There is a problem with this and that is Koslun assumes that all organisms must have a form of purpose that cannot be forgotten, which is false. This only applies to spirits. Creatures of flesh and blood, especially one born after the Veil was created, can choose their own purpose.
Additionally, I find the purposefully obfuscatory nature the Canto to be very annoying, just like the obfuscation in every other religious and many philosopher's works are annoying.
If you know what happened or if you think you know what happened to the world - Just write it down in simple language and mention your source. I would assume that his source is from dreaming / meditation of the Fade.
The reason I think like this is due to George Orwell, specifically Orwell's Six Elementary Rules from Politics and English Language, an essay written by him in 1946. Here are the six rules:-
- Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
- Never use a long word where a short one will do.
- If it is possible to cut out a word, always cut it out.
- Never use the passive where you can use the active.
- Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
- Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
It is such a simple set of rules yet it is perfect in that it emphasizes clear and concise language over Newspeak. All religious texts I know, whether it be the ones in real life or the ones in fiction, have failed these rules spectacularly which leads me to believe (and given the evidence around us, this has to be true) that religious texts' primary focus is indoctrination, not enlightenment.
I just get this weird mental image of some deity revealing themselves to you for you to be the most obtuse prophet ever.
God: "Now that you know my acts, you must go forth and -"
You: "Woah woah woah, sir, hold your divine horses. You've been makin' some bold claims here. "And on the last day I created man?" Can I get some sources on that? Some hard evidence? A written testimony at least."
God: *Sigh* "See, this is why I don't talk to mortals anymore."
But in all seriousness, I know a lot mythological texts - Homer's epic poems, for instance - weren't written in the interest of indoctrination or enlightenment. Rather, they were written in a clunky, repetitious style because they were spoken in a clunky, repetitious style, before anyone ever thought to put them on paper, because it made the language easier to remember and recite. You call Athena gray-eyed four or five times in so many passages, and you're not likely to forget it later on. It helped the text to survive and pass on, and eventually put into writing, so that Lit students three thousand years in the future can get terrible migraines trying to parse it out.
Fiction writers, for their part, just try to seem authentic by mimicking the style.
Not to mention styles change. Orwell's clear and concise ideal wasn't even really a thing until recently (I thing Hemmingway was really the first to do it, but I could be wrong there.) so it's not like Moses could jump forward two thousand years in the future, take a few classes on science writing, and jet back to get God's commandments. Even if he could, I sort of have to disagree with Orwell's rules - while writing styles should lean towards clarity over pointless flourishing, English is a beautiful language, and stripping it down to be as frankly communicative, while good for the story itself, sort of disregards how beautiful the prose can be. An ideal style would find a happy medium between brevity and beauty.
(I'd also argue that Newspeak itself is the extreme result of these rules, given that it's a language that's eliminating all the "unnecessary" words, and favors childlike simplicity over denser vocabulary - although it is more unwieldy than English with how it thoughtlessly smashes words together.)
Retour en haut
Probably why he tells disliked Inky that he stopped the Qun because it offends him.
(Solavellan)
