HoosierDaddy, on 17 June 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:
Fair enough. I happen to disagree, and DoD is my favorite book in the series, but I can recognize how some might not like that stuff. It is dark. It is long-winded. It is depressing. And, I think that fits perfectly well.
There are some parts where DoD really shines. I can see it, it's just it drowns in things that take away from the experience I had.
HoosierDaddy, on 17 June 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:
Not all soldiers are Nietzsche as they are portrayed here, but if I can dismiss lizards so technologically advanced they create flying mountains or gods constantly interfering with the world, I don't find it hard to stay within my realm of suspension of disbelief that there are philosopher-soldiers en masse in the Bonehunters.
Well we have to suspend disbelief all throughout the series. I've been doing it since book 1 and it doesn't really take away that much from the fun. The philosopher marines aren't so much a problem because it's hard to believe they're all PhD's, but more because you can drown in the number of perspectives we get and how similar/redundant they feel (my opinion
).
HoosierDaddy, on 17 June 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:
And, anyone who has studied history knows that not only is it written by the victor's and is biased in such a way, witnesses to the same event or persons involved in the same event can be on totally opposite ends of the spectrum in how they understand an event happened.
I think my issue with this argument is that I don't really accept it as a history. I've read a LOT of history and never read anything that presents at length the inner musings and discussions of 100 different characters. It reads just like any other novel I've ever written and no disrespect intended but I can't see how it's in any way a history other than that people
tell us that. Duiker and the Chain of Dogs could definetly be read as a history, but it's hard to see that elsewhere. Maybe we could call it the "The Malazan Collective Diaries of the Fallen." Hehe. I kid.
HoosierDaddy, on 17 June 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:
Further, equating the forum as a whole as some sort of monolith out to disagree with you is both antagonistic to those who will listen to your arguments and to those who genuinely disagree.
Most of the forum has been quite pleasant. There have been a very specific 3-4 people who seem to take my criticism personally but aside from that I have no complaints. I will stand up and say that the argument about Pale became less than cordial and my later posts responding to Kanese weren't my brightest posts. I could have worded them a LOT better.
HoosierDaddy, on 17 June 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:
Tl;dr: This is an Erikson fan-forum. Criticism generally will be met with disagreement. I think that is to be expected. Some react with more vitriol than others, and you fell victim to some of the latter......Changing goalposts, arguing you were interpreted incorrectly, or that the forum is out to get you will only take away from your legitimate criticisms while increasing the reciprocal antagonism with those who you are having vociferous disagreements with as everybody likes to be seen as an individual poster with an individual opinion.
I realize people are going to disagree with me. As for the changing goalposts etc, I think we're beating that one to death. I'm not sure why you call it that, because I'm pretty sure nobody was trying to 'win' anything, but I did try to clarify my very literal language.
HoosierDaddy, on 17 June 2011 - 10:17 PM, said:
I don't think you are a troll, and I think you've said enough positive things about the series that anybody who would be simply reacting to perceived initial trolling has been proven wrong. But, if you are going to criticize, be prepared for strong rebuttal in some cases.
Thank you and point taken.