[tiam]

Sucka27, on 08 November 2011 - 07:39 PM, said:

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.

'That's like saying "your opinion doesn't make something true," and nowhere do I even hint at that'

I do take your point and agree with you to a certain extent but your claiming your own personal dislike in the context of others. Your claiming that those armchair reader or critics would like the book better if the books didnt have the sections you personally didnt like. Your validating yur opinion by claiming your view represents why its not on the times best seller list or not universally acclaimed. Your opinion doesnt make some thing true (neither does mine), but your backing yours up with vague references to how the books would do better financially and criticly if the philosophising and melodrama was toned down in favour of faster paced action.

As I say I prefer a faster paced Erikson but saying that alot of the text is unnecessary in TTH and GOTM is (IMO of course) incorrect. You claim to like 2 journeys as they werent threatened by starvation or whiny characters as you put it but the two that you mention are not typical Erikson journeys. They represent a few ancient and powerful entities, in one instance carving theeir way through an empire and in the other adding valuable plot information and coming across important characters. I admit that some of the Trygalle sections from TTH,DOD and TCg felt a bit of a downer but theyre far more 'Erikson' than other protions. I often get fed up with the soldiery but I wouldnt lose it as you would lose valuable characterisation.

You clearly prefer the bang for your buck kind of characters, the world changers, your reference to two journeys proves that. But Erikson prfers talking about the little guys, the Samar Devs to the Karsa so to speak, the Shortnose to the Silchas Ruins. I honestly see what your saying and after just finishing another reread of the series I admit it can be a chore but its still worth it and is an integral part of the series. As someone above has stated Erikson doesnt spoon feed you anything so the motives and layers of intent are in the 'useless' text. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean thats not why its not critically acclaimed is what i was getting at.

I love reading about the powerful ancient entity instead of the standard marine but its the marines story Erikson is trying to tell I think.

EDIT- Sorry just saw another you did to King in Chains. I didnt really care much for the Grey Helms either. Im not sure why but it wasnt characterisation. They were similar to the original GreySwords in their piety but the fact that there was such internal turmoil yet nothing came of it to directly effect outside themselves might be it. As Abyss or or someone stated they did lose one of their gods maybe but as it didnt directly effect the rest of the Letherii Malazan contingent (other than maybe making them change sides again) I was underwhelmed.

As for the everyon attacking you saying yu dont get it it does come down to spoonfeeding. You have to read into the motives of people in the long pages of text that you dont seem to enjoy but others do

This post has been edited by tiam: 08 November 2011 - 09:43 PM

[Abyss]

Sucka27, on 08 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

...nor with many other of the melodramatic characters in the series like ... Itkovian...

Ok, i'll bite: what did you not like about the characterization of Itkovian?

[Sucka27]

Abyss, on 08 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

Sucka27, on 08 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

...nor with many other of the melodramatic characters in the series like ... Itkovian...

Ok, i'll bite: what did you not like about the characterization of Itkovian?

I'll admit, he irritated me the least out of the bunch I mentioned. His characterization was actually pretty strong, so when I lumped him in with the others I may have thrown off my point. That said, I didn't really care for the idea that he was some sort of redeemer or Christ-like sacrificial lamb. I get it, Erikson wanted to elicit emotion by having a character take on the massive burden of others, I just felt a lot of the emotional drama of the end of that story line felt like I was in church. Probably just a personal gripe, to Erikson's credit, Itkovian was a strongly written character and I can see why many people liked him. I just happened not to.

[King-of-Chains]

Quote

Itkovian was a strongly written character and I can see why many people liked him. I just happened not to.

This begs the question of what exactly did you like in the novels?

Itkovian was, well really to me he was the start of the road for the Crippled God's freedom. At least thematically. And as for character, he was perhaps my one of my favourites.

[Sucka27]

King-of-Chains, on 09 November 2011 - 12:04 AM, said:

This begs the question of what exactly did you like in the novels?

Lol, serious? Did you imply that because I didn't like a character that you did like, that I don't like anything in the series? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there (barely).

In answer to your question, I liked most of the series. I loved Paran, Dassem, WJ, the BB, pretty much every soldier in the book, Rake, Silchas, Tehol, Bugg, on and on and on and on. I loved MOI, even though I didn't care for the character Itkovian, as hard as that is to believe. I loved Karsa, Apsalar, most of the gods, man I could go on for a while here.

