[BellaGrace]

I'm on a first read of this series and just finished MT. The previous books all had a bit of "preachiness" and soap-box moralizing in them, but not so much that it bugged me or seemed out of place. However, with this book, I feel like I was beat over the head with it at every turn. To me it began to border on the absurd, it felt like every other page was Erikson's views on war, capitalism, socialism, greed, poverty etc. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his opinions - I'm only saying that it felt very heavy handed in this book (way more than any of the others up to this point). I was just wondering if anyone else felt that way. This was the first book where I found myself skipping paragraphs because they were entirely internal monologues of repetitive philosophizing.

Anyway - just my opinion. I really do love the series and have given all the previous books 5/5 stars. This one gets a 4.5/5 from me for the above mentioned reason and also because it took me FOREVER to get through the first 150 or so pages and also because

Spoiler

I dislike the plot device of using Errant as a means for stupid things to happen in the plot, like Brys drinking poison.

.

[Gothos]

BellaGrace, on 08 October 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

I'm on a first read of this series and just finished MT. The previous books all had a bit of "preachiness" and soap-box moralizing in them, but not so much that it bugged me or seemed out of place. However, with this book, I feel like I was beat over the head with it at every turn. To me it began to border on the absurd, it felt like every other page was Erikson's views on war, capitalism, socialism, greed, poverty etc. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with his opinions - I'm only saying that it felt very heavy handed in this book (way more than any of the others up to this point). I was just wondering if anyone else felt that way. This was the first book where I found myself skipping paragraphs because they were entirely internal monologues of repetitive philosophizing.

Anyway - just my opinion. I really do love the series and have given all the previous books 5/5 stars. This one gets a 4.5/5 from me for the above mentioned reason and also because it took me FOREVER to get through the first 150 or so pages and also because

Spoiler

I dislike the plot device of using Errant as a means for stupid things to happen in the plot, like Brys drinking poison.

.

Dislike internal monologue? Oh my, you're in for a treat in the next 5 books...
The moralizing was pretty obvious in MT, true enough, but I still can't shake the feeling that there's a connection between your view here and your location...

[Studlock]

No, not really. Fiction and art has always been a platform for cultural criticism (or moralizing? I don't really see it as moralizing but rather an examination of how a capitalistic works without strong regulation, and make no mistakes about that's how it works) and I really don't see a big jump from the three proceeding books and this one.

[MTS]

I think with Erikson's philosophising it really only becomes annoying when it seems like that's all the character is doing. For examples, the Mhybe sections in MoI dragged for me because most of her POV chapters were focused on how depressing her life was, and how parenthood can feel like your children are sucking the life out of you (in this case literally). I can understand the sentiment behind that, but when you've just come from reading about the Bridgeburners kicking ass and taking names, or Lady Envy, Toc and the Seguleh kicking ass and taking names, the change in pace can be a little jarring, and over a long book those intervals can add up.

Before MT you don't really have a lot of characters like that. I can only think of a few characters that I would associate their philosophising with. Duiker, Fiddler, Crokus and Trull could get that way sometimes, but they were doing a lot of stuff outside of that, so it was broken up. In MT however you have Hull Beddict, Seren Pedac, Udinaas, Trull, even Brys (i.e. most of the POV characters in the book), who are all prone to philosophical tangents as characters, so I can see how that could add up and become annoying.

I think MT is awesome though.

[HoosierDaddy]

I don't trust anyone that uses a shitty font. That being said, no MT is not too preachy. You take what you get from it.

[Illuyankas]

I felt it was a pretty good examination of the multiple failures of capitalism viewed through a filter of grey not-elves and dragon punching.

Also, the Crippled God? More like the Communism God amirite

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

I completely agree about those first 150 pages, though. I'm on my first reread and they've taken me nearly as long to read as the entirety of Deadhouse Gates.

[BellaGrace]

Gothos, on 08 October 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

The moralizing was pretty obvious in MT, true enough, but I still can't shake the feeling that there's a connection between your view here and your location...

LOL For what it's worth - I'm actually an atheist and a libertarian and not originally from Texas!

HoosierDaddy, on 08 October 2014 - 11:47 AM, said:

I don't trust anyone that uses a shitty font. That being said, no MT is not too preachy. You take what you get from it.

