[Hermetic Tantric]

Thanks for finding that. I guess one read through the series isn't enough! Oh well, back to reading OST. I forgot about the significance to the title First Sword after Tool got his ask handed to him by that Seguleh. First who???

[Vaddon Ra]

Where are you now, Logros? Do you feel me, so fiercely reborn? My heir – your chosen child – has rejected the role. His footfalls now mark the passing of tragedy. You have made him the God of Tears, and now that Hood is gone he must hunt down the next one who made him what he was. Do you tremble, Logros? Dassem is coming for you. He is coming for you.
[p. 239 of the HC]
[/spoiler]

Reading the text before interpreting stuff does help occasionally. And I'm saying that in general and not aimed at anyone in particular, as I've been in a couple of severe arguments about that kind of thing on here recently.
[/quote]


Thanks for this, I've been meaning to ask about it for some time. I remember that passage, but seeing as I was flying through TCG at the time and Dassem's story, I thought, was done I kinda cocked an eyebrow at it, tried to figure it out, then shrugged and ploughed on to an awesome convergence... Just so I've got this right, insofar as we can understand, I'll write out what I think this means basically and you all can dismiss me or nod and I can go my merry way back to lesser books and feeble attempts at writing anything 'epic'.. Ha.. HAHA!

Anyway so T'ool is the first sword, which means he represents the Imass and their burden? Either way it's a massive responsibility especially after thousands of years of lifeless existence.
Logros magically swapped T'ools first swordiness to Dassem, cos in the current human empire he was uber and a good replacement, but in doing so Dassem has the weight of an entire undead, grief stricken culture on his back.... How am I doing so far :S
SO Hood in the meantime is grumbling cos an entire race of people snuck past his deathtouch and so seeing that foolish imass have made a mortal their mortal sword he makes a bond with Dassem in order to punish the T'lan Imass... ????
Then I get a little lost... so When Dassem swears vengeance on Hood the bond is broken with the Imass as well? But why did Hood take his daughter? Was causing Dassem pain directly linked to causing the Imass pain? Either way he ascends because of Deadhouse/ all round badassiness / Logros' blessing / Hoods blessing....

what did I miss?

[tiam]

Hermetic Tantric- To be honest I havnt got a clue what your on about with all your fancy magic stuff but as Puck with her quote fu has stated Dassem is not Arathan down the line. Also I see you mention that Dassems daughter was dead which isnt the case as she is in the Deadhouse with Gothos. We see her in DG.

Puck- 2 things

-You state 'He may also have been pissed about his favourite subject becoming a god in his own right, but that's pure speculation on my part.'. It isnt pure speculation as im sure in the earlier books that Dassem grew to be Hoods rival which im sure contributed towards his eventual targeting by Hood. I think its mentioned on regards to Karsa aswell as during one of his POV scenes someone speculates 'when did Hood last know a rival?' so I think its a safe bet thats why Hood targeted Dassem.

-As I reread that Tool quote a theory that occurred to me a while ago came back.'

And Onos T'oolan knew he would soon return to the side of Dassem Ultor, his mortal shadow who had taken for himself – and for his closest followers – the title of First Sword. Prophetic inspiration, for they would soon all be dead – as dead as Onos T'oolan, as dead as the T'lan Imass. Or if not dead, then… destroyed.'

Could it not be then the title of First Sword is in fact bound to the ritual itself? We know there is a strange connection between Tool and OE, given her antics in TCG, and, based on Draconus reaction in DOD/TCG, she was instrumental in the Rituals construction, which makes sense as of FOD she is the mother of her people. So the title of First sword is infact the embodiment of the Ritual with Logross binding the Imass to the new First Sword thus reinvigorating the Ritual and binding Dassem, and Temper and Ferrule possibly, to its will. In the quote its stated they will become as dead as the Imass who we know are not truly undead their souls are simply bound to their body. Also given the heavy links were given between the CGRD Vow and the Ritual would it be difficult to imagine that Dassem and his sword as a result of Logros machinations became embroiled in it in a similar way the Guard? It seems strange given that literally thousands of Imass beg for the release of mortality in MOI yet Tool, by simply relinquishing his title as First Sword is allowed to become mortal again

moderate Blood and Bone spoiler

Spoiler

we see in the POV before the Vow takes place that a figure resembling an Imass was seen potentially OE or Kilava thus providing an Imass link?

