[Sucka27]

Observations:
- I was really disappointed that Sinn went from protagonist to bad guy so quickly. I felt it was a contrived plot device because her power had grown so large that she could have pretty much wiped anyone out and ensured victory without losses if she was still "good." For her to become someone that would have screwed everyone by claiming the heart for her own was, well, botched. I thought it was lame. Especially considering that she had essentially just won THE ENTIRE FUCKING WAR FOR THE MALAZANS. Instead of assuming that she was just heading up to kill to FA, Stormy simply mugs and kills her. Even she is surprised. They didn't even try to talk her out of doing something evil, and there isn't even a "thanks" for saving each and every one of heir asses at least 4 times. I also think he may have done it to avoid criticism that she's just a recycled Apsalar in mage form.

- Where the F did Draconus go? I kept waiting for his thread to conclude and he just completely vanished in anti climactic fashion. I thought that was botched as well.

- Icarium: Anti-climax.

- Perish: Major anti-climax. Way too many words were spent on them. A good editor would have removed 90% of that story line.

- Like many others, I still loved the book and enjoyed it the entire way through. Not since MOI has the action been so non-stop, with more or less a minimum of self-thought and musings on life. Well maybe TBH can rival as well.

Questions:
- WTF did Nep Furrow say at the very end that caused Sinter to reply "...I never."

- What exactly did Rake's sacrifice do that was the "fulcrum" of the series. Yes, I know he went into Dragnipur to release those imprisoned within it. Was it releasing Draconus? Turns out that wasn't all that important. I'm pretty sure I'm missing something here. I've never gotten past the fight with him and Traveler. They didn't have to fight and I still find it hard to believe that they would have (goes for Kallor's fight as well in TTH) just because he wouldn't get out of his way (literal, not figurative). Traveler does nothing of note after that.

- What changed that made it so Whiskeyjack and the rest of the dead army could never return? Did they know this was the last book or something? Seems illogical that he'd have to leave and just never come back like that. Especially because he was still in love. Why not just hang out with Korlat for the rest of her life?

This post has been edited by Sucka27: 08 November 2011 - 06:09 PM

[worry]

None of your observations, save the last one and perhaps the Icarium one, hold up to scrutiny I'm afraid. I don't say that as an insult, only to point out that you've arrived at some hasty conclusions, and it also seems you haven't read any of the already-existing discussions on those matters. I encourage you to do that though, since plenty of valuable info has been shared on all of those topics.

I don't want to repeat all of it here, but I will at least address your Sinn conclusion, since it seems the most off base to me. Sinn's turn wasn't remotely sudden or out of left field. She had clearly been affected (possibly possessed, I personally believe) by the fire mini-god in Y'Ghatan, which took place in TBH (Book 6). So it's been heading to this moment for about 4.5 books, as she's become more and more unhinged. And given the flashback we have of her in TCG, we can see why she'd be susceptible to such a sinister influence. Also, her name is Sinn.

Icarium I suppose was quite literally an "anti-climax", but was ultimately more satisfying for being so. We learn what he's capable of, and then SE doubles down on the tragedy of his existence. I mean we know Mappo isn't his first watcher, but it takes getting to know him, and developing their relationship, to really bring home just how eternally cursed Icarium is.

In terms of the questions, those have also been discussed a bunch elsewhere, but I'll try to offer a rundown:
1. Nobody knows, it's possibly a joke.
2. He brought Mother Dark back to an active role. Most repercussions still to come, but it did seem to call every TA in the world back to KG. Also, Draconus did plenty, though releasing him wasn't necessarily the main "goal" of Rake's actions. Some people seem to wonder why Rake didn't just cut himself on his sword, which I think is kind of silly. He was trying to give the rest of the TA a reason to exist, a reason to resist ennui, so committing an obvious suicide probably wasn't the best method of doing that.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by "what changed?" I mean ghosts exist and all, but it's not like everything beyond life can just wander into the mortal world willy nilly. That said, if you're looking for a turning point, I guess you can say it's Hood retiring and leaving his job to the BBs. WJ is of course the leader of them, and obviously isn't planning to shirk his newfound duties to deal with nearly every single thing in the world that lives and dies. What's a few more millennia apart anyway, when you have eternity?

