[luke]

The end does not justify the means
not in a book - well maybe some authors do it- certainly not in a malazan book.
the beauty of the malazan story that it is a damn enjoyable read from the start to the end. it was never about plots, sub-plots, and revelations , cause we will never guess them anyway. and that is the problem with TTH....it seems the SE has missed the point about what made the malazan books so good. it is about 700 pages of utter boredom that i had to read 4 - yes 4- bernard cornwell books inbetween
.......he was trying desperatly to find something to write about to fill the gap between the start and the real point of the book:
the intercate working of an ox's brain.... a lost child that finally comes home....a woman who cheats her husband....and other boring filler material
(dont even get me started about the redeemer)which is disappointing to read in malazan book.
i am sorry if my critisism sound harsh .....maybe cause i dont really care much about the plots and the revelations in the book cause if i do i would have liked this one maybe the most....i just found it a bumpy read...not as smooth as the other books

[Abyss]

luke;374443 said:

.....maybe cause i dont really care much about the plots and the revelations in the book cause if i do i would have liked this one maybe the most....

It's your opinion heretic and you're entitled to it heresy! but i'm unclear on your point - are you stone it, stone it with stones!!!! saying you enjoy the books but don't care about the plots or sub plots burn the unbeliever that make the books what they are?

- Abyss,

[Hokonoso]

thought i enjoyed TtH I agree 100% with the OP, every last Bernard Cornwell book is better than TtH, but Gardens of the Moon was AMAZING!!! so sad though that to me book 1 is the best book, sure more fun/better things happened later but as far as start to finish enjoyable the first book is the best. sure you have to re-read it but still it's great! if every book was 600 pages and like book 1 then SE would be noted as the greatest writer of all time.

but alas, it seems that the size of the book is more important than the content which is a sad state of affairs.

[caladanbrood]

Meh, to each their own - I really really enjoyed Toll the Hounds. One of the best Malazan books so far I reckon (Not the best, though)

[frookenhauer]

Forget stones! Burn the Heretic! (Kidding! Just set the soles of his feet on fire ) But I aint been too impressed with the last three books and I was not happy with the fat red waistcoated guy doing the commentary.

[Zorland]

Let me ask you this, what are your previous experiences with literature? It sounds as if you are coming from an Eddings/Jordan/Goodkind background.

What makes this series so amazing is that it holds its own as a work of literature. A lot of the flack that the fantasy genre takes is because so many authors have just rehashed the Lord of the Rings, and in order to make things "interesting", they have focused on the plot. Erikson has not done this. It is, perhaps, hard to realize that because his storytelling is almost revolutionary in itself. He has built an amazing world with amazing characters, something that fantasy readers are treated to far too infrequently. But don't let the plot overshadow the magnificence of the books.

In the previous novels, I was thoroughly impressed with the characters and characterizations. I would refer to the MBotF as tragedy - not fantasy. Erikson's ability to draw forth tragedy, humanity, and comedy in painful (indeed, painful) detail is phenomenal. I would read these books even if the plot made no sense at all.

With Toll the Hounds, I honestly think that Erikson has stepped up his writing. The way that themes flow through chapters now is unbelievable. I am not a literary critic, and so I do not posses the words nor the skills to fully explain this. I would point you to the chapter that begins with the idea: Children will always love places they've never been -- and ends with: adults will always fear they places they've left. The way these two ideas are developed, and the way they flow into each other is..well I am running short of adjectives here...mind-boggling.

If you're having trouble appreciating the first 700 pages of the book, which is the best part of the book, then I suspect that your literary maturity is just too low for this series. Do not feel chagrined, though. No one can pick up a book on Quantum Field Theory and appreciate it immediately, but anyone could work their way up to it. I would suggest you read some more and come back to it, and then consider how you feel.

Cheers,

[Aptorian]

I'm splt between agreeing and disagreeing with the op.

Erikson is moving away from "the traditional" what I came to expect when I read GotM to MT.

I disliked RG but was positively surprised by TTH,

The truth is, I'm not so much awayed by the telling as I am by the story. Erikson is an Extremely talented storyteller and any other claim is bull. The problem is that his storytelling is evolving. And it is a problem. TTH is far from what you'd expect when reading the first three books.

