[teleri]

Hello,

I have sometimes seen Erikson make remarks, often in a casual way, about eternal suffering after death for something done in life. This strikes me as an unusually conservative and narrow view of his (although it certainly rises from the heart of his increasingly clear grudge with the world). Wouldn't the punishment at least stand in some relation of amount or time to the amount or time inflicted in life? Or is it the "idea" that is cetnral here, and is it therefore timeless? Would it not be enough to ground the soul to dust after a while or end its existence? How does upholding it do any good? Or is this not just an indirect proof of the insupportability of the idea of the immortality of the soul?
Let me explain that I think a certain amount of suffering in revenge ceases to have any meaning in direction at a certain individual or as revenge. I think bodily pain is a manifestation independent and destructive of individuality. Any individuality cannot be upheld in the face of suffering, which sort of seems to be its function and why we need to get away from it (upholding your ego when the dentist drills into a tooth would only make the procedure much worse and you would be more likely to panic). What do you think of this aspect of Erikson's handling of the netherworld?

This post has been edited by teleri: 02 November 2013 - 11:03 AM

[Aptorian]

You're posting this in the Midnight Tides forum so I am wondering if there is a specific scene or mention of the after life you are referring to? What makes you think that the author believes and in fact supports the notion of somebody being condemned to eternal suffering? You are remembering to separate the views of a fictional character from the person views of the author, right?

I mean in our reality, there is no such thing as eternal suffering because as far as we know from a purely scientific view point there is no after life. So, eternal suffering is just a philosophical notion that doesn't really matter.

Do you want to discuss what equals fair and just punishment in general? The idea of torture as a means of penance? If so maybe the Discussion subforum would be a better venue for this topic.

This post has been edited by Crustaceous Apt: 02 November 2013 - 11:44 AM

[teleri]

Quote

You're posting this in the Midnight Tides forum so I am wondering if there is a specific scene or mention of the after life you are referring to? What makes you think that the author believes and in fact supports the notion of somebody being condemned to eternal suffering? You are remembering to separate the views of a fictional character from the person views of the author, right?

I posted this here mainly because there is no general forum for discussion about the series, which I would have preferred, since certainly it doesn't matter to one particular book, although this is where I currently am. I thought about differentiating the author, nanrrator and fictional layer more, but this would be purely formal correctness (one is not supposed to equate characters with narrators with authors etc), however in the contextt his would be a redundant formula, since it's clear by the contex that the author is not contesting of the notion.

In Midnight Tides it was simply mentioned as part of a local belief system, but since it was said to be reserved for murderers and betrayers, and since betrayal is a trigger word in the books and a main theme, coming up in all sorts of contexts with similar connotations, as THE bad thing inherent in the world history etc., and since it also was said with some suggestion of the possible reality of this belief (or some belief with a similar set of rules), it seems to be a genuine "idea" of the author, rather than a "vengeful" and "subjective", culural manifestation of this particular belief.

But this is not where I noticed it first, and it certainly is not a big incident or grand argument for the matter, or whatever. I remember from House of Chains that it was said in the end about the death of one of the main sadistic villains, that he would find eternal suffering in death, for finding pleasure in inflicting pain during his life, since even Hood had a sense of balance. So it is clearly suggested, not only as a main function of the world, but even of balance, to have this eternity of pain for sadistic crimes in life. Eternity for a lifetime (or even many lifetimes) usually doesn't immediately seem "balanced" , so I thought the word was chosen with deliberation. I think it was Kalam's point of view, but it was not clearly marked as subjective, and it's clear that some characters act as sounding boards for the author. I didn't linger on this much afterwards, but since this has become more clear over time, I thought I'd bring this up as a topic

But so much for explanation.

Quote

I mean in our reality, there is no such thing as eternal suffering because as far as we know from a purely scientific view point there is no after life. So, eternal suffering is just a philosophical notion that doesn't really matter.

