[polishgenius]

I'm not quite sure why 'it's not funny' is in any way a fair criticism of a book that's not trying to be funny. I mean, okay, if one likes a bit of humour then that's going to affect your enjoyment (though as people have said I did find the Jaghut quite funny), but (and I've seen this elsewhere too) people seem to be acting like comedy was somehow the point.
I find it far less irritating than when SE tries to be funny but fails (the shadow priest guy who's name I now forget, Kruppe on occasion).

As for the reason, I think it's partly because of what Stonny up there said with the Tiste's generally not-humorous demeanour, and partly because even the main series is in many ways a tragedy, and that's in large part a story about writing ancient wrongs, a great many of which have their roots in this trilogy here.

Okay, so humour isn't necessarily out of place in a tragedy- Romeo and Juliet is frequently hilarious. But the lessening of the already-hardly-ubiquitous funnies reflects the overall darkening in tone.


Also: if you think this was tough, overly philosophical and too grim, don't ever ever read Bakker.

[Kanese S's]

I do find it to be the most dark, bleak thing I've read from SE. That's not a criticism, though. I think it was intended that way.

[Ceda Cicero]

Always a fan of thoughtless, poorly written first posts where regulars respond cordially and eloquently and the OP has nothing else to say to their points.

This post has been edited by Ceda Cicero: 30 September 2012 - 11:52 PM

[Hoods Breath]

I can partially agree with the OP. The book has an incredibly somber and sullen feel (for my tastes) and I found myself skimming through some of the character internal monologues that seem to be increasingly pervasive is Eriksons writing. Honestly... I don't think I need page upon page detailing every characters innermost thoughts. In some cases it's illuminating but in others it seems to get in the way of the plot and is too frequently done. At a certain moment, all the philosophizing seems to run together.

Part of the problem, I suppose, is that the Tiste are somber and sullen and slow to act. "Still waters run deep"... and all that. The feel of the book was to be expected based on the other Tiste peoples who were in MBOTF.
I also had trouble remembering who was who and which faction they were aligned with. For some reason the odd Tiste names didn't stick in my head. Thank God Erikson for the Dramatis Personae.

but... Contrasting the gloomy nature of the Tiste, we got to see more of the Jaghut. I think that Erikson really shines when he writes Jaghut humour. My inner fanboy was loving the revelations about the Azathanai as well.

And then when we saw that person who becomes Quick Ben... it was awesome!

[Abyss]

Crow Clan Baby, on 29 September 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

So humour-wise am I really the only one who roared my ass off laughing at Envy, Spite and Malice?

You were not!

Sinisdar Toste, on 29 September 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

oh man, when malice comes in like, "you left me alone in the dark!" well, i would have spewed something if it had been in my mouth at the time.

I read it twice and lol'd both times.

Kanese S, on 30 September 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I do find it to be the most dark, bleak thing I've read from SE. That's not a criticism, though. I think it was intended that way.

Chain of Dogs in DG.
The Grey Swords in MoI.
Trull in RG.
Tool in DoD.

Now tell me if you STILL think this was the most dark, bleak thing.

Hoods Breath, on 11 October 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

I can partially agree with the OP. The book has an incredibly somber and sullen feel (for my tastes) and I found myself skimming through some of the character internal monologues that seem to be increasingly pervasive is Eriksons writing. Honestly... I don't think I need page upon page detailing every characters innermost thoughts. In some cases it's illuminating but in others it seems to get in the way of the plot and is too frequently done. At a certain moment, all the philosophizing seems to run together.
...

While i struggled a bit with the philosophizing, it helps to keep in mind that there is a narrator, a storyteller so to speak... SE himself said the story is likely told by Fisher, as related to him by Blind Gallan, so in that context the 'deep thought' contents of the narrative make sense, as with the meandering narrative in TtH as told by Kruppe.

[Kanese S's]

Abyss, on 11 October 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

Kanese S, on 30 September 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I do find it to be the most dark, bleak thing I've read from SE. That's not a criticism, though. I think it was intended that way.

Chain of Dogs in DG.
The Grey Swords in MoI.
Trull in RG.
Tool in DoD.

Now tell me if you STILL think this was the most dark, bleak thing.

Sure. It was the most dark, bleak thing I've read from SE. Talking about the whole book, not specific plotlines. Right before FoD I'd just rearead GotM through MoI, and RG is my favorite of the series.

[Hoods Breath]

Abyss, on 11 October 2012 - 08:12 PM, said:

Hoods Breath, on 11 October 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

I can partially agree with the OP. The book has an incredibly somber and sullen feel (for my tastes) and I found myself skimming through some of the character internal monologues that seem to be increasingly pervasive is Eriksons writing. Honestly... I don't think I need page upon page detailing every characters innermost thoughts. In some cases it's illuminating but in others it seems to get in the way of the plot and is too frequently done. At a certain moment, all the philosophizing seems to run together.
...

