[The Seguleh 46th]

I have to agree with some folks that this is easily one of the greyest series i have ever read. All seems to come down to how you perceive the characters you read. Rake as holier-than-thou? Hard to disagree overall, but you could say that he did all he did simply to preserve the Tiste Andii race. He could have given a fuck less about everyone else, and that's probably how it should be, to each there own in a sense. The hot topic of Lasseen is its own animal as well, given the amount of forum space on her, in the complete and utter grey sense.

Spoiler

Skinner as well in RotCG. Is he "evil"? He's just doing what he has Avowed to do (pun completely intended) in taking down the Malazan Empire. So what if he wants to grab a little extra power for himself in the meantime? Kazz probably didn't wanna do it that way, so a disagreement breaks out, and somebody's got to win or lose right? Who's really in the right here?

Obviously most of us in the real world have been raised to possess certain morals, so the answer is probably obvious to a degree, but still, ya get my drift here.

That all aside, i am still somewhat a fanboy, so i do have folks i root for and against. But this type of fiction is easily my favorite kind to read. Fuck the black and white shit!

Sorry about the late RotCG spoiler there, forgot this was the TTH thread....thought i was in DOD!

This post has been edited by The Seguleh 46th: 04 June 2010 - 01:09 AM

[worry]

I would suggest the "to each their own" mentality is being critiqued in this series fairly harshly. Not without understanding and complexity, of course, and plenty is left to the reader to suss out. But much of the conflict and horror derives from that view.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 04 June 2010 - 01:42 AM

[The Seguleh 46th]

worrywort, on 04 June 2010 - 01:39 AM, said:

I would suggest the "to each their own" mentality is being critiqued in this series fairly harshly. Not without understanding and complexity, of course, and much is left to the reader to suss out. But much of the conflict and horror derives from that view.

If you are saying what i think you mean, then i am 100% with you. In that its up to you as a reader to decide what you view as right, wrong, good, evil, noble, sick, etc. I mean, Rake alone is such a wonderful study in all aspects of morality. Kallor as well, to a certain extent. That's why i really like Kallor as a POV. He simply wants to rule over all, Ascend, and be a God (maybe not the latter, but that's my theory anyhow). He doesn't want anything to stand in his way. He doesn't see it as "evil", just a means to an end, and does seem to have his own set of morals that could be construed as "human". Rake has the Eddard Stark noble air about him, IMO, but lacks the naivety that Eddard personifies. In my view he has the same single-minded focus that Kallor does, only it involves saving his people. If the whole world had to die in order for the TA to survive, i don't think Rake would hesitate in pulling the metaphorical trigger. If that scenario did happen, then how would the view of the Lord of Darkness be then? This is why i absolutely love this series!

This post has been edited by The Seguleh 46th: 04 June 2010 - 01:51 AM

[worry]

Well, I'm not saying that the recognition that everyone has a point of view, has their reasons, somehow means there's a grey area. A grey area exists, no doubt, but not everything falls within it just because an individual can rationalize it. I'm saying that SE is making critiques, but is not being didactic about them (for the most part). Sympathizing with Kallor is not the same thing as condoning his actions. What he did was evil. The reader can decide if that evil has legitimate mitigating factors. I'm also not sure modern Rake would make the same decisions he did as a young man. I'm sure the weight of leadership is heavy in both times of life though.

[haroos]

High Mage Quick Ben, on 03 June 2010 - 11:34 PM, said:

BAhh no one is evil in MBoTF, every one just dances. The whole story I swear every one just gets drunk and dances.
Atleast that what I thought I read...

are you saying that they are not human, but dancers ?
isn't that a song ?