But does this mean that TTH is bad?

Personally. I disliked the Kruppe approach. I just didn't like it, Likewise I agree that some of the storyparts didn't make sense.

Even worse. I seriously do not see the logic in the last convergence of TTH. It just doesn't make sense.

I've said all this, and I'm still certain TTH is very close to beating MoI and DG. It was a great book. So much awesome that it can not be explained.

[luke]

i expected some will be calling for my head ...but stonning and burning in the first reply :eek:
i seem to have presented my idea badly here, i like the plots and subplots as anyone here, but this is not what makes the malazan books so enjoyable for me. maybe i was annoyed because SE for the first time was a bit predictable
i knew from the start that Rake is going to have to do some big sacrifise it was so obvious ( having Rake behaving like an old woman all the book:D)

another thing: it seems some of the criticisim of SE work regarding that he doese not make the readers connect emotionally enough with the characters has got through to him. and as a result the attractive lore of the casual indifference in the ascendants and gods are gone .....instead all of them are on the verge of tears in all the book.

dont get me wrong guys SE is still No1 and i am commited to read whatever he writes even after u stone me to death:)

[caladanbrood]

luke;374568 said:

dont get me wrong guys SE is still No1 and i am commited to read whatever he writes even after u stone me to death:)

We'll make sure to avoid the hands and eyes then

[luke]

you see my friend, your reply shows why people should not be quick to judge.
i never read anything to any of these people. in this genere i read only to GRRM , Hobb, and Bakker and SE in MO is a far better writer than all of them.
you took my criticism of the book as a criticism to SE writing style in general
that is not the case...not everyone like the Malazan books for the same reasons as you do... the things i like about the malazan books is largely missing in this book and i found the hundered of pages about lost children and oxes dragging carts is not true to his special style. cause even if they are written brilliantly as they are they are inconsquential and droll.
maybe it is obvious that English is not my mother tongue make u believe that iam having trouble understanding SE's Work...maybe SE's work is complex but it is not the most complex thing i ever read....

be well

Zorland;374524 said:

Let me ask you this, what are your previous experiences with literature? It sounds as if you are coming from an Eddings/Jordan/Goodkind background.

What makes this series so amazing is that it holds its own as a work of literature. A lot of the flack that the fantasy genre takes is because so many authors have just rehashed the Lord of the Rings, and in order to make things "interesting", they have focused on the plot. Erikson has not done this. It is, perhaps, hard to realize that because his storytelling is almost revolutionary in itself. He has built an amazing world with amazing characters, something that fantasy readers are treated to far too infrequently. But don't let the plot overshadow the magnificence of the books.

In the previous novels, I was thoroughly impressed with the characters and characterizations. I would refer to the MBotF as tragedy - not fantasy. Erikson's ability to draw forth tragedy, humanity, and comedy in painful (indeed, painful) detail is phenomenal. I would read these books even if the plot made no sense at all.

With Toll the Hounds, I honestly think that Erikson has stepped up his writing. The way that themes flow through chapters now is unbelievable. I am not a literary critic, and so I do not posses the words nor the skills to fully explain this. I would point you to the chapter that begins with the idea: Children will always love places they've never been -- and ends with: adults will always fear they places they've left. The way these two ideas are developed, and the way they flow into each other is..well I am running short of adjectives here...mind-boggling.

If you're having trouble appreciating the first 700 pages of the book, which is the best part of the book, then I suspect that your literary maturity is just too low for this series. Do not feel chagrined, though. No one can pick up a book on Quantum Field Theory and appreciate it immediately, but anyone could work their way up to it. I would suggest you read some more and come back to it, and then consider how you feel.

Cheers,

[frookenhauer]

caladanbrood;374575 said:

We'll make sure to avoid the hands and eyes then

Thats going to be a little difficult if we set him on fire! Don't make promises we can't keep

[Zorland]

I would certainly put GRRM and Robin Hobb in the same category of Jordan et all (hope I don't get stoned for that one).

I guess we are having a language problem here. I don't see how you can criticize Erikson for including certain elements in this book, but then claim you are not criticizing his writing style.