This post has been edited by worrywort: 08 November 2011 - 01:03 AM

[Defiance]

Worrywort pretty much covered it.

Concerning Icarium, I was waiting for him to play a major role in the last book, and was more than a little surprised that he didn't. However, I expect there's still more to come from him. Consider, after all, that he's currently traveling with Ublala, who is going to meet up with Karsa (unless he forgets) at some point. Also, remember we have a Toblakai trilogy coming in...well, it's coming sometime. That, and the Karsa-Icarium meeting at the middle of RG suggest that the characters aren't done. It's also interesting to consider that Icarium destroys civilizations by accident (there's no intent behind his actions, unless you count Chaos), whereas Karsa has the intent to destroy civilization, and will possibly attempt this in the Toblakai trilogy. This could lead to a clash between the two, perhaps (the irony of Icarium saving the world rather than destroying it). Of course, I'm giving way to speculation, and I'm no doubt way off mark.

Icarium's ending made me cry. The fact that he is, quite possibly, beginning to retain his memory is wonderful, yet so heartbreaking at the same time. What's more tragic than remembering things for the first time in hundreds of thousands of years, only to have it happen right after your best friend is killed?

I expect we'll see Draconus appear in the Kharkanas trilogy, and quite possibly the Toblakai trilogy (he has ties to Ublala).

[Sucka27]

Thanks for replying.

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

I don't want to repeat all of it here, but I will at least address your Sinn conclusion, since it seems the most off base to me. Sinn's turn wasn't remotely sudden or out of left field. She had clearly been affected (possibly possessed, I personally believe) by the fire mini-god in Y'Ghatan, which took place in TBH (Book 6). So it's been heading to this moment for about 4.5 books, as she's become more and more unhinged. And given the flashback we have of her in TCG, we can see why she'd be susceptible to such a sinister influence. Also, her name is Sinn.

Fair enough, I guess I understood everything you said, I just don't buy it. If her change was 4.5 books in coming, why didn't anyone do anything about it? Because no one knew she was evil? Certainly many people had their suspicions. Grub seemed pretty chummy with her until the end, and never really mentioned anything that would make me believe he saw red flags. If she did indeed change, how did Stormy and Ges know instantly that she needed to be killed? Was that the plan all along? Let her torch the crowd and then kill her? I seriously doubt it. For someone that saved them all twice, well shit, now that I think about it, she saved them all in Y'Ghatan, she held off the ice when they were all on the Shake island, she put a beat down on the Nahruk, and then basically won the whole thing for the Malazan force in TCG, and then they just assume she's bad and kill her. That's what I don't buy or really care for.

Also, I read my post a few times and don't see where I called her anything other than Sinn.

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

Icarium I suppose was quite literally an "anti-climax", but was ultimately more satisfying for being so. We learn what he's capable of, and then SE doubles down on the tragedy of his existence. I mean we know Mappo isn't his first watcher, but it takes getting to know him, and developing their relationship, to really bring home just how eternally cursed Icarium is.

I guess I can swallow this, maybe it just wasn't particularly effective to me. The idea that he's saving something big for further books makes sense.

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

2. He brought Mother Dark back to an active role.

Makes sense, knew I was forgetting a main point there. Also, I did wonder about Rake just using the sword on himself, but whatever. What made me scoff was that he fought back for so long. Also, Dassem would never have fought him for standing in his way. He would have realized his motivation wasn't strong enough to challenge him. Again, whatever, I'll give Erikson a free pass here.

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "what changed?" I mean ghosts exist and all, but it's not like everything beyond life can just wander into the mortal world willy nilly. That said, if you're looking for a turning point, I guess you can say it's Hood retiring and leaving his job to the BBs. WJ is of course the leader of them, and obviously isn't planning to shirk his newfound duties to deal with nearly every single thing in the world that lives and dies.
What's a few more millennia apart anyway, when you have eternity?

Well, if you're in love, it's more than zero. If WJ has free run of the mortal plane, and is truly in as much love as they made apparent, then he'd want to stay with her. Maybe he couldn't, they never really said. Was just curious if I had missed something in the text.