You seem to have misunderstood me, because that remark obviously doesn't make sense in the context of the book discussion. (However, it might be possible to see certain purely logical implications of considering such an idea, which might show their impossibility in some such fictional context. But this is a bit hazy, and it's just something that came to mind, and not that important for mentioning this "topic" of Erikson's books, as it were.)

Quote

Do you want to discuss what equals fair and just punishment in general? The idea of torture as a means of penance? If so maybe the Discussion subforum would be a better venue for this topic.

Hm, not really in general. One presupposes some general notions, of course, but the topic is about the books, obviously. If no one wants to discuss it or no one cares about it, then fine. It's just "something" about the books, that's all. Like... stuff in book forums.



More in regard to general vengefulness in the books, aside from life after death, I remember a passage about delivering freshly killed criminals off the streets to feed the barriers of an Azath, and it was cheekily said that there would be no "shortage" of such bodies, meaning no shortage of worthless people to kill and deliver. So I think that there is a certain pattern, whcih strikes me as a bit radical. Again, this point of view was the sympathetic one, and it was not meant as "statement of fact", that there sort of happen to be so many from exectutions, but rather that there would be "found" enough valid candidates.
I don't see Erikson as a hateful author, but I'm beginning to be skeptical of this streak in his books, though I grant that I might be misunderstanding it nonetheless, that I don't get the particular "tone" of some passages, even though there is no open sign to suggest a particular irony or skepticism on his own part

This post has been edited by teleri: 02 November 2013 - 01:27 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

It never ceases to amaze me how often, particularly with Erikson, that people will ascribe a belief that a character espouses with SE himself. In the case of MBotF, the author has taken the numerous belief systems he has encountered in his travels and studies and given his charactets voices to profess those beliefs. I think it does a reader a major disservice to automatically assume that because an author's creation believes and behaves a certain way that that is a direct reflection of the author. Whethet or not you believe in a concept or find it reprehensible or not has absolutely ZERO impact on whether or not the idea of that concept exists and for an author to only speak with his own voice would severly limit the credibility of the world he/she is attempting to populate with enough realism to inmerse a reader wholly.

[worry]

teleri, on 02 November 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I posted this here mainly because there is no general forum for discussion about the series

There actually is one, so hopefully a Mod can move this thread there if necessary, but you'll want to make sure to emphasize that you're only up to Midnight Tides either way. It's a tough discussion to have without first completing the series though.

[teleri]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 02 November 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

It never ceases to amaze me how often, particularly with Erikson, that people will ascribe a belief that a character espouses with SE himself. In the case of MBotF, the author has taken the numerous belief systems he has encountered in his travels and studies and given his charactets voices to profess those beliefs. I think it does a reader a major disservice to automatically assume that because an author's creation believes and behaves a certain way that that is a direct reflection of the author. Whethet or not you believe in a concept or find it reprehensible or not has absolutely ZERO impact on whether or not the idea of that concept exists and for an author to only speak with his own voice would severly limit the credibility of the world he/she is attempting to populate with enough realism to inmerse a reader wholly.

Kudos on "arguments" and reading-comprehension (and avatar-aestheticism). You can't be able to understand much of Erikson, if you're not even able to acknowledge some his concerns and his general, partly self-conscious style.

worry, on 02 November 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

teleri, on 02 November 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I posted this here mainly because there is no general forum for discussion about the series

There actually is one, so hopefully a Mod can move this thread there if necessary, but you'll want to make sure to emphasize that you're only up to Midnight Tides either way. It's a tough discussion to have without first completing the series though.

There actually is none, unless you mean the General Book Topics, but I am talking about general Malazan. And it's not a tough discussion, unless one assumes there are no single sentences, paragraphs, chapters, but only one single sentence in the whole of the series. This is not the case. Or is this your answer for every thread? How was this forum even possible before the series was finished... And I doubt one has to mention concrete relevations or spoilers to respond to this topic specfically (that would imply that the matter is much bigger and more significant than I assume, and would make it even require its own wiki-article...). If there are other indirect relevations or clarifications, one could simply refer to them in their general meaning, or more generally, give one's personal impression and opinion about the question. Other than that, I don't really care one whit about "spoilers", if they were unavoidable.



