[Dragnipurake]

Thanks for one of the best series I ever read; the plot/story was fantastic and the ending couldn't be more perfect. And loved the prose too (and I played 'find the Jorg'...).

Looking forward to Prince of Fools

Mark Lawrence, on 29 August 2013 - 10:38 PM, said:

You may well fit my profile http://mark---lawren...and-snails.html

[birthSqueeze]

Salt-Man Z, on 29 August 2013 - 09:25 PM, said:

I'll take prose over plot any day. A book with a terrible (or no) plot can still be a pleasure to read if the prose is good enough. But an excellent plot has to work that much harder to overcome bad prose. It comes down to personal preference, I think.

On topic, I just read the Jorg/Marco/Fayed scene in EoT, and wow!

This is where you and me greatly defer. I look at it completely reverse from you. In my opinion the very act of writing good prose (in the case of a novel with a bad plot) is essentially working hard to mitigate that flaw. On the other hand good prose can greatly enhance what is already a good story. Or not. Depending on how pretentious and superfluous the prose are, it could go the opposite way. Most readers don't want to see a bunch of unfamiliar words every paragraph. Discounting prose and stripping a novel down to it's barest bones - it is just a story with characters. Hence why I put more emphasis on characters and plot when judging books than anything else. A bunch of pretty prose with no story isn't much. Of course, I still enjoy books with good prose as long as I like almost everything else about them. Summer of Night by Dan Simmons is one of my all time favorite novels and the prose in that book are some of the best I've seen. The detail was so vivid and atmospheric that I practically felt like I was there.

This post has been edited by birthSqueeze: 31 August 2013 - 03:17 AM

[Puck]

Sorry to go offtopic again, but good prose and pretentious/superfluos prose are not the same. And it may because I am what Mr. Lawrence calls The Beautician up there in his blog post, but I do consider the prose to be an integral part of a story, and as such I don't think one can strip the stoy of it without consequences. It's not like I want to learn new words on every second page, but I also don't want to read an instruction manual - unless, of course, it enhances the story, which is perfectly possible.

The baseline of what I'm saying is, I guess, that the prose should fit the story.

Anyway, carry on.

[Abyss]

A few comments re KING as i continue on thru EMPEROR...

SPOILERS

OBVIOUSLY

SPOILERS


I really enjoyed the development the Road Brothers got even as they were whittled down to the most vicious few.

Gog! Dammit!

Rike... i can't even explain why i liked Rike so much in this book but i did.

Gorgoth was a great character.

Miana was a BRILLIANT character. Just a few short scenes and she dominated every one. Glad she survived.

That chase thru the swamp and the fights against Chella were terrific writing... even knowing Jorg has to make it through, it was brutal.

Speaking of terriffic writing, Mark Lawrence - because yes i know you're reading this - the flashback to what happened to Justice was one of the most viscerally uncomfortable scenes i have read in fantasy lit or any other lit for that matter in ages and if it wasn't so damn well written as it was i might really resent you for such a blatant bit of heart-string ripping nastiness but instead i'm utterly impressed. ..and William's comment about the hammer was a nice touch.

I saw the duel at the end coming. I even predicted how Jorg would cheat. What i didn't see coming was the Orrin/Elan switch, and that was nicely handled and led beautifully to the confrontation with Sageous, which in turn tied very nicely into Katherine's story. Really just a masterfully done tieing together of the various plot threads.


So i totally enjoyed this book. It took a lot of what i enjoyed in PRINCE to new levels and changed things up enough to be more than a straightforward continuination of the first book. Fully worth the dollars and i'm glad i didn't hesitate to grab EMPEROR as well.


- Abyss, satisfied customer.

[champ]

Abyss, on 03 September 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

Speaking of terriffic writing, Mark Lawrence - because yes i know you're reading this - the flashback to what happened to Justice was one of the most viscerally uncomfortable scenes i have read in fantasy lit or any other lit for that matter in ages and if it wasn't so damn well written as it was i might really resent you for such a blatant bit of heart-string ripping nastiness but instead i'm utterly impressed. ..and William's comment about the hammer was a nice touch

I know right, I hate that scene, on a reread I thought it would be easier, turned out I was wrong, much worse knowing what's coming!

