[Sinisdar Toste]

i've had a thought,

karsa orlong, as we know, is a freaky ass giant warrior with a stone sword, he disregards what people tell him of enemies and the right thing to do and his will is an actual force of power. the whole of the malaz world as we the reader see it, is not a good-evil dichotomy, but to individual characters in the books good and evil are paramount.

karsa orlong is an exception to this, admittedly not at the start of his arc, but he comes to it in time. he makes remarkably prescient judgements concerning who his enemies are, with little or no regard to previous "evil" or "good" actions they may have taken against him. the malazans for one, the edur, his gods, etc etc. certainly much of his journey was manipulated by the CG, but the CG only influenced him in order for karsa to become the CG champion, which turned out to be a bust.

so to sum up, i believe that SE must have based Karsa on the Nietzschean ideals of the Overman (Ubermensch), who is beyond good and evil, and the will to power. as karsa's will literally is his power. not saying karsa is a nihilist mind you.

well? cant wait to hear where im off track, nietzsche can be ambiguous at times...

[Venerus]

Sorry, but that was a very trite reading of Nietzsche. Karsa can't be the overman because he has morals; they're just different from ours, but he's still bound down by them, by external moral law (see his speech on how gods should behave, how he would behave as a god in HoC, to Siballe et al). Of all the characters in the series, Karsa's chains are the most often mentioned. The entire chains analogy is the exact opposite of Nietzschian will-to-power -- will should flow freely, every action recognized as originating in the will to action and not "because someone else made me" or "because I made myself" but rather "because I wanted to."

Dichotomy of selves such as those with Karsa (being pushed, feeling obligations to his past, "dragging the dead", talking to "other" versions of himself, ie the projections of Delum and Bairoth once the true ghosts are silenced in the sword) all make him a very poor candidate for being an overman.

Not saying there's no merit to your idea at all, there are brief moments during the series where Karsa seems to be pure will -- but very frequently, he's either fighting himself, his own instincts, or projections of his inner monologue. That's not will-to-power at all, honestly. That's the very thing Nietzsche wanted to overcome.

Here, just to grab one of the hundreds in TGS that speaks to this (book three, 275, Kaufmann trans):

Quote

What is the seal of liberation? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself.

Edit: in fact, Karsa is completely subverted by the weak (ie the ghosts in his shadow). Guilt, regret, and influence from the helpless... Karsa is practically the anti-overperson.

[Sinisdar Toste]

Venerus;278592 said:

Sorry, but that was a very trite reading of Nietzsche. Karsa can't be the overman because he has morals; they're just different from ours, but he's still bound down by them, by external moral law (see his speech on how gods should behave, how he would behave as a god in HoC, to Siballe et al). Of all the characters in the series, Karsa's chains are the most often mentioned. The entire chains analogy is the exact opposite of Nietzschian will-to-power -- will should flow freely, every action recognized as originating in the will to action and not "because someone else made me" or "because I made myself" but rather "because I wanted to."


Dichotomy of selves such as those with Karsa (being pushed, feeling obligations to his past, "dragging the dead", talking to "other" versions of himself, ie the projections of Delum and Bairoth once the true ghosts are silenced in the sword) all make him a very poor candidate for being an overman.

Not saying there's no merit to your idea at all, there are brief moments during the series where Karsa seems to be pure will -- but very frequently, he's either fighting himself, his own instincts, or projections of his inner monologue. That's not will-to-power at all, honestly. That's the very thing Nietzsche wanted to overcome.

Here, just to grab one of the hundreds in TGS that speaks to this (book three, 275, Kaufmann trans):




Edit: in fact, Karsa is completely subverted by the weak (ie the ghosts in his shadow). Guilt, regret, and influence from the helpless... Karsa is practically the anti-overperson.

i see what you mean, that karsa can't be the overman because he is tied down by morals and subjected to his personal ghosts and demons. but over time, as in the case of the Bairoth and Delum projections, he recognizes many of them as originating with himself, or as impositions from outside forces, and rejects them. one of the most powerful examples of this is when he meets his gods, whom up to this point, he has been acting in the name of.

however, i would disagree that the ghosts of his victims are subverting him. karsa feels no guilt or regret for killing them, none at all. he in fact subverts them to his purpose in the end, fashioning a gate to finish off rhulad once and for all. karsas chains are the most mentioned, besides perhaps the CG's, but as he himself says, no chains can hold him. granted that is an arrogant and ignorant statement by him, the chains pulled him right to where the CG wanted him to be. but now the chains are off and karsa could do anything.

nobody could ever be the Overman, but Karsa i think is SE's approximation of it.

