jonny_anonymous, on 04 October 2015 - 10:14 AM, said:
I wonder if I'm the only one that kind of wanted the Whirlwind Rebellion to succeed.
Yes, you are. The Rebellion are mostly a pack of bandits and rapists fighting for status rather than freedom.
Charlie Nom, on 04 October 2015 - 10:41 AM, said:
jonny_anonymous, on 04 October 2015 - 10:14 AM, said:
I wonder if I'm the only one that kind of wanted the Whirlwind Rebellion to succeed.
I didnt.
All the ignorants that would get to power.
Korbolo.
The raping mage and the other mage.
Felisin.(not actually ignorant, but would you like her to rule over you?)
All the bandits within the ranks of rebellion.
All the undisciplined warriors that would turn to bandits.
All the guys in the cities would fight for right to rule.
All the spilled blood.
Yeah. I don't dislike Felisin, but she's clearly not cut out for command.
Andorion, on 04 October 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:
As Rake remarks in MoI, Malazan rule is primarily constructive and positive in nature. Malazan rule ensures safety from bandits, stable government and tax structures. This encourages trade and increases prosperity.
In fact in both DG and HoC it is specified several times that pre-malazan Seven Cities was a mess of warring cities and tribes.
The Whilrwind rebellion would have returned the sub-continent to that state. Thus its victory was never desirable.
Indeed. Within the Malazan Empire, there is peace. Before it, there was never peace in Seven Cities. Every city-state was constantly going to war with every other city-state, and each was constantly fighting with the various nomadic peoples of the subcontinent.
jonny_anonymous, on 04 October 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:
Andorion, on 04 October 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:
As Rake remarks in MoI, Malazan rule is primarily constructive and positive in nature. Malazan rule ensures safety from bandits, stable government and tax structures. This encourages trade and increases prosperity.
In fact in both DG and HoC it is specified several times that pre-malazan Seven Cities was a mess of warring cities and tribes.
The Whilrwind rebellion would have returned the sub-continent to that state. Thus its victory was never desirable.
If that's the case then why did Rake spend so much time warring against the Malazans?
Self interest, and to give his people something to do.
Charlie Nom, on 04 October 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:
jonny_anonymous, on 04 October 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:
Andorion, on 04 October 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:
As Rake remarks in MoI, Malazan rule is primarily constructive and positive in nature. Malazan rule ensures safety from bandits, stable government and tax structures. This encourages trade and increases prosperity.
In fact in both DG and HoC it is specified several times that pre-malazan Seven Cities was a mess of warring cities and tribes.
The Whilrwind rebellion would have returned the sub-continent to that state. Thus its victory was never desirable.
If that's the case then why did Rake spend so much time warring against the Malazans?
I dont remember much on this matter, but he never fought against them in Seven cities I guess.
Genabackis is way more peaceful.
Indeed. I think it's doubtful he would have sided with the Seven Cities rebels.
Andorion, on 04 October 2015 - 03:38 PM, said:
jonny_anonymous, on 04 October 2015 - 03:06 PM, said:
Andorion, on 04 October 2015 - 02:40 PM, said:
As Rake remarks in MoI, Malazan rule is primarily constructive and positive in nature. Malazan rule ensures safety from bandits, stable government and tax structures. This encourages trade and increases prosperity.
In fact in both DG and HoC it is specified several times that pre-malazan Seven Cities was a mess of warring cities and tribes.
The Whilrwind rebellion would have returned the sub-continent to that state. Thus its victory was never desirable.
If that's the case then why did Rake spend so much time warring against the Malazans?
He explained that in the same conversation. In this empire of safety and security there would be no place for an uncontrollable element like Moons Spawn, or powerful ascendant like Rake or Brood. If I find the quote I will post it.
Andorion, on 04 October 2015 - 03:45 PM, said:
Here's the quote, MoI, chapter 18
'Now. The Seer is removed, a High Fist and Malazan-style governance replaces it. The result? Peace, reparation, law, order.' He scanned the others, then slowly raised a single eyebrow. 'Fifteen years ago, Genabaris was a fetid sore on the northwest coast, and Nathilog even worse. And now, under Malazan rule? Rivals to Darujhistan herself. If you truly wish the best for the common citizens of Pannion, why do you not welcome the Empress?
