[parisianallen]

I'm about 60 pages in (somewhere in chapter 2 where Ganoes meets Tavore at home) and I have to say that I've been feeling that it's really cold and bleak. It's basically lots of gray skies, dead bodies, and unhappy people. The leaders all appear heartless and without any reason for being that way except that they want to win the fight -- a fight with which the reader can't be very sympathetic since he doesn't know what it's about. The women all seem like cold fish-- Laseen, Lorn, Tattersail, Tavore. And the men all seem depressed.

That certainly is making me want to drop the book. The only reason I don't is that I know thousands of readers can't be wrong. It's bound to turn around.

This post has been edited by parisianallen: 16 November 2011 - 09:08 AM

[worry]

Sure they can. For instance, the thousands of readers who've dropped this book. Also, readers who don't find grey skies, dead bodies, and unhappy people the absolute ideal subject matter for a good book. Not, you know, pointing any fingers or nothin though.

Hope you, personally, get some enjoyment out of it. I looked up "cold fish" on an idiom dictionary, and uh I can't really argue with that characterization, for a sizable proportion of the males or the females. Anyways, a lot of the stuff that seems kind of arbitrary or off-putting in this book pretty much instantly stops feeling that way by book 2, which tells a much more inviting story with a less scattershot focus.

[Pilgrim]

I started off with Deadhouse Gates because my bookstore didn't have GoTM. Loved it and instantly went back and found GoTM so I could get the backstory. Didn't know at the time that the 2 books shared very few characters and in a completely different setting. As far as the pain of confusion, I found that that was pretty much a constant for the first half (at least) of the whole series, but man, watch out for the reread! Once you are familiar with the characters and the settings, go back and start over. It's like a completely different story, and badassness ensues!

Don't get me wrong. I loved it the first time, but the reread was exponentially better.

This post has been edited by Pilgrim: 17 November 2011 - 11:00 PM

[MillionSpots]

I liked it the first time I read it, even though it was confusing at some moments and I didn't understand Kruppe all too well. It was also kind of my first time reading this kind of fantasy, so I really didn't have anything to compare it with. But it was DG that got me hooked.

My sister had tried for a year to get me to read GotM, but I read the name Whiskeyjack and, being a non-native English speaker, didn't know that it was a name for a bird so I didn't start to read until last year.

This post has been edited by MillionSpots: 18 November 2011 - 02:42 AM

[AnomanderRakeSoD]

Does every book need a character to be named after a bird for you to start reading the series?

[HiddenOne]

JLV, on 15 November 2011 - 02:44 AM, said:

I think there are quite a few non english readers on these forums, so (Maybe?) some of them feel your pain. I hope you can eventually read the greatness that is the Malazan Book of the Fallen!

I'll bet somebody on here is so hard-core that they learned English just to read MBotF

[MillionSpots]

AnomanderRakeSoD, on 18 November 2011 - 02:54 PM, said:

Does every book need a character to be named after a bird for you to start reading the series?

No, I stayed away because I thought Whiskeyjack was a shitty made-up name, sorta like Quick Ben. But then I began to notice that most of the soldiers' names were verbs and nouns and adjectives, and so I took a chance.
Guess I didn't make that clear in my other post.

This post has been edited by MillionSpots: 19 November 2011 - 01:05 AM

[worry]

Every name is made up, from Frodo Baggins to Oliver Twist to George Washington.

[MillionSpots]

Yeah, but there are some made-up names in fiction that... uh, turned me off. Especially if they sounded so close to some terms in my native tongue, or if I thought they had a negative meaning.


That was before, though. I'm no longer so picky.

This post has been edited by MillionSpots: 19 November 2011 - 01:33 AM

[JLV]

I prefer the nickname deal to the "Azurnianiicarpeel" with a bunch of accents over the name (Cough Bakker Cough).

[Mercador]

Probably, I'll reread directly in English so I won't have to switch language in mid-reading.

By now, I'm reading Robin Hobb (way easier to get into imho), it's a bit oversimplistic but it's enjoyable. I could have read this when I was a teenager (it's probably the target anyway).

