[Pig Iron]

I might remember incorrectly, but I think someone called "Finnegans Wake" a "man-made mountain". That is a fitting description of TMBOTF. It is huge, bewildering, beautiful and a great read, and at times also frustrating or even annoying. Its not always polished and SE has some real idiosyncrasies, but thats part of the beauty I think. SE is like Jack Vance or Glen Cook in the way that he really doesnt seem to be sucking up to the reader, its more "this is what you get and I wanted to write , take it or leave it".

[tiam]

Ulrik, on 15 March 2011 - 01:34 AM, said:

spiralx, on 15 March 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:

worrywort, on 14 March 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

spiralx, on 14 March 2011 - 07:49 PM, said:

worrywort, on 14 March 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

You're projecting when you say "those you actually care about".

Expressing an opinion surely? Projecting what?

When you use the second person, you are talking about a person not yourself, usually the one(s) you're addressing. This idea that there were people the generic "you" should have cared about is entirely your own, and you're projecting it. Even in your response to the rest of my post you keep using "you" like it means something. Nothing you felt, at all, ever, during the course of your reading the series should you ascribe to anybody else. The implied advocacy for The Reader and How He Feels "Of Course" is simply projecting. Your opinion is your own, and needs no justification, but it's not a set of truisms. I like the Perish as much as the Bridgeburners. I like Setoc as much as I like Toc. I like Kalyth as much as Ges and Stormy.

Authors do a lot of different things in a lot of different ways, all of them potentially good.

Answer me this - did you find the death of Sweetest Sufferance to be as equally moving a moment as the death of Whiskeyjack?

Well, Worrywont doesnt ned my explanations, but I think, that if you read his post carefully...you´ll see this demand of answer pretty..."not wise". He didnt say he loves all of them equally, he just said, that for him, story arcs you see as unnecesary meant same as first grade mainstream fantasy fan characters.


And I agree with him. I have no understanding for those who see Khundryl, Shake, Snake or even DoD Barghast as useless (but I wont force them to like it - its their way). I found death of Murillio much more moving than WJ. Barghast damnation story arc was stronger than e.g. conquering of Lether by BH. And most importantly - those non-ascendant, non-key soldiers and their lives was key for me in loving SE´s work. Without mere soldiers, dying by accident, loose arrow, betrayal, DoD and TCG would be halved for me. I care for them more, than for specacular clashes of dragons, Im not excited by duel of Draconus with Killy (because they were unimportant in this phase...too old). For me, MBoF is story of all Barghast, soldiers, common letherii etc. Yeah, I like duels, QB sweeping Nahruk, but...thats standard fantasy stuff, just brilliantly described. But core of the series are those unwitnessed individuals. And who isnt moved by cruel scene Badalle recognizing toys... This is for my why is MBoF exceptional. Its spine isnt juggling with magic swords and dragons. Its spine is human suffering, strenght and courage. Achilleus wasnt hero with his damned invincibility. It was soldiers facing him.

Id say the core of the series is subjective really. I mean I can see why some of the people on this board who read alot of fantasy might go to Malaz to escape stereotypical plots with the common soldier being the hero. I dont read alot of fantasy (atleast not anymore) so I quite like 'standard fantasy stuff' like QB against the KCNR.

This thread has turned into criticising each others grammar which is odd but also does not bode well for me. Anyway back to the 'disappointed' parts of the book.

Why did Hood, after making the best entrance of any malaz character including Draconus, just sit on the boat waiting for everyone else to turn up then, when Gesler was in trouble, come in and kirb stomp the FA? Why didnt he do it earlier was there a reason such as Ahkrast Korvalian was keeping him away or something along those lines?

[Ceda Cicero]

tiam, on 15 March 2011 - 06:38 PM, said:

Ulrik, on 15 March 2011 - 01:34 AM, said:

spiralx, on 15 March 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:

worrywort, on 14 March 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

spiralx, on 14 March 2011 - 07:49 PM, said:

worrywort, on 14 March 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

You're projecting when you say "those you actually care about".

