[Ulrik]

Yep, reenactments, Battle at Libušín is biggest every year, this guy has solid photoblog from this year (I was absent, again:((
http://www.coolture....-libusina-2010/

This year was more "fantasy" because people has more work and their number is decreasing, so they took everyone who has solid equipment - as you see, inconsistent medieval eras (normans, 15. century soldiers...)

But its fun anyway and big chaos is same

[Fist Gamet]

I don't think you want to get too caught up in whether or not either writer's battle scenes are particularly realistic. There are some areas of sci fi and fantasy where we all just got to accept the writer could not possibly have encountered it in real life. Even drawing upon re-enactments, which is as close as any of us are likely to come to the real thing, you're going to know your life isn't in any danger.
It's all a bit beside the point, though, as any good writer will of course only write a thorough, detailed and grizzly account of a battle if it serves the story. What is important in the writing is how that scene serves the story and not for the gratuitous gratification of the reader. Imho, both men write action and battle scenes in ways that are consistent with their individual writing styles, and they both work. Down right dirty mud and blood fighting wouldn't work for SE, I don't think. It's more suited to GRRM, even though I wish he would give us some rip-roaring battle scenes!

On another point, I did feel that ICE didn't manage to give the Old Guard the weight and authority they deserved, but then, I might aruge it wasn't really a character-driven story, as it's really more about the Malaz Empire, if anything.

[maro]

Garak, on 11 May 2010 - 03:09 PM, said:

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.

I think you're projecting my known use of Katana above everything else. I also do WMA and did re-enactment at Uni. I also shoot Compound bows.

Next?

[Use Of Weapons]

I think that whether or not you consider Erikson 'good' at battle scenes really depends on quite a few variables: what you've read before; your exposure to real accounts; your expectation of the realism of battle depiction; familiarity with tactics; and lots of others.

I think Erikson's intent in writing battle scenes is slightly different from that of many other fantasy or historical fiction writers. From an anthropological viewpoint, he seems to want to stress the futility and brutality of war rather than its sweep and its romance. Though one could argue that both are generally true for any given battle, the stress will be different depending on the intent of the author, and Erikson does seem to stress the brutal reality more than other authors.

As such, one's experience of his battle scenes are then coloured by the clash between the authorial intent and the reader's expectation: what are battle scenes for? I would propose that Erikson is very good at writing battle scenes that fulfil his purposes, and perhaps not quite so good at delivering battle scenes that speak to a reader's desire for clashes between huge forces with lots of detail about ebb and flow and the progression of the conflict (at its most simplistic). But, given that such is not what he's trying to convey (or so it seems), the complaint seems to me to be a bit nonsensical.

[maro]

jitsukerr, on 14 May 2010 - 01:55 PM, said:

I think that whether or not you consider Erikson 'good' at battle scenes really depends on quite a few variables: what you've read before; your exposure to real accounts; your expectation of the realism of battle depiction; familiarity with tactics; and lots of others.

I think Erikson's intent in writing battle scenes is slightly different from that of many other fantasy or historical fiction writers. From an anthropological viewpoint, he seems to want to stress the futility and brutality of war rather than its sweep and its romance. Though one could argue that both are generally true for any given battle, the stress will be different depending on the intent of the author, and Erikson does seem to stress the brutal reality more than other authors.

As such, one's experience of his battle scenes are then coloured by the clash between the authorial intent and the reader's expectation: what are battle scenes for? I would propose that Erikson is very good at writing battle scenes that fulfil his purposes, and perhaps not quite so good at delivering battle scenes that speak to a reader's desire for clashes between huge forces with lots of detail about ebb and flow and the progression of the conflict (at its most simplistic). But, given that such is not what he's trying to convey (or so it seems), the complaint seems to me to be a bit nonsensical.

I think you are over thinking it

[Use Of Weapons]

maro, on 17 May 2010 - 03:25 AM, said:

I think you are over thinking it

Nope, just thinking.