[The Seguleh 46th]

worrywort, on 04 June 2010 - 02:18 AM, said:

Well, I'm not saying that the recognition that everyone has a point of view, has their reasons, somehow means there's a grey area. A grey area exists, no doubt, but not everything falls within it just because an individual can rationalize it. I'm saying that SE is making critiques, but is not being didactic about them (for the most part). Sympathizing with Kallor is not the same thing as condoning his actions. What he did was evil. The reader can decide if that evil has legitimate mitigating factors. I'm also not sure modern Rake would make the same decisions he did as a young man. I'm sure the weight of leadership is heavy in both times of life though.

Well, maybe i'll meet you halfway then! hehe. Seriously though, the fanboy in me does root for the "good" side, as much as there is one, and i imagine most of the readership does the same. Yet there are so many magnificently crafted "villians" in this series that actually manage to get you (myself anyways) to somehow and sometimes root for them. And aren't grey areas a good thing anymore? There's only so many farmboys, runaways, stableboys, beggars, maniacal mad scientist/warlord types that a person can take (i know you weren't referencing to any of those types Worrywort, i'm just having a mini-rant here!). I want to be pulled this way and that in my opinion of any one character (Kallor, The Crippled God, The Errant, Laseen, Rake, Karsa, Raest, The Entire Crimson Guard.....just to name a precious few as the list is huge!). Makes for a very fun ride IMO.

This post has been edited by The Seguleh 46th: 04 June 2010 - 07:10 AM

[Daeghrefn]

Erikson certainly spends a lot of time examining what makes people "good" or "evil" in this series, but I think it's important to note the almost complete absence of those two terms where you would expect them to appear in a fantasy series. This exchange between Karsa and Aramala on page 618 of HoC illustrates the stance Erikson seems to be taking regarding "evil":

Quote

'I sense nothing evil from you.'
'It has been a long time since I heard that word. In the wars with the T'lan Imass, even, that word had no place.'

Early in the series we are told that the Jaghut were evil, and the T'lan Imass fought them for their freedom. Later on, however, we learn that the Jaghut mostly just wanted to be left alone, and that the Imass continued to kill and imprison Jaghut even after the Tyrants were defeated. What's more, the Imass are directly responsible for the extinction of many species and the despoiling of many regions of the world, while the Jaghut seem to have a much more environmentally conscious mindset (when they're not covering continents in ice, that is). It's interesting to me that the Jaghut did not see the war as evil, considering they faced an unrelenting pogrom against their species.

There are, however, evil people in the Malazan world. Erikson clearly hates lawyers and bureaucrats with an unbridled passion - just look at the way Lether is described. There's also a quote from Kellanved somewhere where he mentions his hatred for advocates. Erikson's views on the subject can be summed up in this conversation between Bugg and Advocate Sleem on page 831 of Reaper's Gale:

Quote

The Elder God shrugged. 'The perils of unfettered expansion, Advocate Sleem, are revealed in the dust and ashes left behind. Assume the species' immortality because it suits the game. Every game. But that assumption will not save you in the end. No, in fact, it will probably kill you. That one self-serving, pious, pretentious, arrogant assumption.'
'The bitter old man speaks.'
'You have no idea.'
'Would that I carried a knife. For I would kill you with it, here and now.'
'Yes. The game always ends at some point, doesn't it?'
'And you dare call me the cynical one.'
'Your cynicism lies in your willing abuse of others to consolidate your superiority over them. My cynicism is in regard to humanity's willful blindness with respect to its own extinction.'
'Without that willful blindness there is naught but despair.'
'Oh, I am not that cynical. In fact, I do not agree at all. Maybe when the willful blindness runs its inevitable course, there will be born willful wisdom, the revelation of seeing things as they are.'
'Things? To which things are you referring, old man?'
'Why, that everything of true value is, in fact, free.'

Who, then, is evil in Erikson's world? Ignorant people who think themselves wise, people who exploit others without regard for the consequences, people who act without any consideration for the future, and above all, people who create and perpetuate the oppressive systems that allow these things to happen. Evil in the Malazan world is the same as evil in our world - the crushing of spontaneity and creativity, the stifling of human expression, and the reduction of ambition to the acquiring of small bits of metal and pieces of paper.

