[T'renn]

I agree it's tragic,

BUT ANYONE WHO THINKS JORDAN OR HOBB ARE BETTER THAN SE SHOULD BE STONED LIKE THE HERETICS THEY ARE

I like TTH honestly

[Onos]

Epiph, on Dec 8 2008, 02:47 PM, said:

Onos, on Dec 5 2008, 03:57 PM, said:

A friend of mine and i have even coined the term Egwene/Nynaeve parts of the story. "Deadhouse Gates has the best storyline, except for the stupid Egwene parts..." (aka Felisen parts)
"I will do a a reread of House of Chains but skip the Egwene parts".

I can see why you would equate Felisin with Jordan's female characters, but I have to respectfully disagree. Jordan's females are all so similar that they can only be identified by the color of their dress. While I think Erikson's female characters are a little weak, there is so much more to Felisin and her storyline than the Mary-Sue-ness of a Jordan female. In fact, what makes Erikson's females so much better is how he takes the expectation of a Mary Sue and turns it on its head. Felisin is a young, pretty noble, and by fantasy convention, one would expect her to pluckily rise above her slavery and save the day, or whatever. Instead, she uses the only thing she has available to barter with--her body--and the resulting emotional scars cause her to walk down a the path of addiction. She ultimately overcomes and becomes one of the most powerful people in 7 Cities, with her all-consuming goal of vengence in her grasp, only to die. Pretty spectacular use of fantasy cliche expectation, if you ask me, and incredibly tragic.

Felisin is certainly a better developped character, but lets be honest here. Compared to the Chain of Dogs plot line hers is just boring. The story needs to be told to get us where we are going for book 4, but her story isnt the reason i have red Deadhouse Gates two extra times, nor will it be the reason i read it again. Also you are assuming calling something an Egwene part means it has to be just about a female character. That is just sexist! The term can clearly be used for any boring (or relatively boring) plot line.

[Husson]

I don't post here ever but I felt the need to on this one because it hits close to home for me. Parts of TtH were brutal for me. I skipped them in the reread. Harllo and the ox especially, although I love the whimsical flow of Kruppe's thoughts enough that it did not bother me. But taken as a whole, I tend to think of TtH, more than any other work of SE, as a symphony. Taking a few themes that are revisted and expanded upon over time, and weaving them all together as you build to a resounding crescendo.

The play of the wonder and optimism of youth versus the cynicism, hopelessness, and escapism of the aged is very poingant throughout the book. Add in the discordant elements thrown in by the Bridgeburner, Kallor, and Karsa storylines and there is a nice play of resonant and dissonant themes. Above all this you have Rake, who transcends every stereotype, who is above every theme. He is omnipresent throughout the book, I found myself considering, more and more, how he would react to even the mundane situations in the book. All in all, MoI is my favorite book in the series. It made me love Rake, WJ, and Brood. It made me hate Kallor and the CG. But, as a complete work, I think that TtH is simply better put together and executed.

I know I am rambling but I do not know how to say it better than that.

[Jude]

If there's one thing about TTH that I've noticed, it's that it has gotten more of a mixed response from SE's fans than I have ever seen a book get from anyone's fans. It's barely ever a "hated it loved it" response either. More often, you will get a "I hated these parts but loved these parts" from everyone, and everyone's love and hate seems to be different. You'll get someone that loved the redeemer and Harllo's story but hated the convergeance and Kruppe's narration, or you'll get someone that loved the narration and karsa, but hated the trygalle bits and the bb sub plot. That, to me, is a very cool thing for an author to do for his fans. Ofcourse it might have just come from him throwing too much into the book, but I like to think that TTH did something special in this way.

For me, the biggest problem in this book was that, as it was a tragic read, it lacked the raw horror that I have found others to have. What really grabbed me about DG and MoI was indeed that horror and how hopeless and brutal everything was and how out of control it all seemed. Even RG did a great job of showing that with the bone hunters' "speeding down the freeway and out of control" run to Letheras (overlooking the fact that they seemed to be a little bit more invincible than soldiers in other malabooks). While we did have a couple of dark and gritty scenes with the dying god and the Dragnipur warren, this book, in no way brought the sense of horror that my favorites of his have done for me. I understand that it was his intention to explore other themes in Toll and I do appreciate them very much and enjoyed what I got out of this book, but it won't stick with me as much as some of the others because I didn't find myself out of breath while reading. Although, it's always going to score points with me because Rake finally died... DONT BURN MY FEET!