Perhaps could those who object to my accounts and skepticisim of my interpretations so much, and who seem to be such authorities on the series, explain their objections, and the whole matter would be served (on topic!) and as good as settled. If there are no differing arguments on the matter of eternal pain in particular, for example (which is as clear as can be - Kalam is merely present but it's the narrator's voice, and a simple, straightforward sentence - and a fact), I wonder why anyone would bother to try to distract from mentioning it all, and maybe not finding it the most sensible thing of all. Erikson, though often ironic, treats his topics relatively seriously, and so one can consider such an information as seriously as it is intended, and find it perhaps a bit "out of balance" rather than in balance, as it is explicity called.

Even if it should be unclear, it's not settled by simply assuming it's not meant that way. In truth I think it's just something readers don't care about, or find "cool", rather than having any other interpretation or argument to offer, but then they also have nothing to say in this topic (unless some want to clarify why they think it's fine).

The fact is that there is that punishment of eternal pain, and that, at least sometimes, it's judged fair by the author. Now why do I have to explain this?

This post has been edited by teleri: 04 November 2013 - 03:47 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

Hmmm...not quite sure what you are arguing but I will try to address what I think is the topic, and that is your perception of Erikson's ascription to the justice of eternal suffering as punishment.

Since you are not quite far, and only on Midnight Tides, I will first say that the idea of "justice" takes center stage in later books. So for additional answers, you will have to continue to read on.

And even for a specific reply from SE on the idea of an "afterlife" or something beyond this will have to wait until you've finished Toll the Hounds to undersatnd it's relevance. Still, if you'd like to read it, you can find it in the Tor re-read for Toll The Hounds (here is a link, scroll down to Comment #12).

There is also the concept of SE's "Abyss", which is probably as ulitmatley insubstantial and outside of space-time as it sounds. But since it exists as nothingness, what kind of answers could we obtain from it? Who would report back from the Abyss? Logically, its impossible. So if anything did happen to occur with the Abyss as the final destination, we would never know and even an omniscient narrator wouldn't truly know, and further attempts to define it would be disingenuous. Of course, an author can do whatever he wants. Howver in this case, in order for that destination beyond finality to have some kind of relevance and believability, it must remain undefined and outside of the all-knowing ken.

Is a punishment from Hood eternal? I don't know. It could be. And some people will take solace in a guy like Bidithal being raped to death for all eternity and call it justice. But others will find it horrible and wish that it were not the case. The part where you and I come in is where we read this scenerio and decide for ourselves what we think of it. Did SE shine any more light on why or why not it is just? Also there are more macro ideas of what it means. Felisin will have to live her entire life with the pain of her excision. Does she deserve that? Who must answer? Can anyone?

I think, with MBotF, the idea that a punishment is just takes a backseat to SE presenting us with many scenarios and asking, posing the question to us, the reader, "What do you think? What is the right answer? Are there right answers?", but not because he wants to teach us a lesson for the future, but because he wants to show us how civilizations throughout time have addressed these issues. He's looking backward at the chain of events that allowed vertain things to happen and the directly affected future events all to get to a point where nothing has changed and we still know nothing about what we have to answer for once we no longer exist in this mortal coil.

In short, I don't think SE is judging eternal punishment as fair or not. He's leaving you the option of interpreting it yourself. There will be other instances of similar punishments in future books and you can weigh out the merits of those characters when you come to them. I would certainly advise you abandon all presumptions once you crack the cover on these things.

