[pat5150]

Okay guys,

My review is now available on the Hostlist. It doesn't contain any spoilers that could kill any part of the tale for readers. But anyone who wants to go into FoD fresh should probably steer clear. This review is akin to all my other Malazan review...

Follow this link to read it!

Cheers,

Patrick

[End of Disc One]

Hopefully the Skuhul Ankhadu thing was done on purpose. I would think that most people who only read the series once would know that she is supposed to be Osserc's daughter. Surely SE knows the mythology better than the average reader.

Edit: According to this interview the events in the trilogy are reshaped by the narrator, so who knows what "actually" happened.

This post has been edited by End of Disc One: 25 July 2012 - 06:03 PM

[Asharak]

Nice review, will try not to judge too much until I have read the book, but it really does sound like we get "air-time" for every character except the three guys we "all" really want to read about.

This post has been edited by Asharak: 25 July 2012 - 05:04 PM

[ShanRawr]

Glad I read the review before the book. Thanks! Now I want my copy...

[Kanese S's]

Pat, one question... it's not really that important, but does dear Dapple already have her odd dietary fixation or no?

Spoiler

By this, I mean, is Sukul already killing people and eating their lungs?

[Asharak]

": According to this interview the events in the trilogy are reshaped by the narrator, so who knows what "actually" happened"


If we are supposed to take that completely serious, then doesn't that kind of ruin the connection between this series and the Malazan story as a whole? If we aren't reading about the real Spinnock Durav (the one who is a main character in TTH) as a young man, but rather some "made up" version of him, then doesn't that take away some of the fun? If we aren't getting to know Draconus, but the "fictional version" of him, then in what way is what we are learning really relevant? If none of the characters are really the "real"characters, doesn't that take away some of the weight and importance of this story?





Still really looking forward to reading this book though.

This post has been edited by Asharak: 26 July 2012 - 11:44 AM

[D'rek]

Asharak, on 26 July 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

": According to this interview the events in the trilogy are reshaped by the narrator, so who knows what "actually" happened"


If we are supposed to take that completely serious, then doesn't that kind of ruin the connection between this series and the Malazan story as a whole? If we aren't reading about the real Spinnock Durav (the one who is a main character in TTH) as a young man, but rather some "made up" version of him, then doesn't that take away some of the fun? If we aren't getting to know Draconus, but the "fictional version" of him, then in what way is what we are learning really relevant? If none of the characters are really the "real"characters, doesn't that take away some of the weight and importance of this story?





Still really looking forward to reading this book though.

Well, you're already reading about a fictional Spinnock Durav in TtH because there is no *real* Spinnock Durav.

The only *real* characters are Fisher and Gallan - the stand-ins for SE and ICE

[amphibian]

D, on 26 July 2012 - 05:53 PM, said:

Well, you're already reading about a fictional Spinnock Durav in TtH because there is no *real* Spinnock Durav.

The only *real* characters are Fisher and Gallan - the stand-ins for SE and ICE

That's a reductionist approach to this series and one I strongly disagree with.

It would be better to remind Asharak that we've already had multiple sections of the series "told" to us through different narrators within the series itself. Toll the Hounds is perhaps the one that's most obvious - as it's Kruppe telling us what happened.

There's also Onrack and Trull telling us most of Midnight Tides, the short epigrams telling us all kinds of things and so on.

My concerns with Forge of Darkness is kind of a minor one - that we won't get historical or "noteworthy line/event" epigrams. We'll get more poetry and although Erikson turns out the occasional doozy, he's not a great poet. I much preferred the mix present in the earlier books, than the poetry that dominated the later books (with Dust of Dreams and The Crippled God being 95% or more poetry epigrams).

It's not a giant thing, but that's what I'm concerned about - not the narration or the historical chronology of dragons/Andii or the genealogy of Dapple, Dusk and Dawn.