[worry]

So you're saying he's a Canadian?

[Daeghrefn]

That sounds like an accurate assessment.

[Telorast Mad]

Daeghrefn, on 06 June 2010 - 12:32 AM, said:

Erikson certainly spends a lot of time examining what makes people "good" or "evil" in this series, but I think it's important to note the almost complete absence of those two terms where you would expect them to appear in a fantasy series. This exchange between Karsa and Aramala on page 618 of HoC illustrates the stance Erikson seems to be taking regarding "evil":

Quote

'I sense nothing evil from you.'
'It has been a long time since I heard that word. In the wars with the T'lan Imass, even, that word had no place.'

Early in the series we are told that the Jaghut were evil, and the T'lan Imass fought them for their freedom. Later on, however, we learn that the Jaghut mostly just wanted to be left alone, and that the Imass continued to kill and imprison Jaghut even after the Tyrants were defeated. What's more, the Imass are directly responsible for the extinction of many species and the despoiling of many regions of the world, while the Jaghut seem to have a much more environmentally conscious mindset (when they're not covering continents in ice, that is). It's interesting to me that the Jaghut did not see the war as evil, considering they faced an unrelenting pogrom against their species.

There are, however, evil people in the Malazan world. Erikson clearly hates lawyers and bureaucrats with an unbridled passion - just look at the way Lether is described. There's also a quote from Kellanved somewhere where he mentions his hatred for advocates. Erikson's views on the subject can be summed up in this conversation between Bugg and Advocate Sleem on page 831 of Reaper's Gale:

Quote

The Elder God shrugged. 'The perils of unfettered expansion, Advocate Sleem, are revealed in the dust and ashes left behind. Assume the species' immortality because it suits the game. Every game. But that assumption will not save you in the end. No, in fact, it will probably kill you. That one self-serving, pious, pretentious, arrogant assumption.'
'The bitter old man speaks.'
'You have no idea.'
'Would that I carried a knife. For I would kill you with it, here and now.'
'Yes. The game always ends at some point, doesn't it?'
'And you dare call me the cynical one.'
'Your cynicism lies in your willing abuse of others to consolidate your superiority over them. My cynicism is in regard to humanity's willful blindness with respect to its own extinction.'
'Without that willful blindness there is naught but despair.'
'Oh, I am not that cynical. In fact, I do not agree at all. Maybe when the willful blindness runs its inevitable course, there will be born willful wisdom, the revelation of seeing things as they are.'
'Things? To which things are you referring, old man?'
'Why, that everything of true value is, in fact, free.'

Who, then, is evil in Erikson's world? Ignorant people who think themselves wise, people who exploit others without regard for the consequences, people who act without any consideration for the future, and above all, people who create and perpetuate the oppressive systems that allow these things to happen. Evil in the Malazan world is the same as evil in our world - the crushing of spontaneity and creativity, the stifling of human expression, and the reduction of ambition to the acquiring of small bits of metal and pieces of paper.

So evil can be defined as Communism... hmmm interesting idea Not unlike George Orwell's 1984...

A thoughtful, yet simple quote I found on the subject was in Wolf Speaker by Tamora Pierce:

"There's no such thing as a being who's pure evil,' retorted the mare.'Just as no creature is all good. They live according to their natures, just like you."
"And their natures are evil," insisted the girl.
"No. Their natures are opposed to yours, that's all. A wolf's nature is opposed to mine, but that does not make wolves evil."
(If you haven't read Pierce, yes, she has talking animals - but that's nothing new in fantasy fiction)

So I guess I'm saying that it's about perspective - each character will define evil differently, by what hinders their goals or opposes them. Stupidity alone doesn't define evil "Ignorant people who think themselves wise". Nor "people who act without any consideration for the future" http://www.youtube.c...os=aJRfgnLX34g. Although I'm not arguing your point that SE certainly thinks so, if only for the purposes of the series.

