[Ulysses]

So I am new to the board. I am reading the series for the first time. I just recently completed the wheel of time series and had previously attempted to read gardens of the moon. on my second drive I finished it and loved it more then any book from the WOT series.

So two books done in one month and half way through Memories of Ice. I don't know what happened but Erickson just completely turned me off on whiskey jack . without spoiling any thing I just cannot believe that whiskey jack would wish to protect any group of people who rape,kill and mane people, let alone eat them. lets not mention what these folks did to the children.

the specific interaction with rake and his attempting to protect a certain group of scum just rubs me the wrong way.

I will never be able to look at whiskey jack the same way.

[Gnaw]

Ulysses, on 23 March 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

the specific interaction with rake and his attempting to protect a certain group of scum just rubs me the wrong way.

I think you're missing the fate that those particular scum were facing. There are things worse than death. Especially in fantasy worlds.

[worry]

Besides, is maning people really that bad?

[Khellendros]

I suppose that Whiskeyjack is of the opinion that no one, no matter what they have done, is deserving of (seemingly) eternal torment. He's more of either rehabilitate or put them out of their/our misery kinda guy.

[tiam]

Finish the book. You risk alot going onto the specific forum for each book as they contain spoilers for that book in a very open way.

Having said that WJ acknowledges that the Tenescowri are simply victims of the Pannion Seer. They are driven to extreme acts as a result of tyranny

[Jonless]

Not to mention, that the main theme of the series is about compassion for others, regardless of what kind of horrible things they've done. You're not quite there yet, it does not become obvious until later on. But even looking at the second book, everything Coltaine does is about his compassion for the refuges, (Malazan imperialists, who he has no reason to care about at all) not loyalty or honor or some bullshit. He could easily abandon them and put down the rebellion himself, but he doesn't. What Whiskeyjack does does not need to be justified, he absolutely did the right thing, and it is a great early example of Erikson's running theme.

This post has been edited by Jonless: 23 March 2013 - 09:31 PM

[Hinter]

Ulysses, on 23 March 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

*snip
the specific interaction with rake and his attempting to protect a certain group of scum just rubs me the wrong way.

I will never be able to look at whiskey jack the same way.

Ha, just re-read this very scene.

Adding to what others have said, you seem to be missing the point. WJ is a soldier. He has a job to do and he does it, very well. However, as a soldier he baulks at killing the weak, innocent and defenceless (and the Mothers were certainly week and defenceless at the time, but recovering quickly). However, killing them with his own mundane sword was, to him, far more preferable than damning them to Dragnipur's eternal torment.

You have to remember that the Mothers did not choose this existence, they were corrupted by the Pannion Seer.

And as an aside, I liked the fact that this was the real insight into Rake's "soul" if you will. He ain't getting involved for shits and giggles.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Ive never heard this opinion before and it does raise an interesting question, kind of might vs right thing, but i also think that what WJ does here makes a very big impression on Rake sets up many events in future books. This theme is reflected in real life even today, too, where military decisions to eradicate certain enemies are reconciled constantly. Of course the tenescowri's are incredibly reprehensible to us, but also erikson was trying to make a point about fascism and using people. In fairness though Gruntle does fill up a small condo with their rotting husks and you can certainly get behind that too. Maybe we should how the rest of these characters' arcs play out through this book and the entire series, hmmmmmmmm?

[worry]

I hate liberals and scum as much as the next guy, but you guys make some strong arguments.

[Studlock]

Let's not forget that Whiskey Jack is a commander of a Empire and part of an imperialistic force. Not exactly the best kind of people. I think there's a pretty important quote from him that goes a little like this: "...speak not of worthy goals or just causes. We are taker of lives." I'm sure someone who has the book close to them can quote it better. But anyway I think a big part of book is Whiskey Jack coming to terms of being part of imperialistic machine and essentially at the end of the day empire is pretty much bad for anyone no matter where it comes from hence feeling compassion for the cannibalistic army. (One of my biggest complaints of SE writing is the rather pretty picture of the Malazan Empire he paints but I'll leave that alone.)

[Hinter]

worrywort, on 23 March 2013 - 11:18 PM, said:

I hate liberals and scum as much as the next guy, but you guys make some strong arguments.

What does this mean? In the context of this conversation this post is pointless.

I enjoy your trolling in the Phoenix Inn and other off-topic forums, and you have posted good stuff in the book forums but I fail to see what this adds to the thread.

