[Agraba]

One thing that turns me off from Erikson is all of the spirituality he uses. But I guess any archaeologist if fascinated by the idea that any underground civilization they discover is populated by its deceased society.

[namo]

bwgan said:

BUT if pushed...now please don't lynch me (there is no more dedicated reader than me) but if I really, really had to nit pick...is it just me or are there shades of Vimes, Colon and Nobby in Whiskeyjack, Ansty and Spindle :eek: :eek: OK, Ok I'll slink off to my dark and damp corner and hang my head in shame...(better not mention the Paran/Carrot thing either then...)

PS: I don't mean it really

Nice one ! I never would have thought about it... but it explains everything !

Agraba said:

One thing that turns me off from Erikson is all of the spirituality he uses. But I guess any archaeologist if fascinated by the idea that any underground civilization they discover is populated by its deceased society.

Excuse me, could you explain that again ? I don't really get what you mean.
Are you talking about the reflexion on the human condition (spirituality), the detailed creation of multiple civilizations (archaeologist) or something else ?

[Illuyankas]

bwgan said:

Never read Martin and the only Jordan thing I read left me cold...:eek3:

I am so in awe of the MBOTF that criticising it seems ...well heretical :eek: Sure I get confused, but being a mortal that's to be expected (I'm not a wimp by the way, I've read lots of big books...no not the telephone directory type big, I mean like War & Peace, Crime & Punishment type big). I like the complexity

BUT if pushed...now please don't lynch me (there is no more dedicated reader than me) but if I really, really had to nit pick...is it just me or are there shades of Vimes, Colon and Nobby in Whiskeyjack, Ansty and Spindle :eek: :eek: OK, Ok I'll slink off to my dark and damp corner and hang my head in shame...(better not mention the Paran/Carrot thing either then...)

PS: I don't mean it really

Well, I do agree with you somewhat, but (as well as being more awesome) these kinds of characters are pretty much stereotypes - Pratchett even said that Colon and Nobby could have come out of Shakespeare, albeit with much better dialogue.

[Agraba]

namo said:

Quote

Originally Posted by Agraba
One thing that turns me off from Erikson is all of the spirituality he uses. But I guess any archaeologist if fascinated by the idea that any underground civilization they discover is populated by its deceased society.

Excuse me, could you explain that again ? I don't really get what you mean.
Are you talking about the reflexion on the human condition (spirituality), the detailed creation of multiple civilizations (archaeologist) or something else ?

Sorry about my lack of a detailed explanation. I meant "spirit" in its literal form, that there are spirits of dead people lurking in the underground of ancient forgotten civilization. Actual spirits of people that can haunt/get captured/defeat an entire army of dogslayers at Raraku. Erikson focuses too much on life after death, a topic that usually makes me roll my eyes at authors.

[bwgan]

Quote

Illuyankas Quote:
Originally Posted by bwgan
BUT if pushed...now please don't lynch me (there is no more dedicated reader than me) but if I really, really had to nit pick...is it just me or are there shades of Vimes, Colon and Nobby in Whiskeyjack, Ansty and Spindle OK, Ok I'll slink off to my dark and damp corner and hang my head in shame...(better not mention the Paran/Carrot thing either then...)

PS: I don't mean it really

Well, I do agree with you somewhat, but (as well as being more awesome) these kinds of characters are pretty much stereotypes - Pratchett even said that Colon and Nobby could have come out of Shakespeare, albeit with much better dialogue.

Totally agree, I was being a bit provocative and anyway, I think Nobby is a true star, so any comparison is actually good...um, in a very freaky sort of way

[Smiles]

Agraba said:

Sorry about my lack of a detailed explanation. I meant "spirit" in its literal form, that there are spirits of dead people lurking in the underground of ancient forgotten civilization. Actual spirits of people that can haunt/get captured/defeat an entire army of dogslayers at Raraku. Erikson focuses too much on life after death, a topic that usually makes me roll my eyes at authors.

I guess it's one of those things which might make you think differently as an archaeologist, I've become more aware of death and the extent of it. Especially when working somewhere that has an ancient history such as the middle east. Most of the time I wonder where the hell all the bodies have gone... :confused:

But if you added actual spirits and ghosts to the landscape (an intrinsic part of SE's world) everything you see would take on a new meaning, imagine the possibility that every place where the dead hadn't been properly buried (sent to Hood) could contain ghosts, then times it by the history that Malaz compared to our world. You'd see something like Heboric, layers of ghosts and then some and you'd probably avoid such places like the plague.

But I do argee with Potsherds that more coud have explained of Raraku and it's history or if we'd caught glimpses (a different POV) of the ghosts that trailed Tavore's army, rather than only mentions of the Tano song.

[megaphage]

[quote=Zakari]
Also - I know the series focuses on important events, but woah are there too many ascendants, and other powerful players around...it's like a Marvel Convention.
[quote]

Yeah I think SE gets a bit carried away with powerful characters. Its like the whole book lives on the amazing moments when a massively powerful character does something stupendous, or reveals something momentous, then in between these moments we trudge through a load of pseudo-philosophical pondering and description. Having said that this only occasionally gets on my nerves, and I think the balance is quite good most of the time.

