[M'ichael]

Ulrik, on 29 April 2010 - 01:23 PM, said:

M, on 28 April 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

Before, I didn't like Traveller, because all of his scenes were boring and he was boring, but to know who he was, it's just more interesting.

Booo...

M, on 28 April 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

I like RotCG even more than Toll the Hounds or Dust of Dreams because, there is always something happening, while in the other books, there are soooo many filler and boring characters

Booooooooo!

M, on 28 April 2010 - 10:45 AM, said:

But, the whole final battle is maybe the best battlescene in all malazan books

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

I dont understand your kung-fu, but my ascendency towards God of Boooing Cows tells its wrong kung-fu!

Take it easy, just boooing around:)

The problem is just, that ICE and even more Erikson are keeping too much secrets on who is who and who did what and what the heck is going on. You read something and think: What? Then after thousands of pages the secret is revealed and you are saying: Wow! BUT the first reading was boring nonetheless, because you know nobody and you know nothing and so you don't CARE about what is going on. Whereas it's not a RotCG but more a Malazan book of the Fallen problem, where TTH and DOD were great in shoing us scenes which I can't care about, because I don't know anything about it. And this sucks.

[Silencer]

Hrm, I think the problem is you need more curiosity! Personally, I think Erikson does a great job of introducing characters I want to find out more about, and making all their interactions crucial parts of their character development which keeps it all interesting.

Take Spinnock Durav. We learn after a while that this guy is Rake's stand-in, he fought his way across Assail, and is a great player of Kef Tanar. What makes him interesting as a character early on is not knowing exactly who he is - after all, how many people do you know who walk around boasting of their accomplishments - it would be worse for me if we knew all about him from the outset, as it would require some finnicky exposition either by himself, which would be out of character, or in the narration, would be info dump and ruin the allure of finding out more.

All the half-truths and aborted storylines we hear about just makes me want to know more, and when that desire isn't fulfilled, it just keeps growing, and the character in question develops a bit of an aura about them - what else has this character done in their life? What more will they do? And that shines through especially so with the unimportant characters he writes, as they're just that: unimportant in the grand scheme of things. But it's still neat to see where they've come from and where they're going. There is always, after all, the possibility that they will do something VERY important.

ICE, on the other hand, writes characters in such a way that I really don't care what they're about. The Old Guard were woefully underdeveloped, not in the Eriksonian sense of being mysterious, but in the sense that they just didn't have any depth, and no aura of mystery around them. You really got a full sense of who a character was and what they were going to do - aside from one or two well done ones - within a few pages, and that made it kind of dull, imo.
On the first read-through it's not so bad, because you tend to think that more will come and they have the remnants of interest from tidbits SE has dropped...the second time through you realise how shallow that makes them.

Not to criticise ICE too harshly here, ofc...that probably comes off a lot worse than it is as an experience, lol.

Just my two cents on the character issue.

Oh, and the last battle was, for me, too much of a pile-up. This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then THIS happened. Then THIS happened. It was really very messy...but not in the sense of a dirty free-for-all, just...it all came together as a pre-organised event.

[Ulrik]

M, on 06 May 2010 - 11:05 AM, said:

where TTH and DOD were great in shoing us scenes which I can't care about, because I don't know anything about it. And this sucks.

Well, this time I consider it heresy against my belief. TtH went after re-read on my No.1 and in DoD usually love scenes other describe as useless (barghast rtc).

To rest of your post - thats thing I love on SE and partly, just partly on ICE...that play with readers, hinting, quick sketching, different POVs... For me it isnt boring, its almost essential for MBoF. Without it would be MBoF boring (OK, not really boring, but just more standard). I actually read it for parts like is whole TtH than magnificent battles etc.

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 06 May 2010 - 12:54 PM

[maro]

Silencer, on 06 May 2010 - 11:19 AM, said:

Oh, and the last battle was, for me, too much of a pile-up. This happened. Then this happened. Then this happened. Then THIS happened. Then THIS happened. It was really very messy...but not in the sense of a dirty free-for-all, just...it all came together as a pre-organised event.

I don't get this at all. Erikson, is terrible at battle/fight scenes. ICE's writing flows much more smoothly. It's also an exponential battle culminating with the arrival of the Mage ship.

Whilst I enjoyed DoD, RotCG rates higher for me.

[SpectreofEschaton]

maro, on 07 May 2010 - 02:42 AM, said:

Erikson, is terrible at battle/fight scenes.

Seriously?

I mean, to each his own, but...wow.

