[BurnedBridge]

D'rek, on Jun 1 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

Supposedly (according to Dujek and WJ anyway), this was in anticipation of a move by Kellanved, but whether that means The Return (K&D's return to claim the ST), or else if its referring to their attempt at vengeance (ie Itko Kan and then Sorry), is not fully explained.

Good point! I'd forgotten about that. And I've just finished rereading the series, no no excuse!

D'rek, on Jun 1 2009, 11:45 PM, said:

BurnedBridge, on Jun 1 2009, 11:07 AM, said:

[...] One question that was never really answered for me was WHY did Nightchill want Dragnipur?

I don't think its ever directly stated, but based on her communique with Paran in MoI, I personally think it was because Rake wasn't killing enough with Dragnipur and so she felt the need to steal it from Rake and go around killing a bunch of ascendants/dragons/etc to bolster the legion of chained folk within, though it also seems this was a temporary measure and then she intended to break it.

That seems a reasonable theory, actually.

[Mirthmonkey]

I've still yet to hear an explanation for not only why the bridgeburners were in those tunnels, but also why the whole army was put in position for a battle of sorcery in which they could do nothing but die.

[D'rek]

Mirthmonkey, on Jun 18 2009, 12:44 AM, said:

I've still yet to hear an explanation for not only why the bridgeburners were in those tunnels, but also why the whole army was put in position for a battle of sorcery in which they could do nothing but die.

Well the BBs were in the tunnels to dig under Pale's walls. Whatever reports were being sent back about the impossibility of that task were falling on deaf ears (either because someone had a malicious agenda or the person receiving the reports was an idiot - think like Pormqual). Tayschrenn left them in the tunnels for his assault because it was a good place to not have the best company in the empire wiped out by an errant wave of fire. Too bad the tunnels collapsed under him, but supposedly he didn't anticipate that.

The whole army was *not* put in position to die, else they would have had a lot of trouble taking Pale afterwards with no soldiers. But a few companies were arrayed on the field near the magic users, probably to prevent a surprise attack on the mages while they were busy with Rake, like a random sortie of Pale cavalry archers or some such...

[Wampyry]

BurnedBridge: "One question that was never really answered for me was WHY did Nightchill want Dragnipur?"

To break it and free her brother, Dranconus. Paran didn't think it such a good idea because it would also free all the bad guys

This post has been edited by Wampyry: 18 June 2009 - 04:16 PM

[Brutus]

Wampyry, on 18 June 2009 - 04:15 PM, said:

BurnedBridge: "One question that was never really answered for me was WHY did Nightchill want Dragnipur?"

To break it and free her brother, Dranconus. Paran didn't think it such a good idea because it would also free all the bad guys

On the note about who was responsible fo the mage deaths outside pale, one thing i was always confused about with Tays story was it involves no betrayal for the death of nightchill. When you read GotM you belive that kallors curse has come true that she has been betrayed and ripped apart by deamons. But if she was infact lashing out at the other mages with Tay only acting in defence, then its hardly betrayal that lead to her death. Making me doubt this version more.

[jagsa]

I have also questioned the motives behind the entire thing and ask now does anybody know whether Erikson had this all planned out from the beginning or is it possible that as the development of the story continued minor conflicts appear in the earlier novels?

[Sinisdar Toste]

well GotM has some inconsistencies with the rest of the series, being written ten years before DG, though im not sure what the implications would be for this discussion

[Silencer]

Brutus, on 24 November 2009 - 11:03 PM, said:

Wampyry, on 18 June 2009 - 04:15 PM, said:

BurnedBridge: "One question that was never really answered for me was WHY did Nightchill want Dragnipur?"

To break it and free her brother, Dranconus. Paran didn't think it such a good idea because it would also free all the bad guys

On the note about who was responsible fo the mage deaths outside pale, one thing i was always confused about with Tays story was it involves no betrayal for the death of nightchill. When you read GotM you belive that kallors curse has come true that she has been betrayed and ripped apart by deamons. But if she was infact lashing out at the other mages with Tay only acting in defence, then its hardly betrayal that lead to her death. Making me doubt this version more.

There is a betrayal. Nightchill intends to betray the Malazans. However, the mistake made here is that Nightchill was *not* cursed to fall to betrayal. K'rul and Draconus both said that she could only fall to betrayal, and she believed so as well. Kallor merely cursed her thusly:

Quote

"And as for you, woman, unhuman hands shall tear your body into pieces, upon a field of battle, yet you shall know no respite - thus my curse upon you, Sister of Cold Nights."