Didn't like the whiny, futile, philosophical, melodramatic stuff, as I've mentioned. That includes maybe a maximum of 10 out of hundreds of characters. Also didn't like a few of the tactics employed in the conclusion, we've discussed these.

[worry]

Don't worry, I think that's just the affect of text. Nobody here so far is particularly hostile. Except Abyss. You should read all his posts with a sneering rasp.

[Abyss]

Sucka27, on 08 November 2011 - 10:29 PM, said:

Abyss, on 08 November 2011 - 09:48 PM, said:

Sucka27, on 08 November 2011 - 08:36 PM, said:

...nor with many other of the melodramatic characters in the series like ... Itkovian...

Ok, i'll bite: what did you not like about the characterization of Itkovian?

I'll admit, he irritated me the least out of the bunch I mentioned. His characterization was actually pretty strong, so when I lumped him in with the others I may have thrown off my point. That said, I didn't really care for the idea that he was some sort of redeemer or Christ-like sacrificial lamb. I get it, Erikson wanted to elicit emotion by having a character take on the massive burden of others, I just felt a lot of the emotional drama of the end of that story line felt like I was in church. Probably just a personal gripe, to Erikson's credit, Itkovian was a strongly written character and I can see why many people liked him. I just happened not to.

Would it be fair to say that you don't like the characters who have a heavy 'self-doubt' element to their storyline?

worrywort, on 09 November 2011 - 03:05 AM, said:

Don't worry, I think that's just the affect of text. Nobody here so far is particularly hostile. Except Abyss. You should read all his posts with an evil sneering zombie'esque, somewhat feline yet undeniably sexy rasp.

Fixed to reflect reality.

[Sucka27]

Abyss, on 09 November 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

Would it be fair to say that you don't like the characters who have a heavy 'self-doubt' element to their storyline?

Possibly. Self-loathing isn't my favorite either. Yeah, a lot of people are like this IRL, many of them probably enjoy books in this genre too. To me it's pandering and not something I enjoy in my escape from reality. Just my personal pref.

[King-of-Chains]

http://www.steveneri...f-karsa-orlong/

Read this. While it doesn't particularly address the subject at hand it does addressyour comment about "escaping reality". I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything, and I apologize if I came off implying things I didn't intend to imply, I suppose my point is that if you're looking for escapism, avoid Erikson.

[Sucka27]

King-of-Chains, on 09 November 2011 - 10:30 PM, said:

http://www.steveneri...f-karsa-orlong/

Read this. While it doesn't particularly address the subject at hand it does addressyour comment about "escaping reality". I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything, and I apologize if I came off implying things I didn't intend to imply, I suppose my point is that if you're looking for escapism, avoid Erikson.

Too late now. Also, FWIW, I get more escape out of reading Erikson than pretty much anyone else. I get to enter his huge world, it's exactly what I'm looking for when I read a book. I read the essay posted but I don't necessarily agree with him, he seems to think I'm going to take the philosophy of Karsa Orlong more seriously than I really do. What his story says about the evils of civilization doesn't ruin my day (in that I'm a part of said civilization, or to Karsa, a slave). I just enjoy entering a new world.

This post has been edited by Sucka27: 10 November 2011 - 09:04 PM

[JLV]

Sucka27, on 09 November 2011 - 07:04 PM, said:

Abyss, on 09 November 2011 - 04:14 PM, said:

Would it be fair to say that you don't like the characters who have a heavy 'self-doubt' element to their storyline?

Possibly. Self-loathing isn't my favorite either. Yeah, a lot of people are like this IRL, many of them probably enjoy books in this genre too. To me it's pandering and not something I enjoy in my escape from reality. Just my personal pref.

This is a very interesting point. I think self-loathing can go too far in certain situations. Everyone has a different breaking point. I was close to it in Bakker's series. Thomas Covenant broke it, I think. I can't decide yet.

Edit: I don't think I was ever close in Erikson's series. Maybe with the Myhbe?

This post has been edited by JLV: 11 November 2011 - 02:41 AM

[Kanese S's]

The Mhybe or however you spell her name was incredibly irritating to me. The whole situation was, partly due to the ridiculous lack of communication all around.

That's been the only case where a character that you're not supposed to dislike has gotten on my nerves, though.

[sting01]

I believe most of the personnages or situations come from real life situations or personnage.