I wouldn't like to even guess how many books I've read but that scene is easily in the top 5 most disturbing scenes I've had the pleasure of reading...

I was talking about it with a friend who had also read the books and he agreed, strange really, read countless scenes of men, women and children been killed/tortured or put through totally outrageous circumstances and yet it's the scene with a dog that tops them...

[Cause]

I read three books just so I would get to read the punchline to a joke hundreds of pages in the making in the second last chapter. Had me in stitches

Spoiler

When Death attacks the congression, Jorg delivers a line: 'The guard who had watched over our Congression, a dozen men in total, stood with the Hundred, all save one who’d contrived to break his neck in the confusion and donate his sword to Rike'.

An Amazing Series all in all. One thing that had me confused in the first novel and which i think was handled somewhat unevenly in the second and third novels was magic. When I realized the world was a post apocalyptic earth I thought okay this is not like typical fantasy. When Jorg mentions the spells put in his builder steel sword I thought he was commenting on how it was superior to any other metal and he figured it was magic not science that made it so. When he runs into the dead later on I was confused, mutants? Throughout the novel he mentions fantastical things but he mentions them as rumour, half believed stories or things from the far east. Even mention of the Dream-witch is met with great scepticism. Later books have sworn popping all over the place and magic appearing more and more and no character regards it as special anymore but run of the mill. We learn that magicians work in the courts of many of the hundred and people know about it.

That said the explanation for how magic appears in the world I thought was inspired.

This post has been edited by Cause: 04 September 2013 - 10:28 AM

[Vengeance]

Cause, on 03 September 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

I read three books just so I would get to read the punchline to a joke hundreds of pages in the making in the second last chapter. Had me in stitches

Spoiler

When Death attacks the congression, Jorg delivers a line along the lines of 'one of the gilden guardsman had managed to trip and break his neck in all the confusion but Rike was not letting his sword go to waste.

An Amazing Series all in all. One thing that had me confused in the first novel and which i think was handled somewhat unevenly in the second and third novels was magic. When I realized the world was a post apocalyptic earth I thought okay this is not like typical fantasy. When Jorg mentions the spells put in his builder steel sword I thought he was commenting on how it was superior to any other metal and he figured it was magic not science that made it so. When he runs into the dead later on I was confused, mutants? Throughout the novel he mentions fantastical things but he mentions them as rumour, half believed stories or things from the far east. Even mention of the Dream-witch is met with great scepticism. Later books have sworn popping all over the place and magic appearing more and more and no character regards it as special anymore but run of the mill. We learn that magicians work in the courts of many of the hundred and people know about it.

That said the explanation for how magic appears in the world I thought was inspired.

I thought that as Jorg matured and saw more of the world he realized and the reader realized that magic was more run of the mill then the 14 year old boy that he was in the first book assumed.

[birthSqueeze]

Can someone here just explain to me what's so great about this series because I'm seriously not getting it. I can understand why it's fun to read for a lot of people but it's not OH MY GOD THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THING EVER!!! YOU MUST READ IT!!! like a lot of fantasy websites seem to believe.

[King Lear]

birthSqueeze, on 07 September 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Can someone here just explain to me what's so great about this series because I'm seriously not getting it. I can understand why it's fun to read for a lot of people but it's not OH MY GOD THIS IS THE MOST AMAZING THING EVER!!! YOU MUST READ IT!!! like a lot of fantasy websites seem to believe.

No.
It should be fairly obvious by now that that's not going to happen. If you don't like it that much, that's fine. People have different tastes. But if you've got nothing more to add other than 'I don't know why people like these books so much', I suggest you find another thread to post in where you'll have more to contribute.




