[Hood's Cheese]

I think it's fascinating that you think you hated the book but somehow found it intriguing enough to find a message board dedicated to it, went to the trouble of signing up, picked an avatar, and started a thread dedicated to telling everyone you didn't like it. Surely something must have grabbed you. I mean, I didn't like the new McDonald's double cheeseburger with jalapenos, but I'm not going to hunt down a message board to get someone to convince me otherwise.

This post has been edited by Hood's Cheese: 04 September 2014 - 07:37 PM

[Gorefest]

You probably just didn't hate it enough, then. Undiluted hatred is a powerful drive.

[theocean]

It wasnt the easiest book to start, but after about the first 100 pages maybe 150, i thought it smoothed right out. It is just the introduction of the characters doesnt show up right away, so instead of a detailed explanation of the characters up front you are sort of forced to learn who the characters are as the story unfolds.



Im on a reread now and its way more enjoyable than i thought it would be knowing now how the characters evolve. WJ seems like a grumpy dick early on and ends up being an amazing character, Rake is the bad evil shadow guy fighting to take down the empire, QB alas is a puzzle, and sadly remains a puzzle for every sinlge book.



The crazy thing in the series is just the amount of relevent characters. There are so many very important characters that you tend to forget about a bunch of them until you really sit back and remember the stories.

[Keysi]

Mr Knightmare, on 06 January 2014 - 12:56 PM, said:

Quote

I am curious about how you read the book though. Are you a speed reader? Because claiming that all the characters are the same, or flat or have no purpose, to me suggests that you must have skimmed big chunks of dialogue and observations.

I didn't skip anything in fact I had to go back and reread a lot of it because frankly I found that the book is not well written. It's bad prose written by someone who is very intelligent, but lacks an ear for poetry, or in fact, language in general, the sentences are disjointed in a kind of technical way that often left me rereading them because I had somehow missed the sense in them as I grappled with their structure. Often times I would find my eyes just glazing over walls of text forgetting what I read and wandering off. The writing itself just isn't captivating.

Personally when I have to look online for a "walkthought" of what just happened after a third re-read of a chapter it's not a good sign for the book in my opinion.

Quote

A big part of the appeal of the series is slowly gathering the information you need to finish the puzzle.

I have nothing against puzzles, but the way Erikson is doing it feels like he's taking a big bag of 50 different 5 000 piece jigsaw puzzles mixed with Legos and model ship parts for good measure then put them in 10 different chests that only open if you manage to solve quantum physics problems printed on them.

It just feels like busy work and not fun.

This thread is very long and I don't have time to read it all yet( but I will) but from the first couple of posts ^^
Funnily enough this is exactly how I felt about the Lord of the Rings series, I felt the entire thing was just a chore and I was only reading it out of obligation or something. The endless description and poetry is just not my style of writing(reading), when I encounter this stuff in books I tend to gloss over and just wait for the next piece of dialogue. I don't think it helped that I was VERY young when I read it, so I will one day go back and re read, probably starting with the Silmarillion, since I've never read that. Or the Hobbit.

[Tiam is an Imploding Unit]

Keysi, on 07 April 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

This thread is very long and I don't have time to read it all yet( but I will) but from the first couple of posts ^^
Funnily enough this is exactly how I felt about the Lord of the Rings series, I felt the entire thing was just a chore and I was only reading it out of obligation or something. The endless description and poetry is just not my style of writing(reading), when I encounter this stuff in books I tend to gloss over and just wait for the next piece of dialogue. I don't think it helped that I was VERY young when I read it, so I will one day go back and re read, probably starting with the Silmarillion, since I've never read that. Or the Hobbit.

The Hobbit was great when I was 10, but after reading MBotF, ASoIaF, A Prince of Nothing, The First Law, The Black Company, I just can't stand it any more. I read the Fellowship for the first time maybe two years ago and hated it. T'was, as you say, a chore. Also tried to read the Silmarillion and ended up skimming through it looking for interesting facts on Tolkien's world. I almost immediately decided I didn't want to read it. Same with the Children of Hurin, and I went back to that one three times. People have gotta stop buying me these books.

Just goes to show ya how subjective and different opinions on these books can be.

[Nevyn]

The comparison to LotR is funny because it is a similar symptom for a very different reason.

GotM is definitely a lot of work and first, and can try your patience early on.

And LotR is a lot of work throughout.