While i struggled a bit with the philosophizing, it helps to keep in mind that there is a narrator, a storyteller so to speak... SE himself said the story is likely told by Fisher, as related to him by Blind Gallan, so in that context the 'deep thought' contents of the narrative make sense, as with the meandering narrative in TtH as told by Kruppe.

For me.. the style of storytelling slowed the pacing and distracted from what should be a fairly intense story. I think what makes Rake, Silchas, Andarist, Draconus, MD intriguing is that we know so little about what they are really thinking. We have to try interpret their thoughts and motives through their actions and dialog. Perhaps Fisher is as good a storyteller as Grizzan Farl is a Protector.

Maybe we get a different narrator next time... I wonder if Olar Ethil can take up the pen.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

He was revealing so much information, I think he HAD to slow down the narrative.

I'm reminded of Robin Hobb's Liveship Trader's Trilogy. Each of those books has a huge middle chunk where everything slows down. You get into the characters heads. You start to feel what they are feeling, understand their struggles and they become more than words on paper. I think this was the goal with these books. MBotF was a 10 book series. Some parts had to march a little faster, and following around the marines was unlike anything else. The malazan marines WERE unlike anything else. But there are no Malazan marines in this series and you have to take that element out. I think it would be more phony if SE tried to replace that element with something else. And again, was Haut not funny enough for you? I could live the rest of my life with nothing but Jhagut humor.

As for tragedy, the life of Toc the Younger/Toc Anaster doesn't get more tragic. And I know it was ICE writing it, but Erekos death was hard for me to take, and even Traveller's cursory memory of him in TtH was moving. Mappo's futile quest to find Icarium? What a waste!

What can you say about Fisher? The man invites...confession...He got parts of this story from Envy, too. Maybe the next book will be via events told by Envy? Whatever. I don't care what it is. I'm gonna read the whore out of it.

[Smuuve]

Defiance, you can disagree if you like, but the proof will be in the total sales. I don't feel any need to argue my point, we will eventually have a total # of books sold, and we will see how successful it was not to feature Anomander, and how many people are happy with what we got.


To the person who said they "didn't understand" how someone can't see this is 100% backstory, well, the preable itself tells you that this may or may not be true, if you understand what 100% means, theres your answer.

This post has been edited by Smuuve: 12 October 2012 - 07:23 PM

[Kanese S's]

Stalking Stonny, on 12 October 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

He was revealing so much information, I think he HAD to slow down the narrative.

I'm reminded of Robin Hobb's Liveship Trader's Trilogy. Each of those books has a huge middle chunk where everything slows down. You get into the characters heads. You start to feel what they are feeling, understand their struggles and they become more than words on paper. I think this was the goal with these books. MBotF was a 10 book series. Some parts had to march a little faster, and following around the marines was unlike anything else. The malazan marines WERE unlike anything else. But there are no Malazan marines in this series and you have to take that element out. I think it would be more phony if SE tried to replace that element with something else. And again, was Haut not funny enough for you? I could live the rest of my life with nothing but Jhagut humor.

As for tragedy, the life of Toc the Younger/Toc Anaster doesn't get more tragic. And I know it was ICE writing it, but Erekos death was hard for me to take, and even Traveller's cursory memory of him in TtH was moving. Mappo's futile quest to find Icarium? What a waste!

What can you say about Fisher? The man invites...confession...He got parts of this story from Envy, too. Maybe the next book will be via events told by Envy? Whatever. I don't care what it is. I'm gonna read the whore out of it.

Never said the lack of humor (compared to some of the other books; the Jaghut humor was funny, it's just that there was less humor in this, at least to me) was a bad thing.

[King Lear]

Meh. I'm pretty sure Erikson said somewhere that the Kharkanas trilogy wasn't going to focus on Rake anyway, so if you're disappointed by that you probably should have paid more attention in the lead up to the book.

[worry]

Humor sucks anyway.

[kingryan69]

for me the saddest thing was the foreshadowing with Orfantal, especially with how carelessly his death was portrayed in the MBOTF book.

[Defiance]

Smuuve, on 12 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Defiance, you can disagree if you like, but the proof will be in the totalsales. I don't feel any need to argue my point, we will eventually have a total# of books sold, and we will see how successful it was not to featureAnomander, and how many people are happy with what we got.


To the person who said they "didn't understand" how someone can't seethis is 100% backstory, well, the preable itself tells you that this may or maynot be true, if you understand what 100% means, theres your answer.

