[ian76]

There's being cynical, and then there's being plain offensive. Pat's actually read the book, and it looks like he enjoyed it. You haven't read it, and have instead pre-judged it based on your experience with ICE's work to date. That's fair enough, but to accuse someone of being "on the take" because their considered opinion differs from your pre-formed opinion is ignorant in the extreme.

For what it's worth, I really enjoyed Night of Knives, but disliked RotCG for many of the reasons previously given on these forums - flat characterisation and chaotic plotting being the main ones. I'm hoping for a major improvement this time around however. One criticism of RotCG (but not of ICE's writing) that I hope won't be repeated is the proof-reading. As I say, this isn't a criticism of ICE, and I think Angel is being unfair in criticising ICE for writing "error-prone" books - give the guy a break.

[Vengeance]

Angel, on 24 October 2010 - 12:04 PM, said:

Binder of Demons, on 24 October 2010 - 04:57 AM, said:

@ Angel - you raised the point of your cynicism, but even so I think you're being a bit harsh. To accuse someone else of being on the take for giving their opinion without you having read the book in question is a bit much.

As for questioning statements like vivid, fluid and genuine with regards to Esslemont's writing, then i suggest you have a visit to the TOR re-read of the Malazan series, and go to their Night of Knives entries. You'll see a variety of opinions (both bloggers and commenters) with regard to ICE's writing there which contradict your above statement. Are they also "On the take"?

While I thoroughly enjoyed ICE's first 2 novels, i recognise that there were flaws. However, there were some very good elements/scenes, some of which could be described as fluid prose, or vivid descriptions of certain scenes (say the Fisherman's confrontation with the Stormriders). As a counterpoint there were times when the prose was clunky or characterisation poor.

Both NoK and RotCG had all the hallmarks of a new writer finding their feet. As such, i am perfectly willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he could have ironed out the major kinks in his writing.

My biggest gripe with what you've said above, is that you are so willing to insult someone to make your point.

I said I was a cynic, why then would it be unreasonable for me to be cynical? Refer to the other thread for the full amount of my scepticism and I believe I am justified in casting doubt as to ICE sudden and miraculous development as a writer. And what part of 'on the take' aren't you understanding? I always think the real question with ICE is, would he have made it on his own? I'd take three major publications to 'find my feet' too... that is exactly the point. People who aren't cutting onto another's world- regardless of whether they helped create it, don't get a three book luxury. They don't get the luxury of such error prone and poorly written books... just doesn't happen. I'll wait and see, but you aren't going to convince me with one adjective filled review, especially not one that is as superficial as that.

Umm have you seen some of the absolute rubbish that is on a book shelve. There are plenty of authors who somehow manage a several book deal who I feel shouldn't be allowed to write instruction manuals in Chinese for Ikea. As for any writing errors such as punctuation and misspellings ( I assume that is what you are referring to) that usually has more to do with a editor who is under as much pressure as a writer to get a book out. I want writers to become better with every single book that they write. Actually I expect them to. So for Ice's first book to be decent and then his second to be good, I would expect his third to be great. Take a look at Steve's first 3 books. Which one consistently ranks among the best of all of his books. MOI why because as good as the first two were he really got into his stride by the third one.

Pat has done a great job of writing reviews (I don't agree with them all) for years one thing that he has constantly avoided doing is giving out spoilers to the books that he has reviewed. If you don't want to read anything from pat then don't. But don't bugger on the guy just because your a twat.

[HoosierDaddy]

This thread got ugly very quickly. I'll wait until I've read the book to give my praise or do my bitching, or both.

[Blueiron]

H.D., on 24 October 2010 - 09:07 PM, said:

This thread got ugly very quickly. I'll wait until I've read the book to give my praise or do my bitching, or both.

This.

and,

YAY! Do want Stonewielder!

[Angel]

Vengeance, on 24 October 2010 - 08:45 PM, said:

Umm have you seen some of the absolute rubbish that is on a book shelve. There are plenty of authors who somehow manage a several book deal who I feel shouldn't be allowed to write instruction manuals in Chinese for Ikea. As for any writing errors such as punctuation and misspellings ( I assume that is what you are referring to) that usually has more to do with a editor who is under as much pressure as a writer to get a book out. I want writers to become better with every single book that they write. Actually I expect them to. So for Ice's first book to be decent and then his second to be good, I would expect his third to be great. Take a look at Steve's first 3 books. Which one consistently ranks among the best of all of his books. MOI why because as good as the first two were he really got into his stride by the third one.

Pat has done a great job of writing reviews (I don't agree with them all) for years one thing that he has constantly avoided doing is giving out spoilers to the books that he has reviewed. If you don't want to read anything from pat then don't. But don't bugger on the guy just because your a twat.

Lol at the 'ignorant' comment. i think we have different understandings of what 'on the take' actually means... and the fact that you are clearly in love with him whilst I have never particularly cared either way. My problem with his review is not that it doesn't have spoilers, but that it doesn't actually address any of the real issues about Esslemont's writing that have been raised. Instead he resorts to generalisations and hyperbole.