MoI, UK mmpb, p.40

See also, how her return as Silverfox and the subsequent troubles are also part of Kallor's curse, yet no betrayal is mentioned.

The other thing that I've decided with this whole sequence of events, is that we are mistaking the order they appear in the text as being the exact order they occurred in reality. Tattersail is remembering things, her mind is jumping, and there is no clear passage of time. Nightchill can be killing A'karonys concurrently with the demon rising up beneath her. Tattersail is just registering it via her memories after Nightchill's death - it would be strange to have a sudden break in her demise to talk about A'karonys, and would also give the game away.

Tay's version of events is then very acceptable, and indeed likely.

Also, we build bomb shelter's underground, so why not assume tunnels will save the BB's? It is a very logical conclusion with no flaw in it at all. Sure, cave-in is possible, but that is simple failure to predict the intensity of the magic and falling debris. Or perhaps failure to properly build the tunnels on the BB's part, even.

The entire revenge agenda of the BB's in GotM is labelled a mistake, both in DG and MoI, and we can see from the events and reasoning that this is the most likely course. True, we could be mistaken, and deceived by the Empress/Tay as they want us to be, but that's half the point of the series; people lie. Historical accounts do not always tally up. We're left looking for the 'correct' version when in fact both may be in error. However logic is on Tay's side. And despite residual feelings displayed in MoI, he is shown to be much less of a villain than he was made out to be.

The rest is read and find out, I'm afraid.

[kuddukan]

I'm totally new to these forums, and was dropping in this MOI section as that is what I just finished reading last night.

I read Gardens and was totally confused, major parts of the story made very little sense to me.
I read Deadhouse and was somewhat confused, much more of this story made sense; and I was really captivated by the drama of the Chain of Dogs - really moved actually.
I read Memories of Ice and was nearly not confused at all, and started trying to make links back to Gardens and a lot of that story made more sense (what I could remember).

Now, I pulled out Gardens and was skimming even up at the first 100 pages and how much it ties into the story 2000 pages later is kind of astonishing.

I am wondering if I should go back and skim through Gardens again before moving on to book 4 in the series.

Without any spoilers at all please, does anyone want to give their opinions if I'm better off just jumping in, or taking a little break to try and get my mind around what was really going on in Gardens?

I am hooked on Malaz!!!

[WhiskeyJackDaniels]

I just jumped into the next book each time without doing a re-read. Then when I finished the book I would come here and discuss anything that confused me.

[kuddukan]

WhiskeyJackDaniels, on 15 March 2010 - 01:15 AM, said:

I just jumped into the next book each time without doing a re-read. Then when I finished the book I would come here and discuss anything that confused me.

This is my inclination but now I feel that I so totally did not know what was going on in Gardens that I'm playing catch up. I'm sure everyone was like that, almost all the reviews I read are that Gardens is a confusing book.

[SpectreofEschaton]

kuddukan, on 15 March 2010 - 01:42 AM, said:

WhiskeyJackDaniels, on 15 March 2010 - 01:15 AM, said:

I just jumped into the next book each time without doing a re-read. Then when I finished the book I would come here and discuss anything that confused me.

This is my inclination but now I feel that I so totally did not know what was going on in Gardens that I'm playing catch up. I'm sure everyone was like that, almost all the reviews I read are that Gardens is a confusing book.

Gardens of the Moon (and for me, Midnight Tides, as well) is a more enjoyable experience each time I reread it. Every book adds something that ties in all the way back to book 1 that you couldn't have possibly noticed on your first run.

All those meaningless, out-of-context comments people make, and the random setting-fluff at the chapter intros? Yeah, they actually mean something, you just have to have read through the whole series to understand some of them.

Honestly, every book in this series is a pleasure to reread, and I for one highly reccomend doing so.

[kuddukan]

SpectreofEschaton, on 15 March 2010 - 02:36 AM, said:

Gardens of the Moon (and for me, Midnight Tides, as well) is a more enjoyable experience each time I reread it. Every book adds something that ties in all the way back to book 1 that you couldn't have possibly noticed on your first run.

All those meaningless, out-of-context comments people make, and the random setting-fluff at the chapter intros? Yeah, they actually mean something, you just have to have read through the whole series to understand some of them.

Honestly, every book in this series is a pleasure to reread, and I for one highly reccomend doing so.