I'm pretty new here (so thanks for being so kind). What is wrong with the font? All I did was change it from Arial (which I hate with a passion) to Veranda which is in the same font family and shouldn't have made much of a difference at all - or are you taking umbrage that I made it slightly larger?

MTS, on 08 October 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Before MT you don't really have a lot of characters like that. I can only think of a few characters that I would associate their philosophising with. Duiker, Fiddler, Crokus and Trull could get that way sometimes, but they were doing a lot of stuff outside of that, so it was broken up. In MT however you have Hull Beddict, Seren Pedac, Udinaas, Trull, even Brys (i.e. most of the POV characters in the book), who are all prone to philosophical tangents as characters, so I can see how that could add up and become annoyingI think MT is awesome though. <

MTS - Agree with all of this. I HATED the Mhybe and I thought at times Duiker could get a bit long winded...but you've hit the nail on the head... in the other books there weren't as many characters that were always waxing philosophical.

This post has been edited by BellaGrace: 08 October 2014 - 02:22 PM

[Gorefest]

BellaGrace, on 08 October 2014 - 06:07 AM, said:

I'm on a first read of this series and just finished MT. The previous books all had a bit of "preachiness" and soap-box moralizing in them, but not so much that it bugged me or seemed out of place.

To me it didn't come across as preachy, to be honest. Possibly a bit longwinded and not always very engaging, but 'preachy' to me means that you hear the author's personal world views clearly breaking through in a way that is trying to lead (or, better phrased, goad) the reader into a certain direction or mindset that matches the author's view. With Erikson, to me it feels more as if you hear the character's personal views come through, and if you get philosophising from another POV, they might come to completely different conclusions. I think you can never escape having writer's opinions chiming through in their texts, but I actually find it often refreshing that Erikson seems to give you different views and perspectives on events and moral issues from different characters, and leaves space for the reader to make up their own minds and come to their own conclusions.

[Andorion]

The first time I read MT it was really rough going. Second time was way, way better. That being said, the second half of the book blows minds on any read.
As regards the philosophical characters, I found Hull Beddict the most annoying. I never really minded Brys and his PoVs though. As for Udinaas it can get a bit painful, but the thing about Udinaas is that his activities, thoughts and PoV are really important. There is a lot of RAFO here, so I won't say more. But MT never really enters preachy territory and there's always Tehol and Bug to lighten the mood.

[korik]

I remember when I first read MT that this was all about capitalism in the Western world. I found out later that it was inspired from the British Empire's activities in India where, after they abolishment of slavery it was allowed to continue in all but name through bondage/indenture. Some of SE's anthropologist learnings coming out again.

I have a few similar feelings as the OP from my first read, but the book definitely improves on a re-read. The whole Edur and the Letheri arc is immensely satisfying when considered over the whole series

[worry]

Wow, glad to hear that's what SE was thinking of because it is what came to mind when I read it. Obviously throughout the colonial west (but especially North America) there's large -- and deserved -- focus on the African slave trade, but there was plenty of indentured servitude of South & East Asians in British colonies in the Americas/West Indies and elsewhere that very much fit the perpetual debt cycles of Lether and generally gets absolutely no mention.

[D'iversify]

korik, on 08 October 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

I remember when I first read MT that this was all about capitalism in the Western world. I found out later that it was inspired from the British Empire's activities in India where, after they abolishment of slavery it was allowed to continue in all but name through bondage/indenture. Some of SE's anthropologist learnings coming out again.

Interesting to hear this. Wasn't Erikson's experience of the treatment of First Nations people in Canada also a big influence on his portrayal of Letherii society in MT?

[Andorion]

D, on 08 October 2014 - 07:09 PM, said:

korik, on 08 October 2014 - 06:05 PM, said:

I remember when I first read MT that this was all about capitalism in the Western world. I found out later that it was inspired from the British Empire's activities in India where, after they abolishment of slavery it was allowed to continue in all but name through bondage/indenture. Some of SE's anthropologist learnings coming out again.

Interesting to hear this. Wasn't Erikson's experience of the treatment of First Nations people in Canada also a big influence on his portrayal of Letherii society in MT?