Anyway just a thought.

Vaddon Ra- 'When Dassem swears vengeance on Hood the bond is broken with the Imass as well? But why did Hood take his daughter? Was causing Dassem pain directly linked to causing the Imass pain?'

No the bond isnt broken with the Imass. The Imass inflict their 'blessing' upon Dassem. Hood uses this link and makes, a possibly unsuspecting, Dassem his Knight as a link. I know it seems strange that Dassem would be unsuspecting about a link with Hood but at this time, as we see from NOK, patronage with martial benefits was fairly common. Theres Surgen, that Jhag half breed who drove Dassem back with the 'blessing of an unknown ascendent on his blade' and so on. Its plausible that Dassem welcomed Hoods offer of patronage to contend with the Seven Cities champions on an even footing however when he took such a patronage he gained momentum and godlike power. In any case Dassem accepts and as a result Hood, in an effort to get back at the Imass who he couldnt attack directly, uses Dassems daughter in the chaining in some cursing Dassem and the Imass by extension.

This post has been edited by Jean-Claude Van tiam: 23 February 2013 - 07:55 PM

[Randomander]

I really don't think that dassem is arathen, I've read through the series a few times and i just don't see the correlation. Dassem's story on its own is epic on a pretty grand scale, and I feel like to throw in "oh yeah by the way he's also draconus's son" is borderline absurd.

[The Hust Legion]

i highly doubt it as elder beings are rare so one just walking around hell bent on killing hood would get noticed by many
also arathan meets hood when he is chained up in that pit i dont get that feeling that hood and dassem had a relationship stretching that far back ,
also elder being serving a jaghut doesnt add up

[Abyss]

The Hust Legion, on 24 May 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

...also elder being serving a jaghut doesnt add up

I agree Arathan isn't Dassem - but as an aside, the above is not entirely unthinkable. Eleint signed on to the Jaghut War on Death. Various Elder Gods deal with Gothos as an equal. Hood too, but he's (was) an ascended Jaghut.

(

[The Hust Legion]

Abyss, on 24 May 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

The Hust Legion, on 24 May 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

...also elder being serving a jaghut doesnt add up

I agree Arathan isn't Dassem - but as an aside, the above is not entirely unthinkable. Eleint signed on to the Jaghut War on Death. Various Elder Gods deal with Gothos as an equal. Hood too, but he's (was) an ascended Jaghut.

(

i agree with the gothos point but even in forge of darkness he was very highly rated lord of hate and so on , elder gods dealt with them but as equals not as servants
me personally i cant see mael or krul or draconus serving hood
arathan i believe will get a lot more powerful once he discovers he is azathanai , and judging in terms of raw power the azathanai come first then the jaghut , so its illogical that arathan would serve hood ( i guess age and wisdom could play a factor as arathan was like a kid when he first met hood but after 3000000 that diff in age becomes in valid)
to be honest arathan could serve hood but i just dont see it happening because of lots of reasons

[Trull's son]

We've already seen a particular hammer wielding azathanai serving a Tiste in GotM. Why not a Jaghut? Seems reasonable to me.

[worry]

Caladan Brood is in no way a servant, even in GotM.

[The Hust Legion]

i agree with sorrysort he doesnt serve caladan brood
it is stressed that he is a friend of anomander rake , becasue rake doesnt have many proper firends and brood is one of them
he is not a servant

[Trull's son]

sorrysort, on 25 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

Caladan Brood is in no way a servant, even in GotM.

He isn't a servant in so far as he does everything that anomander wants without question. He does serve Anomander nonetheless, taking control of part of his army and working towards Anomander's military goals at that point (unless I'm mistaken; I don;t recall Brood having alternate goals at that point, aside from helping a bud). He serves, but is not subservient.

This post has been edited by Trull's son: 26 May 2013 - 02:59 AM

[Puck]

That's a wholly different kind of serve. You're not a servant when you agree to help a friend

[Spoilsport Stonny]

They are more than friends cuz of their oath. They do not serve one another, but are SWORN to one another.