But they are that way for very different reasons.

LotR is a lot of homework to read, because it contains a lot of extra background and trivia that is utterly extraneous to the central narrative. It is like a history book trying to relate world war 2 while trying to relate the entire history of all the races and nations involved.

GotM is a lot of work to read because the central narrative itself is so broad and there is almost ZERO background, except that provided by characters within the central narrative. It is the direct opposite.

LotR distracts from what is going on. MBotF just has a lot going on.

[BellaGrace]

Keysi, on 07 April 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

This thread is very long and I don't have time to read it all yet( but I will) but from the first couple of posts ^^
Funnily enough this is exactly how I felt about the Lord of the Rings series, I felt the entire thing was just a chore and I was only reading it out of obligation or something. The endless description and poetry is just not my style of writing(reading), when I encounter this stuff in books I tend to gloss over and just wait for the next piece of dialogue. I don't think it helped that I was VERY young when I read it, so I will one day go back and re read, probably starting with the Silmarillion, since I've never read that. Or the Hobbit.

OMG so glad to find another person that feels the same as I do about Tolkien's stuff. Getting through the Hobbit was a slog and then I started on the trilogy and couldn't get more than 100 pages into the first book before I quit.

[Abyss]

BellaGrace, on 07 April 2015 - 07:01 PM, said:

Keysi, on 07 April 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

This thread is very long and I don't have time to read it all yet( but I will) but from the first couple of posts ^^
Funnily enough this is exactly how I felt about the Lord of the Rings series, I felt the entire thing was just a chore and I was only reading it out of obligation or something. The endless description and poetry is just not my style of writing(reading), when I encounter this stuff in books I tend to gloss over and just wait for the next piece of dialogue. I don't think it helped that I was VERY young when I read it, so I will one day go back and re read, probably starting with the Silmarillion, since I've never read that. Or the Hobbit.

OMG so glad to find another person that feels the same as I do about Tolkien's stuff. Getting through the Hobbit was a slog and then I started on the trilogy and couldn't get more than 100 pages into the first book before I quit.

You're not alone. I started and ditched LotR three times, years apart, before finally forcing myself to finish it because the movies were starting.

[Andorion]

Abyss, on 07 April 2015 - 08:06 PM, said:

BellaGrace, on 07 April 2015 - 07:01 PM, said:

Keysi, on 07 April 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

This thread is very long and I don't have time to read it all yet( but I will) but from the first couple of posts ^^
Funnily enough this is exactly how I felt about the Lord of the Rings series, I felt the entire thing was just a chore and I was only reading it out of obligation or something. The endless description and poetry is just not my style of writing(reading), when I encounter this stuff in books I tend to gloss over and just wait for the next piece of dialogue. I don't think it helped that I was VERY young when I read it, so I will one day go back and re read, probably starting with the Silmarillion, since I've never read that. Or the Hobbit.

OMG so glad to find another person that feels the same as I do about Tolkien's stuff. Getting through the Hobbit was a slog and then I started on the trilogy and couldn't get more than 100 pages into the first book before I quit.

You're not alone. I started and ditched LotR three times, years apart, before finally forcing myself to finish it because the movies were starting.

You lot are all philistines. LotR kicks fantasy ass!

This post has been edited by Andorion: 08 April 2015 - 01:10 AM

[Kruppe's snacky cakes]

 Lotr_a46cfb_1105667.jpg (26.44K)
Number of downloads: 0

[Los Mul]

While I actually did enjoy GOTM, I must say that there where a lot of times where stuff just seemed to "happen" that I didn't really know about. A majority of the climax felt like stuff that just happened for the sake of happening, but it might be that I just don't fully understand the world yet. But I'd also argue that after 700 pages, Erikson should make you understand what is going on. It's kind of like watching a film through a blurry tv. I liked the whole Crokus, Kruppe, Phoenix Inn gang and the way that plot unfolded, but I didn't seem to really understand what/why the others characters were doing what they did, and I think that is sloppy writing to an extent.

I liked the back and forth between Tool and the Adjunct, but everything surrounding the Jaghut Tyrant did not feel important to me. Like, the characters thought it was important, but it didn't really convey that to me. It felt like the sole purpose of the Jaghut Tyrant awakening was to provide a battle for the end of the book, instead of for a greater purpose.