This post has been edited by Sucka27: 08 November 2011 - 05:54 PM

[HoosierDaddy]

Sucka27, on 08 November 2011 - 02:35 AM, said:

Thanks for replying.

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

I don't want to repeat all of it here, but I will at least address your Sinn conclusion, since it seems the most off base to me. Sinn's turn wasn't remotely sudden or out of left field. She had clearly been affected (possibly possessed, I personally believe) by the fire mini-god in Y'Ghatan, which took place in TBH (Book 6). So it's been heading to this moment for about 4.5 books, as she's become more and more unhinged. And given the flashback we have of her in TCG, we can see why she'd be susceptible to such a sinister influence. Also, her name is Sinn.

Fair enough, I guess I understood everything you said, I just don't buy it. If her change was 4.5 books in coming, why didn't anyone do anything about it? Because no one knew she was evil? Certainly many people had their suspicions. Grub seemed pretty chummy with her until the end, and never really mentioned anything that would make me believe he saw red flags. If she did indeed change, how did Stormy and Ges know instantly that she needed to be killed? Was that the plan all along? Let her torch the crowd and then kill her? I seriously doubt it. For someone that saved them all twice, well shit, now that I think about it, she saved them all in Y'Ghatan, she held off the ice when they were all on the Shake island, she put a beat down on the Nahruk, and then basically won the whole thing for the Malazan force in TCG, and then they just assume she's bad and kill her. That's what I don't buy or really care for.

Also, I read my post a few times and don't see where I called her anything other than Sinn.

I think they realized that with the power the heart would offer her, Sinn would become unstoppable. She was filled with the need to burn, and her upgrade after traveling through Icarium's warrens, made it more possible that she could get what she really wanted: to cleanse the world with fire. I think she went along with the crowd but as her power grew, so did her insanity. She was unstable from HoC on, and became more so.

Also, Worrywort meant her name is Sinn as in "sin." Her name is literally a definition for bad acts.

Quote

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

Icarium I suppose was quite literally an "anti-climax", but was ultimately more satisfying for being so. We learn what he's capable of, and then SE doubles down on the tragedy of his existence. I mean we know Mappo isn't his first watcher, but it takes getting to know him, and developing their relationship, to really bring home just how eternally cursed Icarium is.

I guess I can swallow this, maybe it just wasn't particularly effective to me. The idea that he's saving something big for further books makes sense.

Icarium is literally a deux ex because the gods use him as a machine due to his nature. It's utterly tragic but the friendship with Mappo reflected a different sort of beauty and innocence that only lived because Icarium forgot everything. Even more tragic metaphorically.

....

Quote

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

3. I'm not sure what you mean by "what changed?" I mean ghosts exist and all, but it's not like everything beyond life can just wander into the mortal world willy nilly. That said, if you're looking for a turning point, I guess you can say it's Hood retiring and leaving his job to the BBs. WJ is of course the leader of them, and obviously isn't planning to shirk his newfound duties to deal with nearly every single thing in the world that lives and dies.
What's a few more millennia apart anyway, when you have eternity?

Well, if you're in love, it's more than zero. If WJ has free run of the mortal plane, and is truly in as much love as they made apparent, then he'd want to stay with her. Maybe he couldn't, they never really said. Was just curious if I had missed something in the text.

He's got a job to do. The one Hood wouldn't do.

[worry]

HD is right about what I meant, but I did indeed forget to mention that while Sinn was awesome before, she wasn't an existential threat to the entire world until after traveling through and being powered up by Icarium's new warrens, plus the whole heart thing, so sorry about that. People did notice her behavior, and were plenty scared of her, but there was no particular reason to kill a little girl until the events in DoD. Plus her change was gradual, not a supplantation of her personality immediately upon the fire deity invading her. It's all there in the books, but more noticeable for sure on a reread.

[Sucka27]

HoosierDaddy, on 08 November 2011 - 02:54 AM, said:

Icarium is literally a deux ex because the gods use him as a machine due to his nature. It's utterly tragic but the friendship with Mappo reflected a different sort of beauty and innocence that only lived because Icarium forgot everything. Even more tragic metaphorically.

