[Nevyn]

I don't necessarily think SE or ICE are bad storytellers. I think that they (SE especially) might be a little full of themselves and obsessed with the whole "not spoonfeeding anything" excuse. And part of that vanity is in the fact that they don't go in for the classic narritive styles. There is no outright good guy, and even the big bad may not be as bad as they appear. And however any story resolves itself there will always be the next crisis. I can understand people not liking that style, but I'm a bit puzzled how one can get this far into this series if it bugs them.

However, I think this novel (and it was not a great one) is an unfortunate consequence of how SE and ICE decided to divide their world. SE has some of the main ascendants, the Crippled God, he has the big empires and big (constantly reloading armies), and they all connect into a main large story arc.

ICE has the Crimson Guard, which are enough for a multi-book storyline to an extent (although they'd be good for even more if SE and ICE weren't so pathologically opposed to giving us origin stories ... FoD excepted). But everything else he has is kind of scattered off to the side. He has the Seguleh. He has the Stormwall and the Riders. He has (eventually) Assail (and it had better be freaking awesome after all the buildup). Its like SE carved his story out of a sheet of construction paper, and ICE has all the cutout scraps left for his novels.

So you get stories like this, where he gets to explain the Seguleh and use the Seguleh, but has to do it without disrupting any of what's gone before. He gets to move a few pieces in the overall game, and other than that its just an excuse to use the Seguleh in force.

[Abyss]

Nevyn, on 20 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

... I think that they (SE especially) might be a little full of themselves and obsessed with the whole "not spoonfeeding anything" excuse. And part of that vanity is in the fact that they don't go in for the classic narritive styles. There is no outright good guy, and even the big bad may not be as bad as they appear. ...

I'm completely lost on how you get 'full of themselves' and 'vanity' from "they don't go in for the classic narritive styles. There is no outright good guy, and even the big bad may not be as bad as they appear".

Please explain.

[Nevyn]

Abyss, on 20 March 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 20 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

... I think that they (SE especially) might be a little full of themselves and obsessed with the whole "not spoonfeeding anything" excuse. And part of that vanity is in the fact that they don't go in for the classic narritive styles. There is no outright good guy, and even the big bad may not be as bad as they appear. ...

I'm completely lost on how you get 'full of themselves' and 'vanity' from "they don't go in for the classic narritive styles. There is no outright good guy, and even the big bad may not be as bad as they appear".

Please explain.

"Full of themselves" and "vanity" I get from reading some of Erikson's intros (the intro to my edition of GotM in particular), where he basically dumps on the whole fantasy genre, and makes it sound like any story that follows a familiar theme (or "trope" if you will), or in any way explains itself to the reader is somehow a lesser work.

And I mean all of this started with a very long novel that didn't really have a hook or bother to stop and explain any of what was going on. There's an inherent vanity in assuming that your story is so awesome that your audience will stick it out until the story has its own momentum and they can start to piece together whats going on. And that vanity isn't in itself a bad thing. If you get through his trials of fire and stick it out, the books can become quite compelling (I'm here, ain't I?).

Traditional narrative style didn't come about by accident. Its what gets the reader engaged in the story (cheering for the hero, wanting to see the villain defeated). SE gets engagement instead out of people wanting to get answers on stuff he's only half reference, and people just enjoying following his characters (rather than rooting for them to accomplish something specific). And that takes longer to develop. In the meantime, he just sort of assumes your engagement. I'm sure he loses many partway through the first book.

And that's fine. As I say, I like the series and have read them all. But I don't think its particularly controversial to call the approach arrogant.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 20 March 2013 - 03:51 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Did you come here to bury SE or to praise him?

I don't think it's a vanity, but perhaps a small amount of pretention can be expected from any author/artist. They have to be proud of what they do, and even more than just pride, they have to believe in it and sell it and be sure of it. And for about 99.9% of the content, it's pretty damn solid.

I try not to think of these things though when I read anything. I immerse myself in the world. Some authors' books are easier than others, but I think SE is a master of immersing you in his universe. I took a bath in Forge of Darkness and was irreversibly pruned.

[Nevyn]

Stalking Stonny, on 20 March 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Did you come here to bury SE or to praise him?

Neither, really.

And just because someone is arrogant doesn't mean they are wrong. Some people who think they are the sh** really are the sh**.