[Venerus]

I see what you're saying. Perhaps "subvert" was a poor choice of words on my part, but it's quotes like this:

DHG, 407, Felisin on Karsa:

Quote

Tortured spirits. He's haunted by the ghosts of those he's slain. Forgive me, Toblakai, if I spare you no pity.

That make things quite ambiguous about the relationship. "Haunted" can have so many meanings. Karsa is certainly... affected, at the very least, by his past. It scares and influences him in certain ways, maybe "subvert" isn't fair but it exerts some control over him. His past has a kind of control over how he acts now that is not at peace with moment-to-moment free choice and all that.

And of course those wonderful scenes where he "drags" his past with him, into the camp in HoC to kill everyone or where he uses them in RG. I keep feeling that if he truly didn't have regrets and some kind of ethical ties to his past, he wouldn't have to fight it -- it would flow with him, or not even be an issue. I think it's in HoC when it seems like it is the exception to the rule that he is leading those chains, I always thought the implication was that the chains usually drag at him quite a bit.

I mean, to me, it seems like his guilt created the ghosts in the first place -- it's his powerful shame and regret that traps them and/or brings them into existence, a very raw externalization of inner conflict. And then he either feels he has to bully his own feelings to get what he wants, or is bullied by them... in a sense.


I think you and I probably agree on the central themes and are just quibbling over the interpretation. I see Karsa as being tied down, you see him as overcoming the bonds. Both seem like valid perspectives to me. I think it just comes down to how we intuit Karsa, which probably reflects our own values (or majors >_>) more so than Erikson's (writing) or Karsa's.

[Sinisdar Toste]

very well put, and i also think we are mostly in agreement. see karsa's past is coloured by ignorance and deception, so i can totally understand how he is dragging his past, and being scared and influenced by it, as the time when his will was not his own. that seems to be something that is very important to him, and he would be ashamed that at one time he killed for a reason that was not "pure" as he would like to see it, and maybe thats where the ghosts come from.

he is however evolving and growing at an alarming rate, so i wouldn't be surprised if by the end of the series he is closer to the ideal Overman than now. it could ultimately lead him to the god-hood he seems destined to.

also, seems like we're the only ones who give a whit about nietzsche

[Deragoth]

Karsa Angry. Karsa Smash.


That's all you really need to know.

[Skywalker]

Very interesting topic, chaps. While I do agree that Karsa isn't 100% an ubermensch, I do suspect that you are on to some thing when you say SE modelled the character on the concept

I'd just like to point out a couple of things...

1) Nietszche never said the Ubermensch was not constrained by morality. He only said that he would not be constrained by 'morality as we define it'... and that there would be nothing 'other-worldly' (basically Christian) about his beliefs. His beliefs would be based firmly on this earth, be fashioned by him and have real rewards/ risks. So I think it is actually OK for the ubermensch (or Karsa) to have a sense of morality.

Wikipedia said:

In Ecce Homo, Nietzsche vehemently denied any idealistic, democratic or humanitarian interpretation of the Übermensch: "The word Übermensch {designates} a type of supreme achievement, as opposed to 'modern' men, 'good' men, Christians, and other nihilists..."

Safranski argues that the combination of ruthless warrior pride and artistic brilliance that defined the Italian Renaissance embodied the sense of the Übermensch for Nietzsche...

That rings a bell.

2) Karsa does in a way fit the Ubermensch role because he is someone that he recognizes only competence and achievement. He genuinely respects the Malazan army and refuses to kill them (although they are sworn enemies to his friend Leoman). He seeks out tests for himself constantly - be it the KCNR he fought, or bull bhederin, Rhulad, or Icarium.