[Whiskey Bass]

the foreword put me off alot, so much i almost left it right there. (left me with the impression rightly or not, that the author wasnt sure in his own work and then imo said a big fuck you 'it is what it is' to his potential audiance)

then there were too many charactors, and very little in the way of description (felt like a faceless parade of names to me, Kruppe was the first person i felt i could recognise and like)

but i persevered and got into it and loved it by the end.

book 2 i felt like i was doing it all again and i was about to drop the whole series, then i found this forum and upon reading a few posts was sort of convinced to give the series a proper chance.

Thank god i did,

im into the last third of TCG and am already looking foreward to the rest of ICE's series and the two upcoming SE trilogys.

ive turned from a bit of a 'who does this auther think he is' type to a omg i need more SE Malaz

bottom line is persevere or miss out on possibly the best fantasy series ever.

[Mercador]

Yeah I know.

I would like to love this universe since I'm looking for something more substancial than Robin Hobb. That's not bad, but I read stuff better than that imho. ASOFAI is what I read that I liked the most so far so I'm trying to find something similar.

I'll probably retry again, but english right at the start this time. My friend also suggested me to read the second book first. Good idea?

[Sinisdar Toste]

Mercador, on 22 November 2011 - 02:28 AM, said:

Yeah I know.

I would like to love this universe since I'm looking for something more substancial than Robin Hobb. That's not bad, but I read stuff better than that imho. ASOFAI is what I read that I liked the most so far so I'm trying to find something similar.

I'll probably retry again, but english right at the start this time. My friend also suggested me to read the second book first. Good idea?

not a bad idea. in a recent interview, Steven Erikson himself admitted to sometimes recommending people read the second book first.

[BlackMoranthofDoom]

Minhasing Bheget, on 22 November 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

Mercador, on 22 November 2011 - 02:28 AM, said:

Yeah I know.

I would like to love this universe since I'm looking for something more substancial than Robin Hobb. That's not bad, but I read stuff better than that imho. ASOFAI is what I read that I liked the most so far so I'm trying to find something similar.

I'll probably retry again, but english right at the start this time. My friend also suggested me to read the second book first. Good idea?

not a bad idea. in a recent interview, Steven Erikson himself admitted to sometimes recommending people read the second book first.

I would still suggest starting off with the first one GOTM. While the second one does feature a different setting and almost entirely a new cast, there are still a few characters that carry over from the first one. Although you can interchange the 2nd and 3rd one at will since they are set at the same time on 2 different continents. The 3rd one acts like a sequel to the first one.

[Kanubis]

Mercador, on 22 November 2011 - 02:28 AM, said:

Yeah I know.

I would like to love this universe since I'm looking for something more substancial than Robin Hobb. That's not bad, but I read stuff better than that imho. ASOFAI is what I read that I liked the most so far so I'm trying to find something similar.

I'll probably retry again, but english right at the start this time. My friend also suggested me to read the second book first. Good idea?

Which Hobb books are you reading? I enjoyed the Fitz books and the Liveship books, but the Soldier's Son trilogy was the most depressing thing I've ever read.

[sting01]

Well, being french, and for sure having some troubles with english, I did not find much problems with any of the books.

Maybe because I do not read words, but get more a glance as if it was a movie; let say Pearl for me is dress in whatever shade of green I can figure instead of going to google to find the exact definition of the words given in the book.

The biggest problems I found in the whole serie are the constant reference to some cultural facts; facts that are easy to get by for the usual north american people but who are abscons/archaic/exotic for the old fart french I am. I would also dare to say sometimes the author got it wrong with regards with the inner relations btw members of elite troops/ religious orders. What is said is certainly true for jarhead; but is untrue for French Foreign Legion or some Spetnatz units.

