[Ain't_It_Just_]

Well, it's all by-the-by, now....

Unless the BB's go to Itkovian's barrow and dig him out, ritually cursing him for all the needless deaths.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I sense zombie Itkovian coming on...

[Ain't_It_Just_]

Adjutant Stormy;330685 said:

I sense zombie Itkovian coming on...

Rofl that's awesome. Have rep.

[Abyss]

Y'know, if one (re)reads the end of MoI, no character spends any time at all going on about what an asshat Itkovian was for what he did. Quite the opposite.

- Abyss, has a soft spot for the bit where the soldier returns the helmet...

[buddhacat]

Wampyry makes an excellent point. Had the T'Lan Imass been free to go ahead and fight the K'ell Hunters, they would have, certainly. The BBs would have been saved, sure.

But Pannion would have been killed. No escape for the little Jaghut girl. No redemption for Kilava. And most of all, no relief for Burn. Is Burn's death preferable to that of a few BB's?

Besides, where's the drama in a bunch of undead Imass killing a bunch of undead lizards, and pretty much obiviating the entire climax of the novel?

Furthermore, the key to killing the lizards most efficiently was the T'Lan Ay, not the Imass. Had they been free to do so, the wolves would have dispatched them and the BB's would have been safe. Itkovian had nothing to do with the wolves. Silverfox did. And Togg.

[Abyss]

Exactly! But for Itkovian and Silverfox's 'mistakes', Qb and Paran would not have been able to move Omtose Phellack to Burn's warren and slow the infection. Sure, lots of Malazans (and Trakies (hee hee, see what i did there), Grey Swords, Bhargast and Rhivi) dided, but the end was result was potentially saving the entire world or at least buying the good guys enuf time to do so.

Remember, the Pannion DOmin was a feint. The poisoning of the warrens was the CG's main attack.

- Abyss, ....or AM i....?

[Pallol One Eye]

Agreed.

It also led to th BB"s ascending and taking up the "Guardian of The Dead" position in The House of War, which has become more prominent over the last couple of books or so.

Who knows if Erikson has some role for the BB's in the upcoming books that would give them some kind of vindication. Despite his penchant for tragedy.

Pallol, hopes for vindication!

[Ain't_It_Just_]

Abyss;333272 said:

Exactly! But for Itkovian and Silverfox's 'mistakes', Qb and Paran would not have been able to move Omtose Phellack to Burn's warren and slow the infection. Sure, lots of Malazans (and Trakies (hee hee, see what i did there), Grey Swords, Bhargast and Rhivi) dided, but the end was result was potentially saving the entire world or at least buying the good guys enuf time to do so.

Remember, the Pannion DOmin was a feint. The poisoning of the warrens was the CG's main attack.

- Abyss, ....or AM i....?

I agree. Perhaps the T'lan Imass would deal out immediate pwnage to Pannion and Burn would continue to die, but I bet they consider Burn's survival to be of first importance. They might have heard him out first. And QB and Paran would have been there as well.

[Nequam]

Pallol One Eye;333318 said:

Agreed.

It also led to th BB"s ascending and taking up the "Guardian of The Dead" position in The House of War, which has become more prominent over the last couple of books or so.

Who knows if Erikson has some role for the BB's in the upcoming books that would give them some kind of vindication. Despite his penchant for tragedy.

Pallol, hopes for vindication!

I think it would be cool for them get some more screen time.

...but did it really lead to them getting ascended? It seems that Fiddler had caused it all with his interaction with that...shit, I can't remember what he was called. That spirity-magic-guy. He sang songs and what not. Haha, anyway that is what made them ascend. Though I guess then there were more of the to do so because of all that.

[Itkovian]

Indeed, I find that the final moments of Itkovian's life were the most poignant SE has ever written. There is a reason I chose that user name.

As for there being a choice, yes, there was, but it seems to me that that choice had been made long ago, since Capustan. What happenned at Coral was but the final step down a road Itkovian had willingly embraced back then (indeed, he almost died there as well, and only Paran saved him).

There is no blame to put anywhere, for the simple reason that it could be placed on anyone. Paran for saving Itkovian, Gruntle for hurrying to the battle, Sylverfox for denying the T'lan Imass, the T'lan Ay for that matter, for not actually attacking the K'ell Hunters right away. Personally, I would blame the Chained God.