Also, the General Book Topics is the perfect forum for a discussion like this. The title of that forum may be misleading but its not about any book in general, but any Malazan book in general and is there to be used to discuss anything you want without having to hide everything in spoiler tags or without worrying about revealing anything.

[teleri]

Bidithal circumcised young girls, and got his genitals ripped off and stuffed into his mouth. Hood appeared to take his soul, and he would get eternal pain in balance for his life. I don't have the passage or the book with me, but I'm sure it was called balance, and that it was to be eternal.
There are other evil persons or creatures in the series, but either they are trapped for eternity as a matter of routine by the Azath and not as a direct means of justice or for "inflicting them pain" (though it might be assumed considerable sometimes), and sometimes even "healed" (the insane tyrant of Memories of Ice who killed perhaps the most and in the most gruesome ways in "present" history). But here we have not only brutal retributive murder (OK, as expected) and some very unpleasant form of banishment or suffering, even causing madness, but an eternity of pain, which I imagine to be physical torture of a direct (magical) means. This is mainly what I'm talking about.

I find it not only extreme, but nonsense, maybe even stupid. It is offered as "philosophical idea", so to speak, and a good one at that, perfect justice. If the author creates that form of punishment, I would expect him to be not too affirmative of it (as he's generally more a skeptic). It cannot be taken seriously as a concept of justice, save as a "horror". Maybe it's allowed to cheer for it and find it awesome, but not if one were to imagine it with any seriousness.

In Midnight Tides there is a passage that reads:

'The Tiste Edur call the dark waters the realm of Galain, which is said to belong to kin, for whom Darkness is home. The Tarthenal, I have heard, view the seas as a single beast with countless limbs - including those that reach inland as rivers and streams. The Nerek fear it as their netherworld, a place where drowning is eternal, a fate awaiting betrayers and murderers.' (p.228 in my edition)

This is clearly not as emphatic as the "poetic justice" vs. Bidithal. And normally I wouldn't see much in such a passage in a book, even if the event should come to pass. But from what has come before, I expect the author would write of this option with glee if it should come to pass.

Another part I mentioned is a bit of dialogue between the undead Shurq and an as of yet unknown, mysterious undead child, called Kettle, on the grounds of the Azath of Lether I don't have any issue with this bit any more since it seems to refer to the secret intrigue between Tehol Beddict and Gerun Eberict, and seems to be just expressive of Shurq's character, and on the whole a little "gag":

'How many do you kill?'
'Lots. The ground needs them.'
'Why does the ground need them?'
'Because it'S dying.'
'Dying? And what would happen if it does die, Kettle?'
'Everything will get out.'
'Oh.'
'I ike it here.'
'Kettle, from now on,' Surq said, 'I will tell you who to kill - don't worry, there should be plenty.'
'All right. That's nice of you.'
(p.186)

This post has been edited by teleri: 04 November 2013 - 05:21 PM

[Spoilsport Stonny]

teleri, on 04 November 2013 - 05:14 PM, said:

It cannot be taken seriously as a concept of justice, save as a "horror". Maybe it's allowed to cheer for it and find it awesome, but not if one were to imagine it with any seriousness.

And there you have it.

[worry]

teleri, on 04 November 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

worry, on 02 November 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

teleri, on 02 November 2013 - 12:57 PM, said:

I posted this here mainly because there is no general forum for discussion about the series

There actually is one, so hopefully a Mod can move this thread there if necessary, but you'll want to make sure to emphasize that you're only up to Midnight Tides either way. It's a tough discussion to have without first completing the series though.

There actually is none, unless you mean the General Book Topics, but I am talking about general Malazan. And it's not a tough discussion, unless one assumes there are no single sentences, paragraphs, chapters, but only one single sentence in the whole of the series. This is not the case. Or is this your answer for every thread? How was this forum even possible before the series was finished... And I doubt one has to mention concrete relevations or spoilers to respond to this topic specfically (that would imply that the matter is much bigger and more significant than I assume, and would make it even require its own wiki-article...). If there are other indirect relevations or clarifications, one could simply refer to them in their general meaning, or more generally, give one's personal impression and opinion about the question. Other than that, I don't really care one whit about "spoilers", if they were unavoidable.