Idk, just my thoughts. I did enjoy it for the most part and I'm gonna start DHG soon. Hopefully I'll be able to learn a little bit more about the world and how things work to get a better experience out of reading.

[benelori]

These threads are gold...

I adored Gardens of the Moon, BECAUSE it threw me in the world, and I love piecing together stuff, plus the names and the lack of traditional fantasy elements...I was nuts about it

Then DG happened, and it was probably my slowest read ever...I almost put it down at some point, but I held on because I wanted to see the Panion story...of course in the end the patience was rewarded and DG ended up pretty awesome too...

[Shadow Knight]

Gardens of the moon, was very good in my opinion, completely different to anythin else out there then or now, not a big fan of bein spoonfed info like in sanderson books,

[Egwene]

Maelys I Blackfyre, on 12 April 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:

While I actually did enjoy GOTM, I must say that there where a lot of times where stuff just seemed to "happen" that I didn't really know about. A majority of the climax felt like stuff that just happened for the sake of happening, but it might be that I just don't fully understand the world yet. But I'd also argue that after 700 pages, Erikson should make you understand what is going on. It's kind of like watching a film through a blurry tv. I liked the whole Crokus, Kruppe, Phoenix Inn gang and the way that plot unfolded, but I didn't seem to really understand what/why the others characters were doing what they did, and I think that is sloppy writing to an extent.

I liked the back and forth between Tool and the Adjunct, but everything surrounding the Jaghut Tyrant did not feel important to me. Like, the characters thought it was important, but it didn't really convey that to me. It felt like the sole purpose of the Jaghut Tyrant awakening was to provide a battle for the end of the book, instead of for a greater purpose.

Idk, just my thoughts. I did enjoy it for the most part and I'm gonna start DHG soon. Hopefully I'll be able to learn a little bit more about the world and how things work to get a better experience out of reading.

Some of what you said resonated with me. I thought at the time that the storyline of the tyrant was the weakest part of the book. Now, after numerous re-reads, I wonder if that might have been deliberate. Reality showed him to be less than legend had built him into. It would fit in with Erikson's theme of showing us how history gets distorted in the telling, how it is re-written constantly. Events unfold and are retold within the story with participants reacting to them depending on which angle they saw - far closer to the way things happen in real life than any fantasy book I have ever read. Things are not always as they seem or as either readers or characters in the books expect them to work out. I love it

Which brings me to your other point about stuff happening that you didn't really know about. I would totally disagree with calling it sloppy writing. If I was Erikson I would of course be a bit upset if people thought that over the course of such a mammouth series I had not improved upon the first book. However, the story was never meant to be one book and when you read the rest of the series it will become more and more obvious that there are many storylines which were started very deliberately in the first book. I personally find it fantastic to have a first book that lays the groundwork rather than book two or three.

Hope you enjoy the rest of the series, Maelys I Blackfyre. If you are a reasonably fast reader, you might find it rewarding to actually do a re-read of GotM before going on to Deadhouse Gates. It worked for me. Gave me a much better footing for the rest of the series. Ask anyone who has and they will tell you that regardless of when, re-reading these books is incredibly rewarding!


@Andorion: Sorry, I am with the Philistines where LotR is concerned

[Andorion]

Egwene, on 13 April 2015 - 07:47 PM, said:

Maelys I Blackfyre, on 12 April 2015 - 06:00 AM, said:

While I actually did enjoy GOTM, I must say that there where a lot of times where stuff just seemed to "happen" that I didn't really know about. A majority of the climax felt like stuff that just happened for the sake of happening, but it might be that I just don't fully understand the world yet. But I'd also argue that after 700 pages, Erikson should make you understand what is going on. It's kind of like watching a film through a blurry tv. I liked the whole Crokus, Kruppe, Phoenix Inn gang and the way that plot unfolded, but I didn't seem to really understand what/why the others characters were doing what they did, and I think that is sloppy writing to an extent.

I liked the back and forth between Tool and the Adjunct, but everything surrounding the Jaghut Tyrant did not feel important to me. Like, the characters thought it was important, but it didn't really convey that to me. It felt like the sole purpose of the Jaghut Tyrant awakening was to provide a battle for the end of the book, instead of for a greater purpose.

Idk, just my thoughts. I did enjoy it for the most part and I'm gonna start DHG soon. Hopefully I'll be able to learn a little bit more about the world and how things work to get a better experience out of reading.