[worry]

What I was adding to the thread is basic agreement with the arguments presented in Gnaw, Khell, tiam, Stonny, Jonless, and your posts. I thought you all sounded convincing, Khell in particular was short and sweet. Take what you want out of that, leave whatever you don't want. Not sure why you felt the impulse to report your enjoyment of my posting in general here, but suit yourself.

@Stud: I agree with you somewhat: WJ has come to terms with his role as a soldier -- but he wasn't that far away from the reality even during the GotM prologue. So I can't quite agree that what he's coming to terms with is -- to paraphrase your meaning, if I may -- the poison inherent in empire building. Like you say, you're leaving the topic alone, but I also disagree that SE has a rosy view of the Malazan Empire.

[Hinter]

worrywort, on 24 March 2013 - 02:26 AM, said:

What I was adding to the thread is basic agreement with the arguments presented in Gnaw, Khell, tiam, Stonny, Jonless, and your posts. I thought you all sounded convincing, Khell in particular was short and sweet. Take what you want out of that, leave whatever you don't want. Not sure why you felt the impulse to report your enjoyment of my posting in general here, but suit yourself.

I apologise. Your post seemed sarcastic to me. I obviously misread it.

[worry]

You don't have to apologize either. Put me on blast whenever you feel like it. I know it's the weekend, but some people board (while bored) from work and they need something exciting to read.

And I was (gently) poking fun at OP's strident, reductive use of "scum" and rather just bizarre use of "liberalism". Wouldn't call it sarcasm, just thought they were funny word choices to describe the various characters in this very fraught, complicated scene. But the thrust of my point was that everyone else covered the topic well.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Yeah I don't think WJ was lobbying for universal healthcare or even some path to citizenship in the empire for the Tenescowri. He just thought ruthless slaughter was not what these people needed. They needed food and clean water, and maybe some therapy. These are not cornerstones of liberal philosophy.

[Studlock]

@Worrywort the reason I thought Whiskyjack was coming to term with his part in a empire was because the way we worded the sentence and not to bash soldiers (AND I'm not going to) but generally speaking soldiers follow orders because it's there job to and not because of just causes or worthy goals. It also because while the army and WJ are attacking unofficially for the empire they are doing so official as rebels which I think adds up really nicely with question ones role in an empire rather than ones role as a soldier (which I'd argue he already came to terms with long before the events of this book). But I don't think it's set in stone, just my reading of the character and scene.

[Ulysses]

I just think that WJ logic is flawed by his arrogance. It is not his job to provide redemption to this filth, he is a soldier period.

I really liked him up to that point. I just can't forgive baby's being spiked over fire pits. No matter what lead an individual to committ murder, it is still murder and should be punished by death.

What Coltaine did in DhG was more then his job it was his duty. He did the right thing in a honorable way. he is much more the hero then WJ.

WJ is just a liberal attempting to impose his irrational views on others.

[Khellendros]

Ulysses, on 24 March 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

I just think that WJ logic is flawed by his arrogance. It is not his job to provide redemption to this filth, he is a soldier period.

I really liked him up to that point. I just can't forgive baby's being spiked over fire pits. No matter what lead an individual to committ murder, it is still murder and should be punished by death.

What Coltaine did in DhG was more then his job it was his duty. He did the right thing in a honorable way. he is much more the hero then WJ.

WJ is just a liberal attempting to impose his irrational views on others.

But, if we're speaking of the women Tenescowri, Whiskeyjack DID put them to death. The difference was not that he didn't think Anomander Rake should kill them, but that he shouldn't kill them with Dragnipur, which would be much more than just 'death'.

Also: "No matter what lead an individual to committ murder, it is still murder and should be punished by death." Going somewhat off book topic here, but really? In any and all cases? What about self-defence, say?

[Ulysses]

. they deserved the suffering that rake was going to give them. did they give those children a peaceful, painless death or did they roast them alive.

This is classic liberal speak, let's make the lethal injection as humane as possible. Never mind the family of four which was tortured.

I strongly believe in the Saudi way...blood for blood, justice for those injured.

[Gnaw]

Ulysses, on 24 March 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

I just think that WJ logic is flawed by his arrogance. It is not his job to provide redemption to this filth, he is a soldier period.

I really liked him up to that point. I just can't forgive baby's being spiked over fire pits. No matter what lead an individual to committ murder, it is still murder and should be punished by death.

What Coltaine did in DhG was more then his job it was his duty. He did the right thing in a honorable way. he is much more the hero then WJ.

WJ is just a liberal attempting to impose his irrational views on others.

Than. Then. Learn the difference.

And I think we're being trolled here.