[Trull's son]

I was writing with this post in mind.

Abyss, on 24 May 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

The Hust Legion, on 24 May 2013 - 05:54 PM, said:

...also elder being serving a jaghut doesnt add up

I agree Arathan isn't Dassem - but as an aside, the above is not entirely unthinkable. Eleint signed on to the Jaghut War on Death. Various Elder Gods deal with Gothos as an equal. Hood too, but he's (was) an ascended Jaghut. (

So we're talking about an elder races, like eleint, serving mortal race in some fashion. This is the kind of serve we're talking about here.

Puck, on 26 May 2013 - 01:03 PM, said:

That's a wholly different kind of serve. You're not a servant when you agree to help a friend

You're saying it's different only (probably) in the reason for serving the other. If we serve someone for duty, like a signed contract, or if we serve them because they helped you move last month and it's owed plus you get some beer and pizza afterward, the fact remains that you have served someone else in some fashion.


The original point I was responding to was the idea of an azathanai serving another's purpose. No one is arguing that Brood is a servant against his will. I was making the parallel with the idea of Arathan serving a Jaghut. Azathanai serving a mortal race. We aren't sure why he would do this (and it's only hypothetical at this point), but for sake of argument if we must reclassify "serving" based on the reasons for their collusion, this will get ridiculous. Brood works towards Anomander's goal due to friendship. Arathan may work towards Gothos' or Hood's goal for his own reason (maybe even friendship). Eleint served Hood in the war against death for their own reasons. At least in the short term, they are serving another's purpose. The fact that they do so of their own volition does not change the fact that they are, in fact, serving a mortal race. We're going get mired in semantic issues here.

The question becomes: what ties an Azathanai to the interests of another, especially to the mortal races? For Brood, it was the oath (and later friendship). Bugg and Tehol (frendship, or boredom). Nightchill (I believe that was her name) at least briefly served the Malazan empire for some reason. I'm sure there are other examples.

[tiam]

Trull, on 26 May 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

The original point I was responding to was the idea of an azathanai serving another's purpose. No one is arguing that Brood is a servant against his will. I was making the parallel with the idea of Arathan serving a Jaghut. Azathanai serving a mortal race. We aren't sure why he would do this (and it's only hypothetical at this point), but for sake of argument if we must reclassify "serving" based on the reasons for their collusion, this will get ridiculous. Brood works towards Anomander's goal due to friendship. Arathan may work towards Gothos' or Hood's goal for his own reason (maybe even friendship). Eleint served Hood in the war against death for their own reasons. At least in the short term, they are serving another's purpose. The fact that they do so of their own volition does not change the fact that they are, in fact, serving a mortal race. We're going get mired in semantic issues here.

The question becomes: what ties an Azathanai to the interests of another, especially to the mortal races? For Brood, it was the oath (and later friendship). Bugg and Tehol (frendship, or boredom). Nightchill (I believe that was her name) at least briefly served the Malazan empire for some reason. I'm sure there are other examples.

How is it solely anomanders goal to resist the Empire? If anything Brood seems to be the one doing most of the resisting and Rake only lent him his troops. If the Andii werent there would Brood still combat the Empire? We see in MOI that Rake would actually welcome the Empire for its stability and its firm but fair law system so how do we know Brood isnt the main opponent of Malaz? In fact it makes sense as with Rake dead in OST we see Brood still on Genabackis with the Rhivi who he clearly has some affinity for. What im getting at is that motivations are anything but clear.

I dont think its a semantic issue. At the end of FOD we dont see Hood issue an order to his army we see him simply raise a banner and see people with a similar axe to grind. I think you see a common goal as servitude. If Andarist had raised the banner against death in the name of Enesdia and Hood, having just recently lost his wife, had joined Andarists army would he be a servant of Andarist or would it simply a mutually agreed interest?

Serving anothers purpose does not make you a servant.

This post has been edited by Jean-Claude Van tiam: 26 May 2013 - 04:13 PM

[Trull's son]

Clearly my mistake was implying that Brood was serving Anomander, instead of saying Brood's interests aligned with those of Anomander insofar as he then took military action in order to progress a cause who's figure head happened to be Anomander Rake.

