[Spoilsport Stonny]

No one gives Kurt Vonnegut a bunch of shit for writing Breakfast of Champions one way and Hocus Pocus another. Kerouac's Subterraneans is stylistically different from Dharma Bums. Why does everything SE writes have to be continuously homogenous? Explorations in style helps to keep the story fresh. Can you imagine? "Oh here's Hood again..."

If we didn't have the change in tone from a descriptive fantasy novel with battle scenes and vivid carnage to a philosophical look at how we destroy everything we touch just by existing and how we can overcome that by showing even the most horrible and pathetic creatures compassion and empathy, it would make the overall theme of the series and universe seem less important and a cheap and heavy handed attempt at preaching at the end. Whereas now, these styles are inherent in the works of SE and don't come as a hollow admonishment from some pseudointellectual douchebag who thinks he knows more about how civilization works than us simple and wasteful horrid white people. Its just good writing, NO! DAMN GOOD WRITING! over the course of 1000's of pages of world building and conscience-shaping.

[blackzoid]

You are are acting as if those philosophical leanings were NOT present in books DG-MT of the Malazan cycle. They most certainly were.
From DG-FOD we have actually gone from "descriptive fantasy novel with battle scenes and vivid carnage AND philosophical looking at stuff" to "philosophical look at loads of things as the primary focus of the book". Its the RATIO of these philosophical musings that are been talked about. Its incorrect to say that there were no philosophical leanings in those earlier books. And to be honest, the change of tone in this book is not that big. It feels very DOD-like to me. The bigger change of tone happens within the 10 book cycle itself. Comparing DG and DoD is very stark as regards POV inner musings and such. It now pretty much is the entire point of a SE Malazan book. To muse about things.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 29 January 2013 - 03:26 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

You are absolutely right about the books being philosophical from the beginning. in DG, Duiker's thoughts and Mappo and Icarium's conversations were very contemplative. But I was not saying that the philosophy was not present, I was saying its delivered differently, due to the things that happen in the books, i.e. Itkovian (his effect on Rake was profound), Cotillion possessing Sorry (again a huge effect), Mappo losing Icarium, Lostara assassinating Shaik, Truth sacrificing himself...

As these things add up, I can't help but think we too as the reader suffers along with the rest at the loss of characters we know. As the story progresses, do we ask ourselves if its all worth it? SHould have Itkovian done his thing? Rake's subsequent sacrifice? Do these mean anything if we do not have the inward thoughts of those characters, and the characters around those characters, contemplating the many and myriad decisions that all add up to the present situation? We may not have th eanswers we are looking for but we have an impression of the sacrifice and horror and pain and joy that they go through via philosophical inner monologues, that may seem strange to you, but are anything but to me. I am constantly thinking of right vs wrong, do I have the right way of things, am I doing what I am supposed to be doing and showing my fellow humans the right way to be? I dunno, but I DO know that when I read about characters going through things, it certainly makes me feel closer to those characters when I have more of a context to fit their belief system into. Call me crazy but I like to think when I read.

And aside from FoD which gave pretty damn good reasons why there were no battle scenes, I think the action has been made MORE suspenseful and rewarding because of whatever stylistic changes.

But I digress, because I do not want to descend into argument. I like this forum and dont wanna be the dick on it. I can understand where you both (and D'rek to lesser extent) are coming from, but because I think we have been given a truly remarkable product, that your complaint/concern/issue/whatever just isn't valid enough to render this book a disappointment.

[blackzoid]

But theres been no major stylistic changes really. This book is essentially the same as DoD in all that you have mentioned in the above post. Rake's sacrifice was as thoroughly mused about in TTH as it was in FOD. I'm not exactly saying that the OP is 100% correct. I think the ratio of musings about stuff has been off since RG. Not just in FOD.

[Defiance]

While I don't agree with the criticism, I can understand it.

While philosophical undertones and musings have always existed in the books, they've certainly increased in frequency and depth over the last couple of books. For some people, such as myself, this is great. I love this sort of thing, especially because I see it so little (and even when it is present in other works, I often find it hamfisted or ineffective). I don't agree with some people's criticism of "x" wouldn't think like that because he's just a common farmer/soldier etc., because honestly it's a degrading and classist view that ignores the universality of the human condition and is founded upon the assumption that someone in a "simple" job must be simpleminded and that formal education is the only path to deep thoughts.