I think its more related to the awful treatment of Native Americans, than Indians and the British Empire.
Debt was a big deal with the British, but that happened later. In the 18th Century when the British were trying to establish their Empire in INdia, the first thing they did was to destroy the Indian handicraft industry, which at that point was so robust that it satisfied domestic demand and exported to half a dozen countries. The British essentially established a buyer's monopoly in th emarket by kicking competitors out, and then hugely underpaid the craftsmen. Things got so bad that the families concerned started starving. The discriminatory tariffs established in England did not help. Essentially the Bengal handloom textile industry which produced some of the most fabulous silk and cotton in the world died out. Then phase 2 of the British plan kicked in. With indigenous industry destroyed, most everybody became poor peasants. The British then started buying up agricultural goods like raw cotton at criminally cheap rates, shipping them to the mills in Britain, prodicing chepa finished goods and then selling them back to the Indians at higher prices. The colony was thus bled both ways.

Anyway sorry about the rant, its just that this is a sore point with Indians, especially history people even now. And please note, what I have written is a very simplified summary of a complex process.

[Egwene]

Well, if there is one thing that the MBotF teaches... histories like the one mentioned in the previous responses happen all over the place and we rarely learn from them. Wherever the human being goes, it's likely to create havoc to the detriment of whatever was there before (a point made by many non-human characters in the books). Even with the best intentions we mostly get it wrong.

That was my bit of philosophizing for the day!

I love the introspection in the books and keep telling my partner that they are amongst what makes the series so worthwhile reading. Having said that, there are passages, although not many, which I have skipped because I felt that getting the gist of it was more than enough. Totally agree with Andorian about not skipping too much of Udinaas as there is so much information hidden within his musings. Part of the point in the book is that his fellow characters also often miss the import of what he has to say.

[Malaclypse]

It was reading MT that inspired me to find this place because this book, to me, was a baldly obvious condemnation of the American Way - I was like, this motherfucker has some balls and I wanted to talk about it with other people. Steve is a humanist and you need to understand that term and how it meshes with his worldview - i.e., he's convinced that we're fucked as a species and he's almost certainly right about that. It's the most frustrating thing...

This post has been edited by Malaclypse: 09 October 2014 - 08:54 PM

[Gorefest]

I don't subscribe to that view. Sure, humanity as a whole is not doing great on an ethical and cultural front, but I'm sure SE knows better than most, being an anthropologist, that the view from a human lifespan is limited in scope. It may look shitty now, but travel back a thousand years and I would argue we were doing a lot worse back then when it comes to ethical integrity. There is always hope.

[Malaclypse]

Oh please, I've argued this with him - barring a genius miracle we are fucked as a species. It will take an astonishing development to pull us out of this tailspin. So I always lose the argument because I retain hope against all reason and precedence.

[HiddenOne]

LIstening to jazz while reading this thread is bringing me right down. It never ceases to amaze & disgust me, the many ways mankind has developed to destroy itself. I have to agree w/ Mal that mankind is pretty much doomed, it is our nature. And I also hold some irrational hope, as the alternative is nihilism. I disagree that people were worse 1000 yrs ago. We have evolved to become more efficient at self-destruction and less affected by the suffering of others. It is an industry now, whereas it formerly was survival.

On topic, I don't find MT "preachy", which has a negative connotation. It does give some in depth views of the author's take on these weighty subject, but I didn't feel the Finger of Accusation pointed my way. If I was in the mood for sheer action while reading, it could have been ponderous, no doubt, but overall it delivers the quality we have come to expect.

As others have said, the re-read proves to be of great benefit.

[Gorefest]

HiddenOne, on 10 October 2014 - 04:47 PM, said:

I disagree that people were worse 1000 yrs ago. We have evolved to become more efficient at self-destruction and less affected by the suffering of others. It is an industry now, whereas it formerly was survival.

We used to round up people, chain them and drive them into the hulls of ships like cattle, to die miserably on the ocean or, if not, be put to work on the fields like mules. We did this simply because we believed ourselves superior to our fellow man

We still stumble, we mess up, we commit horrible atrocities, but as a species we are moving forward.

This post has been edited by Gorefest: 10 October 2014 - 06:00 PM