That being said, I did find this book disappointing, just as the OP did.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 20 March 2013 - 04:48 PM

[Sinisdar Toste]

i don't think we need to question nevyn's reasons for coming to the site. the point is valid, even if i don't agree with it completely. SE has a certain amount of pride that can come off as arrogance, especially when he's saying straight up that he's not interested in answering certain questions. i understand why he doesn't want to, but his tone can be high-handed. it's just a trait he possesses that i don't think he can turn off. though he's a literary genius in my eyes, so i can forgive him that.

in the end, my approach is similar to SS's. i ignore everything but the story while i'm reading. if SE wants to criticize tropes that's fine, i don't really worry about his opinions (other than on the craft of storytelling ).

[worry]

He is Canadian, after all.

[Abyss]

To be clear i'm not questioning that you love the books or the authors...

Nevyn, on 20 March 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

Abyss, on 20 March 2013 - 02:47 PM, said:

Nevyn, on 20 March 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

... I think that they (SE especially) might be a little full of themselves and obsessed with the whole "not spoonfeeding anything" excuse. And part of that vanity is in the fact that they don't go in for the classic narritive styles. There is no outright good guy, and even the big bad may not be as bad as they appear. ...

I'm completely lost on how you get 'full of themselves' and 'vanity' from "they don't go in for the classic narritive styles. There is no outright good guy, and even the big bad may not be as bad as they appear".

Please explain.

"Full of themselves" and "vanity" I get from reading some of Erikson's intros (the intro to my edition of GotM in particular), where he basically dumps on the whole fantasy genre, and makes it sound like any story that follows a familiar theme (or "trope" if you will), or in any way explains itself to the reader is somehow a lesser work.

I think that's a separate point from extrapolating vanity from writing style.
You can conclude whatever you want from an author's positions on whatever, but your post seems to draw that from what they write and that's where i disagreed.

Quote

And I mean all of this started with a very long novel that didn't really have a hook or bother to stop and explain any of what was going on. There's an inherent vanity in assuming that your story is so awesome that your audience will stick it out until the story has its own momentum and they can start to piece together whats going on. And that vanity isn't in itself a bad thing. If you get through his trials of fire and stick it out, the books can become quite compelling (I'm here, ain't I?).

Traditional narrative style didn't come about by accident. Its what gets the reader engaged in the story (cheering for the hero, wanting to see the villain defeated). SE gets engagement instead out of people wanting to get answers on stuff he's only half reference, and people just enjoying following his characters (rather than rooting for them to accomplish something specific). And that takes longer to develop. In the meantime, he just sort of assumes your engagement. I'm sure he loses many partway through the first book

While i disagree with you on the 'no hook' for GotM, i see how you get to your point on a lack of explanation or context as vanity, tho i interpret it as trust in the audience.

Quote

And that's fine. As I say, I like the series and have read them all. But I don't think its particularly controversial to call the approach arrogant.

What i might challenge is the inherent negative suggestion in 'arrogance'... elsethread i used the term 'this author has massive balls' to describe an author's sheer audacity, but i get the sense that you're not intending it in a negative way, especially since, as you say, you're still here.

That said, it's your informed view and you're entitled to it, but i think perhaps confidence is being mistaken for vanity.

[Nevyn]

Abyss, on 20 March 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

I think that's a separate point from extrapolating vanity from writing style.
You can conclude whatever you want from an author's positions on whatever, but your post seems to draw that from what they write and that's where i disagreed.

Well, I did say "part of that vanity", but I will say that I started with that impression from reading the preface to the first book (during which he not only sounds arrogant in general, but specifically talks about his narrative style, how he's going to lose half his readers in the first third of book one, and also implies that the ones he loses are lazy people trying to float by), so I had it in the back of my mind from when I first started reading.

The preface was a revised one from a later edition, so not sure how many have read it, but I'm sure Erikson has made similar comments elsewhere.

This post has been edited by Nevyn: 20 March 2013 - 09:41 PM

[Overactive Imagination]

Draconus was in Moon's Spawn in OST? I do not remember that at all.

[worry]

His name for some reason was Morn.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Nevyn, on 20 March 2013 - 04:44 PM, said:

Stalking Stonny, on 20 March 2013 - 04:12 PM, said:

Did you come here to bury SE or to praise him?

Neither, really.

And just because someone is arrogant doesn't mean they are wrong. Some people who think they are the sh** really are the sh**.

That being said, I did find this book disappointing, just as the OP did.

Sinisdar Toste, on 20 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

i don't think we need to question nevyn's reasons for coming to the site. the point is valid, even if i don't agree with it completely. SE has a certain amount of pride that can come off as arrogance, especially when he's saying straight up that he's not interested in answering certain questions. i understand why he doesn't want to, but his tone can be high-handed. it's just a trait he possesses that i don't think he can turn off. though he's a literary genius in my eyes, so i can forgive him that.