[Epiph]

Onos, on Dec 9 2008, 05:00 PM, said:

Felisin is certainly a better developped character, but lets be honest here. Compared to the Chain of Dogs plot line hers is just boring. The story needs to be told to get us where we are going for book 4, but her story isnt the reason i have red Deadhouse Gates two extra times, nor will it be the reason i read it again. Also you are assuming calling something an Egwene part means it has to be just about a female character. That is just sexist! The term can clearly be used for any boring (or relatively boring) plot line.

Hah. See, I assumed YOU were being sexist.

Honestly, the Chain of Dogs storyline so wrecked me while I was reading it that I was glad for the respite Felisin's story provided (or that I hoped, every time, it would provide: "Surely things will turn around for them THIS TIME"). And I love Heboric from the get-go, so I was happy to read her story for him.

This post has been edited by Epiph: 11 December 2008 - 10:43 PM

[Urko Schmurko]

SE's writing style is refreshing. You know how epic tragic events translate into boring statistics. A million die and people go "meh", but if there's one person you can identify with, then it's a tradegy. I think SE take this approach. Sometimes it doesn't work and you end up with the Myhbe, and sometime it does. I loved the way SE rolled out the arrival of Hood in Darujistan. The God of Death's appearance on the street ought to trigger something among mortals.

Just like Chaos devouring Hoods army, it wasn't that stunning a mental visual for me, it was too large a scene. But if SE had put in a paragraph describing how, let's say Beak, slowly had his face dissolved in front of his long lost brother, then I think the drama and the horror of the battle would have been more deeply felt. I don't know, maybe SE didn't want to dilute the sympathies he was expecting to generate for Rake. But all his other battles had some great deaths, like Pella's back in MT, or was it HoC(?)...whatever.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

Imperial High Mage Tayschrenn, on Dec 9 2008, 10:15 PM, said:

I agree it's tragic,

BUT ANYONE WHO THINKS JORDAN OR HOBB ARE BETTER THAN SE SHOULD BE STONED LIKE THE HERETICS THEY ARE

I like TTH honestly

Robin Hobb is a good writer!

I love how in SE's writing everyone gets a look in. Vague I know but let me elaborate.

They went to Skintick's POV, and how he was still grief-stricken over Andarist's death, and how he no longer believed in honesty, courage, etc. Yes, not many do but it was interesting as he was still young. His greatest ability is to bring out the pathos of even the most lowly characters, and insodoing makes them not so lowly. It's just incredible writing.

But I've already said that a thousand times.

[Burned Tear]

Husson, on Dec 10 2008, 02:57 PM, said:

I don't post here ever but I felt the need to on this one because it hits close to home for me. Parts of TtH were brutal for me. I skipped them in the reread. Harllo and the ox especially, although I love the whimsical flow of Kruppe's thoughts enough that it did not bother me. But taken as a whole, I tend to think of TtH, more than any other work of SE, as a symphony. Taking a few themes that are revisted and expanded upon over time, and weaving them all together as you build to a resounding crescendo.

The play of the wonder and optimism of youth versus the cynicism, hopelessness, and escapism of the aged is very poingant throughout the book. Add in the discordant elements thrown in by the Bridgeburner, Kallor, and Karsa storylines and there is a nice play of resonant and dissonant themes. Above all this you have Rake, who transcends every stereotype, who is above every theme. He is omnipresent throughout the book, I found myself considering, more and more, how he would react to even the mundane situations in the book. All in all, MoI is my favorite book in the series. It made me love Rake, WJ, and Brood. It made me hate Kallor and the CG. But, as a complete work, I think that TtH is simply better put together and executed.

I know I am rambling but I do not know how to say it better than that.

I completely agree with you on this and i honestly don't understand how people can argue

I don't know about you guys but after reading the books and moving to something (anything) else, i just couldnt be satisfied. What was my solution? Read each book 3 times...I simply can't enjoy other fantasy (including Ian C. Esslemont, sadly) because the plots are so minimal in the overall picture of Steven Erikson's writing. I loved Harllo's story more than any other character in that book, the ending with Stonny simply killed me. "You don't have to cry I'm home."
In regards to the whole Kruppe-as-narrator I wasn't absolutely crazy about it but I found it a nice source of variety as well as some much needed comic relief, because of course Steven Erikson is perfect so he always gives us comedy with the tragedy to bring our humanity to the front so he can stomp on it.
Haha by the way thats a good thing. His trade is irony, destroying tropes and expectations, and if he did that, then he succeeded. I don't see the value in people's arguments, "it wasn't like the earlier books."
Expect the unexpected from SE.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Zorland, on Aug 25 2008, 01:17 PM, 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,

This post reeks of a Goodkindfan-like attitude of "If you don't like it as much as me that must be because you didn't understand it as well as me."

I share the common belief that this is the weakest book of the series. Others think it's one of the best. Does this mean they do not understand the series as well? No, it means we are rewarded or annoyed by different aspects of the books, leading to a different perception.