[Silencer]

Writing style is very much opinion based, of course, but I felt that ALL of ICE's engagements were very linear, (albeit with exponential power/size of combatant forces involved) and had little 'oomph' behind the character perspectives...Erikson makes it a lot more realistic - even if it's just walking in a daze through the battle, or lots of shouting and screaming that creates a much more complete image of the conflict in question.

But my main qualm is the way it's just: oh, and then a bigger shock/surprise force arrived. You know, "and then the Malazan Old Guard joined with Laseen, then they went to fight the Crimson Guard, then the Wickans showed up, then Kyle and co showed up, then Dessembrae showed up and pwned Skinner, then Yath's ship turned up, and then many people tried to stop him, and then Tayschrenn came out to fight Yath, and there was a massive whirlpool vortex, then the Crimson Guard and the Empire reached an accord, then everyone went home". OK, that's in summary, and I'm sure it would be easy to do something similar with Erikson's work. But that's how I *felt* ICE's battles were, not just in whole but the individual parts. Too many attempts to make the reader go "OMG!!!1!!111", really, is what it felt like.

I tend to think however that I, like most people here, are severely biased one way or the other - if you like Erikson, ICE pales in comparison in many regards. If you find Erikson too weighed down with the 'pointless' characters and plotlines, ICE is much more preferable. Also, if you find SE's battles strange, ICE is a LOT more traditional in the way he approaches them. I do tend to feel that SE is more of the storyteller, while ICE is the game master of the pair.

[worry]

I think that might come from too many young/newbie POVs during the action scenes, so there was an imbalance of perspective. In a way, a lot of the characters we heard from were having similar experiences, in terms of being caught up in something they couldn't process that well (Ghelel, Nait, Kyle). Even some veterans were like that, such as Rillish, Hurl, Ho, and occasionally even Ullen and Possum. I didn't think any of them were mis-written, and it's not like most of them didn't get to show some agency, but I think it's a tool to build mystery/suspense for the end, and not quite as satisfying as SE's stuff. Kiska worked better in the same role in NoK, but was balanced well by Temper. Not quite enough balancing out experience/knowledge here

That said, I liked the book a lot. It definitely felt like a different author, or "historian," telling the story, which I enjoyed more than I would a simple mimic.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 07 May 2010 - 06:55 AM

[M'ichael]

Ulrik, on 06 May 2010 - 12:53 PM, said:

M, on 06 May 2010 - 11:05 AM, said:

where TTH and DOD were great in shoing us scenes which I can't care about, because I don't know anything about it. And this sucks.

Well, this time I consider it heresy against my belief. TtH went after re-read on my No.1 and in DoD usually love scenes other describe as useless (barghast rtc).

To rest of your post - thats thing I love on SE and partly, just partly on ICE...that play with readers, hinting, quick sketching, different POVs... For me it isnt boring, its almost essential for MBoF. Without it would be MBoF boring (OK, not really boring, but just more standard). I actually read it for parts like is whole TtH than magnificent battles etc.

Maybe the re-read would be better, because NOW I know why this and that was in the book. But during the first reading it was sometimes just disturbing because I wanted to know what the main characters in the main story were doing and not what some unimportant supporting actor is doing. There are so many great POVs, so that I don't need 1000 new minor POVs in the last books of the series. And when some new POVs are needed, then there must be something to bring the reader to care about. And so, some background information is necessary. At least little DOD :

Spoiler

where are these freaking snake guys and where are they from and why are they marching and where are they marching and why should I care anyway?

This post has been edited by M'ichael: 07 May 2010 - 02:26 PM

[Silencer]

Just careful on the spoilers there guys, RotCG is meant to be read before Toll the Hounds, so at least nothing from Dust of Dreams without spoiler tags (don't think anyone will care about a passing reference...just heading off escalation )

I see your point, M'ichael, but at the same time I think the answer is it's just opinion. To me, the extra characters enrich the story, give more breadth to the narrative, and add to the chances for well-done exposition. THAT is their purpose. And while sometimes it's much more interesting to be with the main characters, there is a reason this series has a Dramatis Personae at the start - it's not just about the 'heroes and villains', so to speak. To focus just on the main people would, imo, make the series much more mundane, more traditional, and thus less enjoyable.

Now, as for wanting to know why the characters are there...isn't that curiosity reason enough to read on? Because you might find out, or at least get hints. ^^ (Plus, where does this background info come from? It has to be in-character and not out of place...you do, after all, find out where the people come from you mention...just later in the book).

@Worrywort - yup, and it is certainly nice to see it's not just more of the same. They *are* different people, and they are telling different stories, in different ways. Always pays to remember that.