But ultimately there is no blame. Itkovian did what needed to be done, the Imass were overwhelmed by it, and so it was done. Indeed, as was pointed out, everyone else involved was overwhelmed as well, as evidenced by the funeral, and Itkovian's Gift.

Itkovian here was a classic messianic figure, sacrificing his life (indeed, condemning his soul to an eternal burden) to bring peace and salvation for an entire people (BTW, weren't there more like 70 000 T'lan Imass, rather than 10k as stated here?). Not only relief from their pain and suffering, but also it turns out to grant them an actual afterlife, salvation from the until-then eternal curse of The Ritual.

Basically, it was the most heroic act I had ever read in a novel, and it will be a difficult act to beat.

Personally, I hope we hear more about Itkovian and the Kron T'lan Imass in future books. It wasn't mentioned in subsequent books, and while there was one moment that might allude to this (when Onrack suddenly remembered his early years in House of Chains), I hope it is not forgotten.

Thank you.

Itkovian

[Nameless One]

I hope you'll forgive me for not addressing most of your post, since it mainly focuses on "Did Itkovian make the right choice?" Like I said before, I'm not getting involved in that debate.

Itkovian;338121 said:

As for there being a choice, yes, there was, but it seems to me that that choice had been made long ago, since Capustan. What happenned at Coral was but the final step down a road Itkovian had willingly embraced back then (indeed, he almost died there as well, and only Paran saved him).

It seems to me that we make a thousand choices every day in our lives. We choose to get up in the morning, we choose to get dressed, we choose to begin new paths, and we choose to continue upon old ones.

Itkovian made several choices in Capustan, and he made several choices after Capustan, including the one to take that final step at Coral.

Quote

But ultimately there is no blame. Itkovian did what needed to be done,

If you think no blame is warrented, then I have no problem with your position. I'm only arguing against those who would say, "It's all Fener/Silverfox/etc.'s fault! Itkovian didn't even have a choice in the matter, that poor thing."

IMO, if you decide that blame is warrented, and you assign it to others on the basis that Itkovian didn't have a choice, then you're treating him like a victim, not a hero. Heroes make the choice to act heroically. If not, then what separates them from that goat that QB sacrificed on that hill outside of Pale?

[OtataralDragon]

On the subject of choice:

There's more than one way you can "not have a choice." Itkovian certainly did have a choice in the sense that nobody else was forcing him to do what he did. No outside force. But if you say that Itkovian, being who he was, really couldn't have done anything else in that situation... Then we're talking about an inside force - his own personality - making any other choice unthinkable for him.

Let's put it this way. If you walk along a road and see someone badly injured, bleeding, in desperate need of help, and you're the only one around who can do anything. Sure, strictly speaking you have a choice. You can keep walking or you can help. But really - could you walk by without helping? Itkovian couldn't...

[Nameless One]

OtataralDragon;342184 said:

But if you say that Itkovian, being who he was, really couldn't have done anything else in that situation... Then we're talking about an inside force - his own personality - making any other choice unthinkable for him.

Joe Smith has been hot-tempered since he was a toddler. His friends and family all know this, and accept this as part of his personality. Despite his temper, he is known as a generous man who is willing to put himself at risk on behalf of others. He is a loyal and trusting man, and expects those he loves to reciprocate these virtues, virtues that he values above all others.

One day, he comes home and finds his wife in bed with his best friend. After his initial shock and disbelief, his hot-tempered personality takes over, and he flies into a rage, beating both of them to death. To not punish such a betrayal in this way is unthinkable to him.

A few hours later, his neighbors come over for their daily visit. When they learn what happened, they are unsurprised. After all, he would not be Joe Smith had he behaved in any other way.

The neighbors do not decide that, while his actions were understandable, he should still be punished for killing his best friend and wife.

They do not decide that, while his actions were wrong, he should be forgiven due to the circumstances.

They also do not decide that no crime was committed.

Instead, they decide to blame everybody but him, including his wife, his best friend, and his mother for raising him so poorly. After all, the poor thing had no choice. An inside force -- his own personality -- made any other choice unthinkable for him.