Another things that can make books hard to read , is the personification of the "heroes"; I do suppose most of us here are caucasian; while if you read carefully the military background and the political background you can draw huge parallels with the 3 kingdoms time or slightly before: the way malazian army is organised; the way strategy is though, the predominence on the same time of massed heavy infantery (cohesion, team spirit) and the very powerfull individuals (Cao Cao at the end failed to re unify the empire; so powerfull but not as a God) with the potential for the use of Magic (the battle of the red cliff was won because the strategist was also a shaman and made the turning win --natural phenomenon-- more powerfull than usual). The emperor (even Cao Cao at his peak) was in fact less powerfull than a roman emperor. The regional high lords , while being under the authorities of the imperial court; usually were simply bound to a specific person, or to themself (exemple of Liu Bei generals who were serving only Liu Bei and always refused to accept one of them as commander; while Liu Bei was only an idealistic (opportunistic) politician).

So such reference beign missing to us (who amongst us did read the romance of the 3 kingdoms????) can make things clumsy to follow; or even better to discard (I might be utterly wrong, and there are no reference whatsoever to the old china in any of the books).

[LinearPhilosopher]

sting01, on 25 November 2011 - 01:10 AM, said:

Another things that can make books hard to read , is the personification of the "heroes"; I do suppose most of us here are caucasian; while if you read carefully the military background and the political background you can draw huge parallels with the 3 kingdoms time or slightly before: the way malazian army is organised; the way strategy is though, the predominence on the same time of massed heavy infantery (cohesion, team spirit) and the very powerfull individuals (Cao Cao at the end failed to re unify the empire; so powerfull but not as a God) with the potential for the use of Magic (the battle of the red cliff was won because the strategist was also a shaman and made the turning win --natural phenomenon-- more powerfull than usual). The emperor (even Cao Cao at his peak) was in fact less powerfull than a roman emperor. The regional high lords , while being under the authorities of the imperial court; usually were simply bound to a specific person, or to themself (exemple of Liu Bei generals who were serving only Liu Bei and always refused to accept one of them as commander; while Liu Bei was only an idealistic (opportunistic) politician).

So such reference beign missing to us (who amongst us did read the romance of the 3 kingdoms????) can make things clumsy to follow; or even better to discard (I might be utterly wrong, and there are no reference whatsoever to the old china in any of the books).

Didnt read more then a few hundred page of Romance, got bored real fast of immortal warriors slaughtering hundreds without problems. That and the entire part about the yellow turbans was hard to take serious at the time (i was 16) . At the same time im having trouble seeing the parralels between the two. If they exist, they're very general similarities, ones that can be made comparing any history. For example:

Massed heavy infantry isnt a uniquely eastern thing in fact far from it considered we developed things like the greek phalanx. Heavy infantry was the way most armies of the antiquity and early middle ages were organised (until we developped heavy cavalry). In fact it was usually the easterners who shied away from heavy infantry and pitched battles (persians, scythians, huns, mongols etc), preffering more open, maneuvering centered warfare, Somethign Sun Tzu wrote at lenght about. Not saying the chinese didnt have heavy infantry but it certainly did not compare to the western version. The availability of iron and the like in the west also facilitated this.

Powerful individuals? Western history is filled with them, people like Alexander the Great, julius ceasar, Charles Martel, jeanne d'arc, napolean, duke of wellington, isaac brock etc.

Concepts such as regional lords? That was ubiquitous during the medieval era, the idea of the nation state in europe didnt emerge till the 19th century with the french empire. Heck the only thing unifying rome (culturally speaking) and all its principalities durings its decline was christianity. The ancient system of greek city states (as well as the italian principalities later on) are also a similar concept.

[sting01]

BalrogLord, on 25 November 2011 - 01:46 AM, said:

Didnt read more then a few hundred page of Romance, got bored real fast of immortal warriors slaughtering hundreds without problems. That and the entire part about the yellow turbans was hard to take serious at the time (i was 16) . At the same time im having trouble seeing the parralels between the two. If they exist, they're very general similarities, ones that can be made comparing any history. For example:

Massed heavy infantry isnt a uniquely eastern thing in fact far from it considered we developed things like the greek phalanx. Heavy infantry was the way most armies of the antiquity and early middle ages were organised (until we developped heavy cavalry). In fact it was usually the easterners who shied away from heavy infantry and pitched battles (persians, scythians, huns, mongols etc), preffering more open, maneuvering centered warfare, Somethign Sun Tzu wrote at lenght about. Not saying the chinese didnt have heavy infantry but it certainly did not compare to the western version. The availability of iron and the like in the west also facilitated this.