I don't disagree with anything here, and to add, it's tragic on an additional level because Mappo, who lived for nothing other than to find Icarium and continue their partnership, died at his feet in failure, much like Coltaine. I guess I was hoping for more involvement in the inevitable convergence.

HoosierDaddy, on 08 November 2011 - 02:54 AM, said:

He's got a job to do. The one Hood wouldn't do.

Fair enough.


As for Sinn, I think I understand the theory in the replies, and most of my gripe is a matter of opinion. I thought:

- If it was a gradual shift to evil that would end in her being killed by her own soldiers, after being arguably the most valuable asset to the Malazan empire, save maybe Quick Ben, it was completely botched by Erikson. I would love to have had more insight into her turn to evil. The manifistation of this god that possessed her. But we really got nothing except "looks like she's bad now, let's kill her!" The story and idea is good, the execution is bad. He could have used way more of the pages he used on Gruntle, the Perish, and the Shake on Sinn's journey into devilish insanity. There was plenty of room for that, and plenty of melodrama that could have been edited out.

- Opinion: I liked Sinn a lot during the series. I was disappointed that he made her bad because she had an innocence (remember her love for her big brother), and an insanley desensitized efficacy at destruction that really made me like her. She's actually a lot like Sorry. Making her bad, so they could kill her, so she didn't basically win everything for the Malazans was iffy IMHO. Erikson has been criticized for making his characters too "awesome," and I think he may have overdone it here a little.

All said, I loved the series and will probably read it a third time.

This post has been edited by Sucka27: 08 November 2011 - 05:59 PM

[Sinisdar Toste]

my 2c. on sinn, is that she was traumatized from the moment we met her, and she just kept getting more and more powerful. she shows little real affection for her half-brother, and even in RG he's talking about how he doesn't even know her anymore. people (i think lostara yil, specifically) comment on how her power is untempered by any sort of wisdom. grub in DoD is full of thoughts about how unpredictable and dangerous sinn is. she shows no remorse that she missed the battle and the nah'ruk decimated the bonehunters, and she's glad that keneb died, because now grub has no one but her.

sinn was a cool character, but lets be honest: do we want a traumatized, selfish adolescent holding enough power to burn the world to ashes? no. of course we don't.

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 08 November 2011 - 01:02 AM, said:

1. Nobody knows, it's possibly a joke.

Actually, what Nep Furrow says can be puzzled out.

I did it here:

amphibian, on 08 March 2011 - 08:54 PM, said:

'Where'en ne faareden? Eh? War bit ana dem?

Wherein the fallen? (as in "Where is the money for the fallen going?) Eh? What about any of them?

'G'han nered pah vreem!'

Gonna never pay for me. (Referring to his goal of never dying - kinda like a One Eye/Goblin tribute in a way)

'Nepel!'

Never! (I have no idea why he says "Never" two different ways, but he does. It's awesome.)

From this thread.

[worry]

Oh yah, I thought I dreamed that.

[Kanese S's]

With Sinn, I was a little surprised that she ended up turning completely evil and being killed (I guess because I remembered how Sorry, a character first described as "pure evil" by other characters, ended up becoming good, though as somewhat a different identity), but upon reflection I thought it made some sense. You don't want to be on the brink of victory only to have everyone killed by her.

Still, it made me incredibly sad. I might have stopped reading for a day or two if it hadn't been in the climax of the book. This series is really good at making me really feel sad about the deaths of characters. Even 'bad' ones.

[Tattersail_]

I'd say from Dod onwards we see Sinn as a threat rather than an ally, yes earlier on we see her as an ally but she looks to be unstable and more evil especially with her conversations with Grub. I liked reading the to and fro upthread though between you, Worrywort and HD.

[King-of-Chains]

Quote

- Perish: Major anti-climax. Way too many words were spent on them. A good
editor would have removed 90% of that story line

I feel I should address this since no one else has really touched it.

The question I first should ask is this: What were you expecting the Perish to do?