Some of what you said resonated with me. I thought at the time that the storyline of the tyrant was the weakest part of the book. Now, after numerous re-reads, I wonder if that might have been deliberate. Reality showed him to be less than legend had built him into. It would fit in with Erikson's theme of showing us how history gets distorted in the telling, how it is re-written constantly. Events unfold and are retold within the story with participants reacting to them depending on which angle they saw - far closer to the way things happen in real life than any fantasy book I have ever read. Things are not always as they seem or as either readers or characters in the books expect them to work out. I love it

Which brings me to your other point about stuff happening that you didn't really know about. I would totally disagree with calling it sloppy writing. If I was Erikson I would of course be a bit upset if people thought that over the course of such a mammouth series I had not improved upon the first book. However, the story was never meant to be one book and when you read the rest of the series it will become more and more obvious that there are many storylines which were started very deliberately in the first book. I personally find it fantastic to have a first book that lays the groundwork rather than book two or three.

Hope you enjoy the rest of the series, Maelys I Blackfyre. If you are a reasonably fast reader, you might find it rewarding to actually do a re-read of GotM before going on to Deadhouse Gates. It worked for me. Gave me a much better footing for the rest of the series. Ask anyone who has and they will tell you that regardless of when, re-reading these books is incredibly rewarding!


@Andorion: Sorry, I am with the Philistines where LotR is concerned

Heh, I am rewreading GotM and my main reaction is "Huh, look at all these infodumps!" This is something that never happens in the later books. But in the first part of GotM, due mainly to Tattersail there is like so much information about whats happened, happening and likely to happen. It really makes Gotm different to the rest of the books. The Tyrant storyline - well it has SE's basic theme of ancient powers no being powerful enough any more, but apart from that its really simple. Unleash destructive creature, let it weaken enemies, take over where it left off. If it doesn't seem like a foolproof plan, its because SE was really busy depicting Laseens rule as clumsy and full o fmistakes. Can't say anymore here in the GotM forum though.



Re: LotR.....I know, I know I am destined to go through life battered and bruised, the lone defender of a forgotten glory, and in the end my martyrdom will be "unwitnessed"

But seriously though, how can anybody not like LotR's language? It screams "epic fantasy". I still get goosebumps when I read the scene where Gandalf is facing off the lord of the Nazgul and then the horns of Rohan blow and the Rohirrim come.

[Egwene]

Andorion, on 14 April 2015 - 01:50 AM, said:

Heh, I am rewreading GotM and my main reaction is "Huh, look at all these infodumps!" This is something that never happens in the later books. But in the first part of GotM, due mainly to Tattersail there is like so much information about whats happened, happening and likely to happen. It really makes Gotm different to the rest of the books. The Tyrant storyline - well it has SE's basic theme of ancient powers no being powerful enough any more, but apart from that its really simple. Unleash destructive creature, let it weaken enemies, take over where it left off. If it doesn't seem like a foolproof plan, its because SE was really busy depicting Laseens rule as clumsy and full o fmistakes. Can't say anymore here in the GotM forum though.



Re: LotR.....I know, I know I am destined to go through life battered and bruised, the lone defender of a forgotten glory, and in the end my martyrdom will be "unwitnessed"

But seriously though, how can anybody not like LotR's language? It screams "epic fantasy". I still get goosebumps when I read the scene where Gandalf is facing off the lord of the Nazgul and then the horns of Rohan blow and the Rohirrim come.

I know what you mean with info-dump, Andorion. Mind you, until one re-reads, one can't appreciate all that Tattersail talks about. As you know, I am trying to go through the book word by word and add all the info to the Wiki... I am only on the third chapter because there is just so much information. I also keep having light bulb moments - little things which I had totally missed before.

As for LotR... I do appreciate that the writing is epic, but I feel that it's main claim to fame (apart from inventing a new language) is that with those books, the author pioneered the genre. I am convinced that if you, today, gave twenty people who had never heard of either of them the LotR and the MBotF series to read, Tolkien would not get the gloating praise he so often attracts. It seems to me, that there is a certain amount of brainwashing going on where Tolkien is concerned. He is probably just about the only fantasy author most kids will meet via the school curriculum and being so heavily endorsed by the 'serious reading' crowd... well, I just feel that there is that sense of 'must like' because 'those what know, like'.