[Testluv]

Just a comment on the characterization inconsistencies crticism (for example that Toc the Elder was different from how SE portrayed, etc.). Wasn't ROTCG actually written before GOTM (just published much after)? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere. If that's the case, then any characters' inconsistencies between ICE's work and SE's would actually be attributable to SE subsequently developing them in an inconsistent matter, rather than the other way around.

This post has been edited by Testluv: 10 July 2010 - 05:27 AM

[Testluv]

jitsukerr, on 14 May 2010 - 01:55 PM, said:

I think that whether or not you consider Erikson 'good' at battle scenes really depends on quite a few variables: what you've read before; your exposure to real accounts; your expectation of the realism of battle depiction; familiarity with tactics; and lots of others.

I think Erikson's intent in writing battle scenes is slightly different from that of many other fantasy or historical fiction writers. From an anthropological viewpoint, he seems to want to stress the futility and brutality of war rather than its sweep and its romance. Though one could argue that both are generally true for any given battle, the stress will be different depending on the intent of the author, and Erikson does seem to stress the brutal reality more than other authors.

As such, one's experience of his battle scenes are then coloured by the clash between the authorial intent and the reader's expectation: what are battle scenes for? I would propose that Erikson is very good at writing battle scenes that fulfil his purposes, and perhaps not quite so good at delivering battle scenes that speak to a reader's desire for clashes between huge forces with lots of detail about ebb and flow and the progression of the conflict (at its most simplistic). But, given that such is not what he's trying to convey (or so it seems), the complaint seems to me to be a bit nonsensical.

I totally agree about Erikson's intent in writing battle scenes. I'm sure he wants to entertain--after all, entertainment is his and any fantasy author's raison d'etre. But, yes, I think he does want to emphasize the pointlessness of war, the human condition, etc. Another poster somewhere in this forum referred to the Malazan series as a "meditatition on war", and I think that's accurate!

[champ]

Testluv, on 10 July 2010 - 05:26 AM, said:

Just a comment on the characterization inconsistencies crticism (for example that Toc the Elder was different from how SE portrayed, etc.). Wasn't ROTCG actually written before GOTM (just published much after)? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere. If that's the case, then any characters' inconsistencies between ICE's work and SE's would actually be attributable to SE subsequently developing them in an inconsistent matter, rather than the other way around.

it's in the prologue of either GoTM or NoK by SE where he says that RoTCG was ICE's first novel written before NoK, not sure if it was written before GoTM though

This post has been edited by champooon: 12 July 2010 - 02:59 PM

[Toc]

I just finished my first re-read of Return of the Crimson Guard, and I think it's brilliant. My first time reading it I couldn't help but compare it with the work of Erikson, but now that I've learned the style of Esslemont, I found the book a lot more rewarding.

But since this is a critique-thread, I'll give my 5 cents:
I found it a bit annoying with almost every single characters' lack of cool. Seemed like even the most hardened veterans couldn't handle a sticky situation without a flinch or a startle, a grunt of suprise or a bemused sigh. I guess it's more realistic this way, but I'd be nice with some characters with quick thinking and hard edges. Someone who thought of every possible outcome of a situation. (Something you kind of expect of the Old Guard and the Avowed)


On a side note, I have to say that I found Korbolo Dom absolutely brilliant. I know I'm supposed to think of him as a stupid, evil jerk, but I thought he was the most badass character in the book. His determination to crush both the Talian League and the Crimson Guard, and his complete lack of respect for them, was both hilarious and wicked cool. And that part about him abandoning the field, even though he's the Sword of the Empire, I mean, come on! He was just bringing more men to continue his slaughter!

Korbolo for Emperor! All hail the Malazan Empire's Kallor!


Oh... and uh... Darn you Esslemont for ruining my nick on this site... buuuh...

This post has been edited by Toc: 14 August 2010 - 09:33 AM

[Angel]

Poor Toc, nobody will ever take you seriously again.