Now, from a literary perspective you could possibly argue that the Perish add very little in form of development and structure as a whole, but that doesn't take into account their purpose within the grander scheme of the plot. One of the key elements that Perish serve is to show how easily beliefs can be manipulated and shaped. The Shield Anvil (for the life of me I can't recall the name) overthrows the entire structure of the company and basically takes full control. Now, while he's taking control and attempting to manipulate events, so are the FA.

But aside from that we are given a crucial question as to the stance of Togg and Fanderay. At this point in the series we don't know the motives of the gods of war. Trake....well some what, but as for the Wolves of Winter? Not a chance. The Perish are their representation in this. Where do they stand? Beside, or against The Crippled God. Who exactly is in the right? The Mortal Sword, who has tried to hold things together out of loyalty to her vow to Tavore, or the Shield Anvil who wishes to see an end to humanity and a return to nature? Even the last true scene doesn't decide anything. You see one of the Wolves trying to emerge from the Destriant, who gets killed. And then the Shield Anvil ends up dying while the Mortal Sword has her throat slit, iirc.


Now, you could argue that having that old medic take charge decides everything, but does it? The big question regarding faith and the stance of the gods remains unanswered. So it all depends on my original question. What exactly were you expecting?

[WhiskeyJackDaniels]

King-of-Chains, on 08 November 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

Quote

- Perish: Major anti-climax. Way too many words were spent on them. A good
editor would have removed 90% of that story line

I feel I should address this since no one else has really touched it.

The question I first should ask is this: What were you expecting the Perish to do?

Now, from a literary perspective you could possibly argue that the Perish add very little in form of development and structure as a whole, but that doesn't take into account their purpose within the grander scheme of the plot. One of the key elements that Perish serve is to show how easily beliefs can be manipulated and shaped. The Shield Anvil (for the life of me I can't recall the name) overthrows the entire structure of the company and basically takes full control. Now, while he's taking control and attempting to manipulate events, so are the FA.

But aside from that we are given a crucial question as to the stance of Togg and Fanderay. At this point in the series we don't know the motives of the gods of war. Trake....well some what, but as for the Wolves of Winter? Not a chance. The Perish are their representation in this. Where do they stand? Beside, or against The Crippled God. Who exactly is in the right? The Mortal Sword, who has tried to hold things together out of loyalty to her vow to Tavore, or the Shield Anvil who wishes to see an end to humanity and a return to nature? Even the last true scene doesn't decide anything. You see one of the Wolves trying to emerge from the Destriant, who gets killed. And then the Shield Anvil ends up dying while the Mortal Sword has her throat slit, iirc.


Now, you could argue that having that old medic take charge decides everything, but does it? The big question regarding faith and the stance of the gods remains unanswered. So it all depends on my original question. What exactly were you expecting?

I actually appreciated the Perish plot-line because FINALLY in fantasy literature someone pointed out the blatantly obvious fact that humans are more creatures of war than wolves or boars or lions or any other type of wild animal.

[Sucka27]

King-of-Chains, on 08 November 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

The question I first should ask is this: What were you expecting the Perish to do?

It's not that I was expecting them to do anything specific. I was more expecting them to play a role that mattered in the slightest. There was speculation on them betraying the Adjunct, and this built and built until it came to happen. But it was all of absolutely no consequence to anyone. Instead they changed alliances, then changed again, then just kind of GTFO of the way. It didn't matter at all, any of it. If the author is going to make a literary point of them, at least give them purpose to the plot. There was none. It's hard for a reader to appreciate the tragedy of a throwaway plot.

Erikson tends to do this a lot, I think the people that say he tries to fit too much into this book may be right. It's pretty hard to converge hundreds of characters in one book. Multiple story lines carried implied importance to the overall plot, and a bunch of them fizzled completely. Basically larger versions of the T'Lan Imass in TTH that the little boy found in the pit. Some may find that an Erikson trademark, I found it annoying. Again, this is just opinion. I think if these were weeded out of the series, and it was made shorter, it would be remembered as a much better piece of fiction.

Erikson has the ability to create a world with darkness and an edge that can be matched IMO by absolutely no other author. He also has a dusting of autism (for lack of a better word) that creates too many WTF moments for the reader. Ever read Fishin' With Grandma Matchie? You'll know what I'm talking about if you have. He also writes his books so they're much better on re-read. Good? Depends who you're asking. Finally, the tightness of the conclusion may have missed the mark for me. It was like someone that takes on 50 projects in the garage, but after a year, there are 35 finished projects, and a bunch of litter strewn about the rest of the floor. Someone should have edited out the half-assed projects in the beginning.

