward was strong enough to save him even while he was unconcious to Iyo must have died (so its a fake at the end of TTT) to Iyo never told the Ciphrang to kill him, just to 'scare him' so that Akka would know that Iyo should not be messed with. I guess that I am weakly in the skin-ward camp solely based on the fact that we do not see Akka curious about his survival. But I hoped that you would clear it up. Thanks view post

posted 17 Feb 2006, 16:02 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that I was way too coy about what I call Achamian's 'mithril-shirt conceit.' The idea is that the Ciphrang was already dying when it reduced Achamian to his Skin-ward, which is a common 'Ward of last resort': useless against a determined assault, but effective when an enemy thinks they have actually overcome you. view post

posted 18 Feb 2006, 04:02 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Thats about what I suspected, that the Ciphran was already dieing by the time it made it down to Achamian's Skin-Ward. That clears up some debate and controversy for us anyway. :) view post

posted 18 Feb 2006, 20:02 by Shryke, Candidate

Yeah, it seems really confusing the first time, but rereading it a few hours later it seemed much more clear what happened. Akka tore that thing apart, and almost killed it before it incapacitated him. As it was carrying him away, it was slowly dying, eventually dropping him on the shore. And yeah, you were a bit coy with the descrpitions, but you seem to like doing that. You like to make us work for it. Excersises me brain muscles. view post

posted 28 Feb 2006, 03:02 by Twayleph, Auditor

Apart from the fact that Scott probably knows what happens in his own books :) Iyokus isn't dead; we see him at the end of the book. view post

posted 28 Feb 2006, 12:02 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Iyokus is definately NOT dead... :twisted: view post

posted 03 Mar 2006, 04:03 by Inner_visions, Candidate

I'm afraid of the above post.../hide Anyway, what happened is between the book and reader in my opinion. The author gets his say but we don't have to accept it. (denial is something i'm good at) lol. view post

posted 04 Mar 2006, 01:03 by Andrew, Peralogue

Iyokus is going to become the next Meketrig. Dang i can't spell that name. In that case, then the next Shauriatas. Akka should have killed him when he had the chance. & by the way Scott, i don't buy him leaving Iyokus alive. Although, psychologically i understand revenge in thought vs. revenge in actual fact - nevertheless, Akka is capable of ruthlessness and mercilessness. view post

posted 04 Mar 2006, 03:03 by unJon, Auditor

I bought it Scott, for the record. Akka shows a bit of ruthlessness but only towards Esmi and only at the end of TTT. I thought his character development was extremely plausible. view post

posted 04 Mar 2006, 16:03 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

Blinding a Sorceror and NOT killing them could in a way, be considered even crueller than killing them. Iyokus can still work the Daimos, but he is crippled in most other aspects of Sorcery. Imagine enacting revenge on a highly skilled woodworker by chopping off his hands but leaving him alive. view post

posted 06 Mar 2006, 20:03 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

Isnt it said that Mandate Sorcerers utter one thing but mean another when uttering cants. view post

posted 06 Mar 2006, 23:03 by Noctis, Candidate

The utteral/inutteral thing is very well described in the excellent Encyclopedic Glossary of TTT under "sorcery." It is also noted in that entry (p. 490) that "...there are as many metaphysical interpretations of this structure as there are sorcerous schools..." view post

posted 07 Mar 2006, 00:03 by Entropic_existence, Moderator

For the Mandate's own philosophy on the utteral/inutteral string re-reading the section where Achamian is teaching Kellhus the Gnosis is most instructive. As for the bit on blinding, and how the Anagnosis and Gnosis are completely different from the Psukhe. With the Cishaurim, they blind themselves for a reason. Their metaphysics stems from passion. As Kellhus put it they blind themselves so that by eliminating the angle they see the world from, they may better comprehend the angles that they only remember. The metaphysics upon which the Gnosis, Psukhe, and Anagnosis work are very, very different things. Purity of meaning is absolutly important to sorcery, by becoming blind it throws essentially a wildcard variable in the mix. Maybe it would ultimately have no effect... but Iyokus and Elezearas seemed concerned. After all Elezearas asked Iyokus if he remembered what it was to see just as he wondered what effect blinding would have. We probably really don't have enough information to know for sure, but my money is down on it possibly having a detrimental effect. As for Moenghus remember that he blinded himself in order to learn the Psukhe, which was ultimately a dead end for him. Blinding is an inherent element on which the metaphysics of the Psukhe works I think. view post

posted 07 Mar 2006, 02:03 by Noctis, Candidate

The blinding is indeed inherent to the Psukhe, along with the passion angle, it also has to do with "seeing" on another level; according to the Glossary again "Given Fane's claim that the true powers of the Solitary God cannot be exercised so long as one sees the profane world, Cishaurim initiates voluntarily blind themselves..." ("Cishaurim" entry, p. 428) This really reminds me of the early Greek philosophers, who were exploring notions of appearance vs. reality; if I remember correctly, Heraclitus even had a notion of the soul (psukhe) becoming water after death, or something like that, which sounds very Cishaurim-ish (cishaurim-y?). :) Concerning blindness and true seeing and all that, the Cishaurim don't have the "mark" so they can't be "seen" by practitioners of the other Anagogic schools. I wonder if this is because they blind themselves (by blinding themselves they blind their enemies to them...interesting idea) or whether it has to do with the notion that what they do isn't exactly "sorcery," but something cruder? view post

posted 07 Mar 2006, 02:03 by Warrior-Poet, Moderator

The reason the Cishaurim are not marked by sorcery was expalined in book and forum and can be found here [url:3tbusfb8][/url:3tbusfb8] view post

posted 15 Mar 2006, 17:03 by Cu'jara Cinmoi, Author of Prince of Nothing

Regarding the mark, the idea is that passion is not cognitive, which is to say, neither true nor false OF anything, unlike statements or images. This is why recalling the 'Passion of the God' is never incomplete, whereas recalling the 'Thought of the God' must be false somehow, and so marked. That's the rationale, anyway. view post


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