[phart]

Sinisdar Toste;353821 said:

well obviously kruppe is possesed of exreme confidence and his philosophy is "if it wont eat me, i'll eat it."

baruk, old as he may be doesn't succumb to despair, he may indulge it at times, but he is very clear headed and cognizant that if he has to, he will ensure that he is the last of the t'orrud cabal.

seerdomin, while a tragic figure, represents a different philosophical outlook as well. his self-loathing doesn't turn him into a whiny baby, but tempers him into a blade of pure justice. seerdomin is a lot like whiskeyjack i think.

look at bainisk, he believes that just over the hills there sits a paradise, and harllo, though he knows it isnt true understands the gift he is giving his friend.

there is plenty of other examples.. samar dev, a woman mired in a love she wont admit, rallick wrapped in so many hard layers, he doesn't feel them anymore, gorlas was a great believer in himself and the apparatus that supported him. im sorry but i just cant countenance all this generalizing. obviously the overall tone of the book was one of futility and tragedy (the whole damn series is) but it also sheds hope and even joy, when mother dark said "my son" i nearly broke down

and @ your second post, if you take out the 'all' part of broods statement, it makes a lot more sense, cuz all individuals never agree that one thing is stupid

Totally agree with Kruppe. Good pick out.

I would say Gorlas etc are not espousing a deep philosphy just what they are, we are inferring their philopshy from their actions, not the pages long philophising seen in other parts of the book.

Maybe i am being harsh and the overall tone has inured me from seeing the other philosphy present.

But Karsa and DU seem to hold to the same philosphy as does Tehol,Bugg and Hull to a lesser extent. WJ wanted to walk away and abjure all things civilised (cabin in middle of nowhere) Urko has left civilisation behind, shadowthrone has a go at it when conversing with Karsa, Nimander and the tiste seem to hold to that (for now anyway obviously with Rake's sacrifice might be different) Gothos and Kallor both state that nothing changes, evidencing their disaproval of it. (it being the rise and fall of empires same mistakes made over etc)

The characters you mention with the exception of Samar Dev(discounting Kruppe and Baruk) are either in the first book or introduced in the last one.The "main" characters , as i see it, all seem to share this viewpoint. I am not talking about the tone of the book which had joy as you said with regards to Rake and MD, but with the actual written discourse or inner thought amongst characters pertaining towards their philisophical outlook. As opposed to the overall message actions show.

No need to be sorry i'm not asking for approval or countenance of my own thoughts just adding them to the mix. They may be wrong but i'll never find out until someone corrects me.

[namo]

Like many here, I used to like the author intertwining philosophy with the plot but it didn't really work for me in TtH. I think some of it was "Kruppe's voice", which I thought was pompous at times.

[Sinisdar Toste]

phart;353838 said:

Totally agree with Kruppe. Good pick out.

I would say Gorlas etc are not espousing a deep philosphy just what they are, we are inferring their philopshy from their actions, not the pages long philophising seen in other parts of the book.

Maybe i am being harsh and the overall tone has inured me from seeing the other philosphy present.

But Karsa and DU seem to hold to the same philosphy as does Tehol,Bugg and Hull to a lesser extent. WJ wanted to walk away and abjure all things civilised (cabin in middle of nowhere) Urko has left civilisation behind, shadowthrone has a go at it when conversing with Karsa, Nimander and the tiste seem to hold to that (for now anyway obviously with Rake's sacrifice might be different) Gothos and Kallor both state that nothing changes, evidencing their disaproval of it. (it being the rise and fall of empires same mistakes made over etc)

The characters you mention with the exception of Samar Dev(discounting Kruppe and Baruk) are either in the first book or introduced in the last one.The "main" characters , as i see it, all seem to share this viewpoint. I am not talking about the tone of the book which had joy as you said with regards to Rake and MD, but with the actual written discourse or inner thought amongst characters pertaining towards their philisophical outlook. As opposed to the overall message actions show.

No need to be sorry i'm not asking for approval or countenance of my own thoughts just adding them to the mix. They may be wrong but i'll never find out until someone corrects me.

i totally agree with you that a lot of the characters are "world-weary" perhaps, and that there is a lot of screen time inside these particular characters heads, giving us the tragic loss and futility of civilization points over and over again. its just that the cast of characters is so huge and their origins so disparate that the think-heavy parts from those characters are well enough contrasted with other think-light parts. if that makes sense.

for example, when karsa, traveller and samar dev are talkin about how karsa plans to destroy civilization, thats some pretty heavy stuff. but in one sentence traveller just turns it right around, "I do no like cities." i lol'd

[Dravon]

I agree with alot of the feelings that have been mentioned in this thread; the lack of action per chapter, to long internal dialogs, and lacking a point for some characters. That being said i still think is was a very good book.

And i atributed many of these things to the form (or should i say character) in which SE chose to tell this story.....Kruppe. I felt that this story was being told in the form that Kruppe would tell it, overly wordy and very circumspect at times. Maybe im just being to kind with that but i think it should be considered.

[Pig Iron]

Think stylistically it was a bit like Thomas Pynchon meets Dickens (whole Harllo thread was very Oliver Twist). Thing is, Erikson evidently isn't interested in pleasing his audience, he's seems to have more of an artistic temper and writes as he feels like he has to. Makes it hard going sometimes and I don't like all of it, but it's also what will ensure these novels will live for a long time. It will be an interesting reread. I had some of the same objections to RG, but those very parts were awesome when read with the whole "I-can't-wait-to-see-what-happens" thing over.