Book reviews, not total number of books sold, is a far better way to evaluatehow good a book is. If we're talking in terms of commercial success, then sureyou've got a point, but that's another thing altogether. Compare, for example,Terry Goodkind and Steven Erikson. I think pretty much everyone here wouldagree that Goodkind is shit, yet unless I'm mistaken he's sold a lot more booksthan Erikson. There's a lot of mediocre fantasy out there that has sold betterthan Erikson. How well a book sells is no indication of its quality (another examplebeing the Eragon books). How well the book sells can also hardly be attributedto whether or not it predominantly features Anomander Rake. There are a varietyof factors that contribute to whether or not a book is good rather than the appearanceof a single character (unless we're talking about books with an obvious maincharacter like Harry Potter or Rand al'Thor or something like that). I supposeit's inevitable that there is a clash of views about this, but as stated beforeI really don't think seeing more of Anomander Rake would have been a goodthing. What has made him such an awesome character in the first place is themystery surrounding him and the fact that every scene he appears in he comesoff as awesome. That grandeur would be diminished - at least in my mind - byfollowing him around throughout most of the book.

[Kanese S's]

The preservation of Anomander Rake as a sort of larger than life persona, and the air of mystery around him, was one of the things I was quite relieved with in Forge. I think he had just enough "screen time."

[worry]

I fully agree. The one thing that didn't quite work -- and I believe Abyss addressed this originally -- is the scene where Anomander and Andarist name the sword. It's very stagey (deliberately, I'm sure), as if Gallan is intruding more than usual on these events with distanced, highly stylized dialogue choices. It's not a total failure of a scene by any means, but it does have less of an impact than it could. That said, I think it's Andarist that is mostly wrong(ed) there, not Anomander. And I think it's Hish Tulla -- a perfectly realized, absolutely wonderful character -- who redeems the scene at the end.

Then again, that's really one of my only criticisms of this book, which was startlingly near-ideal for me.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

That was the most deliberate Homer-via-Shakespeare moment in SE's writing, or at least I see it that way. Tragedy begets tragedy begets tragedy...Even more tragic since we already know Andarist's ultimate fate.

[Ceda Cicero]

I won't be happy until MTV options a reality TV show to follow up Jersey Shore called the Vitr Shore, where the Purake brothers live in a house in Glimmer Fate and we see every detail of Anomander's day to day routine--eating, washing dishes, evacuating his bowels... all of it. This is the prequel that should've been.

[Smuuve]

King Lear, on 12 October 2012 - 11:02 PM, said:

Meh. I'm pretty sure Erikson said somewhere that the Kharkanas trilogy wasn't going to focus on Rake anyway, so if you're disappointed by that you probably should have paid more attention in the lead up to the book.

You're "pretty sure" he said it "somewhere", but I should pay more attention. smh

[Smuuve]

Defiance, on 13 October 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Smuuve, on 12 October 2012 - 07:18 PM, said:

Defiance, you can disagree if you like, but the proof will be in the totalsales. I don't feel any need to argue my point, we will eventually have a total# of books sold, and we will see how successful it was not to featureAnomander, and how many people are happy with what we got.


To the person who said they "didn't understand" how someone can't seethis is 100% backstory, well, the preable itself tells you that this may or maynot be true, if you understand what 100% means, theres your answer.

Book reviews, not total number of books sold, is a far better way to evaluatehow good a book is. If we're talking in terms of commercial success, then sureyou've got a point, but that's another thing altogether. Compare, for example,Terry Goodkind and Steven Erikson. I think pretty much everyone here wouldagree that Goodkind is shit, yet unless I'm mistaken he's sold a lot more booksthan Erikson. There's a lot of mediocre fantasy out there that has sold betterthan Erikson. How well a book sells is no indication of its quality (another examplebeing the Eragon books). How well the book sells can also hardly be attributedto whether or not it predominantly features Anomander Rake. There are a varietyof factors that contribute to whether or not a book is good rather than the appearanceof a single character (unless we're talking about books with an obvious maincharacter like Harry Potter or Rand al'Thor or something like that). I supposeit's inevitable that there is a clash of views about this, but as stated beforeI really don't think seeing more of Anomander Rake would have been a goodthing. What has made him such an awesome character in the first place is themystery surrounding him and the fact that every scene he appears in he comesoff as awesome. That grandeur would be diminished - at least in my mind - byfollowing him around throughout most of the book.

Really, the reviews are what are important? So authors do tours to drum up Book "reviews" not sales? So they have a NY Times "Best Reviewed List"?? Why do I keep buying books that have "Best Selling Author"? Why have I never seen ads for Best Reviewed Author?? My point was that aruguing who likes it better is superflous, as I can say I like it or I don't like it or I can even say both. But if you bought and liked the book enough to keep it, there is a sale listed, period. Even if you SAY there isn't. Not only that, but what counts as a "review"? Is every mention on every blog a review? Who is the authority that decides what is or isn't a "review" and are you saying you actually scour and total all these sites? Even tho I thought the book was marginally O.K., I have read a review that said FOD was trash. So, even tho it was a blurb in a sci fi posting, it was a review, so by your definition, it is the determining factor in the success of this book.

This post has been edited by Smuuve: 19 October 2012 - 04:16 PM