the archives

dusted off in read-only


posts by Avariel600 Commoner | joined 25 Aug 2008 | 3

Esmi posted 25 Aug 2008, 22:08 in The Warrior ProphetEsmi by Avariel600, Commoner

Bakker does tend to bend philosophical in his books, and what I find most heartwrenching and ultimately insulting is his portrayal of Esmenet. She starts of as a strong, intriguing character with depths of intellect and a powerful philosophical mind herself, despite her meagre upbringings; she can feel the sting of being a whore, and carries the weight of her own guilt (i.e. what she perceives as being sin as well as what she's done to her own daughter) with a resignation and sorrow that only the repentant truly feel. She begins a monogomous relationship with Achamian, reigniting an old love affair and, for me, the brief passages in the Warrior Prophet describing their pseudo marriage are some of the most powerful in the book. They not only love one another, but they seem to need one another desperately; despite many decrying Esmenet as a social climber I don't see her as such, as she probably could have gained much more social prestige remaining Sarcellus' lover than becoming openly the lover of a damned sorcerer. Being with Achamaian really doesn't gain her a lot of prestige at all. I feel let down by Esmenet's betrayal and eventual relationship with Khellus. She becomes almost a replacement for Serwe, who while being beautiful is in reality a simpering cow-like woman who's only real vitrue seems to be a child-like innocence that merely ends up getting her killed. Esmenet seems above the divinely inspired, almost religious rapture and adoration that encompasses many of those who treat with Khellus on a day to day basis, and yet despite the groundwork of this deep and unfathomable love for Achamian, as well as her own sharp intellect, Esmenet suddenly finds herself prey to these same worshipful feelings? Where did this come from? It was completely out of character, and while it somewhat speaks to Khellus' power of other people and his ability to manipulate, I would think that most women, especially a woman of the world like Esmenet who also has her intellect, would be able to see the difference between a man who was using her as a tool and one who truly loved her. I find it interesting that Akka loved Esmi simply the way she was, while Khellus felt it necessary to "redeem" her in order to prepare her for him, in a sense. There's also the dichotomy of an almost divine love versus flawed mortal love; Khellus is most definitely a messiah like character, and Esmi's descriptions of the feelings invoked in her are closer to religious rapture than true love. She loves him, I think, because he's a prophet and god-like and she's consumed by the signifigance of this, whereas Akka...she knows his flaws, his imperfections, and she's infuriated by them while loving him wholly at the same time. I think Bakkar harps too much on how much more "perfect" Love is when it is focused on the divine, and he sullies the flawed nature of mortal love, which in my opinion is the more beautiful of the two. A sorcerer and a whore, one imperfect creature and another, and yet they love one another; how is that not the most signifigant thing this book could have shown anyone? Instead it cheapens itself and merely shows that apparently women are easily bent from one man to another, and then all love is truly false. view post

Re: Esmi posted 27 Aug 2008, 01:08 in The Warrior ProphetEsmi by Avariel600, Commoner

"Aurang tells Kellhus that she really does not love you and Kellhus responds that she confuses worship for love. " as I haven't read the thousandfold thought yet (I just started it) I haven't gotten to those parts yet, but I did mention that Esmi's love for Kellhus seems more focused on almost a blind, worshipful adoration and less on true love. Which I think this quote just validated. The idea behind Kellhus seducing Esmenet is due to her massive intellect and her ideal prospects as a mate and eventual breeding factory; she'll produce high quality children. I am let down because it seems that Bakker has painted a character that, out of everyone, SHOULD be wise to Kellhus' true ambitions, and yet she becomes very Serwe like, thinking that Kellhus loves her and "worshipping" him as a god as you've pointed out with that part of TTT. The sexist part comes from what the second response pointed out; that Esemenet realizes she's never been and never will be happier then when she was with Achamian in the desert when they escaped camping n the ruins with the rest of the Holy War for those five days; then she was living on caught game and rations, in a tent, with no one else around but Akka. Bakker started Esmi off with an admirable thirst for knowledge and the world and adventure in general, and somehow it's become a desire for power over an empire, even if it means becoming Kellhus' tool in order to maintain the status and wealth she's become privvy to. The fact that she even realizes that this is what's happened to her eventually makes it even worse; she's letting it happen to her willingly for materialistic and social gain? How did she start out such a deep, intuitive character, a whore of the flesh but never of the spirit, and basically turns into a "gold-digger", for lack of a better term? She speaks of being redeemed and yet in the end she's simply another sort of whore. I think a lot of people regard this as sexist simply because most other female characters that are remotely prominent in the book don't have any place; Serwe was little more than an empty-headed pawn, and the only other real female influences are the emperor's mother and Esemenet. Esemenet had potential; and I think a lot of people are let down that instead of this potential being fully realized she's turned into another pawn. Maybe that was the point, that everyone in this series is simply a pawn. The differences between Esmi and Cnaiur (sp) are that the barbarian realizes what the Dunyain really do after his encounters with Kellhus' father, and he had QUITE a different reaction than Esmenet does, if what you're saying is true about her truly "realizing" Kellhus in the third book. Again, I may be wrong on that point since I'm not done reading it yet, but...point taken? The men who understand Kellhus turn against him, while the woman simply behaves herself like a good little pawn. But, woman or man, someone has to play that part, I suppose. I still love these books. but they break my heart, they do XD Very G.R.R. Martin reminiscent. view post

Re: Your favourite character? posted 27 Aug 2008, 14:08 in The Darkness That Comes BeforeYour favourite character? by Avariel600, Commoner

someone please tell me why Kellhus is in there? LOL I hate that b*stard view post


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