Expressing an opinion surely? Projecting what?

When you use the second person, you are talking about a person not yourself, usually the one(s) you're addressing. This idea that there were people the generic "you" should have cared about is entirely your own, and you're projecting it. Even in your response to the rest of my post you keep using "you" like it means something. Nothing you felt, at all, ever, during the course of your reading the series should you ascribe to anybody else. The implied advocacy for The Reader and How He Feels "Of Course" is simply projecting. Your opinion is your own, and needs no justification, but it's not a set of truisms. I like the Perish as much as the Bridgeburners. I like Setoc as much as I like Toc. I like Kalyth as much as Ges and Stormy.

Authors do a lot of different things in a lot of different ways, all of them potentially good.

Answer me this - did you find the death of Sweetest Sufferance to be as equally moving a moment as the death of Whiskeyjack?

Well, Worrywont doesnt ned my explanations, but I think, that if you read his post carefully...you´ll see this demand of answer pretty..."not wise". He didnt say he loves all of them equally, he just said, that for him, story arcs you see as unnecesary meant same as first grade mainstream fantasy fan characters.


And I agree with him. I have no understanding for those who see Khundryl, Shake, Snake or even DoD Barghast as useless (but I wont force them to like it - its their way). I found death of Murillio much more moving than WJ. Barghast damnation story arc was stronger than e.g. conquering of Lether by BH. And most importantly - those non-ascendant, non-key soldiers and their lives was key for me in loving SE´s work. Without mere soldiers, dying by accident, loose arrow, betrayal, DoD and TCG would be halved for me. I care for them more, than for specacular clashes of dragons, Im not excited by duel of Draconus with Killy (because they were unimportant in this phase...too old). For me, MBoF is story of all Barghast, soldiers, common letherii etc. Yeah, I like duels, QB sweeping Nahruk, but...thats standard fantasy stuff, just brilliantly described. But core of the series are those unwitnessed individuals. And who isnt moved by cruel scene Badalle recognizing toys... This is for my why is MBoF exceptional. Its spine isnt juggling with magic swords and dragons. Its spine is human suffering, strenght and courage. Achilleus wasnt hero with his damned invincibility. It was soldiers facing him.

Id say the core of the series is subjective really. I mean I can see why some of the people on this board who read alot of fantasy might go to Malaz to escape stereotypical plots with the common soldier being the hero. I dont read alot of fantasy (atleast not anymore) so I quite like 'standard fantasy stuff' like QB against the KCNR.

This thread has turned into criticising each others grammar which is odd but also does not bode well for me. Anyway back to the 'disappointed' parts of the book.

Why did Hood, after making the best entrance of any malaz character including Draconus, just sit on the boat waiting for everyone else to turn up then, when Gesler was in trouble, come in and kirb stomp the FA? Why didnt he do it earlier was there a reason such as Ahkrast Korvalian was keeping him away or something along those lines?

I think Akhrast Korvalain was a part of it. Otherwise he would've warrened himself to the top of the Spire, rather than conjuring up a mountain of ice with Omtose Phellack and then hiking up. Others might disagree and say his unveiling of his warren at all around the Spire is evidence that he could've just easily "warped," but I think the fact that he managed to unveil at all in such proximity to Reverence and the core of the FA "wards" or whatever bespeaks his massive power.

It's also worth remembering, all evidence we have suggests that Hood was working in tandem with Rake/ST/Cot and by proxy (it would seem) with Tavore. Everything was coordinated. Hood's job was to get to the top of the Spire and take out Reverence so Gu'Rull could come snag the Heart. The fact that Ges got there and he arrived too late to save him is tragic, but in the scheme of the "master plan," incidental.