That forum is the one I'm talking about, and it is in fact dedicated to the Malazan series as a whole. There's a separate Other Literature forum to talk about non-Malazan books. And it's a tough discussion because you've struck upon an actual theme that recurs throughout the series, including several times post-Midnight Tides. In other words, while you can certainly discuss this theme up to and including MT, you should be aware of the fact that you don't have the whole picture and the conclusions about the author you've drawn may be incomplete. And when somebody who has completed the series points that out, you might want to accept it as a fact rather than getting up in arms, since it's inherently going to be part of the discussion you bring up.

Now I don't know why you're being so histrionically combative right off the bat with everybody since so far everyone else has been friendly or downright sporting (unless your goal is attention vs. discussion), but either way you're going to have to get used to the notion that your original thesis about the author's personal views -- coming at a point only halfway through a long kaleidoscopic series -- may be premature. Re: Spoilers, the rules aren't around to annoy people who don't care about spoilers, they're there to protect readers who do; it is erring on the side of caution because the board is a resource meant for all fans or potential fans at any point in their read. For discussions unconcerned with spoilers, there is the aforementioned Genera Book Topics forum, which I mentioned originally as a friendly welcome-to-the-board kind of thing, and still do.

More specific to this topic, I think it's just as easy to read Memories of Ice and come to the opposite conclusion about the author (though like Stonny, I do ultimately advise against drawing such conclusions based on the actions and beliefs of his characters). For instance, you have the T'lan Imass who have seemingly condemned themselves to a quasi-eternal damnation in a quasi-afterlife (yes, two quasi-s). Their suffering -- a unique kind of suffering that is like a brutal cousin to ennui, rather than the more typical notions of Hell -- is made plain in their meeting with Silverfox, among other instances. Some characters -- and some readers perhaps -- may draw the conclusion that it is just, given the prologue and the hunt for the mother Jaghut and her kids (representative of all hunts over all these years), but I fail to see any affirmation from Erikson there, who seems to represent all sides (including that of Itkovian's final acts). Elsewhere we get potentially eternal suffering for the KCCM Matron and Pannion's sister, both eventually sprung from the Morn rent though, but after millennia each there -- and one might draw the conclusion that there have been other rents, sealed by other beings good bad and ugly, who have never been released. But far from condemnation, they seem to have suffered for protective and even accidental reasons respectively. Bad things happen to good people is a universal truth, right? But so is simply "Bad things happen to people." The judgment isn't really necessary.

And then of course we get Pannion's fate...a brutally vengeful monster, a horrific blood-lusting tyrant whose armies have slaughtered thousands upon thousands, and what does he get in the end? Understanding and compassion -- removal too, yes, but not solitary confinement. Not eternal hellfire. So what gives? Is SE making a grand claim against retributive notions of justice? Maybe. But would Gruntle agree with him? He filled a multi-story building up with dead enemies after seeing what they were doing to Capustan's citizenry, and I'm fairly sure he'd have wished Stonny's rapist a fond farewell to fire for all eternity without blinking an eye. These various sentiments and perspectives, are they representative of more than just the individuals in the story? Yes, for sure. But broken down into individual events, depiction isn't endorsement. Which isn't to say that SE doesn't have an opinion, or that he never represents it in the debates that make up the MBOTF. I'm just saying you can't reach a verdict from the opening arguments alone.

[Studious Lock]

You seem to have picked up all the occasions in which a character supports terrible punishment but none in which they disagree with it. Some have been mentioned above, I will add that in the 3rd book Whiskey Jack cuts down the pannions witches even though he thinks it will look awful in front of his army, precisely because he doesnt think they deserve the fate of rakes sword. And they werent particularly nice people...