[kcf]

amphibian, on 26 July 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

My concerns with Forge of Darkness is kind of a minor one - that we won't get historical or "noteworthy line/event" epigrams. We'll get more poetry and although Erikson turns out the occasional doozy, he's not a great poet. I much preferred the mix present in the earlier books, than the poetry that dominated the later books (with Dust of Dreams and The Crippled God being 95% or more poetry epigrams).

Even though the narrator is is poet, there is a lot less poetry than in the last few books of the series. There characters occaisionally quote a poem, but the story iteslf is a pretty straight-forward narrative (though it has too many POVs in my opinion).

[D'rek]

kcf, on 26 July 2012 - 07:11 PM, said:

amphibian, on 26 July 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

My concerns with Forge of Darkness is kind of a minor one - that we won't get historical or "noteworthy line/event" epigrams. We'll get more poetry and although Erikson turns out the occasional doozy, he's not a great poet. I much preferred the mix present in the earlier books, than the poetry that dominated the later books (with Dust of Dreams and The Crippled God being 95% or more poetry epigrams).

Even though the narrator is is poet, there is a lot less poetry than in the last few books of the series. There characters occaisionally quote a poem, but the story iteslf is a pretty straight-forward narrative (though it has too many POVs in my opinion).

That's quite interesting, actually - Erikson has said he is going for the more traditional structure with this trilogy, and all that comes with it. Even just from chapter 1 this certainly seems to be widely the case.

ie:

Spoiler

Having a journey to Jaghut and Azathenai lands be a westwards journey by horseback, rather than having to open a gate into another dimension. I wonder how much of the differences between the species and world mechanics of FoD compared to the time of MBotF are really due to the change in structure.

With that in mind, does the number of PoVs really match the traditional structure model SE was aiming for?

[Kanese S's]

Well, even if not completely traditional, perhaps a bit more in that direction than MBotF?

[Asharak]

"Well, you're already reading about a fictional Spinnock Durav in TtH because there is no *real* Spinnock Durav.

The only *real* characters are Fisher and Gallan - the stand-ins for SE and ICE"



I do understand that this entire series is fiction, If you reread my original post you will see that I have pretty much continuously put " " around the words when I differentiate between the real made up characters in the book, and the characters that are made up within the context of stories in their own world. There is however a difference between reading about the Anomander Rake that is described by the individuals that meet him in real life (in the story that is), and someone writing about him (within the story) who perhaps doesn't want to even give his real impression of the man. When reading about the real Anomander (within the context of the story) we have the chance to learn something about the character. On the other hand when reading about fiction Anomander (Galan's version of him) who isn't necessarily written to be like the "real one ", then there is a huge difference in how much we should believe in this portrayal at all.

I'm still looking forward to the book, don't take me wrong, I'm just debating.





"It would be better to remind Asharak that we've already had multiple sections of the series "told" to us through different narrators within the series itself. Toll the Hounds is perhaps the one that's most obvious - as it's Kruppe telling us what happened.

There's also Onrack and Trull telling us most of Midnight Tides"





I disagree with Midnight Tides being "just" Trull telling the entire thing. Everything concerning the Leatheri characters is clearly not part of Trulls tale, Trull doesn't know Tehol and his plans etc.. And whatever parts are Trulls "story" are clearly meant to be his real experiences of the event, and not an invention.



While usually each chapter of TTH starts and ends with Krupe speaking, 97% of the book is not written in that way, and the book as a whole isn't presented any differently than all the other books in the series. I don't really buy that the book as a whole is just Krupe talking, there's to much non plot related dialogue and thoughts and such between people to be all part of his tale. Though I of course agree that Kruppe talking to K`rul is the framing device of the book.

This post has been edited by Asharak: 27 July 2012 - 12:52 PM

[Kanese S's]

Asharak, on 27 July 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

"Well, you're already reading about a fictional Spinnock Durav in TtH because there is no *real* Spinnock Durav.