Well, I wasn't questioning his reasons so much as I was referencing Julias Caesar. And since The Kharkanas Trilogy is inspired in many ways by Shakespeare I thought it quite an appropriate reference at that.

Sinisdar Toste, on 20 March 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:

in the end, my approach is similar to SS's. i ignore everything but the story while i'm reading. if SE wants to criticize tropes that's fine, i don't really worry about his opinions (other than on the craft of storytelling ).

I think an author's intentions have as much to do with this as his ability, insomuch as SE and ICE to lesser extent, go to grand lengths to build their world and populate it with distinguishable characters who represent elements of that world. Then it works because these characters have arcs that mean something to the main themes, the plot, the climax, the denouement and then on to the next book which opens things a little bit more and repeats the cycle with additional characters to represent the new concepts. There is so much about the books that is good.

In ICE's case, I think he suffers from characters that are similar to other characters. Sure he's got amazing people like Manask and I REALLY love his Shadowthrone. But too many times there is a basic Kyle character, or a Ghelel.

Spoiler

Old Man Moon

was a crackpot who had similar characteristics to Warren/Shadowthrone.

Spoiler

Murk and Sour

were great but had too much Scorch and Leff in them. I think his Baruk and his Barathol were weak but I loved his Kruppe and hated his Torvald. To me, its his inconsistencies in and borderline stereotypical characterizations of his cast that are his ultimate weakness.

But I can overlook this somewhat due to the scope of the entire body of both authors' work. I still have negative opinions about some things, but I don't let that get in the way of enjoying another installment in the Malazan Universe. Its not a criticism of the opinions of anyone who reads the books, I'm just weighing in on what you perceive to be arrogance, Nevyn, and what I perceive to be confidence. The word 'arrogance' has a pretty hefty negative connotation.

[Abyss]

Overactive Imagination, on 21 March 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

Draconus was in Moon's Spawn in OST? I do not remember that at all.

worrywort, on 21 March 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

His name for some reason was Morn.

He was an echo, not the real thing. We saw something similar in RCG.

[worry]

That old excuse.

[nacht]

koryk, on 13 March 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Caladan Brood seems a complete waste - big man with hammer that fails to break the only thing it tries to hit!

Why do you say this? I thought Caladan had a small but very important role in breaking the dome foundation.

[Nevyn]

nacht, on 22 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

koryk, on 13 March 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Caladan Brood seems a complete waste - big man with hammer that fails to break the only thing it tries to hit!

Why do you say this? I thought Caladan had a small but very important role in breaking the dome foundation.

Sometimes Brood reminds me of Mr. Furious from Mystery Men

[nacht]

Nevyn, on 22 March 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

nacht, on 22 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

koryk, on 13 March 2013 - 01:02 AM, said:

Caladan Brood seems a complete waste - big man with hammer that fails to break the only thing it tries to hit!

Why do you say this? I thought Caladan had a small but very important role in breaking the dome foundation.

Sometimes Brood reminds me of Mr. Furious from Mystery Men

Brood has a problem. He has a nuke but no gun :-) And therefore very frustrated

This post has been edited by nacht: 22 March 2013 - 07:12 PM

[Abey1245]

I have to say, so far this is my fave ICE book! To date, I considered his books as "filler" or appendices for example. OS&T marks a change in his style of writing that more closely resembles SE's. Before, ICE's characters were shallower, he told a story but you never really got to KNOW the characters in-depth. This time it is different and I am enjoying reading this book more than his previous publications, as I feel I can get more into it and connect with the characters instead of simply skimming through just for the story line to continue the Malazan saga.

This post has been edited by Abey1245: 30 March 2013 - 09:11 PM

[worry]

I think if you reread Stonewielder your appreciation for his depth of character in that might grow.

[Abey1245]

Abey1245, on 27 March 2013 - 01:18 AM, said:

I have to say, so far this is my fave ICE book! To date, I considered his books as "filler" or appendices for example. OS&T marks a change in his style of writing that more closely resembles SE's. Before, ICE's characters were shallower, he told a story but you never really got to KNOW the characters in-depth. This time it is different and I am enjoying reading this book more than his previous publications, as I feel I can get more into it and connect with the characters instead of simply skimming through just for the story line to continue the Malazan saga.

@ Worrywort, I really, really thoroughly disliked in the extreme his Stonewielder book. Could not wait to be done with it... but I will take your advice and give it a re-read though!!

Posted 26 March 2013 - 10:24 PM

I think if you reread Stonewielder your appreciation for his depth of character in that might grow.