Abberon, on 17 June 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:
QuickTidal I got negatively rep'd by like 5 people in the first post when I compared MBotF to ASoIF. I said nothing inflammatory. I prefaced the whole statement by saying ASOIF was more character-driven than MBotF and VERY quickly afterwords explained my poor choice of words, what I meant and mentioned it as a STRENGTH to MBotF rather than a criticism. I LIKE how Quick Ben is always kept a mystery and I don't know much about it. It makes moments like the end of DoD MUCH cooler. These books feed off the legend and mystery SE creates.
Some people took my poor choice of words for what it was and accepted (some even agreeing) with my explanation. You and others, on the other hand, decided to make characterizations of me and discredit me as a poster. You, specifically, painted me as a stubborn little fool too proud to admit I was wrong.
Also, I'm not sure what comments like, "My advice to Abberon is to stop reacting like we killed your kitten" are meant to achieve if you're trying to take the mature road here.
Back to the thread topic sort of, I find it baffling how poorly some people here take criticism of the series. I strongly feel that DoD, for example, was excessively long-winded, had too many redundant perspectives and was not nearly as well written as all 8 previous volumes. It's baffling to me that people can't accept this criticism, or at least understand where it's coming from. I'm stunned that people actually believe that SE meticulously planned the whole story of a 10000 page epic back in 1999 and that there were no mistakes, omissions or course corrections throughout. Considering he wrote at a pace of around 1000 pages/year, I'm surprised that people here maintain that every single paragraph that he wrote was a finely tuned art,that none of it was long-winded rambling and that there were no editing oversights.
From what I've been able to gather, it does seem to be the most poorly received book of the series, and some of us have brought up reasons why here.
This I see as three separate arguments. The first being your criticism of DoD; the second being a criticism of the series as a whole and the third as a criticism of how people interpret your criticism on the forum are kind of intertwined.
First thing first, DoD is probably one of the most polarizing books in terms of opinion even on this own forum. Amongst the friends I have who read the series not on here, they found it to be overly depressing. Repetitive characters and characterization (all the Marine's are the same brooding person), the Snake was nonsensical and served no purpose in the book, it's too philosophical, are some of the more common criticisms. Fair enough. I happen to disagree, and DoD is my favorite book in the series, but I can recognize how some might not like that stuff. It is dark. It is long-winded. It is depressing. And, I think that fits perfectly well. Not all soldiers are Nietzsche as they are portrayed here, but if I can dismiss lizards so technologically advanced they create flying mountains or gods constantly interfering with the world, I don't find it hard to stay within my realm of suspension of disbelief that there are philosopher-soldiers en masse in the Bonehunters.
Secondly, did Erikson make mistakes? I don't think you'll hear a counter argument to a statement that the time-line is fucked on this forum. It's so screwed the mantra has become we simply won't talk about it. It's the elephant in the room that everybody just ignores. On the other hand, competing events such as the Tattersail-Tayschrenn recollection of Pale
can be adequately debated in that this is a written history. And, anyone who has studied history knows that not only is it written by the victor's and is biased in such a way, witnesses to the same event or persons involved in the same event can be on totally opposite ends of the spectrum in how they understand an event happened.
Yet, you then take that willingness to argue and seemingly write off arguments as being fanboyish hand-waving of Erikson's mistakes. For instance, your position on the Pale incident, from what I recall, is steadfastly that Tattersail was correct and Tayschrenn is lying. Many of us here would argue that that is perhaps correct, but that there is another interpretation. Your insistence that the other
is not correct is just as flawed position as those you accuse of hand-waving errors. It's your opinion, and you are entitled to it, but not all opinions are exclusively right.
Further, equating the forum as a whole as some sort of monolith out to disagree with you is both antagonistic to those who will listen to your arguments and to those who genuinely disagree. Further magnifying said situation by the constant mentioning of "others" who "agree with your position" just makes it worse. Stand on your own feet, or link those arguments so that they too can be argued against. I have a feeling you think you are raging against the machine, when frankly, 95% of the machine doesn't really care other than seeing a shit storm in active threads with one common denominator. And, that's just not good for the forum as it turns new members and possible members away.
Tl;dr: This is an Erikson fan-forum. Criticism generally will be met with disagreement. I think that is to be expected. Some react with more vitriol than others, and you fell victim to some of the latter. That is not to say we do not tolerate criticism. Fair criticisms are generally noted as being fair, but one's mileage may vary as opinions often tend to be in disagreement in your situation. Changing goalposts, arguing you were interpreted incorrectly, or that the forum is out to get you will only take away from your legitimate criticisms while increasing the reciprocal antagonism with those who you are having vociferous disagreements with as everybody likes to be seen as an individual poster with an individual opinion.
I don't think you are a troll, and I think you've said enough positive things about the series that anybody who would be simply reacting to perceived initial trolling has been proven wrong. But, if you are going to criticize, be prepared for strong rebuttal in some cases.
Keep posting, it's good to have people around who disagree, even if I disagree with them. Different perspectives are good.
This post has been edited by HoosierDaddy: 17 June 2011 - 11:07 PM
Trouble arrives when the opponents to such a system institute its extreme opposite, where individualism becomes godlike and sacrosanct, and no greater service to any other ideal (including community) is possible. In such a system rapacious greed thrives behind the guise of freedom, and the worst aspects of human nature come to the fore....