'Instead, Dujek and Whiskeyjack are forced into an elaborate charade to win us as allies. They're soldiers, in case you've forgotten. Soldiers are given orders. If they don't like them, that's just too bad. If it means a false proclamation of outlawry without letting every private in the army in on the secret and thereby eliminating the chance of it ever remaining a secret then a good soldier grits his teeth and gets on with it.
'The truth is simple to me at least. Brood, you and I, we have fought the Malazans as liberators in truth. Asking no coin, no land. Our motives aren't even clear to us imagine how they must seem to the Empress? Inexplicable. We appear to be bound to lofty ideals, to nearly outrageous notions of self-sacrifice. We are her enemy, and I don't think she even knows why.'
'Sing me the Abyss,' Kallor sneered. 'In her Empire there would be no place for us not one of us.'
Does that surprise you?' Rake
asked. 'We cannot be controlled. The truth laid bare is we fight for our own freedom. No borders for Moon's Spawn. No world-spanning peace that would make warlords and generals and mercenary companies obsolete. We fight against the imposition of order and the mailed fist that must hide behind it, because we're not the ones wielding that fist.'
'Nor would I ever wish to,' Brood growled.
'Precisely. So why begrudge the Empress possessing the desire and its attendant responsibilities?'
Your quote-fu is impressive.
jonny_anonymous, on 04 October 2015 - 08:51 PM, said:
I just think the only Malazans I actually like are a few of the soldiers, everybody else is just of a big of a scumbags as some of the Whirlwind supporters, at least if they won they would be running their own land.
Practically the only Malazans we've met are soldiers. How many have we met who aren't?
And who do you mean by "they"? The common people of the Seven Cities subcontinent wouldn't be any in charge of their own country with the Malazans gone. The various feuding noble factions who ruled it before would be. Pretty much unless you are a noble (which, by definition, most people are not), your lot in life is better under the Malazans than practically any other significant faction in the series. The Malazan Empire's laws are far more sensible and just (they are one of the few factions to take any steps at all against slavery), and their government more meritocratic than any of their peers. Their armies are also significantly less rapey than the rebellion's. Under the Malazan Empire, terms of peace and coexistence were reached between the cities and the nomadic tribes. This was stated to be a very new thing.
The leaders of the rebellion aren't fighting for Seven Cities. They're fighting for a return to power and status, and in Felisin's case, for vengeance (since she is, in fact, Malazan herself... though more accurately Untan).
Mentalist, on 05 October 2015 - 03:54 PM, said:
The main reason why I was dissapointed with the Rebellion itself in my first 2 read-throughs of HoC is because through GotM and parts of DG, it's portrayed as the "right" thing. Nevermind the individual excesses, the idea in DG, with the PoV from Otataral mines is that the Empire is the "greater evil", while the rebellion, despite its horrors is still "just" at its core.
Then the ending showdown in DG between Kalam and Laseen happens. Then MoI introduces the nature of implacable thirst for vengeance of the T'lan Imass. And we also learn that most of the bad things we believed the Empire did at Pale were a screwup- the Empire made mistakes, but not maliciously so. And thinking back on the 7C rebellion, doubts grow.
And then you have HoC. Which is all about "malicious powers subverti belief"- the Faces in the Rock usurp the Teblor spirits; Trull hints at his people's usurpation; the Whirlwind becomes the prize of several factions. CG tries to subvert it. Korbolo Dom plans to betray it. Dryjna herself is an Imass driven by vengeance.
And Felisin herself, the new Sha'ik is driven by vengeance against Tavore. Virtually no-one in charge is actually concerned with th future of 7C people. Exception to this may be Febryl, but he's barely give any screen time, and it's difficult to fathom his plan for 7C.
Basically, as of the end of DG, SE drops the somewhat ambiguou narrative of "rebellion as liberation". But he does it so subtly that the reader doesn't always grasp it, and may continue to think there's some merit to the Rebellion, even as SE spends most of HoC deconstructing it, showing that no-one (save Corabb, really) is actually concerned with the future of 7C.
And so when the Rebellion is supplanted by the struggle for the KE fragment, it's logical, flowing from what's been built up. The ending isn't a massive battle, but rather a complex web of plots, counterplots and betrayals gone awry. And the "failing" Rebellion is no more than a backdrop. While the 14th are at this point merely a plot device to get Fiddler back to Raraku so that the BBs can finish Ascending properly.
Given it took me 3 reads to reach this conclusion, I perfectly understand the OP's frustration on the topic,
Excellent analysis.
Help