I was referring to errors in his writing as the problems already expressed, not the issues with editing. The writer should never be held responsible for dodgy editing.
For the record, I like ICE, I will pick up Stonewielder and give it the same treatment I give every book (open scepticism clearly ) ... I just won't write a review glorifying it without my argument having any balls.

Your philosophy on writing books should be applied universally: if you start with absolute crap, you can only go upwards. Good work.

MODGOD EDIT. AGAIN. SAME WARNING. BIGGER FONT.

This post has been edited by Abyss: 25 October 2010 - 02:45 PM

[MTS]

Everyone should probably just take a chill pill and agree to disagree. Unless you like bashing your head against a wall. This is a debate of largely subjective opinions, and you are never going to convince the other person of your point.

Quote

Your mouth can try to remove itself from his pole now. Good luck.

Quote

and the fact that you are clearly in love with him whilst I have never particularly cared either way.

Quote

And just to round off my argument: 'If you don't want to read anything from [me] then don't. But don't bugger on [me] because your a twat." Oh, oops, I meant hypocrite.

As to Angel, I think your points would go down much more reasonably if you stopped insulting people and refusing to believe anyone's argument is as valid as yours. You make fair enough points, but your attitude is very off-putting. There's three instances where you've resorted to cheap tactics to make an argument, and to suggest that because he and others happen to disagree with your opinion, they are both 'on the take' and in love with him is engaging in the very hyperbole you railed against in Pat's review, and insulting to boot. Tone down the condescension and patronising tone, please. The mods frown on such behaviour, and you might get banned. Nobody wants a flame war, and that is exactly where this topic is heading (I realise others have insulted you in turn, and they are no less in the right for doing so).

This post has been edited by MTS: 25 October 2010 - 09:40 AM

[Gothos]

Obvious troll is obvious. Don't feed it.

[T'renn]

Feeding the troll previously named "Angel" can have serious consequences
one could be, for example, insulted.

[Leanoric]

Just a question, Angel - what do *you* think that 'on the take' would mean in this context?

Where I come from (the UK) this means that he is being bribed by ICE/his publishers/whoever to give the book a good review. Clearly, to a reviewer, this would be something of an insult, to say the least.

Does this phrase mean something else where you are from? Just wondering... Otherwise I rather think you are bordering on libel there...

Anyway, I'm grateful to Pat for a non-spoilery review that has got me quite excited about Stonewielder. Well, I was already excited, but now even more so. I really enjoyed NoK, and enjoyed RotCG although I found bits of it... not communicated as well as it could be.

And I bet ICE gets pretty miffed when people call his work fan-fiction. He created and developed the world with SE. Characters you love from SE's work were created by ICE. This is not fan-fiction - they were always going to both write in the world. SE just happened to get a publishing deal first. Yes, yes, SE is a fantastic author I don't dispute that one bit. You could put up a good argument that he is 'better' than ICE if you wanted to (although opinions may vary). But fan fiction? Please. They are just as much canon as SE's novels, and were always intended to be so.

Sorry for feeding the troll. Just really wondered if 'on the take' really does mean something completely different somewhere else in the world...

[Angel]

Leanoric, on 25 October 2010 - 12:18 PM, said:

Just a question, Angel - what do *you* think that 'on the take' would mean in this context?

Where I come from (the UK) this means that he is being bribed by ICE/his publishers/whoever to give the book a good review. Clearly, to a reviewer, this would be something of an insult, to say the least.

Does this phrase mean something else where you are from? Just wondering... Otherwise I rather think you are bordering on libel there...

Anyway, I'm grateful to Pat for a non-spoilery review that has got me quite excited about Stonewielder. Well, I was already excited, but now even more so. I really enjoyed NoK, and enjoyed RotCG although I found bits of it... not communicated as well as it could be.

And I bet ICE gets pretty miffed when people call his work fan-fiction. He created and developed the world with SE. Characters you love from SE's work were created by ICE. This is not fan-fiction - they were always going to both write in the world. SE just happened to get a publishing deal first. Yes, yes, SE is a fantastic author I don't dispute that one bit. You could put up a good argument that he is 'better' than ICE if you wanted to (although opinions may vary). But fan fiction? Please. They are just as much canon as SE's novels, and were always intended to be so.

Sorry for feeding the troll. Just really wondered if 'on the take' really does mean something completely different somewhere else in the world...

Do people always claim troll when confronted with an argument that they cannot defeat? Stoke the troll... sure... how about using your brains to think of a logical argument to defeat whatever the hell it is I'm saying?

edit: On the take, yeah, accepting some money. Seriously, if that is going to offend you, you don't belong on the internet. Libel? Laughable!
MODGOD STRIKES AGAIN. NEW FONT.
SAME REASON.