On-topic, I'm planning to start this series as soon as I finish my well overdue Malazan reread. Partly because of the recommendations on the thread and partly because Mr Lawrence posted on the thread (possibly not the best reason, but I love it when authors pop on to the forums and talk about their books )

[Morgoth]

I disagree. Though I find bS' opinions to be rather absurd, opinions are always welcome in our threads. As long as it's not offensively presented. This is not a circlejerk, even if the author is posting here.

[King Lear]

Morgoth, on 07 September 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

I disagree. Though I find bS' opinions to be rather absurd, opinions are always welcome in our threads. As long as it's not offensively presented. This is not a circlejerk, even if the author is posting here.

I'm not saying that if he doesn't like the book he should bugger off, I'm saying if he's going to endlessly repeat himself he should bugger off.

Disagreement is great, I often base how much I want to read a book (ie whether or not I'll go and buy it soon or later) based on the various discussions about it that I read about. I just don't want to hear over and over that someone doesn't understand why people like the book and they do not. That's not discussion, that's bitching, and it's boring and pointless.

[birthSqueeze]

I'm giving you guy's all a chance to state your opinions on why it's a great series. Isn't that what this thread is about? If you guy's want me to post counter arguments in a new thread I will.

P.S. I see bitching in other areas of this forum that are a lot worse than what I'm perpetuating.

[amphibian]

amphibian, on 01 September 2012 - 03:51 AM, said:

Ok, no run tonight. Finished the book.

It is a constant series of "HE DID WHAT NOW?!?!?" combined with genuinely moving moments and overarching plot ravens coming home to roost on freshly killed corpses.

Jorg is a better/worse Caine. Bravo.

That's the strength of the books.right there. Lawrence is able to write an anti hero in compelling fashion and to make a story move very quickly with a dramatic touch in the writing itself.

If that's not to your liking, that's alright. There are many other threads devoted to other series here or elsewhere. Some of them may appeal to you more.

I also remind you that a degree of courtesy beyond "they're doing it worse over there" is appreciated. Heck, I've torn apart a few books and posts in my time and taken some flak or support for it. The important thing us that I moved beyond "I don't like this" or "why do people like this?" to actually pointing out my problems with whatever it is.

That level of care is repaid in this community. People will respond well to controversial opinions nicely stated.

Good night and good luck.

[polishgenius]

birthSqueeze, on 08 September 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

I'm giving you guy's all a chance to state your opinions on why it's a great series.

Gee thanks! You're so kind!

I mean, isn't this whole thread us raving about why we think it's a great series?


But because I'm feeling kind:


Number one reason is that Jorg is a great character with a massively charismatic narrative voice. This is where the prose thing we were talking about earlier becomes important - it'd be difficult to make a character like this likable and engaging if the writing was dreary.

On top of that is a devious plot, and worldbuilding that although not as detailed as some, neatly unveils what's going on but asks you to work it out rather than throwing it at you. And in terms of the plot, this again together with the writing allows for some real showstopper scenes - particularly in moments of confrontation, from the epic to the heartwarming to the horrifying and tragic. I mean, the scene with the dog.

[birthSqueeze]

I admit it's difficult to refute why people like these books, considering that I agree and it does have many strengths. It also has a lot of weaknesses as well. First of all I have to admit that I actually liked Prince of Thorns up until the very end. The ending was way too abrupt for my tastes. I was like WHAT! THAT'S IT. It ends right in the middle of the climax and then doesn't explain in very much detail how Jorg became king. As a reader I felt very disappointed and cheated and this may have been what led to my complete disconnect from Jorg in Kings of Thorns; after that point I wasn't feeling the emotion at all unfortunately. I perceive weak endings like that as laziness on part of the author. For me endings can make or break a book. It's why I enjoy Malazan so much; the epic climaxes are what I look forward to.