All that said, I'm not completely surprised. The speed of his writing was off the charts fast. I loved this when I was forced to wait for whatever came next, but now I'm reconsidering (of course, typical reader). GRRM fans face the exact opposite, someone that refines, refines, refines, until it's release-worthy in his eyes, but also 5 years after the release of the last book. Somewhere in the middle would have been nice. Even though this will never happen, I think if Erikson completely rewrote the entire series (especially GOTM and TTH), with the help of good editors, and made it 6 or 7 books, it would be the best fantasy series of all time, Tolkien, GRRM included.

This post has been edited by Sucka27: 08 November 2011 - 06:42 PM

[tiam]

Sucka27, on 08 November 2011 - 05:42 PM, said:

King-of-Chains, on 08 November 2011 - 01:07 PM, said:

The question I first should ask is this: What were you expecting the Perish to do?

It's not that I was expecting them to do anything specific. I was more expecting them to play a role that mattered in the slightest. There was speculation on them betraying the Adjunct, and this built and built until it came to happen. But it was all of absolutely no consequence to anyone. Instead they changed alliances, then changed again, then just kind of GTFO of the way. It didn't matter at all, any of it. If the author is going to make a literary point of them, at least give them purpose to the plot. There was none. It's hard for a reader to appreciate the tragedy of a throwaway plot.

Erikson tends to do this a lot, I think the people that say he tries to fit too much into this book may be right. It's pretty hard to converge hundreds of characters in one book. Multiple story lines carried implied importance to the overall plot, and a bunch of them fizzled completely. Basically larger versions of the T'Lan Imass in TTH that the little boy found in the pit. Some may find that an Erikson trademark, I found it annoying. Again, this is just opinion. I think if these were weeded out of the series, and it was made shorter, it would be remembered as a much better piece of fiction.

Erikson has the ability to create a world with darkness and an edge that can be matched IMO by absolutely no other author. He also has a dusting of autism (for lack of a better word) that creates too many WTF moments for the reader. Ever read Fishin' With Grandma Matchie? You'll know what I'm talking about if you have. He also writes his books so they're much better on re-read. Good? Depends who you're asking. Finally, the tightness of the conclusion may have missed the mark for me. It was like someone that takes on 50 projects in the garage, but after a year, there are 35 finished projects, and a bunch of litter strewn about the rest of the floor. Someone should have edited out the half-assed projects in the beginning.

All that said, I'm not completely surprised. The speed of his writing was off the charts fast. I loved this when I was forced to wait for whatever came next, but now I'm reconsidering (of course, typical reader). GRRM fans face the exact opposite, someone that refines, refines, refines, until it's release-worthy in his eyes, but also 5 years after the release of the last book. Somewhere in the middle would have been nice. Even though this will never happen, I think if Erikson completely rewrote the entire series (especially GOTM and TTH), with the help of good editors, and made it 6 or 7 books, it would be the best fantasy series of all time, Tolkien, GRRM included.

I kind of agree with you about hte Perish. They did sort of betray the Adjunct but then sort of changed back but as you say there wasnt the hard and fast betrayal that was stated in DOD. Having said that nothing about TCG was tyical. The main villain was set free and there was a (terrible IMO) happy ending with all sorts of resurection. The Perish presented the view point of the Wolves of Winter and theres was a story worth telling so I didnt mind it as much you did.

I have to completely and wholeheartidly disagree with this point though. Eriksons 'trademark' is not fizling plot threads. There are questions that are unanswerd yes but they do not fizzle and are not unnecessary. The example that you give is a good example but for the opposite reason youve stated it. The Imass thought of himself as a world changer, and he was and would have been had Raest not crippled him. Howevever he comes out of his seclusion to find out the world has changed as have the players. He immediately imprisoned by an Azath because he was unaware of these powers, though Azath likely existe in his own day. For you to question the legacy of series of books is ofc subjective and your entitled to your opinion but there are those who apreciate Eriksons touches. The 'trademark' convergence has not gotten away from him character wise, though I do think TCG was the maximum amount of balls in the air.