[M'ichael]

Silencer, on 07 May 2010 - 11:35 AM, said:

Just careful on the spoilers there guys, RotCG is meant to be read before Toll the Hounds, so at least nothing from Dust of Dreams without spoiler tags (don't think anyone will care about a passing reference...just heading off escalation )

Whereas I would recommend, that you read RotCG after the other Malazan books, because if you know who Traveller is, it's more fun to read.

Silencer, on 07 May 2010 - 11:35 AM, said:

I see your point, M'ichael, but at the same time I think the answer is it's just opinion. To me, the extra characters enrich the story, give more breadth to the narrative, and add to the chances for well-done exposition. THAT is their purpose. And while sometimes it's much more interesting to be with the main characters, there is a reason this series has a Dramatis Personae at the start - it's not just about the 'heroes and villains', so to speak. To focus just on the main people would, imo, make the series much more mundane, more traditional, and thus less enjoyable.

Hm, we have nearly 20000 main characters, so I don't see this point. Quick Ben, Tavore, Fiddler, Paran, Hedge, Rake, Baruk, Tehol, Brys, Bugg, Kruppe, Prust, Cotillion, Apsalar, Crokus, Traveller, Icarium, Mappo, Karsa, Kallor - the List is endless. Do we really need the lesser important POVs? Maybe it's because english is not my first language, that I don't understand everything, but some parts just came out of nowhere and I was confused what is going on - or were just boring.

Spoiler

E.G. the snake, icariums "ghosts" in the KCCM building, Nimander and his gang, Clip, Barghast, Awl, The Shake...

Silencer, on 07 May 2010 - 11:35 AM, said:

Now, as for wanting to know why the characters are there...isn't that curiosity reason enough to read on? Because you might find out, or at least get hints. ^^ (Plus, where does this background info come from? It has to be in-character and not out of place...you do, after all, find out where the people come from you mention...just later in the book).

hmmm.... normally, there is a narrative description of what you see ähhh read and then the view of the characters. Something like this: The city of xxx was xxx and then he and her and the other were wandering the whole month to get there and there. The sun was shining very bright, the flies were flying, the gras was growing the weather was nice. "XXX what do you think about this whole mess?" says XXX in a whisper. "I don't know XXX, maybe it was our fate to leave the city." and so on.

Sometimes Erikson is throwing us too fast into a scene, and you are wondering what's going on. And you have to wait hundreds of pages to get the conclusion. ICE is there IMO a little bit more traditional, but that's not bad, because you know what is going on and you know why you are reading this chapter.

[SpectreofEschaton]

M, on 07 May 2010 - 08:00 PM, said:

hmmm.... normally, there is a narrative description of what you see ähhh read and then the view of the characters. Something like this: The city of xxx was xxx and then he and her and the other were wandering the whole month to get there and there. The sun was shining very bright, the flies were flying, the gras was growing the weather was nice. "XXX what do you think about this whole mess?" says XXX in a whisper. "I don't know XXX, maybe it was our fate to leave the city." and so on.

Sometimes Erikson is throwing us too fast into a scene, and you are wondering what's going on. And you have to wait hundreds of pages to get the conclusion. ICE is there IMO a little bit more traditional, but that's not bad, because you know what is going on and you know why you are reading this chapter.

If I understand you right, that falls under holding the reader's hand, which is something I for one am immensely glad the SE doesn't do. I love the organic feel of SE's writing, that he DOESN'T talk down to the reader, unlike so many other fantasy authors. The scenes feel real; they're not there for the reader's benefit.

Just how I see it, though.

[Ulrik]

Honestly, I began to hate "classic" style of storytelling, like you describe. Thats why I love (oh, such strong words, hate, love...take me easy) SE´s style "throw him into water, he´ll swim". Reread RtCG sometimes troubles me with its precise saying why, who, what...it diminishes mystery, playing with reader...but yeah, it depends on your taste.

And for many POV - without fragmentarized POV´s like those in mentioned books, for me would MBoF lost half of its magic. For me is almost in same importance some thugee from Darujhistan or private from BHs like Anomander or Paran. And IMO, this is where ICE isnt strong - he can draw some characters, but when it comes to whole host, Old Guard or many of Crimson Guardsmen blend into one grey mass.
But Im not saying that its bad book, nope, its good, really good.

[M'ichael]

This throwing in the water technique is not so bad, when you know the characters, and where they are and what they are doing, but when you are in the 9th book of a big series and you can't wait for the conclusion of the main stories and then there are chapters about very new characters, it sucks IMHO. Especially when there are sooo much other things to tell. It distracts from the important things and IMO a 8. or 9. book doesn't need 2/3 of setups. The whole series is a setup for the last books. I want facts, facts, facts.