I can't believe this post is still floating round. But I did manage a re-read of this book and the what probably isn't too surprising is the fact that it works much better as a re-read than an original. The complexity of the novel is more appealing this way; all the things that my mind shunted off to the side, actually stand out and make some sense. Sure, the characters and their actions are still very poor, but I can appreciate the scale in a greater way. I think that is the main change, you have a sense of where it is all going on round 2, on round 1 you just get annoyed.

I'm still not a fan of the writing, for the same reasons contained in my original post. It just doesn't work for me. Proofing would be a small start. I mean, come on? His editor deserves ritual castration.

[GingerBreadMan]

I didn't mind the writing so much as the plot and characterization.

The whole series built up the "Old Guard"'s competence and efficacy, then they lose a war against Korbolo and some Captain located in Heng.

Toc in particular acted like a naive youth rather than a battle hardened veteran

Didn't like the way the 30 odd mages from the Otateral Pits couldn't simply walk into the warren like we have seen so many characters do, why couldn't they do what every Claw hand can?

We see Cowl and Skinner go into Kurald Liosan, why wouldn't they do the same with the Imperial Warren which they would have a much better reason to explore?

Why did the amateur saboteurs(Jumpy and company) us their munitions with much greater results than the Gold Moranth who invented the stuff?

[Illuyankas]

I can at least answer the last one - the Moranth only use cussers in quorl divebomb attacks, being a sensible and refined giant insect-wearing race of cannibals and distaining from actually flinging the things in ranges close enough to feel the boom through the air. Adaptation has been left to the idiots who use them in close combat.

[buddhacat]

GingerBreadMan, on 16 August 2010 - 02:28 PM, said:

I didn't mind the writing so much as the plot and characterization.

The whole series built up the "Old Guard"'s competence and efficacy, then they lose a war against Korbolo and some Captain located in Heng.

Toc in particular acted like a naive youth rather than a battle hardened veteran

Didn't like the way the 30 odd mages from the Otateral Pits couldn't simply walk into the warren like we have seen so many characters do, why couldn't they do what every Claw hand can?

We see Cowl and Skinner go into Kurald Liosan, why wouldn't they do the same with the Imperial Warren which they would have a much better reason to explore?

Why did the amateur saboteurs(Jumpy and company) us their munitions with much greater results than the Gold Moranth who invented the stuff?

To my mind, even the writing was uneven - from pedestrian to awful, with only a couple of pages here and there really standing out as brilliant.

As for the question of 30-odd mages in the Itataral pits, well, the answer lies in the question itself: Otataral pits, right? Otataral, which negates magic. Plus, they needed to get from 7-Cities to the middle of Quon Tali continent in one go and as quickly as possible (before, for example, anyone - say, Claws - could discover them), so had to create a portal and way of immense strength. Thus, the ritual.

And the question about Cowl and Skinner in the Imperial warren - again, isn't that the (un)official warren of the Malazan Empire? Why would they mess around exploring in it for no profit?


But the atrocious writing ruined a lot things, so I'm not surprised at the questions.

[GingerBreadMan]

buddhacat, on 17 August 2010 - 01:59 AM, said:

To my mind, even the writing was uneven - from pedestrian to awful, with only a couple of pages here and there really standing out as brilliant.

As for the question of 30-odd mages in the Itataral pits, well, the answer lies in the question itself: Otataral pits, right? Otataral, which negates magic. Plus, they needed to get from 7-Cities to the middle of Quon Tali continent in one go and as quickly as possible (before, for example, anyone - say, Claws - could discover them), so had to create a portal and way of immense strength. Thus, the ritual.

And the question about Cowl and Skinner in the Imperial warren - again, isn't that the (un)official warren of the Malazan Empire? Why would they mess around exploring in it for no profit?


But the atrocious writing ruined a lot things, so I'm not surprised at the questions.

