[Illuyankas]

GLORIOUS NEWS

THE WORST PART OF TTH IS ABOUT TO BE CORRECTED

[Gothos]

pat5150, on 19 October 2010 - 01:40 PM, said:

Quick update:

Just heard back from Esslemont, and the Darujhistan novel will be next.

Although everything hinted at the Assail book at the end of Stonewielder, I guess that ICE will now tie all the loose ends from TTH...

Patrick

They're just building the suspense around Assail up higher and higher and higher... I sincerely hope it doesn't bite them in the ass.

[Abyss]

I don't see why it would.
SE had two parallel mass storylines diverging from GotM, speaking in gross generalizations, the 7C and the Genabackis storylines, then the Leth storyline, which intersected with the 7C/Bonehunters storyline in TB and RG while the Genabackis/Rake storyline from MoI wrapped in TtH.

If the end-game is to have either the Crimson Guard and/or another group end up in Assail, i don't see why ICE shouldn't take some detours first.

[Tattersail_]

awesome awesome awesome!! when is it out?

[Slow Ben]

Pre-oredered 2 copies (via the link on the main page of course), with regular shipping, says it should be here the first week in December!

Sweet baby Jesus that seems like forever!

[pat5150]

Just heard back from ICE regarding where Stonewielder fits in the Malazan timeline, and you can read his answer here.

As expected, it occurs between RG and TtH, but is more current with TtH. Here you go!

Patrick

[Abyss]

pat5150, on 20 October 2010 - 02:23 PM, said:

Just heard back from ICE regarding where Stonewielder fits in the Malazan timeline, and you can read his answer here.

As expected, it occurs between RG and TtH, but is more current with TtH. Here you go!

Patrick

Ok that makes sense - i was bit surprised at the suggestions elsewhere that there was a years longer time gap that would almost have to put SW after TCG.

- Abyss, ...important the timeline is not important the timeline is not important the timelines is not....

[blackzoid]

I gotta hurry up on my reread. Only half way through Memories of Ice now. I've got 1 monthish to read HoC,MT,BH,RotCG and maybe RG.

[Jorram]

Illuyankas, on 18 October 2010 - 09:26 PM, said:

I don't know about him but I was under the impression that he drowned like the rest of Iron Bars' Guardsmen. Since even High Mages can die like bitches in this series. I'm pleased he made it, though.

Also Apt, it's Corlo, not Cowl.

What did ever make u think Iron Bars' guard drowned??? Last we heard from them, they were in big shit but still heading for Korel

[Aptorian]

Their ship got rammed by a slave trader.

[T'renn]

No no no

at the end of the book the former slavetrader ship Bars commandeered was rammed
by a Marese Galley from the Black city

[Angel]

The cynic in me cannot help but doubt so generalised a review.

Without all the hyperbole and exaggeration that you've thrown in, there were a -lot- of problems with Esslemont's writing and I highly doubt that he can iron out the faults in all of them. Apart from that fact, many of those I assume would carry over from the previous novel. Eg: poor characterisation cannot be changed now, when the character extends from the first book(s) into this novel. If the worldbuilding is as 'top notch' as the last edition, I suppose that I will continue to be dissapointed. I'd love to see more character randomly introduced, appear and die without any justification or reasoning behing it. I'd love to see Kallor appear just to kill someone and leave again. Top notch stuff there. /end sarcasm.

When I see the words vivid, fluid and genuine all used together in close sentences, describing Esslemont's writing, I really think that you're on the take. Seriously, vivid? Esslemont is like a painter who only has black and white.

Anyway, I wrote all my issues last time, I suppose I'll just do it again

This post has been edited by Angel: 24 October 2010 - 03:17 AM

[Binder of Demons]

@ 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.

This post has been edited by Binder of Demons: 24 October 2010 - 04:59 AM

[MTS]

I'm pretty sure that Wert said that Stonewielder improves significantly on The Return of the Crimson Guard. There is always plenty of room for characters to develop into better ones within the novel itself, and images of characters can change inbetween novels (cf. Rake in GotM and Rake in MoI/TTH). There is nothing stating that flaws always carry over, and that there is a finite amount to which he can improve. I would suggest being cautiously optimistic rather than so scathingly cynical. People don't always disappoint, you know.

[Ulrik]

Hey, I like that level of prejudice and tendency to attack harshly ad hominem! I think Angel would greatly fit into SE´s (ICE doesnt many of these characters) books. I just dont think that Angel would like his book alter egos...
(and I write it as someone whoa had many complains against RotCG...but also believe that ICE learns and polishes his writing with every book)

[Angel]

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.

[End of Disc One]

MTS, on 24 October 2010 - 04:59 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that Wert said that Stonewielder improves significantly on The Return of the Crimson Guard.

Wert has read it? I haven't seen anything about this on the message boards or on his blog.

[MTS]

End of Disc One, on 24 October 2010 - 12:53 PM, said:

MTS, on 24 October 2010 - 04:59 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that Wert said that Stonewielder improves significantly on The Return of the Crimson Guard.

Wert has read it? I haven't seen anything about this on the message boards or on his blog.

Sorry, I meant Pat. Derp.

[Sinisdar Toste]

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.

sigh... massive understatement of difficulty in getting published, complete disregard of the time and effort it takes to undergo "sudden and miraculous development as a writer", stating generalizations as definitive fact, suggesting you would have done things better - why should anyone even listen to you? you're clearly determined to belittle esslemonts writing. be a cynic all you want, just don't expect people to give a shit.

and of course pat's review focuses on vague adjectives, he's not spoiling anything, so he has to fall back on his feelings about the book. he felt it was good, an improvement and he chose his words accordingly. he does this and has done this for years and years, reading tons and tons of books, so i think he knows how to discriminate between good books and bad.

This post has been edited by Sinisdar Toste: 24 October 2010 - 08:21 PM

[Angel]

Sinisdar Toste, on 24 October 2010 - 08:12 PM, said:

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.

sigh... massive understatement of difficulty in getting published, complete disregard of the time and effort it takes to undergo "sudden and miraculous development as a writer", stating generalizations as definitive fact, suggesting you would have done things better - why should anyone even listen to you? you're clearly determined to belittle esslemonts writing. be a cynic all you want, just don't expect people to give a shit.

and of course pat's review focuses on vague adjectives, he's not spoiling anything, so he has to fall back on his feelings about the book. he felt it was good, an improvement and he chose his words accordingly. he does this and has done this for years and years, reading tons and tons of books, so i think he knows how to discriminate between good books and bad.

This is a forum, people listen to other people on a forum, or they argue. You already are doing both, so your point about listening to me is irrelevant. The sad reality is people do 'give a shit'. Have a look in the RoTCG forum, the evidence is there. The reason I can 'belittle' Esslemont's writing is because I can, and I don't mean I just can do it, I mean it is so easily possible to do it due to its quality level.

All you do is prove my point with your statement about the difficulty of getting published. If it is so difficult, how did he get published on such a poorly written/constructed short story about a world already detailed by another writer? Oh, that's right, they have a name for it these days. Fan fiction. Yes, that's right. I've seen fan fiction that does a better job. So sure, I'll restate, that I'd love three books, and an inside run at getting it published before I were to get it right.


MODGOD EDIT - BE NICE. PERSONAL ATTACKS WILL BE DELETED. REPEATED INSTANCES WILL RESULT IN BANZAP.

This post has been edited by Abyss: 25 October 2010 - 02:43 PM
Reason for edit: bcs personal attacks will not be tolerated.