[SpanishDancer]

1. I have no idea why they're called "soletaken" as opposed to "soultaken." Given the number of these things out there, none of them can claim to be the sole taken! But it seems their souls have been taken...

Erikson has his own terminology for these things.

2. I skimmed the other thread that Garak mentioned a week or two ago--I seem to recall that one of the points of criticism was that Erikson's prose was poor. That seems *way* off--the prose here seems about the best I can remember reading from genre fiction for a long time. (Not surprising, considering SE came from the Iowa Writers' Workshop.)

GotM is a bit weaker than the rest of the series in terms of the quality of writing, but it was enough to make me want to continue reading (and the rest of the series is awesome).

3. On the other hand, there is the question about depth of character. I was chatting about GotM with a colleague of mine, and we agreed that we don't get a lot of character detail from this novel. It's not that we don't get a window into some of the deeper motivations--we get short snippets with many of them (Paran, Tattersail, Lorn, Whiskeyjack, Rallick, Murillio, Crokus, Anomander, and heck, even Circle Breaker come to mind). But since Erikson is juggling an awful lot of balls at one time (if you'll pardon the understatement), we don't get the chance to live and breathe with any one of them long enough to get the feel for them. (Is it strange that *Fiddler*, of all people, is one of my favorite characters?)

Fiddler is also one of my favorite characters, RAFO.

4. I will confess that, *if GotM were a one-off book*, I would think the plot structure a bit messy. The reader is confronted with mountains of layers of complexity early on--and it doesn't *really* let up all that much, especially toward the end when the concepts of the Finnest and the Azath are suddenly introduced. I'm vaguely reminded of "calvinball" from the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, where Calvin adds on hundreds of ad hoc rules to the game as it proceeds. But part of the joy of the novel comes from knowing that it's *not* a one-off, and that these strange rules won't seem so ad hoc in the end.

Again, RAFO, the Azath seems deus ex machina at first, but gets elaborated on later on in the series.

5. I love the climax of the book. When I saw the title of the final "book" of the novel ("The Fete"), I had my hopes up for Spoiler a one day climax with all the characters on the stage--something with the good ol' classic "dramatic unities" that Aristotle loved. I wasn't disappointed!

Erikson is amazing at pulling together all the plot threads in each book to an epic climax.

6. I mentioned this earlier, but...one of the striking things about the book is that the conflicts of the book seem so pointless. The Empress seems to have no good reason whatsoever for her attempt at conquest. And the gods seem to be playing meaningless games. This seems like one of the trade-offs for abandoning the "farm boy" motif. With the farm boy cliche, you do at least get the feeling that there's something worth fighting for. (Incidentally, I also got this feeling from the original Black Company trilogy by Glen Cook. In fact, it seemed like a deliberate feature of Cook's writing.) This isn't a *criticism* of Erikson--Erikson needs to be Erikson, after all.

Erikson was heavily influenced by Cook's Black Company. He does very different things with it though, often denying one's expectations of narrative structure. If you re-read the series later on, a lot of it makes sense, and you'll see all the foreshadowing from the first book.

7. There's another related thing that this book calls to mind...but I might add a separate thread for that one.

Overall, a great experience. I'll be taking a break for a bit (I've got other projects on the list), but I'll look forward to DG!

DG and MoI are some of the best works of fantasy I've ever read. Just keep reading!

[Garak]

Glad you enjoyed (it's good that you also read Black Company since that was a source of inspiration for Erikson if I recall correctly). Looking forward to seeing what you think of DG.

[worry]

The soletaken mystery:

Spoiler

Quite deliberate phrasing, and has nothing to do with the soul. Think of it in contrast to the D'ivers.

[Kanese S's]

Anaximander, on 20 January 2014 - 05:22 AM, said:

Well, at long last--done. Other commitments have reduced my daily reading time to a pittance, but...that's the current rhythm. (It's certainly not the best rhythm for appreciating everything you're reading, unfortunately!) For what they're worth, here are a few more general reactions:

1. I have no idea why they're called "soletaken" as opposed to "soultaken." Given the number of these things out there, none of them can claim to be the sole taken! But it seems their souls have been taken...