The project analogy you use here is again not suitable. There are unresolved plot threads that havnt been covered by the main arc. However the story of Malaz is far from over. The main arc is about the struggles against and for TCG. Other characters and questions will be raised and created while answers are sought thus raising more questions but this is the grand scope of the series at work. I tend to favour your view that some of those 'projects' should have been answered by the main arc while other believe the mystery should be maintained. Those projects though will be dealt with in time

You claim your not 'surprised' by the amount of unnecessary stuff and make a link between speed of publication and editing. To say that the books and series as a whole would have been better if they were shorter is only valid if you think one of the books was unnecessary. As an admitted Erikson fan I would consider losing any of them blasphemy . I do agree that sometimes (esp. in later books) the philosophy goes on a bit, especially the msuing of te common soldier. But I wouldnt change it because thats the story Erikson wanted to tell, the struggle of the commonality in the face of ridiculous power.

Everything in GOTM and TTH is necessary characterisation. Your essentially saying 'the series would better if those two books I didnt enjoy werent in it. It would make it more respected as a piece of fiction' which is subjective and untrue. Your dislike of a certain book does not make it unnecessary.

This post has been edited by tiam: 08 November 2011 - 07:35 PM

[Sucka27]

tiam, on 08 November 2011 - 07:27 PM, said:

You claim your not 'surprised' by the amount of unnecessary stuff and make a link between speed of publication and editing.Everything in GOTM and TTH is necessary characterisation. Your essentially saying 'the series would better if those two books I didnt enjoy werent in it. It would make it more respected as a piece of fiction' which is subjective and untrue. Your dislike of a certain book does not make it unnecessary.

That's like saying "your opinion doesn't make something true," and nowhere do I even hint at that. ANY discussion on what is or isn't necessary in a book or series is going to be opinion. Really what I'm saying is the story from TTH and (some of) GOTM is necessary, but much of the text is not. As stated, this is my opinion, and it is also my opinion that the series as a whole would be better received by critics (armchair and professional) if much of the philosophy, melodrama, and inconsequential characters/stories were omitted. A number of the books follow the formula of painful journey followed by massive convergence. I personally found the bleak, trudging journeys to be mostly boring. Necessary on some levels, yes, but could have been shorter.

I find the series is separated into 2 distinct styles

1.) The fast paced battles, humorous/witty dialogue, dark scenes of convergence and violence, powerful characters, gods and mortals, awesome cities each with their own personality, assassins, under workings, schemes, etc.

Cut to:

2.) Characters dwelling on redemption, sacrifice, and desire for oblivion. Tears shed over things that aren't really all that emotional. Long journeys, where the journeyers believe death is inevitable. Misery, thirst, disease, and endless self-thought about the bleakness of the world.

I could have used a lot more of the former, and less of the latter. I did thoroughly enjoy two journeys in the series though, those being 1) Lady Envy/Toc/Tool's journey in MOI, and 2)Karsa/Dassem's in TTH. They also happened to be some of the only ones that didn't involve imminent doom, death by starvation or thirst, and pathetically pessimistic and whiny characters.

If you disagree with me, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. No big deal.

This post has been edited by Sucka27: 08 November 2011 - 07:57 PM

[King-of-Chains]

Quote

I was more expecting them to play a role that mattered in the slightest.
There was speculation on them betraying the Adjunct, and this built and built
until it came to happen. But it was all of absolutely no
consequence to anyone.

Except all that pointless, pointless death and the destruction of their entire faith, nope no consequences at all...

I think you're running into the same problem a lot of people do, you're glossing over the things that aren't said. They played a significant role in the plot, at least for me. I saw them more in symbolic terms, and I more or less figured some needless tragedy was going to happen. Was it predictable? A little, but then again it's what I particularly enjoy about Erikson, their isn't really a villain. The Perish are a prime example of that.

Quote

If the author is going to make a literary point of them, at least give
them purpose to the plot. There was none.

>.> I just pointed this out above. Please read it again. My last post clearly states the purpose of the Perish in the plot.