[Dolmen 2.0]

Though I do agree that it is almost impossible to define good and evil
I think to say one does all things because it is in ones nature is a bit of a cop out.

If it is in my nature to kill for food then it is indeed is not an evil act but there are those
that kill for pleasure, we label them insane because they have lost their "moral compass"
but isn't that the base pre-requisite for the general label of evil? to lose all socially acceptable
thought allows for an entirely selfish, cruel and diabolical nature. anything less is mere
expediance. sentient insanity is perhaps the very beginning of evil...

Playing by ones own rules is not the same as playing to ones nature. ones nature is judged
by the universal standard for sentient thought: natural gravity is required with need trumping
desire, desire trumping logic. ones nature is heavily understood by this method of measure.
discipline can moderate and adjust the order but never shatter it.

to be evil there is a shattering of the natural cause widely assumed to be unintentional. a self awareness
must be present though and that self awareness must advocate nothing but ill-intent and desire regardless
of logic and regardless of need.

To find such a character in the malazan books of the fallen is highly unlikely even if several
characters fall pretty close to the description.


I would develop my list of likely evil in this way:

1) Kallor
2) Raest
3) Pannion Domin

Kallor posseses a history that floats on the philosophy of might makes right. this is not an evil
philosophy, in a way it even follows the logic of the natural world. Where Kallor lost a tenable
moral foothold is in his irrational incursion of his law indescriminately on all creation. any system
must have exception to survive let alone exist. This is because we all know no logic is perfect
thus no rule is perfect.

Kallors actions of pure malicious selfish greed go even beyond that. his burning of his kingdom was unnecesary,
there was no rule behind it. he thus held to a shattered logic and it warped the very purpose of desire. he is the closest I see to the model of "evil" I understand.

Raest follows suit in his tyranny and so did the pannion. In my opinion a tyrant absolutely corrupted by power
is the closest humanity will ever come to pure evil...just my opinion though

[Gothos]

There's bad guys turning good aplenty. Karsa, Tays, Laseen... ok, not that plenty.

[Bauchelain the Evil]

Dolmen while I agree that Kallor and Raest can be considered evil, I don't think the same with Pannion. Some of his last memories consisted in his mother's death after a peace less and relentless hunt, he grew up groomed by an insane KCCM knowing his sister was living an eternity of pain inside the Rent and there were various suggestions in MoI that drawing on CG's power turned him into the unpleasant being he became. I believe that's enough to not label him as straightforward ecil.

[Telorast Mad]

Bauchelain the Evil, on 21 June 2010 - 04:21 PM, said:

Dolmen while I agree that Kallor and Raest can be considered evil, I don't think the same with Pannion. Some of his last memories consisted in his mother's death after a peace less and relentless hunt, he grew up groomed by an insane KCCM knowing his sister was living an eternity of pain inside the Rent and there were various suggestions in MoI that drawing on CG's power turned him into the unpleasant being he became. I believe that's enough to not label him as straightforward ecil.

The thing that caught my attention about Pannion is that his classification of evil, if you will, is different from the other examples. What he did was an expression/channeling of the immense pain fueled by his past that he had to live with. Thus making him a perfect tool for the Crippled God, which, as Bauchelain the Evil pointed out, was what probably corrupted his psyche even more. Lovely recipe for evil A very realistic deviation from the "power-hungry" classic.

[The Seguleh 46th]

Dolmen, on 21 June 2010 - 10:27 AM, said:

Kallors actions of pure malicious selfish greed go even beyond that. his burning of his kingdom was unnecesary,
there was no rule behind it. he thus held to a shattered logic and it warped the very purpose of desire. he is the closest I see to the model of "evil" I understand.

While i agree it was a horrificly malicious act of what he did, i can buy why he did it, however of a petty reason it may have been. His rule was absolute, and he had his whole empire chugging along and 3 EGs wanna come by and end it all? Sure, a relatively sane person would have hightailed it, or maybe challenged them, but he instead destroys his Empire to deny the EGs the satisfaction. Kinda like your little brother spitting in your ice cream so ya can't eat it, and then you decide to spit in it too so he can't eat it either (true story! sigh....).