[Andorion]

Egwene, on 14 April 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

Andorion, on 14 April 2015 - 01:50 AM, said:

Heh, I am rewreading GotM and my main reaction is "Huh, look at all these infodumps!" This is something that never happens in the later books. But in the first part of GotM, due mainly to Tattersail there is like so much information about whats happened, happening and likely to happen. It really makes Gotm different to the rest of the books. The Tyrant storyline - well it has SE's basic theme of ancient powers no being powerful enough any more, but apart from that its really simple. Unleash destructive creature, let it weaken enemies, take over where it left off. If it doesn't seem like a foolproof plan, its because SE was really busy depicting Laseens rule as clumsy and full o fmistakes. Can't say anymore here in the GotM forum though.



Re: LotR.....I know, I know I am destined to go through life battered and bruised, the lone defender of a forgotten glory, and in the end my martyrdom will be "unwitnessed"

But seriously though, how can anybody not like LotR's language? It screams "epic fantasy". I still get goosebumps when I read the scene where Gandalf is facing off the lord of the Nazgul and then the horns of Rohan blow and the Rohirrim come.

I know what you mean with info-dump, Andorion. Mind you, until one re-reads, one can't appreciate all that Tattersail talks about. As you know, I am trying to go through the book word by word and add all the info to the Wiki... I am only on the third chapter because there is just so much information. I also keep having light bulb moments - little things which I had totally missed before.

As for LotR... I do appreciate that the writing is epic, but I feel that it's main claim to fame (apart from inventing a new language) is that with those books, the author pioneered the genre. I am convinced that if you, today, gave twenty people who had never heard of either of them the LotR and the MBotF series to read, Tolkien would not get the gloating praise he so often attracts. It seems to me, that there is a certain amount of brainwashing going on where Tolkien is concerned. He is probably just about the only fantasy author most kids will meet via the school curriculum and being so heavily endorsed by the 'serious reading' crowd... well, I just feel that there is that sense of 'must like' because 'those what know, like'.

Regarding the reread, this is also exactly what I am doing. This is the plan fo rmy 2nd reread. I am taking it painstakingly slow, reading only a chapter a day or less, sometimes reading a page over twice and singling out anything that I can't actively recall from previous reads and I am posting it in this thread. With time, I intend to have a collected condensed list of things I had missed before. If you look at my first post for this reread I have already found stuff that can go a long way towards answering longstanding questions. SInce you are doing the same thing, feel free to compare and contrast and add stuff to the wikia. At the moment I have very little free time (most of my reading is done on my commute) but once my schedule stops being insane I will add a bit of stuff to the Wikia as well specially the ICE pages as those are probably not as detailed as the SE pages.

Regarding LotR, what you said is what a lot of people have also told me, and this also why I disagree.

You see, when I read LotR, I knew nothing about it. It was definitely not part of my curriculum. In fact it was when I had finished my school board exams, I had a lot of time on my hands, and a friend of mine gave me his copy of LotR and told me to read it, saying it was a great book.

I had not heard of Tolkien. i had heard the name of the book but I knew nothing about it. The genre of fantasy was new to me, as I had only read the first 4 Harry Potter books by then. I was more into sci-fi and crime and thrillers.

So basically with zero knowledge, expectations or background I started reading it and it was absolutely phenomenal. I loved it. I could not put it down. After I returned it to my friend I hunted down the local library copy and reread it. Twice. Then I bought my own and reread it again. In the space of 10 years I think I read it 8 times. I have read the book twice after I started on malazan and once after I had finished the entire series. Last year when I was doing my WoT read LotR was my go to book to help me out when I got bogged down in the middle books.

What I am trying to say is that while many poeple may see LotR as too mainstream or required reading and it may become hackneyed or stereotypical, fo rothers it isn't. What LotR could do was evoke the sense of wonder, elevate the reader, and keep him there. This sis actually a rather rare attribute in a book. And I confess I love the rich, anachroonistically old English especailly the contrast between the high old english o fthe Elves, Aragorn, Gandalf or the narrator and the everyday English of Sam and the Hobbits.

Now Malazan occupies a whole different pradigm in fantasy. I don't even try to compare it with LotR. But to me, LotR, because of the place it holds in my heart, is sort of above rankings and comparisons

[Egwene]

Biggest problem I am having with the word by word info adding is that I sometimes can't see the wood for the trees, as they say. I might add info to the page for a specific character but forget to update the bigger picture of which the character is part of. Look forward to seeing someone else struggle *grin*. I currently have about ten pages left of chapter three. I have already read them and highlighted the bits I want to edit. You should see my copy of GotM... blue highlights, loose pages and post-it-notes marking pages...oh, for a kindle!!!