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 26 May 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

How is it solely anomanders goal to resist the Empire? If anything Brood seems to be the one doing most of the resisting and Rake only lent him his troops. If the Andii werent there would Brood still combat the Empire? We see in MOI that Rake would actually welcome the Empire for its stability and its firm but fair law system so how do we know Brood isnt the main opponent of Malaz?

This is a good point. Might be it is Brood leading this resistance. It has been a while since I've read GotM, but I'm fairly certain Rake was considered the resistance leader. Then again, it was Brood that fought the moranth. It is perhaps similar to how a Fist may act under directions from a High Fist? These directions may allow for the Fist to have a relatively independent position in achieving a goal, but the goal is still serving the higher purpose, ultimately directed by the High Fist.

Quote

I dont think its a semantic issue.

I think it has become one. I googled the definition for serve quick:

"Verb
Perform duties or services for (another person or an organization)."

You point out that approaching a common goal is not inherently servitude. I agree, so long as the participants are on equal footing and have equal say in the matter. Working towards the goal serves personal interests, and so they would not be performing duties for another. But, in a militaristic situation there will be a chain of command. If a command falls from on high, then that command will be followed. Brood may even agree with the command, as it will serve his personal interest. So technically, the outside observer will see Brood perform duties for Anomander and his cause. Internally, Brood is serving his own interests. What's important here is that Brood is serving Anomander, and himself. Why a few of you resist this idea seems to indicate that "servant" is associated with a negative connotation (that of subservience). Though I don't normally associate the word with this negativity, and technically it shouldn't be(if definitions were static and unchanging, which is not the case), I see that generally the idea of a servant to a person or cause implies that they are controlled in some way by that person or cause. Brood is certainly not controlled by external forces in GotM (if any actually could).

Quote

Serving anothers purpose does not make you a servant.

Actually, it technically does.
servant definition:
"Noun: A person who performs duties for others"

That said, what I've gathered from this discussion is that serving your own purpose does not make you a servant. Serving another's interest by your own will does not make you a servant. I don't agree with this, but it seems to be how we associate servitude to a person without getting mixed up with all that "being a servant to someone/something" issue. This whole discussion is ridiculous.

This post has been edited by Trull's son: 26 May 2013 - 07:27 PM

[Puck]

It is very much ridiculous, because the definition of serving you yourself posted does not add up to what you seem to think serving means in this discussion. You are also contradicting yourself as well as missing the point.

[Trull's son]

Of course I was contradicting myself, that was the idea. I suppose the sarcasm wasn't emphasized enough. Best we drop the whole affair. I get the point, don't worry. Essentially, we all like to agree that "They are more than friends cuz of their oath. They do not serve one another, but are SWORN to one another." Stonny pretty much sums it up.

This post has been edited by Trull's son: 27 May 2013 - 12:11 AM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

This all reminds me of that wonderful Merchant-Ivory film, The Remains of the Day. Anthony Hopkins says this:

Quote

I don't believe a man can consider himself fully content until he has done all he can to be of service to his employer. Of course, this assumes that one's employer is a superior person, not only in rank, or wealth, but in moral stature.

A great film and a great statement on servitutde and servants.

This post has been edited by Spoilsport Stonny: 27 May 2013 - 12:46 AM

[nacht]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 27 May 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

This all reminds me of that wonderful Merchant-Ivory film, The Remains of the Day. Anthony Hopkins says this:

Quote

I don't believe a man can consider himself fully content until he has done all he can to be of service to his employer. Of course, this assumes that one's employer is a superior person, not only in rank, or wealth, but in moral stature.

A great film and a great statement on servitutde and servants.

Screw the English Lords and their manor houses.

On this topic, I will quote G.W. McLintock (dare I say that McLintock would be a better movie to watch :-)

Quote

Devlin Warren: I am just a hired hand around here
Mclintock: Every so often Dev, you spell the strangest ideas. Everybody works for somebody. I work for everybody in East United States that steps into a butcher shop for a T-Bone steak and you work for me, it is not much difference