[D'rek]

 WhiskeyJackDaniels, on 08 December 2009 - 04:39 PM, said:

Ok so I've read through this thread, and this is what I got out of it. The OP thinks Ulysses is the best book ever, and TtH is the best fantasy book ever. Following this, he was struck by the fact that each of the books takes a city and describes it thoroughly, thereby connecting them in his mind. Other than disagreements on how he ranks the books, and the occasional use of platitude, what is this argument about?

and now it has movd on to blackzoid criticizing Wry for stating that TtH doesn't fit with the rest of series (which I agree somewhat with). Of course, it's not like Wry is organizing a mob or a boycott or anything. Yes, SE can do whatever he wants with his books, but we can still criticize it all we like. Just like a great chef can cook whatever the hell he wants, but if we're used to that chef focusing on one aspect of his cooking (say, taste) and he suddenly makes a dish that is brilliant in a different way (say, visual asthetics), then we can still say that the dish tasted surprisingly poor despite it looking nicer than usual. Of course, some people actually like the taste of vegemite so they'd probably say it tasted better than ever... doesn't mean the rest shouldn't be allowed to state their opinion of the poor taste...

[lord of tragedy]

bauchelain perhaps i like to be provocative. you can't really start a debate without it. now my position is that TTH is an incredibly daring and provocative attempt to capture a city in words. it is beautiful poised and deserving of the sobriquet of best fantasy book ever. i am hoping someone will provide a coherent arguement to prove me wrong. that is how debates work and i like to discuss things.

back on thread. none of you seem to see the signifigance of whats staring you in the face? why did SE use an ox pov?

[D'rek]

 lord of tragedy, on 08 December 2009 - 06:08 PM, said:

bauchelain perhaps i like to be provocative. you can't really start a debate without it. now my position is that TTH is an incredibly daring and provocative attempt to capture a city in words. it is beautiful poised and deserving of the sobriquet of best fantasy book ever. i am hoping someone will provide a coherent arguement to prove me wrong. that is how debates work and i like to discuss things.

back on thread. none of you seem to see the signifigance of whats staring you in the face? why did SE use an ox pov?

because he ran out of mules???

[blackzoid]

"and now it has movd on to blackzoid criticizing Wry for stating that TtH doesn't fit with the rest of series (which I agree somewhat with). Of course, it's not like Wry is organizing a mob or a boycott or anything. Yes, SE can do whatever he wants with his books, but we can still criticize it all we like. Just like a great chef can cook whatever the hell he wants, but if we're used to that chef focusing on one aspect of his cooking (say, taste) and he suddenly makes a dish that is brilliant in a different way (say, visual asthetics), then we can still say that the dish tasted surprisingly poor despite it looking nicer than usual. Of course, some people actually like the taste of vegemite so they'd probably say it tasted better than ever... doesn't mean the rest shouldn't be allowed to state their opinion of the poor taste..."

Whoh whoh, hang on
I'm not criticising him for saying that TtH doesn't fit in with the rest of the series. I AGREED with him on that and said it is a standalone/interlude book.
The point I am making is that just because TTH does not fit in with the other books, that does NOT by definition automatically make it a poor book. Thats it.

Its hardly like I was going to organise a lynch mob for Wry or anything.

Your cooking anaology is too much black/white. A fairer representation is if the cook decided to change his ingrediants/cooking style after always cooking one way and has now decided to cook another way. Its a different taste but is up to your individual palette whether you prefer it.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 08 December 2009 - 06:45 PM

[Wry]

 blackzoid, on 08 December 2009 - 06:41 PM, said:

"and now it has movd on to blackzoid criticizing Wry for stating that TtH doesn't fit with the rest of series (which I agree somewhat with). Of course, it's not like Wry is organizing a mob or a boycott or anything. Yes, SE can do whatever he wants with his books, but we can still criticize it all we like. Just like a great chef can cook whatever the hell he wants, but if we're used to that chef focusing on one aspect of his cooking (say, taste) and he suddenly makes a dish that is brilliant in a different way (say, visual asthetics), then we can still say that the dish tasted surprisingly poor despite it looking nicer than usual. Of course, some people actually like the taste of vegemite so they'd probably say it tasted better than ever... doesn't mean the rest shouldn't be allowed to state their opinion of the poor taste..."