There is certainly a similar tone to the musings throughout the book. Beyond the fact that Tiste society is in decay, I think part of this derives from having an omnipotent narrator. Gallan, as a poet, feeds on stuff like this, and so it's much more prominently featured (in my mind, he might extrapolate on a small thought/idea that a character has about art, taking the spark of an idea and making it into a fire).

This works for some people. It doesn't work for others. I don't find it to be didactic at all - I have always felt that Erikson is presenting a variety of ideas and viewpoints as a means of conversation and thought rather than the belief that any is necessarily correct. I think what sometimes irritates people is that he's so damn effective at creating arguments/viewpoints that often contradict or own, and this makes us uncomfortable as readers. If just as much pain and suffering coupled with cool logic has forged a character's viewpoint, and their view directly contradicts our own, it's much harder to point at them and say "no, you have the wrong of it, that's not the way things are." It's easy to demonize issues, but it's much harder to demonize the person behind them if you actually have a grasp of where they're coming from.

All of this said, I can understand not liking this sort of stuff. It's not because some of us aren't intelligent enough to grasp it (which is a criticism readers often use that I fucking hate; we all have different tastes), it's that different things speak to different people. When we consider books like Deadhouse Gates and Memories of Ice I think there's a reason they are far more universal. Every Erikson book has excellent writing, but the content of those two books is something that is much more universal. There's a lot of everything in those books, but neither of them have what most readers would consider "too much" of something (except maybe the Mhybe). The musings that do exist add to the immediate context of the plot, and as a result they exist clearly within the framework of the books. In the later books, though, the musings themselves form a sort of intangible theme that can be separated from the plot at large. Some people possess the mindset of "If I want to read a story I'll read a book, if I wanted to read philosophy I'd go read Kierkegaard." I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Anyway, just my rambling thoughts. I hope that Fall of Light proves to be more satisfying than Forge of Darkness for those of you who didn't enjoy it.

[blackzoid]

Excellent post Defiance. You have explained exactly the situation. I especially agree with the points that:

1: "I don't agree with some people's criticism of "x" wouldn't think like that because he's just a common farmer/soldier etc., because honestly it's a degrading and classist view that ignores the universality of the human condition and is founded upon the assumption that someone in a "simple" job must be simpleminded and that formal education is the only path to deep thoughts." Very much agree, farmers can have deep thoughts as much as everyone. Just every time Erikson jumps to a farmer they seem to be having a philosophical thought. Not worrying about sheep quality or whatnot. But yes, farmers and soldiers and "common" people can be deep.

2: "I don't find it to be didactic at all - I have always felt that Erikson is presenting a variety of ideas and viewpoints as a means of conversation and thought rather than the belief that any is necessarily correct." Yes, its NOT actually Didactic. Erikson doesn't only show one viewpoint musing, he shows conflicting musings.

However
"I think what sometimes irritates people is that he's so damn effective at creating arguments/viewpoints that often contradict or own, and this makes us uncomfortable as readers. If just as much pain and suffering coupled with cool logic has forged a character's viewpoint, and their view directly contradicts our own, it's much harder to point at them and say "no, you have the wrong of it, that's not the way things are." It's easy to demonize issues, but it's much harder to demonize the person behind them if you actually have a grasp of where they're coming from."

Unfortunately while I agree with all of the above, its ....again......the number of times I now have to do that in every SE book that now exhausts me. Even when the viewpoint is something I strongly agree with, I've already had to go through half-a dozen other arguments in the same vein earlier on. Its effect is reduced for me as a result. The philosophy seemed to have a deeper impact (for me) in HoC and MT because there was less of it to get through.


"I hope that Fall of Light proves to be more satisfying than Forge of Darkness for those of you who didn't enjoy it."
For consistency I actually would prefer if the last 2 books keep the same level of inner musings. He might as well keep going now. Just that the levels change for the Karsa trilogy. Not that I want an entire trilogy in the vein of the first part of HoC. Thats too much in the opposite direction.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 29 January 2013 - 10:44 PM

[worry]

Yah I hope the Karsa trilogy isn't gonna be all Karsa all the time....somewhere in between perhaps, where it works as a trilogy like this one does, but with the diversity of MBOTF. Particularly a clash between the Empire, Karsa, and the gods would suit my fancy.

