the archives

dusted off in read-only


posted 16 Apr 2005, 01:04 by Folken Fanel, Commoner

blast...sorry I thought I was logged on to the site. Don't post very often didn't realize...even when it asked for a user name lol view post

posted 16 Apr 2005, 22:04 by Epitaphs, Candidate

Have you finished the book yet? Big C himself explains it before the end, I think. view post

posted 17 Apr 2005, 05:04 by Folken Fanel, Commoner

there in lies the issue...I read the last 1/4 of the book over the span of atlesat 2weeks...i had zero time. Exams, projects, yada yada...explain:( view post

posted 30 Aug 2005, 07:08 by Mithfânion, Didact

Still not wholly sure why he was that fond of her myself... view post

posted 30 Aug 2005, 11:08 by Echoex, Auditor

There was some explanation about Serwe being the only means by which Cnaiur could defeat Kellhus (and to some extent, Moenghus). To beat and rape Serwe was to beat and rape Kellhus. To love Serwe was to love someone other than Moenghus. Aside from that, does there need to be a 'reason'? The heart wants what it wants. He fell in love with her. Have none of you felt that reckless, inexplicable need for one certain person? I have. Many years later, I still feel it. Ex. view post

posted 31 Aug 2005, 05:08 by Mithfânion, Didact

Well of course he doesn't need a reason, it was more along the lines of whether he was really in love with her, or was she only a substitute, a means to an end. view post

posted 01 Sep 2005, 15:09 by Echoex, Auditor

Everyone you fall in love with is a means to an end... view post

posted 01 Sep 2005, 23:09 by Mithfânion, Didact

Oh please, spare me ;) view post

posted 02 Sep 2005, 12:09 by Echoex, Auditor

C'mon, Mith. Let's be pragmatic here....(I just realized that 'pragmatic' begins with 'pragma'...hmm...that's another discussion string)... We fall in love because? Because we need to procreate and carry on our bloodlines. So it's a matter of propogating our species. Because the rampant proliferation of disease has created instinctual monogomy. So it's a matter of helping our species survive. Means to an end... .Ex. view post

posted 05 Sep 2005, 19:09 by Tattooed Hand, Auditor

The book gives a two part answer. First, Serwe is Cnaiur's "proof" of belonging to the People, something his encounter with Moenghus casts some shadows on both for himself and other People... Kelhus identifies this as the basis of his attachment to Serwe and manipulates it as the only way he can find to manipulate Cnaiur, since all his direct attempts hadn't worked. So basically Cnaiur is nuts - by the end of the TWP, he confuses Serwe with his favorite wife at home Anissi (sp?) - and Kelhus is very good at tracking that insanity and harnessing it for his own ends. He sort of does the same thing with Serwe, who is off her rocker too. view post

posted 08 Dec 2005, 18:12 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

posted 08 Dec 2005, 19:12 by Tattooed Hand, Auditor

ALL? Don't you think that renders his sexuality a little overdetermined. What about cultural norms and his defiance of them? The seduction is a betrayal of his people's ways and of his father. It is not because he loved Moenghus (which we don't know if it was sexual for sure) that he might not be one of the people, but Moenghus lured him into betraying his people and father. Social betrayal and homoerotic transgressions usually had to overlap for the charge of sodomy to be leveled. There is no such thing as homosexual identitiy (in terms of one's sexual preferences determining the rest of their subjectivity) before the late 19th century. I can point you to a long list of scholarly work to support this contention. The question is, has Bakker written Cnaiur's sexuality anachronistically or are you reading modern day ideas of sexual determinism into the work? view post

posted 08 Dec 2005, 21:12 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

posted 15 Dec 2005, 09:12 by Adn, Commoner

I posted this in another thread, but it's even more relevant in this thread. Here are my guesses about Cnaiur and Serwe, and Cnaiur's sexuality. I think it unlikely that Cnaiur is homosexual as we know the term, 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? Moenghus was a father figure to him, and possibly more. Cnaiur seemed to be attracted to Kellhus, born largely out of his memories of Moenghus. Serwe was a sexual toy for Cnaiur, and a reminder of the wife he loved. Proof to himself that he lusted and loved women. That he was a "Man" of the People. He only seemed to need this proof after extended time alone with Kellhus. This does not mean he was attracted to men in general. He had many wives, at least one of which he loved a great deal. Kellhus used this 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. view post

posted 15 Dec 2005, 15:12 by Tattooed Hand, Auditor

Well put. I agree with that. However Moenghus may have used Cnaiur erotically (among other ways) I was having a difficult time picturing him as someone who belonged on a Harley in a gay pride parade. He is too erratic and heterogenous in general. view post

posted 16 Dec 2005, 03:12 by butlersr, Candidate

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

posted 17 Dec 2005, 23:12 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 [i:e5utfw39]reasons [/i:e5utfw39]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? ;) 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


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