Regardless, I suspect that we will never agree, because the very things that you deem inconsequential to the book -- the thoughts of the mule, Harllo's story, etc. -- I deem to be the very heart of Erikson's work. We could probably agree that the books have evolved over the years. That I think they have become better and you think that they have become worse probably suggests that our views are irreconcilable. Still, I think that you could come to appreciate some of the other aspects of the novels beyond the convergences.

Cheers.

luke;374580 said:

you see my friend, your reply shows why people should not be quick to judge.
i never read anything to any of these people. in this genere i read only to GRRM , Hobb, and Bakker and SE in MO is a far better writer than all of them.
you took my criticism of the book as a criticism to SE writing style in general
that is not the case...not everyone like the Malazan books for the same reasons as you do... the things i like about the malazan books is largely missing in this book and i found the hundered of pages about lost children and oxes dragging carts is not true to his special style. cause even if they are written brilliantly as they are they are inconsquential and droll.
maybe it is obvious that English is not my mother tongue make u believe that iam having trouble understanding SE's Work...maybe SE's work is complex but it is not the most complex thing i ever read....

be well

[luke]

Zorland;374594 said:

I Still, I think that you could come to appreciate some of the other aspects of the NOVELS beyond the convergences.

Cheers.

this is where u misunderstood me. i have absoloutly loved all the previous 7 books from start to finish. i agree with you that the little details the was filling the gaps from the start to finish are the heart of SE work but these similar details in TTH are below standard IMO.
i can not possibly crticize SE style otherwise i wouldnt have liked all his 7 books i just disliked a little the changes he made in this particular one.

[Ahk-Thenrah]

GRRM is not in the same mould as Jordan, to be fair/
Although not as good as SE or Bakker, he's still a damn site better than Jordan.
Ahem, thats my two cents.

Also, TTH kicked ass, and i believe that all of the subplots and seemingly meaningless chapters were quite enjoyable

[Bear]

Quote

GRRM is not in the same mould as Jordan, to be fair/

the last book from GRRM was so bad, we started calling him "George RR Jordan"

one of the amazing things about SE is that people are arguing (mroe or less) about how good TTH is instead of lamenting how incredibly lame it is and the utter letdown of a series losing steam. I for one and looking forward to the next SE book. I dread the next "GRRJ" book because of the fear that he isn't going to be able to live up to the level that he created in book 1.

(my first post! )

[Sinisdar Toste]

welcome Bear! and i am also thrilled that were not sitting around whining about how SE keeps describing every meal and outfit as if he were writing a tabloid magazine

[HoosierDaddy]

All this talking makes me want to tug my braid, chastize a male for no reason, get all emo with myself, and marry the most annoying character ever.

[prq]

I agree with a few things that were mentioned here, and disagree with others. I think a few fantasy writers are "above" the others for their originality.

For example, I love GRRM's "Ice and Fire" series since you really don't know who's going to make it alive to the end of the book (but I agree his last book was crap).

Stephen Donaldson is the only author I like more than SE and that's mostly for his approach to heroes/anti-heroes in all his series. No perfect Aragorns/Rands/Drizzts/Whiskeyjacks whatever. Thomas Covenant, Teresa Morgan, Angus Thermopyle, they're all extremely original main characters to make stories about.

Regardless of the occasional flaws on SE's writing, I absolutely love his fast pace on the books (as opposed to Stephen Lawhead who could take 4-6 pages of continuous descriptions - good writing quality but bores me tbh) and the fact that something is always happening. Maybe TtH was slower but it was definitely much better written and the ending totally blew me away.

Jordan, Robin Hobb, Eddings, etc... are "regular" fantasy and don't really catch my fancy. Even from Tolkien, the only thing I really like is all the imagination and lore put in "Silmarillion"

Just my 2c of course

[drinksinbars]

i enjoyed it, its a novel, if it doesnt have a plot or subplot whats the fucking point in reading it?

[dktorode]

drinksinbars;374766 said:

i enjoyed it, its a novel, if it doesnt have a plot or subplot whats the fucking point in reading it?

Well said, old bean