[eekwibble]

Itkovian lost his god then went all emo with his "I am not yet done" crap. He proceeded to drag out his 'purpose' with any and all available actions that would allow him to be a hero/soul-saver, including the chopping off of Rath Fener's hands and the resulting need for him to 'forgive' the shithead's betrayal.
Silverfox knew what was expected of her at the 2nd Gathering.
The T'lan Imass were there for that Gathering, as were the T'lan Ay.
The undead KCCM could've been easily dealt with by some swift undead wolfage.
The T'lan Ay had clearly gotten other ideas - who can blame them?
A couple of hundred thousand years reanimating yourself to be used as a weapon by the tossers that forced you to become 'undead' would get tedious, I'm sure!
Silverfox thought pretty much with exactly the same attitude that you did.
She thought that keeping the T'lan Imass 'alive', so to speak, would automatically mean that they would side against the KCCM, like they did outside Capustan. But frankly, I don't think that just because she had the power, she had the moral right to deny them.
They've been fighting against all sorts of nasties for millenia so that humans could live free of tyranny (except that imposed by other humans).
Who the hell is she to decide if it's been long enough? An Elder Goddess? A Malazan mage? A six month old?
They had earned the right to the oblivion they craved, Itkovian gave them something better. But if they had been decimated by the KCCM first? Itkovian saved them all, it was his emo gift. :angel:
So what "loads of people died"?
Emo-vian wasn't responsible for any deaths.
In fact; I don't see how his sacrifice killed anybody.
The T'lan Imass didn't fade away afterwards, they just stood around waiting for Godot. They could've still helped, they just didn't. :die:

[Itkovian]

OtataralDragon;342184 said:

On the subject of choice:

There's more than one way you can "not have a choice." Itkovian certainly did have a choice in the sense that nobody else was forcing him to do what he did. No outside force. But if you say that Itkovian, being who he was, really couldn't have done anything else in that situation... Then we're talking about an inside force - his own personality - making any other choice unthinkable for him.

Let's put it this way. If you walk along a road and see someone badly injured, bleeding, in desperate need of help, and you're the only one around who can do anything. Sure, strictly speaking you have a choice. You can keep walking or you can help. But really - could you walk by without helping? Itkovian couldn't...

Well said, thank you for clarifying my own thoughts. He as not a victim, it was his own self that drove him to that situation. And the choice does sprout from Capustan, since it is that terrible burden of pain and trauma that weighs upon him that brings him into a situation where he knows that thre is something left for him, that he is not yet done, and continues to seek it.

When he is finally confronted by what he seeks, he finds himself overwhelmed by it, and all else is driven from him, aside from the need to lift the burden off of the Kron. He knows it is to be his last act, that he cannot take on that burden and live, and that his only chance of actually accomplishing his duty is to die and take that burden beyond hood's gate, as it cannot be "shunted off" by his now-absent divine patron. Given Itkovian's perceptions at the time, the fact he was simply overwhelmed by the pain of the T'lan Imass, you can't really blame him for not grasping the tactical situation at the time. There was simply no _room_ in him for such consideration, once confronted by the T'lan Imass.

Remember, Itkovian is not a normal man. He didn't look at the Imass and think "hum, looks like really old undead that have lots of pain, I should redeem them despite the onrushing army of K'ell Hunters". No, he can _sense_ suffering and mental anguish, and when he saw the T'lan Imass without his patron to shield him he was overwhelmed by theirs, driving away all other consideration. He did have a choice, yes, but at this time, with his senses overwhelmed, the choice was between taking on their burden, or refusing to do so. Waiting until after the fight was over was not even an option, not when all other considerations had been overwhelmed.

But there was a choice, a choice to take on their pain or not... but Itkovian had already demonstrated what his choice would be, all the way back in Capustan, when he tried to embrace even the Crippled God, such was his compassion. So while there was a choice, what his choice would be was inevitable, for refusing the T'lan Imass' pain would have been entirely against his character.

And let's not compare Itkovian's act with a murder of passion. Itkovian lifted the burden of tens of an entire clan of T'lan Imass, performing the ultimate sacrifice by taking on their pain and grief, and in so doing granted Salvation to an entire race that had nothing to look foward to but oblivion.

Something that messianic has no compare, not even within the rest of the Malazan Book of the Fallen, and should be judged accordingly. One need only look at Itkovian's funeral, at the actions of those who could erroneously be seen as his "victims", who instead grieve for him and honour him, to know that they understood and appreciated the importance and significance of Itkovian's sacrifice despite the more "earthly" consequences, that they were humbled by it, even if some readers cannot.