[D'rek]

Good post Defiance, a lot of good points there. I've often argued before that there is nearly or just as much philosophy in the early MBotF books as the later ones (except perhaps GotM), and I agree that that holds true here - FoD does not necessarily have more of it than, say, TCG or tBH. For me, the problem lies in that I found much of the rest of the book (the plot, whereas I view most of the philosophy as aria-style thematic development) to be not as varied or developed as much of MBotF. While a more constrained plot is not necessarily a bad thing, and SE spoke about doing FoD this way while writing it, too, for me it pushed the ratio of what I felt FoD was focusing upon too far into long-winded thematic exposition. But that is just my personal tastes and obviously many people loved it that way.

worrywort, on 29 January 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

Yah I hope the Karsa trilogy isn't gonna be all Karsa all the time....somewhere in between perhaps, where it works as a trilogy like this one does, but with the diversity of MBOTF. Particularly a clash between the Empire, Karsa, and the gods would suit my fancy.

Random thought. Karsa has always been pretty good and putting his own complex thoughts and viewpoints of society into brief statements or expressions. Who knows what SE will do with the Toblakai trilogy, but if he does focus on Karsa a lot it could result in the Andii and Toblakai being a sort of counter-pointed pair of trilogies. Both exploring the nature of failing societies, with the Andii being in the society and musing about it's fall and the Teblor being outside the society and succinctly bringing it down.

[Salt-Man Z]

Personally, I think it'd be fantastic if the Karsa trilogy was 100% Karsa's POV. I think Erikson could work some magic with that.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Back on topic, yes, SE is didactic, but since he's a great writer it can work out. Some who have been reading the series for a long time and some new readers are a little tired of it. I think without his long musings the books would be shorter and less engrossing. Its just something to make my 1-2 hours a day I get to read that much more intense. I can deal with the stylistic prose. I went after SE originally because of the size of the books and the scope of the world and the depth of the philosophy. I knew what I was getting into. That's why I have a hard time understanding the criticism. At no point was I told SE was going to be an easy read.

[IgnatiusKruppe]

I feel like most of the books fall into this problem at times.. But that isn't the problem, the problem is a Korlat and a Crokus' inner monologues are in the same voice.
Just seems like Erickson has a hard time channelling his own philosophies through his characters in a way that makes them more unique.
I didn't think FOD was that far out of the realm of the other books. Less humor for certain, but It worked for this story

[Tes'thesula]

I had great trouble with the first half of this book. To be frank I found it boring, bloated and self-indulgent. I don't think length is good simply for length's sake. For most of the book I was thinking this would be the last SE book I bought, which made me very sad for I was such a fan of MBotF. I really don't need to be beaten over the head with how wonderful the forests are...

[worry]

I can't wait to see what comes after the ellipses.

[Puck]

Tes, on 31 January 2013 - 11:27 PM, said:

I had great trouble with the first half of this book. To be frank I found it boring, bloated and self-indulgent. I don't think length is good simply for length's sake. For most of the book I was thinking this would be the last SE book I bought, which made me very sad for I was such a fan of MBotF. I really don't need to be beaten over the head with how wonderful the forests are...

But... the whole point is that the forests aren't wonderful..

[worry]

Yah, the Tiste ecological destruction, especially to blackwood forests, was a background thing from fairly early on in MBOTF, hints and pieces here and there. I loved it then (as I did with the stuff about the ay and other species that the Imass overhunted), and was more than pleased it wasn't forgotten. It seems especially pertinent with the Edur storyline, especially once we get to the creation of Emurlahn (where at least shadows of blackwood forests exist IIRC). I'm excited!

[Spoilsport Stonny]

I concur. The first part of this book did a great job of keeping the ancient realms mysterious but familiar, as well as being fucking amazing. Just the part where Draconus' party rnters the azathanai town and Olat Ethil and Old Man. Seriously you thought it was 'boring', Thes? I thought it was pure high fantasy.

[blackzoid]

What did Old Man do that was so exciting again?

[Spoilsport Stonny]

He appeared.

It was part of a scene that expanded what all of us THOUGHT we knew about the Elder Gods; 20 years of conjecture and everyone was WAY off. Kind of mind-blowing to me. Also I saw him do stand up at Helium in Philly and the guy is a riot.

[worry]

Plus his conversation with Draconus is awesome and hints at all that's coming with the Azathanai, the Vitr, and even the High King. Plus just being in his presence can kill you like you're in outer space, if you're not careful, so Arathan almost looked like Arnie at the end of Total Recall for a second there.

[Tes'thesula]

I guess I'm not saying that the themes themselves are bad - just that the delivery was poor. I think he could have said all he wanted to say, as well as had all the events he wanted to have and done it in a way that did not bore and frustrate me.

Like he did with his earlier books.

This post has been edited by Tes'thesula: 02 February 2013 - 09:28 PM