How strict are the spoiler rules in this forum? I notice that the format seems to allow progressive discussion through the series without ruining by people who have read farther but how strictly is this enforced?
I may stay out of the other threads depending on your answer.

Thanks!!

[D'rek]

kuddukan, on 15 March 2010 - 03:04 AM, said:

SpectreofEschaton, on 15 March 2010 - 02:36 AM, said:

Gardens of the Moon (and for me, Midnight Tides, as well) is a more enjoyable experience each time I reread it. Every book adds something that ties in all the way back to book 1 that you couldn't have possibly noticed on your first run.

All those meaningless, out-of-context comments people make, and the random setting-fluff at the chapter intros? Yeah, they actually mean something, you just have to have read through the whole series to understand some of them.

Honestly, every book in this series is a pleasure to reread, and I for one highly reccomend doing so.

How strict are the spoiler rules in this forum? I notice that the format seems to allow progressive discussion through the series without ruining by people who have read farther but how strictly is this enforced?
I may stay out of the other threads depending on your answer.

Thanks!!

The spoiler rules are enforced strictly for anything that is actually spoilerific. However, there's always the possibility that someone will post a big spoiler unknowing of the rules and you'll see it before a mod edits it. The odds are pretty good against that happening, but it's nevertheless possible.

[Red King]

First off, i believe it was a mixutre of Tay and Nightchill, from what i remember of the conversations between Dujek and Whiskeyjack and what Rake says in GotM, and the tunnel collapse was due to chunks of moon spawn falling down all around them with the bits of magic invested in those massive chunks falling from the sky. At least i think that is why the tunnels collapse, it was supposedly an accident.

- Ultor

[Hetan]

Resurrecting a little bit, as my own view is that Tayschrenn lied to Dujek and that Tays is indeed the one who took out Nightchill (with the demon) and then A'Karonys as he also took out Calot and Hairlock.

Bellurdan was supposed to be researching in secret for Nightchill and yet Tays knew all the answers - he may have known about the research bit, but could not have known the answers if he hadn't been told them. Hairlock also states that it was Tays who sent Bellurdan off to research.

Tays said he kept the BB in the tunnels for their own safety - but was that the case for three whole years? In GotM he told Lorn that he was taking out the last of those who were loyal to the emperor

"She said, ‘High Mage, we are all agreed on one thing. The old guard must disappear. All who stood with the Emperor and still cling to his memory will ever work against us, whether consciously or unconsciously. Dujek is an exception, and there is a handful of others like him. Those we must not lose. As for the others, they have to die. The risk lies in alerting them to that fact. If we’re too open we may end up with an insurrection the size of which could destroy the Empire.’
‘Apart from Dujek and Tattersail,’ Tayschrenn said, ‘we’ve cleaned out everyone else. As for Whiskeyjack and his squad, he’s all yours, Adjunct.’"

So yeah he lied.

[The Seguleh 46th]

Hetan, on 23 October 2010 - 02:07 PM, said:

Resurrecting a little bit, as my own view is that Tayschrenn lied to Dujek and that Tays is indeed the one who took out Nightchill (with the demon) and then A'Karonys as he also took out Calot and Hairlock.

Bellurdan was supposed to be researching in secret for Nightchill and yet Tays knew all the answers - he may have known about the research bit, but could not have known the answers if he hadn't been told them. Hairlock also states that it was Tays who sent Bellurdan off to research.

Tays said he kept the BB in the tunnels for their own safety - but was that the case for three whole years? In GotM he told Lorn that he was taking out the last of those who were loyal to the emperor

"She said, 'High Mage, we are all agreed on one thing. The old guard must disappear. All who stood with the Emperor and still cling to his memory will ever work against us, whether consciously or unconsciously. Dujek is an exception, and there is a handful of others like him. Those we must not lose. As for the others, they have to die. The risk lies in alerting them to that fact. If we're too open we may end up with an insurrection the size of which could destroy the Empire.'
'Apart from Dujek and Tattersail,' Tayschrenn said, 'we've cleaned out everyone else. As for Whiskeyjack and his squad, he's all yours, Adjunct.'"

So yeah he lied.

Yet, isn't he gonna tell Lorn what she wants to hear, her being the Adjunct and all? I'm not really sure what exactly happened myself, or who to necessarily believe, but i don't think Tays would outright refuse anything with the Adjunct, rather wait til she's not around, and then do what he wants anyways. Also, this conversation took place after the siege was over, IIRC?