I agree that Jorg has a great narrative voice and I do give credit to Mark Lawrence for handling the antihero so well, especially in first person. First person narratives are hard enough to nail on the head but to do it telling the story through a psychopathic killer is beyond risky. That sums up pretty well what I liked about the series. Then again.... I also didn't like how the story revolved around Jorg so much. I'm not a big fan of first person narratives except in rare cases so this definitely plays a big part in my biases. I also didn't think Lawrence's world building was that great and for the most part I thought he handled the fantasy element very sloppily. It was obvious to me that he doesn't care much for the fantasy genre. I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't read it..... but I will say that one particular random deus ex machina plot point at the end of King of Thorns really showed a lack of plotting skills and very poor use of magic. Yes, I understand that some of these random plot points are very significant such as something really disgusting that Jorg did during Prince but that's not justification for the utter ridiculousness of it all.

I didn't like the premise much by the way. What? Jorg is trying to become king. What do you know, he succeeds. What? Is he gonna become emperor? The content might be very adult but if you strip the series down to it's barest bones, it's obviously quite juvenile. I'm guessing you're all going to throw the under the surface and philosophical references as evidence for it's greatness. I don't even remember that part very well but still.... there isn't enough concrete evidence to make the claim that Broken Empires is great. The weaknesses are just too glaringly obvious in my estimation. It might sound like I'm bitching but that's because I wanted to like this series and as I've already said, I noticed all of these technical flaws in the plot which nobody seems to be talking about.

I also don't mean any offence to you Mark Lawrence. I've looked at a number of interviews and you seem like a great guy; not at all like a sick minded person as the text might imply. The idea of an author spying on a thread about their series that's on a forum about a series that has nothing to do with their's is pretty creepy though. lol

[nacht]

I find it charming that the author likes to occasionally hang out with his readers.
You are neither the first critic or the last critic he will face but unfortunately you are taking the low road here.

[Cause]

birthSqueeze, on 09 September 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

I admit it's difficult to refute why people like these books, considering that I agree and it does have many strengths. It also has a lot of weaknesses as well. First of all I have to admit that I actually liked Prince of Thorns up until the very end. The ending was way too abrupt for my tastes. I was like WHAT! THAT'S IT. It ends right in the middle of the climax and then doesn't explain in very much detail how Jorg became king. As a reader I felt very disappointed and cheated and this may have been what led to my complete disconnect from Jorg in Kings of Thorns; after that point I wasn't feeling the emotion at all unfortunately. I perceive weak endings like that as laziness on part of the author. For me endings can make or break a book. It's why I enjoy Malazan so much; the epic climaxes are what I look forward to.

If you dont know how Jorg became King I dont think you finished the book. Were there loose threads sure but it was by no means too far a leap to imagine that after taking over the central castle of a kingdom he might go on to rule it. There were abrupt moves throughout the book though I wont disagree, and especially in the later books as well. I was too hooked to care. Why did I enjoy the books? They kept me entertained enough to buy the next one. What more do I need?

For me the most abrupt point in the book was when Jorg is stabbed by his father. We never really get a satisfying explanation for it. Was it Sageous? A lot of the books hint that it was not and yet why kill an heir who is as deadly as Jorg? Did the father fear him?

Quote

I agree that Jorg has a great narrative voice and I do give credit to Mark Lawrence for handling the antihero so well, especially in first person. First person narratives are hard enough to nail on the head but to do it telling the story through a psychopathic killer is beyond risky. That sums up pretty well what I liked about the series. Then again.... I also didn't like how the story revolved around Jorg so much. I'm not a big fan of first person narratives except in rare cases so this definitely plays a big part in my biases. I also didn't think Lawrence's world building was that great and for the most part I thought he handled the fantasy element very sloppily. It was obvious to me that he doesn't care much for the fantasy genre. I don't want to spoil anything for those who haven't read it..... but I will say that one particular random deus ex machina plot point at the end of King of Thorns really showed a lack of plotting skills and very poor use of magic. Yes, I understand that some of these random plot points are very significant such as something really disgusting that Jorg did during Prince but that's not justification for the utter ridiculousness of it all.