This post has been edited by Cicero: 15 March 2011 - 06:48 PM

[tiam]

I suppose the master plan arguement is the most logical but still I cant help feeling Hood could have just done it on his own. It would make an epic anti climax granted but given the power Hood showed (completely different to him in MOI when he withdraws his herald against three Bonecasters btw) I felt he could have done what he liked. In a similar way to TTH when Dragnipur could have been more easily broken somewhere else, somewhere quieter I felt Hood could have had a bigger role.

[worry]

spiralx, on 15 March 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

*shrug* I think you're just taking it a little too personally. His use of you can be understood to mean "those of you who agree" rather than implying that his opinion ought to be shared by everyone - something his post explicitly denied in fact.

My last point wasn't meant to imply how you (the indefinite you ) should value the death of SS ws. WJ; merely that different characters do emotionally resonant with readers differently, and the poster you criticised for projecting was simply expressing his view on that.

Of course I'm taking it personally, since the indefinite you is all-encompassing (not "those of you who agree", which I consider an unlikely, even implausible reading). But that doesn't mean I'm taking it personally on a level higher than say 1 out of 10. So if you're saying this just comes down to ambiguous wording and isn't much of a big deal at all, then I fully agree. I just felt like talking about it. If I'm the only one, that wouldn't be the first time. I also happened to disagree with his opinion though, so I suppose there was a combination of pet peeve and clashing opinions, but in no way was I conflating the two. You just happen to think it's possible to "speak for yourself" using the indefinite you, and I consider its use to inherently imply a substantial fellowship of opinion where there is none (or none proved, at least). I'll just go ahead and drop it though, as it seems to be boring everyone but me.

(And I assure you, tiam, it was not a grammatical issue, it was a rhetorical one.)

[Ceda Cicero]

Just thought I'd lighten things up.

http://fuckyeahnouns...%20disappointed

Carry on.

[spiralx]

worrywort, on 15 March 2011 - 09:42 PM, said:

I'll just go ahead and drop it though, as it seems to be boring everyone but me.

To paraphrase, I may not agree with your opinion, but it's your right to express it etc etc.

Besides, I'm off on holiday tomorrow morning, and would hate you to think my silence meant you'd won the argument

[gisli]

Cicero, on 15 March 2011 - 06:47 PM, said:

tiam, on 15 March 2011 - 06:38 PM, said:

Ulrik, on 15 March 2011 - 01:34 AM, said:

spiralx, on 15 March 2011 - 01:04 AM, said:

worrywort, on 14 March 2011 - 09:35 PM, said:

spiralx, on 14 March 2011 - 07:49 PM, said:

worrywort, on 14 March 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

You're projecting when you say "those you actually care about".

Expressing an opinion surely? Projecting what?

When you use the second person, you are talking about a person not yourself, usually the one(s) you're addressing. This idea that there were people the generic "you" should have cared about is entirely your own, and you're projecting it. Even in your response to the rest of my post you keep using "you" like it means something. Nothing you felt, at all, ever, during the course of your reading the series should you ascribe to anybody else. The implied advocacy for The Reader and How He Feels "Of Course" is simply projecting. Your opinion is your own, and needs no justification, but it's not a set of truisms. I like the Perish as much as the Bridgeburners. I like Setoc as much as I like Toc. I like Kalyth as much as Ges and Stormy.

Authors do a lot of different things in a lot of different ways, all of them potentially good.

Answer me this - did you find the death of Sweetest Sufferance to be as equally moving a moment as the death of Whiskeyjack?

Well, Worrywont doesnt ned my explanations, but I think, that if you read his post carefully...you´ll see this demand of answer pretty..."not wise". He didnt say he loves all of them equally, he just said, that for him, story arcs you see as unnecesary meant same as first grade mainstream fantasy fan characters.