Powerful individuals? Western history is filled with them, people like Alexander the Great, julius ceasar, Charles Martel, jeanne d'arc, napolean, duke of wellington, isaac brock etc.

Concepts such as regional lords? That was ubiquitous during the medieval era, the idea of the nation state in europe didnt emerge till the 19th century with the french empire. Heck the only thing unifying rome (culturally speaking) and all its principalities durings its decline was christianity. The ancient system of greek city states (as well as the italian principalities later on) are also a similar concept.

Well, maybe you should have read more, both the ROTK and european history.

The concept of nation state was very alive in France since ... let's say King Henry V of England. It is because both the lords from the south refusing a foreign monarch (still being french from both father and mother lignage) and because peripherical regions refusing the very same (namely Lorraine that was in holy Roman Empire at that time) that finally the red coats were driven out. Concept of Nation States is far way older than Napoleon or the 1848 revolutions; as the concept of democratie is far older than the US independance declaration (as outlined brilliantly by Mr Jack Straw as United Nation in his answer to the speach of Mr Colin Powell).

Warriors in ROTK are not immortals at all; they all die at one or another moment (even Guyan Yu, as it was captured then decapitated!). They are, such as WiskeyJack, simply very good at what they do, and as Greymane able to win a battle by over spiriting the troops by charging in front of them and cutting down any individual fool enought to attack.

Ancien Chinese have a full developped military : heavy, regular, saper, cavalry (heavy and light), marines (Yang Tse Kiang had an important military fleet with specialised soldiers to keep the place safe as it was the main water way).

Another thing, Sun Zi was at best alive during the Chunqiu period (so called Spring and Autumn period) , so even if he considered as a General of the Wu kingdom; it is not the same Wu kingdom as the one in the ROTK (let say 600 or 700 years after, and most important after a long period of unification under the Han dinasty).

The yellow turban revolt is an historical fact (as much as we can be sure of it); obviously we are in similar position of an historian wishing to learn about the hundred years war and having only Sheakspeare theater as material; even if we can be sure the Azincourt battle have happend; how can we be sure of the words said (if any) by Henry the Vth for the St Crepin' day??????????????

Back to the chinese idea; chinese themself were not nomadic central asian people; I suppose we would agree on that; but were opposed to them most of the time, or were allied. They did have some light cavalry (similar to the Setis, Wickans or even Khundrils) as auxilliary troops (I do believe those kind troops made a huge difference when the chineses had to leave Vietnam) I would even not been surprise if the author got a glimpse to the chinese chronics about it and used it as backbone for the DG, as it was quite epic (imagine going from Hue up to Yunnan while proctecting greedy marchants and being attacked by a vengefull local population!!!!!

On the other hand, it is an idea, a feeling let say; feeling I got after I learned the author went to do some work in the Karakorum desert (Xinjiang I believe) so I supposed he did have some knowledge on that subject and the interaction btw nomadic culture and sedentarized ; btw expending then recessing empire; on historical powerfull individuals mixed with huge armies (Alexander had a small army, the companions were numenbering around 600 hundreds) able to adapt (Greeks or Romans mostly have morons as generals --- exception of very fews--- and did not adapt quickly; those who did not fit that description mostly were assassinated or exiled, or pushed to suicide).

[Mercador]

Kanubis, on 23 November 2011 - 02:34 PM, said:

Which Hobb books are you reading? I enjoyed the Fitz books and the Liveship books, but the Soldier's Son trilogy was the most depressing thing I've ever read.

First trilogy, Fitz stuff. Already at the second book, it's pretty easy to read actually.