This post has been edited by Abyss: 25 October 2010 - 03:25 PM

[Ulrik]

Well, I think that now comes mod with fire. (Pls, big MOD, I summon you! See, two dead chcicken sacrificed) ...its only pretty weak insults and no topic or arguments...

[Leanoric]

Angel, on 25 October 2010 - 12:33 PM, said:

Do people always claim troll when confronted with an argument that they cannot defeat? Stoke the troll... sure... how about using your brains to think of a logical argument to defeat whatever the hell it is I'm saying?

edit: On the take, yeah, accepting some money. Seriously, if that is going to offend you, you don't belong on the internet. Libel? Laughable! You're an idiot who obviously has no understanding of defamation laws but likes to think that they do. He'd naturally have to prove that I falsely and deliberately caused some sort of monetary loss to him through my 'slander' of him. Good luck. Feed the troll or not, keep living in delerium.

Definition of libel from wikipedia:

"libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant)."

So you don't need to cause him monetary loss, just defame his name and give him a negative image. You could make a pretty good case for that, I reckon. But whatever. I'm not a lawyer (although I have two brothers who are), nor am I the aggrieved party. You haven't offended me, I was just giving you the chance to explain since you were claiming to be misunderstood. After all, you said - twice - when people criticized you for using the expression 'on the take', that they clearly didn't understand what it meant. Apparently they understood exactly what it meant.

Anyway, I think everyone understands what you are saying and where you are coming from now. I will resist the urge to provide 'logical argument' to 'defeat' what you are saying. You said you didn't much like Pat's review. Other people said they did. That is not logical argument on either side. It is opinion. The rest of the discussion was about your tone and specific insults and insinuations you made. And I think you have made your point there more clearly than anyone else can.

Cheerio!

[pat5150]

On the take??? As in accepting money from the publisher or the author??? If anyone thinks that running an SFF blog is a glamorous and lucrative venture, let me disabuse you of that notion! If I'd wanted to make money, I would probably have gone into porn.

Angel, you'll simply have to read Stonewielder and make your own opinion about the book.

I can't even get most publishers to buy ad space on the Hotlist. Hence, I doubt they have the means to offer bribes. . .

Patrick

[Abyss]

MODGOD WARNING OF DOOM.
REDIRECT THREAD TO ON TOPIC DISCUSSION OR IT WILL BE LOCKED AND SELECTIVELY EXCISED.

AND PAT IS NOT BEING BRIBED BY ANYONE.
BELIEVE ME WE'VE TRIED.

[Tattersail_]

Pat thanks very much for the review. I really enjoyed it, I cannot wait to see it but I have to as I go to Oz on Wednesday for 2 whole weeks. I will be reading this when I get back, hopefully! If it is out

[T'renn]

ALL Hail the modgod, Abyss the just

[Kanubis]

If Pat was open to bribes he'd be rich and we'd all be too busy reading our photocopies of Stonewielder by now

I had this moment today. I was in a bookshop. I finished my third reread of DoD yesterday. I need a book. I just couldn't bring myself to buy something, knowing that I'd throw it aside in a couple of weeks no matter how far I was through it.

Maybe I'll just re-read the best convergences in the series so far until then instead

[champ]

Kanubis, on 25 October 2010 - 03:33 PM, said:

If Pat was open to bribes he'd be rich and we'd all be too busy reading our photocopies of Stonewielder by now

I had this moment today. I was in a bookshop. I finished my third reread of DoD yesterday. I need a book. I just couldn't bring myself to buy something, knowing that I'd throw it aside in a couple of weeks no matter how far I was through it.

Maybe I'll just re-read the best convergences in the series so far until then instead

i picked up my RoTCG yest to start again in preparation for SW, though i believe i may of started it too soon as by snooze time i was 1/3 way through..!

[pat5150]

Abyss, on 25 October 2010 - 02:48 PM, said:

MODGOD WARNING OF DOOM.
REDIRECT THREAD TO ON TOPIC DISCUSSION OR IT WILL BE LOCKED AND SELECTIVELY EXCISED.

AND PAT IS NOT BEING BRIBED BY ANYONE.
BELIEVE ME WE'VE TRIED.

Though you resort more to death threats than bribes, I do believe. . .

Cold hard cash could get you somewhere, you know!

Patrick

[MTS]

pat5150, on 25 October 2010 - 04:03 PM, said:

Abyss, on 25 October 2010 - 02:48 PM, said:

MODGOD WARNING OF DOOM.
REDIRECT THREAD TO ON TOPIC DISCUSSION OR IT WILL BE LOCKED AND SELECTIVELY EXCISED.

AND PAT IS NOT BEING BRIBED BY ANYONE.
BELIEVE ME WE'VE TRIED.

Though you resort more to death threats than bribes, I do believe. . .

Cold hard cash could get you somewhere, you know!

Patrick

Do you accept IOUs?

This post has been edited by MTS: 25 October 2010 - 04:54 PM