Ref: LotR - As you quite rightly stated, Andorion, we all like different things and it isn't just you and a good friend of mine who are totally hooked. But Tolkien gets elevated as if he has paid for a lifetime slot as best fantasy author. Especially people who do not read much fantasy will immediately point to him as the best one. I think that this is and has been harmful to the development of the fantasy genre. It has led to the genre being very one-dimensional for many years and now stops amazing writers like Steven Erikson who are breaking the Tolkien mould from being given the full recognition they deserve. Writers in fiction do not have such a singular ghost to compete against. It's time that the rest of the world was told that there is more to fantasy than Tolkien.

[Andorion]

Egwene, on 14 April 2015 - 05:49 PM, said:

Biggest problem I am having with the word by word info adding is that I sometimes can't see the wood for the trees, as they say. I might add info to the page for a specific character but forget to update the bigger picture of which the character is part of. Look forward to seeing someone else struggle *grin*. I currently have about ten pages left of chapter three. I have already read them and highlighted the bits I want to edit. You should see my copy of GotM... blue highlights, loose pages and post-it-notes marking pages...oh, for a kindle!!!

Ref: LotR - As you quite rightly stated, Andorion, we all like different things and it isn't just you and a good friend of mine who are totally hooked. But Tolkien gets elevated as if he has paid for a lifetime slot as best fantasy author. Especially people who do not read much fantasy will immediately point to him as the best one. I think that this is and has been harmful to the development of the fantasy genre. It has led to the genre being very one-dimensional for many years and now stops amazing writers like Steven Erikson who are breaking the Tolkien mould from being given the full recognition they deserve. Writers in fiction do not have such a singular ghost to compete against. It's time that the rest of the world was told that there is more to fantasy than Tolkien.

Get a Kindle. In the long term its worth it. You can carry around a lot of books. Most importantly for somebody like you, you can search within books, so that saves a lot of time for looking up quotes and stuff.

Oh I agree that Tolkien's deification has hurt the fantasy genre. Whenver you abondon criticality regarding anything you are causing harm. Which is one of the reasons I enjoy reading reading SE, Richard Morgan, Matthew Stover, Jemisin, Max Gladstone etc and why I want to read Glen Cook. Which is why I don't like Terry Brooks. But having said that, I think we shoudl keep in mind that Tolkien is not responsible fo rwhat posterity did with LotR. Hating the author and the book for what other people used them for is counter productive and also prevents you from reading and enjoying a great work of literature

[Egwene]

Andorion, on 15 April 2015 - 01:55 AM, said:

Get a Kindle. In the long term its worth it. You can carry around a lot of books. Most importantly for somebody like you, you can search within books, so that saves a lot of time for looking up quotes and stuff.

Oh I agree that Tolkien's deification has hurt the fantasy genre. Whenver you abondon criticality regarding anything you are causing harm. Which is one of the reasons I enjoy reading reading SE, Richard Morgan, Matthew Stover, Jemisin, Max Gladstone etc and why I want to read Glen Cook. Which is why I don't like Terry Brooks. But having said that, I think we shoudl keep in mind that Tolkien is not responsible fo rwhat posterity did with LotR. Hating the author and the book for what other people used them for is counter productive and also prevents you from reading and enjoying a great work of literature

We are probably not that far apart in our opinion. I don't dislike LotR (or it's author) by any means. The trilogie just doesn't grab me in the way the Malazan books do, although I did like a lot of the world building and I absolutely loved the films. I just strongly object to the monopoly which the rest of the literary world accords him and to him being called the de facto best fantasy author. Until we, the real fantasy readers tell the outside world that, no, fantasy has got more to offer than just LotR, the genre will be looked down upon. We need that top-layer of more than one author, and a variety of different styles to get more readers interested and to make the rest of the world take note.

Going back to GotM... did you make the connection between the officer who gave a speech to the Bridgeburners on behalf of Tayschrenn and was subsequently killed and a chapter later Toc telling Paran that his clawmaster had been garrotted a couple of days earlier? I am sure, I totally missed that on my first read