The thing which has really begun to get on my nerves, especially in Bonehunters, is SE's obsession with "Huge men". There is an inordinate amount of "Huge men" in the books, and Erikson uses the description "the huge man" far too many times in my opinion. I'm sure someone else has noticed this.

All in all Erikson seems disinclined to write ordinary characters. If they're not ridiculously powerful, they're huge, and if they're not huge, they're eccentric, mad, or otherwise overly interesting.

[Shadow_God]

I think he casts his net too widely, sometimes - all the continents, peoples, warren-worlds, flying green jade giant-ships and such. I mean, one of the things I like the most about MBoTF is that the world is so huge and complex, but sometimes the amount of new material he throws into a scene can reduce the power of the plot or the characters.
But only sometimes.

[Oceao]

Shadow_God said:

I think he casts his net too widely, sometimes - all the continents, peoples, warren-worlds, flying green jade giant-ships and such. I mean, one of the things I like the most about MBoTF is that the world is so huge and complex, but sometimes the amount of new material he throws into a scene can reduce the power of the plot or the characters.
But only sometimes.

I had similar thoughts at some points during Bonehunters, specifically with characters. For example there was something awkward with Quick Ben and Kalam when the spotlight was not directly on them, notably in their dialogue. There was a shift of character that I didn't buy because we haven't seen enough of either of them (passively) to go along from 'confident duo' to 'nervous old men' Whatever it was, at the time I thought that due to the sheer amount of characters and their divided stage time, development seems to have a cap and there are roles/traits that keep repeating among different characters. Perhaps that is the point, I don't know.

Usually new revelations and climactic scenes are awesome enough to forget about seeming clumsiness leading up to those points, (and it was still true with Bonehunters) but I wonder how long that's going to last.

[Morgoth]

I think SE himself said that a lot would be left unexplained at the end of the series

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

[QUOTE=Dawndeath]There's only one big thing I dislike, and it's not really unique for Steven Erikson, but it bothers me that human (and other) civilizations that have existed for 8000 years (Ehrlitan etc) have not undergone Industrial Revolution. It wouldn't help the story, I realize that, but I always feel that scientific development is too slow in fantasy. (Exception may be the K'Chain Che'Malle/Nah'ruk, with their skykeeps etc. but we do not know enough about them yet).

------------------------------------------------------------
The standard fantasy answer to this issue is that technological development is slowed or stopped because magic takes its place. For example, what motivation is there to invent the steam engine if you can take a warren and travel instantly? Why develop cannons if you have mages that can destroy entire armies? No need to have medical advances if you have magical healers. You get the picture.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

My complaint is small, but it bugs me a little how abondoned cities are nearly always completely covered in a carpet of pot shards. I understand there would be some, but come on, how many pots did these civilizations use? ANd why did people start throwing all of them in the street at the end of that particular civilization? Petty, I know. Only thing I could think of that hasn't been mentioned. Know what's great about Erikson? He's not Terry Goodkind.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

If you don't buy the idea that that magic suppresses technology, try this-it seems that the major empires and centers of civilization are periodically wiped out. That would tend to set technological development back, right? For instance, on example of advancing tech. is Moranth munitions. Now say that sometime in the near future the entire Moranth civilization wes wiped out. INstead of this tech. being spread and improved on, it's gone.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

potsherds said:

That's potsherds, luxuryyacht.


(And to be completely historical, pottery is one of the first great innovations in ancient civilizations here on Earth, and was used to store a large number of everyday things. A lot of ancient cultures are identified based on their style of pottery and the artistry on the outside. Erikson is just taking from this world.)

I understand that there would be plenty of pieces of pottery laying around, but it seems like the ruins of cities are completely covered with a carpet of sherds. It just seems like too many. Although, I'm not an archaeologist/anthropologist, so maybe ruins of cities are buried under a foot thick layer of broken pottery. It's a really minor point. Erikson rocks.

[Illuyankas]

Well, what else would these denizens have that would survive that long, and be considered useless enough not to loot? (not that I'm an archeologist, or something)

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

Illuyankas said:

Well, what else would these denizens have that would survive that long, and be considered useless enough not to loot? (not that I'm an archeologist, or something)

Why would they throw all of their pots in the street as the civilization is winding down? Like I said, there should be potsherds in abandoned cities. I just think it odd that there is a thick carpet. In bonehunters there are potsherds on the freaking roofs! (In Malazan) My guess for why this happens so much is SE is an archaeologist, and one thing that you find a lot of at digs is potsherds. I just think he might be exxagerating on the volume of the sherds. Hehehehe, I just realized how funny it is that I can accept al of the crazy stuff in this story with no problem, but my suspension of disbelief fails me when it comes to the amount of broken pottery laying around. Oh well. If this is the biggest thing I could think of to complain about, I guess it's a pretty good series.

[Illuyankas]

Markets, looting, what else... erm, a pot goddess? Actually, that's not a bad idea :ehh: