[Abyss]

MODGOC NOTICE OF ETA LINK
BACK TO WERT'S REVIEW: http://forum.malazan..._gopid__1080477

Good review Wert. i'm intrigued.

Btw...

Quote

...Jorg is a protagonist with the quick wits of Locke Lamora, the charm and resourcefulness of Kvothe but the moral compass of Gregor Clegane.

Best.
Fantasy lit character description.
Ever.

This post has been edited by Abyss: 21 August 2013 - 02:57 PM

[polishgenius]

Abyss, on 12 May 2011 - 04:53 PM, said:

Best.
Fantasy lit character description.
Ever.

It's bang on the money too. I agree pretty much word for word with Wert's review. Fans of Abercrombie, Morgan etcs will lap this one up, and it's one that's easily on the level of the first book in either series.

[Abyss]

Forgot to ask...

As it's part of a new series: cliffhanger or standalone ending?

[polishgenius]

Standalone. There are threads to continue, obviously, but there's a full story here.

[polishgenius]

I'm gonna give this a little bump up just to remind y'all that this is properly out now and that Mark Lawrence deserves your attention.

[champ]

Brilliant, fast paced book...

It's like Dresden with swords!

A must read!

[QuickTidal]

I've been really curious about this one, and will likely be picking it up at some point.

[polishgenius]

To be honest the Dresden comparison is odd. Yeah, it's first-person, fast paced and witty, but other than that? Not really sure where you're coming from. It's more Abercrombie.

[champ]

polishgenius, on 09 August 2011 - 04:00 PM, said:

To be honest the Dresden comparison is odd. Yeah, it's first-person, fast paced and witty, but other than that? Not really sure where you're coming from. It's more Abercrombie.

I guess I could have elaborated more aye but been honest... I couldn't be assed - the underlined is pretty much everything that I was thinking when comparing the two novels...

Different folks, different strokes... you see it more like Abercrombie in style, I see it more like Dresden...

[JPK]

I'm willing to say that it more closely resembles Abercombie, though only on the surface.

Spoiler

His "evil" characters have at least a few redeeming factors. Jorg just felt evil for evil's sake to me. MHO.

[Mark Lawrence]

Hurr Durr, on 13 August 2011 - 06:54 AM, said:

I'm willing to say that it more closely resembles Abercombie, though only on the surface.

Spoiler

His "evil" characters have at least a few redeeming factors. Jorg just felt evil for evil's sake to me. MHO.

It's odd how in real life we tend to talk about people ... what they've done, why they've done it, what kind of person they are. But we don't tend to call people evil unless we're writing tabloid headlines, or talking about Hitler. Any yet in fantasy anyone who does something nasty ... is evil? Is it a hangover from RPG days when we had to choose our characters' alignment from the list of 9(?) options? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I attempted (and perhaps failed) to write a more sophisticated novel than that.

[polishgenius]

Mark Lawrence, on 10 October 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

It's odd how in real life we tend to talk about people ... what they've done, why they've done it, what kind of person they are. But we don't tend to call people evil unless we're writing tabloid headlines, or talking about Hitler. Any yet in fantasy anyone who does something nasty ... is evil? Is it a hangover from RPG days when we had to choose our characters' alignment from the list of 9(?) options? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I attempted (and perhaps failed) to write a more sophisticated novel than that.

I'm not sure I accept the argument entirely because his whole point was that Abercrombie did manage it, but I don't accept his either because as I read it 90% of the theme of the book was why Jorg is the way he is, so suggesting he's evil just for the sake of it doesn't work for me.

Spoiler

Especially with a particular revelation regarding the source of his motives near the end.

Mind you, I'd also have no problem at all calling someone who acts like Jorg evil in real life, regardless of why he ended up that way. Tragic and evil do not rule each other out... but that's a semantic argument.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 10 October 2011 - 11:52 PM

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 10 October 2011 - 11:44 PM, said:

Mark Lawrence, on 10 October 2011 - 10:19 PM, said:

It's odd how in real life we tend to talk about people ... what they've done, why they've done it, what kind of person they are. But we don't tend to call people evil unless we're writing tabloid headlines, or talking about Hitler. Any yet in fantasy anyone who does something nasty ... is evil? Is it a hangover from RPG days when we had to choose our characters' alignment from the list of 9(?) options? I guess what I'm trying to say is that I attempted (and perhaps failed) to write a more sophisticated novel than that.

I'm not sure I accept the argument entirely because his whole point was that Abercrombie did manage it, but I don't accept his either because as I read it 90% of the theme of the book was why Jorg is the way he is, so suggesting he's evil just for the sake of it doesn't work for me.

Spoiler

Especially with a particular revelation regarding the source of his motives near the end.

It's funny, if you are going to choose to ride the line between hero and anti-hero as an author, then you may have to accept that some people aren't going to see the redemptive qualities you've instilled into said character. Evil is a point of view, and it's certainly not black and white. Religious people (for example) are going to view anything that rails against their religion on purpose or otherwise as evil or the like. An Anti-hero is a touchy, touchy protagonist to have and will (a lot of times polarize your readers), you NEED to have the GOOD they are doing, or attempting to do at any point in the narrative OUTWEIGH the more nasty aspects of their nature otherwise you should accept you've got a villain. If you want your audience to identify with the "hero" be they anti-hero or not, then you have to have them fit into a state where the reader is A. not put off by their behavior entirely, and B. that there is something redeeming about them... otherwise you've got yourself a putz who your reader WANTS to see die at the end.

I guess what I am trying to say is that some folk may interpret a "not easily-redeemable anti-hero" as having too many nasty traits, thus they aren't able to identify with them at all...and it's hard to WANT to read about a villain main character unless there is an altruism about them that makes it worth our while. Not everyone is going to feel like that and while some people don't mind their anti-hero's with a lot of dirt on them, others aren't so swayed and will dislike those aspects. Grain of salt, if you write a character like that you might need to accept that they aren't going to be liked by everyone, and of course we call them evil...this is fiction...bad guys are evil. Always have been.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 October 2011 - 12:11 AM

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 11 October 2011 - 12:08 AM, said:

It's funny, if you are going to choose to ride the line between hero and anti-hero as an author, then you may have to accept that some people aren't going to see the redemptive qualities you've instilled into said character. Evil is a point of view, and it's certainly not black and white. Religious people (for example) are going to view anything that rails against their religion on purpose or otherwise as evil or the like. An Anti-hero is a touchy, touchy protagonist to have and will (a lot of times polarize your readers), you NEED to have the GOOD they are doing, or attempting to do at any point in the narrative OUTWEIGH the more nasty aspects of their nature otherwise you should accept you've got a villain. If you want your audience to identify with the "hero" be they anti-hero or not, then you have to have them fit into a state where the reader is A. not put off by their behavior entirely, and B. that there is something redeeming about them... otherwise you've got yourself a putz who your reader WANTS to see die at the end.

I guess what I am trying to say is that some folk may interpret a "not easily-redeemable anti-hero" as having too many nasty traits, thus they aren't able to identify with them at all...and it's hard to WANT to read about a villain main character unless there is an altruism about them that makes it worth our while. Not everyone is going to feel like that and while some people don't mind their anti-hero's with a lot of dirt on them, others aren't so swayed and will dislike those aspects. Grain of salt, if you write a character like that you might need to accept that they aren't going to be liked by everyone, and of course we call them evil...this is fiction...bad guys are evil. Always have been.

I can't accept that argument. It's not about a balance of good and evil acts that they perform, it's about whether you can empathise with the character - and you can do that without agreeing with any of the end reaction. If a bad guy's become bad because of certain things in their life, and the author can get across why that led to this way of thinking without the audience losing concern for the character, he's done his job imo.

Since we're on a Malazan forum, take Karsa Orlong as an example. He's charismatic and therefore likable, but if you look at the things he does and plans to do he's a villain by any normal standard of perception. Jorg isn't dissimilar in that way, although his acts are much more in your face.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 11 October 2011 - 12:50 AM, said:

QuickTidal, on 11 October 2011 - 12:08 AM, said:

It's funny, if you are going to choose to ride the line between hero and anti-hero as an author, then you may have to accept that some people aren't going to see the redemptive qualities you've instilled into said character. Evil is a point of view, and it's certainly not black and white. Religious people (for example) are going to view anything that rails against their religion on purpose or otherwise as evil or the like. An Anti-hero is a touchy, touchy protagonist to have and will (a lot of times polarize your readers), you NEED to have the GOOD they are doing, or attempting to do at any point in the narrative OUTWEIGH the more nasty aspects of their nature otherwise you should accept you've got a villain. If you want your audience to identify with the "hero" be they anti-hero or not, then you have to have them fit into a state where the reader is A. not put off by their behavior entirely, and B. that there is something redeeming about them... otherwise you've got yourself a putz who your reader WANTS to see die at the end.

I guess what I am trying to say is that some folk may interpret a "not easily-redeemable anti-hero" as having too many nasty traits, thus they aren't able to identify with them at all...and it's hard to WANT to read about a villain main character unless there is an altruism about them that makes it worth our while. Not everyone is going to feel like that and while some people don't mind their anti-hero's with a lot of dirt on them, others aren't so swayed and will dislike those aspects. Grain of salt, if you write a character like that you might need to accept that they aren't going to be liked by everyone, and of course we call them evil...this is fiction...bad guys are evil. Always have been.

I can't accept that argument. It's not about a balance of good and evil acts that they perform, it's about whether you can empathise with the character - and you can do that without agreeing with any of the end reaction. If a bad guy's become bad because of certain things in their life, and the author can get across why that led to this way of thinking without the audience losing concern for the character, he's done his job imo.

Since we're on a Malazan forum, take Karsa Orlong as an example. He's charismatic and therefore likable, but if you look at the things he does and plans to do he's a villain by any normal standard of perception. Jorg isn't dissimilar in that way, although his acts are much more in your face.

Dude, this is a subjectivity argument. You can NOT accept it all you like...the FACT is that some folk are not going to like an anti-hero who isn't balanced enough for them, end of story. The specifics are a semantics arguement which is also soemwhat subjective. I have my opinion and I don't need you to ACCEPT it. There's no middle ground, you either agree or you don't. Clearly you don't... but I wasn't presenting an argument, I was simply stating that if you write a character with a certain level of ambiguity in their nature towards law and order then you run the risk of people not liking them, simple as that and there's no gray area to a persons subjective opinion. No need to look for a fight when there isn't one to be had.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 11 October 2011 - 01:44 AM

[Use Of Weapons]

QuickTidal, on 11 October 2011 - 01:28 AM, said:

Dude, this is a subjectivity argument. You can NOT accept it all you like...the FACT is that some folk are not going to like an anti-hero who isn't balanced enough for them, end of story. The specifics are a semantics arguement which is also soemwhat subjective. I have my opinion and I don't need you to ACCEPT it. There's no middle ground, you either agree or you don't. Clearly you don't... but I wasn't presenting an argument, I was simply stating that if you write a character with a certain level of ambiguity in their nature towards law and order then you run the risk of people not liking them, simple as that and there's no gray area to a persons subjective opinion. No need to look for a fight when there isn't one to be had.

But there is a counter argument, which is that it is clearly possible to write a book where the villain is a/the protagonist _and have people rooting for them_. To wit, Silence of the Lambs.

[polishgenius]

I wasn't looking for a fight, but hey ho... My choice of words may have been a bit misplaced, but if you read any beligerence whatsoever in there I apologise.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that you have to like reading about a character with certain levels of ambiguity or nastyness just coz the author wants you to. I'm just saying that, especially if you've got their PoV, their actions can be less important than their motives in getting a reader to connect with them, if the writer's good at what he's doing. I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

I'ma use Karsa again as an example of what I mean coz I don't want to load the spoilers for this book in this topic (have youse read it yet?) and I suspect most people reading the topic will be up to speed on mister Orlong so, Malazan spoilers:

Spoiler

Karsa's journey starts off with him being an unmitigated bastard, raping and murdering for personal glory.By the end of the main Malazan series his aim has become to bring about the end of civilization, and he spends the interim pretty much picking fights to show off how awesome he is. That we see his motivations, coming as they do from emotions we all have to one extent or another- pride (both personal and racial/nationalistic), resentment of authority, anger against those who enslaved him - and that he's personally likeable by the end of his time in Raraku is what makes him an ace character; but in terms of his actual actions there's not that much redemption there. If we didn't have his PoV he'd come off as a barbaric murderous warlord.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 11 October 2011 - 11:03 AM

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 11 October 2011 - 10:45 AM, said:

I wasn't looking for a fight, but hey ho... My choice of words may have been a bit misplaced, but if you read any beligerence whatsoever in there I apologise.

Obviously I'm not suggesting that you have to like reading about a character with certain levels of ambiguity or nastyness just coz the author wants you to. I'm just saying that, especially if you've got their PoV, their actions can be less important than their motives in getting a reader to connect with them, if the writer's good at what he's doing. I may have misunderstood what you were saying.

I'ma use Karsa again as an example of what I mean coz I don't want to load the spoilers for this book in this topic (have youse read it yet?) and I suspect most people reading the topic will be up to speed on mister Orlong so, Malazan spoilers:

Spoiler

Karsa's journey starts off with him being an unmitigated bastard, raping and murdering for personal glory.By the end of the main Malazan series his aim has become to bring about the end of civilization, and he spends the interim pretty much picking fights to show off how awesome he is. That we see his motivations, coming as they do from emotions we all have to one extent or another- pride (both personal and racial/nationalistic), resentment of authority, anger against those who enslaved him - and that he's personally likeable by the end of his time in Raraku is what makes him an ace character; but in terms of his actual actions there's not that much redemption there. If we didn't have his PoV he'd come off as a barbaric murderous warlord.

Nah, I was just in a bit of a foul mood yesterday and it probably rubbed off on my reply, sorry PG, your response was not belligerent at all, I think cranky Scott (me) was seeing things that weren't there. My bad.

While I think the Karsa comparison is a decent one, I think If he were the main protagonist for the whole series it might be a different story and people might not stomach him for what he is, I'm certainly not sure if I could have tolerated ten books of just Karsa....where Malazan gets away from that is with the myriad of protagonists. Perhaps my post should have said "main protagonist" or "only protagonist". If you have an ensemble cast of grey characters it's a bit different.

[champ]

The next book is out 16th August 2012 if anyone is interested... I personally cannot wait!

http://www.amazon.co...29668758&sr=8-4

Quote

The second book in the Broken Empire series, Lawrence takes his young anti-hero one step closer to his grand ambition.To reach greatness you must step on bodies, and many brothers lie trodden in my wake. I’ve walked from pawn to player and I’ll win this game of ours, though the cost of it may drown the world in blood…

The land burns with the fires of a hundred battles as lords and petty kings fight for the Broken Empire. The long road to avenge the slaughter of his mother and brother has shown Prince Honorous Jorg Ancrath the hidden hands behind this endless war. He saw the game and vowed to sweep the board. First though he must gather his own pieces, learn the rules of play, and discover how to break them.

A six nation army, twenty thousand strong, marches toward Jorg's gates, led by a champion beloved of the people. Every decent man prays this shining hero will unite the empire and heal its wounds. Every omen says he will. Every good king knows to bend the knee in the face of overwhelming odds, if only to save their people and their lands. But King Jorg is not a good king.

Faced by an enemy many times his strength Jorg knows that he cannot win a fair fight. But playing fair was never part of Jorg’s game plan.

[Battalion]

Just reading this book myself.
Started reading the Wise Man's Fear but found it too slow, then turned to this ... Love it