People such as Iktovian exist in conflict zone, even if here and now we do not call them Shield Anvil or Mortal Sword or whatever; but I did met some of those people who take for themself your own personal burden in time where you feel simply crushed by your negative emotions (real case when Drakkar building exploded and I lost 183 of my brothers in arms, it was 23 years ago and some days). So for waht it is worth, people as Iktovian do exist , and it is because those peoples that soldiers are able to confront horror and keep being human (when saddness and hatred are taken away , then compassion stay in your soul, and that is the only thing that keep a soldier from insanity, raw murdering and cruelty).

Sinn is more an allegorie, similar to the one drawed by Boch; she represent (my opinion) those men and women of (in?) power being extremely powerfull on one hand, but lacking some deep experiences on the real life on the other. One example (recent) being the former Director of IFM; obviously the guy is not rapist (and when you see how the presumed victim look, you do not believe she can be raped); but on the same time the guy (who is 60 y o) is stil immature (to stay polite) with his relation to sexual intercourse; and worst does not compute how such behavior will damage the institution he is working for (the IFM), the people who believed in him ... Sinn is an archetype of those personnages (notice I choosed a bad french dude, to avoid foreign people (US people namely) to feel under attack; but same might be said about Bush, or Clinton, or the Cavallieri...)

[Ben Delat]

Ill skip the rest and just address what I thought of the Sinn development.

It is clearly stated she started down the road of insanity when she was attacked as a child and ended up killing a lot of people with magic she didn't really know how to control. She made a pretty quick jump from simple minded and small cantrips when she is with Kalam and going after her brother to insane after the fire godling. Her journey into Icariums New warrens with Grub certainly didn't help as she now had access to young, raw and dangerous warrens, which I believe is where the fire came from that Stormy and Gesler couldn't resist like they did when she was using Telas.

My only dissapointment with her was I would have liked to see Grub smack her down a few notches instead of Stormy and Gesler having to handle her, but SE did forshadow the need to keep those three together.

edit: BTW not knowing what Nep said at the end was almost as frustrating as not being in on the conversation between Heboric and L'oric. grrrrr

This post has been edited by Ben Delat: 11 November 2011 - 06:19 PM

[King-of-Chains]

Quote

edit: BTW not knowing what Nep said at the end was almost as frustrating as not being in on the conversation between Heboric and L'oric. grrrrr

At the end? Hell I couldn't piece together half of what he said since the time he was introduced.

[Abyss]

There really isn't a single point in the book where Sinn is sane. She goes different degrees of bugnuts at different points, and is often fairly benign esp at Yghatan and against the Nah'ruk, but as she gets more powerful she also gets more nihilistic and outright nutty. There's a point in TCG where Grub starts to pull away from her and it's around then that she truly loses it, resulting in her making a play for the Heart at the Spire.

[worry]

That's absolutely true. It's pretty much explicit that Grub alone was holding her back from losing that last shred of sanity, and we can only infer how long that must have been going on.

[D'rek]

worrywort, on 17 November 2011 - 12:32 AM, said:

That's absolutely true. It's pretty much explicit that Grub alone was holding her back from losing that last shred of sanity, and we can only infer how long that must have been going on.

I think her brother and in general the marines were keeping her sane when she was around them. In HoC she was pretty loopy before reuniting with her brother, but seemed a little better afterwards (though we see only a tiny bit of her at the end). In tBH there's not much of significance of her until Y'Ghatan, where one could argue she did a crazy thing of absorbing a lot of fire in order to save the marines and her brother. Then she went mad trying to stay close to them while they were buried. Once she's back with them, she's able to relax (in that disturbing attempted breast-feeding scene on the boats).

By tCG, she's not with the marines and her brother is dead, so it's only Grub holding her sanity in, and one could argue not doing so successfully. And then they split up and she completes her transformation into batshit bananas.

[worry]

Yah, I think that's a pretty accurate timeline of her descent.

[L'oric]

sting01, on 11 November 2011 - 03:51 AM, said:

I believe most of the personnages or situations come from real life situations or personnage.

I find looking back that I wish Sinn would have been a redemption character in a series largely about redemption, but as you go on to point out she seems to have been made to go crazy and her story arc just didn't have that in the Tiles/Cards in Malazan speak.

While I agree she is usually bat@#$@# crazy there always seemed to be a kernel of vulnerability that I wanted to be expanded upon as a vessel to bring her back to humanity. Characters/Life in Erikson's world didn't allow for that in her case (or many others), but though slightly dissapointing I understand where he is coming from. This isn't disney. The Apsalar/Crokus ending notwithstanding.

Sincerely

Ps Caballieri? who is that? I know who Bush, Clinton is and why you would point out they are like Sinn. Staus-Kahn/IMF reference?