I understand they couldn't go from the pits to Quon Tali, but they had washed and scrubbed themselves clean of Otateral.

Why couldn't they just open a small "door" into a warreb as the Wickans/Crimson Guard/Claws do?

Instead they opt for a massive gate to bring their entire ship with them..

As to Cowl/Skinner and the Imperial Warren, I got the picture that it is used by a lot of people as a Warren easy to use for transportation. The Crimson Guard used it to escape at the end of the book and someone in that group mentions a page or two before, that the warren is a deathtrap...which suggests they have tried it and someone got killed..which would make Skinner and Cowl very curious.(Skinner especially since he doesn't seem to care about any consequences)

Same goes for Mallick's team, wouldn't they send in a couple full hands to investigate which would/should be enough to scout out the place and reveal Topper is behind it?

[worry]

Look at Fancypants McGee here, who can afford to just toss entire ships away like they were nothing!

[Sinisdar Toste]

i seem to be suffering some memory lapses here, other than cowl and toppers duel, when did cowl/skinner or any other crimson guard use the imperial warren?

[GingerBreadMan]

Sinisdar Toste, on 18 August 2010 - 04:24 AM, said:

i seem to be suffering some memory lapses here, other than cowl and toppers duel, when did cowl/skinner or any other crimson guard use the imperial warren?

K'azz and company use it at the end of the book when they "escape".

When they are going to make an attempt on Yath, Possum shows up and mentions the Imperial Warren to which one of the Crimson Guard mentions it is a dangerous place or something to that effect.

They don't use it much but they use it enough to suggest that they were familiar with it as form of travel, it was their "go to warren for transport" and they knew it was closed off.

Cowl/Skinner seem like the types to investigate it personally, especially since it is a huge tool for the Empire.


I have similar questions about Cowl running away into the Azath, seems like that would be a pretty poor desperation move when he could try to find friendly Veils, Skinner or even the more dangerous Warrens like Chaos or Liosan.

To be honest my first thought was "If I was a mage, I'd set up a room filled with wards just in case I needed to escape to a fortified area" but that is probably a bit much.

[Jade-Green Pig-Hog Swine-Beast]

I enjoyed the book, personally, though what got me the most was the little inconsistencies between what SE and ICE write.

For example, I was fairly certain that the Imperial currency was the jakata and yet ICE refers to gold Imperial suns? Correct me if I'm wrong - a gold sun could be a denomination of jakata, of course, yet it strikes me as mistake that detracts from the realism of the world (slightly).

I had another example but I can't seem to bring it to mind right now...

The other thing that irritated me was ICE's curses. In SE's writing, any one given character may have one or two particular gods who they use regularly when they curse, yet here someone will curse by pretty much the entire pantheon within the space of about two pages (ie the same person will swear by Hood and Burn and Poliel and Soliel and the Queen of Dreams and Togg and Trake and Fanderay and Fener and Oponn (doesn't SE refer to them as the Lord and Lady, not the Lad and Lady, too?)...aye, you get the picture...oh, and not to mention the abyss!)

Anybody else's thoughts on this?

Generally though, I thought the book was great and is definately worthy of the Malazan 'series'; indeed, it actually covers a lot of rather important events...

[Mcflury]

Personally I think that what god(s) a character swears to is that character's business. I for isntance could swear to the whole pantheon on occasion, and refer to Oppon as Lad and Lady, where my best friend could only swear to Oponn and refer to them as Lord and Lady.
So I don't really blame ICE for such thing.

The currency never caught my eye.

In total I do love reading ICE's novels as well... they tend to be a lot more straightforward than SE's books. That results in making the story more catching overall and also makes sure you actually can see certain events coming and are happy by all the extra details that are mixed in. In SE's works I usually never see the climaxes coming, and thus am usually also not that much shocked by the details of things.

So in the end I love both writers. They each have their own writing style, but both are very awesome. Though I'll always consider SE the bigger of the two since he basically started it all with the MBotF.