[garden_rake]

Agraba said:

Okay, has this been mentioned?

Way too many retarted names. Jheck, and Lether, and Kuru Qan, and T'lan Imass, and Rhivi, and K'chain Chemalle, and the barren wastelands of Un'kuru Ede'quab'ossi located in the six areqs of Oroch'aken.

There's also the fact that in Memories of Ice, women were referred to as "sir". That bothered me a bit. Is that done in England?

you wouldnt be suggesting they all speak in a hollywood American dialect would you? :eek:

i can see it now .... 'Ok flash lets touch base at o 8 hundred hours then nuke those motherf......'

personally i like erikson's use of language and especially the subtle variations between different races/types of characters. The generic kind of language strikes me as an amalgamation of our popular language and words that are valid but not extensively used worldwide such as 'lass' and 'aye' (ok except for scotland ). The way its drawn together makes for much more immersive reading than 'fantasy' books written using a blatantly american or even english dialect

[Tes'thesula]

if you've ever read james barclay, you will see how modern day language and names really ruins fantasy...i personally really like the names in MBotF, they're original and imaginative and really set the scene in the world, also the different names seen to follow cultural lines, and that really draws me into the books

[Trotts]

they dont really speak english, its just 'translated' into english so we can understand

they all seem to speak daru, or some form of daru

[Trotts]

i know (the fact that you used wikipedia tipped me off ) i just felt the need to post a response. i cant help myself. doctor gave me pills.....but i dont take em (im just kidding, i take my pills regularly)

[Hume]

Hetan said:

iirc the women who spoke this way were the greyswords.
I just viewed it as an extension of this, that amongst women soldiers, superior officers are called sir, male or female.

Well actually in the Australian Army superior male officers are called sir, while superior female officers are called Maam (?). Im pretty sure its the same in America.

which is why Agraba may hve been bothered by it.

[Folken]

K this time straight from Wikipedia

The common use of Sir instead of the rank specific address for a military, police or other officer is rather specific to English...When addressing a superior officer (not a NCO), "sir" is used to replace the person's specific rank.

So it works in the context Steven Erikson uses it. So Hetan's correct;) And it seemed to me that within the Grey Swords all were treated as equal, yes they had different ranks but in the end it was one big family. So the use of the word Sir when refering to any member, male or female, of the Grey Swords makes sense.

[Danforth]

Unless anyone takes offence to the use of Sir when reffering to women does this discussion actually matter, I think in Eriksons writing he uses it because he sees the women of his world to be very strong characters, it would not worked if all the men went around bowing to women and calling them 'madam', if this were the case it would be too soft and wouldn't fit with Erikson's hard gritty style of fantasy.

[Folken]

Well Agraba said it bugged him, hence the discussion. Then I went on a journey to try and prove Erikson correct.
But what you say makes some sense as well. Although I'm pretty sure they've used the word Ma'am to refer to female soldiers, ie Tattersail (iirc in GotM). In any case, the use of the word Sir makes sense based on the defenition provided on wikipedia, as the Grey Swords are a military organization.

[Danforth]

Yeah I accept that the use of Sir is legitamate, maybe my point was wrong because of Tattersail, maybe its just a tight military organisation thing, could be Grey Sword specific, although don't they refer to Blend and Picker as Sir, I can't remeber.

[Agraba]

Okay, I do love his works, but there's another weakness in his writing.

He says that it shouldn't be composed of good guys and bad guys, and one should never have a definite side to root for, because good guys do bad things, and bad guys do good things....

But let's face it, there's always a biased side that everyone will root for. In Gardens of the Moon, there was the Malazan offenders and the defenders of Darujhistan. And even the Malazan guys saw Laseen as cruel, in attempt to kill the Bridgeburners, and went against her wishes. Then we had everyone in Darujhistan, as well as Rake. The only points of view we got in favour of Laseen was Lorn... and the book made us dislike her. In Deadhouse Gates, we didn't really have anyone in the point of view of the Soletaken convergers, and nobody with the Whirwind 'til Felisin got there at the end. But we still rooted for Duiker and Coltaine, of course. In Memories of Ice, the only views we got on the Pannion Seer's side was the portrayal of how cruel he was to Toc the Younger, so it's clear who we rooted for there. In House of Chains, we had most of our views from the ones marching against Raraku. Our only views in Raraku were Heboric, who didn't care about the outcome one way or another, Sha'ik, who was constantly pondering on the folly of revenge and futility of her aspirations, and L'oric, who's side is clearly a bit different. We barely got anything from that guy who follows Leoman. And Midnight Tides didn't really count, because after reading House of Chains we knew how it would turn out. Trull Sengar pretty much spelled it out for his T'lan companion.

So there's always a biased side to root for. Not that that's a bad thing, of course. A good author always makes you love the good guys and hate the bad guys. It's just that I've seen a lot of comments on how SE's books are not one-sided like most, and that you can always choose different sides to root for. I just wanted to point out that that's not really true.

[Trotts]

gotm - ill agree, the empire was painted as evil and the 2nd army was seen as the last bastion of the late emperors ideals

deadhouse gates - again ill agree, we dont get much from the rebellions side, but i think hoc makes up for it

memories of ice - gonna disagree, i think the end of moi shows much of the seers perspective

hoc - gonna disagree strongly. i think we get just aobut every perspective we can.

midnight tides - again, i think we get quite a bit of perspective here

[Tes'thesula]

i think the point is that although they are painted as 'evil' by SE, they 're not, i don't that any of the factions were doing what they were doing for evil sake, apart from maybe the pannion, but he was twisted by madness. so Se is justified in saying that he diesn't like simple black and white, with darklords and shining knights

[Agraba]

Trotts, we get more perspective of the Seer, and we find out that his whole rationale is that he suffered greatly, and so the world must suffer. I sympathise with the fact that he suffered, but this, in no way, makes us hope for his victory over the Malazans'.

In House of Chains, just about every single scene we got in Raraku reminded us of how Sha'ik's cause was a lost cause, and Felisin only drives herself by revenge, even though every other thought is about how revenge and her whole actions are futile. We have Heboric who constantly reminds us of how awful it would be if Sha'ik actually won, and everyone else except for L'oric are depicted as nasty, unless they're people like Felisin jr. or that woman who hates everyone there. Karsa only protected Sha'ik for a bit, but his intentions deviate completely. There was nothing that makes us sympathise with the side of Raraku, and everything that anticipated us for the defeat of the bad guys. Half the time we're reminded that the Whirlwind Goddess is crazy, and is completely bent on revenge. Hell, we even meet the goddess at the end... nah she doesn't really make us like her.

In Midnight Tides, we know how it would end. There's no rooting for a side, because Trull already told his Imass friend what would happen.

[Trotts]

by the end of moi, i wanted pannion to kick kilavas ass, lol

but i understand what you mean with the other two, although i dont think hoc really gives away that much about exactly what happens in mt

[Folken]

Well I think what Erikson tries to do is give you both point of views. It really is upto you to decide which side to go for. I mean yes, the clear "evil" character in the novels in the Crippled God (in the sense that you don't want him to win) and all things associated with him are considered evil. But in my opinion the Crippled God has a reason and justification behind all that he is doing. He has after all suffered for the better part of 200,000 years and wants release.
But the only true evil character we've meet so far has been Kallor.

[Trotts]

id call korbolo dom evil, and the jhistal too

[Hume]

As well as Bidithal and The Finnad in MT, Forgot his name.
The one with the kings pardon to do what he wants. He dont like ugly people.