Whoh whoh, hang on
I'm not criticising him for saying that TtH doesn't fit in with the rest of the series. I AGREED with him on that and said it is a standalone/interlude book.
The point I am making is that just because TTH does not fit in with the other books, that does NOT by definition automatically make it a poor book. Thats it.

Its hardly like I was going to organise a lynch mob for Wry or anything.

Your cooking anaology is too much black/white. A fairer representation is if the cook decided to change his ingrediants/cooking style after always cooking one way and has now decided to cook another way. Its a different taste but is up to your individual palette whether you prefer it.

Perhaps a chef preparing a menu that showcases fresh local fish and throwing in a surprise beef stew, in lovely gravy, but beef nonetheless...

[blackzoid]

Aha, but in TTH's case the diner had read part of the menu a week ago and had seen fish under number "3-4,6-7,".
He then assumed that the entire menu was showcasing fish.
When said diner ordered "8" a week later, without consulting the menu, he was surprised to learn that "8" was not fish and thus he was getting some lovely beef, cooked in magnificant gravy. While indeed a shock to the man, he was open to the idea of beef (baring Mad-Cowed variety) and proceeded to enjoy the hell out of it.
The chef mentioned a fish-beef combined option as well.
The diner said he was not sure, food poisioning might ensue....

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 08 December 2009 - 07:06 PM

[Abyss]

Modgod notice of thread verging on something something.

Please... Be nice.

Disagree with the personal views of other people all you like. Rhetorically gut them with your well informed, educated and insightful views. Reduce them to tears with your deep grasp of all things Joyce, Eriksen, Dublin, cupcakes or whatever.

But be nice.

- Abyss, Nice. Until it's time... to not be nice.

[Wry]

Bit late Abyss, we'd all just agreed we were not going to lynch anyone, that we were very hungry, and that Lord of Tragedy was making stew...

... or something like that... i think.

Anyway, no worries, we're playing nice

[amphibian]

 lord of tragedy, on 08 December 2009 - 06:08 PM, said:

bauchelain perhaps i like to be provocative. you can't really start a debate without it. now my position is that TTH is an incredibly daring and provocative attempt to capture a city in words. it is beautiful poised and deserving of the sobriquet of best fantasy book ever. i am hoping someone will provide a coherent arguement to prove me wrong. that is how debates work and i like to discuss things.

back on thread. none of you seem to see the signifigance of whats staring you in the face? why did SE use an ox pov?

The Ox was Kruppe's narrative whimsy. Although, I bet he secretly wanted to do a doughnut POV, but shied away from that as he would then have to relate the doughnut's creation, sale/theft by Kruppe, consumption by the beglistened thief and perhaps the digestive process as well. Be glad he chose an ox.

There's being provocative and then there's setting the framework for discussion in really weird places. Yes, Erikson did something very different for TtH by having it be narrated by Kruppe. However, it does have its weak points (the Dying God arc was uneven, the T'lan Imass inventor being discarded so rapidly etc.) and stellar points (Endest Silann and Spinnock Durav are some overlooked gems). On the whole, the book was very well written in my opinion and worthy of praise both as an exercise of writing chops and as an installment in the Malazan series.

What's odd about your "provocative" points is that Kruppe doesn't necessarily spend a whole lot of time describing the actual city. He says things about it here and there, but the glimpses we get of how the city work, through his discourses and its inhabitants shown here and there, don't really add up to a portrait of the entire city. So much of the book was spent elsewhere too. At times, the city really was just the chosen destination for the convergences. To describe it as the best fantasy book ever is even further beyond the pale, as to get the true significance of that book the reader has to get through at least seven prior books. Or more. Those books are mostly doorstopper size too.

Best portrayal of a city I've seen yet goes to The Wire, which isn't a book (strictly). For literary cities, Mieville's New Crobuzon and Armada are truly commendable. I'm having difficulty coming up with some non-SF authors who've done entire cities truly well.

[blackzoid]

Terry Pratchett and Ankh-Morporak is another one.
Very much agreed on The Wire.