The only *real* characters are Fisher and Gallan - the stand-ins for SE and ICE"



I do understand that this entire series is fiction, If you reread my original post you will see that I have pretty much continuously put " " around the words when I differentiate between the real made up characters in the book, and the characters that are made up within the context of stories in their own world. There is however a difference between reading about the Anomander Rake that is described by the individuals that meet him in real life (in the story that is), and someone writing about him (within the story) who perhaps doesn't want to even give his real impression of the man. When reading about the real Anomander (within the context of the story) we have the chance to learn something about the character. On the other hand when reading about fiction Anomander (Galan's version of him) who isn't necessarily written to be like the "real one ", then there is a huge difference in how much we should believe in this portrayal at all.

I'm still looking forward to the book, don't take me wrong, I'm just debating.

Or.... or... just reading about Anomander's exploits through the eyes (figuratively) of Gallan. Rather than an omniscient/god-like/objective narrator, we will get Gallan relating events and we will see his perception of Anomander, based upon his experiences with Rake and with that era of Tiste society.

[D'rek]

Kanese S, on 27 July 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Asharak, on 27 July 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

"Well, you're already reading about a fictional Spinnock Durav in TtH because there is no *real* Spinnock Durav.

The only *real* characters are Fisher and Gallan - the stand-ins for SE and ICE"



I do understand that this entire series is fiction, If you reread my original post you will see that I have pretty much continuously put " " around the words when I differentiate between the real made up characters in the book, and the characters that are made up within the context of stories in their own world. There is however a difference between reading about the Anomander Rake that is described by the individuals that meet him in real life (in the story that is), and someone writing about him (within the story) who perhaps doesn't want to even give his real impression of the man. When reading about the real Anomander (within the context of the story) we have the chance to learn something about the character. On the other hand when reading about fiction Anomander (Galan's version of him) who isn't necessarily written to be like the "real one ", then there is a huge difference in how much we should believe in this portrayal at all.

I'm still looking forward to the book, don't take me wrong, I'm just debating.

Or.... or... just reading about Anomander's exploits through the eyes (figuratively) of Gallan. Rather than an omniscient/god-like/objective narrator, we will get Gallan relating events and we will see his perception of Anomander, based upon his experiences with Rake and with that era of Tiste society.

One of the most intriguing parts, IMO. We have reason to think Gallan might have an unfavourable opinion of Anomander, so the portrayal might interestingly contrast with Endest Silann's memories from TtH, which would be cool.

[Shadow of Shadowthrone]

I like how Erikson makes sure that things are misremembered throughout the ages of his setting. I understand why he does this (aside from not having to keep detailed timelines ) - this is how time works, how history works, being written, rewritten, changed, translated etc.

Even worse (?), I also support the lack of three certain characters. Not having them all over the book helps keep their legendary badassery intact, instead of diluting the power these characters exude in The Malazan Book of the Fallen. I mean, remember when Darth Vader was awesome? And then we got those prequels were he accidentally destroyed a ship, hung out with Jar Jar Binks, whined a lot and in general lost all credibility, badassery and acting abilities (yes he was better acted with the mask on in the originals).

This post has been edited by Shadow of Shadowthrone: 28 July 2012 - 03:50 PM

[Destiny]

Shadow of Shadowthrone, on 28 July 2012 - 03:48 PM, said:

Even worse (?), I also support the lack of three certain characters. Not having them all over the book helps keep their legendary badassery intact, instead of diluting the power these characters exude in The Malazan Book of the Fallen.

I totally agree with you. I've built these characters up so much in my mind, nothing could ever live up to it. Imagine if TTH had had a POV of Anomander. That would have totally ruined the mystery and badassery surrounding him. I remember when, in DoD iirc, Silchas says something like: "even when we were children he would always steal my toys." And I was like WTF!!! The image of child Anomander kind of reduced his epicness in a way, regardless of the fact that logic says he must have been young at some point.

[Asharak]

"Even worse (?), I also support the lack of three certain characters. Not having them all over the book helps keep their legendary badassery intact, instead of diluting the power these characters exude in The Malazan Book of the Fallen. I mean, remember when Darth Vader was awesome?"



You shouldnt compare a bad authour with a good authour. Erikson would make young Anakin the coolest character around.