And I agree with him. I have no understanding for those who see Khundryl, Shake, Snake or even DoD Barghast as useless (but I wont force them to like it - its their way). I found death of Murillio much more moving than WJ. Barghast damnation story arc was stronger than e.g. conquering of Lether by BH. And most importantly - those non-ascendant, non-key soldiers and their lives was key for me in loving SE´s work. Without mere soldiers, dying by accident, loose arrow, betrayal, DoD and TCG would be halved for me. I care for them more, than for specacular clashes of dragons, Im not excited by duel of Draconus with Killy (because they were unimportant in this phase...too old). For me, MBoF is story of all Barghast, soldiers, common letherii etc. Yeah, I like duels, QB sweeping Nahruk, but...thats standard fantasy stuff, just brilliantly described. But core of the series are those unwitnessed individuals. And who isnt moved by cruel scene Badalle recognizing toys... This is for my why is MBoF exceptional. Its spine isnt juggling with magic swords and dragons. Its spine is human suffering, strenght and courage. Achilleus wasnt hero with his damned invincibility. It was soldiers facing him.

Id say the core of the series is subjective really. I mean I can see why some of the people on this board who read alot of fantasy might go to Malaz to escape stereotypical plots with the common soldier being the hero. I dont read alot of fantasy (atleast not anymore) so I quite like 'standard fantasy stuff' like QB against the KCNR.

This thread has turned into criticising each others grammar which is odd but also does not bode well for me. Anyway back to the 'disappointed' parts of the book.

Why did Hood, after making the best entrance of any malaz character including Draconus, just sit on the boat waiting for everyone else to turn up then, when Gesler was in trouble, come in and kirb stomp the FA? Why didnt he do it earlier was there a reason such as Ahkrast Korvalian was keeping him away or something along those lines?

I think Akhrast Korvalain was a part of it. Otherwise he would've warrened himself to the top of the Spire, rather than conjuring up a mountain of ice with Omtose Phellack and then hiking up. Others might disagree and say his unveiling of his warren at all around the Spire is evidence that he could've just easily "warped," but I think the fact that he managed to unveil at all in such proximity to Reverence and the core of the FA "wards" or whatever bespeaks his massive power.

It's also worth remembering, all evidence we have suggests that Hood was working in tandem with Rake/ST/Cot and by proxy (it would seem) with Tavore. Everything was coordinated. Hood's job was to get to the top of the Spire and take out Reverence so Gu'Rull could come snag the Heart. The fact that Ges got there and he arrived too late to save him is tragic, but in the scheme of the "master plan," incidental.

Furthermore Olar Ethil's attack also delayed Hood participation in the battle. Not only she weakened his ice, but he couldn't concentrate to Reverence until her demise. It would have been a suicide to go to fight with Reverence leaving Olar Ethil, the strongest Bonecaster behind.

[Benidas Sengar]

some great stories seem to end like this. I remember feeling the same way when I finished King's Dark Tower series, what the hell happened to Roland? Also my favorite episode of the Soprano's when the wise guys lose a Russian mobster in the woods and we never find out what happened to him. The entire Soprano's series ended with a question mark and the show was brutalized by critics. I liked the ending and sometimes not knowing makes the story more personal, plus we all get to argue over what we think happened! Don't walk away, give it a re-read.

[worry]

I think Kingfisher has come up with some pretty grand stuff re: Hetan, in this thread: http://forum.malazan...post&pid=841431

I know it really eased most or all of my perturbation at her resurrection.

[SpectreofEschaton]

The only complaint I had about this (absolutely moving) book was that I would have loved to see just one scene in the epilogue between Tavore and Paran. When I first finished the book, I felt let down by that, but I've come to terms with it now, and I can safely say that this was my favorite book in the series, beating out even Toll the Hounds, and I've even changed my mind after thinking about it. There's something visceral in that short, breathless scene that they have together.

Actually, (sorry this is a bit off topic) but I felt really connected to Tavore in this book, after not feeling nearly anything for her up until now. I was in tears several times throughout, and she's become one of my favorite characters in the saga. Don't know if anyone else felt that way, too, but I certainly wasn't expecting it going into the book.