Quote

implied importance to the overall plot, and a bunch of them fizzled completely. Basically larger versions of the T'Lan Imass in TTH that the little boy found in the pit. Some may find that an Erikson trademark, I found it annoying. Again, this is just opinion. I think if these were weeded out of the series, and it was made shorter, it would be remembered as a much better piece of fiction.

And now I must respond with my own opinion in the matter of what makes good fiction.

Erikson does not play by the conventional roles of spoonfeeding, and therefore higher marketability. Honestly, this is absolutely fantastic. Consider this: Erikson has created a world in which we do not have the full story, we do not even have a glimpse of the full story. We only have one story, and that is the story he has decided to tell. This is like life. We only have one perspective, our own. We can glean other perspectives through our friends, teachers, the media and a various other number of sources, but in the end we live a singular take Because when it comes down to it, those other perspectives, they move away, they go on with their own lives and we only see a sliver of what we could. The Malazan Book of the Fallen is precisely like that. We only have this glimpse into a world just as rich and complex as our own. There are needless tragedies, pointless triumphs and petty feuds. Those plot lines that "fizzled out" as you put it, they just haven't been told yet, maybe they never will. The things that seemed really important? How many times has that happened to you? Where something seemed of crucial importance, yet when it came down to it, there really wasn't anything important about it at all. Erikson has, and for the most part succeeded in creating a very life like world. And it is this reality, this sheer human aspect of the series that enthralls me and inspires me as a writer of fantasy. He could have taken the easy road and wrote something like Eragon, or any other piece of well sold series out there, but he didn't. Ambition, and well measured self-respect for himself and for fantasy readers in general took him on a path that led to this. Do I have some gripes about the series? Of course I do, however, I wouldn't change it. It's flawed and imperfect, but that's what makes it some of the greatest literature I have ever read.

[Sucka27]

King-of-Chains, on 08 November 2011 - 07:40 PM, said:

Except all that pointless, pointless death and the destruction of their entire faith, nope no consequences at all...

I think you're running into the same problem a lot of people do, you're glossing over the things that aren't said.

It's not a problem, really, as much as opinion that it doesn't work. Your tone implies that I don't "get" something that I'm supposed to, but I get it. It just falls flat. I've noticed there is a lot of chatter here when someone doesn't particularly care for something in these books, everyone jumps in and says they don't get it. I agree with it to some extent, but there is also a lot of it where it's just wrong.

So they lost their faith? That was not of consequence to me, in fact I couldn't have cared less. I didn't care what happened to them, which suggests weak characterization. Note: I'm not criticizing Erikson's characterization skills in general, I think in most cases he's excellent at it. Not here, nor with many other of the melodramatic characters in the series like Felisin, Itkovian, the Mhybe, the Tiste Andii clan (Nemander, Skintick, Nenanda, etc), Gruntle in TCG (didn't care what happened to him either), ALL of the Perish, excepting maybe Krughava, I could go on.

As for your opinion on good fiction, I agree with a lot of it, perhaps you think I dislike some things that I actually didn't. I liked the immersion of the first book, as well as the multiple plot threads, no main character, etc. In fact, I liked almost everything about the series. I wouldn't even comment on it if I didn't love it (like some of the other turds I've been stupid enough to read eg. Sword of Truth). The gripes I have with MBOTF are outweighed by the immense pleasure I have had reading the series. They're also not exclusive to myself, I've seen them, or similar, from numerous other people. There is little chance that I could be convinced that the series is even close to perfect. That said, I've enjoyed the discussion, which is also the sign of a good series, that I care enough to write all of this.

This post has been edited by Sucka27: 08 November 2011 - 08:41 PM

[Abyss]

Re The Perish - their storyline brought the Wolves story to a close. At least one of the Wolves died as a direct result of the Perish's actions, so not nothing.

Re Hood and Draconus - Rake was actively engaged in being a sort of 'champion of the world'. With him dissappearing in TtH, he arranged it so Hood and Draconus both stepped into that role. Hood was actively engaged against the FA. Draconus took out the problematic Elder Gods.

re Neep - i'm pretty sure he was quoting Shakespeare.