[Venerus]

I have to disagree on your first point, Sky. Nietzsche was against any type of rule set, codes, constraints. Karsa has a moral code that he follows. A few random quotes pop into my mind on this one (don't remember which books, probably TGS or BGaE):

"every habit lends our hand more with but makes our wit less handy"

and

"I should never wish to build a house, but if I were to build one, let it be by the sea"

etc etc

The point is mostly that habits become ingrained and constrain free action. The general thrust of my points above is that Karsa is constrained by many things, and he's constantly fighting those forces. To be liberated as the Overman is to be without those. Any code of conduct results in constraints.

Furthermore, Nietzsche's critique of Christianity had a lot to do with the weak subverting the powerful. According to Nietzsche, making altruism etc virtuous was Christianity's greatest trick. Now let's examine Karsa: first, he feels many obligations to the ghosts in his path. Second, he scolds Siballe and the other Imass on how Gods are beholden to their worshippers, how gods must ease the suffering of their followers, etc. And finally, when he throws Siballe into the river, he says "I have learned compassion" (ie: he's starting to view himself as a god-figure). That all smacks of anti-Nietzschian philosophy.

I'm not saying it's bad, or that Karsa has NO similarities to the Overman, but I think there are some features of his behavior that are starkly un-Overman and rule him out as being the Ubermench.

If anything, I'd say he's close to the second stage of manhood from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. He's had his thoughtless Child days of pure will, now he's still uber-violent but not free (still being manipulated) ie he's a Lion. Maybe someday he'll become a Man, but I don't think he is yet.



Also, I'm excited that someone else actually cares about continental german philosophy on this board!

[Ivan the terrible]

Karsa, might fit somewhere into the Nietzschean ouevre only in as much as he represents 'force' the unmitigated will to power. But Dionysus had to be dismembered before he could permeate all society, Karsa's 'deconstruction and reformation' in the first part of Book IV.

Every facet of his Being now affirms itself in ways the are different and ever changing but no less vigorous.

'The hero is joyful, that is what, up to now escaped the authors of tragedies' -Will to Power.

Joyful, here could be applied in the fact that Karsa seems now immune to doubt, and is ever affiriming?

Only Deleuze, and Hitler ever claimed a systematic interpretation of Nietzsche, therefore unless you draw strongly from either. I'd be careful about assuming Karsa to be anything more philosophical than a play upon some literary tropes.
----------------------------------------------
Does he remain bound within cultural tropes? Certainly.

Does he break some? Without a doubt.
However the Ubermensch is not neatly encapsulated by social rebel.

Karsa values and desires to preseve his history more than make it...a Ubermensch never would

[Sinisdar Toste]

karsa desires to preserve history? his history maybe, but he's realized that the teblors history is flawed, i think he would want to shatter that once he returns to laederon and write a new history for his people.

[Venerus]

I think Ivan's point is that Karsa values history/what came before. Karsa has a strong bias towards truth (like most of us, I'd guess) but that doesn't change the core value -- the past matters to him. I think one can love history without loving false versions of it, right?

[Ivan the terrible]

Pretty much, though love is a prickly word.

Ecce Homo I 1 p223. "Looking from the perspective of the sick towards healthier concepts and values"

Valuation of history plays a double role, in that it makes an affirming vitality question itself in relation to the past...while...it also allows for critique. With critique, creation and further self affirmation.

Karsa could conceivably fit here, however, and this is the strength of Nietzsche's theory, so could any man in a moment of certainty.

Ultimately Nietzsche diagnosed a human condition, his ubermensch was vaguely fathomed and uncertain as he thought typical of modern European nihilism. It's more of a hope than a person.

As a person he is what we are not. That we can empathise with Karsa disqualifies him.

History is the annoying monkey on Zarathustra's back.

It is not thousands of chained dead people.

[Gear]

I think a better example of an overman type caracter is Bakker's Kelhus

[Skywalker]

Gear;282662 said:

I think a better example of an overman type caracter is Bakker's Kelhus

Ooh yeah... that is a better example!

The only problem I'd have with that is that Kellhus agreed to employ other-worldly (magical) techniques in addition to his logic/ possibility trances

[Aptorian]

My god the intelectual geekiness in this thread is higher than 9000!!!

[Venerus]

*scouter explodes*

My favorite rendition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBtpyeLxVkI&NR=1