[Iamme]

Oddest thing was Gesler going after Reverence on his own, What about that freaking 20 feet assassin? Did he do anything beyond spying? He would have crushed all Assails like bug.

[Abyss]

Iamme, on 16 March 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

Oddest thing was Gesler going after Reverence on his own, What about that freaking 20 feet assassin? Did he do anything beyond spying? He would have crushed all Assails like bug.

Actually that's not so certain, and Gurull's job was to get the Heart to the barrow. If he failed against Reverance, there was absolutely no one else who could have transported the Heart.

Gesler wasn't supposed to go in alone, but when Sinn lost her shit he and Stormy were the only ones who could and with Stormy blocking Sinn that left Gesler alone.

I waver on whether Hood was ever part of the plan, but given his alliance with Rake and ST/Cots, it makes sense that he was meant to be there, but i tend to agree that he couldn't get there any faster and save Gesler.

[Ceda Cicero]

Abyss, on 16 March 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

Iamme, on 16 March 2011 - 08:23 AM, said:

Oddest thing was Gesler going after Reverence on his own, What about that freaking 20 feet assassin? Did he do anything beyond spying? He would have crushed all Assails like bug.

Actually that's not so certain, and Gurull's job was to get the Heart to the barrow. If he failed against Reverance, there was absolutely no one else who could have transported the Heart.

Gesler wasn't supposed to go in alone, but when Sinn lost her shit he and Stormy were the only ones who could and with Stormy blocking Sinn that left Gesler alone.

I waver on whether Hood was ever part of the plan, but given his alliance with Rake and ST/Cots, it makes sense that he was meant to be there, but i tend to agree that he couldn't get there any faster and save Gesler.

I forget, were Ges and Stormy even going to head to the Spire before Sinn went apeshit and marched off towards it?

[D'rek]

Also, it's hard to guess how much any of them knew beforehand, but Reverance was a crippled, slow, old and weak FA before Fener's blood made her young and strong again.

[Shizbit]

Thanks for all of the posts. My understanding and outlook on TCG has been greatly enhanced by the viewpoints in this thread.

I have mixed feelings about the book as a whole; I feel sad, ecstatic, bewildered, depressed, awed, and disappointed.

I too wished that some other characters got more scenes, but one of the strengths of the series is that SE is always introducing new continents and new characters, I can't have it all, know what I mean?

My main beef with TCG is near the end of the book with the whole Whiskeyjack/Korlat and the rest of the Bridgeburner scene. Didn't like it. I thought it was "cheeze-whiz," an unnecessary filler and I didn't really care about it. But obviously SE cared about it enough to throw it in there, so on the flip side of the coin, what am I gonna do about it? Complain and that's it. : P
SE has kept me entertained for (10 plus years is it?) a long time. I'm glad the tale has an ending, unlike another author that I 'cough-cough' won't mention.

This post has been edited by Shizbit: 17 March 2011 - 07:15 PM

[Migol]

Would just like to point out 3 things in Hood's defense:

1) Olar was fighting him from a distance with sorcery, this is why his ice was broken up, hence the jumping and the ankle.
2) Sinn's brand of fire magic kept him at his distance, his thoughts clearly imply that he had nothing to use against it
3) There was the matter of a limp gained from Roach. So if you want to look at it that way, Roach delayed hood, which killed Gesler.

[Dutch]

I can't say I am disappointed with the book.

Ok, I would have loved a final scene with Ganoes and Tavore kicking back and relaxing in the Finnest House at Darujistan with Reast serving them and Tufty purring at Tavores leg, but that's it.

Perhaps it's said in previous post here before, but I haven't read them all and I'm not sure if I will read every disappointed post here. Steven writes what he wants, not what the readers want him to write. At least that's the feeling I get from the beginning of the series throughout the rest of the series.
Plunging right into the battlefield at Pale and so on.