Basically, i just can't see Kallor as pure evil. Petty, malicious, deceitful, spiteful, yes. But ya can't deny the course of reasoning behind his actions simply because it resulted in a worldwide nightmare. Ok, maybe a bad choice of words, but it still wasn't him simply wanting to kill millions of people just for the hell of it. He wants to rule. You need subjects in order to rule. He had a "rational" course of action he was taking in his mind, however insane it may seem to us a readers.

This post has been edited by The Seguleh 46th: 22 June 2010 - 06:57 AM

[worry]

That doesn't make his act any less evil. In fact, the acts are what are relevant anyway. An evil man can stew in his own juices, thinking evil thoughts till he dies, and none of it particularly matters if he didn't commit any evil acts. On the other hand, most of history's mass murderers had reasons for what they did, and understanding those reasons doesn't absolve them one bit.

This post has been edited by worrywort: 22 June 2010 - 08:02 AM

[Powder]

What about the guard Hood notices in TTH? One time and one time only does the Lord of Death care in this series. Then SE makes a point about a world without such people should be harder to imagine... shouldn't this be our gold standard for what is 'good' in the eyes of the writer? (then again I am only for limited death of an author to a text, some authorial intent and meaning is latent within any text else they would not bother writing it down in the first place, full on deconstruction is a croc imo)

-Powder

[The Seguleh 46th]

worrywort, on 22 June 2010 - 08:02 AM, said:

That doesn't make his act any less evil. In fact, the acts are what are relevant anyway. An evil man can stew in his own juices, thinking evil thoughts till he dies, and none of it particularly matters if he didn't commit any evil acts. On the other hand, most of history's mass murderers had reasons for what they did, and understanding those reasons doesn't absolve them one bit.

I'm not really trying to absolve him so much as trying to put a face on the character. Maybe that's one and the same, i'm not really sure. Maybe trying to seperate action and intent might be a better way to put it. In my moral compass within which i was raised, do i view his actions (and more or less the character itself) as "evil"? Sure i do. Yet i guess i try to put that aside when i become a reader, and attempt to look at all people populating fantasy and fiction with a different view, and in Kallor's case, i simply try to put myself in his shoes as a twisted, power-mad ruler who had 3 big bad Elder Gods coming to crash his party. They wanted to end him, and he needed something vast (12 million+ souls and blood in this case) to counteract and defend himself.

[worry]

I getcha. I'm just arguing the case that despite the fact that SE definitely explores the gray areas of life and conflict and motivation, it doesn't mean there's no such thing as good and evil, right and wrong. The 12 million people were characters, even if we didn't get to know them. On the other hand I get a distinct feeling of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind" logic to the MBotF. You don't fight evil with an equal and opposite evil, you fight it with thought and understanding and love and compassion. Which is something few people or even ascendants in the world understand, and something that makes the few who come to understand it more special. Namely Rake, perhaps Hood and Mael and K'rul (we'll see), some others I've forgotten. If you're familiar with Dead Man Walking and Sister Helen Prejean, I think that's some of the worldview SE is getting at. Recognize the true evil in some acts, recognize the complexity of human existence, and do your best to balance that understanding into something that raises you rather than lowers you.

[Telorast Mad]

worrywort, on 22 June 2010 - 07:01 PM, said:

...I think that's some of the worldview SE is getting at. Recognize the true evil in some acts, recognize the complexity of human existence, and do your best to balance that understanding into something that raises you rather than lowers you.

O.o You just summarized MBotF in one sentence... beautiful.

So basically it looks like we're coming to the conclusion that although everyone has flaws; the evil ones are the ones that succumb to their vices completely/mindlessly/selfishly(without regard for consequences & at the expense of others)