I'm not sure it's supposed to be pronounced that way. I usually mentally pronounce it "sol-eh-tawk-en".

Quote

2. I skimmed the other thread that Garak mentioned a week or two ago--I seem to recall that one of the points of criticism was that Erikson's prose was poor. That seems *way* off--the prose here seems about the best I can remember reading from genre fiction for a long time. (Not surprising, considering SE came from the Iowa Writers' Workshop.)

Yeah, I'm not seeing that criticism, either. I find the prose in DG to be better than in GotM, but even the first book I find has a good style as far as the writing goes.

Quote

3. On the other hand, there is the question about depth of character. I was chatting about GotM with a colleague of mine, and we agreed that we don't get a lot of character detail from this novel. It's not that we don't get a window into some of the deeper motivations--we get short snippets with many of them (Paran, Tattersail, Lorn, Whiskeyjack, Rallick, Murillio, Crokus, Anomander, and heck, even Circle Breaker come to mind). But since Erikson is juggling an awful lot of balls at one time (if you'll pardon the understatement), we don't get the chance to live and breathe with any one of them long enough to get the feel for them. (Is it strange that *Fiddler*, of all people, is one of my favorite characters?)

It is not strange at all that Fiddler is one of your favorite characters. I love reading about that dude. As for not getting a whole lot of depth, I think what you said about windows is right. We get glimpses, but not all that much more, in GotM. It's quite short but introduces a ton of characters.

Quote

4. I will confess that, *if GotM were a one-off book*, I would think the plot structure a bit messy. The reader is confronted with mountains of layers of complexity early on--and it doesn't *really* let up all that much, especially toward the end when the concepts of the Finnest and the Azath are suddenly introduced. I'm vaguely reminded of "calvinball" from the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, where Calvin adds on hundreds of ad hoc rules to the game as it proceeds. But part of the joy of the novel comes from knowing that it's *not* a one-off, and that these strange rules won't seem so ad hoc in the end.

Good thing it isn't, then. I do think it's maybe not as "tight" as the books immediately following, but it's a good start to the series, in my opinion.

Quote

5. I love the climax of the book. When I saw the title of the final "book" of the novel ("The Fete"), I had my hopes up for

Spoiler

a one day climax with all the characters on the stage--something with the good ol' classic "dramatic unities" that Aristotle loved.

I wasn't disappointed!

Worst party ever. Or best. Depends on your perspective.

Quote

6. I mentioned this earlier, but...one of the striking things about the book is that the conflicts of the book seem so pointless. The Empress seems to have no good reason whatsoever for her attempt at conquest. And the gods seem to be playing meaningless games. This seems like one of the trade-offs for abandoning the "farm boy" motif. With the farm boy cliche, you do at least get the feeling that there's something worth fighting for. (Incidentally, I also got this feeling from the original Black Company trilogy by Glen Cook. In fact, it seemed like a deliberate feature of Cook's writing.) This isn't a *criticism* of Erikson--Erikson needs to be Erikson, after all.

The Empress heads up an Empire. Such entities are usually expansionist. What reason did Rome have for conquering part of Britain, or attempting to push into what's now Germany? Control of land, resources, and therefore wealth, is motivation enough for such polities. The Malazan series occasionally has things akin to "good versus evil" fights, but as most wars in reality are about concerns simultaneously more complex and yet more petty, that's somewhat reflected in Erikson's and Esslemont's world. The Malazan Empire isn't all good, though it isn't all bad, either.

Quote

7. There's another related thing that this book calls to mind...but I might add a separate thread for that one.

Overall, a great experience. I'll be taking a break for a bit (I've got other projects on the list), but I'll look forward to DG!

Looking forward to seeing that thread.