And on a more personal note, I must say that Itkovian's final words, his final discussion with the Imass, was some of the best writing I have ever read.

Thank you.

[Nameless One]

I think it would benefit both of us to step back a moment to see where we actually agree and disagree.

1) Was Itkovian's sacrifice a particularly beautiful, moving, and well-written passage?

What I believe: Yes.

What I think you believe: Yes.

Conclusion: We agree.

2) Were Itkovian's actions correct?

What I believe: Yes. I think his actions that day will ultimately do more good than harm, so I believe he made the right decision.

What I think you believe: No. The alliance would have been better off had the T'lan Imass been redeemed after the battle.

Conclusion: We disagree. If so, I would rather agree to disagree than get involved in this particular debate.

3) Did Itkovian have a choice at that moment?

What I believe: Yes. He did not stop to consider his other options, but he would have made the same decision even if he had.

What I think you believe: No, not really. He was overwhelmed by the pain of the T'lan Imass to the extent that he didn't really have free will at that moment.

Conclusion: We disagree.

4) If a person's personality "forces" that person to make a certain decision, does that mean that the person should not be held accountable for that decision?

What I believe: No. If that were the case, then nobody could be held accountable for any decision. That was the point of my Joe Smith story. Believing that you had no choice doesn't make it true, and it doesn't exempt you from your own decisions.

What I think you believe: Yes. If a person isn't capable of not choosing to act a certain way, then how can he be held responsible for what he does?

Conclusion: We disagree.

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted where you stand on any of these issues.

[Excellence]

Can I point out . . . you don't actually know Itkovian will ease their burden. The event was drawn out over many pages. Anything could have happened until its conclusion. The climax was building up at that point, everyone was getting hurt and desperate, and that was just one aspect of the tension.

That was the whole point, in fact. "No, Itkovie, don't! They need those 14,000 corpses!"

[VampireGoat]

I don't think anyone gives enough thought to the sacrifice the Imass made and continue to make for everyone elses benefit. Bare in mind when an Imass get's cut down he/she doesn't die. They NEVER die so each time one falls its not like they go to their god or hoods gate etc. They fall down where they stand and then stay there forever. So how can we blame them for stayin around to get redeemed at the hands of itkovian when the alternative was get smashed to pieces by some great undead-sword armed lizard thing then spend eternity as a smashed up skeleton unable to move and more then likely buried in the mud.

And its not like the Imass could have saved the bridgeburners as many have mentioned. Lets not forgot the BB's launched a pre-emptive strike on Coral from a different location. They were fighting, killing and most importantly dieing before the main armies arrived. Now when everyone else engaged the panion armies the imass came with them, they were fighting the armies outside the walls leading into the city as far as I can recall. To have saved the BB's they would have had to have specifically set out to do that, abandoning the rest of the host and broods armies as well. Nothinig less would have saved them.

Add to this we know that 4 kccm cut down roughly 60 imass, a whole army could have done some crazy damage. With them being backed up by the giant chaos pumped demon birds going mad personally I think it's debateable if the imass would have been standing at the end.

Without the Andii arrival it's highly likely the day would have been lost anyway, nobody knew they were coming everyone thought them lost altogether. So when faced with a battle they were doomed to lose, why wait to hand out itkovians brand of redemption and salvation? Especially when the odds were looking to favour their being nothing left to save anyway?


I do like how popular characters get taken out of the blame spot light. Thinks would have been different say if the host and broods army hadn't seperated, if perhaps WJ hadn gone with the BB's, if Kallor hadn't killed WJ leaving an army devoid of a leader. So many people have slagged off silverfox for not informing the imass of her plans post coral but they then fail to give Rake the much deserved tounge lashing for basically pissing off and leaving everyone to kill themselves in a desperate struggle for victory. Think how different the attack plans would have been had they known that the big flying moutain, spitting black death, was going to come and save them.

There are just to many factors, to many groups each operating under set of rules instructions, each striving for their own goals. This is what brought about such high death rates. Wiether you blame the malazans for trying to rush ahead and complete their own plans, the andii for going solo, silverfox for handling the imass and ay situations so poorly, itkovian for freeing the imass(the only selfless action of the lot), Brood and co for allowing Kallor to join them or Pannion for starting all of this in the first place, doesnt change the factor that multiple factors contributed to that massacre. No one person brought about those deaths, least of all Itkovian.