I love first person narrative, its why I love Dresden so much. Its a great tool to et you into the head of a character. Criticizing the book for being about Jorg however is not a true criticism at all. Its a choice the author made and that you don't like it is an opinion. We can speculate pointlessly about how the book might have benefited from more characters having screen time but its just conjecture. It might have been worse.

I have mentioned myself though that I thought magic was handled somehwat unevenly throughout the novels. On that I do agree. I also must agree about calling the end of King of throns a Dues Ex Machina. However it is one I did not mind since I don't think it affected the story. Jorg had already won, he had killed the prince of arrow (a nice switch here) and the story was essentially concluded. The author could have chosen a myriad of ways to end the book without resorting to the Machina but it certainly fit just as well as any other option.

Quote

I didn't like the premise much by the way. What? Jorg is trying to become king. What do you know, he succeeds. What? Is he gonna become emperor? The content might be very adult but if you strip the series down to it's barest bones, it's obviously quite juvenile. I'm guessing you're all going to throw the under the surface and philosophical references as evidence for it's greatness. I don't even remember that part very well but still.... there isn't enough concrete evidence to make the claim that Broken Empires is great. The weaknesses are just too glaringly obvious in my estimation. It might sound like I'm bitching but that's because I wanted to like this series and as I've already said, I noticed all of these technical flaws in the plot which nobody seems to be talking about.

Juvenille? Who cares. Sometimes the goal of a novel is simply there to provide a stream for the narrative to take. I wanted to read about Jorg as a character and I enjoyed the plot as well. His goal of becoming King and then emperor in my opinion is only a small part of the book however. Discovering the nature of the world, his interactions with new characters, his growth and backsliding as a human being. All entertaining. Is game of thrones juvenile for having sixty characters who want to become king? Do we even read that series to see who will win. No we read it because the characters make one damn fine read. I could boil down any book into one sentance but that wont mean I have captured its heart.

Quote

I also don't mean any offence to you Mark Lawrence. I've looked at a number of interviews and you seem like a great guy; not at all like a sick minded person as the text might imply. The idea of an author spying on a thread about their series that's on a forum about a series that has nothing to do with their's is pretty creepy though. lol

I both agree and disagree. I think its great when an author pops by and says hello. I imagine its how regular people feel when Angelina Jolie gives them their autograph. If the author pops round to stifle criticism of their work that is a problem and something which I have seen no sign of in this case. I do remember attacking another author's work on this forum and he defended himself and I thought his presence in the thread responding to any criticism of his work made the thread quite awkward. I cant remember his name (Big in Sci-Fi as I recall) or the book, something about having a male gay protagonist.

I do believe that a more quite presence that takes in the praise and criticism of his fans could be a very useful method for an author to improve the work. Though of course an author should not feel the pressure to change hos works to please his audience.

The book is by no means flawless. Is anything? Still I found i thouroughly entertaining and a good read. I thought the narrative become clunky at times, the memory box for instance but for all that I read the three books in four days.

[Morgoth]

Hah, yes, Richard Morgan. He accused me of being a homophobe because I complained about the amounts of sex in The Steel Remains (if that was the name of the first book). On another forum, mind. I can't remember if I participated much in the thread here.

I wonder though if bS would want to elaborate on how the bare bones of the story is obviously juvenile. It is an especially interesting criticism considering the posters gushing praise of Sanderson, whom in my opinion writes in, or very close to, the YA-genre.

[polishgenius]

birthSqueeze, on 09 September 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

I admit it's difficult to refute why people like these books

You don't have to refute anything, this isn't a competition ffs. No-one has a problem with you not loving the series- but you come off as insisting that we shouldn't like it because you don't, which is a bit weird.

[Baco Xtath]

What I generally do when I don't like a book is a)say I didn't like it b)not visit threads dedicated to it - mostly these are threads where people enjoy the books c)forget about it and move on. Why one would feel the need to repeatedly post about how they didn't like a book is beyond me unless I had a personal grudge against said author. Yes, you didn't like it, we know because you've told us repeatedly. You're not going to convince us to not like it nor do I know why you would even try. Why not move on?