[worry]

Well then, the fact is you're probably going to be disappointed. Maybe. I dunno. Just wanted to say that.

But if you think about it, it's actually 1/3 setup, since there are only nine books in the MBotF that happen to look like ten when you buy them since the last one is split up. In other words, with DoD/TCG you are actually getting less buildup than usual! Of course that kinda discussion isn't appropriate for this subforum, let alone this particular thread, so let us go no further.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 07 May 2010 - 09:20 PM

[maro]

SpectreofEschaton, on 07 May 2010 - 02:52 AM, said:

maro, on 07 May 2010 - 02:42 AM, said:

Erikson, is terrible at battle/fight scenes.

Seriously?

I mean, to each his own, but...wow.

Just because you don't agree doesn't make it so. Pale is a great example - it's written well and shows the chaos of war. However, the detail only comes about in later books. Whilst this is exposition and done well, I think the original scene was not done as well as it could have been.

Likewise, whislt the final fight in TTH is great, the main action is very short. His grasp of dynamics in a fight/battle is not as good as ICE.

[Sinisdar Toste]

well, you train with weapons, right maro? your perspective would then be informed from a more realist mindset, no? am i reading you wrong or do you feel that SE's action is... journeyman level - like he doesn't know enough about fighting?

i suffer the same lack of intimacy with battle and the wielding of weapons, but i've never thought that SE's grasp of the dynamics of a fight or battle were amateurish, in fact they probably outclass 95% of other fantasy authors out there, ICE included.

as for pale, well i don't think it is such a great example. there is no original scene, only recollections, and at that point the focus is on the mage battle which is so ambiguous and contradictory that i don't think it holds water as an example of bad battle prose.

and when you say 'main action', do you mean the actual rake/dassem duel or ... what, exactly? cuz i agree the duel was short, barely two pages, but how is that a problem?

[Silencer]

Considering the players involved were moving at superhuman speeds, and Rake wanted to end it, is it any wonder it was over so quick? We didn't get a lot of description too, but that's the general idea when none of the witnesses can tell what's going on...

[maro]

Sinisdar Toste, on 11 May 2010 - 04:48 AM, said:

well, you train with weapons, right maro? your perspective would then be informed from a more realist mindset, no? am i reading you wrong or do you feel that SE's action is... journeyman level - like he doesn't know enough about fighting?

i suffer the same lack of intimacy with battle and the wielding of weapons, but i've never thought that SE's grasp of the dynamics of a fight or battle were amateurish, in fact they probably outclass 95% of other fantasy authors out there, ICE included.

as for pale, well i don't think it is such a great example. there is no original scene, only recollections, and at that point the focus is on the mage battle which is so ambiguous and contradictory that i don't think it holds water as an example of bad battle prose.

and when you say 'main action', do you mean the actual rake/dassem duel or ... what, exactly? cuz i agree the duel was short, barely two pages, but how is that a problem?

I do but that doesn't colour my reading of it. I've been reading fantasy for many more years than I've been studying Sword!

It's all personal opinion. I don't expect you to agree with my reading of it - nor do I expect your reading to be better/worse/more informed than mine.

It's hardly a "Problem" as the topic is titled though.

[Ulrik]

Well, as someone who was for about seven years in historical battles with 1000-2000 participants (depend on year), where everyone wears pretty iron, each strike hurts as hell, mock arrow makes you hematome for two weeks and being hit by charging wall of heavies means bloody scratches and sometimes few fractures...
I can tell that SE´s description of battles is really good. He has talent for mood, that anticipation before, even fear and especially he can describe that brutal mess that has nothning to do with hollywood movie like fencing on battlefield (thats not aimed at you maro!). I remember one friend who was training with katana and was really good at it. He though that on battlefield will last long, even as he had to fight with dark ages sword. And then he saw that its something completely different. No space to move, hacking and slashing forward, chains from mail and gloves ripped or pressed into flesh, two being pressed under mine norman kite shield because of arrows...Oh, how I miss it...

(and yeah, in real battle I would shit my pants and scream for momma)

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 11 May 2010 - 01:23 PM

[Garak]

Heh, I also have a friend who did kendo, he was very proud of it. I kept wanting to tell him that in a real battle what he learned would be painfully useless. The romans used the gladius for a reason.

Also, Ulrik, if I read you post well, you participated in reenactments? That's I'd like to try one day, just to see what it's like - plus it might give me a better understanding of battles.