Reading the introduction of Knight of Knives made me think of this.

Here is the part:

From the beginning of the Malazan series, I was writing to an audience of one - Cam. And he has reciprocated. Thus, the dialogue continues; only now there are others, and they are listening in. Finally to both sides of the conversation.
We hope it proves entertaining.

Steven Erikson
Winnipeg, Canada, 2004

[alt146]

I can't say I'm disappointed either, maybe because I had no idea how I personally wanted the series to end.

I don't understand the people who think the Shake were irrelevant - it's the conclusion of Rake's storyline which is one of the longest running in the series (right there with the Bridgeburners and Tool). When Rake died in TtH he did so to give his people a reason to live and just having them hang out in Coral after that wasn't really a conclusion to everything Rake had set in motion. Off all the storylines to not be closed up in the book, the Andii would have been one of the biggest if it had been left out.

[theimmaterial]

Wow, it's very nice to find someone defending a post of mine, thank you Siporalx! On the ensuing debate I don't know what to say really although I shall leave after this post as plenty has been said already and I wouldn't want this to continue ad nauseam.

Quote

"You're projecting when you say "those you actually care about". Every character you cared about was a new character to you at some point, and their lives didn't become more important than everyone else's just because we got to know them a bit better."

Them being a new character at some point is irrelevant. As to their lives becoming more important of course they did! If the value of their life is a purely subjective measure (which is what I think you're getting at) then of course by knowing more about them, forming an emotional attachment does make them more important to the person with the attachment.

Also as you're going to put such scrutiny onto terms "just because we got to know them a bit better". I'm sorry, 'we' got to know them better? You and I? Everyone who read the series and you? I think you might be projecting just how much 'we' got to know them

Quote

"Of course I'm taking it personally, since the indefinite you is all-encompassing (not "those of you who agree", which I consider an unlikely, even implausible reading)."

Sorry for rhetorical flourishes, it was not a deliberate ambiguous use but rather part of my writing style. Although I shall say this, if what is being argued over is subjective opinion then surely the use of rhetoric is justified, in fact when outside value cannot be appealed to it is the only recourse in trying to change someone's opinion or at least have them consider your own more closely. Unless of course what you wanted was a collection of everyone stating how they feel with no debate or engagement.

Quote

"Your opinion is your own, and needs no justification, but it's not a set of truisms."

Are those the only options? Opinion or truth by definition? False dichotomies aside, there is such thing as considered opinion and quite rightly so. An opinion plucked from the air is worth about as much. A considered opinion with access to relevant evidence and subjected to reflection and scrutiny is worth a lot more. Just because something is opinion, doesn't mean it can do without a pedigree or justification.

Relatedly, terms such as 'minor' or 'fringe' I would actually suggest can be empirically tested or at least some textual evidence amassed in favour of that interpretation. For example a search of how many times a character's name occurs, how many scenes they're in, how late in the series they arrive, how many first-person perspectives there are, etc. could all be metrics to test this (not that I'm suggesting that these are perfect and capture all nuances but still a case can be made other than 'this is my opinion').

Quote

"As far as the opinion they represent, I would suggest they miss the point entirely, which is my counteropinion".

What is 'the point'? How was this point established? This wouldn't be dressing up an opinion as fact would it? Wouldn't it have been better to say 'It is my opinion that the point is X and it is my opinion that this point has been missed' rather than appealing to some point as if it were a freestanding, impartially established thing that one can miss. Also, wouldn't it be better to say 'a point', unless of course you really do think the series only contains the one.

Anyway, I shall be off now.


p.s. One thing I did notice trying to take out any projection from this is how much more personal, aggressive or confrontational it can make something seem. I generally try to avoid anything like that in my posts and perhaps projection is a way round this by attempting to bridge the 'you and I' divide and subsequent language of conflict and confrontation. But as you asked for substance rather than style, I hope in this respect I have been able to accomodate your wishes.