[Eispeis]

At the end of it all a lot of what's discussed in this thread comes down to subjective tastes.

I enjoyed TTH and how Kruppe's POV was used, but as others have stated earlier I think the most succesful "city-creation" I've ever read has got to be Pratchett's Ankh-Morpork.

As for the 'best book' and 'best fantasy book' awards these are in the end 100% subjective. Literary critics, readers and professors/students of litterature may come together and declare winners, however this does not mean that the majority is right for every single person.

I've taken a few courses in American litterature and read books touted as masterpieces by professors, and ended up thinking 'meh'.


I posit (and I mean this seriously) that Memories of Ice is not only the 'best fantasy book ever', but also 'best book ever'. This is my 100% subjective meaning and I know 99,999999997% (approx) of the world's population would disagree with me. That does not that I'm offended by this, as some others in these thread seem to be.

[lord of tragedy]

amphibian thanks for such lucid intelligent response. it was a whimsy it was SE showing off but it completed a literal metaxical cross section of darujistan. we move from the almost godlike beings down to the poor dumb beasts of burden. everyone's existence is captured and rendered. it is a total and utter democracy of the mundane. why kruppe speaks is a better question to ask. why does something that to this point has eschewed narration suddenly feel the need to guide us directly? is it self referential, meta fictional or simply SE actively inscribing himself into the action? loved the spinnock pov and endest was patient and poignantly delivered by SE.

eispeis i think you have a point on MOI it was the first book i read in the series and it utterly hooked me, iktovian. i was really struck by how it meshed the ancient with the current, how it collapsed time. but for me MT is on a par. now letheras is pretty well documented in that book but in no way is done with the same daring as in TTH. but trull sengar's pov is one of the strongest in the whole series.

[Cougar]

I have to say that I find the comparison to be rather convenient and somewhat fatuous. It seems to me that LoT is merely taking two books he really likes and looking for comparisons that in some cases do exist and in others don't.

I happen to think your grasp of history is way off the mark too and wavers between that which could be said of almost any city in this period and that which is just erroneous. Dublin was far from the grip of an opressive regime as Wry has rightly pointed out. An examination of some prominent studies even those who have recently sought to challenge what I feel has been the orthodoxy in revolutionary Irish scholoarship in the last 20 years (which has tended to marginalise and down play the importance of the 1916 uprising and the Irish independence movement) would show this not to be the case.

I did find some merit in the idea concerning the manner in which both authors seek to create a city that you really feel like you can walk through in the experiences and thoughts of the people, but I don't find this peculiar to Joyce. It's interesting to put the city at the heart of the story and I think there are certainly some parrallels, but a direct comparison falls down a bit. Not least in LoT's last post where he wanders into Endest POVs which have nothing to do with Darujhistan.

One thing I will say is, that I do think in Bloom's/Joyce's streams of consciousness and Kruppe's ramblings there is something of a comparison. On a personal level I found both of them verbose and self-indulgent, some might prefer to argue that they are language for the sake of language itself. I appreciate that the sex scene in Joyce is regarded by some as the greatest single exposition of the English language going, I don't think it can claim that, but there is something reminicent in Kruppe's waffling.

[caladanbrood]

 

 Eispeis, on 09 December 2009 - 10:16 AM, said:

I posit (and I mean this seriously) that Memories of Ice is not only the 'best fantasy book ever', but also 'best book ever'. This is my 100% subjective meaning and I know 99,999999997% (approx) of the world's population would disagree with me. That does not that I'm offended by this, as some others in these thread seem to be.

Will I agree

[lord of tragedy]

cougar it was never meant as direct comparison between dublin and darujistan. more of an attempt to suggest similarities, particularly in the way people are preyed upon by religions. now i won't bore you with notions of hetrotoropic spaces and hypermasculinity to explain the role of drink within irish life but i will admit, as joyce also noted that most dubliners were gratefully oppressed by the british colonial empire. and your right i should have realised that the unpopular, undersupplied and militarily suicidal uprising of 1916 was actually resolved through the establishment of round table talks and peace and reconcilliation commisions not gun boats up the liffey, summary executions and quick lime graves. i realise that the black and tans were also peaceful emmiscaries of the wonderful empire that invented concentration camps during the boer uprising ten or twelve years before 1916. the british empire was a force of good, built on good intentions and trying hard to do its best for us silly natives. we should never have made you angry by wanting to run our own country, we shouldn't have made you be mean to us.