[blackzoid]

Raymond Luxury Yacht, on Feb 12 2009, 12:26 AM, said:

Zorland, on Aug 25 2008, 01:17 PM, 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,

This post reeks of a Goodkindfan-like attitude of "If you don't like it as much as me that must be because you didn't understand it as well as me."

I share the common belief that this is the weakest book of the series. Others think it's one of the best. Does this mean they do not understand the series as well? No, it means we are rewarded or annoyed by different aspects of the books, leading to a different perception.

You are now going to have to prove that the common belief is that this is the weakest of the series. Whats the sample size?

For me its just behind MT in the book rankings. And only just.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 12 February 2009 - 12:35 PM

[Reborn]

For me Tth is one of the very best in the series, but I´m not surprised that it might be the one that divides his readers the most; one half claiming it's his best book to date, the other his worst. I think that it is his most daring book, probably the one most different from the rest (and this I love in The malazan book of the fallen, the variety). It is far from an easy read even compared to his earlier books and there is not much action exept in the ending. The focus and the brilliance of the book lies in the prose (which is very impressive) and the characters and their inner monolouges ... which to me makes this one of the most engaging and gripping of them all. Toll the Hounds was just what was needed after the somewhat disappointing Reaper's Gale. I'm very impressed and glad that he dared write it in the way he did, and on the whole it makes the series better and even more of a varied read than it was before, but I'm not surprised that it divides his readers.

[Salt-Man Z]

According to the Favorite Book thread, TtH ranks 5th out of 8 books, beating out (in order) MT, GotM, and HoC. That's only 36 folks' opinions, but there you go.

[no_survivors]

I think that SE took more of philosophical approach on this one with life and death. I get the feeling, and if I am wrong or out of place I do apologize to SE, that there is a lot of personal undertones in the book in relation to his father's death. To each his own - I know many of you found this boring - but I found that I could identify with the characters more so than any other one of his books. Not saying it is my favourite but I just enjoyed the new elements and perhaps missed some of the old.

[Salt-Man Z]

Personally, I found the book to be beautifully written, especially the passages where Kruppe's voice is strongest. Heck, as a standalone story, even the plot is pretty good. But taken in context with the rest of the series, it does stand out as being pretty weak, plot-wise--what with the timeline errors and the amount of "why the heck did that happen?" involved. I think that pros easily outweigh the cons; certainly not his best book overall, but far from the worst.

[Xardean]

I liked it.... it wasn't my favorite book he has written, but not the worst. I liked Reapers gale alot more, but thats probably only because i liked the characters in it more than TtH. But thats one thing i love about SE, you get such a strong feel for the characters.

Tth was alot different than al lhis other books, but i don't see that as a bad thing, i still enjoyed it alot and it worked well to advance the story, and show more of the history. For me thats a bigger driving factor than the convergences.

[Ain't_It_Just_]

If it wasn't for Kruppe's narration, the book would have been much more liked. Personally, I hope he doesn't try it again.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

I truly enjoyed reading this book although it felt like a “filler” book, a book SE had to write in order to get all the characters where they need to be. But as such it was very well written and very fascinating. It felt good to take a break from all the brutal and hopeless wars and just let things unfold at their own pace. This book allowed me to get to know some of the characters better, get to know their world better and I liked it, even though some things didn’t make much sense. Whatever happened to Paran?

Of course, all this blew up in my face in the last 100 pages or so, when people started dying left and right, and everything converged on everything. What a way to end on a bombshell!

Can’t friggin wait for DoD!

[wolverine]

TTH was really a struggle for me to get through. It was about 700 pages of boredom for 120 pages of insane unending climax. Why did Dassem Ultor show up?

[Zanth13]

My only problem with TTH was that I so wanted to know what was going to happen that I rushed through it, I think now that I know everything the 2nd read will be much more enjoyable, I can pace myself and sink it in....

I recognized the brilliant writing the first time through but wasnt able to fully enjoy it because I wanted info to much... but i still think it was a awesome book and look forward to when I have time to reread it.

[Leoman]

Zanth13, on Feb 23 2009, 08:20 PM, said:

My only problem with TTH was that I so wanted to know what was going to happen that I rushed through it, I think now that I know everything the 2nd read will be much more enjoyable, I can pace myself and sink it in....

I recognized the brilliant writing the first time through but wasnt able to fully enjoy it because I wanted info to much... but i still think it was a awesome book and look forward to when I have time to reread it.

I did the EXACT same thing. The lack of action did me in a bit and I rushed through some parts I should have slowed down on. (Kruppes narratives etc.) I'm starting my second re-read as soon as I finish RotCG, and I'll be taking it much slower.