the rest of your quote does make some very inscisive points. one of the key ideas of ulysees was that language has life of its own, that somehow it takes flight, becomes something beyond its own limits, the god gone astray in the flesh. derrida and kristeva could probably explain it more coherently than i. but kruppes rambling and the joycean stream of conciousness are not language for language's sake, they are language come to life. they are chains of signification referencing each other. in giving life to darujistan, SE must bring to life our tourguide on the journey. someone must mediate for us, someone must herd us. in effect to make the suberfuge of life within city that does not excist work SE must become Kruppe. the writer who up to this point has never revealed himself must now place himself at the center of his work. excuse me if its rambling i think while i write.

and seriously, i said i loved the spinnock pov, how does that repudiate or contradict anything else i've said? its a brilliant book because kallor cries and mother dark reappears aswell as what happens in darujistan.

[Cougar]

I'd love to respond to the points in detail, but in all honesty the sarcasm and pomposity of LoT's post really put me off wanting to become involved in this at the level of the actual topic. We can all spout Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault till the cows come home, but how many people do you think will get it, and how many are impressed or find it adds to the argument? I'm doing a PhD in History paying particular attention to the role of place, space, the urban environment and the city, how many other people will even know what you are talking about or care to find out? This is a discussion board so put your intellectual cock away and start explaining yourself.

Moreover, I can't argue with you about history if you are going to be so insufferably naive and righteous about it. Not only that, the introduction of incidents from the Boer war (whilst I would not seek to argue with their veracity, they are, so far as I know, true) is a redundant and irrelevant point, introduced only to give you some sort of perceived moral high ground in an arena in which you must always strive for objectivity or become little more than a squawking irrelevance. Who are these 'we' and 'you' that you talk about? Were you there? Did you try to persuade Tom Kettle that home rule would never work? Clearly not. What next, will I start a thread where I rant about the bloody Romans, slaughtering the Druids on Anglesey and hurl abuse at any Italian members? Maybe I'll take up against Apt because the Danish sacked North Lincolnshire.

You are wrong to present such absurdly one eyed and polemical opinion and it devalues any of the very resonable other arguments you wish to advance. Your contentions have been repudiated by some of the most knowledgable and insightful historians in Ireland and the world. Of course there is no one version of the truth, history is merely myth, memory and opinion distilled by the critical and balanced eye of the historian into coherent argument, but this is the absolute oposite of what you are doing. Neither Wry nor I are saying colonial Ireland was a tea-party but there is far more to it than the storybook Republicanism you present. I've always been a Republican sympathiser it would be hard for any reasonable individual not to be on a logical level, I'm not even entirely English, my only gripe is with lazy history.

[lord of tragedy]

i'll put my intellectual cock away if you cover up your massively endowed phd in history. i didn't rant at anyone i stated that the british empire was brutal and oppressive. what was one eyed about that? are you an apologist for empire? the 1916 rising was unpopular, it was put down brutally. if you put down insurrections in a brutal fashion you are brutal. seems quite simple to me. in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

historical objectivity? does such a thing excist? all truth is relative, to your standpoint, politics, class, what you ate for breakfast. your incredibly naieve to believe otherwise. i didn't mean to be pompous, so i will excuse you for being boorish. after all having read ulysees you'll know that this arguement is not your fault. history's to blame.

i'll begin a thread in the discussion page where we can exchange views properly.

[amphibian]

 lord of tragedy, on 11 December 2009 - 10:32 AM, said:

i'll begin a thread in the discussion page where we can exchange views properly.

Actually, please don't. Thus far, it's two or three people on here who give a pile of beans about Irish history. And reading your posts, I can't help but wonder if you're on drugs. That's not going to be conducive to discussion. I suggest you work that out via private messages if you really think it needs working out.

[Abyss]

MODGOD MESSAGE OF DOOM
Now the thread is arguing about whether it's arguing. Assorted irrelevant content deleted. Thread closed.

- Abyss, now with even MORE wrath.